Misplaced Pages

User talk:NeilN: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:12, 18 June 2017 editBerean Hunter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,802 edits →Disruptive editing: semi'd← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:50, 17 August 2024 edit undoSNUGGUMS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,192 edits sadly this user lost the mop in 2019 for inactivity 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|||4 October 2018}}
{{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}} {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>}}
{{vacation}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|User talk:NeilN}}|autoconfirmed|{{editnotice {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|User talk:NeilN}}|autoconfirmed|{{editnotice
|text = |text =
Line 8: Line 7:
}}}} }}}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}} {{talkheader|search=yes}}
<table border=0 width=100%>
<tr valign=top><td>__TOC__</td><td align=right>
{| class="tmbox mbox-small"
|-
| class="mbox-image" | ]
| class="mbox-text" | '''Unless I specify otherwise, any ] admin may undo any of my admin actions without checking with me first if they feel my input isn't necessary. ]
|}
{| class="tmbox mbox-small"
|-
| class="mbox-image" | ]
| class="mbox-text" | '''If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error''', please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; '''I am always open to civil discussion'''. Thank you. ]
|}
{{Archive box|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>] <br/>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]}}
{{Signpost-subscription}}
{{POTD}}</td></tr></table>


{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>] <br/>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br> ]}}
== Question regarding policy ==


== I still miss you, NeilN! ==
Hi Mr. N - I have a question about a policy (or maybe it's just a norm) here that seems kind of vague to me. I will switch to hypothetical references but I have diffs to current events if you would like the real context. Editor A ideologically opposes Editor B. A has B on a watchlist, and appears to have followed him to a couple politically charged articles and reverts some of the things he disagrees with. We would clearly call this WIKIHOUNDING, especially if there's a pattern here. However Editor C also has Editor B on his watchlist, and follows him to the same articles, but supports his viewpoints by reverting Editor A or other editors disagreeing with B. In my mind this seems somewhat troublesome too, but it appears that this is usually characterized as good faith collaboration. Can you help me understand the difference here? Again, if you would like diffs to a current conflict please let me know and I will provide them (preferably by email). ] (]) 01:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
<!-- ] 02:37, 7 February 2031 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1928198238}}
:{{ping|Mr Ernie}} Sound as if you're describing a ]. Read that over and see if it helps. Difficult to curb for obvious reasons. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I know that you haven't been on Misplaced Pages for some time now, but I just wanted to leave you a message nonetheless and let you know that I miss you a lot, and that I was thinking about you... ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for the link. It does look like it's difficult to address TAGTEAM editing (also AGF). However, it appears we treat WIKIHOUNDING more seriously than TAGTEAMING, although they're for the most part the same thing, with the notable difference of support vs oppose. ] (]) 21:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:Me, too. It's hard not to know why you're not editing, you had such a big impact on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mr Ernie}} I think it's because wikihounding is easier to spot because good edits are being reverted for no or flimsy reasons by one editor whereas good faith collaboration is something we want to encourage. For example, I have lots of users' talk pages on my watchlist and most of them have a good grasp of policies and guidelines. So when I see a provocative edit summary I might stick my proverbial nose in, look at the dispute, and revert "per whoever". Now, I might not have ever edited the article before and I might look at related edits, reverting if I think it's appropriate. Is that tag teaming or collaboration? Obviously in this situation I think it's the latter. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::Was thinking of you today. Hope you are well. ] ] ] 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
:::Add me to the list of people who wish you were still around. It's a shame you haven't been active since 2018. ] (] / ]) 05:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
:I too ] NeilN, —]] – 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*I miss you too Neil. We didnt interact much, but it was your talkpage where me, and PaleoNeonate interacted for the first time. You two were good to me in my early days here. If it wasnt for you and a couple of other editors, I might have left the project in my early days. I hope you are fine in real life. If possible, kindly drop at least one line message on your talkpage. Take care of yourself, and yours. —usernamekiran ] 20:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
*Boy did you bash me real hard during my early days of editing but for some awkward reason I actually miss you. I really do hope and pray that all is well with you. ''']''' (]) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
*Just came to say the same thing. I'm not sure we ever interacted, but I remember your name and have a positive impression of you. Whatever you're up to these days, I hope God is blessing you. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
* Same here, Sir, god bless you thank you kind sir - Mini Stephen Hawkins of India <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Happy First Edit Day!==
== Personal attacks from IPs ==
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center">]<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:125%;">Happy First Edit Day!</span>]
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!


From the ], ]<sup>]</sup> 02:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Neil, sorry to be a pain, but I feel I have no where else to turn in regards to this matter. Over the last 3 years, I have had the same person using a wide range of IPs casting personal attacks and in a vile bully way that is causing severe distress. The most recent is at ], in which an IP is viciously attacking me. I've been called "an elite", "acolyte", owner, and other horrid remarks. Normally I would take this to ANI, but I find it a daunting place. The IP clearly knows me somehow, as they called me by the old name "Wesley Mouse". As an admin, is there anything you could possibly do to put a stop to this IP casting such attacks? Or maybe even explain to them about how Wikipedias works, as they are causing disruption with their argumentative remarks, demands to have a page unprotected, and have even threatened to attack a page once it is unprotected. Whoever the person is, they are showing clear signs of getting a sadistic kick out of bullying others. Thank you in advance. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
</div>
:{{ping|Wesley Wolf}} "The wording is a signature style to one indefinitely blocked user that I know very well..." Who's the indefinitely blocked user? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::It is one of two people that have used a similar style of attack over the last 6 years, and aimed at myself. And with different IPs, which I shouldn't really be too shocked by that discovery. Attacks have been made via various Eurovision talk pages and even on my own talk page. I'm digging up evidence, as this behaviour is now showing strong signs of harassment, hounding, and potentially cyber-bullying. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Wesley Wolf}} I'm going to need account names to see how I can help. If you're uncomfortable with posting names/evidence publicly, you can email me. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:::* As you can see from this IP ] contributions, they have only just jumped into conversations; and not just any user, but they launched straight at myself , , , , and . That is clearly ], ], and ]. And they directly attack me by name, which I am starting to get concerned about. This isn't coincidence, it it malicious and purposely targeting me. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 17:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


== Question ==
::::{{U|Tarkattack}} was one user who held a long grudge against me a while ago. There is also ] from {{U|Tony0106}}, who attacked me between 2011/12. I'm just not sure which one of them are the attacker, if that makes sense. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 18:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi, NeilN. Some years back, I remember an exchange that I had with you on my Talk-Page. Were you ever an administrator here on Misplaced Pages? Just curious.] (]) 10:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
:::* Neil, it is getting far out of hand now at ]. The attacks are unbearable and intimidating. I'm actually scared of logging on here now, knowing that I'll only see some horrid attack from another IP. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::::*{{ping|Wesley Wolf}} I've collapsed a few sections but you're not helping yourself by taunting them. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::You might wish to block the IP's talk page access too, as it looks like they won't be . --<span style="#111111">‖ ] <sup>]</sup> - <small>]</span> ‖ 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Ebyabe}} Yes, already done. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
Is there a way that you know of, where I can search the entire Misplaced Pages (talk pages, user talk pages, and their archives) for a specific piece of text? Something that IP wrote at WP:AN which tripped them up on scrutiny, has flagged up a red flag memory in my head of a user who attacked me in a different method, then an IP came along in the same way but tripped up saying they were logged out with the aim to "purposely get away with attacking me" (in their words). I want to get to the bottom of all this, as 6-years of hell and abuse is enough for anyone to have to endure. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{tps|g}} Have you tried with ? —&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 01:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you ever so kindly, {{ping|PaleoNeonate}}. I never knew about that tool before, and with your help there I've managed to find the scrutiny avoiding IP. I know who the user is now that has been targeting me, and yes dating all the way back to 2012. Now what do I do? <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:::You're welcome! <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> —&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 01:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{tps}} {{re|Wesley Wolf}} If you believe you have sufficient evidence, alongside waiting for Neil to respond, you could also file an ] to establish a record for potential future incidences. ] (<small>] &#124; ]</small>) 01:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Amaury}} I've kept notes of links, names, related-IPs, dates etc just in case. In a way, I am glad of the WP:AN that was lodged against myself, as the IP came out with some stuff that triggered personal memories - if that makes sense - of similar attacks. The fact the IP also stated they have an account but was commenting in IP-mode to avoid their account being blocked, is what triggered the memories. I understand that Neil has blocked the IP due to ]. But that slip up by the IP and the help from PN above has helped immensely to pinpoint the user and the back-trail of attacks. But it could also be grasping at straws, which is why I was thinking of a second set of eyes before I considered SPI. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 01:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


