User talk:Nescio/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Hoi

Hee, een Hollandse internist! Ik heb Category:Medicine maar van je userpage afgehaald, want dat zaaide verwarring. Naar je recente bijdragen lijkt het of je op de IC werkt momenteel. We kunnen help gebruiken bij WikiProject Clinical medicine. Ikzelf ben arts-assistent in Londen. JFW | T@lk 01:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Natuurlijk mag je mijn hulp inroepen. Ik kan je helaas niet helpen met je Spaans :-) JFW | T@lk 07:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Physicians

Not a physician yet, but I am at school to be become one. Perhaps we need a medical student's category =). Kerowyn 23:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Nescio. No, I don't mind at all, thank you! It'll be nice to be able to connect. So you're an internal medicine resident, too? I was wondering if there were any other residents on Wikipedia. I just started my intern year and it's been very busy; it's been quite difficult to find time to properly devote to Wikipedia. By the way, if you haven't already seen it, I'd like to invite you to help work on our Medicine Collaboration of the Week. We could always use more help! We're currently working on Rheumatoid arthritis and also trying to bring Asthma, a previous selection, up to featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


re 'placed you in the physician category' , nice thought, just one question - what category? Could you let me have the link for this as I failled to find within wikipedia !
As well as the Medicine Collaboration of the Week mentioned above, the main page for those contributing or dicussing medical topics on WP is the WikiProject Clinical medicine. It already has a section listing those who are participating on WP's medical topics (see WikiProject Clinical medicine#Participants), hence my confusion as to what you refer to having added me to :-)
The WikiProject Clinical medicine talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine) is our doctors' mess where we hang out and chat. If you wish to specifically invite others to work on an article with you, or request peer-review, then head for WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration.
David Rubentalk 12:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You're not, Nomen, although it would admittedly not have occured to me to place it on my own. Still, I do see its value as a communication tool for our growing group of medical editors on WP. In this regard, you're going to have to think of a suitable thing for the medical students and premeds, Nomen, who I see are on the verge of launching a mutiny over this callous exclusion of their important voices. :) Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  22:29:36, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Thanks Supten 04:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
No trouble having put me into the physician category (right choice indeed) User:Drepanopulos

Thoracentesis

Hi Nescio (I'll use English for the benefit of the others), sorry for disrupting your work on thoracentesis. I discovered that chest tube contains a lot of parallel information, while AFAIK these are different procedures, with formal chest drainage being only therapeutic, typically by Seldinger technique etc. Is it ever called "thoracentesis"? JFW | T@lk 20:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My "Intensive Care Medicine by Irwin and Rippe" uses thoracentesis but I must admit thoracocentesis is the term I use. Should you prefer the other, feel free to change it's name. Furthermore thanks for finetuning my edits. As you can see I am merely a beginner. --Nomen Nescio 23:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, I checked on Google, and thoracentesis (sans "co") appears to be favoured. My concern was more about the differences between a chest drain and a pleural tap. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say in general both techniques are the same. The only difference in my opinion is the duration of leaving the drain in situ, and maybe its size. Meaning, thoracentesis would only consist of removing air/fluid with a small needle and tube, "venflon" or "pleuradrain," and is then taken out. Whereas the larger chest tube will normally be left in place.
Although, placing a chest tube, "thoraxdrain," is in itself drainage of the thorax, and therefore thoracentesis. What it comes down to is semantics.--Nomen Nescio 23:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

So pretty much like paracentesis for ascites? OK good. JFW | T@lk 00:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In the United States, thoracentesis generally refers to the extraction of fluid through a small bore needle or trochar, with the implement removed immediately upon termination of the procedure. The placement of a chest tube is called tube thoracostomy. This refers to the placement of a large bore tube which can be left in place.DocJohnny 02:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cdang's not a doctor, but he is flattered

I'm just a volunteer certified first responder and first aid instructor ; in fact, I did not practice since five years, but I try to stay "in tune" by collecting information about medicine and technics. That's why I know a little bit of traumatology and emergency medicine, although my true skill are limited to non-invasive technics and no drugs, no diagnostic (but situation and casualty assessment).

But that's my fault, I did not introduce myself in my page.

Cdang|write me 08:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not your fault, I added my CV after you sent me the message, and thanks to your message.
Cdang|write me 07:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking anonymous users

Hi. Whilst it is possible to indefinitely block anonymous users, it is generally not done because IP addresses can change. In any case, the vandalism is not nearly often or bad enough to justify indefinitely blocking. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. [[smoddy]] 20:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Paid Editing Project

Hi: My name is Tess and I work for a global independent research firm in New York. I am interested in hiring you for a Wikipedia editing project, based on your technology and medical experience and expertise. I attempted to email you through your user page. If you received it, please read it over and contact me with any questions. If you did not receive this email, please let me know and I would be more than happy to tell you more about this project. (You can call 512-651-1797 or email tfurman@glgroup.com). Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon! Tess - Gerson Lehrman Group 19:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi Nescio; I noticed that you reverted a couple edits for articles that I re-categorized. I'm trying to organize the different parts of the Medicine category by removing articles from the "top-level" categories and sticking them in a more appropriate category. For example, wouldn't you agree cardiothoracic surgery should be under "Types of surgery", which is ultimately under the "Medical specialties" category? I'm trying to reduce the clutter in the Medicine categories, since I don't quite have the knowledge yet to write my own articles in this subject...--CDN99 20:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting this article by voting for it at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive to improve it towards feature article status. I hope to increase the profile of clinical medicine and related subjects on wikipeda. The current article is basic, in particular with regards to EDs around the world.--File Éireann 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Emergency department was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Many thanks for your support!--File Éireann 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hematemesis

Let wel op dat in de VS en Groot-Brittannië Hb wordt uitgedrukt in mg/dL. De conversie is 0.62 mg/dL = 1 mmol/L. JFW | T@lk 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh nee, andersom: 1 mg/dL = 0.62 mmol/L
Ik heb 7.2-8.1 veranderd in 8.0. Dat is althans de transfusiedrempel in alle ziekenhuizen waar ik gewerkt heb. 8-10 mg/dL wordt alleen getransfundeerd als de patient symptomatisch is. JFW | T@lk 15:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Nescio, I had to remove some of your edits to Extraordinary rendition. This is the second time I've had to do this. You need to remember that editors cannot simply copy text from other sources and put it into Wikipedia articles. If you want to put information in, learn to paraphrase. Wikipedia is in constant trouble over copyright and misinformation, that's why it's very important that you follow the rules for copyright and attribution very strictly. Please re-read, and take to heart, Wikipedia:Copyright and Wikipedia:Cite sources. —thames 00:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Had not seen your first warning. Was not aware of any problem since all original sources are mentioned with link to it. However, since referencing and mentioning the source is not sufficient I rewrote the article. --Nomen Nescio 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This was the first instance. I think you're a good editor, you just need to paraphrase when you integrate information from a new source, that's all. Cheers. —thames 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology

Nescio, I had made the changes to the intro of the Scientology article and I explained my reasons on Talk:Scientology. You reverted these changes without giving consideration to what I brought in the discussion, and at the same time requiring that anyone that want to change to explain why on the talk page. I did explain my reasons (with some references), you didn't. Can we come to an agreement on this?

