User talk:Nescio*

Hello there!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Also: you can play and experiment all you want in the Sandbox. If would like to ask questions about anything at Wikipedia, please feel free to message me here.

Here are a few other links you might find helpful:

We're so glad you're here! Welcome, and Happy editing! --DanielCD 23:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche I

I will have to read the section and look at the edits, so give me a little time. Try not to let those guys get under your skin, cause I'd hate to see any personal attacks by anyone or by anyone. Being a new editor can be frustrating when confronting experienced ones. Just try to be patient and I'll comment at the talk page there as soon as I can. --DanielCD 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page briefly, and I think the Stirner issue is a minor one. All I'm doing is offering my opinion though, so feel free to get others. This is all I can do without really getting into the material in depth, and I can't promise when that will happen. I have read quite a bit of Nietzsche's work, so my opinion is not completely uneducated. Can you tell me why you feel so strongly about it? Do you feel this information is of pivotal importance?

I certainly don't want to discourage you in your efforts at Wikipedia, as you are obviously a person of some education. So please don't let my disagreement or this incident discourage you. If you feel it's necessary, you can ask for further comments here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --DanielCD 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I cannot approve of your last comment on the Nietzsche talk page

Implying I'm somehow in with these guys on something is uncalled for. All I did was give my opinion. I can hardly see why it would take an "alliance" to contradict this addition anyway. That's absurd. You might try being a bit more sociable, it will get you farther. --DanielCD 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My farewell paragraph did not aim especially at you, but at the alliance (what you called community consensus) that flocked around Goethean, exactly around that participant who behaved utterly unsociable from the very beginning, who did not bring in one single argument, who stubbornly repeated his "nyet", and who then eradicated all reference to any Stirner/Nietzsche topic (see also Morten's comment on his arrogance at the talk page of the Stirner article). Even if you had no time to read the scholarly article I referred to you should have seen from the long talks what kind of battle Goethean (and his helpers) have been waging. -- I tried to introduce an interesting and enlightening piece from recent N scholarship, which offers a solution to an old problem of N biographics (see the reference to the Brobjer article, recently also deleted by Goethean), and those people obviously feared that this will do, as Igni wrote, a great deal of damage to Nietzsche. No, Daniel, I don't think I have to be "more sociable" here, I can do well without getting farther at this place. --Nescio* 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry, I guess I can't help you. Go the RfC like I suggested before. --DanielCD 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old discussion I and II ——> Cont'd below at Nietzsche II

Unsociable

I do quite think that taking retracted statements by myself off my own talk page and presenting them to the community as if they were made point blank by myself on that page basically amounts to a personal attack. If you have some kind of problem, find another admin and ask for advice. Don't ever take deleted statements like that and try to pass them off as valid. When you ask for an opinion, you have to be prepared for the fact that someone might disagree with you. Apparently you are not quite grasping the process here. I am not interested in dealing with people who shit on me when I try to help, and that's exactly what you've done, and yes, I am happy to get rid of such a situation. I don't hold grudges and would appreciate just putting this behind us. If you don't want my help anyway, I don't see the need for you to go and make an enemy out of me. --DanielCD 19:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public space or no, going through ppl's histories and taking statements that have been reverted is going to cause problems if you want to make a practice of it. That's my whole point. I didn't expect you to move our conversation to the N page itself, as ppl who do that usually do it to put someone's dirty laundry in public and make them look bad (not that there was any really dirty laundry here), but this is almost a case in point. I didn't mean the "riddance" statement, it was an initial reaction of frustration at not being able to help, so I reverted it. When stuff like that gets revived, it causes problems like this. It would have ended with "Sorry, I don't think I can help you". Why on earth did you want to start the merry-go-round again by moving it to the N page?

Also: when you do move things, it needs to be noted in some way, such as I did with the italics.

I apologize for the irritation, it is a personal problem. This is just a reminder to me to stick to helping others with the technical issues of Wikipedia and not content issues. --DanielCD 19:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ok with you, I'll move the section from the N page to my talk page and we can just start fresh. I offer an apology for any of my terse language, and would like to start over here. I didn't mean for this to happen, really. Please LMK about the moving the material, as it is really an eyesore on the N talk page. --DanielCD 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved it to my talk page. If you want it replaced, just say so and it's done. I hope we can start fresh from here. --DanielCD 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I think your moving that section from N talk to your personal talk is OK, since you noted that it is to be found there. And, of course, I accept your apology. Let me add that I'd expect apologies because of improper conduct much more from other participants involved in the discussion of the Stirner/Nietzsche question. --Nescio* 12:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Reich I