:{{u|Davidbena}} NeilN has not edited since (and I still miss him). To answer your question yes he was an admin. ]&#124;] 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
== NotSeenHere conduct on the Maxime Bernier WP page ==
::Thanks.] (]) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that {{ping|NotSeenHere}} seems to be engaging in disruptive behaviour in the ] article. This user's talk page is full of people asking him/her to stop it. Specifically, this user seems to be trying to interpret articles in POV ways, rather than simply using exactly what they said. Please provide assistance. {{ping|Peter Gulutzan}} recommended that I contact you for assistance. ] (]) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
:{{ping|Bell1985}} Let me know if they continue reverting without discussing. I've already engaged them . --] <sup>]</sup> 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


== Azov Battalion ==
:: Ok. The thing is, {{ping|NotSeenHere}} asked me to move the NATO stuff to a different section, which is a reasonable request. So, I moved it to foreign policy. Now, this user is saying that NATO is not part of foreign policy. I'm not sure what to make of this. I've brought it up on the article talk page, but this user is not responding. ] (]) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Bell1985}} Yes, I saw that. Any more "not responding" will probably result in a block. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::::And now blocked for 72 hours. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, FYI Bell1985 has been blocked as a sock puppet of a disruptive editor. (This is not meant to be any comment on NotSeenHere's editing, whose edits I have not examined at all.) <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 03:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Paul Erik}} Grrreaaaat. A sockpuppet vs. an editor who won't communicate. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at ] Cheers ] (]) 01:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
== My old discussion with Mz7 ==
]
Hi, <br /> I have been since a few days, he sure knows about gaming the system. I would advise to issue proper notices, to avoid talking, and to perform appropriate sanctions when/where possible. But again, you are way more experienced than I am, but still I felt i should drop in lol. I hope you dont mind about my advice. {{smiley}} —<span style="font-size: 105%; letter-spacing:2pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Usernamekiran}} Lots of problematic edits including at least one copyvio and a silly user page to boot. I foresee a trip to ANI in the future if they don't shape up. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:: lol, the user has been to an ANI before. I am not sure what Glaskugel crystal ball is doing here, or what it represents. {{smiley|confused}} Would you please elaborate? —<span style="font-size: 105%; letter-spacing:2pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Pretty sure {{u|PaleoNeonate}} was commenting on my amazing ability to see into the future. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:::: lmao! {{smiley|biggrin}} <br /> I didnt realise it was placed by {{noping|PaleoNeonate}}, i thought it was you (didnt see at page history). You made my day Paleo (actually its almost 5:30am here, and I am about to sleep). See you guys around. {{smiley}} <br /> —<span style="font-size: 105%; letter-spacing:2pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 23:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
::::: Good <s>night</s>day <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> —&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 23:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

== Reign of the Fallen AFD ==

It seems both of us created a deletion debate for this article. Could you please delete one of them? I doubt we need two of them that say basically the same thing. <font color="fuchsia">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 01:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

== Advice ==

I'm contacting you because you're an administrator and a name I see regularly. I have been involved with two content disputes on ], and a regular user (with whom you are regularly in contact) who has been on the losing side of both has threatened on my that they will take me and several other involved users to ANI. The disputes were over the contents of a userbox, and the definition of the term ]. In response to the second dispute, the user significantly altered the scope of the ] article in the lede, which caused them to make the threats on my talk page. This user, and one other, has repeatedly made ] accusations at those who have disagreed with them on the talk page, and I imagine that will be the basis of any ANI report. It simply cannot be that all of the people who have joined the discussion via RFCs are tendentious and bad faith editors (this user is currently a minority of one on the talk page).

Don't have many diffs for you at the moment (very busy), but if you have time please read , , and . I recognise that my behaviour in the earlier part of this dispute wasn't very edifying, but I hope it shows that I have changed the way I engage with people on talks. The user in question appears either to not have understood our arguments, or has refused to engage with them .

'''I won't be able to defend myself, given my other commitments, until 13th June, if there is an ANI report'''. Is there anyway I can avoid being reported before 13th? If you think there might be a basis for an ANI complaint, I will agree not to make further changes until 13th June, when I will be able to defend myself. I hope you will be able to help. ] (]) 15:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
:Can I also request a self-ban? I don't want to be tempted to defend myself. I have offered to remove myself from both pages on the user's talk page if he leaves it until I am available. I think it would be unfair to proceed given that I have let him know I won't be able to give myself a fair hearing. ] (]) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|L.R. Wormwood}} Are you sure you want to be blocked? I don't know if that will sway {{u|Jytdog}} into delaying an ANI report. Perhaps you can work out some voluntary editing restrictions? --] <sup>]</sup> 05:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi Neil, ] needs your attention. Some heavy edit-warring by IP hoppers. -- ] (]) 22:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kautilya3}} Semied one week. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

== Hello, thank you, and questions - Especially regarding page: ] ==

Hi, thanks for your continued involvement and help with this page.

I should be clear that I have no connection at all to the subject, only a desire for genuine encyclopedic content. I have tended to make corrections that I've seen as 'obvious' on any wikipedia page I've seen, and only upon stumbling onto the Salahi page have I become more involved due to the 'puffery' of it. Of course, I bow down to your superior knowledge of wikipedia style etc, and will respect and follow any decisions or advice you have for me. Thanks again for your help. ] (]) 13:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Samshltn}} I've dealt with the IP but please read ], especially ]. Some of your edits go overboard highlighting negative information. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|NeilN}} Thanks for the honest feedback. I will take that on board. Thanks for the two articles to study as well. I will study those now. Thanks for all your help today, both with this specific article/IP and with my Misplaced Pages education. ] (]) 15:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

== Ilikerabbits! - 123.231.124.98 ==
{{diff|Birth_control|781175531|781004776}} Thanks, —&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
<hr><small><small>]</small></small>

:Now at ] but has finally opened a discussion. Maybe slow learning but promising? —&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|PaleoNeonate}} It's a miracle! Someone alert the ]! --] <sup>]</sup> 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Although I'll let you do it, I must avoid holy water at all costs, lest I instantly vaporize. —&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

I am really freaked out by Cdg/etc doing that.

But for something that may be easier, I noticed Grand'mere Eugene undid something by this person (https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Democrat2016) but when I checked what they have done it looks like just repeated vandalism, they are inserting the names Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton into random articles along with changing sentences and adding weird capitalization. Is there a best place to report something like that to? ] (]) 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Morty C-137}} I gave them a final warning. If they continue, please report to ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

== Requesting RevDel for edit summary ==

Could you please suppress the edit summary in ] edit. I sent email to {{u|Stephen}} about this few hours ago, but they don't seem to be active right now. ] (]) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Politrukki}} Done. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

== Image copyrights? ==

Hi Neil, hope things are well for you this week! Do you know anything about image copyright rules? Are the non-free images being used under legitimate free-use rationale? I don't have too much experience in this world, but my gut tells me that the envelope is being pushed too far. Thanks, ] (]) 14:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Cyphoidbomb}}. They've been deleted by another admin. ] #8 is what needs to be considered: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Because enforcement of that criteria seems completely arbitrary to me(*) I usually look at other similar articles to guide me. For example, ] or ] have no images. (*)I have never gotten a good explanation of how a CD cover or a book jacket cover "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". --] <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you, sir! ] (]) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==
You asked me if did anyone else break WP:3RR, I provied the information. So what know? I'm pretty upset about this situation. Because I was the only who was sanctioned and then called a troll. A response in my talk page would be nice. ] (]) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Rupert loup}} Consecutive edits count as one revert. The initial addition of new material is not a revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
::What? They didn't add any new content! E.M.Gregory is not adding any new material, is reverting my edits. Here the only difference that Checco did is re-organize the content, then is a revert of my edit. He/she didn't add anything new. all are reverts of my edits. "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring" ]. I'm losing my mind here. ] (]) 18:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Rupert loup}} Show me four reverts within a 24 hour period by one editor. '''Not reverts that were self-reverted, not additions of new material, not consecutive edits that you are incorrectly counting as multiple reverts.''' As an example, here are six of yours: , , , , , --] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

