User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Neotarf in topic Notification update


I imagine it's not the most visible of pages, so just an FYI that I replied to you here: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

With your choice of sprinkles.

  I can't recall whether you were involved in my "incident" previously and/or whether I might have thanked you for such, but even if I had I would feel obligated to thank you again for speaking up for me with regards to the ANI filing. Regrettably, this whole thing has been a very bruising experience...your comments have been very much appreciated, and if there's ever a way in which you feel I can be of assistance to you, please don't hesitate to call upon me. Doniago (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

YOur Ani

We're good I didn't think you were saying anything about my edits 8) just was stating my intention to abide by consensus, it was a way of practicing what I had preached to the user and others. Cheers and happy editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations.
Message added 12:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- a boat that can float! (watch me float) 12:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Hello. I was drawn to Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy as a result of a few recent, without-warning, blocks (and unblocks) of others that I personally thought were unwarranted. For example O'Dea (talk · contribs · logs · block log), Drmies (talk · contribs · logs · block log), Scottywong (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I have carefully read through the whole of the RfC on Warning before blocking, including all the oppose/support responses but your oppose rationale seemed to jump out at me. Please forgive me; I am not picking on you but I would like to learn from you how you would feel if someone blocked you without warning? I know some people feel violated. If my post here comes across to you as aggressive, because we don't know each other, then I apologise. I am however sincere in wishing to understand your view --Senra (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to what reason was given the block. NE Ent 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
All these blocks were over-turned before their expiry. These are just very recent events and I am certain the historical logs contain many other similar unwarranted blocks.
--Senra (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


For taking the trouble to comment at the Arbitration request for amendment. Outside views inform the debate considerably. Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC).


I reverted your self revert as you appeared to have accidentally wiped out a good chunk of the page.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 15:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I took a deeper look and it apparently wasn't an accident.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 15:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NE Ent/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit lenient

I think you may have been a bit too lenient on Gimme, its not the first time he has threatened to block because of content disputes recently. The guideline ownership was just the icing on that last one. If I have time later I will take a look and see if this is part of a pattern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Hey NE, saw the John Morrison spat when I was looking at the other stuff at ANI, wanted to give you a heads up that I peeked at the article and I'd be glad to give you a hand with this area if needed. While I generally avoid editing the Montana political articles, I do touch them up on occasion (I have met many of the people in these articles IRL, but I don't work in Montana State Government any more, nor have I worked for any of them, so minimal COI, I hope, though I do have a known political party affiliation, in a userbox on my user page). You can also ask the folks at WikiProject Montana for help, we're a small but dedicated bunch and User:Mike Cline is a project member and an admin, to boot. Montanabw(talk) 20:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Was just planning on watchlisting it; the correctfacts editor only appears to show up about once a month or even less often. So just reverting their removal of content should be sufficient to deal with the issue I think. NE Ent 23:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Saw that the copyvio notice seems to only chop part of the article; I take it you only blanked the bit that is the verbatim copy? Might also want to check this site for close paraphrasing : [1] Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yea -- I've never used that template before and was surprised to see it substituted into that OMG the world is ending don't touch this stuff -- are we allowed to continue to edit before the powers that be do something? NE Ent 18:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Technically no, but I've never challenged it, either. I think there is a less OMG! template out there, but I can't find it at the moment. Maybe just ask Moonridden Girl or someone to clean up the formtting mess and insert your new language (I'd cut about four words on the new edit, but not of copyright consequence, just style) Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:My little sister did it

Very clever, but please explain to me what use it is, beyond giving the false impression (to an ordinary reader who doesn't look at the code) that it's an article in its own right? To anybody who reads it, or for that matter clicks on the history tab, it's a text that has lost its real history, and has no acknowledgement of the actual contributors to it, which it's definitely supposed to have. And that can't be edited! What's a passing newbie to make of it? Also it offers no way of finding the "real" (=brother) article, not even a See also. Also the page contains nonsensical claims that WP:BROTHER and the other related redirects are shortcuts to it — no, fortunately they're not. I think you must have been stalking me in your sleep. Please revert your edits. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Thank you very much. I think perhaps I'd better send Darwinbish to argue when I'm disturbed by some editing; she has a gentler touch. Sorry, and I hope you know I wouldn't talk like that to someone I didn't like. I only yell at you because we're friends! Bishonen | talk 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC).
  • Oh.. I only looked hastily at your contribs, and I see I missed something. You didn't in fact revert the big one, this; the one that had all the undesirable consequences that I outlined above, and still has them. I don't quite understand. Don't you agree Wikipedia:My little sister did it is a mess, and that it should be a redirect? Please take a look at it. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC).
  •   Done (Wikipedia itself is often a mess, and yet I continue to hang out here anyway. Weird, huh?) NE Ent 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Textbook involved: the lord giveth, the lord taketh

Dear Ent, no admin in their right mind would ever criticize Alexander the Great. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would, of course. With a wikilink to the applicable policy page. NE Ent 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly how many admin are in their right mind? Just curious. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Work for free in return for nearly unlimited abuse! ... sounds like a great deal to me. NE Ent 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to force you to be an admin for 30 days. That'll learn ya. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your userpage quote

Hi, I noticed your userpage quote (from Dennis) used a ref, but without a reflist, so it was impossible to navigate to the source. I added a reflist directly under it, but feel free to move it to where you please! :) Salvidrim!  00:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I hadn't noticed that quote before. All you guys quoting me is almost scary. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. NE Ent 01:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Hah! Stick that on your resumé, Dennis... "Highly quotable!" Salvidrim!  01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


Er... I obviously meant "slove". Erm... It means "Solve, only more so." in... er... an obscure dialect. Yeah... that's the ticket.  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it was just a slovenly edit. NE Ent 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Always good to get good advice, cheers! To be clear, the "amoral" comment was in specific reference to his citing of the rules then demanding that someone should have told him he was breaking them. Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this rubbish - time to move on to something productive. Having been done to death at ANI it has now spread to COIN - I'm not going to get involved there (at all) but this will only continue if it is allowed to continue. But thanks for closing the ANI bit. Stalwart111 13:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying very hard to bite my tongue... How much editor-focussed-editing must one undertake before a lack of interest in actual encyclopaedia-building is established? Stalwart111 23:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

For your good response. I feel maybe I was baited into getting myself in trouble, that is my fault. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a question, is a user allowed to modify my post [2] and then brag about doing it in a sneaky way[3]? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No, as already answered by Baseball Bugs. Now that the talk pages of Better Badges and Punkcast have been annotated with connected contributor, I'd advise not pursuing the issue anymore and getting back to editing. NE Ent 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Writ Keeper beat me to it! GiantSnowman 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So, did WK rollback the removal of rollback? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yea ... didn't ask 'em to .... guess they were on a roll NE Ent 02:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology re Fry1989

I told you at ANI that I would take the matter of my behavior into consideration. After looking into the matter more and having sought the advice of an administrator whom I trust, I have apologized to Fry1989 for taking the matter to ANI before taking it to his talk page. I was not able to look into the matter yesterday, having been in the hospital for a medical procedure, and have missed the opportunity to apologize at ANI since that thread is now closed. If you wish to make a complaint against me there, I will immediately apologize to the community as well. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an apology to the community below the closed discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt your posting was meant as a good faith neutral posting. The ANI interface is horrible, as has been periodically discussed but never addressed, so it's easy to miss the discuss on talk page exhortation. My comments were intended to shut thread thread down to ensure Fry could continue to edit and work through his probation, not to criticize you. I don't think an apology is necessary but considered it accepted. NE Ent 00:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note

I noticed you collapsed my request for additional commenters and called me out for Forumshopping. If it was anything it was canvassing but since WP:Canvassing specifically states that type of message is ok, I'm not sure the decision was valid. Kumioko (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Struck two previous commentators and myself as classic cross-posting forum shopping. You're free to revert the collapse if you feel it's the right thing to do. NE Ent 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about closure of Paul Krugman-related AN/I

Aside: sorry, at the moment I'm having a problem with getting URLs to closed AN/I cases to work right, so the citations, below, aren't as clean as they should be.

With regard to the recent closure of AN/I "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote": do I read the closure block correctly and you were the administrator who closed the case? I have questions about the closure reason.

1) Would you please have a look at a new AN/I: "Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote""" [/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Strange_closure_of_AN.2FI_item_.22No_rational_argumentation_at_Talk:Paul_Krugman_.22Consensus_on_inclusion_on_the_Gary_Becker_quote.22.22

2) Therein would you please search on the text: "confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: "Content discussion."? I explain there my confusion.

3) Would you then search on the text: "the dispute was closed is because you [Deicas] have not indicated"? A this location there is more discription of confusion about the closure reason?

Can you cast some light on what is going on? I'm confused.

Thank you. Deicas (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside: I'm sorry that the links to the referenced AN/I are clumsy -- I'd having troubles getting permanent links to specific ANI/Is to work correctly.

With regard to the recent closure of AN/I "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote": do I read the closure block correctly and you were the administrator who closed the case? I have questions about the closure reason.

I call your attention to the closure of AN/I [No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote] It was closed with a status of "NO ACTION: Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". That closure reason makes *no* sense to me as I had specifically asserted "This discussion ... is in regard to *conduct* not *content*"AN/I. Can you cast any light on this matter or to point me to an editor/admin/forum in which to as the question?

In the course of the AN/I discussion I asked the question: I request that this AN/I be escalated to a higher level in the dispute resolution process. If this isn't the correct place to make the escalation request, then would you please point me to the correct location?AN/I ] Can you cast any light on this matter or to point me to an editor/admin/forum in which to ask the question?

