Jump to content

User talk:Nescio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garric (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 30 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

vn-20This user talk page has been vandalized 20 times.
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2005 – June 2006

Agenda

It appears to me that this user has expressed a very implicit agenda against George W. Bush and America in general, at the expense of the neutrality that Wikipedia is founded on. Perhaps it is time to keep it fair, no?

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous rendition and extraordinary rendition

You asked for an explanation why there should be a separate article for Erroneous rendition.

I responded, at length, the day after you left your note, on Talk:Erroneous rendition. Did you see my response? If not, I would appreciate you taking a look at it. -- Geo Swan 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 01:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Username?

What username do you edit under now? Morton DevonshireYo 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back!

) :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on Fanny Blankers-Koen

Nescio, I saw you on a list of Wikipedians in the Netherlands. This article is very close to retaining its featured status on review, but there are a few citations needed, which can probably be found in some of the Dutch sources listed in the article. Do you know anyone who can help? Thanks.

Fanny Blankers-Koen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Seriously, think you may find things have changed since you left. If you need anything just let me know. Sources, help with an article etc. --NuclearZer0 11:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Klein

Copied to editors talk to keep discussion together. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations

I'm confused. Why are you fighting for deletion of these articles if you list things like "Debunker", "Scientific method", and "Wikipedians opposed to online censorship" on your user page? — Omegatron 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explanation
  1. Censorship: all things must be possible to say, i.e. Voltaire.
  2. Scientific method: although everything must be possible to say it should also adhere to the principle that rational arguments based on facts (not opinion!) must be supporting ones view, and when those contradict ones view then it should be amended. The view that is, not the facts. In other words, promoting non-science to keep people ignorant is unacceptable.
  3. Debunker: exposing those that think that opinion trumps all and willfully ignore the previous point. That is, although we are entitled to our own opinions we are not entitled to our own facts.
  • Therefore it is easy to see that these articles are not supported by facts (read independable (contraction of independent and dependable) sources, scientific journals), which makes them highly dubious and smell like oldfashioned fraud.
  • I respect your believe in its value but you must respect my believe in the scientific method: so feel free to present any reliable non-promotional article supporting the claim this is true, and also that this person is notable. Please observe that I have published in journals, nevertheless I do realise that I am not notable (at all!) to warrant an article on Wikipedia! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed disruptive and uncivil edits to these answers byMajestic Lizard. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Klein recreation:

I replied on my talk page. —Doug Bell talk 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied these comments from my answers to Omegatron, please start a new section. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Articles about popular hoaxes are allowed on wikipedia. Articles that are just about made-up content which are themselves hoaxes are not allowed. This person does not seem to comprehend the distinction. No offense to you, but that does seem to be the case Majestic Lizard 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise you are going to have to delete all articles about ghosts, bigfoot, chupabras, pink elephants, etc, etc. Its silly. Oh yeah, and delete the article on water fuel cells dealing with t Myers as well. The phenomena is described in the article is a real. I didn't make it up.Majestic Lizard 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot isn't real. It has an article. Do you understand the difference between articles about hoaxes and articles that ARE hoaxes?
Nothing is promotional about the article in question. The site is only presented to show that it and the man exist and have actually been on CNN and Fox news.
Do you still not understand? No one believes Klein's product is real. Its a famous hoax. It was on CNN and FOXnews. That is why its allowed. If someone just made up Denny Klein out of their imagination then it would be a hoax article. That is different than an article ABOUT a hoax. Why can't you understand that?
Ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs. All have articles on Wikipedia. None are real. Because they are about a true phenomena whether or not the basis is real or not. Please try to understand that.
Okay, you have completely missed the point of why the article is allowed. And you have not answered my inquiry as to why articles such as Bigfoot are allowed if, as you say, articles about notable hoaxes are not allowed.
As far as your having published articles, I'm sorry but I'll believe it when I see it. You can't even seem to understand wikipedia guidelines.Majestic Lizard 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen all of that. I don't appreciate you moving my text around as I was countering your points to show that you didn't understand why the article was not any of the things you are claiming it is.

The article is not an advertisement for Klein, as you are saying it is.

The article is not suggesting that Klein's hoax technology is real. Its a description of the hoax which is famous and therefor notable. It even uses James Randi who has debunked it as a reference. Majestic Lizard 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your enthousiasm, but please elaborate on the notability of this person and why a bio is more about a certain technology (hoax or not) instead of about the person in question, and of course how many independent non-promotional references are there to this person (not the technique). Again I refer to WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its spelled ENTHUSIASM. There are links on the article to James Randi, CNN, FOXnews, Youtube, and the site of Klein. Klein's site is not promoted in anyway by the article. You keep stating the article is promotional and that is just not true and trust me people reading will agree that the article doesn't promote Klein's pseudoscience as being real. It simply states what the man is about and why he is famous.Majestic Lizard 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Will you please give a rational explanation for why you keep trying to get these articles deleted? Whose side are you on? — Omegatron 06:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you responded to my original comment:

Therefore it is easy to see that these articles are not supported by facts (read independable (contraction of independent and dependable) sources, scientific journals), which makes them highly dubious and smell like oldfashioned fraud.

