Archives
July 2005 – June 2006 July 2006 - December 2007

I think you have been following the news about the taping of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation, and the subsequent destruction of those tapes.

Something the MSM hasn't noticed, or hasn't touched is that at least one of the Guantanamo captives, Ibrahim Zeidan, testified about images from Abu Zubaydah's interrogation scars being shown to other captives during their own interrogations.

I am going to write a little note about this, in User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool. Would you mind offering your opinion?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the waterboarding article. I was getting a bit confused myself. Remember (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Inertia Tensor. Lawrence Cohen 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this mean I am now talking to myself?:) Anyway, something fishy is going on.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, although we are not big time correspondents, you and hypnosadist and I have worked on some of the same articles for ages. I am 100 percent certain that the two of you are (1) wikipedians who fully comply with WP:CIV and all other wikipedia policies; and (2) are unique individuals.

• My interactions with Lawrence Cohen are more recent, but I am confident he isn't a sockpuppet of either of you.

• I have had some left-field accusations of being a sock-puppet. No matter how groundless, they can be annoying. Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it's an established principle that the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content issues. They can rule on procedures for determining consensus, but they will not give a definitive "right" answer to the content disputes. Most of your proposed principles are issues of substantive content, rather than of Wikipedia policy and procedure.

With regard to the actual substantive points you made, I agree that non-legal and popular opinion should not be given great weight in determining the consensus on a legal issue. However, where we disagree is that I do not believe torture is solely a legal issue, nor do I believe that the position under US and international law should be definitive. With regard to a politically-charged term like torture, I don't believe we should ever try to reach a definitive "correct" answer, as to do so is POV; instead, we should outline the dispute and cite reliable published sources (whether legal, political or psychological) on both sides. It is perfectly acceptable to say that waterboarding is widely considered torture, and that it probably contravenes US and international law relating to torture, but not to say definitively that it is torture. Walton^One 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above. I want to say that, from what I've seen of your work, I highly respect you, and you're clearly an intelligent and well-informed person when it comes to legal issues etc (I say this as an Oxford law student). Our disagreements in the waterboarding arbitration are nothing personal. I note from your userpage that you do have strong views in relation to the Bush administration and its treatment of detainees (just as I have strong political views on certain issues, as you can identify from my userpage). I substantially disagree with you about many political matters (I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty, for instance) but I'm not an uncritical admirer of the Bush administration, and my stance on waterboarding is nothing to do with political views; I'm not trying to promote an agenda or make Wikipedia into some kind of pro-Bush propaganda site. As I said, I have no personal opinion as to whether or not waterboarding is torture. But I just believe that we should represent the controversy in the article without taking one side or the other. Walton^One 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. Hopefully you understand that I have no negative feelings towards you. As lomg as people remain civil I more than welcome an opposing opinion. Debate only sharpens the mind and increases our knowledge.

Regarding the waterboarding dispute, it is evident that it revolves around the legalities. Although there are many ways to view a topic, i.e. legal, political, medical, philosophical, ethical, it doubt the current debate is about the metaphysical concept of waterboarding. Clearly, the Bush administration is in very serious trouble the moment waterboarding is torture. We have multiple reasons for assumuing the legalities are the prime reason for instigating this teach the controversy debate.

1. In 1996 the US adopted the War Crimes Act. This specifically defined the violation of the Geneva Conventions as a war crime.
2. Following 9/11 Gonzales observed that with the WCA in mind it was possible a future administration would pursue criminal prosecution of individuals for violating the WCA by engaging in certain activities. (I wonder what activities could he mean?)
3. He opined that removing the GC from the equation would limit the possibility of the previous happening.
4. Coincidentally the Bush administration then argued that the GC did not apply in the WoT. (Again, I wonder why this happened directly after the comment by G.)
5. In 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed that notion and stated that all detainees in the WoT are protected by the GC, that is article 3 regarding treatment of detainees.
6. Immediately following that ruling the Bush administration pushed for the adoption of the Military Commisions Act which could no longer wait.
7. Coincidentally part of the MCA was retroactively rewriting the WCA in such a way that those people discussed by G, in point 2, would no longer be punishable under US law for what before the adoption of the MCA was considered a war crime.
8. Then it became known that around the time of the disclosure of secret detention facilities, and consternation surrounding Abu Graib, videos depicting enhanced interrogation techniques miraculously got destroyed depite a court order and legal advise not to do so.(Apparently of all the videos, audioredording, paper files these videos could reveal the identities of CIA agents. Why the CIA was able to prevent disclosure, while not having to destroy videos, audioredording, paper files, in other cases remains a mystrery.)
9. Then suddenly we have a debate on whether waterboarding is torture. Several key officials have stated they were unable to make such a determination because it would implicate certain individuals and may result in criminal liability.