:Since I start the AfD I been called inept, vandal and troll and they questioned my good faith, and I'm the only one who is under scrutiny. This is very humiliating. ] (]) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
::You were blocked because you reverted six times and did not self-revert when given the chance. I've told you this. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
:::It's ok, I'm going to focus in the current events. Trying to maintain the article in good shape through discussion. Thank you for take the time to answer me. ] (]) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

== Watch this one today? ==

] is today and we have another of those "change data in weird ways" vandals, possibly the same guy who was causing all the trouble on the horse racing articles this past year under several sock accounts -- kind of looks like a sleeper. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

==RuPaul's Drag Race agin==
Hi, Neil. I hate to be asking directly, but there's evidently a backup preventing timely attention at both ] and ], and the edit-warring anon 141.126.187.36 is running rampant. He started up again almost immediately after the page protection you put in place April 20 ended. I know how busy admins are, and how many demands there are on your time. Given this anon IPs flagrant defiance of the page protection you had installed, I did think it was OK to let you know. Please forgive me if I'm mistaken and jumping protocol. With regards, ] (]) 21:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tenebrae}} {{u|Oshwah}} got them I think. Haven't been around much in the past week - trying to get some projects done before vacation. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

:Hi ] - The list of pages you requested protection on were all semi protected (with the exception of about 2 or 3 of them - either no recent activity or low disruption). Keep an eye out, and report any continued disruption to ] and we'll take care of them :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 14:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

== Question about user ==

NeilN, I have a concern about a user. ], whom you blocked in April, has created ] for Northern Illinois, but created it under ], which is against ]. After I saw this creation, I went to see if she had created any other articles for Northern Illinois at which she had not, but I did find ]. She is "refus to participate" in the consensus and is convinced that she is in the right. I'm afraid as she keeps going, she'll keep creating articles as "NIU Huskies xx" instead of "Northern Illinois Huskies xx", etc., leaving a mess for others to clean up. What do we do? Thanks, <span style="background:black; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">]</span> (ping me) 09:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
:This is not a big deal. When/if Misplaced Pages comes to its "consensual" senses (and starts using the correct term and article titles), the (correct) "NIU Huskies" versions of the pages will already be there when/if needed. You're welcome. Also, stop stalking me. ] (]) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Corkythehornetfan}} If {{u|AnneMorgan88}} creates an article having a title against consensus once every two or three months just shake your head and move it (you can check for them ). If it happens more frequently or disruption ensues then we're looking at another block. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Appreciate it, Neil! Let's hope I just have to shake my head and move on. <span style="background:black; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">]</span> (ping me) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

== Somebody's sock ==

Hi NeilN, per ], {{noping|SkepticSalmon}} has been blocked multiple times with different accounts - is this enough to block them (their edits so far have been pretty disruptive as well) or should I file a SPI without knowing any of the other account names? It is of course possible that they are just trolling, in which case ]. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 18:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bonadea}} Blocked per ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

::FYI: ]. ​—] (])​ 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

== Hyperion ==

My apologies, I didn't know that ] belonged to you. Next time I will ask you before I correct a glaring mistake in an article in Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 00:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
:It doesn't belong to me. I ''agreed'' with the problem you pointed out and removed someone's personal analysis. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==

You blocked this user a few weeks ago. Seems to be . Any input is appreciated.–Totie (]) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Totie}} Blocked again. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
:: is probably another IP address of them.–Totie (]) 18:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{tps}} NeilN is offline for the moment, so I gave this one a month's vacation. --] (]) 18:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

== Custom did you know that you rock award ==

{| style="border: 1px solid lightblue; background-color: lightcyan;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; horizontal-align: left; padding: 5px;" | ]
| style="padding: 0; vertical-align: top; text-align: center; height: 1.1em; width: 100%;" | <span style="font-size: x-large; color: #505050;">'''Custom you rock award'''</span><hr><br><span style="color: darkblue;">The: '''did you know that you rock''' custom award.<br>For all your support and patience.<br>—&nbsp;]]&nbsp;— 03:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)</span>
| style="vertical-align: middle; horizontal-align: right; padding: 5px;" | ]
|}

:This is an excellent, wonderful, glorious etc award that you've created {{u|PaleoNeonate}}! NeilN definitely deserves it. Cheers to you both. ]&#124;] 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

== User ] ==

Since you already warned ] wrt his edits on ], I want to point you to the (and next) of this shortly interrupted behaviour. I put a similar note on ]. ] (]) 07:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Purgy Purgatorio}} Gave them a final warning (I cannot block myself because I reverted one of their edits). --] <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

== ==

In regards to my 5 May concerns, this editor has returned to making unsourced articles using a sockpuppet. --] (]) 03:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Kansas Bear}} I've blocked {{u|Shahrizal shahanshah}} indef as they continued on their merry way without acknowledging any concerns. {{u|Adamzariman}} last edited in January. I'm not sure enough they're a sock to block. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you sir. --] (]) 17:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

== Regarding Speedy Deletion of my article ==

Hi admin!

I had contributed an article on a company named EFC Ltd in Pune, India, that was tagged for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. I understand that the article was deleted as it did not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. I would like to apply to you for reinstating the article for the following reason:

Pune is an important city in India, with a large number of startups and large companies, requiring office space. EFC is the largest serviced office offering entity, larger even than Regus, in Pune. EFC is also expanding in other cities, including Mumbai.

I would appreciate if you would take the time to help me understand how I can be a better contributor.

] (]) 05:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Mnrahul}}. Did you read the discussion at ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi admin! yes, I did read the archived discussion. I would like to know what I can do next.
] (]) 06:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

== please semi-protect .. ==
Hi NeilN: would you please semi-protect the article ]? You may remember that you fully protected this page in April. During the ensuing discussion on the talk page it was agreed to reference publications by scientists, mostly anthropologists. But in the last couple of days, these edits have repeatedly been reverted by anonymous users. Thank you. -- ] (]) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

== AIV vandal ==

Quick work on the AIV vandalism. I posted something at ] before seeing that you'd taken action - feel free to comment. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 05:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Drm310}} I took action because of your ANI comment. Thanks for the heads up. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

== Mozhan Marno ==

Please clean up my addition to Mozhan Marno. 2008 film "Traitor" playing role of Layla. Thank you. ] (]) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

== {{user|Mlpearc}} ==

Saw your warning on my talk page, just wanted to say that {{user|Mlpearc}} is repeatedly undoing my edits on ] without giving me any justifiable reason for doing so. I have given him my reasons for adding the important information that I added but he seems to be disinterested in this. Please resolve this problem as soon as possible. Thank You. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eddie_Van_Halen&action=history</ref> ] (]) 14:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:Let's keep this in one place (]), please. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Reflist talk}}

==Jordan==
Any updates on Jordan? --] (]) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Makeandtoss|Maile66}} See . I've been emailing with one Arbcom member but I have a feeling they're going to dump it into the community's lap. Let me sum up what I've communicated so far:
:*Arbcom has exacerbated this issue as they've taken away admin discretion in this area.
:* was the most recent discussion. Nothing was done and the utterly meaningless "where that is not feasible" clause was kept. Since admins have no discretion in this area (can't semi-protect, can't decline, can't warn, can't block instead of ECPing) we are looking for guidance for what Arbcom considers "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"
:*Arbcom could make this whole thing go away by simply changing "feasible" to "optimal". "Reasonably construed" would be less important to define as admins can use their discretion to implement other solutions.
:*I once again asked if Arbcom wanted to lead the "reasonably construed" discussion and gave these examples: ], ], ], a BLP of an author who, along with other works, wrote a controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict ten years ago.
: --] <sup>]</sup> 15:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
::I am not knowledgeable with all these Wiki processes, so I am not sure what to say. I view the protection seriously problematic and would do anything to remove it. Any way I could offer help? ] (]) 16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Makeandtoss}} The problem is Arbcom has tied our hands. If ] can be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict then admins cannot decline a ECP request. An admin can do nothing (which is what I do when I feel ECP is - putting it politely - overkill) but another admin will likely come by and deal with the open request. Your only options are to argue that Jordan ''cannot'' be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict but that depends on the protecting admin's interpretation of "reasonably construed" agreeing with yours or you raising the matter at ]. That's why we're looking at Arbcom to provide more guidance on the term. For the record, I'm probably more annoyed at admins being forced to used a sledgehammer in this area than you are. Arbcom should give admins the necessary tools to mitigate disruption; they shouldn't also dictate ''how'' disruption must be mitigated. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:::::Not meaning to disrespect anyone, but the enforcing admin does not seem to be interested at all in solving the problem. He says he followed guidelines and would not revert as he does not want to appear weak. He was not impartial, and went as far as to challenge my argument, that Jordan cannot be broadly related to the conflict.
:::::So basically now we are waiting for Arbcom? ] (]) 12:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Makeandtoss|Maile66}} I'm working on a clarification request. Meanwhile, more ARBPIA2 stuff here: ] --] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Have you initiated the request yet?

==Zidansa==

Why'd they deleted ] everytime i create that page. Whats wrong? I have reference anyway:( <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{ping|Zidansa}} Someone's two-follower private Instagram account is not a reference. We're not here to detail your personal school activities. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

== Sockmaster and his puppets ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Jan_Papież

== Simon & Schuster regarding author Ken Jennings ==

Greetings NeilN,

I am trying to understand why Simon & Schuster's best selling children's book author, Ken Jennings and his conduct, is not relevant. He publically bullied and mocked an 11 year old on Twitter, offered no apology and instead made a veiled threat about killing. Ken Jennings has made many public appearance promoting his Simon & Schuster's book. I am a children's book author myself and if I did such horrible thing my publisher would dump me in an instant and make a very public declaration of distance. I believe Ken Jennings conduct and attitude towards children is very relevant given his specific children's book relationship.

Regards <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Read ]. And given your past edits, realize that you are on thin ice here, attempting to use Misplaced Pages for your advocacy. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NeilN at the top of the page it says in big bold letters BE POLITE. I was and I am. Its my understanding that this applies to everyone on Wiki including admins. There is no reason to threaten me. I politely asked for your help and truly wanted to understand why it was deleted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{ping|Miketucker 123}} NeilN's comment was not impolite. It was straight forward and honest. -- <b>] <sup>]</sup> </b> 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC){{tps}}
:The last time you asked a polite question I gave a polite answer and it ended up with you calling me a libtard, screwed up in the head, and a Nazi. The Simon & Schuster edit is in the same category as your prior edit and the admin who declined your first unblock request stated, "I wouldn't be surprised if the block is extended if your actions continue in the same vein." So you ''are'' on thin ice here. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

==]==
Grrrrlll, watchuu takin about? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I've blocked your other account. Adding "cockatoo" to a person's name is not on. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – June 2017 ==

]
] from the past month (May 2017).

] '''Administrator changes''' {{anchor|adminchanges}}
:] ] • ] • ] • ]
:] ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ]

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:*An ] proposing an off-wiki ] database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the ]'s successful ].
:* Some ] to the ] and ] policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at ] or ], it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully ] the sanction to the community.
:* An ] regarding the ] has closed with changes to the section describing ].

] '''Technical news'''
:* Users will ] to ] from sending them notifications.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
:* Following the ], the new members of the ] include ], ] and ]. They will serve ].

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:MusikAnimal@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=783192940 -->

== am sorry but see no ==

am sorry but see no ] did or did i not "confront then calmly and in a friendly manner" see this section. lets look again of what he said "'''YOU''' can't promote '''YOUR''' ancap BS" i dont like anacap if anything id prefer something totaly diffrent, as for for my friendlyness "problem fixed! i hope you are happy user:Snooganssnoogans" per WP:GOODFAITH, now for how long will this charade go on before the user is blocked? ] (]) 14:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:I've already replied --] <sup>]</sup> 14:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
::not to provoke you or break wp:point, am allowed to do that on talkpages but ok i guess you cant block me either then?
:::don't ruin wikipedia just because you can't promote your nazi BS in talk, (i hate anacap, i assume most people hate hitler or stalin) ] (]) 14:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{u|Ukrainetz1}}, if the editor is advocating Nazi ideology then telling them stop promoting their Nazi BS would not be seen as a personal attack. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Ukrainetz1}}, I see there were some posts and removals from this page. You did not intend "nazi BS" to be a hypothetical example? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:no i did not i olny made a point! of how telling people what their personal beliefs are without knowing them (it like telling somone your marxism-leninist beliefs are.. and i tell that person back well you know...) nazism IS the same as pol pot just without borders and self-genocide, the Braunau am Inn guy is not happy until everone that is non-germanic in the world does not well ehrm...you know what...this was this documentary i saw made by revisionists but i dont understand these people, if not for all evidence the ussr and usa goverment have in their archive how come theres so much hatred in the orginial regime books (especial the one written by Braunau am In guy), films, propoganda posters, am actually so lucky am having this conversiation with you because my family was almoust a victim to the worst totalitarian regimes they (no i do not belive in anarchism), my grandmother almoust got sent to the gulag for as a child for writting "i dont like" on pages (in a shool book in which EVERY single page containts the portrait of stalin), and my east ukranian father side family family got lucky for not be a victime for say In the second half of March 1943 after the Third Battle of Kharkov the Germans arrested and shot 2500 Soviet civilians from Kharkov. please dont call me such things, thank you ] (]) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ukrainetz1}} There's a language barrier here. I still have no idea who made a reference to Nazis and you and where. {{u|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} has said basically the same thing. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:::language barrier you say? hmm....meybe you have got a good point there! your comment on this talkpage
:"if the editor is advocating Nazi ideology then telling them stop promoting their Nazi BS would not be seen as a personal attack" diff:
::can you please explain that, you mean it was not the same as calling ukrainet1 a nazi? ] (]) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ukrainetz1}} You said: "don't ruin wikipedia just because you can't promote your nazi BS in talk". Given the sentence before it, I thought you were using it as an ''example'' and asking me what editors can or cannot say. Restating my original reply, if an editor is adding justifications for Hitler's actions to articles, then telling them to "stop promoting their Nazi BS" would not be seen as a personal attack. To use another example, if an editor was adding how the moon landing was a hoax to ] then telling them to "stop promoting their fake moon landing conspiracy BS" is not a personal attack. It is commenting on ''content''. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

== Wow ==

GG, you got me good, can't make John Smith a Velociraptor without you getting me good, GG. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== re: ] ==

First of all, it was not me who did the drive-by tagging that you are now using to delete a clear and definitive claim. Pentapotamia is of greek origin, and while many of you continually try to argue that the Muslims and Hindus "thought of it first", some of the most definitive work on the area (i.e. work by ]) suggests that Pentapotamia was indeed the term translated by the Persians into Punjabi. He clearly states the word is of Hindi and Persian origin, which he does not argue, but he also states that the structure of the word in comparison to much of the language used at the time was unusual. He therefore asserts that it is more likely this amalgamation termed 'Punjab' was originally derived from the term Pentapotamia, which he states has been named as such as early as Herodotus. It is not acceptable for editors like yourself to remove entire sentences when a claim is in need of citation for only one month. I've seen claims that have "cn" tags that have persisted much longer than a month. It is unacceptable that ], who is supposed to be an admin, is resorting to such speedy deletions when there are myriads of other unaddressed cn claims that are given much longer grace than this term. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I haven't edited the article, I just warned you for edit warring. You've now broken ] by the way. You may want to self-revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:: FYI: ]. ] &#124; ] 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Utcursch}} Well, the IP seems to have disappeared... --] <sup>]</sup> 07:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

== Hi Neil ==

Hi Neil There are no citations for the the link below. If you can point to some valid link or if the information is verifiable through any means it would be welcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Narendra_Modi The education needs citation which are not available. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)</small>
:{{ping|Pankajdoharey}} I have no idea why you're not actually reading the article like you've been told to multiple times or why it took a final warning to get you to this point. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|NeilN}} It is under suspicion because the RTI (Right to Information) request have been rejected there are total of more than 14 RTI;s in this matter so there is no true source to determine there are sources in newspapers who themselves have not verified the information. http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/gujarat-university-rejects-rti-request-on-pm-modis-masters-degree/13645/

:{{ping|NeilN}}, Delhi University also rejected the same Request http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/du-rejects-rti-plea-seeking-info-on-pm-narendra-modis-ba-degree_1875998.html

{{ping|NeilN}} Also I am sorry since I edit rarely I wasn't aware of the interface and didn't see your message, which eventually led to this point. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)</small>
:{{ping|Pankajdoharey}} If the degrees are disputed then you can add info about that to the article provided you have high quality sources saying that. However the degrees themselves have multiple citations, not "no citations". --] <sup>]</sup> 07:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|NeilN}} I Understand, thanks a lot.


