Jump to content

User talk:NeilN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.49.80.251 (talk) at 15:11, 18 December 2017 (→Might keep an eye on ...: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


 Unless I specify otherwise, any uninvolved admin may undo any of my admin actions without checking with me first if they feel my input isn't necessary. NeilN
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. NeilN

Template:Archive box collapsible

The Signpost
19 October 2024

MTV EMA

Please help to protect MTV Europe Music Awards. User Earthh keeps vandalizing article--Spacejam2 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NeilN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! While editing the Apache NiFi article, I noticed that the copyright on above file (and commons:File:Apache-nifi-logo.svg) is set to {{self}} - which doesn't seem right. The one on commons:File:Hadoop logo new.svg appears to be the right one to use. Both Nifi and Hadoop are sister projects by the Apache Software Foundation and are under the same software license. I am unsure how I handle/report this. Any suggestions? -MayureshK 17:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MayureshK. Thanks for spotting this. In these cases, simply correct the license as I've done here. --NeilN talk to me 20:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm moment. Should have realized this myself. 😏 Thanks anyway. -MayureshK 21:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: the one week ban

See my response on my talk page. Thanks Russianvodka (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here --NeilN talk to me 17:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for opinion

Hello, I would like to ask for your opinion, I added an extra information here based on a previously linked source, but the user Bijanii (talk · contribs) reverted my edit and wrote a warning on my talk page, does he have the right to issue this warning? is there a problem in my edit? I just came back from block for edit warring with this user and I was the only one blocked, I don't want to go through that again. Thanks UA3 (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UA3. Your edit was sourced and certainly was not vandalism so Bijanii's warnings about vandalism were incorrect and, if continued, seen as a personal attack. I also see that he took the opportunity to revert again while you were blocked so he now gets the same block as you did. --NeilN talk to me 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Wow, you're the opinion guy! (I notice the opinion request above...) Hi Neil, hope all's well with you. I could use a second opinion. Jyoti halder has tried several times to create articles about himself at Jyoti halder and Jyoti Halder. I also notice lingering drafts at Draft:Jyoti Halder, User:Jyoti halder/sandbox, User:Jyoti halder/sendbox, and his user page is yet another version of this article. Given that he seems to be here for self-promotion, I'm inclined to indef him. I'm happy to give him another chance to contribute, but I don't think that's why he's here. Also, do you think it would be prudent of me to delete the various sandboxes and his user page? User page under NOTWEBHOST and G5 Unambiguous promotion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyphoidbomb, good to hear from you. All those pages should be deleted using the criteria you provided. I rarely block when the editor hasn't been warned about blocking if their behavior continues and hasn't ignored the warning if one exists (basically the same as vandalism - you're appropriately warned and then blocked if you vandalize again). In this case, I would add a custom crafted note to their talk page that states why their pages were deleted, explains that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion and points them to sites like Facebook and Linkedin, and warns them that they'll be blocked if they continue the self-promotion. --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All reasonable. Thanks mate. Hope your December goes swimmingly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for taking into consideration my request, especially because i am still new so i am still confused about all that, i need some orientation Nadadaz (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nadadaz. Thank you for pointing out mistakes with the article! I've placed some helpful links on your talk page and you can also use the Help Desk to ask questions. I hope you stick around and help out with improving our articles. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN, I wanted to know wheither you were responsable about all the celeb pages or just this one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadadaz (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadadaz: No editor or administrator is responsible for any page. Wikipedia is a group effort (it has hundreds of thousands of editors) so all editors can fix, change, or add to any article if they adhere to our policies and guidelines. Some articles are protected from editing because they're often the target of vandalism or other disruption. You'll be able to edit most of these articles once your account is four days old and has ten edits (you already have six). --NeilN talk to me 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN , Okay i got that, thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadadaz (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russianvodka

Still editing disruptively, with some slow edit warring without discussion (apparently believing that as s/he is the one adding text, s/he does not need to discuss). However, what bothers me most is this edit summary which is a (mild) personal attack, just the kind of thing s/he was warned by you not to make again. I'm off to bed and don't have the energy to warn or discuss again, but wanted to leave a note about this. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 21:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to bother NeilN anymore because Russianvodka is not hearing. All that can be done is tolerate him for some more days per WP:DEADLINE and then take him to ANI. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D4iNa4, I blocked them for a week about thirty minutes ago. --NeilN talk to me 20:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I was being a nuisance I apologise - I was rather frustrated myself last night with the tendentiousness of rv's edits, and I should probably just have dropped it. It is easy to forget sometimes that very few things at Wikipedia are emergencies. :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. --bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Not a nuisance at all. Thanks for alerting me. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe fetishism