Thank you Deicas (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record I'm not an administrator. In theory you can appeal the AN/I decision to the Arbitration Commitee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case but it is highly unlikely they would accept the case. The way Wikipedia works is just have to make your best case at Talk:Paul_Krugman and accept you may not be able to get consensus on your proposed changes. (I've "lost" my own share of discussions on articles -- I understand it's frustrating but it's jus the Wikipedia way.) NE Ent 03:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
At the moment my concerns are with regard to AN/I process. I am attempting to focus narrowly on the persons and circumstances associated with closure of "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman ...", setting aside, for the moment, the vigorous disputes at Talk:Paul Krugman.
Do I read the closure block correctly[1] and you were the administrator editor who closed the case? I ask you this because your editor ID appears in the closure block and, presumably you had some involvement in closing the AN/I. Yes? Are you the person who *decided* to close the AN/I? Or did someone else direct your to close the case? Who? Who decided that "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum" was appropriate AN/I closure reason?
  1. ^ "NO ACTION: Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum NE Ent 16:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)"
Thank you Deicas (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


NE Ent, the WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Wikipedia "policy," a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy." . WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four..." Please advise if you have a valid WP reason for not agreeing with me re WP:NPOV "not" being "coequal" with WP:CONS, but is "supreme" to WP:CONS. Otherwise, I will post my grievance on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013


Your fair-mindedness inspires me to do better, and, I will. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to have missed the discussion...

... which you closed as snow at ANI on re Fram and Rich Farmbrough. I normally run away from controversy, but I've been feeling a bit unhappy with myself for my cowardice about running away from this issue. I would support an interaction ban between the pair of them. There seems bad feeling between them. They are two great editors, who seem to wind each other up. I don't myself understand Fram's animus against Rich F's edits, which have seemed to me generally to the common weal, didn't understand the ArbCom discussion which led to further restrictions on Rich F six months ago (people then seemed to be talking past each other extremely oddly), and don't understand now why Fram says he disbelieves Rich's explanation of his last edit. Nothing good has come of this. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(totally unrelatedly: I like your use of the REVISIONUSER template at the top of your page - very neat!) Dsp13 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

For your assistance, MarioNovi (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


It is not a win win to let YRC persist in the belief that what he did was not a personal attack in violation of his civility probation. It is a loss for whoever will be subject to his behavior the next time. And for those who supported the probation thinking that it would be enforced.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a non-admin close so you can certainly revert if you will. But I'd rather you did this -- give it a day and then review the edits again; and if still feel strongly more needs to be done make a post at AN (not ANI) with lots of diffs and not so much commentary or description. NE Ent 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I am obviously not going to gain anything by involved-reverting your close. I think you should selfrevert however, as several editors were voicing their opinions about YRC's probation. Yes I said stupid things because I was being attacked, but then again I am not under a civility probation imposed by a huge consensus of some 40 editors AND I realize that I was being uncivil, AND I selfreverted AND I would be willing to apologize if I had a reason to believe he wouldn't use it against me. YRC in turn defends his behavior as reasonable and even repeats it. Honestly, you think I should just walk away? If you would do that then you are a better man than I.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Better? Who knows? But higher likely older NE Ent 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
On a semi-related note; it's probably best to leave more-complex issues like this for administrators to deal with. There's nothing wrong with a NAC, but, as Maunus said, I don't believe the discussion was fully fleshed out.
I'm not going to revert, because what's done is done. Just something to keep in mind for the future. Regards, m.o.p 05:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with the criticism you're receiving here, since the situation was not a "balanced" one. On one hand is an admin who is not under any sanction, and on the other is an editor who has been the subject of numerous AN/I reports, and is on a strict civility parole. Whether YRC is (or can be) a productive editor is not the question, whether he can do so without being uncivil and disruptive is. Only admins can bring down the banhammer if YRC was breaking his parole, so the closing of the thread should have been left to them. You certainly can express your opinion in the thread, to influence an admin decision one way or the other, but you are not in a position to close the thread. For this reason, I will be reopening it for admin closure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as an afterthought - you have a tendency to close threads on AN/I. Many times this is helpful, as the discussion is going nowhere, but I'm getting a bit of an impression that you're more interested in an "Ent closing" then you are in evaluating the discussion and making an informed decision about its closure. I would urge you to be a bit more circumspect in your closures, and a bit less concerned that you be seen as the closing editor.

I don't know what your goal is in editing Wikipedia, but I, personally, am not impressed by an editing history which shows only 10% of your edits going to articles (i.e. improving the encycylopedia), 42% going to the Wikipedia space, and another 39% going to various talk pages. If you think you're heading towards being an admin, that's not going to do it. You need to put more effort into actually improving the encyclopedia by editing articles, and less into the ancillary aspects of the project, such as AN/I and other Wikipedia-space pages.

You say on your user page "I now prefer to be known by the quality of my contributions", but you seem to think that contributions elswhere are equal to and as valuable as contributions to articles. They are not, hence my advice Edit articles, the rest is all just a sideshow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How about voluntarily refraining from closing ANI threads opened by an admin? That allows you to continue to usefully clerk things that don't belong on ANI or have obviously run their course, while preventing what appears to be the recurring drama of you being reverted for unilaterally declaring yourself the arbiter of discussions which, put bluntly, were not addressed to you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (I posted something in your latest ANI archive.) NE Ent, archiving discussions is for when they've petered out, or when it can be assumed there is nothing pertinent to be added. Your ANI archiving is getting out of hand. Please restrain yourself. If you steam right ahead as the Lone Archiver Combine Harvester of ANI, I'm going to open an ANI thread about it. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC).
P.S. And you'd better not try that "older" stuff with me. We've been there. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

Re: Barnstar

I figured that I'd get the Destroyer of the Wiki Barnstar before long :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Oddly enough, I didn't see your comment before making my most recent one. Odd that that is what we both thought of. NW (Talk) 06:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthonychole titled a section on ANI Pitchforks down which is what probably triggered my recollection of the redirect. NE Ent 12:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cryptic emoticon

I have to admit that when I saw this edit summary on my watchlist, my first assumption was that it was some sort of cryptic emoticon. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the emoticon for OMG! you didn't get your finger off the shift key in time!!! NE Ent 12:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


I thought you were blanking the page or something, my apologies for reverting you at ANI. Hope I didn't mess anything up too much. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I should've used an edit summary; no worries, easily fixed. NE Ent 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

false aligations by identity

Hello, I'm Alien Arceus, a.k.a. Ron Petterson, and I'm here to ask you what to do about the user known as JO the Marten, he insists that I am Christian Woods, a user on Bulbapedia who has made edits. Jo bases the clame of me being Christian on the following:

  • Same IP address
  • Same spelling mistakes caused by software
  • I'm following him.

When i found that this user reverted my edit to Rick Moranis i recognized his name from Christian mentioning him to me. so i wanted to notify Jo that Christian Woods was editing Wikipedia under the IP address of our appartment building. if you go to my talk page, you can see that he has left me messages on it. as for my spelling, i tend to type fast, so i end up misspelling a lot. i've got to work on my typing speed. (As i'm typing this, i'm typing fast, yeah, i'm really not learning anything am i?) i'm not quite sure on what to do about these aligations that mr. marten is making about me? do i take him to an/i? i'd rather JO just leave me alone and stop accusing me of vandelism and adding false information this way i don't have to come and defend myself. it is kind of disturbing to be honest. thanks for reading, and is there anything i can do or that you can to stop this shit from laying eggs and mutating into something that would result in an unwanted action such as me being blocked on false aligations? Alien Arceus 10:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

While I am not involve at the moment, besides this message, I would like to point to User_talk:Kim_Dent-Brown#Jo_the_marten for what appears to be a similar discussion. Thank you for your time. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning

I believe you inadvertently gave me a WP:3RR warning. A look at the edit history of Carly Foulkes shows that I have not come close to reverting three times in 24 hours. That is my only edit in over 72 hours. You have to go back to January 15 to get me a total of 3 edits to the page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact, could you kindly remove this warning from my page. Also, please note the talk page that you suggested I use supports my latest edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A slow edit war is still an edit war. You're obviously welcome to remove the warning from your talk page. NE Ent 18:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note that his change was not supported by anyone but himself. I opposed as did User:Ylee and you abstained. Hardly grounds for content removal based on talk page discussion as he suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning, Part 2

I think you might be getting a bit too trigger happy there, NE Ent. I made an edit after you and others decided not to respond to further discussion. One edit doesn't make an edit war and presuming such is a failure to assume good faith, As well, it galvanizes opinion against you when you eventually do make a good call; crying wolf when there is naught but basset hounds about. I'm not going to ask you to remove the warning, as Tony did. I suspect you know you handled this poorly. Learn from it and move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


Sorry about losing it on ANI. It was just inappropriate and impatient. I'll pull my head in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hear the roar: Ent! Ent! Ent! shall be our leader!

Hi, Ent! Be careful! Don't be hasty! You could end up an admin! ... People are talking about you at this live link (snapshot/permalink). They're saying some nice things. :-) Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia

I see you joined in the moving spree at User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia. I don't know what you mean about "move out of Wikipedia space" - it has just been moved in to Wikipedia space. Anyway, there is a move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 February. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


What I said that SoV bringing the action to ANI, any action that anyone might think is controversial and might perceive as an admin action, was appropriate. It speaks nothing to the merits of it, just "when it doubt, take it to ANI" is generally a good rule for any admin to follow, even if it isn't a strictly admin action. In short, he should have let someone else remove the comment, but since that itself is an issue of contention, ANI is where I would expect any admin to bring their own actions up. Again, not endorsing anything he did, just saying "at least he understands it was somewhat controversial and announced it at a board". That ANI report was for discussing the appropriateness of his removal only. The merits of the AE should be discussed at the AE only. The whole damn thing was confusing, I understand, and I don't mean to compartmentalize for the sake of bureaucracy, but in this case, it was two separate actions that should be discussed in two separate venues, for two separate reasons. I'm failing at keeping up with all the talk pages due to overtime but I'm trying, so ping me on my talk page if you would like to discuss it further. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Hi NE Ent. I think you misunderstood the context of the questions some of us were posing. We were infact discussing a behavioral issue and not a content issue. The behavioral issue was that Talk:Jesus was being used as a WP:FORUM and not a place to discuss the article. We were demonstrating it by pointing out that no source has been presented to defend the position and that the users were simply arguing their personal opinions without intention to change the article. That's a behavioral problem. I'll not revert, you do a fairly good job of policing ANI and I think HiLo48 himself acknowledges this fact, but I did want to point out that from my perspective, it was not a content issue.--v/r - TP 01:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your subsequent edit

Hi, Could you please explain in detail your rationale for the edit here? I did not revert you, for as you well know that would quickly escalate to a waste of life edit war. But as an experienced editor, I wonder why you take a bold step mid way through discussiosn without participating in the discussions. I tagged it, not reverted it, for it does not correspond to the sources given. Does it? Please explain on the article talk. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone else reverted you. I hope that will not result in an edit war... What a waste of life that would be... History2007 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread reopened

Is it allowed to reopen one's own AN/I complaint after another has closed it? That is what Mathsci has done, here, after you closed his complaint about me. (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  • The are no real rules for ANI closings, just practices.
  • The only real goal an editor who's mentioned in an ANI thread should to be get out unsanctioned. It's a non-deterministice, frequently hostile place.
  • Just because an editor says something doesn't mean it's true or that you have to listen. For example, although many established editors will say you should have an account, the owner of Wikipedia has explicitly stated its not required.
  • You'll want to be aware of the history of Race and Intelligence editing as outlined at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#A_comment_on_.27consensus.27_for_edits.
  • You're going to have to discuss potential edits and gain consensus before changing the article. Don't make comments about other editors, and see WP:Other Duck for how to respond to unfounded accusations about yourself. NE Ent 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Harvey

Yes, I should have cited The Rest of the Story -- that would have been a better link. (Certainly no disrespect to Paul Harvey was intended. I enjoyed his radio commentary for years and years.) But Xerographica has a tendency to leave out portions of pertinent information and add other stuff that is off-topic. (But that is an ANI issue.) The connection with Spinelli is that Xerographica added a remark to Spinelli's talk page User_talk:Hugo_Spinelli#Tearing_down_vs_building_up that seemed calculated to poison the well. Regardless, I engaged with Spinelli -- regarding an AfD and the Haran article -- in a most polite manner. He rebuffed me with comments that echoed X's tone. His tagging my talk page with the edit war message got under my skin. But like the healthy reptile that I am, the old skin is now shedded and I said SORRY on my talk page. If Spinelli reads it, then fine. Perhaps we can, as I had suggested to him earlier, bury the hatchet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Also, I was not using Paul Harvey to justify my comment to Spinelli. TROTS was WRT X's posting of my comment on the ANI. I hope this clarifies my intent about Harvey. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah! I had to LOL when I saw you post WP:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portolanero.27s_subpages. I had a similar, unproductive, discussion with Spinelli at User_talk:Hugo_Spinelli#User_subpage_advice. I was waiting for a response when I got sidetracked with the Brady Haran CRYSTAL issue. And then this ANI came up. I'm hoping to reconcile so that I could point to Portolano as being a similar problem. In any event, if Portolano's subpages get deleted, it might persuade Spinelli to template his subpages. (But I doubt that I shall have any direct engagement with Spinelli.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
...for following your wikocratic oath of First, cause no drama.(ref). Keep up the good work on ANI and elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus DRN

Do you know what happened to it? It just disappared. Humanpublic (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Was archived by a bot. I've restored it. NE Ent 16:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talkcontribs) 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Know your Asimov (or your Friedrich Schiller)

(Personal attack removed)...the Gods Themselves contend in vain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) (oops, posted this at AN instead of here, where I intended)

Sisyphus ain't got nothin' on me! NE Ent 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Kudos for Schneier quote

I have to give you kudos for using a quote from Bruce Schneier. I had lunch with him once, shortly after the release of his first book. Me and several other people, that is. He was a remarkbly friendly and helpful person, similar in ways to you. I learned a great deal in the short time I spent talking with him. And since I'm here, I'll say thanks for all the many long hours you spend helping the project. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Kind regards. (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Since you've expressed an interest in reforming how we handle sanctions, I'd like to encourage you to participate in the associated RFC.   — C M B J   09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Reopening of closed discussion

This discussion was closed, but it was reopened here. LittleBen (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

STOP misrepresenting the truth. The newer discussion is different from the previous one. You are now defending an anti-social psychopath who, when he doesn't like another user's Wikipedia contributions, will contact that person's employer in the real-world and ask them to ban that person from editing Wikipedia. You are also continuing to violate your own topic ban, and have made nothing but personal attacks against me for several weeks. (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Broken anchor

Eep, sorry about this. I noticed the anchor breakage as well and I almost made the same edit, but then I thought, surely it's such a recent section, nobody would really need the old anchor already. Failing to realize, of course, that your notifications didn't use a permalink. My bad. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Clerk renamed it anyway. NE Ent 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd non-revert

Would you care to explain this? I mean, other than your desire to stick it to the evil Arbitrators, I very much fail to understand how reverting a null edit whose reason to exist was to approve of the edit is useful in any way?

Certainly you wouldn't have reverted me without even taking the time to actually look at what you reverted? — Coren (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct; the intent isn't clear. My goal wasn't to "revert you" it was to perform a null edit to add my speechifying to yours, and reverting the space you inserted or removed was the quickest way to that goal. I'll be more careful in the future.
I'll note that I'm pretty confident I've never called any Wikipedia editor evil; it's not consistent with my frame of reference for this place. While obviously I see Wikipedia as a whole "good" -- I wouldn't spent time on it otherwise -- with rare exceptions, I don't consider individual edits or editors as either good or evil. (Those exceptions are matters for WMF referral for addressing by appropriate police authorities, not Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures). NE Ent 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Ent. I saw your comment at WT:Blocking policy - Do I care about a rogue, non-communicative, on the road to dictatorship committee? Now, I hope it's obvious that no one wants that, but I will just state here and now that I personally, really don't want that. When I ran for Arbcom, I was concerned about it's actions - indeed, it was the largest reason I ran. I hope you can believe me when I say I am pushing for transparency, whilst also attempting to find my feet in an area I have limited experience.

I'm happy to discuss any decisions the committee has made, but I would be more interested in any suggestions on how we can get off the road that you see us walking down. Change takes time, but I have some plans of changes I hope to implement when things have calmed slightly. I'd really like to hear if you have any other ideas. WormTT(talk) 10:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page passer-by) I've been a harsh critic of ArbCom as an organization in the last few days, but the thing is that I really don't want to be. It's encouraging to hear you say that, Worm. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've no issues with criticism on this encyclopedia, much of it valid and the important thing is to learn from it. It may be that the issue is not with a decision made, but how we communicate the decision and the thinking behind it, but the fact is when criticism is forthcoming, there is almost always a place improve. Hex, my plea also goes to you and to anyone else who might pop by - if you have suggestions for improvement, raise them. If you think it's something one arbitrator can do, raise them with me. I'm happy to listen at my talk page or by email. I may not be the fastest, but I do try and get things done. WormTT(talk) 11:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I knew that, that's why I voted for you. I'll get back to you with further input following the entmoot. NE Ent 14:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There's an entmoot? I might not hold my breath... WormTT(talk) 14:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blowing out matches as the house fire rages :)

  • (del/undel) 10:35, March 13, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+30,172)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/ExternalSites ‎ (subpage)

and I'm singing to myself: "99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer. Ya take one down, pass it around ..." — Ched :  ?  13:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey NE Ent; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Manual archiving

Hey Ent. I think you can leave archiving the Arbcom noticeboard to the clerks, they're generally pretty good on keeping an eye on things. In this case, you seem to have missed this edit to that thread, just 3 days ago. WormTT(talk) 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You might also leave others' user-pages alone, especially if you are not a clerk. Adding a vacuous user-box would be a waste of time, at best, even for a clerk. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Ent

A bit delayed, but I did want to thank you for your comments on my talk recently. Always a pleasure to see you about the project. You have some very insightful thoughts to share - thank you. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A hanging

Admin Drmies has threatened to effectively ban me. (I don't take it seriously, though.) How are you? (Wiki's only philosopher! Intothatdarkness & Epipelagic are more ... existential pragmatists !? And you more classic -- Socrates, me thinks.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Philosopher? There goes my self-image, I thought I was a pragmatist ;) I'm good; as you can see from ↑ I'm supposed to be going off-wiki to deal with real life stuff (all good) but not being 100% successful. Thanks for the note. NE Ent 14:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Existential pragmatist? Interesting... I just thought I babbled. Intothatdarkness 20:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello NE Ent. I'm the person who contacted you here, but I finally have an account now.

