User talk:Nascentatheist/Archive1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kearny High School (San Diego, California)
Hello. Excellent rationale for deletion here. That was a very well written nomination. Unfortunately, this was a notable school; but not all schools are notable. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia! -- Boricua  e  ddie  18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your quick removal of the nomination, as well.  It would seem that there are some who see ulterior motive.  I accept that the notability as presently interpreted by the community allows for inclusion. I think there should be discussion of that more general topic, and I hope that there is some discussion.  Thanks, again. - Nascentatheist 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being civil about all this. You seem like you'll be a valuable contributor to the site, so I hope you're not discouraged by the results of the AFD. We do have long precedent for keeping high school articles, but you're free to share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Zagalejo 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He certainly will be a valuable contributor. He was in previous personas and no doubt he will be in future ones also. He made some very good contributions, for instance, to the article on Esox lucius, to name but one.
 * I have responded here . Uncle Davey, please do not forget to sign your comments, using the four tildes.  Please also do not clutter my page with unproven accusations and remain focused on Wikipedia and issues associated with Wikipedia.  Please review WP:NOT, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL.  Thank you for your comments. - Nascentatheist 01:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exchange with "Uncle Davey"

 * I apologise for forgetting about the tildes. I also wasn't even logged in at that point as I had cleared my cache a couple of days earlier. I do not think it was discivil of me to praise your edits on the pike article. As for your claim to be a different person to WarriorScribe, we already went through all that in You Tube, and I proved to you then that the two persons claimed characteristics (military, Ashkenazi, California, atheism-interest, stylistic, claims to write songs and scripts, webdesign occupation, wikipedian and several further points) made it statistically very strongly unlikely that you are not a sockpuppet of WarriorScribe in a way which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I believe that in our discussions on mine an hanniballecturer's homepages on YouTube there was discussion pretty much adequate to illustrate that I know who you are, and I went through the maths of why you could not be any other person. I am not going to use real names because that is not appropriate, but of course I know who you are and I know who WarriorScribe was (which was public knowledge anyway - you made it so) and anyone who cares to dig through the archives will be able to see what I mean without me needing to say anything more.


 * And I will say that you did nothing of the sort, that your "proofs" were shown to be specious, as anyone bothering to read the claims can see. Several were, in fact, by my reading and understanding, refuted, and you never had a counter-argument.  For example, you made claims about the Ashkenazi heritage that I claim on my user page, and you claimed that this was also claimed by User:WarriorScribe.  The YouTube discussion to which your refer - some of which you deleted - proved that your claims were false  .  The fact is that you step-wise attempted to duck the claim that you made, and each subsequent claim was shown to be false, as well.  You then refused to address the issue again.  And where did either User:WarriorScribe or I describe our occupations as ""webdesign occupations?"  Your "maths" were poorly reasoned and your arguments irrational.  - Nascentatheist 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "And where did either User:WarriorScribe or I describe our occupations as 'webdesign occupations?'" Readers should note that this question did not get answered.  Comments about the alleged shared Ashkenazi relationship were likewise not addressed.  Note also that here, "Uncle Davey" suggested that I was likely someone other than User:WarriorScribe.  The person that he identifies here is probably User:Harvestdancer, with whom "Uncle Davey" has also argued at length.  So much for "stylistic."  Throughout the comments and arguments to which reference footnotes that I have just added point, we can see the irrational mindset of "Uncle Davey."  I have contacted an Administrator and included an offer to evidence that I am not User:WarriorScribe.  These are, therefore, my last public words on the matter until I hear from that Administrator and receive the proper guidance. - Nascentatheist 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I could care less about American High Schools, it really is remote from my experience of the world, but what I do care about is that WarriorScribe and pals drove Jason Gastrich out of here by complaining about his lack of objective view (which means Christian view) his alledged sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting, whereas the person behind WarriorScribe's rabid hatred of Christians and work against them in many fora in the internet is anything but objective, he used his Google Beta group maleboge.org (now closed from public view in order to defend against verification of this claim, among other reasons)to meatpuppet the usenet atheist community to come in on it, and now we also see uses sockpuppets with the worst of them. Under the banner of driving out hypocrisy you have behaved as the worst hypocrite of them all, and justified it that as you are not claiming to be a Christian, as your enemy does, why should you be worried about that, and that we are all just phonies for not turning the other cheek, and just letting you get on with your unparalleled cyber-bullying of evangelical Christians.


