User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 8

DRN

I'm assuming you meant the case to be List of state leaders in Year articles & not Zubov's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Ah, yes. My mistake, sorry.--Neve–selbert 21:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Giving it further thought. It might be better to open up a discussion on that topic at the List of state leaders in Year articles, themselves. Thus letting others to be involved. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: I've removed List of state leaders in 2016 from my watchlist & I'm getting away from those series of articles. Fatigue factor, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this. I wish you good luck elsewhere.--Neve–selbert 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Belated response to pings

I see that you pinged me several times during your block. Unfortunately, for personal reasons I was away from Wikipedia, so I didn't reply. As I said, I was in favour of unblocking, and if I had been around I would have continued to support you, so I'm sorry I wasn't able to. However, since the block is now over anyway, I hope you can now edit without further problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson. I really appreciate it.--Neve–selbert 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NPA

Continuing your personal attack streak is not very vise.--TMCk (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: How was it a personal attack? I simply stated fact.--Neve–selbert 19:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop unbolding Palestine

You know very well there is no support for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I have no idea what you are on about. I haven't unbolded Palestine ever since you posted me that unpleasant message on my talkpage on 11 April.--Neve–selbert 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that you not only unbolded Palestine, but moved it to be a sub-entry under Israel. That's nothing but pure vandalism. [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: You're talking nonsense. Prior to 2013, the UN did not recognise the State of Palestine. Comprende? Read this for more information.--Neve–selbert 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, and will reiterate my previous statement for clarity: This is vandalism. Stop it. You will not get more warnings from me, I will ask for administrative help if you continue to vandalize these articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not vandalising! What on earth are you talking about?! That is an insane insinuation and one that I certainly will not stand for.--Neve–selbert 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what I'm talking about. Stop playing stupid.1, 2 Even if you truly don't realize that they violate the outcome of the RfC, you still know these edits are at the minimum controversial, yet you do not make any attempt of even discussing them, and instead just hope the fly in under the radar. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Per WP:CYCLE, he should have discussed his proposed changes beforehand. I abided to policy and he did not.--Neve–selbert 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit, we just had an RfC about this, you just came out of several blocks for revert warring on these issues, you know damn well you should have discussed it if it was unclear to you (and I don't think it was, considering your previous behavior). --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mind your language. This is all claptrap, I perfectly knew the result of the Rfc and I abided to it duly.--Neve–selbert 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the RfC was not about "The State of Palestine after 2013". You can read. You know that. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the Rfc was about "The State of Palestine in 2016". You can read. You know that.--Neve–selbert 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. Also this thing is not OK: [2] --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You're continually missing the point. The status of Palestine as a State at the UN changed fundamentally in 2013. You know, I think this is all down to a whole lot of confusion. Please read the following carefully: you see, the UN passed the "Palestine is now a State" resolution back in 2012—although this did not come into full effect until January the following year, i.e. 2013. Now, I honestly believe that Spirit Soda has simply got his facts messed up. If you could tell him this, OpenFuture (as he usually turns a deaf ear to me and archives my concerns on his talkpage prematurely), we would certainly be one step closer to solution. A great misunderstanding that can be rectified, I reckon.--Neve–selbert 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

Asking another editor to revert for you? Seriously?--TMCk (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Yup. WP:BRD is being violated by another editor.--Neve–selbert 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

An essay is a bad excuse when violating policies and guidelines.--TMCk (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Baking Ethanol has total disregard for that.--Neve–selbert 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's you, Neve. You are citing an essay to excuse a guideline!--TMCk (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: What are you on about? Which guideline do you accuse me of excusing?--Neve–selbert 21:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

See section title above: wp:CANVASS.--TMCk (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Why is everything always framed around me doing something wrong? I have stated why I reverted that user on the premise that he was wrong with the facts. Ignoring BRD, he stubbornly reverted me. He is without a doubt a masquerading dictator, that there can be no doubt. He could even add Scotland as a independent country on false premises and still I would be unable to revert him. Every edit has to be approved by him for some reason. Any BOLD edit he makes must not be reverted, that seems to be the consensus among others.--Neve–selbert 21:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Understanding and the lack thereof

@OpenFuture and TracyMcClark: So, what exactly have I done wrong? If I "canvassed" to far, I apologise. Now, can we move on to the real issue here? Per WP:BRD, the user Baking Soda should not have reverted for a second time. Now, I direct this question to you both: why is he allowed to get away with this while I am continually hounded as being disruptive? Why do you always accuse me of bad faith? Why? Just why. If anything, I feel this is bullying.--Neve–selbert 23:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No sense in responding further since you remove what doesn't suit you.--TMCk (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Indeed, as does Baking Soda. Yet he can get away with anything, can't he? I'm the bogeyman, got it!--Neve–selbert 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are, because you continue to POV-push and you continue to violate Wikipedia policy, and you never listen to what anyone tells you. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Total nonsense. I find it amazing how you turn a blind eye to the misbehaviour and even delinquencies of and made by Baking Ethanol. Does he violate Wikipedia policy? Yup. Does he ever listen to what anyone tells him? Nope. Now, onto me, read carefully: the user made a historical error, and yet you continue to ignore this. Besides, you stated that you have a busy day today. I'd recommend you be nicer to people on your journey this morning and set an example for yourself for any such future dealings with me. I will not tolerate unjust rudeness and intimidation on my own talkpage.--Neve–selbert 05:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

1. He doesn't actually, but you do. 2. This isn't about him, it's about you. Other people violating Wikipedia policies does NOT give you the right to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing short of a witch hunt. You have taken an immediate disliking of me, with a total disregard of the wrongdoing of others. I apologise for my shortcomings, that I will do so profusely.--Neve–selbert 19:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Walk away from those articles, while you still can

Neve-selbert, rightly or wrongly, you do have a target on your head. It's the scrutiny target, which all editors get after they've been through a block or two. It's best you promise to stay completely away from those List of state leaders in Year articles at ANI, as it might be the only way you'll avoid being barred from them. The only other way out for you, will be luck in the form of a great number of editors showing up at ANI or the aforementioned articles, in support of your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I will do anything not to get blocked. I'll back off, absolutely (if it means otherwise I'll get banned).--Neve–selbert 19:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommend you state this at ANI & hope for the best. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, too late at this point to pledge backing off state leaders list. I advise you to seek mentorship, and indicate that you are willing to do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Baking Soda (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Baking Soda: You probably want to get rid of me anyway. I am reluctant to even consider your advice. You made a mistake on the article and I tried to explain why and you refused to listen. And we are here.--Neve–selbert 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mentorship, is a route that you may want to consider. Particularly, if it'll take the heat off of you. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, that's what you said last time. And the time before that. Your pledges to behave really isn't credible any more. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't want to even consider WP:TOPICBAN. Nope! You just think of me a nuisance and want me out. I get it now.--Neve–selbert 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban is usually necessary, when there's a lot of edit-warring. You may want to go the mentorship route. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't want you out. I want you to listen, change and become a constructive contributor. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'll practically do anything not to get banned again, be it mentorship or a topic ban (preferably not indefinite).--Neve–selbert 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How about following Wikipedia policies, listening to other people and discussing controversial changes? Why don't you try THAT? Why are these things not included in the "practically anything"? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Discussing controversial changes" That is exactly what I want in future! Exactly the opposite of what Baking Ethanol is doing! Do I follow policy? Yes, per WP:STATUSQUO. Do I listen to other people? I am open to doing so. Your attitude towards me remains disgusting and foul and I really would like you to clear away from this talkpage in future.--Neve–selbert 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You still do not understand/accept that you are at fault here. And despite your constant "I know I did wrong and I will never do it again"-pleas on earlier blocks, you still do not understand/accept that you did wrong then either. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Alright, then! I am at fault. Please, an indefinite block is insane! Why you would support such a ban is beyond me. I can't believe it. If I knew it would come this far I never would have asked those two other editors to revert. I am truly sorry. Your sheer coldness is beyond painful.--Neve–selbert 20:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, just wait

@OpenFuture: Is there absolutely nothing I can do to avoid an indef block? Please. I will literally do anything. A topic ban, mentorship and the like. Just not a block. Why are you unable to consider anything else? I am not a vandal, yet you keep treating as one. Per GoodDay's points, I will steer clear of any controversies that may come about. This ban will be disastrous. I am such a constructive contributor that I used to spend hours upon hours proofreading and fixing errors on the List of state leaders article, and I wish to do so in future. I want to contribute to Wikipedia to the best of my ability, and your callousness in supporting an indef block really hurts.--Neve–selbert 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, it's not my decision. I don't know if you are intentionally vandalizing or if you have mental illnesses that compel you to do it, but it doesn't really matter from Wikipedias point of view. You need to be stopped. I can not see how a topic ban or mentoring will prevent this. Mentoring is clearly pointless, you treat anyone who corrects you as an enemy. Topic bans are for POV pushers who are unable to behave rationally and seriously on a specific topic, but can be rational otherwise. You claim this is not the case. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not claim any of that. I can behave rationally. I do not treat anyone who corrects me as an enemy, that is totally false. I am open to constructive criticism absolutely. I am not a vandal, that is a slanderous allegation and that I cannot stand for. I love contributing here. You openly want to get rid of me permanently, hence the indef block.--Neve–selbert 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)