User talk:Nescio/Archive 2

1333:

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....

2106: 2422: 3142: 110: 2135: 2340:

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.

1415:

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

1019:

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

468:

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

2635:

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

2339:

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

2227:

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 Knowledge.

2199:

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

1900:

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

1693:

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

1332:

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

1312:

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

903:

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.

763:

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

3120:

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

3061:

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

2711:

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

2324:

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

2259:

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

2200:

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

1874:

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

1372:

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.

2703:

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

2180:

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

1015:

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

2640:

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

1371:

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

493:

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

269:

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,

2768:

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

1810:

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

394:

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

167:

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.

2683:

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

3062:

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. :)

88:

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

290:: 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 Knowledge! 369:

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

1512:, 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 182:. 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 2688:" 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. 2090:. 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. 1627:. 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 1277:

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? --

1237:

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.

2659:

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

1981: 1248:

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.

359:

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

1416:

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.

2531:, "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. 948:. 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 2796:

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.

2712:

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.

1448:. 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! -- 3037: 1628: 2800:

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.

2641:

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,

521:

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

280:

2744:

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

1775:

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.

1572:

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 Knowledge is founded on. Perhaps it is time to keep it fair, no?

3065:

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

2218:

Hello, I believe I explained the reasons for your block clearly in my original statement. Your reverts were not reverts of vandalism, on Knowledge we have very clear policy on what is and what is not vandalism (see

2552:

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.

413:

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

2443:

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:

2482:

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

1673: 1858:

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.

1694:

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."

452:

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.

2541:

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."

1440:

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

1260:

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.

1222:

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, --

458:

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.

1089:, 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. -- 2001:

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

1012:

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.

2228:

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

273:

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.

249:

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? —

1128:

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. --

3011: