User talk:Neil Conley: Difference between revisions
→Question: - add note about R.Cooley |
|||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:::::RCooley first popped up on SourceWatch when I started writing about [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tepper_Aviation%2C_Inc. Tepper Aviation]. He initially complained about the contents of the articles on Tepper [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Tepper_Aviation%2C_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=108814] and its former boss [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pharies_%27Bud%27_B._Petty Bud Petty] [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pharies_%27Bud%27_B._Petty]. However he was unable to point to any inaccuracies in those articles when he was [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Rcooley repeatedly challenged to do so] by myself, SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton, and the SourceWatch editor. He also resorted to directly vandalising articles [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tepper_Aviation%2C_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=108797][http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Crestview_Aerospace_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=108798]. It was only after he'd failed to get the material about Tepper and Bud Petty deleted that he made up the nonsense about me that he's repeating above [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Neoconned&diff=prev&oldid=109035]. The course of events can easily be traced from his [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Rcooley contributions record] on the site. He also subsequently resorted to using a [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Couch_Potato sock puppet]. --[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
:::::RCooley first popped up on SourceWatch when I started writing about [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tepper_Aviation%2C_Inc. Tepper Aviation]. He initially complained about the contents of the articles on Tepper [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Tepper_Aviation%2C_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=108814] and its former boss [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pharies_%27Bud%27_B._Petty Bud Petty] [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pharies_%27Bud%27_B._Petty]. However he was unable to point to any inaccuracies in those articles when he was [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Rcooley repeatedly challenged to do so] by myself, SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton, and the SourceWatch editor. He also resorted to directly vandalising articles [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tepper_Aviation%2C_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=108797][http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Crestview_Aerospace_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=108798]. It was only after he'd failed to get the material about Tepper and Bud Petty deleted that he made up the nonsense about me that he's repeating above [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Neoconned&diff=prev&oldid=109035]. The course of events can easily be traced from his [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Rcooley contributions record] on the site. He also subsequently resorted to using a [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Couch_Potato sock puppet]. --[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::::Ah dear Neo, what a tragic and sordid web of lies you cocotte to hide your true agenda. I think any intelligent Internet user will quiet clearly see that I am not these other individuals or sock puppets that you describe. I do not know for example Couch Potato but he seemed to know you particularly well as he pointed out a function both of you were at. |
|||
::::::It is a simple fact of reality that you are deeply unpopular and have upset many people with your interference and harassment. I hope people do look at the SourceWatch pages about Tepper because they will quite clearly see that your article lacks any sources whatsoever. The reality is that SourceWatch unlike wikipedia is a collection of conspiracy theorists. Many have pointed out that you and the other X-Files gang do not allow anyone to make changes unless its fits in to your ideological viewpoint. You guys are so radical I think you would be suited to North Korea. |
|||
::::::One additional point that you seem very very reluctant to talk about. '''Why do you hide behind an alias?''' You mouth on about '''transparency''' yet do not practise it yourself. You clearly have '''something to hide'''. It is worrying what harm you may do to children. Please for the sake of honesty, identify who you are. Then people will understand where your warped view come from. However, once again I'm willing to leave the past behind, I'm willing to help you but it can only happen when you start helping yourself. I know you can't work for us again but we can help you get another job. Please let me help. I offer once again an olive branch. [[User:R.Cooley - wiki|R.Cooley - wiki]] 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:18, 29 October 2006
Biweekly special article
Dear Fact and Reference Check member,
After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!
I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!
If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.
Cheers,
Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I appreciated your honesty on my SW page. I have taken your advice and decided to deal with SourceWatch through wikipedia. The only way the truth can be dealt with is if I can voice my feelings. The animosity that has been directed towards me on SourceWatch is beyond parallel. I am happy that you took a brave stand and decided to be crtical about the other admins on SW. Cheers, Dandan-wiki 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Steady on, Dan. I only said that your home address should not have been published (which I am sure was an honest mistake). Apart from that, I have no problem with the way your article was edited. I wasn't advising you to "deal with SourceWatch through wikipedia", as you seem to suggest. I was simply pointing out that Wikipedia's SourceWatch article, and its associated talk page, host a debate about SourceWatch's editorial policies. Sincerely, --Neoconned 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Imposters
Sure, no problem. I also deleted the user page they had set up, which was basically a subtle attack page. Sorry to hear you've apparently attracted someone's ill-placed energies, and keep an eye out for more imposters. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you in the future. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Question
Hi - I like to look at what's written on SourceWatch now and again as well as Wikipedia. I notice you may have come under attack recently by some people. Do you not think that this is because you are actually the one who is inciting people? I've seen the way you write and its totally one sided. You attack a person's character by trying to find articles that justify your agenda. For example you have recently gone after John Reid. Your SW article is full of anti-John Reid comments. On your home page you have targeted the police and suggested they had sent a spy in to a rally.
