User talk:F.Nonsense

Welcome!

Hello, F.Nonsense, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F.Nonsense, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi F.Nonsense! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

quick note

Hi F.Nonsense - thanks for wanting to improve the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article. You appear to be new here - sorry to say this but there are lots of conventions etc that we follow. Links to key ones are in the welcome message above. Your changes to the environmental impacts article were all made to the lead. Please read WP:LEAD - the lead section is just a summary of the body, so nothing should be put in the lead that is not already in the body. (so in other words, concentrate on first making changes to the body, and only after that is done and you consider the whole article, judge if the change you made rises to enough importance to the overall article to be included in the lead) Sources aren't required in the lead, but they are useful to put there for anything that is likely to be challenged. The lead of this article is longer and has more sources than most, as it serves as the basis for the similarly named section in the main Hydraulic fracturing article, per WP:SUMMARY. So whatever we change in the lead of this article, we should be careful to put into the body of that one (I haven't harmonized them yet today - will wait to see what unfolds today). Finally, please know that there are lots of editors who watch these articles as fracking can be an emotional issue for some, so please be sure that a) anything you add is well-sourced (no editorializing from any "side" of this will fly) and b) use only the best sources we can find, as described in WP:RS and for anything health-related, under WP:MEDRS. (the company document that you used is generally not acceptable, and not on a controversial article like this one - much better to use govt' produced sources, not sources by anyone seen to be an advocate on any side of an issue -- in other words, no sources from activist groups either, except to represent what they say - not as sources for statements about reality, per se, made in Wikipedia's voice) If you have questions about a source, you can ask about it on the article's Talk page. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Jytdog, there is so much inaccuracy in the article I thought I would start from the top. All very good points. Will do a bit (starting on improving the body)when I get time. I am UK based and that is the area that interests me the most. So much of this is country specific and the US is not a good exemplar.F.Nonsense (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

great! i look forward to working with you. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Kennywpara

This user is a WP:SOCK of @Kennywpara: After looking at their contributions Special:Contributions/F.Nonsense, it appears they made this name following a deletion of the images they had uploaded to Wikipedia Commons using the name Kennywpara c:User_talk:Kennywpara in order to re-upload them (e.g. File:Earthquake_warning_system.jpg). The corresponding Wikipedia Commons to this account c:User_talk:F.Nonsense. Using this name, they attributed what ought to have been in Category:Hydraulic_Fracturing and Category:Seismology to Category:Anti-fracking movement and re-uploaded the images c:Special:Contributions/F.Nonsense which were deemed not to have a CC (cc-by-ND 2.0) [1] that can be used on wikipedia/commons c:User_talk:Kennywpara#File_tagging_File:Earthquake_traffic_light_system.jpg. This comes across as WP:GAMING and there have been since 2014 problems with the main WP:SPA account using the Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom article to promote their WP:Advocacy (now at breaking point, although partial COI has been declared after much heated discussion, but not in the manner that most normally disclose COI issues. See, for example, BeecherP's disclosure at Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Political_issues and User:Fyldeman, who additionally includes their COI in their signature). Please advise. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) I totally agree that the F.Nonsense is the same identity as kennywpara. This was just over 2 years ago when I started looking at this article, and as I say above, I was disappointed by its content. I cannot remember why I changed to kennywpara, but as far as I can remember, I have done all of my editing under the kennywpara name. I remember having problems loading photos up and did not understand creative commons licencing, which is a minefield. I think that was the issue. This is not an attempt to deceive, and at this point I did not even know what a sockpuppet was, or that to use multiple identities was an issue. I apologise if there is any confusion, but this was incompetence, (new editor) rather than an attempt to deceive.

With regard to the rest of the editing, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the partisan nature of the editing from Luther Blissetts. I have pointed out that the regulation section is misleading. Precognition (by Chemtrust and the EU) by 'criticising' regulations more than a year before they were issued is not acceptable, by any sense of logic. See Precognition There are several other issues, but I am on holiday and will deal with these things in the new year. This page was very stable and checked regularly by many over the years, with some controversy, but nothing compatred to the histrionics we are seeing now.

In addition, Luther Blissetts is posting abusive and inflammatory comments about my editing. My supposed 'advocacy', or POV is based upon publications from the Environment Agency, EU and UK law, the Royal Society, The Royal Academy of Engineering, the BGS and suchlike. I have a strong POV that this page should be edited using reliable info, and balanced selection of references. Perhaps this editor is presenting a partisan view that is not based on science? Wikipedia should be based on verifiable fact, I have updated my statement and I am afraid that is all there is. Perhaps some editors would love me to post that I am paid by drilling companies but I have never received, or expect to receive anything for the supposed 'activism' I do. I present verifiable facts, when I see misunderstandings. As a matter of information, the protesting at Balcombe AND Horse Hill was referenced as 'fracking protest' at wells where fracking was not proposed. How accurate is it to present the picture as a 'fracking protest' when that is not being proposed? Is that not a matter of curiosity? It was for me, and that is why i started looking into these matters. Compared to some of the other re edits, this is minor issue however.

I propose to take this to the teahouse in the new year, so we can get some sense back into this pageKennywpara (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added indents and would like to include Jytdog (talk into the conversationKennywpara (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kennywpara:, thank you for explaining that you did create a second username to re-upload deleted images with a different CC licence so they wouldn't be flagged for review again. One image uploaded by this second account was attributed to Category:Anti-fracking_movement was from DECC about traffic light system, belonged in Category:Seismicity and Category:Hydraulic_fracturing. Edits were also made to the HF in the UK article using this sock username. The sock was created six months after you as Kennywpara began posting here, and the timing is related to the deletion of imagery from wikipedia commons.

Again, if you're going to make accusations about my editing, please post the diffs at the appropriate Talk page. If you mean my replacing a {citation needed} tag after asking for a RS to back up AWW statements inserted by you (which you were doing two years ago as well as today), where you deleted the AWW 'commonly' and replaced it with 'sometimes' without providing the RS as requested by the CN tag - please discuss on the Talk page - remembering the need for improvement of the article HF in the UK. Please also discuss your concerns re. that particular reference needing a citation and better wording in 'The Fracking debate' section in section made for that purpose on the Talk Page, rather than here. Here we are discussing your sock. There, we are discussing improvements to the article. Thanks Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kennywpara:, I am sorry to say I am not convinced that this is a 'new user error' because you made this new user after your images were deleted on commons, and your response above as F.Nonsense to @Jytdog: is made from the perspective of an entirely new user and makes no mention that you'd been editing as Kennywpara for seven months.diffs Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) You may be unconvinced, but I honestly had no intention to deceive. I found uploading images as anything except under your 'own image' was a nightmare. Once you have tried to upload going through declaring Creative Commons, I remember that you cannot upload that image again, (IIRC). Why would I use something pretty close to my Twitter name if I had an intention to deceive? A random sockpuppet name would have been easy to create. I am very open about identities, as we live in a free country. Kennywpara (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]