No shit. What does this have to do with deleting them?
You do realize that we have hundreds of articles on frauds, hoaxes, pseudosciences, scientific fallacies, cons, and deceptions, right? This is a good thing. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. To spread knowledge. Not to censor it. If you think we should delete these articles, you probably shouldn't be contributing here.

I respect your believe in its value but you must respect my believe in the scientific method

Your belief in what? Pseudoskepticism?

so feel free to present any reliable non-promotional article supporting the claim this is true

I won't. Because it's not true. It's a hoax (or unintentional junk science, at least) that needs to be debunked.

and also that this person is notable

You can't possibly say that this person or his inventions are non-notable. I've listed the media and peer-reviewed journal coverage several times. News coverage is explicitly mentioned as a notability criteria, and is clearly not self-publishing. (And even if it was, it could still be used as a reference under the right conditions.) Please stop beating this horse. — Omegatron 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to make those claims at WP:DRV. Maybe there somebody, contrary to those commenting on the numerous AfD's, will accept you interpretation. For me the case is closed. Thank you. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS so feel free to present any reliable non-promotional article supporting the claim this is true refers to the article, not Mr Klein and his hoax. Since no WP:RS were presented, either in support or to debunk the claims, I said somebody first needs to provide sources to validate the contents of the article. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Please stop vandalising wikipedia with misleading information refering to a series of actions as a "Movement" I tried to simply move the information but clearly you won't have that.--Dr who1975 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nescio

Just wanted to say hello. Hello! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and hope the weather is good to you. Here the sun is shining and it feels like spring.:) Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Rendition

The opening paragraph of Extraordinary Rendition recently went through an extensive rewrite drafting and discussion process on the talk page to achieve a consensus. Because the current text is a result of such a detailed discussion, please don't change it unless you propose your changes first on the talk page and allow the other editors involved a chance to comment. Thanks. Akradecki 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the articles talk page.[1] Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nescio! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

do you support amnesty? they are bullshitters!123.255.55.140 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quran

I removed the fragment of the Quran article because it was POV and poorly written. I didn't have an intention of destroying the page. Al-Bargit 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hey

You just posted on my talk page that I removed content from The Simpsons Hit & Run. Did you look at the edit? Because if you read my edit summary you will see that I had good reason, I was removing extensive game guide related material from the page, which is against WP:NOT. So I'm sorry for removing such a large amount of content in one go. Gran2 11:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got a bit angry there. Apologese. So in conclusion, the edit was intentional, but it was not bad at all. So I'm assumeing it was just a first reaction on your part? :) Gran2 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has been four days and you still haven't responded. So, can I remove the message? Or is there an unresolved problem? Gran2 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was busy with other things. Anyway, as I pointed out in the message I was not sure what to make of it but thought a massive deletion was odd. Of course since you explained I have no problem with your edit (which the message also said). Clearly you can forget my comment. Thanks for clarifying. Sincerely Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Gran2 06:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas

Instead of adding "citation needed" tags after every sentence in the article, could you just add citations? — Omegatron 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly you missed the debate in the AfD's: there are no citatations because there are no WP:RS. I am doing you a favour and giving you a chance to improve that violation of policy which explains why I have not started a new AfD. However, your comment shows the main points in the article cannot be substantiated. Feel free to address the WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SPAM which still continue to be present. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, :)

A wonderful little thing called Vandalproof. Sorry to beat you out. :) GoodnightmushTalk 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful!

You reverted a valid hangon tag on Michael wolin, so I re-reverted it. Sure, the article doesn't even have an American snowball's chance in Baghdad of surviving, but if the submitter places the hangon tag, it needs to be respected. Thanks. --Finngall talk 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason is just as lame as the original article, but it seems like a violation of WP:AGF to revert the tag as a result. Any sane admin will delete the article in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean the submitter can't use accepted processes as long as they're not abusing them. --Finngall talk 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for pointing out I might show more patience and still AGF when confronted with nonsense. Cheers. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It wasn't vandalism, please see the diff before you revert. Thank you PeaceNT 16:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries, mate. I guess things like this happen sometimes PeaceNT 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism message

Hi, you reverted an edit that I made as blanking information. My edit that was reverted was blanking information that I accidentally posted twice. So, I only blanked my own double-post. Best, --164.107.223.217 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (please note that I'm using a university computer and may not read a reply)[reply]