I disagree with the sentence "Most non-Scientologists, however, view his ideas about psychotherapy as pseudoscientific and point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money". "Most non-Scientologists" would be the 6.5+ billions people that are not scientologist, and I'm pretty sure a sizeable chunk of them have no idea about scientology, or don't have a specific opinion, or they didn't look at it enough to make the claim that it is pseudoscientific.

Also, I don't think the sentence "point to Hubbard's own words describing "religion" as a simple means of making money" should be in the intro. By its placement in the intro, it looks as if it's the main argument of critics, while this is only one fact that confirm the more important reasons of why critics consider Scientology dangerous. Povmec 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, since I was busy reverting numerous instances of vandalism I apparently reverted your edit too. Sorry for that, next time I will look at more edits before reverting.
As to the "Most non-Scientologists," I only wrote "Non-scientologists" and another editor added Most. Maybe you could agree on "Critics," or else just "Non-scientologists"?
The reference to religion as moneymaker seems relevant in the intro, as it might be the principal reason for founding Scientology. Besides it is only a small sentence so why not let it be?
My problem is with the psychotherapy. Scientology was not meant as psychotherapy, Dianetics was. If anything wouldn't removal of this from the intro be more apt?--Nomen Nescio 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've spelled out when, where and how Mr. Hubbard introduced Scientology and it was never intended as a therapy. Dianetics was, Scientology was not. I've posted and reposted this basic elementry data in the introduction but someone keeps popping it out and popping in "alternative to psychotherapy" and that is just wrong.

Greetings to a fellow internist

Thank you for the categorization. --DocJohnny 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was another physician whose main page you decorated. Thanks for that effort. Keep up the editing. If you do it as it is relevant to your studies it should be a great way to learn as well. Steve Kd4ttc 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your revert

Please see Talk:Extraordinary rendition. Kosebamse 09:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Homo sacer

I noticed you've made a lot of edits to Homo sacer as well. While your edits seem to tend to reflect Ambagen's interest in human rights, I was wondering if you had any information on the actual homo sacer in Ancient Rome. If you have Ambagen's actual book, could you please look up his sources on homo sacer so that the "ancient Rome" stub could be expanded and the article could have more depth? Thank you. :) Sophy's Duckling 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking for sources myself, but unfortunately I have not found anything. As to the book, I have to admit I no longer have it (lost it when I moved), so I can't help you there.--Nomen Nescio 07:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting Levine2112's vandalism. His job here seems to be to make sure nothing negative about chiropractic appears on Wikipedia. To him there is only one truth about chiropractic, and that is his old-fashioned (but still followed by many chiros) subluxationist ideas. Kind of a Scientology mentality.

I have added a clarification in the article (one which will likely be lost on him): [1] -- Fyslee 23:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Occasionally, I free-lance as one-man anti-vandalism unit. No problem.--Nomen Nescio 01:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to me how what I did was considered vandalism. And despite Fyslee comments about me, I don't believe I have a Scientology mentality. I am a very liberally minded, free thinker. I welcome edits to my Wiki contribututions, but I would like to know the basis of the edit and the accusation in this particular case, just for my own knowledge of future edits. Thank you. Yours in health... Levine2112 01:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As I remember it there were several things: 1 You did not clarify the reason for your edit, 2 You removed an example, which IMHO was unwarranted, 3 to state wikipedia is POV misrepresents what the community tries to accomplish. These points led me to believe you intentionally made a substandard edit, which is a nice way of saying: vandalism. Of course, it could be I spoke to soon, in that case my apologies.--Holland Nomen Nescio 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is characterized by a strong tendency to exercize censorship and to attack critics. You attack chiropractic's critics and attempt to whitewash it by preventing or neutralizing any criticism here.
Some resources:
I have not attacked you. Actually, quite the reverse. I have not exercized censorship. Quite the reverse. What's it called when you accuse others of being something that you actually are? Levine2112 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not use my talkpage for your exchange of compliments.--Holland Nomen Nescio 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not sure, but I have a perfect guy for you to ask: Will Beback. He knows more about our NPOV "rules" and "norms" than anyone else I've run into on here. I'd ask him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will ask him too.--Nomen Nescio 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Will is da man on that stuff. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already posed the question at his talk page. Thanks again! In the mean time, have you looked at the discussion and formed an opinion? I know you are no expert, but do you think editorials are unwarranted on that topic?--Nomen Nescio 08:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure either. Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I need to study the examples you provided in a little more detail before I'd be able to give you a good answer. I'll try to get back to you when I've had some time to look into it. Jacoplane 12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I did not read the Alito article, so maybe it is there, but it seems to me that, "the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international," is a tough statement to support. It would seem to have to be supported by a statement from the Bush administration. If the Bush administration has not issued such a statement, then at best an editorial might state the view that someone thinks that the Bush administration appears to be acting as if President Bush can not be restrained by any law. I looked at one reference cited to support "his previous statements regarding the unitary executive" and did not find a statement from Alito about "the unitary executive". Is there a direct quote from Alito about "the unitary executive"? It seems like some of the cited editorials are being used to support someone's view about Alito's position, not Alito's stated position. As such, I would object to this Wikipedia content myself. --JWSchmidt 14:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in saying the Bush administration did not make that comment. It is in several of the sources, where it is advanced as possible interpretation (criticism) of Alito's previous rulings and statements. I will provide the exact links, but give me some time. TIA.--Holland Nomen Nescio 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On his record: Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."[2] He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution.[3] Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.[4]

Stance towards Presidential powers: However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, ........[5] “I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in [the area of executive power], and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony.[6] Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the law is truly frightening to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power.[7] Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief.[8]

Of course, this is just a selection, but should you read all the sources you will find they more or less support the edit I had in mind. Personally I fail to see why these views should not be used. Sincerely.--Holland Nomen Nescio 16:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is a matter of anyone suggesting that Wikipedia should not include "views of Alito". It is just a matter of making clear the distintion between what Alito has said and what others have said. --JWSchmidt 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If I understand you correctly, you think adding criticism is warranted as long as it is identified as such. That is all I wanted to know. As you probably know by now, editors of that page deny my edits, and all wikipedians I have asked suggest that the objections advanced are not part of WP:NPOV.--Holland Nomen Nescio 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read your own sources!!!

Please read your own sources and your own sentences. You are the worst editor I have EVER encountered on wikipedia. You constantly revert edits that clarify or correct bad grammar, misleading statements, and outright lies. Please stop this childish behavior. --Ajdz 07:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page.--Holland Nomen Nescio 09:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

so-called vandalism

Your rootless accusations of "vandalism" in response to my recent edit of the wikipedia article "police state" don't even pass the straight face test. Any sophisticated historical scholar would support my addition of the historical examples of Chile under Pinochet and Argentina under Proceso de Reorganización Nacional as examples of polce states. Also, no existing NGO's or international organizations recognise cuba as a police state, so its place on the list is utterly mystifying.Winstonsmith (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Adding the US and deleting Iraq as Police state, is clearly not warranted. Whatever your personal opinion, nobody in the world adheres to that. Add the other 2 if you must, leave Cuba and Iraq in the article. In any case, do not mention the USA. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts: vandalism!--Holland Nomen Nescio 09:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to your most recent childish tirade, i'd like to let you know that if you continue to vandalize the article entitled police state, I will have no choice but to complain to the administrators to have you permanently blocked from editing. Vandalizing Scholarly work is anti-democratic and is not tolerated on Wikipedia.

Hopefully you will heed this warning. thanks.Winstonsmith (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Responded on user's talk page.--Holland Nomen Nescio 09:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with Nescio. Those edits (especially the deletes of existing entries) by Winston Smith were vandalism. The only ones that I'd agree should be included were the ones on
Regardless of "right" or "left" wing aspects, both sides have been guilty of having police states.
Regardless of one's opinion of Bush (lots of Americans are less than favorable....;-), and regardless of any supposed possible consequences of the Patriot Act, to include the USA as a "police state" is pretty extreme. There can be no comparison with the actions of even the smallest of real police states. If things develop in the wrong direction in the future, then would be the appropriate time to reconsider, but not now. -- Fyslee 10:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A copy of e-mail sent to wikipedia administrators.

Dear Administrators:

"I would like to file a complaint against user "nescio" for wanton vandalism of the article entitled "Police State". User Nescio has been deleting sections of the article he or she personally disagrees with e.g. historical police state examples " Chile under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet" and "Argentina under the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional", as well as other examples . This childish and irrational behaviour has resulted in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, which is detrimental to Wikipedia's credibility and accuracy. I have tried to reason with this user, but it is unfortunately to no avail.

Regretfully , I have no choice but to request that this user be blocked from editing at this time.

Sincerely yours,

User Winston Smith

It is sad that your editing priveleges will have to be revoked. i gave you a final warning, which you obviously did not heed. I regret being forced to do this, but it is vital to the credibility and accuracy of our encyclopedia that unilateral, politcally motivated vandalism by a right-wing extremist that results in an outright and obvious distortion of the facts be prohibited, and that this prohibition be stringently enforced.

If, However, you aspire to a more mature attitude, and dispense with this rootless and arbitrary vandalism, i will contact the administrators and request that your editing priveleges be unblocked.Winstonsmith (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

The pot calling the kettle "black"....!! -- Fyslee 10
28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
How interesting, just as if I am back in kindergarten. As to details regarding this very mature contribution, they can be found here.--Holland Nomen Nescio 17:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the [[german version[9]] of the article on Police State. if you think the U.S. should not be included, and stop vandalizing this article. Wikipedia's policy of adhering to factual accuracy and a NPOV will be upheld. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WinstonSmith (talk • contribs).

This is not a good faith suggestion. Your removal of Cuba on your last edit suggests that you're not truly interested in NPOV. I am still waiting to see what you do next. Before you accuse someone of being POV, understand what NPOV is. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This is getting tedious. I am not disputing one might have that opinion, but it clearly is not established fact. If the German Wikipedia allows such an entry it means the article is violating WP:NPOV. Calm down, leave it for now. You are aware of the attention your behaviour has gotten you?--Holland Nomen Nescio 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The german article does not claim that the US is a police state, only that it has recently moved a little in that direction. Google's translation, while not good, is clear enough.
  • "In democratic countries, like in the USA, police-national methods are forbidden by the constitutional fundamental rights. Observers fear nevertheless an increase of illegitimate activities, which could limit the liberty of the citizens. For example the Patriot is to contain act of courses of police-national practices. Critics of this paper complain of the person monitoring without judicial resolution, the possibility for imposing the martial law or the unrestricted entrance to personal data for example."
Which seems NPOV enough, excepting that I'd prefer the 'observers' and 'critics' to be cited or quoted. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Have read it (in German), the article most certainly does not say the US is a police state. So, you are right this is in accordance with WP:NPOV. It is yet another example of Winstonsmith misrepresenting facts.--Holland Nomen Nescio 08:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's getting better. I'll have a bash at it. I do feel that it's worth talking about, I just have trouble doing so. I think that there is real movement towards a reduction in liberties, and that's worth talking about. But it's wrong not to distinguish between taking a step towards being a police state and being a police state. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to relax

I'm not sure why you have such a fanatical attachment to particular word choices, but it would be helpful to many if you could consider the possibility that you do not own wikipedia and you have given no reason for anyone to believe that your words, or the words you are fanatically attached to, are divinely inspired. --Ajdz 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unwillingness to discuss is not helping either. Inserting your POV after I repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to communicate is in poor taste and violates Wikipedia policy.--Holland Nomen Nescio 07:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please study the difference between an article and a forum. --Ajdz 07:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you are confused about certain things. Please, motivate your edits on the relevant talk pages, that would be the civil thing to do.--Holland Nomen Nescio 07:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to request your approval of edits. See the wikipedia principle: be bold:
If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it with brilliant prose. That's the nature of a Wiki.
--Ajdz 07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not enhancing the grammartical nature of the articles. You are changing the contents. That I object to, since you are not explaining why the sourced contents should be changed.--Holland Nomen Nescio 07:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanations are in the edit history, if only that was something you would bother to review. --Ajdz 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be childish. You are well aware I have defended the edit as it was on several locations. In stead of engaging in an edit war you might want to review those discussions and add your opinion to it.[10][11]

You call whining about "censorship" in your reverts discussion? --Ajdz 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
And if someone disagrees with your edits, discuss on the talk page. Be bold continues:
  • If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references.
  • Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.
Regards, Ben Aveling 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If only. --Ajdz 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
PS to the both of you. Phrases like 'fanatical attachment', 'Someone needs to relax' or 'you are confused' can be taken badly, and are best avoided. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Fanatical attachment is exactly the problem. --Ajdz 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of discussion is another problem.--Holland Nomen Nescio 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for the sake of discussion is meaningless. --Ajdz 06:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, give it a rest. Be cool. And accept that you are refusing to discuss period. Without discussion in the first place it is impossible to have a "discussion for the sake of discussion." --Holland Nomen Nescio 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not "refusing to discuss", although this has quickly degenerated into a discussion for the sake of discussion. What I am having a problem with is this attitude that even the most minor edits need to be discussed with competing essays when the fundamental problem is much simpler. Another problem is the failure to consider edit summaries when accusing others of "censorship" - to demand talk page discussion of even the most minor edits would be counterproductive and render the talk page more unreadable than it already is. --Ajdz 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Alito

It was already done - after I warned the user, he/she automatically reverted their own vandalism. If you try to revert back to an identical version, it won't register. Keep it up though! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 15:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, already responded on your talk page. Thanks.--Holland Nomen Nescio 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nescio_1917.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Nescio_1917.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 20:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Well put, Nescio

Thank you, Nescio. Well put. Regarding the issue that some are trying to force their interpretation on the interpretation of cartoons.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielDemaret (talk • contribs).

Submission film

I was wondering why you found it necessary to add so many links regarding the current controversy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons? For one, this makes the number of "See also"s almost as long as the article, and two, quantity is not quality. The link to "Controversies in Islam" should suffice, since therein I assume is a link to what has been recently going on in Denmark and Europe. JesseRafe 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't think it is related? As I recall, I only added Submission and the Satanic Verses,[12] this hardly explains the flurry of additions. Even so what harm can it do? Since they clearly are similar I will restore the deleted addition. I trimmed some of the really irrelevant links.--Holland Nomen Nescio 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was reffering to Submission_(film), not to anything else. I was wondering why you added so many unrelated things to the Submission_(film) page after the fact. As it is now, the number of links is twice as long as the article. Adding a link to Submission on the Jyllands-Posten page is fine, but the sheer number of Denmark-related and cartoon-related links on Submission I don't feel is appropriate. I just wanted to hear if you could justify. Thank you. JesseRafe 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll change it. Let me know if you agree.--Holland Nomen Nescio 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Just as I would've done it, but I didn't just delete the links initially because I was curious about your reasoning for trying to draw so much more attention to a situation that already has plenty of attention drawn to it. Thanks for being a helpful/cooperative Wikipedian. JesseRafe 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

VinnyCee

I saw your note to JzG and his 3RR vios here qualified him for a time out. Let me know if the harrassment continues when he returns. FeloniousMonk 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. Since the last block it looks like I am VinnyCee's favorite person. Anyway, should he again return with vandalizing this page I will gladly let you know.Holland Nomen Nescio 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of your comments are not helping. Some friendly advice: I strongly advise you to resist baiting VinnyCee; do not remove Vinny's comments from this Talk page, come and talk to me or someone if there are personal attacks being issued - it's not like a delay in removing them will bring the planet to a standstill. Also, if Vinny starts adding contentious content to police state, bring it to WP:AN/I or leave it to another editor rather than engaging in a revert war. Vinny's card is mnarked, your best bet now is to remain above the fray. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I will stay out of any discussion involving my "fan" and ask someone else to asist. Indeed, this is getting out of hand.--Holland Nomen Nescio 10:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Wise move. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Section removed per WP:RPA

Section removed per WP:RPA

Section removed per WP:RPA

Police state

  • United States military censoring blogs written by military personnel.
  • Journalists of Reuters and possibly other news agencies beaten, humiliatied and tortured by United States military and CIA.
  • 'Unfavourable' journalists being threatened and expelled by United States military in Iraq.
  • Journalist Judith Miller imprisoned in 2005.

As of 2005, United States was ranked 44th of 167 countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders.

From: Freedom of speech in the United States—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helohe (talk • contribs).

Mr./Ms. Vandal, Thanks for Helping Us to Find Open Proxies

By vandalizing this page from open proxies, you are helping administrators locate and block open proxies. Thank you for your help. --Nlu (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Let me know if you want it removed. As I've indicated before, I think protecting user and user talk pages is not worth it, but I've just violated my own opinion by semi-protecting your user page and user talk pages since I'm going to sleep. --Nlu (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In light of the past hours I think this is good. Maybe we can leave it like this and see what happens. If I understand correctly editores who are logged in can still leave comments on this page so that is not bad. Thank you. Holland Nomen Nescio 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:SPP is not intended for long term protection, do you objcet to this being lifted now? xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
We can try, but if the vandalism starts again I would like to have the protection reinstated, if possible. VinnyCee appears to be continuing his quest against my person, using sock puppets, as you can see here. Let's just see what happens. Sincerely Holland Nomen Nescio 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

VWN en WCN

Beste Nescio,

Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 18:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unitary Executive theory

Cross-posted on User talk:Reaverdrop

Het viel me op dat je dit artikel hebt bewerkt en vroeg me af of je een opmerking kunt achterlaten bij een RFC betreffende de toelaatbaarheid van kritiek in dit artikel. Je hoeft alleen aan te geven of bronnen mogen worden vermeld, je eigen mening over het onderwerp hoef je niet te verdedigen. Groetjes Holland Nomen Nescio 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ja zeker, Nescio; ik heb genoeg tijd nog niet gehaad, maar ik ben bronnen aan het verzamelen. Groetjes terug, - Reaverdrop 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant reference in MC page

Hi Nescio, Why is the reference irrelevant ? http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400161,00.html Perhaps simply mis-positioned? Varga Mila 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As I see it the article is about personal believes that others use for satire/ridicule/critique. Der Sturmer was a journal spreading antisemitism and that article is based upon history. The cartoon article has nothing to do with facts but only deals with the perception (by definition religion is supernatural) people hold of the world. Perception and history should not be equated. Furthermore the cartoons were not meant and used to systematically spread anti-Muslim feelings as was Der Sturmer.Holland Nomen Nescio 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Physician Wikipedians

Appreciated! Thanks for the addition. -- Samir ∙ T C 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Subpage for the Muhammad cartoons

Hi Nescio,

Please do feel free to move content relating to the images to the sub-page. The problem is that a few people (ok 1, namely R1) seem to turn nearly every conversation into one of the images themselves. I moved several sections onto the subpage, but feel that I've 'used up my credit' in that respect ! Please feel free to do the honors : ) Varga Mila 13:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Impeachment.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Impeachment.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.


