User talk:Nescio/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

Current Username?

What username do you edit under now? Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

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

• Thanks, see you soon.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Denny Klein

Copied to editors talk to keep discussion together.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed disruptive and uncivil edits to these answers byMajestic Lizard.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny Klein recreation:

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

copied these comments from my answers to Omegatron, please start a new section.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi 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)

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)

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)

Please see WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • This comment is in response to me warning him. Now his vandalism report was dismissed he deletes that warning and goes to the admin to still try and get some form of sanction but the admin still disagrees with him.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nescio: Glad to help. quadpus 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nescio

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

Hi, and hope the weather is good to you. Here the sun is shining and it feels like spring.:)Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Responded at the articles talk page.[1]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why

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

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)

• Sorry if I misunderstood. Feel free to ignore the message. If you think it should be removed then of course do so.:)Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran² 06:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron

You have recently made statements that imply that Omegatron is some sort of apologist for this nonsense. In particular you have written:

Omegatron made sure it was not clear this is a scam

This shows you simply do not understand his POV as explained in his talk page. If you look at my talk page, you will see he wrote this:

I rewrote Brown's gas, focusing on the patents instead of the crackpot claims. What do you think? (my emboldening)

This is not what you would expect of an apologist for this thing. And since Omegatron already knew that I am totally sceptical about anything that smacks of energy from water, he would not have drawn my attention to it if he did not want the article to be honest and scientifically rigorous.

I read it, it was short and clear at that point, and the way I saw it, and still see it, is as a conservative attempt to write an article that tells the truth without exposing itself to claims of OR or POV. This is difficult to do with pseudoscience because things that are obvious nonsense to any scientist may not appear so to other people who might add to a statement which is the scientific equivalent of "if you stub your toe, it hurts".

You have a medical background. A friendly Oxbridge-graduate doctor told me how she has a lot of knowledge of facts, but doctors have little knowledge of the theory of how those facts link up because of the sheer time it would take to learn that too. You are probably in the same situation. In other words, you don't get science, and it shows in some of your edits to Brown's gas, such as your incorrect insertion of the word "allegedly", and in your comment about Omegatron reproduced above.

If I owned Wikipedia, I would cheerfully write an article saying "Brown's Gas is a load of cobblers" but I don't and so I am constrained by the need to appear NPOV even when dealing with obvious nonsense. I interpreted Omegatrons 2nd June version of Brown's gas in the same way. I still do and you still don't get it. If you really want to gnothi seauton, you will have to swallow that pill. Good luck. Man with two legs 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, :)

A wonderful little thing called Vandalproof. Sorry to beat you out. :) Goodnightmush^Talk 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Did you read the proposed reason? To me it clearly was not a valid tag. Anyhow, let's wait and see. SincerelyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

OK, thanks for pointing out I might show more patience and still AGF when confronted with nonsense. Cheers.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

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

• Oops, closed Afd. Kick myself really hard Sorry!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• 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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

• Will do. Cheers.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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).

• 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.

• Hope this satisfies your curiosity. Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Thanks.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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. RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

moverd discussion to article talk page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garric (talk • contribs)

An "agenda against [...] America in general"! Wow, you don't do things by halves do you Garric, just go straight for the jugular with the Stalinist terminology! LamontCranston 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Request

A request for informal mediation for a dispute regarding Command responsibility and Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been made with the Mediation Cabal. You have been listed as a participant in this discussion. I am hereby offering to mediate this dispute in the hopes of helping all the involved parties come to a consensus and resolve the dispute. If you accept this offer please indicate your acceptance on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-31 Military Commissions Act of 2006. I look forward to working with you on this matter! Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nescio, I'm glad that you and the other user are trying to work things out. The page protection has now expired. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked...