Thank you for your last edit on the main Wilhelm Reich article. I studied (self-taught) some of his books many years ago, and am still a supporter of his discoveries. Should you be involved in any dispute on this matter, do not esitate to contact me.Brian Wilson 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Reich II

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wilhelm Reich, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being off-line

as anounced on the case request page at 9-11 I'll be off-line for about three weeks from now on

--Nescio* 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V and NOR

Nescio, you must stop removing sourced material and inserting your own opinions. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Also read Wikipedia:No original research. If you have a reliable source to back up what you say, add the material with a citation, but do not remove the sources that other people have added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin, some time ago (Sep 5, 2006 Talk:Wilhelm_Reich#Lead) you promised to make yourself acquainted with Reich's biography and work. Obviously you did not. Otherwise you were able to see that my edits are not mere opinion, and that your preferred source Cantwell is not always reliable. - There is no need to back up a basic fact you can read in any serious account of Reich's life. --Nescio* 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Reich Mediation

Hello Nescio*. I have reviewed your request for mediation here for Wilhelm Reich. If you are willing to proceed with the mediation with me as mediator, please leave a note on my talk page. I hope to come to a solution that is acceptable to everybody involved. Thanks. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 00:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please put your arguments on this page and add it to your watchlist so we can proceed with the mediation. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 17:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edwards

I'm afraid that I disagree with you. His parents were Jewish - that's the NPOV fact. Discussing how observant they are is NPOV, because it's subjective, even if it's sourced. Someone with two Jewish parents is Jewish; that's a matter of ethnicity, not just religion. Do you argue that Albert Einstein should not be described as Jewish? As to reliability, the New York Times is a very reputable publication; whatever sources lie behind the article, we cannot presume that they are other than reliable. And Singer has an axe to grind - you say that he came from that sort of background, and no doubt wishes to stress that Edwards had a similar one. The New York Times is unlikely to have any axe to grind other than the need to get its facts right and its presentation of them neutral. Please, in the interests of WP:NPOV, let's leave things as they are. - Newport 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Paul_Edwards_%28philosopher%29#Edwards.27_Jewishness

--Nescio* 07:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Nescio*! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche II

Hi Nescio, I am relatively new to wikipedia, but I also feel that the question of Stirner influence on Nietzsche should be raised in the Nietzsche article and that it can be supported. I wanted to let you know that I have raised the issue again. If you wish to join the discussion now is perhaps the time. I have contacted you here only because I see that you have raised this issue before. I hope that you do not mind.--Picatrix (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the extensive discussion about that topic two years ago? --Nescio* (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this, relating to it? --Nescio* (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I did. I am not concerned with it, as it is nothing more than a record of remarks made by people who, for the most part, fail to understand the central issue here. I will not allow them to distract me with foolishness. Why do you ask? --Picatrix (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, because this was not clear for me from your posting. I'm not sure if my participation in a new discussion would help. I have no further evidence. The users goethean and Igni who vehemently opposed the inclusion of Stirner two years ago are still active, probably watching the article. I don't think that they changed their mind or even tried to become familiar with the problem. --Nescio* (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case, thanks for your reply. I've made my post and seen nothing of it yet. We'll see if the hounds come howling. I've got plenty of evidence in a heap. Hopefully they exhausted themselves in their previous discussions. Best Regards, --Picatrix (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new discussion

Possible Stirner/Nietzsche Question Article

Nescio, I am interested in trying to put together a Stirner Nietzsche article. I wanted to see if you would be willing to work with me to put it together, and, if so, how you would like to proceed (title, structure, etc.). I have some ideas of my own, and I would also be interested to hear yours. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, --Picatrix (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, before investing working time in a new article it would be wise to see what the discussion on the Nietzsche talk page leads to. For if there is no mention of Stirner in the N article at all, or just a "see also" mention, an article on the Stirner-Nietzsche-Question would be quite isolated. So I suggest we wait for the outcome of the discussion there. --Nescio* (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and participation in the discussion regarding the Stirner/Nietzsche question. I will begin working on a article devoted to the question of whether or not Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner. I would very much appreciate your further participation and help. My own opinion is that the inclusion of the new biographical material is appropriate there, and should be included. --Picatrix (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm interested in your project, and will be glad to participate. Please tell me, preferably by email, when you start. --Nescio* (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I was not aware that email addresses were provided for Wiki editors. Can you direct me to the place where your email is listed? Thanks. --Picatrix (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—> left column on my user page —> toolbox —> click "E-mail this user" — should work. --Nescio* (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I've launched a stub version of the article here. Take a look at the talk page. --Picatrix (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nescio*. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nescio*. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]