Please be more careful

My recent edit to List of Space Marines was not vandalism, but removing fan created Chapters, as it expressively mentions in the lead paragraphs of said article. Please take the time to check wheter an edit is legit or not before you accuse editors of vandalism. Darkson - BANG! 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did not mean to accuse you of anything and in fact I did not use the word "vandalism." I Merely observed deletion of large text and then made a friendly comment which was in no way accusator. However, since you feel I made an unfriendly comment I apologise. Cheers. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, "vandalism" might have been over the top, but the point still remains that you should have checked the edit before you arbitarily reverted it. Sometimes a large removal of text is legitimate. Darkson - BANG! 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for other GWB controversies with gwb43.com communications

Can you find several high quality sources for citations, for the Plame, Abramov issues? Quality as in New York Times or Washington post? All in preparation for the bigger story the gwb43.com page will take on? Perhaps bring them over to the talk page there? -- Yellowdesk 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to check your additions. I seem to be busy lately. Sometime in the next couple of weeks I'll take a careful look. Many thanks. -- Yellowdesk 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great citation/source on the Gonzales delegation of authority, from the National Journal, posted to the Dismissal of US Attorneys talk page. By the way, when you add links in talk pages to sources, it helps other editors if you treat them like a full citation, so we can decide if we want to check it out before clicking on the link. Here's a model example: Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Anaylsis of Documents, Email, Planning. Doing so makes it a lot easier to incorporate the info into the article, as someone has done the work to put the (future) reference in good form. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 14:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in Learning Also

interested scrolling through your page and reading your tabs/work you have contributed. we share much in common (other things could not make us more polar opposites). For example, one day I hope to add MD to my page too as medicine is my current field of study. Coincidentally, or serendipituously, i found your user page through an article on the last renaissance man, so it appears my aspirations called my attentions to your page. What i would like to discuss is your thoughts on the Patriot Act and organized religion. I have experience through a Jesuit education but I am also aware of the fallacy of some religious institutions. One pearl i did retain from my school days was the concept of desolation and consolation devised by Ignatius de Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. It states that humans in desolation should never make serious decisions affecting the course of their life. I thought that was particualarly relevant to the patriot act and it being passed so close to 9/11. Your thoughts.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aghastlrbaboon (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Although flattered I am confused as to how reading about the uomo universale would lead you to my page. Anyhow, regarding your question there are two things I like to say.
  1. Religion is not my favourite passtime. Seeing how we humans use it I can't help but think of a ten year old driving a car. The car itself is harmless yet the ten year old simply is not mature enough to fully comprehend all aspects of driving a car, i.e. shifting gear, breaking, and most important insight in how traffic works and how to anticipate what others might do next. To allow a child to drive a car is reckless since they are incapable of controlling it and inevitably accidents will happen. Religion is to adults what cars are to children: beyond the capabilities and therefore dangerous.
  2. As to "humans in desolation should never make serious decisions affecting the course of their life." I have a slightly different view. All life changing decision (i.e. marriage, divorce, buying a house, mandating teaching religion as science, ignoring facts that contradict personal believes, Coronary artery bypass surgery, the War on terror, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, et cetera ) should not be made in times of great emotional stress, i.e. the heat of the moment. It is frightning to think that most of Congress had not even read the Patriot Act before signing. Imagine buying a house, signing the contract and not even knowing how much you have to pay, where the house is, is the house falling apart, et cetera. Sheer stupidity. So, I adopted the habit of thinking about something, leave it, think about it a week later, leave it, think about it a week later and then decide. It ensures that I have ampel time and opportunity to evaluate all relevant information. And it prevents my emotions to dictate my life.

Legitimacy of Iraq War

Hi. I noticed you did a lot of work on this page before. I have been trying to make some continued improvements, as I think it still needs a lot of work. For instance, I think the overview of the international law questions is really confusing, and would be better if it paralleled this discussion here Legality of invasion. I also think the article could be pared down a lot. For example, the information about Irish protesters seems out of place here. Anyways, I have other ideas about how it could be improved. Any interest in helping me out? Thanks! --Mackabean 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Understatement

If there was such a one, I would give it to you, for your edit summary at Separation of powers earlier today. I like your style. Unschool 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

I appreciate your restraint in responding to Arnabdas' personal attacks against you, but could you try not to make remarks that are provoking and inflaming the situation [2]? --Ronz 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for asking us to keep a cool head, but I still can't help noticing this user willfully engages in circular logic, repeatedly refuses to answer a straight forward question, is even confused as to what his own position is, contributes to nothing else but this non-discussion and then responds with intervals of 1 week. Anyway, maybe I should not have voiced these observations. Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moverd discussion to article talk page. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for your effort in removing the vandalism on the analog v digital sound page :) Best wishes! Enescot 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be interested

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America argument for deletion. You may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nescio&oldid=134682430"