 * I think that this is all that needs to be shown to know that your motives are less than pure and your thinking processes somewhat less than rational. User:Jason Gastrich was driven from Wikipedia by his own actions and not through the fault of anyone else.  That was revealed during the processes of the RfC  and the RfA, as well as the events that followed  .  What was also exposed was his shifting of the blame to others and your own attempts to do that, also, while you presumed to completely excuse his behavior   .  All of this occurred as you and User:Jason Gastrich tried to turn the whole affair into an us-vs-them fight with (your kind of) Christian on one side and all others on the other side.  I have no concern for User:Jason Gastrich or for you, but you are clearly not concerned at all with the conventions of Wikipedia.  Considering the obviously false nature of the claims you are making that can be checked, such as the reasons for User:Jason Gastrich's expulsion from Wikipedia, I think that any claims that you might make that can't be checked, especially any claims about the motives of others that have not been declared by those others, are at least suspect.  You are not objective in these matters, and your own hatreds of the parties named likewise casts a pall on your credibility.  Your irrational comments above only underscore that simple fact.


 * However, I think you have also given up User:Creashin as a sockpuppet of User:Jason Gastrich by your very words and actions. By telling us that you have no concern for the subject that is under discussion, you reveal your lack of concern for Wikipedia protocols, and you reveal that it's likely that User:Creashin complained to you hoping to get you to invade the discussion.  He, being User:Jason Gastrich retreated from the discussion last night, characteristically without providing any pertinent rationalè for his position.  He probably did that because he knew that your presence yesterday almost certainly exposed him as a possible sock-puppet.  His own actions and yours this morning expose him as a probable sock puppet  - Nascentatheist 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[Deleted commentary by "Uncle Davey"]


 * I just thought people ought to know that, and that's why I have gone to the trouble of pointing that out here. Admins can research the matter and make up their own minds on it.Uncle Davey (Talk) 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that what people will know and Admins will discover is quite the opposite of what you intend, basically because you haven't pointed out anything. You've made a number of irrational claims, but that's all.  There's been no evidence presented.  You act as if you made your claims and there was no challenge, no refutation, and no rebuttal.  That is a false representation, and that is typical of you.  In the end, you have "gone to the trouble" because your own irrational thinking processes, as well as your own hate and failure to adhere to Wikipedia rules, policies, and guidelines (e.g., WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT).  You are also motived by a need for revenge.  These things have been observed before in your behaviors, as I was quite easily able to find and can easily reference should you continue on your present course.  The purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to talk about Wikipedia articles and issues.  I have been talking about those things.  You elected to bring off-Wiki issues here, make false accusations not only about me but about what you have presumed to show, demonstrate, or prove.  Each time you have made these claims in the presence of others, you have been corrected and humiliated. This appears to have fed your hate still further.  Your irrationality seems to have reached fever pitch, but I won't be the object of it.  You are again reminded of the environment in which you find yourself.


 * I follow the Wikipedia process, the rules, and the guidelines. You have strayed from all of that.  You are again reminded that your comments must remain within the spirit of those things and your refusal to do so to date reflects badly only on yourself.  When it is all said and done, readers who are guided by rational thinking will see my comments as my defending myself against your hostile intrusion into the discussion, your refusal to even discuss the issue that is being considered (even going so far as to effectively tell us that you don't care about it, as you did above), and your accusations.


 * I will ask politely one more time: Please do not clutter my Wikipedia talk page with your false and wild accusations.  Keep the topics related to Wikipedia articles and article discussions.  Future commentary that does anything else will be deleted and Administrators will be notified.  Thank you. - 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[Deleted commentary by "Uncle Davey"]


 * Uncle Davey, as promised, I deleted your commentary and will be in contact with an Administrator. Readers can check the history of the page and note that you not only didn't address the two specific areas that you claimed were evidence, but that you made no effort to prove anything, which is your usual behavior.  This is not an issue of the carrying out of a threat that prevents your presumed right of "free reply."  You have no such "right" here and your own presumptions in that regard are hypocritical.  It is a matter of you understanding that this is Wikipedia and nothing else, and you are required - as we all are - to adhere to several Wikipedia guidelines and standards that I have already listed for you.  You have refused to do so.  Were I to wish to actually waste the time and resources of the community on refuting and humiliating you, I could do so      ; but I would then be lowering myself to your standards of behavior.  Please review the standards as required by the community.  - Nascentatheist 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments by "Uncle Davey" deleted as he continues to violate Wikipedia standards and attempt self-serving spin. Readers may view the history and are invited to contact me privately if they have any concerns about the claims that he has made, as I am building a significant evidence file.  He can be and has been easily refuted.  Administrators have been contacted.  We will waste no more of the community's time and resources on his irrational claims, his desire for attention, his combative nature, his paranoia, and his hate-filled agenda.  Additional references to specific events are available on request. - Nascentatheist 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Boricua  e  ddie  18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style