...your talk link in your sig, and your intro in your userpage. Saw you in an AfD. I was about to sign "me neither", but hey, you got it first. Cheers! NikoSilver 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

If an article has previously closed delete (note this should never be done for articles which were speedy deleted) and has been recreated, nominate it for speedy deletion under criterion G4, which reads in part: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via an XfD process or Deletion review, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted." Orderinchaos 04:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the "substantially identical" part. — Omegatron 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you please review my question regarding your comment on my talk? Thanks a lot --Javit 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

enemy combatant versus unlawful enemy combatant

I just asked User:SushiGeek, the administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlawful enemy combatant as delete to restore the article. Since you participated in that fora I thought I would let you know.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron's personal attacks.

It's not the first time Omegatron has been warned for his repeated attempts at making false claims of disruption, his use of ad hominem and misrepresentation to try to browbeat someone and then using the "report me" taunt. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Fnagaton 17:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Brown's gas

I disagree that there was consensus to delete Brown's gas; I read the AFD results differently. In addition, my experience in Chemistry includes having encountered the term before.

The problem is conflating HHO and Brown's gas. Brown's gas is a longstanding chemistry term of the art, with clear historical background, and it's also still used in some materials processing industry. HHO is pseudoscience crap, if you'll pardon the mild profanity. If Brown's gas needs proper sourcing et al, then it should be sourced. Tarring Brown's gas with any HHO feathers is a mistake and a majority of the AFD voters seem to clearly realize that.

That they happen to refer to the same physical thing doesn't make both pseudoscience.

Anyways, that's my reasoning. We should fix/reference Brown's gas, sure. But it's not pseudoscience. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

• I belive HHO is BS, and has detrimentally derailed the credibility of common ducted oxyhydrogen Brown's Gas technology.
• I do not want to support HHO in any way.
• There are no responses/opinions published about the HHO article in the Journal of Hydrogen Energy Technology therefore most likely it should not be considered a WP:RS.

My opinion: the HHO article is crap/BS/an extreme example of a poorly written article. Although the GC Gas Chromatography data is representative of Brown's Gas. Now, because there is no peer reviewed statements that say that the GC data is indeed reflective of the Brown's Gas there is no reliable source that can be cited.

Considering my opinion, It would be extremely cooperative, and a sign of good faith, that a Brown's Gas article be written given the quantity of sources that has been listen on User:Pjacobi's hydrogen quackery page. Since I do have a COI with Brown's Gas and not HHO I would not contribute to the Brown's Gas article other than on the talk page. If you show even the slightest amount of leeway on this matter, and provided me with even a small amount of respect as someone who is college educated, I'm sure that not only can we work together on future articles, we can engage in enlightening rational debates. I will recuse my decision and response to the COI accusation, on the HHO deletion review, if you show me the same respect that you deserve as a MD.

Noah Seidman 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now as a sign of good faith on my part, I choose to recuse my "overturn" decision on the HHO deletion review. What is the proper wikipedia procedure for this? Noah Seidman 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Movement to Impeach George Bush

You gave a 3r warning to the anononymous user 70.105.50.115 (Talk) about too may reverts. Well he/she reverted again and from my count it make 6 reverts of the same thing just today. I am bringing it to your attention because I have never given a warning never mind a block yet so I would prefer to practice in the sandbox. ;) It's up to you what you would like to do. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You may find this discussion interesting

[3]. [4]. Not surprising though. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Omegatron --Tbeatty 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to vandalism warning

Ahh, the sandbox - I am common with this on IMDb - could you possibly show me where I could find it. (editor of Tekken 6/Pro Evo)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.12.53 (talk • contribs)

FYI

AfD 69.150.51.11 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Just a warning, but the comment here could be viewed as a threat. Also, anyone can nominate any article for deletion, regardless of how many there have been before, or how long ago the previous one was. Furthermore, please read WP:BAN, you can't ban (or block for that matter) for something like brining up an AfD unless it's extremely pointy. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reminder. However, I am unaware of any threat or even the extreme, remote and unlikely possibility someone might perceive it as one. Second, I did use sarcasm in my comment which indeed was pointy to stress the ludicrous, disruptive and timewasting fact that an article has been on AfD every other week for six times. SincerelyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you see Daniel Brandt's AfD's? Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I miss your point. Unless it is that more articles suffer from timeconsuming behaviour.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User: GATXER