There is an issue I explained here that I think should be in arbitration. Courcelles told me if I want Arbcom to take a new look at it, I should make a case request. I never have tried to do that before, and I wonder if arbitrators won't take it seriously because I registered so recently, even though before registering I edited for a long time as an IP. But I don't think it should be delayed until after I make more edits from my account, because then arbitrators will think it happened so long ago it no longer matters. You seem familiar with the history of this situation, so can you give any help? Akuri (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What specific goal do you wish to accomplish? NE Ent 17:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the arbitrators should prohibit Future Perfect at Sunrise from making any more admin actions related to the race and intelligence topic, and maybe also take away his admin powers. In this part of his request a few months ago, Cla68 showed that FPAS already lost his admin powers once before, in the Macedonia 2 case.
Courcelles also told me he thought an arbitration case should cover all of the recent issues there have been in the race and intelligence topic area. So if there is a request, it should cover all of that as well as FPAS. I know he's not the only person whose conduct related to this area has been a problem. I'd like Arbcom to deal with the other problem editors as well, preferably all in the same case. Akuri (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
To be successful, a dispute resolution request should be framed in terms of how the encyclopedia as a whole would benefit from the action. Since KoH removed the hard block the particular issue was resolved. Race and Intelligence is just a toxic, intractable political mess and taking any positive action with respect to the situation is going to be extremely difficult. We don't do justice here (see [[WP:NOJUSTICE|no justice). Do to limitations on wikitime, that's about all I can say right now, but if you're determined to proceed I'll try to add some thoughts in the next several days. NE Ent 11:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise has a long history of making bad decisions, look at the evidence Cla68 presented in the linked request. When an admin has misused their powers this many times, having their conduct examined by Arbcom is good for the encyclopedia. I'm determined to have this situation dealt with before I get blocked on an admin's whim again, and lose the ability to request anything at all. But I'd like to hear anything you have to say best way to accomplish that. You can read my response to The Devil's Advocate in my user talk for more details of my perspective. Akuri (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You may file an arbitration request at WP:RFAR. Remember, arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process for user conduct. Per the instructions on the page, "Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't tried many times to resolve it by other means, but lots of others have. There have been at least 7 arbitration requests about it in the past year, and about as many AE threads. In many of them, uninvolved editors and arbitrators said a full case was needed. Akuri (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, a full case was needed after all. If you post at WP:RFAR, please provide the numerous attempts to resolve the dispute. The numerous requests were rejected. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


[4] Fladrif (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, I completely and honestly understand all your points now and would like to fully apologize if I caused any trouble or intend to be disruptive in doing so. As a regular editor for over 6 years, over 49,000 edits, 12 good articles and 11 featured articles, I sincerely apologize once again if I have caused any disruption to the project and I don't want to consider placing formal sanctions against me because I am a longtime and a trusted contributor, and I know how to remain civil in discussions and assume good faith. I've read through everything and will keep those in mind, but please note that when I blank posts on my talk page, I am perfectly entitled to do so and that indicates that I have read through them. I do not truly intend to be disruptive at all, nor do I want to be deterred from editing Wikipedia. Thanks once again. I appreciate them very much. All the best for Easter, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


It's very disappointing that you didn't give me the courtesy of asking what was going on before reverting one of my edits even when I specifically said that something fishy is going on. If you had read the material to which I alluded you would see that there is indeed something strange going on and some of us are now in conversation with an advocacy organization that is coordinating edits to multiple articles. Can you please try to give some of your fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and check into things when one of us asks folks to step back for a bit because something weird is going on? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You've made a false inference; I read the explanation on JohnInDC and did not find it compelling. I'm not sure who the "original editor" you refer to in the edit summary is, so I did not read that. In any event, the edit was well sourced and just dumping it was rude ; from my perspective, it was your reversion that was not giving an editor the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing in the edit that in any way harms the encyclopedia. Whether or not the insertion should remain, be trimmed down, or removed altogether should be discussed at Talk:Cornell_University. 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to know that advocacy organizations can count on you to rush to their defense when they employ meatpuppets to press their POV. And it's comforting that is such an important cause that you must do so immediately without giving heed to experienced editors who were actively working through a delicate issue with the organization in question. Kudos! ElKevbo (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


WP:Administrators' noticeboard#User:KumiokoCleanStart - closure comment was just about perfect, I thought. As an aside, is there a good reason you're not an admin? I expect you might get a few opposes, but you'd get my support - and a nomination if you want it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked that a while back too .. maybe 2-3000 edits ago. And especially if he beefed up a few more articles, I think he'd do pretty well at a RfA. And no - I'm honestly not following you around Boing - although it sure seems like it today. I honestly have had the Ent's talk on my watchlist for a while now. Good head on his shoulders, and does good work here. — Ched :  ?  23:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I almost felt flattered cos I thought I had a stalker :-(

But yes, Ent has the ability to speak plainly and nail the issue, and clearly puts content creators first. Perhaps an offer of co-noms from us might sway things? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure .. I'd do that in a heartbeat Boing. Up to you Ent. — Ched :  ?  02:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
While I'm taking a break from admin nom'ing duties, I would gladly make an exception for you NE, if you so chose. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Aww, shucks! Kicks dirt with toe. (or root) If / when my current real life "crush" allows me to return to WP I'll seriously consider this. NE Ent 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Misery loves company, so yes, you should do an RfA. ;) Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. You should go for an RFA. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I also agree for what little my opinion is worth. Glad to pile on though. Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I noticed a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators. You've obviously got the noms already, but I'm kinda curious as to how things are going to work with that new project. Anyway - if you're busy in real life, then I agree it's best to wait. I'd say wait until you can spend a few hours each day just to respond to the questions that get thrown at you for a week. I do have some general concerns about getting people to run for admin., (as I noted on that project's talk page); but in general I feel you have the maturity and temperament to do the work if you wanted to. I don't have the even keel and steady as a rock type of mindset that Dennis or NYB do; but then few folks do. Either way, feel free to ping me any time. Cheers, and good luck with that "real life" thing - it can be a real pain and messes with a person's "wiki-time" a bunch. — Ched :  ?  03:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I appreciate you standing up for me. Thanks for that. I dare say some admins could learn much about integrity from you. Take care! ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


My comment was a joke... but thanks for the welcome anyways. --FrigidNinja 03:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More bullying by the ultra-nationalists

here. LittleBen (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Treebeard. In case it needs saying: I obviously don't think myself entitled to "topic ban" you from anywhere, or tell you what to do altogether. I just wanted to ask you to think about that figure you gave. Just availing myself of the time-honoured Wikipedia culture of interferingness. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

Perhaps you might want to add the sarcasm tag to your ANI post, as the edit summary also might perk some ears.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
13:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I try to avoid the "now laugh, please" tags. Plus it wasn't sarcasm exactly; it was bona fide advice that I think it would do our friend good to consider. Plus also, the semi-quotes there from the regulation unblock template should be a bit of a giveaway ("If you would like to be unbanned, you may appeal this ban by adding the text.."). Plus thirdly, I don't care that much if some other person misunderstands my tone. No, seriously. I don't want any risk of NE misunderstanding it, and so I post here. If anybody else is outraged, I expect they'll protest and then they can gently be put right. Pedantic answer, sorry, but no tags. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

My ban appeal

I had something to add. Will you unclose it? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably ... but it's a really bad idea. Wikipedia is a political place and you don't have any support at all right now. Best bet is to just contribute in other areas without getting into conflict with other editors for awhile -- at least three months or so, but six would be better. NE Ent 23:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The consensus was 3-2 and the discussion hadn't been up for even a day. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
No, you've got BWilkins, Boing! Said Zebedee, Dennis Brown, BearMan, Drmies and Giantsnowman trending against, plus you're attacking editors with comments like "fictional" accounts. The most likely outcome if you pursue engaging the way you have is for sanctions to be expanded, not reduced. NE Ent 01:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Who did I call fictional? I said claims against me are fictional (or lies), such as Snowman's claim I have made POINTy editing, something I have never done, just his biased opinion. Like many others, you don't seem to know anything. Renew the discussion. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi yes, it's me, but not any bigger. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


Your last comment at ANI had the wrong number of tildes in the signature diff. You may want to fix. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I have trouble with that "counting" thing ... Richwales picked up the slack for me so I'll let it be. NE Ent 11:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread closure

Helllo NE Ent. I approved of the way you hatted my and Mathsci's comments in the ANI thread, because the way you did that didn't get rid of my comments about Memills, which was all I wanted to say there before Mathsci brought up my editing history. But Mathsci has reverted your edit and removed all of my comments again, even though I said here that only uninvolved admins are supposed to do this. Can you please change the thread hatting back to the way it was before, so that my comment about Memills (which was not off-topic) is visible? I would do it myself, but I don't want to get accused of edit warring at ANI. Akuri (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's prudent; which is why I'm not going to do it either. I have, however, added a comment which should serve the equivalent function. NE Ent 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Akuri (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


May I send u an Email? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course. NE Ent 01:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

# in front of your support regarding TDA?

Is it OK if I put one in there or should they not be numbered? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me but I generally don't see that being done on AN or ANI. You're welcome to as far as I'm concerned but can't speak for the rest of the folks there. NE Ent 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's not done it's not done. I'll just see how things develop. Sorry for the bother. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Attack categories

Hello NE Ent, this is Akuri again. Sorry for having to contact you again so soon, but I need to ask your advice on how to handle something.

Mathsci has just created the category sockpuppets of Akuri, and tagged 55 IP addresses that I've posted from as my sockpuppets. As my account isn't blocked, and I never tried to hide who I was when I edited while logged out, I don't think my editing logged out constitutes socking. Some of the IPs that he tagged, including all those in the 110.32.* range, are IPs that I only edited from before I had an account. It definitely isn't socking to post anonymously when you don't have an account yet. But most people who look at this category won't likely be aware that I used these IPs legitimtately, and will assume I'm actually a sockmaster.

