User talk:Nescio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
July 2005 – June 2006

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults 2 Erroneous rendition and extraordinary rendition 3 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults 4 Current Username? 5 Welcome Back! 6 Help needed on Fanny Blankers-Koen 7 Welcome back 8 Denny Klein 8.1 Motivations 9 Movement to impeach George W. Bush 10 Hi Nescio 11 Extraordinary Rendition 12 Welcome to VandalProof!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Current Username?

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

[edit] Welcome Back!

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Denny Klein

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)