User talk:Neutral2006

Flower of Life article and User:AnonMoos
Wow. Thank you so much for coming along and telling this AnonMoos guy what a jackass he is. I couldn't believe the kind of stuff he's been doing; it's insane. I showed a friend of mine what's been going on and he sincerely thinks that AnonMoos might have some sort of psychological issues.

If you take a look at some of the other things he's been doing on Wikipedia, you'll find more of the same. He seems to revert people contributions quite often. I actually, by chance, ran into him at a different article where he completely erased everything I had wrote. Please take a look at Talk:Tetragrammaton.

I would appretiate it if you could assist me in filing a formal complaint against him with Wikipedia. Honestly, I might need your help because I don't know how to file a complaint like that. I've never dealt with someone like this before. sloth_monkey 11:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello slothMonkey,

It's nothing, you are the one that did the hard work of gathering this information, and now people like AnonMoos are trying to ruin it. Someone has again edited the page,and I feel its now time to contact wikipedia and make a complaint.Neutral2006 20:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a complaint to wikipedia in an email, to this address info-en-q@wikimedia.org, I am not 100% sure this is correct however but I urge you to do the same and also add a comment as I have to this users page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gzkn#Changing_pages_without_good_reason

Flower of Life
Hey there. Responded at its talk page. Take a look. I also want to remind you of Wikipedia's WP:NPA attack policy. Please do not make personal attacks against other editors such as you have done here and here. Gzkn 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not personal attacks, they are valid information on what the user in question has done and why he has done it and further more I could say that you calling me the "socketpuppy" of slothMonkey as you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloth_monkey is a personal attack, so please spare me the lecture and ill remind you of Wikipedia's WP:NPA attack policy.

Also changing articles without a valid reason or leaving a valid reason is against wikipedia policy so i'll point you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy, Help:Reverting as well as Assume good faith.

Neutral2006 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to read through WP:NPA. Having suspicions of sockpuppetry is not a personal attack. Saying that you "seriously doubt the mental stability" of another editor, on the other hand, is. Also, if you're going to get into an argument with another editor (Valters), please do so on a talk page, not on my editor review. Gzkn 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One other thing, if you're truly concerned about my actions (for which I have apologized twice), please bring it up at WP:AN/I or WP:RfC. My editor review is not exactly the best forum. Gzkn 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Really Gzkn I don't see this as any of your buisness, I do still "seriously doubt the mental stability" of the user in question (AnonMoos), but that isn't anything to do with you and I don't feel it is an attack, it is merely an observation of a users actions. However if AnonMoos feel it is a personal attack then I would apologize but he hasn't said a word to me, or mentioned that i attacked him, so I think you are flogging a dead horse, so to speak.

I believe that calling me a "socketpuppy" is a sort of personal attack, and a sneaky one at that, as it undermines my integrity and makes me appear false. So at the end of the day it falls on our own individual beliefs to judge that, it's not just based on yours.

I felt that your editor review page was the right place to do leave my comments, so you could not delete negative comments. As for valters, he directed a comment at me and I merley replyed as it was simply a lie, if you don't like it then I suggest you take it up with him.

If you want to continue arguging with me I would suggest doing it by email, but I for one, grow tired of this. Neutral2006 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral2006 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
I have locked the page from editing, because you have continued to edit war rather than discuss the changes on the talk page, as I asked of you on ferret's talk page. If you can come to an agreement with evryone who may discuss with you on the article talk page, I will unlock the page. If you can only agree on single points, I'll implement the changes for you. If you continue to revert after the page is unlocked, (in 3 days), you'll receive a short block from editing. Now please, start working alongside other editors rather than battling against them. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was discussing it with the user, but he refused. I think it is wrong of you to lock the page as it is full of inaccuraies and outdated information which I have tried to discuss. I will be reporting you.Neutral2006 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Both you, and ferret, have instructed you to discuss on the article talk page. That way, more people will chime in and give more input. Otherwise, you're just going to be arguing back and forth without resolution. You need more participants to come to a consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, so you will leave a page full of blatent inaccuracies, and only change it if someone recruits a gang to decide? How will it help if there are 10 people all arguing instead of 2 or 3, it will make matters worse.Neutral2006 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you vet the information yourself, look at the inaccuracies in the original article, it claims that the game is

"first-person space combat, mining, exploration and trading with first-person shooter elements in a massively multiplayer persistent universe and customizable private servers"

The only accurate thing in that sentence is, 'first-person shooter elements', the rest of that stuff does not exist in the five years this game has been in development.Neutral2006 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was not locked because your content was right or wrong, its that you kept edit warring, which if you read the guideline, is wrong to do even if you're right.
 * As for your specific changes, great, get started here. Sergecross73   msg me  16:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I will now discuss it on the talk page. Who will make the final decision?