Hi, Nescio:

I'm just letting you know that I've attempted to get some input from the user GATXER, whom you have listed on the Wikietiquette Alert Noticeboard. I'm hoping we could find some resolve regarding this problem, so I've suggested he/she voices his/her say in the matter. If this user's incivility continues, please don't hesitate to make a report at the Administrator Noticeboard, if you haven't done so already.The Kensington Blonde T C 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your time. Awaiting further developements.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 10 hours

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by continuing to revert war on Movement to impeach George W. Bush. The duration of the block is 10 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Jersey Devil 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that User:GATXER was given a longer 48 hour block since it appears he instigated the revert war. Regardless when these disputes arise you do not then move your revert war to another article after the original article in which the dispute began gets fully protected. This accompanied with the fact that you have been blocked in the past for revert wars on related articles put me in a position where I had to temporarily block you. [5] For future disputes please notify administrators of the situation instead of revert warring. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is a mistake. It is not a revert war but me correcting vandalism by a belligerent editor who followed me after his pet page got protected. That is why I already filed mediation and etiquette reports on him. Also, I have asked others to step in, what you apparently missed, therefore this block is premature and my past is totally irrelevant. I changed my editing style, do not 3RR, and start mediation any time things appear to go wrong. The fact you did not even discuss this is disturbing and now adds another block to my list while I did do nothing wrong! Please undo that. I want to keep the list clean. Further, the fact the block was made at 00:07, July 17, hours after my last edit at 7:41h, July 16[6] I find an action that is contrary to policy. How is this block warranted when I was not even active for 17 hours?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I believe I explained the reasons for your block clearly in my original statement. Your reverts were not reverts of vandalism, on Wikipedia we have very clear policy on what is and what is not vandalism (see WP:VANDAL) rather it was a dispute on content. I ask that you refrain from using edit summaries such as "rvv" as they are inappropriate. Furthermore I should add that WP:3RR does not give a user a right to 4 reverts in 24 hours and this edit war between you and the other user persisted for nearly a month. By now, considering you have been blocked in the past for such revert wars on related articles, you should know that such actions are not acceptable here on Wikipedia. So I will not change the block log to say the previous block was "incorrect", you were correctly blocked. However, if you still feel that this was an incorrect block I would suggest you go to WP:AN/I and request assistance from a third party admin. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

None of my business really, but I am going to comment anyway. If the facts are as you state it does sound like Jersey Devil's block was unwarranted.

You wrote that you: "start mediation any time things appear to go wrong." Can I ask for some advice about that? During the last couple of months there have been several individuals who I thought were harrassing me. But I held back from trying to invoke formal steps because each of them had invoked some kind of wiki procedure, and I was concernced that an RfC or request for mediation, on my part, would look like an escalation and retaliation.

The most recent difficult correspondent was a guy named User:Netmonger.

About a month ago he excised a big chunk of Tablighi Jamaat -- including the link from that article to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism. I reverted their excision, because it was unexplained. They repeated it, claiming authority under WP:BOLD and WP:CITE.

Maddening given that I spent many dozens of hours working on making sure the allegations were well documented. I admonished him for not reading the article's talk page...

I'll spare you most of the details. About two weeks later he unilaterally renamed Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism to, believe it or not, Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism by U.S intelligence.

I changed the name back, and requested they discuss their proposed name first. They changed the name a second time, and requested total page protection. An admin granted their request -- but only for name protection.

Maybe I should have let it go, and lived with a crappy POV and patently untrue name for that article. Instead I spent a lot of energy trying to get a more appropriate name, one that complied with policy, re-instated. Netmonger continued to ... well, I can't say what they continued to do, without violating WP:NPA.