Submission (film) Raphael1's PPOV

Greetings, I couldn't help but notice your 100% correct revert on Submission_(film). I just thought you'd like to know why User:Raphael1 made that addition. It's because he's trying to bolster his contention that "Submission" demonstrates Islamophobia, despite others' explanations otherwise. Cheers for that revert! Netscott 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All in a days work. He really thinks there is a conspiracy against islam.Holland Nomen Nescio 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

It certainly is a compliment to everyone who wrote the piece -- neatly organized refereneces alone go a long way toward promoting NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For sake of clarity continue on editors talk page.Holland Nomen Nescio 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest

Cardiac Arrest is NOT the same thing as cardiogenic shock. Please don't make such large edits in future without discussing them first. --John24601 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on talkpage of article.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

eriodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture

Given your interest in UCs. might like to take a look at Talk:Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture

BTW I have not given up on UCs but I've been working on other things ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I've blocked you for disruptive editing and reversions that break both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR. Please work out your differences on Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush rather than blindly revert. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to unblock me since your assertions are incorrect. When Merecat refuses to engage in discussion and blindly inserts POV words and deletes sourced material I fail to understand why I cannot revert such an edit. I do not blindly revert since with every revert I ask Merecat to explain himself, he answers not but once again deletes sourced material. Your blocking me for that is highly unreasonable and unjust. Please review the edit history and talk page for the past days.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Disputes are not resolved by reversions, they are resolved by discussion. 3RR is meant to serve as an electric fence, which both of you ran right into. If you have trouble with a particular user, the answer is not to keep reverting him/her but to report it before breaking 3RR. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This user refuses to discuss, which can be seen on the articles talk page. You are correct I could have handled it differently, but blocking still is too harsh and unwarranted. Clearly my edits are not comparable to those made by the other users you blocked.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, you made an effort to start discussion but that didn't get it started. I applied blocks equally to everyone involved, in the interest of fairness and consistency. Making value judgments on this issue is tough—are your 4 identical reverts worse or better than his 3 identical reverts, somewhat different revert, and subsequent reinsertion of the text he had removed? The bottom line is that everyone broke either the spirit or the letter of 3RR, and that is blockable. In the future, remember that there are things like WP:RFC, WP:M, and WP:AN/I that can be used to address problems like these. I've been involved in disputes before, and I know how frustrating they can be, so for next time, get help early on. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Still I disagree about counting my correction of what clearly constitutes an edit war as revert. But ok, let's leave it at that. Next time I will not hesitate to start a RFC on user conduct.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling Dr. Nescio

Hello, I have edited the Arsenic article in regards to its mechanism of poisoning and I m not entirely certain I'm right. Could you please fact check the segment on poisoning in that and the Arsenic poisoning article please. Someone had claimed that it kills by gastric disruption which engendered in me a guffaw, please tell me if someone should be laughing at me instead. Angrynight 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Meercat RfC

Thanks for letting me know. In my interactions with him he has been stubborn but civil, so I won't certify the RfC. I may add a comment if it gets certified, though. Thatcher131 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Merecat

I have not actually edited or even really read the article Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, so I am not really familiar with the dispute. I will therefore not be commenting. Thanks for letting me know, though. Ardric47 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit new to WP, and so I'm not what to do here. I know nothing about the Rationales to impeach George W. Bush article, although I have had some not-good interactions with him on Katherine Harris. Is that enough to comment anywhere? If so where? Also, is the deadline passed? (Sorry, I was away from the computer for a few days) -- Sholom 02:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • His editing on Katherine Harris makes it look like he might be a house aide for the Florida train wreck. Please take a look and revert if you see POV editing. --Gorgonzilla 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A request

Might I request that you simply take a deep breath and a step back? I have alreay told Merecat that he needs to tone it down too, so I hope you understand that I am trying to be neutral. Your edit here is what drove me to make this request. You wrote "a threat". I hope you realise that that is a bit out of proportion. I don't think there was any kind of threat, either explicit or implicit. I would encourage you to try and work with Merecat. People on opposite ends of the political spectrum have often come together to write spectacular articles, and form great wikifriendships. I know the general history between you and Merecat, so I understand how hard it may be to move past, but I hope all involved can peacefully and gracefully move on. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Perhaps initiate a a nice cup of tea and a sit down with Merecat as a digital olive branch, so to speak. Oh well, it was just a suggestion. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what strong, but evidently I made clear this was the feeling I got, not that it was what that editor did. As to working with Merecat, if you read the relevant talk page you will see that is exactly what I have been trying to do this past week. Thank you for the kind advise.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I realise it's been a rough couple of days for you dealing with Merecat. The same holds true for his dealing with you. :-) And I appreciate your calm response to my constructive criticism. I wish you never feel threatened here at Wikipedia, or we as a community have failed, in my opinion. I just hate to see so much animosity between editors, and hope you can all work this out amicably. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you may doubt this, but I am a reasonable guy. All Merecat has to do is engage in debate. That is all I want, and if he starts talking in stead of simply deleting everything he dislikes, I am even willing to stop the RFC. Again, civil behaviour, discussion, is all I ask, and the lack of it resulted in the RFC.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't doubt it at all. I hope I didn't give you that impression. Most people are reasonable if you give them a chance... even Merecat, I imagine. ;-) (No offense Merecat, if you're reading this. I'm only trying to see where Nescio is coming from on this issue). I'll try and encourage Merecat to continue engaging in productive discussion, but you have to be willing to compromise and work with him as well. Thanks for your time, and thanks for listening. Have a wonderful night, Nescio. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Any compromise starts with discussion. As the article's talk page shows I was able to reach consensus with other editors because they stated their case and through debate we resolved the issues.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Just sending you good wishes. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course, look in your fridge, placed a selfmade cake in it.:)Holland Nomen Nescio 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

greetings and good job!

in case you are taking a break from things and haven't looked lately, I am picking up the torch on the rationale to impech article.