I think Mathsci's doing this is a misuse of the sockpuppet tags, and normally I would make a complaint about it at AE or ANI, but The Devil's Advocate has told me it probably won't be effective for me to try to make a complaint after being registered so little time. On the other hand, I don't think I should have to let myself be labelled as a sockmaster from now on just because one editor created that category to attack me. What do you think is the appropriate response to this situation? (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci is reporting me at AE now. Do you think it will be possible for the sockpuppet category he created to be dealt with in his AE report? Akuri (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not offended, I just want guidance on what is the proper place to address Mathsci's creation of the sockpuppet category about me. Can you please tell me that? Sandstein said it does not fall within the scope of AE, so I thought maybe that meant it should be discussed at AN or ANI. If you think that AN thread also was the wrong place to raise the issue, I trust your judgment so I won't revert you. I just want to know what the right place is, instead of having to fumble around trying to guess at that. Akuri (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_4#Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Akuri. You're done with using open proxies and editing while logged out, right? NE Ent 13:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that's been posted about there. I can't tell if you asked Darkness Shines to do that, but thanks if you did. How does discussion work at that page? Is it like an AFD, where eventually an admin will close the discussion, or relist if there's no consensus yet?
I don't know if I'll never edit logged out anymore, but I certainly intend to do it much less often now that I know I can be blamed for edits other people make from the same IPs. But I don't think I can avoid using proxies. My default IP range is caught in a rangeblock and I don't qualify for IP block exception, so I have no other way to edit. I asked King of Hearts if he could think of any other way for me to edit, but he couldn't. If you can think of a way for me to edit without having to use proxies, I'd like to hear it. Akuri (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, much like Afd. How do you know you don't qualify for range block exception? NE Ent 19:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I know because King of Hearts asked the blocking admin if I qualify, and the request was declined. Akuri (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I just quoted you, sorry for the trouble — you don't have to comment there.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Solved now. Thank you for your ever-wise input. Much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. NE Ent 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom reform RFC

I figured you might be interested in helping me out on this: User:TParis/Arbcom_RFC_2013.--v/r - TP 23:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Should be offline for a few days, will check on status when I return. NE Ent 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuska Massacre

That would be Evlekis. Sorry if you get sucked into this maelstrom, NE Ent :-) bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries. The admin folks will either rangeblock the IPs or semi-protect the articles. NE Ent 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent, you have my sympathies as well regarding the Evlekis socks. By the way, I felt that Fladrif's attitude towards me was off-putting from the very beginning and they were personal attacks (he was in fact blocked after an ANI discussion regarding his bullying tactics towards other users including myself). I am almost always a very civil person by nature, and I don't care if I get involved in any disputes. I've blown up at users before, apologized and tried not to do those things anymore, but that's what separates those from dealing with disruptive users. I'm sorry if I have caused any issues or if have been uncivil in any way. I did not mean for some things to happen. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Haven't had time to follow that particular thread. NE Ent 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I just wanted to let you know about this matter. But still, keep up the good work as usual! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


Yes, it's confusing, but I'm afraid I don't know of any better way to RevDel that many diffs, can't believe the outing went un-noticed for so long (even by me). If you're looking for Aerolit (talk · contribs)'s comment about "American women painters", it's here. GiantSnowman 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note for me -- diff says "You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions have been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page. " But from the date/time it's obviously the comment still visible at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#American_women_painters (which I pointed out in the ANI thread). It's a software interface issue. NE Ent 10:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


I've replied there, but I have to admit I'm a bit taken back by your claim that my actions were petty and punitive. They were not. They were the exact instructions that Checkusers tell us we must perform on every single SPI case. If you looked at my talk page and the SPI case itself, you would find that I have gone well out of my way to treat the sockmaster with the utmost in respect, more than some might think is warranted. I don't have a history of punitive or petty actions towards editors, so I'm stymied as to why it was so easy for you to jump to that conclusion. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say your actions were against policy, nor did I mention your name. I am curious as to what the blanking and tagging didn't happen last week [5]. NE Ent 11:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It isn't done the moment the CU says "confirmed", it is done before archiving. The case was still open. Our scripts let us block/tag/close/archive/etc all in one automated action, which I did here [[6]] as part of the normal process. The script makes all the other edits happen in the background, I just push one button and it does many edits. It wasn't in reaction to Drmies request, I only opined in that section as I was the clerk working that case. What bothers me is the ease of which you assume I would grave dance, when in fact I was following established procedure to the letter. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging specifically says to both blank and tag for indef blocks, which is likely why the scripts are programmed to do just that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Those instructions are inconsistent with user page policy (see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_12#WP:BLANKING). NE Ent 11:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That looks like they are talking about talk pages since it is talking about block notices and not tags. We only blank the user pages, and only for indef socks. I didn't touch his talk page. Actually, if you look at his talk page, it is pretty easy to see he has no malice towards me either. If you want to go debate with the Checkusers on what they expect of clerks, go ahead, but this is long standing practice and certainly not a petty and punitive action by me. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
How does it improve the encyclopedia? NE Ent 09:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It makes it much easier for us to track sockpuppets. I use those tags multiple times a day and credit them for helping me links socks by quickly threading through archives and matching edits. It is difficult to explain unless you've spent a great deal of time sock hunting, but they do matter. A lot. They make it easier, and sometimes possible to catch sock earlier, before they continue to POV push, vote stack, vandalize and other things that socks do. Socking frustrates good faith editors and has undoubtedly lost us some good editors who grow frustrated from not being able to edit due to a sock attacking them, or reverting back bad info into articles again and again. SPI isn't sexy, but it does make the place better for the average editor. That is an important tool. Maybe you can't see that because you don't work in those areas, and you are welcome to bring it to a forum, but I can tell you they aren't put up there to be grave dancing, they are tools we use and depend on, and only use on indef blocked editors. If they get unblocked, they are free to remove them. As long as they are blocked, just like block templates on a talk page, they are expected to say there for admin use. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
How do you a know a page has a sock tag on it before you look? NE Ent 00:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I often don't, that is why the tag helps, because then I instantly know they are. I can go look at an article's contribs where there are blocked editors (I instantly know they are blocked by looking at their name via a script I have), click on the user page, see the template, make one click to the SPI page and see every sock linked to them. Also, if someone says "That looks like user:bob, I can instantly go over to that user page, then over to the SPI without trying to use the less than optimal search function, and I'm looking all the socks and I'm one click away from all the contribs for them all. There are other uses as well. Combined with the other SPI tools, it reduces the time to work cases significantly. As I said before, it isn't to be petty or punitive, it actually helps those of us that try to keep the place sock-free. Also, some tags are marked as being CU blocks (which the block log also says) but that gives us information as well. Unless you actually work actively with socks, it is hard to explain, but I wouldn't be saying this if it didn't make a difference. This wasn't my idea, I just support it and it has been that way well before I became an admin. If you want that changed, you probably should talk to the Functionaries, who pretty much dictate CU/SPI procedures. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone says That looks like user:bob they should be directed to follow policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Sockpuppet_investigations. NE Ent 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Ent, this is ridiculous. It started when you insulted my actions while ignorant of the fact that they were standard operating procedure and have been for a very long time. I've been generous with my time trying to explain but now your tone is bordering on petty and condescending. I've done my best but apparently I lack the communications skills to explain it sufficiently for your tastes. You are free to go complain to the Checkusers if you like, or Jimbo, or drag the whole SPI staff to Arb and have us bit-stripped, I don't care. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 02:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Thank you for your approach to be known by the quality of your contributions and for being somebody who closes threads that lead only deeper into WP:Great Dismal Swamp aka Endmoot, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 126th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. NE Ent 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

  You are a remarkably exemplar editor.
You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified!
You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

My76Strat (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. NE Ent 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome, though it is more proper that I give thanks to you; for the many things I have observed of your doing. (I need to fix that section edit link) My76Strat (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Have some edamame


Before you're annihilated by some scary darwinbish template, fortify yourself with a bowl of edamame. It's healthy for ents and others, and delicious! Bishonen | talk 21:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

Eeeew... I'm like a tree, I eat dirt, water and sunshine. Eating a fellow plant would be like cannabilism!. NE Ent 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
All right, just drink the beer, then. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC).
As beer comes from plant products, logical consistency would dictate I be equally offended by the beer ... but I like beer ;), so thanks! NE Ent 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Plant? Ah no, I was thinking of the Monty Python meme that American beer is like making love in a canoe, you know. Fucking close to water. Maybe with a bit of dirt thrown in. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC).
Ah. Two things happened in 1980: Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl -- including the "making love in a canoe" line -- was filmed and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company was founded. So while 94% of Americans still drink colored water, 6% of us don't and the number is rising.[1] NE Ent 23:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[/me internally sings the Australian professors' history of philosophy song. Considers creating sock User:Australian Philosophy Professor.] Bishonen | talk 06:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC).

Read the history

Per request, I'd reverted my own edit long before you felt the need to gripe at me.

Regarding the policy you cited, look at the "Content disputes" section directly underneath: "except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies" The protected version of the article violated content policies.

Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
For correcting Likely Spock to Likely Sock. Live long and prosper, you wonderful Ent! Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

  This made me smile, thank you for brightening up my day. :) Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To: Jester

ROTF - LOLOLOLOLOL. Thank you very much for that. I was in much need of a smile. :-D Hopefully you won't suffer too many bite marks in the process. — Ched :  ?  15:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I'd hate to think of myself, or Eric, or you, as mindless editing drones. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please don't deliberately misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI comments

I've addressed your comment, and would appreciate a thoughtful response. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Other help

Any suggestions for an admin to help with a hoax region since Elen has not been on in a while? Thank you for stalking! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If I agreed that Upstate California was entirely a hoax I'd take it to WP:AFD. In my opinion, the sourcing by the NY Times and SF Chronicle justify an article. It certainly would be appropriate to do some editing as the term mostly seems to have been created as a promotion / marketing endeavor rather than an actual commonly used term. (I did some original research: the significant other grew up in the San Jose area and haven't hadn't heard the term but kind of had a guess as to what it would mean.) An incomplete list of editors who might be good resources is User:Beyond My Ken, User:Bishonen, User:Drmies, User:Eric Corbett listed alphabetically based on names I've seen recently, I know there's lots others I'm forgetting right now... NE Ent 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
[Anxious to avoid work at all cost.] You need an American for that! Not us Swedes, Dutchmen and limeys! (Your significant other are plural? Your harem?) Bishonen | talk 12:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC).
Only in my dreams. NE Ent 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. "Upstate California" is a made-up promotional term which is non-real due to the official use of "Northern California" which encompasses this "Upstate" area which is officially known as "Shasta Cascades" east of I5 and "North Coast" west of there. We have pages for the official divisions of California, to add an imaginary division inside of Northern based on one or two articles from over a decade ago seems to show that whatever marketing campaign it was, fizzled and is therefore non-notable. There is a sub-text here too. That Upstate California Economic Development Agency is not a real governmental agency as are most other entities titled "Economic Development Agency". It is an alleged non-profit, headquartered in a house, not an office building and without a current 501.3.c U.S. IRS tax number (according to the IRS lookup service online). I also do not find that they completed their California business paperwork. Please notice that a significant portion of the Upstate article refers to this entity. I think Wiki is being used in this case to further personal causes and I really don't think those two articles are enough to be notable. If having 2 newspaper articles was enough to be notable, I'd have a entry in Wiki having had at least 1/2 dozen articles about me and my work in the New York Times and other major publications and my photograph published in more than 1000 places during the 1950s and 1960s. But I don't desire self-promotion; unlike the folks seeking donations to their alleged non-profit. Notice this line in the Sacramento News article: "In the end, the campaign became a kind of national running joke about the wackiness of California." source Unfortunately, it will be later this week when I start to contact those you suggested, I work weekends! Again thank you for your help in this regard. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you have a reasonable case for simply taking the article to WP:AFD. NE Ent 01:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


That was definitely not my intent - I presumed it was a more-or-less necessary formality to post it on the 3RRNB, given that it is, well, a 3RR violation. Obviously not, and I'll avoid such cross-posting in the future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a biggie is this particular case but generally once an issue is raised on one of the dispute resolution forums it's just handled there. (Sometimes you'll get someone telling you you've posted in the wrong place, but, hey, we're not supposed to be a bureaucracy). NE Ent 02:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Echo thanks

Finally I dug out on the Echo page what these weird hearts are about — the one from you is the latest. Hearts? Mhm. Want cookies! Meringue or similar would suit. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

"Off topic summary"

Yes, inasmuch as it contained a comment about the editor as well as a comment about the edit, I suppose it was arguably off topic. Sometimes I think "aloud" and fail to ponder the advisability of a given edit summary for the requisite 60 seconds before clicking Save page. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, my summary was civil, factual, and—in my imperfectly developed thinking—intended to get the attention of a contributor who thus far had refused to engage in productive discussion. In other words, while my summary may not have been optimal, it was well-intended and did no harm. One of the several reasons I rarely post to ANI is because some of its habitués seem to delight in spreading blame as widely as possible, finding fault with anyone and everyone for every little thing. Such gratuitous nitpicking has much to do with producing the lengthy, convoluted, drama-filled threads that so often overwhelm that noticeboard. You brought attention to the minor failings of three editors, including myself, for what purpose? One editor was causing 100% of the disruption at the article in question. Unless he has a blinding revelation while blocked, that editor will be at it again in 72 hours, but I don't think I'll be reporting him again when he does. (Btw, I guess I should say "you're welcome". The mysterious Echo tells me that you "thanked" me for notifying the blocking admin of the ANI thread. At least, I think that's what it tells me. All I know is that I keep clicking "thank" when I mean to click "undo" nowadays. And I thought beta testing was on an opt-in basis!) Rivertorch (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I would like to clarify that I don't mean to lump you in with Wikipedians who are frequently unhelpful at ANI. I've seen your contributions in various places around the wiki for years now, they are almost invariably very helpful, and I specifically appreciate the good work you do at ANI—a thankless place if ever there was one. In this case, you struck a nerve, but I do not see it as part of any pattern on your part. Rivertorch (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Not ignoring you, just out of wiki time for today... NE Ent 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It's my goal to deescalate situations as much as possible and that includes analyzing complete situations as much as possible. The individual effect of any edit is unmeasurable. I concur there's little specific harm in context as the editor was on their way to an indef-we-probably-do-mean-infinite-this-time block; however, given ANI is a stage with 6000 in the audience I try to address the bigger picture, and I think it's best experienced established editors model optimal behavior to the utmost of our ability. By that I mean newer editors might see comments about other editors and not understand the specific context and then think it's okay to make comments about others in less cut and dried situations. I disagree with the "100%" because I don't see WP as a zero sum game. For what it's worth, I did "dial down" my comment from inappropriate which was my initial thought; the thanks thingy was intentional as I had gone to the admin's TP to give them a head's up and appreciate you had already done so. NE Ent 02:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal. In fact, what precipitated this thread is the sort of thing I almost always ignore; I've been here long enough that I can shrug it off, and I very nearly did. Since I chose to make this the exception, and since you took the time to write a thoughtful reply, I'll say a bit more. I don't see WP as a zero-sum game either, but there may well be zero-sum rounds to the game. The issues raised at ANI (and other noticeboards, for that matter) are frequently complex, and there is often plenty of blame to go around. Sometimes, however, it is 100% cut and dried—not because an indef is imminent, which can happen even when the situation is complex and the fault lies with multiple contributors, but because one contributor and only one is behind the problem. Such was the case with Shaushka.
By and large, the admins who respond at ANI do a pretty good job of sifting through the complexities, determining the root cause of the trouble, and dealing with it. Everyone who has been here for very long knows that his or her own actions are subject to scrutiny after filing a report, but that doesn't mean one should routinely expect to take flak. Non-admin commentary and clerking are net positives at ANI, I think, and I've seen you do excellent work in that regard, but I really cannot fathom what you were thinking in this case. Given your realization that ANI has a potential audience of thousands, did you really see it as "deescalation" to call out three good-faith editors in the way you did? Of the three of us, only one did something blatantly wrong (the summary using the 'v' word), and even that could have been addressed with a quiet word on the user's talk page, where one supposes the audience is well under 6000. The second of the three is a new user, who for his trouble got humbled very publicly at ANI. And then there's little old me, who used to practically have nightmares about ANI; my summary was sub-optimal because I used it to address another user, but that happens all the time and really shouldn't be a problem if the wording is civil and constructive, which mine was.
I agree completely that established editors should set a good example, but part of doing so should involve making good judgments about when and how to point out one another's missteps and errors. Are newer editors supposed to hesitate to report legitimate problems for fear of attention being drawn to their minor failings? What I saw when I first encountered ANI as a newbie was that even very simple problems that rightly should have been laid at the feet of individual editors were instead muddled by other editors who for some reason felt the need to spread the blame. And that simply should not happen. It's pointless and counterproductive. Sort of like stopping to assist a fellow motorist whose car is on fire, only to be admonished for parking illegally when the police arrive. Rivertorch (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Off topic

I reverted your hatting, if you wish you may hat it again. I don't want to edit war about it. But hear me out first.[7] That link actually contained a comment about the neutrality of the article and, as a corollary to that, about the nom also. I don't think it was entirely off-topic. Like I said, if you wish you may hat it but I would prefer that you didn't. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The link is fine, I just don't think the portion you quoted is particularly helpful. NE Ent 16:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Your closure at ANI does not address the issue I raised there, of another editor staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP:Talk

A discussion is taking place regarding a change you made to the BLP noticeboard header in april. Your insight would be appreciated. Although the fancy new notification thing has probably already pinged you... Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Holiday or pissed off?

Not editing much lately, are you? Holiday or terminally pissed off? Funny how the latter keeps happening to the most ambitious contributors. :-( Bishonen | talk 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

Contributor? Moi??? I was annoyed I accidentally went 4 digits with my mainspace edit count (lost track) .... not pissed off, real life has just got in the way of having time for wikipedia. New job, yada yada yada. Likely return to whatever it is I do here come (North American) winter. NE Ent 01:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That's good. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC).


  Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit war at Wikipedia:Banning policy. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

John Foxe

I'd suggest that you reopen/unarchive the thread. This is purely because it really should be able to run more; we shouldn't close an unsanction discussion after just twenty-three minutes unless it's blatantly made in bad faith. I don't have an opinion about whether he should be unsanctioned, and I'd say the same thing to you if you were an admin; the time thing is the only reason I'm bringing this up. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I completely failed to observe that this had been open for a week! My apologies. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you, I appreciate your assistance.--John Foxe (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Office actions

Please don't - ever, under any circumstances - revert an office action without attempting to discuss it with us first. That includes where we might list something - there are very carefully crafted agreements behind most of them. The intent of a courtesy blank is not always to avoid attention - sometimes it's simply to remove things from a google cache. In this case, the other party agreed fully to the courtesy blank knowing that it would draw attention. I'll ask again - please don't revert office actions without attempting to discuss with us first. I should be clear that I know you were acting in good faith, but the potential for harm with office actions is massive. Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


Please don't engage in wholesale reverting. [8] You reverted to a mistake that someone added in a previous edit ("In late March 2010, Manning said she had recently given WikiLeaks a video ..."), and which my edit fixed (the giving was in March 2010, not the saying). Instead, please only change the things you actually disagree with. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


You're going to hit a third revert on the Bradley Manning article with another removal of information. Just making you aware. NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Question 3 onf Default State RFC

I think you need to look at question 3 again. The question is whether we should go through the current checkoffs and disable it for everyone, forcing everyone that wants to test to sign up again. Your answer doesn't quite line up with the question.