== A barnstar for you! == == A barnstar for you! ==
Line 345: Line 49:
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for looking at the issue and giving a warning before blocking. ] (]) 07:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I like your posts ] (]) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
|} |}

== Hi NeilN ==

Hello,

Volunteer Marek is up to his usual edit warring/white washing/cyber bullying here Misplaced Pages cancer tactics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/George_Soros

I'd appreciate it if you could take 10secs and look at the material.

I added this line which is obviously relevant, in the correct section and properly sourced-
In 2017, George Soros, spent at least $1.45 million to help Larry Krasner, win the Philadelphia Democratic DA primary. Resulting in Krasner dramatically outspending his opponents and subsequently going on to victory.<ref>http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Soros-Krasner-and-the-trouble-with-throwing-good-money-after-good.html</ref>

Volunteer Marek reverted it twice under the WP/UNDUE card which is Misplaced Pages cancer spreading nonsense. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small>
:Given your talk page posts, I'll be giving you two warnings. First, do not attack other editors. Second, ] applies everywhere. Do not make unsubstantiated claims or engage in negative hyperbole about living people on talk pages. Your initial talk page post was rightly removed. The article content itself is a matter for legitimate discussion. It would help your case if you found non-local sources covering the matter. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:: Methinks that ] applies to this IP editor. More heat than light. -- ] (]) 23:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


Hi NeilN,

As an editor since May 2002 under various anon IPs for some reason I had it in my head that you were a NPOV editor. I see now in numerous places that is far from the truth.
Not sure when or why that changed. But I will not be bullied, harassed or stalked by the left win cabal that chased off the 35% of active editors that left of which of course Volunteer Marek and Bullnonsense are card carrying members.

Silly me, sorry for wasting your time. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

BTW any search engine for George Soros returns 99% controversial political responses.
My edit is encyclopedic, well sourced-it is the Philadelphia Inquirer and not undue.
I did not post anything unsubstantiated regarding the individual anywhere on the site.
The response to it: immediate edit warring from Volunteer Marek followed up by an insulting editor claiming nothing to see here and the latest: threats from Bullnonsense and two warnings from you is embarrassing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You're on your last warning. {{u|BullRangifer}}, I've done enough non-vandalism reverts on the article to perhaps be considered ] so I can't block. You'll have to find another admin or, if the name-calling/attacks continue, I will take it to ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the apology regarding your unfounded accusations of unsubstantiated claims and negative hyperbole.
There is no disruptive editing either. Maybe if I used spinbot instead of left wing cabal it might ring some bells?
The conduct towards me on this site in the last few days is an embarrassment to the site. It's almost back to the days of uniform contempt of IP editors.
I merely edited George Soros including well sourced encyclopedic and was nothing but attacked for the efforts.
As long as you are concerned about unsubstantiated claims and negative hyperbole-
the whole Russian intererence page is 100% unsubstantiated claims and negative hyperbole-I must have missed your objections?
and FTR you as well as I know, there is nothing that anyone could post regarding Volunteer Marek, Bullnonsense or any of the other spinbots that would result in them leaving the site like the 35% active editor exodus that has occurred the last 8yrs largely thanks to exactly the sort of behavior that took place here. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Oh heck, you're ''that'' editor. Your rants deserved to be ignored back then and I see nothing much has changed. And there was no apology on my part - no idea how you managed to come up with that. Do not make unsubstantiated claims or engage in negative hyperbole about living people on talk pages. , Finally, stop evading your block or else the current 72 hours placed by {{u|El C}} will be extended. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. Thank you for blocking ]. I think you may find ] to be very similar. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">] ]</span>''' 15:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jeff G.}} Blocked. Thanks for reporting. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

== Request ==

Can you semi-protect ], ], and ] to persistent long-term abuse of ]. ] (]) 17:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:The first article was hit once. If it gets hit again, please let me know. The second and third articles are semied for two weeks and a month, respectively. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for your quick action on that sockpuppet. It has been really freaky how they've targeted me lately. ] (]) 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Morty C-137}} You're welcome. They've been pretty persistent. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah. I am 99% sure that they found the UDC page and a couple other pages in the past by stalking my contributions list. If possible can you ask jpgordon to doublecheck them, the last time this sockpuppet maker was caught they were found to have at least 1 other that I didn't even know about to report. ] (]) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|jpgordon}} already performed a CU so I assume he would have caught any sleepers. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{confirmed}}. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I hate to ask for more assistance, but Cjhard - who was a suspect in earlier sockpuppetry - has also been stalking my contributions and leaving nasty messages anywhere he can find a spot to do so. This is VERY similar to the sockpuppet's behavior. I'm not sure if they are just imitating it or what, but there has to be some recourse to get them to knock it off. ] (]) 04:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Morty C-137}} Got ] of the nasty messages? I looked at a few. They're pointed, but not uncivil. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::It's that they are hunting down my edits repeatedly, jumping in to attack me. ], ''Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.'' ] (]) 04:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::I told them to stop it once, and they responded with a passive aggressive "Please move on, and happy editing". But now they followed me to yet another page tonight, and announced an intention to literally edit-war against me. ] (]) 04:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Morty C-137}} All I'm seeing is ]. What other articles have they followed you to? They don't exactly have a long editing history. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::::I am concerned because their pattern of editing was close enough to some of the other two sockpuppet groups (Cdg428 and Pepe.is.great/D.H.110/Heroin123/etc), including some of those sockpuppets leaving "warnings" about me on Cjhard's talk page, vanishing from editing when some of those sockpuppets were blocked, and reappearing from a long nonexistence with an edit summary saying ''(Undid revision 780904416 by Morty C-137 (talk) What? This page isn't yours to police.)'' in order to restore content that was being inserted by a sockpuppeter. They followed me to ], and have now followed me to ] and announced intent to edit war against me. I know we are supposed to assume good faith but it is really, really hard to assume that they are totally unrelated when they are similar in behavior both in editing, and in how they have seemed to be tracking and following my editing for purposes of making me frustrated or just trying to get me into a fight. It is also weird because long ago it looks like they say they often don't even log in before editing , which makes me wonder if some of the strange edits I have seen from IP addresses following recent pages like ] could be somehow related. It is really freaking me out. ] (]) 05:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Someone just created a user account to make a revert and then Cjhard very quickly made a sockpuppet check request claiming it was me. I am getting afraid that Cjhard created it himself to further harass me. ] (]) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::As {{u|MelanieN}} said, let's wait for the CU results. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::Just FYI, I suspected the possible sock quite independently (although from a very different perspective from Morty's) - and was on my way to create an SPI page when I found there already was one. Also note, Morty is admin-shopping, having so far posted on the talk pages of you, me, and ]. --] (]) 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{tps|g}} Just adding a link for {{u|Morty C-137}}: ] (this certainly is a common new editor practice; you now know)... —]] - 23:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Got your message, thanks. Did you want to talk to me? ] (]) 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Chrisrus}} Not unless you have a good reason for reopening a thread started by a serial sockmaster, containing editors sniping at each other and edit warring over a perceived BLP violation, all on an article talk page covered by discretionary sanctions. Leave it be. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::Some links regarding closing/unclosing of discussions:
::*] (the "Topic shift" heading is not mine)
::*]
::] (]) 07:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::Yes, I do. ] (]) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Chrisrus}} Which is? --] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Invalid grounds. ] (]) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Chrisrus}} You can take my closure as a discretionary sanctions enforcement action and appeal at ] if you wish. Or you can start a new thread, re-focused on whatever you think was of value in the collapsed thread. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the suggestions. ] (]) 13:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

== Help! ==

:An IP Sock ] who owns three IP sockpuppets (], ], ]) is posting the same message again to another ], as he wants to block someone. -] (]) 08:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::More IP sockpuppets by 121.219.136.184 (like ], ], ], etc.) are playing around and ruining my talk page as the same person is still trying to block me. -] (]) 09:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