You have been amazingly patient with the personal attacks and bad logic, great job!

I'm here to support you any way I can. (Especially after merecats treatment of my discussion contribution.)

Prometheuspan 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a new tactic regarding; lets just compile lists of sites that support us. Right now, we are being bogged down and distracted by noise. If we just ignore merecat and continue to look for an find references, eventually he is going to see that the gambit of obstructionism is backfiring. Did you know that discussion pages are also crawled by search engines?

)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Corrupt_Republicans_Club/message/25602

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/therealihatebushfanclub/?yguid=176032312

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kucinich4President/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NobodyButKucinich/messages

http://groups.msn.com/KucinichforPresidentCommitteeofCentralCalifornia

http://groups.msn.com/votefraudusa

http://groups.msn.com/terroristbush/messages.msnw

Say what? from thewolfstar

huh? thewolfstar 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I am no cryptoanalyst, you probably respond to my suggestion to try and voice your opninion somewhat less aggressive. Simply wanted to remind all editors that we as a team are working on Wikipedia, and as such should remain as friendly as possible. No matter how annoyed we may be, we should always try and show good faith and expect good faith. That's all. Hope you have a nice time here and please work on as many articles as you like. Greetings.Holland Nomen Nescio 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request

thought you might like to know, I have requested arbitration regarding Merecat.

Prometheuspan 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC comments

Nescio, do not move, touch or edit my comments. Merecat 15:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments to RFC comments, belong on talk page and not at main page!Holland Nomen Nescio

Aspie Data Droid reporting fer duty.

[13] might wanna get over there and put in your two cents.

What would you like me to do? 1. Contine to write article in sandbox 2. Continue to look for more references and citation materials? 3. Go looking for people on Yahoo and groups etc to come help? 4. LawyerBot at the "mediation" game (Which seems like the next stage of the process against merecat, but, on the other hand, lately merecat has quit breaking rules blatantly, and may have gotten the point. They are changing up tactics. When keeping us busy arguing didn't work, they go for another request for deletion.)

And etc. Honestly, I am a total newbie, and near as i can tell, you are the guy I should follow the lead of. Not sure why you stayed out of the fray over the arbcom, etc, i am guessing that you noticed i was pretty combative. Gotta be that way with these buggers tho, cuz that is where they are coming from.

Anyays, let me know what you think, and how i can support you and this effort. Prometheuspan 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, please explain to me why you aren't answering me, or making good use of the help i am trying to provide you? Prometheuspan 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD comments

Regarding your comments at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). Please don't continue to rehash your entire argument on the project page. Please move your middle of the page comments to the talk page. I would like to reply, but given the detail we usually dialog at, it would be too much if you don't move your comments to talk. Merecat 10:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • By your vote to delete you have shown your true colours. You never intended to make the article NPOV, you were only interested in censoring information you think should not be available to the general public. It sure explains why you kept sabotaging any discussion aimed at resolving the perceived issues.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I think we knew that was what was going on with merecat all the way back at when i first jumped in. I joined the effort because it was apparent to me that Merecat was being abusive, gaming the system, and thought policing. I have said so repeatedly. Yet, you never answer me. Of course that is what merecats up to. So we do what we must to get around it, and we make the effort that we must to keep editing the article and improving it. Please take the help I'm offering you. Prometheuspan 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

    • I stepped on your edit here, sorry. It would probably be best not to make new comments or revise you remarks in the same edit where you are reverting vandalism, but to do them separately. TTFN. Thatcher131 15:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I strongly resent getting spam exhortations to enter the debate. I am quite capable of deciding into which AfDs to make my views known without being prodded. Kindly cease any further such letters at once. RGTraynor 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. As far as I can tell both you and Merecat have broken 3RR at the Rationales page over {{citation style}}. You removing it four times and him adding it four times. Edit warring over a template is frankly insipid, both of you should try to focus on the article's actual problems. Regards, Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the tag is ridiculous and he should stop being disruptive. Maybe you can ask him to stop stripping the articles of references as we are still in the midst of discussing. I will let him make the good faith gesture of stopping mutilating the article and return to the talk page.Holland Nomen Nescio 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for egregious POV vote-stacking and talk page spamming in regards to an Article for deletion. Please don't do it again. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Afd is about the merits of an article, not how many users each side can recruit. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your reaction is rather harsh and unfair. Although I agree with your point, after seeing the massive stacking in favour of deletion I felt this was not a fair AFD and made a stupid move. Anyway, till next month for another AFD on the subject.Holland Nomen Nescio 22:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. The blocking has no basis in Wikipedia rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

misrepresentation

Quoted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination):Had you, and others, not misrepresented Wikipedia policy it would not be necessary to add a rebuttal (i.e. citing the policies as they actually are stated) to every incorrect assertion.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining to me where I have ever misrepresented a Wikipedia policy? It's certainly possible that you're mistaking me with someone else, maybe?--Deville (Talk) 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

i know this is between you and him, but, maybe you could start with which policy you think would warrant deletion, and then we can move on from there.Prometheuspan 01:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV, and, oh, yeah, WP:NPOV. This is what I've said in multiple places. You can feel free to disagree, but nowhere have I misrepresented these policies. --Deville (Talk) 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
On both the article and the multitude of AfD's I cited several policies. Nobody responded, so to me it sounds that when confronted with the exact quote, there is no valid case for that claim. Feel free to look at these comments I made. Or, if you want to I can quote them again (which would make it the fourth time). Second, even if there is POV, an AfD is not meant to deal with that. Therefore any delete based on that argument is flawed. Again, see my quotations.Holland Nomen Nescio 09:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion of my edit

Why did you delete my edit at the Rationales to Impeach article? I didn't think my edit was that bad. Do you know the 2/13 sentence from ACLU is duplicated? You are from Holland? My cousine Adrienne is from Belgium. Is it easy to travel in Europe these days? I've got a Canadian passport, but am emigrating to USA. Do you think it would be safe for me to travel there? 216.239.38.136 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Changing their comments into the talking point of the Bush administration is not a fair edit.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat is Rex071404

FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom you certified an RfC, has been shown to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. Thought you should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you. However, having seen the blatant misrepresentation, by numerous editors, of what Merecat did, I am reluctant to trust in the ability of this procedure to ignore emotional arguments and logical fallacy.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 :). By the way, I took a liberty on your user page. Thank you. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Tbeatty if he is also Rex, in self-defense-sock mode. We'll see what his answer is. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in paranoid-mode, so it would not surprise me, the vehement defense of Merecat is at best suspicious. But I have others in mind too.Holland Nomen Nescio 21:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was one of those who experienced Rex's outrageous behaviour on John Kerry. He had been the subject of an arbcom ruling. He seems to be trying to get around his restrictions using Merecat. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am grateful for your support. It's an uneven playing field, when an honest editor confronts a sockpuppeting troll. The support of the community makes all the difference. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough

Fitting name :-) --Mmx1 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct Template

I added the proxy IP template which is more appropriate. Tagging as a sock puppet is not fair to the other google users who use the IP.--Tbeatty 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe so, but it clearly is used by Merecat. I think that should be made clear too.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A Medical Doctor ?

It was a pleasure reading your edits to the Movement to Impeach Bush. However, I was shocked that you are an MD. Maybe it is because you are not an American? My experience here is that most MDs vehemently support Bush (who pushes "tort reform" eg lack of accountability for their own), and would NEVER announce to ANYONE that they don't know everything. Of course, an intelligent person recognizes that they do not know everything, but my opinion of the American medical establishement has plummeted to somewhere in the sub-basement. It is good to know there are open-minded docs somewhere, who still believe in the tenets of medicine, and peace!

Also, I borrowed some of your templates (many of which apply to me) to help start my own user page. Thanks! I am just learning this !!molly bloom 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

After being villified for attempting to report on this impeachment bussiness it is nice to hear something else. Of course, most MD's in the US will support anyone that limits their liability. I do not think they fear accountability, but the US has such a ridiculous culture of litigation that it would be madness to be honest and open about everything. Chances are that I would do the same if I worked in the US. Maybe not, since there are so many disturbing examples of what Bush is doing, that I think is is not unreasonable to suggest he is turning the US into a less democratic country.
As to my being a doctor, my understanding of what that means may not be the regular thing. To me the most important aspect is to inform people of what disease they have and how to proceed. Second, however strange it may sound, even physicians do not have all the answers. They won't tell you because it might hurt their standing, or worse they might end up in court. This is not what medicine is about. It is about helping eachother. My general approach is informal, not always the best choice, but mostly people appreciate it when a doctor treats them as human beings.
Feel free to use my page as example, there are of course more interesting user pages out there. I did the same. As I said, people should be more willing to share and help. Sincerely Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! We would have a better society if more people were willing to share and help.
You say "even physicians" do not have all the answers....Why? Most people know that physicians don't have all the answers. It is physicians that need to realize this. As to American 'culture of litigation' --it is more hype than reality. Medical malpractice cases, for example, are very costly to litigate and most lawyers will not take one on unless she/he feels there is a very good case. However, insurance companies have made 'tort reform' an advertising rally and lawyers the demons. This whole issue is far more political than real. Further, if more doctors cared half as much about their patients as they do litigation, there would be far less malpractice. Non-physicians have no problem understanding this. It is the doctors who need to come down to earth and realize they are human. The only doctor I really trust is my internist, who has been my doctor for over 10 years. She does not pretend to know everything, but it is my experience that she knows much more than other doctors who are far more arrogant.
Bush is shredding our Consitution, and our democracy. I just hope he can be stopped before it is too late. molly bloom 11:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course nobody has all the answers. And most doctors I know are well aware of that. However, there are less pleasant types, as I imagine in any profession. Your description of the medical community sounds like you had some unfortunate interactions. Please, accept that many docors are doing their best to help people, and it is not uncommon they work very hard in trying to do so. But people-skills might be improved. As to litigation, I admit that I only hear rumours. Thank you for correcting my bias against it.
Whether Bush is shredding the constitution I don't know. You may want to look at unitary executive for that. What I do know is that there have been numerous "mistakes," "failures," and "misrepresentations" of the facts. For some strange reason nobody feels the need to even investigate what went wrong. Any CEO would be fired and any company working like this would go bankrupt. The lack of oversight is astounding, as is the willingness of many US citizens to respond to such criticism as it being "anti-Bush," see the heated debate (monologue is a better description) on Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

I just want a second opinion on things going on with that article right now. Do you think I'm being too rash in insisting that the article intro state that the casus belli of the Iraq War was WMD? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's OK :-)

Thanks for letting me know! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

Seems like Prometheuspan has conveniently "quit" the wiki all of a sudden. That wasn't one of your sockpuppets, was it? 216.239.38.136 08:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No Merecat, I do not use such childish tactics. BTW, is Tbeatty yet another sockpuppet you use? Anyway, welcome back. How have you been? I am having a great time, summer has finally arrived. Sun, sea, walks, sitting in the sun while having a drink at my local cafe. Hope you have the same kind of weather, or at least a good time. Don't be a stranger, till next time.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Thank you for the friendship editing this article. It's starting to look pretty good. I am going to nose around for another article to help out on. I like the idea of going one article at a time. Any recommendations? Neutral arbiter 20:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what your interests are, so it's difficult to suggest. You might start by searching for a topic and just jump in. Or, other controversies might be good to see if they need some NPOV work. Controversies related to your current edits are:
There are of course numerous others you can choose from. Whatever you do, remember that most articles are the result of long debates, so don't forget to read the talk pages before making any serious edits. It is better than having an unfortunate confrontation with that pages editors. Happy editing and good luck with finding other articles.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of these article don't look current enough. I'd read in a few places about some who seek to impeach Bush, so I was interested in that. Valerie Plame is also getting stale. What about Karl Rove or Scooter Libby? Is Libby on trial yet? Neutral arbiter 20:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Will the US ever investigate?

