Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion disgraceful

It is disgraceful that this page was deleted. There is a push to silence these amazing teachers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.50.186 ( talk) 04:42, February 26, 2012‎ (UTC)

Conflict of interest in editor who deleted the article.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in the very, very keen, personal interests and persuasions seen of the editor PeterSymonds who deleted this article. (I am fully disregarding the fact that there are evidently those who will delete what they can get away with in the realms of world conspiracy theory articles. There certainly are those who will delete at will what they can of talk about world conspiracy theories, but, whether it is revelant or not here, I am not referring to this.)

PeterSymonds shows as a very keen "royalist" indeed. He is someone deeply ensconced in promotion of information about lesser knowns of the royal bloodlines. That is a more apt definition of interest than the term "royalism" in the modern day in the UK when only a single person, the monarch, retains any power (with similar situations elsewhere in Europe); while indeed most in law and politics now regard that the very sparse Residual Powers of the Royal Prerogative have lapsed or are in the final stages of the process of lapsing finally. PeterSymond's very keen interest is best described in the modern day as in the royal bloodlines in extraction from royalty and power. Most of the titles of the persons he promotes can only be regarded as archaic, some say defunct, in absence of any place within the democratic nation with a single person perhaps having residual powers to guide in case of emergency (never used). The titles are meaningless in a democracy, they have lapsed, any sensible analysis will show. It is wise to form an accurate description of the interest of the editor for ascertaining the case of a conflict of interest.

It is specifically in the interest of the conspiracy theories in Michael Tsarion's published work which refer to the royal bloodlines where a conflict of interest must lie. The facts in the conspiracy theories of Tsarion (particularly) and et al. usually relate not to the singular monarch, for example, of the royal house but the whole lineage. Someone with such a devoted personal interest in publishing and promoting renown of persons of this very bloodline (note the special interest in promotion of the information as opposed to simply publishing it alone) can only be seen as a sheer, clear conflict of interest against publication of and promotion of information about or pertaining to the work of Michael Tsarion.

That is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.36.94 ( talk) 07:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

On the day this article was deleted PeterSymonds closed the deletion discussion of these articles:
A closing admin doesn't weigh in on the result normally. If they do that is often cause for a deletion review in which the closing may very well be overturned.
Note that three people had agreed with me as nominator that this article should be deleted. Note also that all arguments are focused on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria to which all Wikipedia articles are subjected.
Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of this article being deleted. Perhaps some reliable sources have emerged since then that could be used to attest to the notability of Tsarion per Wikipedia requirements. It is always possible to recreate a deleted article if the issues that caused it to be deleted can be remedied. __ meco ( talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=492854189"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion disgraceful

It is disgraceful that this page was deleted. There is a push to silence these amazing teachers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.50.186 ( talk) 04:42, February 26, 2012‎ (UTC)

Conflict of interest in editor who deleted the article.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in the very, very keen, personal interests and persuasions seen of the editor PeterSymonds who deleted this article. (I am fully disregarding the fact that there are evidently those who will delete what they can get away with in the realms of world conspiracy theory articles. There certainly are those who will delete at will what they can of talk about world conspiracy theories, but, whether it is revelant or not here, I am not referring to this.)

PeterSymonds shows as a very keen "royalist" indeed. He is someone deeply ensconced in promotion of information about lesser knowns of the royal bloodlines. That is a more apt definition of interest than the term "royalism" in the modern day in the UK when only a single person, the monarch, retains any power (with similar situations elsewhere in Europe); while indeed most in law and politics now regard that the very sparse Residual Powers of the Royal Prerogative have lapsed or are in the final stages of the process of lapsing finally. PeterSymond's very keen interest is best described in the modern day as in the royal bloodlines in extraction from royalty and power. Most of the titles of the persons he promotes can only be regarded as archaic, some say defunct, in absence of any place within the democratic nation with a single person perhaps having residual powers to guide in case of emergency (never used). The titles are meaningless in a democracy, they have lapsed, any sensible analysis will show. It is wise to form an accurate description of the interest of the editor for ascertaining the case of a conflict of interest.

It is specifically in the interest of the conspiracy theories in Michael Tsarion's published work which refer to the royal bloodlines where a conflict of interest must lie. The facts in the conspiracy theories of Tsarion (particularly) and et al. usually relate not to the singular monarch, for example, of the royal house but the whole lineage. Someone with such a devoted personal interest in publishing and promoting renown of persons of this very bloodline (note the special interest in promotion of the information as opposed to simply publishing it alone) can only be seen as a sheer, clear conflict of interest against publication of and promotion of information about or pertaining to the work of Michael Tsarion.

That is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.36.94 ( talk) 07:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

On the day this article was deleted PeterSymonds closed the deletion discussion of these articles:
A closing admin doesn't weigh in on the result normally. If they do that is often cause for a deletion review in which the closing may very well be overturned.
Note that three people had agreed with me as nominator that this article should be deleted. Note also that all arguments are focused on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria to which all Wikipedia articles are subjected.
Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of this article being deleted. Perhaps some reliable sources have emerged since then that could be used to attest to the notability of Tsarion per Wikipedia requirements. It is always possible to recreate a deleted article if the issues that caused it to be deleted can be remedied. __ meco ( talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=492854189"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE