User talk:Rolano

Welcome!

Hello, Rolano, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ter e nc e Ong 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netscott, an editor deeply involved with the article on theJyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy placed the following passive declaration ("it is suspected") on my user page. Does Netscott suggest that anyone who holds similar views must be the same person? Sorry, Mr. Stevenson, but there is no Wikipedia rule against knowing people off site and sharing real-life interests to contribute to collaborative editing. This kind of stuff is the reason we usually don't offer pro-bono work to this project.Rolano 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PaxTerra (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to [1] relative to [2] for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Are you denying that you in fact are PaxTerra? The style, demeanor, and views expressed in your writing is essentially identical so much so that there is a preponderance to believe so. Netscott 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite the campaigner, Mr. Stevenson. Apparently I know PaxTerra and you don't. This isn't the way to get an invite. If you would advance discussion of the topic at hand with some reasoned arguments we might, or at least I might, consider an aquaintence. 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine then it would seem that your refusal to deny my allegations of sock puppetry means that they are indeed true. Netscott 19:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Study the Salem witch trials for more on the fallacious nature of convictions based on failure to recant. Rolano 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack deleted] Netscott is to the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials as the publishers of Jyllands-Posten are to Julius Steicher? Ridiculous! Netscott 19:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott's name is no part of the the comment, so whatever comparison he draws comes from his own mind. If Netscott could even repeat the basic structure of an argument, it would lend me more confidence in his skills as a writer. It would better empower him to respond to argument as well, if he ever needs to argue in a venue where something other than reputation, mob support and time on task are sufficient to prevail.Rolano 06:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, if this username was not PaxTerra there would have been virtually no reason for the user Rolano to have a debut edit be on the subject of Melatonin (of which I have an interest) followed by edits on Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. Frankly it would take a mentally challenged individual to think otherwise. Netscott 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly" -- you use that word a lot. It doesn't make an argument any stronger, though. One possible reason I would edit the article about melatonin would be that the discussion page was full of requests that the promotional nature of the article be toned down, and there was a significant amount of credible research about contraindications to use of the over-the-counter supplement that had not been mentioned in the article. Could be that somebody asked me to look at it... Rolano 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]