Why are you so biased? You seem to like to delve in to the history of people but many observers like me are very interested and curious as to who you are? Where are you from, what do you do? You yourself have become a celebrity of sorts and I think as a member of the public we should know who you really are. Some people seem to know you like the ones at Tepper. If of course their claims are not true then I suggest that you identify who you really are as opposed to hiding behind an alias. What worries me is what more damage you will do to your own reputation. I will be starting my own blog just on you and it will feature all the comments made on you by others. It's time to find out who you really are. I'll give you one chance for you to voluntary reveal who you are. I hope you will comply and be honest and transparent, two factors you like to preach but sadly do not practise. Retroconned 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note to readers to say that 'Retroconned' is the latest in a series of sock puppet vandal accounts, all of which appear to have been created by the same individual, and all of which have been blocked by Wikipedia admins. He/she has vandalized my wikipedia userpage on several occasions and created a number of impersonator userpages.--Neoconned 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- As the person who reported Retroconned, may I ask why someone has so strongly decided to come against you? What does this person have against you anyway? People don't try this hard to impersonate someone or defame them without a reason. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem - and thanks for your work against vandalism. I think the reason is fairly clear. I would imagine it's someone I've written about on SourceWatch, or who represents an organisation I've written about. Since they can't identify any factual errors in those article(s), they've been unable to get the content they object to removed from SourceWatch. Hence they've resorted to these extremely childish tactics. Based on the timing of when this started, and when it has sporadically resumed, I can make some guesses about which individual/organisation, but those really are only guesses so I don't intend to say whom! Cheers, --Neoconned 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Before I start, I would like to state to the Wiki admins I am not being abusive, rude or carrying out and y vandalism. Therefore I would appreciate if I am not banned for simply stating my case.
- Now, if I may wade in to this timely debate, I would like to point out that Neoconned is an individual that used to work for my firm but was fired after it was discovered that he had child pornography photos on his computer. I would like to point out that I tried hard to help him deal with his problem and even offered to pay for his treatment but it was thrown back in my face. Instead, he decided to write incorrect and harmful comments about people I know and the company on SourceWatch. None of Neoconned’s pages are fair or balanced. He manipulates everything he writes about. He also has a very strong personal relationship with Bob Burton who has given him carte blanch to attack people on SourceWatch. Also all wiki users should bear in mind that SourceWatch has been very critical of wikipedia. That includes Neoconned. Neoconned is also the person that has been phoning up people and harassing them as stated on his SourceWatch home page. Although Neoconned, or ‘Neo’ as he used to like to be called hides behind his alias I will not publicly embarrass him as it is up to him to reveal his identity. However, I do think it is very pertinent that he should tell people who he is. Why does he keep hiding behind his names and why does he keep ignoring this question? Where is the transparency? Answers on a postcard! R.Cooley - wiki 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- RCooley first popped up on SourceWatch when I started writing about Tepper Aviation. He initially complained about the contents of the articles on Tepper [1] and its former boss Bud Petty [2]. However he was unable to point to any inaccuracies in those articles when he was repeatedly challenged to do so by myself, SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton, and the SourceWatch editor. He also resorted to directly vandalising articles [3][4]. It was only after he'd failed to get the material about Tepper and Bud Petty deleted that he made up the nonsense about me that he's repeating above [5]. The course of events can easily be traced from his contributions record on the site. He also subsequently resorted to using a sock puppet. --Neoconned 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah dear Neo, what a tragic and sordid web of lies you cocotte to hide your true agenda. I think any intelligent Internet user will quiet clearly see that I am not these other individuals or sock puppets that you describe. I do not know for example Couch Potato but he seemed to know you particularly well as he pointed out a function both of you were at.
- It is a simple fact of reality that you are deeply unpopular and have upset many people with your interference and harassment. I hope people do look at the SourceWatch pages about Tepper because they will quite clearly see that your article lacks any sources whatsoever. The reality is that SourceWatch unlike wikipedia is a collection of conspiracy theorists. Many have pointed out that you and the other X-Files gang do not allow anyone to make changes unless its fits in to your ideological viewpoint. You guys are so radical I think you would be suited to North Korea.
- One additional point that you seem very very reluctant to talk about. Why do you hide behind an alias? You mouth on about transparency yet do not practise it yourself. You clearly have something to hide. It is worrying what harm you may do to children. Please for the sake of honesty, identify who you are. Then people will understand where your warped view come from. However, once again I'm willing to leave the past behind, I'm willing to help you but it can only happen when you start helping yourself. I know you can't work for us again but we can help you get another job. Please let me help. I offer once again an olive branch. R.Cooley - wiki 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)