Reason eventually prevailed, the name protection was removed, and the more appropriate name re-instated.

But they are still out there. Their last comment, was a highly ironic and, IMO, deceitful, request, that I explain each and every policy they had transgressed. Since I thought I had already explained how I thought they were breaching policy in sufficient detail, I declined. However, it is now the next day, and this last comment keeps coming to mind. Netmonger hasn't acknowledged he was in the wrong. He hasn't acknowledged that his original page move was a mistake, or that he has broken a number of policies. So there is no reason to believe he won't go right ahead and continue to breach policy.

Is it too late to instantiate a formal procedure now, even though this latest dispute is settled? If so, what would you recommend?

Can you point me to the history of some of the mediation requests and other formal procedures you have instantiated?

Thanks! Geo Swan 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior finally came back to bite you I see.--Dr who1975 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Universal jurisdiction

Please see Talk:Universal jurisdiction#Rumsfeld prosecution? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

Hello! Your user page mentions you are have contributed to the Edgar Allan Poe article. I'm starting up a Poe Portal and I'm looking for support/feedback. If you're interested, the portal also has a list of high priority Poe projects I'm looking for help on. Many thanks! --Midnightdreary 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Captain Ernest Medina.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Captain Ernest Medina.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. fuzzy510 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Resolution

I really thought you would be above vandalizing a talk page. If you really thought I was being uncivil, why not leave it so others can judge for themselves? What are you afraid of? Isaac Pankonin 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Perceived" POV Dispute

Believe it or not, there is an actual dispute on the POV of the article. According to WP:NPOV Dispute, "Often, authors can view 'their' articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is." So I will be reverting your edit to the RFC. Isaac Pankonin 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it is not the dispute but the alleged POV that is "perceived," or as you quotation aptly remarks "an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The POV of the article is in dispute. Ergo, it may be called a POV dispute. POV stands for "point of view", which is a synonym of perception. It's redundant. "Perceived perception dispute". Think about it. Isaac Pankonin 08:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the changes you made yesterday. We should celebrate! Isaac Pankonin 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let me know what you think about my recent changes. I'm satisfied with it now. I'll work with you if you are not. Isaac Pankonin 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Nescio)

Hello, Nescio. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio, where you may want to participate.

-- Isaac Pankonin 10:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the Iraq War

I noticed that in August you wrote the following on the Talk:Iraq Resolution page: Please answer this: if the US were to legalise torture would that mean UNCAT no longer applies? If a treaty is nullified by more recently adopted laws, how would anyone want to engage in such a treaty knowing it can be readily ignored after adopting a new law? In other words if international law can simply be put aside it effectively is abolished since nobody is bound by it.

The answer to your question is yes, the U.N. treaty would no longer apply under U.S. law. It may not make sense, but that is the law. To be fair, there is a principle in U.S. caselaw that courts should endeavor to interpret Acts of Congress in such a way so as not to invalidate a treaty, but if there is a direct conflict the later-in-time document wins. If you're interested, I can give you the citations for all this, or even send you via email the documents, if you don't have ready access to Westlaw or Lexis. Cheers, JCO312 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. Yes, if you could please e-mail the documents. As for my question, it refers to what is the effect under international law? I accept that local law may legalise anything, i.e. genocide, rape, torture, et cetera. My question however is, can international law mandate the enforcement of treaties even if local law nullifies them? To use my example, if the US were to legalise torture I understand that under US law committing torture cannot be prosecuted. But what if an international court of justice were to take the case? Would not, in the international arena, prosecution still be possible? If not, why is the Bush administration so concerned about the ICC?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure it would be possible, assuming the country submitted itself to international criminal jurisdiction. The reason I think the paragraph on "U.S. law vs. International law" should be removed is that it goes out of its way to prove an obvious point. It wouldn't be an "international law" if, built into the text were the option to ignore it. That doesn't answer the "so what?" question, because ultimately there may not be much that can be done, since there are not strong enforcement mechanisms (in some case, no enforcement mechanisms) available. JCO312 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I can answer that. I'll use Nazi Germany as a hypothetical example (there may be cases like this). An SS soldier is ordered to murder Jews. He refuses. He is sent to prison, because he broke a German law. International law existed back then; it just wasn't fomally written down, and at that time, German law superseded international law. After Germany surrenders, he is not placed on trial, because he did not murder Jews. He's released from prison. This is one of those catch-22 situations where anything you do is wrong.