Thanks for tackling this, BTW.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarified closing statement. NE Ent 11:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at WP:ANRFC.
Message added 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear NE Ent.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I substantially agree with what you said, and I have replied at greater length there. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC for Visual Editor

I just wanted to say thanks for closing the RFC for Visual Editor. Did you leave a note about that at the Visual Editor page? Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There's more? I'm not done yet? If you leave a link to the page you mean I'll take a look ....NE Ent 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh no there's not really any more, I just wasn't sure if you left a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback letting them know it had been closed and summarized. Kumioko (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  Done NE Ent 02:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished, dear Ent: there's always more work, even while we're slaving away for a mere pittance. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing that. The committee's exemplar motion is taken from an old clarification request about Scientology and User:Lyncs, and I obviously forgot to delete all of the references from the template… (Oh, and by the way, I had already reduced the 250% template on Manning to a much more reasonable size.) AGK [•] 23:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw the 130% reduction shortly after removing the extraneous header. NE Ent 10:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Done as requested. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


  Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles"

You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb

I see you closed this earlier today. Do you intend to interpret whether there is a consensus about Joe's behavior? "Inactive" doesn't seem to be the way most RfCs are closed; most of them instead try to interpret consensus. Can we expect that in the near future? pbp 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I closed per the instructions at inactivity close as the state of the RFC situation seemed to fit the criteria. NE Ent
When you close, you're supposed to provide a close statement, not "closed due to inactivity".—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Reopen it, NE Ent, and let an admin close it. Your close is only giving PbP yet another opportunity to throw his toys out of the pram. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


No problem, they've been a problem this week and I was putting that on their talk page just as you edited also. Nate (chatter) 02:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dal gCais ruling

I'm at a loss to discover the rationale for your ruling. I demonstrated that I did not remove anything, that it was grouping up to the level of parent category. So how is that a violation? I also demonstrated that it was a case of more precision instead of generic categorisation. How is that a fault? Also, I'm curious to see where I can find the definition that says words includes categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The ban statement includes altering. See Wikipedia:Namespace for the listing of all namespaces, including Category. However, the actual rationale for my closing is everyone commenting was agreeing it was a violation and your response, arguing content on an admin noticeboard, pretty much always a mistake. I (and everyone else on the thread) could be wrong but the best way for you to address that would be on the original closing admin's talk page. If you feel strongly about it you can revert the close (reference this discussion), but I think that would be a mistake as there is a risk the length or scope of the ban might be extended. NE Ent 18:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not notifying of Laurel Lodged on the AN-threat is a plain mistake. I informed him that I was getting advice of an admin, and never thought about informing him about the next step. Sorry. The Banner talk 13:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Feelin' blue

Feelin' Blue, blue, blue, blue, blue.... (also Creedence). Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments appreciated

Bearing in mind my response to you here and responses by others at Talk:Manda clan and at the ANI thread, I wonder if you have any further comments? I'm hoping that you are familiar with the caste POV-pushing that goes on generally, usually with the intent of claiming royal connections even when no source exists, but no worries if you are not. The disputed content is still in the article and it would be par for the course that we do not get a response from the person who reinstated it unless it is removed again. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not familiar and I gotta go real life for awhile. NE Ent 11:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic/static/shared IP banner

I just updated my ISP banner on my talk page to explain the actual dynamics of the IP address lease. This seems to be a huge point to some people and it seems some believe geolocate despite it's inaccuracy as "static" for my allocation. Just after I changed it I was reviewing the page history and noticed you had changed it previously to "shared". I am not sure what that was based on and I am not sure what difference that makes for the banner but it was not done to contravene anybody's research. I left it that way. You or I can change it back if this makes a difference somehow. Thanks for your time.

Are you an administrator? It seems so hard to tell and my previous IP in 2010 got into trouble by not knowing and admins not announcing who we are dealing with. It's a problem for people coming from chat groups or Usenet as most of these banners and templates just look like some jerk troll attacking you with threats when you are a newbie.

I would love to tone some of these templates down with some polite and encouraging (but keep the firm) wording but I doubt an IP would survive it after what I have seen via my latest research of the discussions I have been involved with lately. Well I haven't had a chance to do much else so far. :). Thanks for all your efforts and clear thinking. (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin. Special:ListUsers will tell you what permissions an account has. I don't think there's a problem with the {{shared ip}} {{static ip}} (except the wrong one is often used). By the way, you've probably passed the point where engaging on ANI and the sock puppetry page is going to be beneficial -- once a thread gets filled up with a bunch of back and forth third parties to just move on to the next one. NE Ent 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I doubt any of our efforts will make any difference either way. I have researched many of these IPs from the list and of the few histories, that have not vaporized, it didn't matter what they did, they were indeffed for something unrelated within a few days anyway. If anything was going to happen in this matter it would have happened by now. I notice strong contributors suddenly losing interest after various personal events. I have found further reading online elsewhere about some editors and I am starting to see why this is happening for the last decade. "I am going to force you to co-operate willingly" :) All the best. (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


It's a shame you're asking me to violate confidentiality. I see that as a character flaw and I will delcine. I'm sure you'll work this into some type of drama, but so be it. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Is the user being indefinitely blocked not grounds to ignore WP:NOBAN? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not. Indefinite means unspecified, not permanent. NE Ent 23:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Don't do that again. It's disruptive. LODM can manage his or her own talk page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment at AN/I

Thank you for your comment over at AN/I. I'm replying here so as not to bog the thread/board down. If your definition of "discuss" here is to wait for a reply and then reply in turn, you're right. I did not. Not everyone is 24/7 and I considered the accusations sufficiently serious to be brought to the attention of the noticeboard and informed the IP in question on the talk page on which the original accusations were made that I would do so ("However, your note above is far more serious as you are maligning a user who no longer seems to be editing, and therefore unable to participate in this discussion. What is worse, neither of the two links you provide bear out any of your accusations. I shall raise this issue over at AN/I and link it to your talk page when I have done so").

Arriving at AN/I, my eyes went immediately to the text in large red letters: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.", message which is repeated in exactly the same terms on opening the edit box. Which I did. No mention of "before". In fact, I only noticed that "before" on reading your comment just now. However, the issue here is that accusations cannot be based on speculation and should, in my opinion, be removed forthwith. Surely the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks is equally valid for users who are no longer active and carries more weight than the technicality of yours truly having misread the instructions on the board? Bottom-line is that I should just have been bold and removed them myself, without trying to involve the community. BTW, the fact that the articles may or may not be based original research will be solved through the prods and/or normal editing processes. The important thing is to solve the problem, not to slander a user who cannot respond. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Or asked the user to refactor them. The off wiki link(s) should probably have been reported to Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight NE Ent 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


FYI, at the time the blacklisted-links tag was added to Hymns Instrumental was indeed blacklisted; I whitelisted it a few minutes later since that domain was not the intended target of the blacklist entry.
Amalthea 10:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact Richard Feynman. NE Ent 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

:) or :(

I'm going with :) --Onorem (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


In response to your comment about the word "tranche" as used in ArbCom elections: I'm not sure why we use "tranche" in this context either, but it was the standard term used on Wikipedia for the "classes" of arbitrators (as determined by year of election) when I got here, and it still is. I had never heard the term outside the finance context until the first time I read about a Wikipedia ArbCom election. Neutron (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


This [9] made me laugh. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ad absurdum

I feel understood ;) - has not happened so often recently. How about "ad kafkaescum"? (look for Kafka here), and how about signing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  Like this NE Ent, can we buy you a beer or something! Montanabw(talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm always well supplied. NE Ent 00:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey now. I didn't know that about you. I did always figure you for a gourmand Yankee, though. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck that was my original attempt in another article.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template editor

Hi, I saw that you just received the protected template editor userright. Are there any full protected templates that you'd like to edit? Let me know and I'll downgrade the protection so you can do so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. NE Ent 00:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

  I noticed that your closure of AN/I discussion has this really nifty large proclamation of the actual outcome. I find that to be amazingly simple and convenient to the eye in these cases. "Referred", "Protected" etc. I hope this will catch on with admin. I love it. Have a cheeseburger! I'd give you a kitten but they don't taste as good. ;-) Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Two more things. I'm now watching your page. I do that when I know I can learn a great deal from the interactions and work being done by editors like you. The other....I actually see something I was wondering if you could explain. The new Template user right. I was wondering what I need to do to request that user right. I promise not to abuse it in anyway, but find that sometimes even protected templates need a little adjustment. I noticed one broken one day and could only watch until an editor got around to fixing it and it drove crazy.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm really that good of a role model -- many editors frown on editors who don't contribute to mainspace very much dabbling in the dispute resolution areas, I think I get some sort of exemption from not here just 'cause I've been around for so long. And I don't react to stuff per WP:Other Duck. Thank you for the cheeseburger, and the template edit criteria are at Wikipedia:Template_editor#Guidelines_for_granting. NE Ent 00:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This cheeseburgering is making me hungry. Indeed, Ent is tolerated here for various reasons, their diversity being one of them. I keep trying to push them toward article creation, but you can't lead a horse to water. I also keep trying to find a good reason to block them indefinitely, but every time I concoct a plausible-sounding reason I think of how the Ent women have left the world and all that, and I just can't do it. Ent, that other duck sounds interesting--is it prepared with a red curry? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
@NE Ent: I don't tolerate you, I find your way of expressing in a simple template a complex thing (that took others two months to not understand) so good that I have no words for it, nor food. Precious. @Drmies: the article we talked about, I will write it myself, Don't tell the others, or I will not be able to add you-know-what. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You want me to inflict my incomprehensible grammar [10] on mainspace? NE Ent 10:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly it wasn't incomprehensible or it wouldn't be fixable! So yes! But you'd probably write about some computer nonsense, or database programming or something like that. And all the while The Rhetoric of Blindness is a red link. Your fault. Gerda, your secret is safe with me. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, you can safely tell everybody: I did it, at least a start. About blindness, more here and below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
When I first started I had to go back and remember all my basic English classes all over again. I am far from grammatically perfect, but I know I have improved from just diving in and then watching what changes were made. Also just reading the FA and GA articles helped m better understand the neutral, encyclopedic tone to use. Go for it. You never know how good something tastes until you take a bite!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

PXE etc.