I'm sorry that image is totally inappropriate for a punk girl licking, the shameful shoe scene in the history of humankind depressing and totally humiliating the fetishism of the shoe and something horrible and forbidding, and by idiots put photos as you of wikipedia a series impartial as you meanwhile the fetishism of the shoe would have to impose, it with ferocious taboos for life in these subjects are of gender all homosexuals and bisexuals and finally transsexuals to be fetishists of the shoe disgusting that reluctant adversaries. -- Zorziesmax (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you, User:Borcker? Sro23 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever it is, they're indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 01:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, and I was having fun reading that .... Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet getting around block

Your block on User talk:Ryanlochteboy has been subverted with the same exact edit now being done by User talk:Conwaymarty. I opened up a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jakemanboy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): Bbb23 nabbed a bunch of them. Thanks Bbb23! --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought something screwy was going on. Thanks to both of you for your efforts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Great minds think alike. Or at least they edit-conflict. I can self-rv if you think it would help avoid confusion, or you can do it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Nah, I've replied to you there. --NeilN talk to me 04:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Train Master

Hello again, and thanks for blocking this user for 2 days. However, I'm coming back because I am heavily concerned again. This user appears to be resuming their disruption after they were released from their block. They don't seem interested in discussion, and I'm concerned that they might be approaching WP:NOTHERE. Perhaps something else can be done? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: Another two weeks. The editor seems to be here to improve the encyclopedia but the utter lack of communication or acknowledgement of concerns are incompatible with the collaborative nature of the project. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning User:Falconfly

User:Falconfly has resumed his edit-warring behavior. I left a message on his talkpage to remind him, but, I'm not sure what else to say. Would it be at all possible if I could ask you to discuss with him the situation?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokryltaros: Not exactly discussing but rather a blunt warning. You know before this I had no idea Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review was a thing. Wikipedia editors are awesome. --NeilN talk to me 19:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray for quality control! And thank you for your help in the situation.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food irradiation

Hey just put a block on the Wikipedia page for food irradiation. I just noticed all the edit warring today and corrected my mistake by the previous poster. I went through all the effort I could to find all the places where they were discussing this issue obviously none of which was on the food irradiation talk page. I have checked all the place they discussed this issue and there is no consensus no matter what the gentleman wants to say. I undid his edits and stated that until consensus is gathered on this page that he should revert not continue making any changes. As you probably know I am the major contributor to this page. Blocking me for making edits would be a little rough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B143:522A:3B89:80BA:6C11:9E6D (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full protection was put in place so blocks wouldn't be levied. As such, there's no need to block you or anyone else. Hopefully you all can come to a consensus via discussion. --NeilN talk to me 23:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But he's refusing to talk to me and seems to be one of those other kinds of vendors unlike you who think that IP editors are beneath them. Plus he has gotten his way and he has no reason to communicate. I would suggest reverting it to how it has been for the last 3 years before his edits and then allowing him to make his case. This might force him to communicate. Otherwise all that's going to happen is he is going to not communicate with me or anyone else on this page and River any changes that are made when the protection ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.198.14.226 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about JzG. He's one editor. There's also a thread on WP:RSN with multiple editors participating. Convince them your position is correct or work out a compromise and you can probably sway consensus in your favor. --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
our anonymous friend has some talent for projection, it seems. Guy (Help!)

HI NeilN, Under my user talk page, under “December 2017” you sent me the notice: “Your addition to Peachtree Corners, Georgia has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NeilN talk to me 04:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)”

The only words I used were “as well as a film studio.” See, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peachtree_Corners,_Georgia&oldid=prev&diff=815488201

I JUST DON’T SEE ANY COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME EXACTLY WERE THERE WAS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION SO I DON’T REPEAT IT. THANK YOU User:Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem: Check your email please. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia is not an unconstructive edit