== I'm sorely tempted... ==

...to say "a plague on both your houses" and to block all the IPs that have been rampaging about admin's talk pages and noticeboards, but I thought I'd better ask for a second opinion before doing something that extreme...by my count, they are at at least four admin's talk pages, SPI, and AIV. ] (]) 10:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vanamonde}} It looks to me as if they're two people. One is using a VPN to hop and one is consistently using 112.198.73.9 but is indiscriminately adding socking tags. I've ] to use SPI so we can get a handle on things. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks. Yeah, it's two people, but they seem to be fighting with each other and doing precious little else...let's see how this goes. ] (]) 13:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

==Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions==

Resolved by ] at ]:

In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at ] are modified as follows:
*In the section ]: {{tq|Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. <ins>Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor.</ins> The process has three possible stages...}}
*In the section ]: {{tq|No administrator may modify <ins>or remove</ins> a sanction placed by another administrator without...}}

For the Arbitration Committee, ]] 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

== Reply ==
Censorship is worth a block. Go ahead.--] (]) 00:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)--] (]) 00:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
:Okay, done. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi NeilN, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, as a disruptive user is using several accounts to add, among other things, Emmett Till as an example. I don't know if you want to block the IPs or if there's been enough vandalism to lock the article, but this is putrid stuff. Thanks and cheers, ] (]) 03:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
:2606:a000:6284:e000::/64 blocked one week. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you very much. Best, ] (]) 03:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

== My talk page ==

Thanks for protecting it while I wasn't around. Fun fun. ] (]) 12:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

== 150.129.103.8 ==

] (]) 18:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Adam9007}} TPA revoked. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

== Continued trolling and harassment ==

Neil, the trolling and harassment has continued. After all of ], a random IP has continued to troll and harass , almost 3 weeks after the dust had settled. This is now becoming a great concern of hounding and harassment being aimed directly at myself. Some sort of action needs to be taken to put an end to all of this. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 18:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Wesley Wolf}} All we can do is ]. I've performed the first two. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks, Neil. It is getting too serious now, see . It is causing distress and I am literally shaking now. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 19:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Blocked a /64 range. Will semi the talk page if socking continues. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks Neil. They posted on my talk page too, but I've reverted it, and will keep in the edit history in case it is required as further evidence of hounding. I have an idea who the real user is (well I have 2 suspects) that is acting with scrutiny. I don't know why they act in this way and find some kick in targeting me in the vicious way that they are conducting. It is deeply distressing and making think more seriously about retiring from Misplaced Pages indefinitely - an action I don't want to take as I love it here so much. But if they continue they will have forced another editor to leave. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 19:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::I noticed the same "person" had trolled you earlier too. This is getting out of hand now. First they target me, and now they expand their list of targets. ] of suspects. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">''']&nbsp;<sup>]''' </sup></span> 14:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

== Table modifying not working for me on visual editor ==

Help!!! Misplaced Pages becomes unresponsive after I click "Insert after" on a table on a page. ] (]) 14:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
:You're better off asking about this at ]. Be sure to include the browser version you're using and the page you're editing. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

== Cjhard again ==

Cjhard has once again stalked my edits, ] me to a page he has never edited before and has no reason to be at. Exactly how much of this am I supposed to have to put up with, working hard to bring in sourced and well thought out edits and constantly having to worry that he's going to pop up without any intention of reasonable dialogue, just naysaying me to annoy me? ] (]) 23:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Morty C-137}} I didn't say anything last time but you need to start giving links and diffs. Don't make editors hunt for what you're talking about. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

==Franzboas master account==
Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to , which presents some proposals for additional action. ] (]) 04:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

== Clean start ==

Can you comment on please? And what about if an user wants a clean start third time? ] (]) 12:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:Replied --] <sup>]</sup> 13:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

== ] ==

I, understand the title is easier on the eyes this way, but the shortcuts break with this title. I figured this out by looking in the address bar and noticing that this shortcut: ] points to "Own comments", not "Editing own comments". I realized the wording must have to be an exact match to the address bar for the shortcut to work. So, I changed it to match the address bar. It was ugly, but it worked. It was the same for the section on "Editing others' comments". The shortcuts point to "Others' comments" in the address bar. I tried to change the title on that section too, but it didn't work because that section uses anchors, which are too complicated for me, so I left that section alone. Almost all of the shortcuts are broken on that page. It was the only one I knew how to fix, and that was the only way I knew how to do it. Let's compromise. I need the shortcuts in that section to work and you want to have the title your way, so how about we leave the title the way you like it and you can fix the broken shortcuts for me since I don't know how else to do it. Is that Fair? ] (]) 17:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Huggums537}} Thanks for the detailed explanation - appreciate that. I've fixed the shortcuts. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
::I don't know how you did it, but thanks! It really does look better this way, and now that the links work, everybody wins! One of these days I will have enough experience to be able to fix these issues on my own, but at least I can still contribute by reporting problems while I'm learning. ] (]) 17:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Huggums537}} If you look at the link I gave it shows you what I changed. BTW, adding spaces to the beginning of paragraphs formats the text incorrectly. Use ":" to indent (if you edit this section you'll see what I mean). --] <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Ok, I got it. I'll check out that link. I didn't notice it at first, so thanks for pointing it out. ] (]) 18:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::I was wondering if you could help me with an editor who is starting to look like maybe harassing me. Things seemed somewhat amicable up to the point where they went and completely changed my edit for a 4th time with un-sourced false information. The games were not released on "Enter the Matrix" website and they were not developed in parallel to "Enter the Matrix". You can see the coversation on my talk page. (It's the only one there) and here is the most recent ] diff. Thanks. ] (]) 20:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Disregard my previous request, as I was able to come to a peaceful resolution with the other editor without outside assistance. Thanks. ] (]) 22:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

== 2 years of adminship, today ==

<div style="align: upperright; padding: 1em; border: solid 3px #2B547E; background-color: #E6E6FA;">] Wishing <b>]</b> a very '''happy adminship anniversary''' on behalf of the ''']'''! ] (]) 21:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)</div>

{{ping|Mz7}} And Misplaced Pages is still standing! :-) Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

:Still standing and better off for your adminship N. Happy anniversary!! ]&#124;] 22:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

:Yay, —]] - 03:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::Congrats, Neil. ] (]) 03:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

== The IP you just blocked... ==

May need a rangeblock, this is the third similar looking IP to be doing the same thing (the random blanking) to two separate articles. This one started after the first one was semi-protected. Would that go under Sockpuppet Investigations? <span style="text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">]</span> (]) 22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Gatemansgc}} When I blocked, I rangeblocked 2601:43:2:D75D:0:0:0:0/64. Please let me know if they hop to a different range. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you. I'll keep an eye out as I patrol RC. <span style="text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">]</span> (]) 22:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

== The Life of Pablo ==

Hey NeilN, just letting you know: I saw what happened on ], and the two users' respective blocks. However, it appears after both were blocked, the IP {{user|66.87.121.137}} reverted Kellymoat's edits, and this IP was reverted by another user for "block evasion". If this is Cjhard, as I am inclined to believe, should that user's block not be extended due to block evasion? <b><font color="#FF6347">]</font><small><font color="#1E90FF">]</font></small></b> 16:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ss112}} {{u|Elmodivot}} (an editor with ~15 edits) needs to explain what proof they have for block evasion and why they warned for vandalism. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::I don't know who that user is, but perhaps they should be investigated too. The IP is very suspicious though, especially to revert after an edit war has just taken place. <b><font color="#FF6347">]</font><small><font color="#1E90FF">]</font></small></b> 17:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

How could it not be] (]) 20:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Elmodivot}} Easily. Now, can you explain why after almost a year of inactivity, and fifteen total edits, you suddenly popped up to revert, make accusations of socking, and incorrectly make accusations of vandalism? --] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::] could this please be investigated? This appears to be an attempt at a joe job. Given ]'s editing style being similar to ]'s, and that Elmodivot became inactive shortly before Kellymoat's account was created, I think it's reasonable to suspect that Elmodivot is Kellymoat's sockpuppet. ] (]) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Cjhard}} I would open a ] and ask for a CU. If you do that, let me know, and I will second the request. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Hi ], I have opened an ] ]. ] (]) 14:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== Nate Speed Ip's ==