So in short, the only way the US members of Congress, soldiers, and the President are ever going to be tried for agression is if the US is conquered and if the conquerors are as reasonable as the Allies in WW2 and actually provide a fair trial. And if the judges at that trial regard UN Resolutions as actual law and not as temporary agreements between nations, they will find them all not guilty, because Resolution 678 calls for "all necessary means", and Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire according to Resolution 1441. Isaac Pankonin 00:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As for why Bush doesn't like the ICC, I think the answer is clean, old-fashioned hatred of globalization left over from the Cold War when the Soviets tried to take over the world. Isaac Pankonin 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean to personal self-interest, he isn't looking forward to the possibility of (hopefully) retirement in The Hague. If I were him, my interest in it would be very personal, not geopolitical. Bush is aware there will be an afterwards, hence for example the retroactive immunity given to US agencies for torture. Inertia Tensor 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Me?

Not sure how my name came up in whatever situation you are dealing with, however I have so far been accused of being about 7 people, adding two more is not really an issue for me. Hopefully when the RFCU returns you will be convinced I am not those bothering you. I have asked an Arbcom member to expedite your request as well. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

your opinion please...

I saw you recently edited H. Candace Gorman.

Would you mind taking a look at this big excision?

I had a limited dialogue with the editor who made the excision. Basically they wouldn't really discuss the edit. They told me to take it to 3O. I don't know why I didn't follow up on it then. I must have been distracted by something.

The way I see it the news that Gorman's client client had additional, Tribunals, contrary to the Tribunal's mandate is extremely important. Gorman wrote about it. The way I see it that makes it highly relevant to her article.

So, would you mind taking a look?

Thanks Geo Swan 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. He was entrusted with administrator authority about two months ago.

Thanks!

Thanks for looking out for my user page. I appreciate it. Isaac Pankonin 00:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mirin Dajo X-Ray.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mirin Dajo X-Ray.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mirin Dajo promotional.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mirin Dajo promotional.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mirin Dajo walking.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mirin Dajo walking.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Son de Mar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Son de Mar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Son de Mar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Son de Mar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Enhanced interrogation techniques

Hi. I've taken this case, and contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Edit on the "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" Article

What was the reason for deleting that entire section? Your explanation didn't make a lot of sense. If there's a problem with the credible information I added to the article just let me know, rather than deleting the entire thing. If there is something I need to change to the section I added just let me know. It should be there, but if there's something wrong with it I'd like to make it better. The information I provided seems pretty good, so just let me know what needs to be done. It's better not to just delete something without discussing it with the creator first.  :)

Also on a separate note, I was wondering what the note boxes were on the left of your profile page, I like the things that are in there and what they support, I was wondering if you could tell me how I can get those to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Preservefreedom (talk • contribs)

You will find that nowhere in that section is there any source making the claim this constitutes an impeachable offense. Unless we can verify it it can't be used. Hope that clarifies it better.

As to the userboxes, just copy them to your page.:-) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• ooohh, I see now, sweet. Thanks for clearing that up, it makes better sense now. I can use it on a different article about the election, since it fits better there. Though the list was gotten from another website, as another person pointed out, The person is ok with it being distributed and I've found it on many websites. I also added more sources to. But I see how it doesn't fit in this article since it is more like general evidence rather than a solid impeachable act. Preservefreedom (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)