With the above in mind it is difficult to see why the debate is-is not torture is not a legal one. The above shows a pattern of trying to evad criminal liability for what Gonzales himself has identified as possible war crimes. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nescio. Did you mean to use the minor edit button when you reverted my deletion of two paragraphs citing BLP concerns? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you contributed to Candace Gorman recently.

Could I ask for your opinion of this set of edits to the article?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts here: [1], [2] were unconstructive. The Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain case was already cited properly by the page here: 542 U.S. 692 (2004). I just added a more specificic cite to let you know where the exact quote was here: 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004). Please refrain from reverting my edits any further. If you revert my edits for a third time I will consider it vandalism. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nescio,

In this edit, you say "Please stop removing sourced material as you were told before by others." and in this edit, you say "Also, you fail to mention your previous attempt at removing sourced material was dismissed by an uninvolved editor".

Can you provide a diff supporting those claims? Andjam (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit you made [3] is unconstructive.

Plase, I beg you, let´s try to work on what sources say. Yours Randroide (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nescio, I presume you missed my comment over at Talk:International Criminal Court#See also section explaining why I removed command responsibility. I appreciate that the doctrine of command responsibility is fundamental to the ICC, but so are hundreds of other concepts, such as impunity, human rights, immunity from prosecution (international law), etc. It seems bizarre to me to single out command responsibility ahead of so many other equally relevant articles — particularly when command responsibility is already linked in the international criminal law footer at the bottom of the ICC article. If you don't agree, let's discuss it at the talk page. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio:

You're interested in Backpacking, so I guess that's good, though as an American, I may not understand your definition; an MD, so I guess that's good, but you're a Brit, so you may not understand this issue.

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in Wilderness Diarrhea getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors (in N.A.), and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

They simply ignore all this.

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just formally noting that you have made three reverts on Unitary executive theory in the last two hours, each time without any regard for the discussion going on on the talk page. You're an experienced editor, so shouldn't need the reminder about WP:3RR.

With respect to the substance, Ahmad Chabad's unpublished thesis does not meet WP:RS, so please stop adding these fringe theories into Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you've now made a fourth reversion, perhaps while I was giving you this notice. THF (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two seperate edits, two edits each. No 3RR appliesNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about that, too. Reread the policy, especially the part in bold. THF (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your relationship with Ahmad Chaheb? The only Google footprint for his unpublished dissertation is your repeated additions of it to Wikipedia articles and insistence that this person is a "legal expert." THF (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered the question. THF (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a warning to both THF (talk · contribs) and Nescio (talk · contribs). Please stop edit warring on Carl Schmitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or you may both be blocked without further warning. I'd appreciate it if you would not delete this warning. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) kilbad (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you voiced concerns over WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy.

I requested another contributor who voiced a WP:SYNTH concern, if they could find the time, to offer a fuller explanation of their concern. And, if you had the time, I would be very grateful if you would try to offer a fuller explanation of your concerns.

I do my best to comply with all our policies, but I am only human, and I may have overlooked a lapse. If I really did lapse, and you can explain that lapse, I will do my best to make sure I don't make a similar lapse in future.

WRT the absence of WP:RS from the MSM -- first, while the Daily Times (Pakistan) is not an American reference, does that mean it is not from the MSM?

Second, while MSM references are frequently used in articles, perhaps more often than scholarly references, books, or official government publications, I don't see that as an indication that they are better than scholarly references, books, or other WP:RS. I see the frequent use of MSM references as merely being a reflection that there are, generally, more of them to choose among. The last time I tried to review all the relevant wikidocuments that address this question, which I admit was more than a year ago, I found no indication that MSM references were preferred to other WP:RS. If you are aware of a wikidocument that states MSM references are preferred, could you direct it to my attention?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've started a thread on the appropriateness of the Vann Nath painting at Talk:Waterboarding. I hope you'll participate in that discussion.--agr (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.

Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com MulgaEscu (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Seems to me that it is not specifically Christian if it includes Islamic beliefs. Your mileage appears to differ on this, I take it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this quote from the article:

The group is based on apocalyptic Christianity,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] but also is influenced[11] by a blend of Mysticism[12] and traditional religion,[13]

"Also influenced" to me suggest this is less important than being based on apocalyptic Christianity--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also means (since the group specifically self-identified as being Islamic as well) that the group is not simply basing its acts on Christian theology. Collect (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 14:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative set of procedures. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative set of procedures redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have self-identified as a backpacker by using the ”This user enjoys backpacking” userbox. I invite you to join the backpacking project. It recently reactivated. There is plenty of good work to do improving the encyclopedia’s coverage of backpacking equipment, organizations, celebrities, books, skills, and trails. The project provides a system to rate articles and prioritize editing efforts. Visit the project’s page, take a look, and please consider joining me in improving the articles and coverage of an activity we both enjoy.

You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!

—¿philoserf? (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]