The bold edit in this diff that 2001:14BA:2BE5:EE00:14C4:3CD1:E951:AC3C did switching the name to Czechia was not an unconstructive edit. According to the Wikipedia article Name of the Czech Republic, "the Czech Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Education, Youth and Sports recommended the use of the name Czechia". Thinker78 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: Please read this. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered newcomer

Long ceased to be productive. --NeilN talk to me 07:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to 2001:14BA:2BE5:EE00:14C4:3CD1:E951:AC3C (talk) may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. Thank you! Thinker78 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: Edit 1 results in a level 1 test warning. Edit 2 results in a custom message, albeit short. Edit 3+ results in a level 32 disruptive warning. After that the editor stopped editing against policy. With no indication they were willing to communicate, how would you have gotten them to stop? --NeilN talk to me 01:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, please stop trying to apply policies you obviously don't understand. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least he signed off with "Cheers!" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Except they haven't. I wonder if I can go around changing France to French Republic in articles until evidence is submitted that France is the common name and the no doubt hundreds of editors discuss and come to a decision? --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was no test, that was a legitimate bold edit. Own your mistakes! Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." Read the message! --NeilN talk to me 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they even left this warning seems vindictive. Especially considering they used said template on an administrator. Just my two cents. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 04:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: I actually don't mind being templated if I've messed up somehow. It's the message, not the format, that counts. But in this case I think the message is misguided and the OP doesn't really understand how WP:BRD works. [1] True, it's not a policy or guideline, but in these types of cases not following it is going to be seen as disruptive. Else we'd have people running around doing things like promoting fringe/conspiracy theories and insisting the text be left in articles because the onus is on other editors to provide counter-proof. --NeilN talk to me 04:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to assume good faith when they refuse to read, or understand BRD, then leave this message. It skirts dangerously close to WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, and WP:AXE. Honestly, this kind of behavior is something you would see on pages the draw the ire and attention of conspiracy theorists. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 04:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Boomer Vial:I'm a firm believer in checks and balances. I am a former union official and I know a little bit about that. I used to have to face supervisors who thought they didn't have to provide explanations just because they were supervisors. And I left a notice not a warning. The use of the test notice/warning on the unregistered editor was unduly harsh and even uncalled for because that didn't seem to be a test, but a legitimate bold edit. The fact that NeilN thought it was a test indicates that they thought that Czechia was not a legitimate word, but it is. Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or, being around here for many, many years, I know that new editors sometimes like to get their feet wet by making a small test edit on an article they think no one looks at. Do you really think I wouldn't have clicked the wikilink to make sure it didn't lead to somewhere inappropriate? And did you not consider why the editor started changing the name on an obscure article instead of something like Prague? --NeilN talk to me 06:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point that being somewhere for many years gets you experience and certain vision that others don't have. But unfortunately great experience doesn't translate to perfection. If it was perfection then it would be pointless from me raising an issue. So I have to raise the concern that I have. I remember for example when I was in the fourth grade of elementary school I corrected the math teacher because he was saying that the sands of the seas are infinite, but I said that they were not infinite. Maybe people couldn't count them but that didn't make them infinite, because they were contained in a finite spheroid. After a little debate he admitted to the class that I was right, that the sands of the seas were not infinite. I corrected teachers a few times more while in school. And sometimes I was mistaken. But returning to the present issue, I don't understand what do you mean with the wikilinks, what wikilinks? Regarding the obscurity of the article I think that probably is irrelevant. Anyone can come to any obscure article for a number of reasons. The unregistered editor may be a Czech citizen who supports the name Czechia for all we know. Thinker78 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. I wonder how the theory of not providing verifiable information in debates would work. So in articles for deletions, page movings, etc. the onus shouldn't be on the editor initiating the process? Yea, let them just move the pages or delete articles without any verifiable information. I thought Wikipedia works on consensus? Smh! Thinker78 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinker78 I would agree with you, had it been called vandalism instead, and had you not gotten into a disagreement with with Neil. What you're saying about "checks and balances" is clearly bluster to try and excuse your behavior. If it was not bluster, you would take WP:COMMONNAME, which Neil linked you to multiple times, into some sort of consideration. This is where the templating being vindictive comes into play, as you're only did so per the disagreement, whilst completely ignoring COMMONNAME. Your comments regarding "onus" is addressed above. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 05:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Boomer Vial: Being Neil or not being Neil shouldn't affect your judgment. Editors should be rather impartial whoever it might involve. For your information I did not ignore COMMONNAME, i did what Mr. Neil should have done and used ngram to look for the usage of the two names and looked into reliable sources (he is an administrator so he probably shouldn't bother to provide verifiable information to some editor raising a concern). I concede that Czech Republic is the most common name, that's why I didn't revert the revert. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinker78 It's not about whether someone is a specific editor/administrator. You did so after rejecting the advice how many times? "he is an administrator so he probably shouldn't bother to provide verifiable information to some editor raising a concern)' The onus is on you, as stated above. So, if per WP:COMMONNAME Neil is correct, why did you bother to template him? You even had the audacity to suggest that an administrator had an WP:OWN issue, being as incorrect as you were. You're not fooling anyone. Having an axe to grind, leaving vindictive and unnecessary warnings, and refusing to get the point is a sure-fire way to be blocked. I'm dropping the axe now. I heed that you do the same, and use this as a reference for how not to engage in future content disputes. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Boomer Vial:I put the notice when I first noticed what I thought was an undue harsh test warning posted on the unregistered editor talk page. I checked COMMONNAME afterwards. He said "Being bold is encouraged. Continuing to edit after being told to stop and why is not", so I thought that he should read the WP:OWN article. I have no idea who NeilN is or what is his track record, but it speaks volumes that you say that I have the "audacity" to suggest something about an editor. I can be hold accountable, you can be held accountable, administrators can be held accountable. This doesn't mean I'm accusing someone of something. It simply means we are all accountable. I'm simply lured back to this talk page because you guys kept commenting about the issue, so I felt compelled to reply. And I'm really accustomed to discussions lasting weeks in Wikipedia and not just a few hours. I was actually surprised how fast the replies in this discussion came, when normally I have to wait for the next day replies. Raising the issue of blocking sounds kind of in very bad taste. If you think I should be blocked for daring to raise a concern about the actions of an administrator what can I say. I will simply work through the system if the need arises. I'm curious as to what the charges of a block would be. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Might keep an eye on ...