You wrote, "Besides, the US will never, as it did not in this case, cooperate with any serious investigation regarding the legality of the actions undertaken as part of the war on terror. Hence the strong opposition to the ICC"

If the Repugnants lose a house of Congress this year, there may well be an investigation. As long as there is no balance of powers (as is the current situation), however, you are correct - there will be no serious investigation. There are many of us Americans that hope to change that.MollyBloom 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many Americans that would support investigation, but unfortunately it is not up to them. Realizing there are serious consequenses to such investigations (the Iraq war and torturing suspects may be war crimes) I doubt that will happen. We will have to wait and see.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but unless Diebold has a way to hide large margins, the Repugs may well lose a house of Congress shortly. That is the one way we Americans can make a difference. At least, I still have hope that this will happen.MollyBloom 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


WP:SIG

Hey. Forgive me if others have asked before. Consider removing the image in your sig per WP:SIG - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, but I don't think it is prohibited. Besides numerous editors use their flag.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


a.r.s

Are you the same Nomen Nescio who posts (a lot) to a.r.s.? Or is that an impostor?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs).

What does it stand for?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
alt.religion.scientology. So I take it that's not you posting under that name there?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs).
Nope, at least not that I know of, but nevertheless, happy to meet you. Hi there.:)Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig

No probs... :) I have a couple of patients who have heard of this mucoid plaque theory... but I would want people swallowing clay and fasting for days based on what they read on WP. Good AfD. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Would you consider changing your signature per this guideline? Or at least make the image smaller? I know its not required, but it would mean a lot to a number of different users. --Hetar 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, would it mean to whom? In other words, I'm skeptical anyone's being harmed by this. Not that I don't think inline images are stupid; I do. But hey, give them all the rope they want to hang themselves, I say. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages#Imposing signature restrictions and some of the following sections have details on many of the problems that users have with images in signatures. --Hetar 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so much bothered about the image, but the superscript annoys the hell out of my browser--John24601 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Then your browser must hate a lot of commonly-used things here, like this tag ({{fact}}): [citation needed]
What browser do you use? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque

I have just done a major cleanup and have made it say that it is a health fraud right after the first name. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque I'm just letting you know in case you wish to change your vote with the addition changes but I do not expect anything. Thanks! --mboverload@ 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorist_surveillance_program#Requested_move

Hi Nescio, You seem to have expressed a clear opinion on the naming of Terrorist_surveillance_program, but FYI there is now a tally at Talk:Terrorist_surveillance_program#Requested_move, if you'd like to add a vote to it. Thanks! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by bggoldie

Bggoldie didn't blank the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article. This edit added a cite and didn't erase anything. --Mr. Billion 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did look only briefly, the diff appeared to me as blanking. I was wrong, for that I apologize. Thank you for informing me.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
NP at all, thanks to Mr. Billion. Actually I've added two citations and the way I added them split the line. Maybe I should have kept the template include on single line :-) Cheers, Goldie (tell me) 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization

I've proposed a new version for the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article, which is a complete reorganization of the current version. I'd like to replace the current version with the new version (applying all changes that have been made to the current version to the new version, to bring it up to date, ofcourse). I'm interested to hear your views/thoughts on it here. Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser

Wist je dat je genoemd wordt op Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wat een nonsens, ook nog eens door een IP-adres dat begonnen is met deze edits. Lijkt meer een lastercampagne dan iets anders. Bedankt voor de waarschuwing.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of translating. Sorry if my Dutch is a rough:

You knew that you are called on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs

What a nonsense, also once more by Ip-adres that has started with these edits. A more calumny campaign seems then something else. Thanks for the warning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.46.20.59 (talk • contribs).

Can Mr Anonymous (Merecat (talk • contribs)?) refrain from stalking me?Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And this time a correct translation: Me: Did you know your name is being mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs? Nescio: What a load of nonsense, and from an IP address that started these edits on top of that. Seems more like a smear campaign than anything else. Thanks for informing me. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 06:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

[14]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

As a user you know, too, refuses to solve conflicts reasonably, I would like to ask for your comment. Añoranza 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


User Conduct RfC against Commodore Sloat

Hi, I'm contacting you to ask that you take a look at the conduct RfC brought against me by TDC (talk • contribs). I'm contacting you because the RfC involves some pages that you have edited on in the past. I value whatever contribution you may make to the RfC page, if you are so inclined. Thanks.--csloat 07:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

After the fact

Your edits to what the topic is addressing after people have already voted is misleading, please refrain from doing it. People voted on the information as it was presented, changing it later misrepresents what they voted for. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You are correct. They however did not vote, but I realized they were incorrecdtly informed. I added information to make poll represent the facts. They wiull see it and be better informed. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You are engaging in misrepresenting peoples votes. I ask you once again to stop. People have participated in a poll and you are changing the contents of that poll to make a political point. WP:POINT, what you are doing is disruptive. Please stop. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you or are you not asserting Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We will take the lack of response as an admission he feels Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism. By not explaining this in this poll he admits that the poll was not fairly presented. Oddly enough even reference to previous discussions and their results are being deleted. How about manipulating a poll! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a job, relax yourself. One of the stated reasons in Res 114 as well as one of the previous UN resolutions is about saddams links to terrorism. Some people do work you know, maybe you should be more patient. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero

I didn't mean to remove him. Things get chaotic on AIAV at times. Anyway, it's been restored. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Only wanted to know how to proceed, since reverting my comments back inevitably leads to 3RR, and we do not want that. Second, I was not sure about him being allowed to remove my comments. Was ab but impatient so I also posted at AN/I. Thank you anyway. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You are changing the basis of a poll, do not misrepresent what you are doing. You are also changing the content after 20+ have already weighed in. YOu do not want to participate then that is your perogative, however vandalizing a poll to make it something you do want to participate in, is not appropriate. Cease your vandalism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Confused

I am aware that it's already been at AN/I; that's still where it needs to go. AIV is for simple vandalism in progress. More complex issues including such activity as content disputes, etc., that require admin intervention go to AN/I; personal attack intervention is WP:PAIN; etc. Your report was not a case of simple vandalism. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

With apologies, this is why the noticeboard exists. I'm occupied elsewhere. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Please advise regarding Zero

To be honest, I really don't know, but WP:AIV is for cases of clear vandalism when the vandal needs to be blocked immediately. Right now, you have something in WP:ANI. Enough admins will be looking at it, but I'll make sure Zero doesn't delete it or anything, okay? --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT template & Iraq War

I decided I'll stick to the current version of the WOT template, but thanks for the tip... Esaborio 02:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

at 2003 Invasion of Iraq.Larry Lawrence 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of operation names

Please note the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Añoranza 01:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/s/User_talk%7ENescio_Archive_1_24f3.html"