Thanks for your comment at that user's talk page. Of course, if they "try again" in a few months and do it in the same way, it'll have the same result. I have no intention of keeping the IP out of the game, and if your comment steers them toward a more productive way of discussing and editing then it was certainly worth making. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi NE Ent, I see no problem with linking the non-primary boot methods (although a template may be better). As Matthiaspaul undid your edit, I encourage you to put your view in Talk:Preboot Execution Environment. It don't know who added the EXT or See alsos, but they've been that way some time. Widefox; talk 11:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree generally with you per wp:tpg for this edit restoring talk page links where I didn't justify such a drastic action. WP:TPO#Off-topic posts does allow removal "rants", although as subjective I will not redo my edit as contentious. I would appreciate if you discuss at Talk:Preboot_Execution_Environment#Source soliciting. Would collapsing the source soliciting EXT be a compromise you'd be happy with? (which I would have done if I'd spent more time on it). Widefox; talk 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl's defence

Hi NE Ent,

I have removed the "Archive wrapper" that you put the subsection entitled "Martinvl's defence". If you do not like what I have done, by all means complain to an administrator. You might like to read my response to "Beyond My Ken".

Martinvl (talk)@~

...and I have re-closed it. NE Ent was completely correct, that is not how ANI works. GiantSnowman 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind I changed "archive" to "collapse" ES&L 11:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


It's always nice to get a notice of "Thanks!" since so many notifications lead to unpleasant remarks. Thank you, NE_Ent! Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


Your contribution to article space compared to your "talking time" is abysmal. You, who almost deleted the IPSock template singlehandedly. Get off your high horse and edit an article once in a while. Is it that difficult? Less than 10% content space to an encyclopedia, yet preaching policy as if you know how to apply it, is not worthy of much respect. Earn it. Doc talk 11:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). NE's talking is helpful to the encyclopedia and widely appreciated. Look at the thanks on this page and especially at this section. Your opinion to the contrary my have some merit in the abstract, Doc, but that's obscured by the unpleasant tone you use. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC).
Hi, Bish! I am a self-admitted devil's advocate, though not a "master baiter" as some have suggested (that was my favorite). I know that Ent is a valuable asset, but I think of "content creator" arguments when I see a 9%'er. You know what I mean. Ent needs to get more "well-rounded" before attempting lofty goals this ; editing articles instead of dictating policy that isn't well-thought out or even researched. Doc talk 12:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Doc, your user page states
"This user is no longer interested in most other people's personal Wikipedia dramas."
and yet here you are, causing unnecessary drama. There is no need to go to Editor's Talk Pages and insult them. Imagine other users coming to your Talk Page to tell you how little they respect's unpleasant and out-of-line. And it sounds like you are sitting on a high horse yourself, passing judgment on others. Liz Read! Talk! 13:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not here to insult you, Ent or anyone else. I call it as I see it: and I don't see this contributor telling us what's what on most AN/I threads as the gospel. Yes, I'm annoyed that Ent tried to dismantle work that he didn't understand. Get in the trenches, is what I'm saying. Doc talk 13:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
My tone is often harsh, and I am often an asshole. I mean no real disrespect to NE Ent's contributions, and I am not attempting to get him in trouble or otherwise discourage his editing as it is, at all. I'm trying to point out that being more well-rounded is a good thing. Doc talk 13:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
(another talk page stalker) As Bishonen says above, it's hard to evaluate the constructiveness of your comments when they are couched in such an attacking fashion. I also think it's one thing to bring your comments here to NE Ent's talk page and another thing to throw them in at ANI as you did in the twc thread. That, in particular, struck me as inappropriate and unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not here to "candy coat" things, and I'm not here to be disruptive or unhelpful. I'm a blunt "asshole" sometimes, but I am always here for the benefit of the project. I take your admonition to heart, but please understand that this isn't Candyland to me. Cheers Doc talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

For not reading existing sanctions page you linked to more carefully and wasting time wondering about precedents. Just corrected my final statement. Only someone else's clunky computer right now and don't feel like correcting other several statements of doubt and probably ending up in edit conflict. Hopefully points have been made and a savvy admin will deal with it soon. User:Carolmooredc 12:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Indefinite Block of Joefromrandb. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout () 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U Closing

I read your comments on ANI about your close of the RFC/U. The problem, as I see it, is that you said that you saw equal support that there is an issue involving Joefromrandb and the certifiers. So you closed it as no consensus. That in itself is a supervote. The correct closure was to state exactly what you said on ANI: "I found about equal support between the views that Joefromrandb has been disruptive and the openers had sufficiently unclean hands to purse the RFCU." That was summarizing the discussion. When closing a discussion, you arn't limited to picking a side or no sides, you can also pick both sides. All you have to do, literally, is write exactly what you read and there is your close.--v/r - TP 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TP, I don't think it actually matters. Whatever influence the RFC/U is going to have on Joefromrandb's future contributions, it will have. NE Ent 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong end of the stick

Hello, NE Ent! Since the AN section is now closed, I just wanted to note that I misread your comment about take-down notices: I thought you were talking about a contributor having their content removed because it was being illegally copied elsewhere, while you were talking about material copied from elsewhere onto WP—which of course the ‘thief’ is in no position to license, as CC-BY-SA or anything else.—Odysseus1479 23:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it wasn't really important to the topic at hand. NE Ent 23:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Participation invited

Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Should_bots_be_.22fixing.22_archived_talkpage_comments.3F EEng (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

SNOW closing discussions that have only been open for a few hours

In the future, please reconsider your urges to SNOW close discussions on the Administrators' Noticeboard when they have only been open for a couple hours. Especially when you have such an obvious bias on the subject. The proposal you closed had some support, although admittedly not much. However, since it had only been open for 3 hours before you closed it, there's no telling if it would have gotten more support if other editors had an opportunity to contribute to it. Please be more considerate in the future, and try not to close discussions early when you may have strong feelings about them. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert the close if you think the proposal has a possibility of passing. NE Ent 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your cordial and non-confrontational response. </sarcasm> ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Neener, neener

  Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Absurd witch

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sea Salt

Thanks for the additional references you added on the talk page. Can I add those and re add my edit?--Tarhound21 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably -- I didn't really have the time to go through the documents in detail, so you'll need to verify they support the addition. You can certainly add something once with the new references -- just don't readd them if the get reverted, start/continue the talk page discussion. NE Ent 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC close

Hi. I thought you ought to know that I've re-closed Requests for comment/Joefromrandb. Please let me know if you have any issues with my summary. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A stale discussion

with reference to your comment on my talk page, for the record you created your account here in 2008, and mine dates from 2006. I have been an admin longer than you have been an editor. But I am not trying to re-kindle a resolved discussion; the closed thread is at ANI, where you will see the consensus opinion on my actions in this wholly trivial episode.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was that it wasn't worth arguing about on ANI, and no one seems to have disagreed with my contention that it was lame; is there any particular reason you chose not to follow policy and tradition and use the user's talk page? NE Ent 23:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:First Law

Very confused by the thing immediately above the Goldwater quote. Don't go the well too often makes no grammatical sense, unless I'm badly in error: did you omit "to" before "well", or did you omit something else, or am I simply misunderstanding the phrase? Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, left out the "to" ; I see it's been fixed by a epic editor. NE Ent 11:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

New section on the Anime and Manga RfC

Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

PXE page

If you have a minute please take a look to the PXE page; you were the only one that showed some independence there.

I remember you restored some links that they just erased again. Personally I'm immediately blocked as soon as I do anything against their protected projects (ERPXE). At the moment I have published the links that prove that ERPXE is warez based distributing Microsoft copyrighted material but they do not remove the link from the page.

thanks. (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed RFAR comment

I removed this comment you made with an alternate account. If you must make provocative comments like that, please use your main account, rather than your alternate account. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Amused me

[11]. It's actually a good point in addition to being amusing as heck. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Justine Sacco

Per WP:BLP1E I do not think we should have this even as a redirect, unless it turns out to be more than a storm in a teacup. It will be gone from the press in days, but a redirect in WP links her name permanently with one silly tweet. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Justine Sacco listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Justine Sacco. Since you had some involvement with the Justine Sacco redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). LFaraone 02:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday wishes!

NE Ent/Archive, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!

I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)

  • Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

Notification update

I don't think you fully understand the implications of the happy-happy "informational" get-the-fuck-off-of-my-website speed-banning notice you just left on my talkpage. —Neotarf (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I do not. It was my understanding from your request here you wished the "warning" language of your notification removed. Bishonen did so, but was reverted. Two days ago I added a note stating listing in the log warnings were not evidence of wrongdoing, and today I have removed the prior hyperlink to the inflammatory "If you continue your misconduct" and replaced it with the most neutral wording I could come up with. (I do not know whether the edits will stick or not, too soon to tell.) I have done what I can do. If your prefer the prior situation, I'll be happy to revert the edits. NE Ent 16:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do, revert them all. Especially from my talk page. You saw this? These so-called notifications have been hugely upsetting and editors have already left over them. And now there is a serious proposal to make them the standard replacement for the warnings by an uninvolved admin required before a block or ban. And to allow anyone--admin, non-admin, involved, or uninvolved--to pull the trigger. My main objection to them in the first place was that they were not done as part of a recognized community process, either an RFCU or an Arbcom case. At this point there needs to be less notifying and more talk. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)