Neil: thanks for your helpful blocks and other interventions. I'm assuming at this point that you are watching the same pages and I don't need to keep updating ANI with their further IP addresses, correct? Thanks again. ] ] ] 19:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Eggishorn}} I think I've now protected all the pages he's currently likely to go off on. However he's as persistent as he is foul-mouthed so reprotects may be necessary. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::Great. Thanks again. I'll ping you if I see any similar activity elsewhere. ] ] ] 19:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{IPlinks|103.14.116.26}} on ] {{diff3|784540382}}. ] ] ] 22:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{redact}} ] (]) 22:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
{{od|4}}
Fresh one at ]. ] ] 22:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:I just saw them trying to vandalize/harass your talkpage . Per WHOIS page, do you think it would be possible to rangeblock {{IPrange|103.14.116.0/22}} for 1 month, or so...? ] (]) 22:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::I just blocked the 103.14.116.0/24 range. The /22 range is apparently already blocked, according to ]. ]<sub>(])</sub> 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Great, that range works, too! :-) Though, the /22 range is wider than the /24 one, so I'm not exactly sure why their more recent IPs were not caught by the /22 rangeblock but are now blocked through the /24. Weird... :-/ ] (]) 22:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Clpo13}} Please block {{IP|188.126.71.76}}. ] (]) 22:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::That range, , has been blocked in the past as a webhost, so I've reblocked it. Might be time to start protecting pages, though. ]<sub>(])</sub> 22:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for taking care of this, {{u|Clpo13}}. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You're welcome. It was some good range block practice. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::::About that. I saw IP addresses today from this editor that locate to Pune, India, Hong Kong, Paris, France, and McAllister, Texas (and some I undoubtedly missed) Granted, IP Geolocation has a whole host of issues, but generally not as bad as getting the country wrong. Rangeblocks, as I understand them, are generally good for an IP that gets their service from one address assigner and not for some-one hopping from range to range as this one seemed to be doing earlier. Is this just a whack-a-mole situation with this person? Thanks for the help. ] ] ] 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Eggishorn}} We can block ranges from various open proxies but yes, it's largely a whack-a-mole situation. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== IP Socksssssss on ] ==

Page protect, mebbe?
(yes, the extra esses are deliberate, it's a lotta sox.) ] (]) 22:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
: Or simply stop violating core policies. Which is better for the encyclopaedia? ] (]) 22:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
::False dichotomy, Sockie. ] (]) 22:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|Kuru}} got to it. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

== Potential ] ==

] has edited the ] article, removing information, without giving a reason. This article has had this happen by users as well as IPs lately. Sometime last year, or early 2017, someone claiming to be Mr. Coughman edited the article to remove the information as well. I think something might need to be done, at least temporarily, about the article or user(s). It's the same edit, they just up and remove the entire section without giving a reason of any sort. <sup>(talk page stalker)</sup> ''']]]''' 06:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Crash Underride}}. Even though no reason was given, experienced editors should still look at the material being removed and see if it ''should'' be removed. In this case the answer is yes. It's unsourced material in a BLP and ] also states, "...names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." --] <sup>]</sup> 06:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::After seeing your edit, I realized I was in error. For some reason I had thought the information was contained in one of his profiles provided by a former team, however, I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing up the situation, the user has also been informed about what they need to do or what can happen to their account by another user as well. <sup>(talk page stalker)</sup> ''']]]''' 06:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== A query... ==

I posted this on BURob 13's talk.......But since you seem to be currently active........How do I redirect a series of pages with AWB, fully automatically?(That is make it replace the entire content of page with a pre-set <nowiki> #REDIRECT] </nowiki>).I tried to use the ''find and replace'' function but was unable to solve my problem. Another option is the ''prepend'' but that does not blank the page!Thanks!]<sup>]</sup> 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Winged Blades of Godric}}. I don't use AWB. Have you asked at ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::Yeah!That should have been the first place to req. help.Anyway let's wait for Rob to post an reply.]<sup>]</sup> 16:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== Cjhard, again ==

He's following me virtually everywhere.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_J._Jensen#My_edit_summary_was_pretty_clear. Going after me the moment he arrives, he's never edited there before. ] (]) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== Editor Posting Hate Speech ==

If you could take a look at this link, this editor has been posting hate speech and bigoted information and vandalisng the ] Misplaced Pages article, could you please block this person or otherwise deal with them to stop this in the future, please see this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leonard_Pitts&diff=779638722&oldid=777752466

Thanks. ] (]) 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Neptune's Trident}} The IP is innocent; they were simply reverting back to the old version. (and subsequent diffs near the two listed] would be better. Even then, it's not really vandalism; furthermore, quoting something is not posting hate speech. I'm going to invoke ] and say that all edits involved are of good faith, not vandalism.

:With that said, the incident happened about a month ago, so no action could really be taken anyways. <small>(])</small> ]] 19:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|SkyWarrior}} I'm trying to figure out what prompted {{u|Dabean}} to make the "dindu nuffin'" change. What's the source of this supposed quote? I think {{u|Neptune&#39;s Trident}} is right to be concerned. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:::That phrase is a new online bigoted slur that online trolls post it means "didn't do nothing", it is basically a way to post bigotry by not using old fashioned racial slurs and just using new ones that have been created for the internet, you can read more about it here:

:::http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/revealed-accused-minneapolis-shooters-fascinated-with-guns-militia-groups-and-the-confederacy/

:::https://www.google.com/search?q=dindu+nuffin&oq=dindu+nuffin&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2699j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

:::] (]) 19:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{u|Neptune&#39;s Trident}}, yes but how did that turn into a quote from Pitt? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

::::::Because one of the editors in this link changed the quote that was in the actual referenced article that was "cry me a river" and changed it to the other fake dindu nuffin quote, which, of course, Leonard Pitt never said, it was just an online troll posting hate speech in the form on a new online term not everyone knows about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leonard_Pitts&diff=779638722&oldid=777752466

] (]) 20:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

== Editor Vandalizing And Blanking Misplaced Pages Pages ==

If you see this link you can see this editor is blanking and vandalizing Misplaced Pages pages, if you could possibly warn or block this user, thanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/27.123.1.162

] (]) 03:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Neptune&#39;s Trident}} Cluebot already warned the user. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] (]) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

== Reverts today by 86.155.33.235 on article Proposed Catalan independence referendum ==

Is this a currently blocked user deliberately circumventing his block by any chance??? ] (]) 19:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Wikimucker}} If you're thinking the IP is {{user|Impru20}}, I don't see any compelling evidence of that. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
::None other and many thanks for your fast response.] (]) 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

== Some neutral eyes please? ==

Edit war on ] over bolding names in a list. I've left the user a usertalk EW warning (immediately removed) but I don't want to exceed three reverts. I have attempted discussion on ], but the user appears to be stonewalling rather than discussing. If it's relevant, the user has been blocked 7 times in 4.5 years for edit-warring and battlegrounding . Would appreciate some neutral eyes if possible. ] (]) 08:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

:And he just now told admin {{U|Zero0000}} to fuck off: . -- ] (]) 13:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

== AE again ==
{{hat|Neil is on vacation; let him alone and take your squabbles somewhere else. --] (]) 22:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)}}
Hello NeilN.

I fully acknowledge that you are a volunteer here and that you have no obligation to any editor or to the Project to involve yourself in any matters except when you choose to do so. Having said that,

I recall that there was no resolution to the long "AE question" thread on this page some time ago. In that thread one editor, {{ping|Thucydides411}} was particularly animated in his participation. In my opinion that editor is again disrupting the talk page at ] and in my opinion should not be permitted to continue disrupting that article over a long-settled consensus he has continuously disputed for months. The thread is here . I believe you've already reviewed his previous participation at that page which repeatedly strayed toward uncivil and disparaging remarks to other editors.