Might keep an eye on Age of consent. Brand-new SPA IP going crazy wikilawyering on the talk page after unilaterally deleting half the article. Beginning to sound like perhaps socking or block evasion. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender After reading through the comments on the talk page, these accusations of Wikilawyering and socking are completely baseless, and false. You were completely condescending, from the start. They asked you for a policy which you were basing your revert off of. Why don't you ask User:SchroCat? They seem just as confused by your rollback and ill-advise, the rollback being highly inappropriate, considering the edits of the IP editor was the farthest thing from vandalism. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 21:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, i am a single purpose account and sock now because i boldly removed a list sourced entirely through wikilinks, then get lied to by you, Softlavender, rolled back by you despite it not being obvious vandalism and you cast aspertions about me without supporting it with diffs? Is this seriously the way experienced editors behave. NeilN, you will notice i have not edit warred at all because it is not important to me if there is a table only sourced through other articles or not. I just boldly made an edit for what i thought was the right reason, was challenged and went to the talk... which is how wikipedia works i thought. The "wikilawyering" only stemmed from me wanting to understand Softlavenders rationale, which constantly changed and was not truthful as has been pointed out, for example, by a former featured list coordinator. If all of that makes ME the bad guy in this then... just wow... unbelievable. 91.49.73.234 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, NeilN, you could pull Softlavender to one side and tell him to wind his jeffin neck in. Editor retentiotion is important and I see nothing wrong with what this IP is doing. CassiantoTalk 08:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 02:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe nudge Softlavender to strike their unsupported aspertions against me on your talk page and on the article talk page as well? Neither of them are true, none of them are in any way supported etc. Glad to see this is getting resolved with yet another person not seeing any merrit in Softlavenders aspertions against me but they still stand. I am being called a sock, a single purpose account and being painted to look like a vandal on the article talk. Totally unacceptable to me to have that left standing. I don't even want an appology, not that i even see Softlavender as being capabable of admitting to have lied to and about me, just that all lies about me are struck. 91.49.90.173 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a small note about their (mis)use of rollback would also be apreciated. To claim what i did to be obvious vandalism in light of my talk page edit before and the edit summary is just preposterous. And sorry to be a nag about this but it was just so bizarre and i was so utterly disgusted at some pount during... So i hope my position regarding the striking and rollback are understandable. Have a good day anyway. 91.49.80.251 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&oldid=815992658"