User talk:NE Ent

	; Archives (Index) ;
	Meet the Press; 2008/December; 2014; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020; 2021; 2022; 2023; 2024;

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|NE Ent}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Re: not meaningless

What I mean is that removing the comments removes the context for what I said. If I reply to something and then you remove it, others can't understand what I said — my comments are meaningless to them. You also removed one of my comments entirely. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for prematurely requesting closure on that ANI thread. I haven't been on in a while, but I suppose that's still no excuse. It shall not happen again, I assure you. One pier (Logbook) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, not a big deal! It'll just linger a bit longer, won't hurt anything. Nobody Ent 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NAC

The potential problem with a non-admin logging a ban, is that it's admins who have to enforce it with blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppets

Hi Nobody Ent. Recently you reverted an edit of mine on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, writing "See talk." I checked the talk page but wasn't sure what you were referring to. What was your rationale in reverting the edit? Thanks. —Iamthedeus (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nobody Ent 09:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look

Hi, Ent. I know you're not an admin yet, but since you seem to be online at present, and the community seems to approve of your housekeeping efforts on the various noticeboards, I wonder if you'd have a look here? I'd be grateful, and will be glad to answer any questions you might have, right here, too. Will check back here every five minutes or so, for the next thirty. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

Please be aware that all trolling posts that are vaguely related to me from the IP ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16 are ipsocks of Echigo mole. This was explained in great detail in the the recent arbcom review in answer to one of the questions ("Is Mathsci being harrassed by socks?") and appeared also in the WP:AN report that resulted in Echigo mole officially being listed as a community banned user. (Very occasionally Echigo mole will also use the older vodafone range 212.183.1.1/16. In March 2011 that range was blocked by a CU/arbitrator for three months because of persistent abuse by Echigo mole.) So if other users see such messages, they are likely to remove them on sight per WP:BAN. In cases like that, there is no need to wait for an SPI report to come through. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to appropriate policy and/or arbcom decision which justifies this. Nobody Ent 03:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:BAN. Here is the record of the range block of Shell Kinney (March 3).[2] This was also carefully explained by the checkuser Amalthea here [3] after he removed a similar edit and then blocked the IP.[4] He also suggested preparing a Long Term Abuse page to avoid having repeatedly to describe these patterns to other users. Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ruling by an arbitrator may also help [5]. And this [6] explains why it may prove a bad idea. Explanatorium (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]