Regards. ]] 17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|SPECIFICO}} by {{u|Thucydides411}} was unnecessary and they should follow their own (paraphrased) advice: "If you don't have anything of use to add, then it's best not to post in this thread". If it continues, I'll look at sanctions. That being said, you have to realize that if there was anything approaching consensus, "disruption" would be minimized. There are contentious statements in other articles covered by AP2 and I have no issue enforcing the presence of those contentious assertions through the use of admin tools because editors can point to a clear-cut consensus. I see that editors don't want yet another RFC - how about ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

::Excuse me, but {{u|Objective3000}} has been replying to each of my comments with an accusation that my participation is disruptive. I think I'm fully within my rights to tell Objective3000 to cut that out. You'll see that I have been following my advice, and that I have been discussing the factual issue - it's precisely that factual discussion that Objective3000 has repeatedly called "disruptive."
::There have been repeated attempts to ban me and others who don't agree with the majority at the Russian interference page, this request by {{u|SPECIFICO}} being just the latest. We editors who don't agree with the majority know we're walking on egg shells, because every week or so there's another threat of some sort of sanction. On the other side, I don't see the same sort of cautious behavior, and it seems that anything goes - accusations of disruption, accusations of misogyny, etc. -] (]) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::I have made no attempt to ban you, no threat, and no mention of misogyny. I merely pointed out what other editors have pointed out. You have been saying the same things for months now and have convinced no one. You keep saying the same things, over and over, and claim no one has responded when there have been detailed responses. Life is short. ] (]) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::We'd be getting off topic here by discussing specifics of the discussion, but my general impression from the discussions is that editors calling this a dead horse have consistently failed to address the actual issues raised by editors who think the current formulation of the article is POV, and that they have repeated the same arguments that don't actually address the concerns. If the actual concerns we're raising were addressed, we wouldn't raise them again. But they aren't being addressed - we're just getting the same responses that avoid the main point. -] (]) 20:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::Please consider the possibility that your inability to sway other editors after months of trying might not be the fault of the other editors. ] (]) 20:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::It goes both ways. Everyone has their positions, and nobody's budging. There's largely the same majority on one side of most issues on the page, and largely the same (not small) minority on the other. I happen to think that one side of the POV issue has presented pretty strong evidence for their position, and that their main point hasn't been answered - that we're going against BBC, Reuters, AP and a whole host of major news agencies in how we portray the issue, based on the assertion (never actually established) that BBC et al. are at variance with how ''most'' reliable sources treat the issue. Every discussion on the matter seems to devolve into claims that this has already been settled, so paradoxically the issue is never actually settled. -] (]) 21:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::You're doing it again. Reuters no longer uses the wording you want inserted. I don't believe AP does either. I gave you links to counter your claims. Melanie painstakingly looked at every source and detailed results. We are following the leads of the major RSs in their current reporting. Your edits sound like ]. ] (]) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::::You're illustrating precisely my point. Absence of the exact word "alleged" in a news article related to the Russia issue doesn't mean that the given newspaper considers "Russian interference" to be an established fact. I've explained this several times on the talk page, with an example of a CNN article that doesn't contain the word "alleged," but which clearly doesn't contain any implication that the allegations about Russian hacking are true. Yet you, MelanieN and MrX have continued to do the same thing - simply searching for "alleged" in particular articles and then claiming that its absence proves that given news sources treat "Russian interference" as something more than a possibility. That's obviously very frustrating, because it's plainly wrong, and because the problem with that methodology has been pointed out to you multiple times, by myself and others. -] (]) 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::We do no such thing. We do not draw conclusions. We say what RS say. That's my last statement on the subject as I hate repeating myself. ] (]) 22:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Edit alerts ==

On ANI, you said that you'll "...be alerted whenever JohnWilkinson edits...'. Can I ask how? I assume this is more than manually checking his contributions on your own. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jauerback}} ] --] <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
::<small>So much for that ], huh ↩️ ;) &mdash; ]] 15:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} I love playing with the rugrats but... thank god for nap times. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)</small>
::::One of those vacations you then need another one right after to help recover?! Know them... &mdash; ]] 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
::Awesome, thanks. <small>(In my defense, he was answering questions on ANI so I will blame him for my question here; whether I'm right or not).</small> <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

== JB ==

Oh jeez, Slawomir is trying to include the Beck section again. (add) Sorry I saw you are on vacation. ] (]) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Subuey}} Let's see if discretionary sanctions alerts will prod editors into following basic policy. Seems like a few of them, who should know better, need to take a step back. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
:I am tired of pointless bickering, deflections, and non responses. I have just recently been mislead as to the actual words of a quote , and I think I'm done. Slawomir has passed the 3RR by the way. ] (]) 21:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing ==

Hello! Please help in preventing edit wars in the page Who Are You: School 2015. Anonymous editors have been deleting information in the page's reception section (things they find unflattering as they are fans of the show) even though a reliable source was provided which explicitly states that the show did suffer from poor ratings. Thank you for your help! ] (]) 15:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
**There is an army of users like the one above who are hell-bent on retaining only negative information, whereas the rest of us only want to maintain a neutral POV. See: . <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I've semi-protected the article for three days so that the involved editors can discuss on the talk page and try to work it out. If not, then it gives admins more to go on the next time around.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 17:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:50, 17 August 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. NeilN has not edited Misplaced Pages since 4 October 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.


This is NeilN's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
Archives

Archive 1: Aug 2005 - Oct 2007
Archive 2: Nov 2007 - Jan 2008
Archive 3: Feb 2008 - Mar 2008
Archive 4: Apr 2008 - Jun 2008
Archive 5: Jun 2008 - Oct 2009
Archive 6: Nov 2009 - Dec 2009
Archive 7: Jan 2010 - Mar 2010
Archive 8: Apr 2010 - Mar 2011
Archive 9: Apr 2011 - Apr 2012
Archive 10: May 2012 - June 2012
Archive 11: Jul 2012 - Jan 2013
Archive 12: May 2013 - Jul 2013
Archive 13: Aug 2013 - Sep 2013
Archive 14: Oct 2013
Archive 15: Nov 2013 - Dec 2013
Archive 16: Jan 2014 - Feb 2014
Archive 17: Mar 2014 - May 2014
Archive 18: Jun 2014 - Jul 2014
Archive 19: Aug 2014 - Sep 2014
Archive 20: Oct 2014 - Nov 2014
Archive 21: Dec 2014 - Jan 2015
Archive 22: Feb 2015 - Mar 2015
Archive 23: Apr 2015 - May 2015
Archive 24: June 2015
Archive 25: July 2015
Archive 26: August 2015
Archive 27: September 2015
Archive 28: October 2015
Archive 29: November 2015
Archive 30: December 2015
Archive 31: Jan 2016 - Jun 2016
Archive 32: Jul 2016
Archive 33: Aug 2016
Archive 34: Sep 2016 - Jan 2017
Archive 35: Feb 2017
Archive 36: Mar 2017
Archive 37: Apr 2017
Archive 38: May 2017
Archive 39: Jun 2017 - Nov 2017
Archive 40: Dec 2017
Archive 41: Jan 2018
Archive 42: Feb 2018
Archive 43: Mar 2018
Archive 44: Apr 2018
Archive 45: May 2018
Archive 46: June 2018
Archive 47: July 2018 - August 2018

I still miss you, NeilN!

I know that you haven't been on Misplaced Pages for some time now, but I just wanted to leave you a message nonetheless and let you know that I miss you a lot, and that I was thinking about you... ~Oshwah~ 11:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Me, too. It's hard not to know why you're not editing, you had such a big impact on Misplaced Pages. Liz 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Was thinking of you today. Hope you are well. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Add me to the list of people who wish you were still around. It's a shame you haven't been active since 2018. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I too wish you were here NeilN, —PaleoNeonate – 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I miss you too Neil. We didnt interact much, but it was your talkpage where me, and PaleoNeonate interacted for the first time. You two were good to me in my early days here. If it wasnt for you and a couple of other editors, I might have left the project in my early days. I hope you are fine in real life. If possible, kindly drop at least one line message on your talkpage. Take care of yourself, and yours. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Boy did you bash me real hard during my early days of editing but for some awkward reason I actually miss you. I really do hope and pray that all is well with you. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just came to say the same thing. I'm not sure we ever interacted, but I remember your name and have a positive impression of you. Whatever you're up to these days, I hope God is blessing you. —Compassionate727  00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Same here, Sir, god bless you thank you kind sir - Mini Stephen Hawkins of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.158.16.17 (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 02:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, NeilN. Some years back, I remember an exchange that I had with you on my Talk-Page. Were you ever an administrator here on Misplaced Pages? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena NeilN has not edited since October 2018 (and I still miss him). To answer your question yes he was an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at ] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I like your posts Jesse Daniel Brown (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories: