User talk:Neil Conley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Biweekly special article 2 Imposters 3 Question 4 why 5 reply 6 Dangerous

[edit] Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciated your honesty on my SW page. I have taken your advice and decided to deal with SourceWatch through wikipedia. The only way the truth can be dealt with is if I can voice my feelings. The animosity that has been directed towards me on SourceWatch is beyond parallel. I am happy that you took a brave stand and decided to be crtical about the other admins on SW. Cheers, Dandan-wiki 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Steady on, Dan. I only said that your home address should not have been published (which I am sure was an honest mistake). Apart from that, I have no problem with the way your article was edited. I wasn't advising you to "deal with SourceWatch through wikipedia", as you seem to suggest. I was simply pointing out that Wikipedia's SourceWatch article, and its associated talk page, host a debate about SourceWatch's editorial policies. Sincerely, --Neoconned 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imposters

Sure, no problem. I also deleted the user page they had set up, which was basically a subtle attack page. Sorry to hear you've apparently attracted someone's ill-placed energies, and keep an eye out for more imposters. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you in the future. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi - I like to look at what's written on SourceWatch now and again as well as Wikipedia. I notice you may have come under attack recently by some people. Do you not think that this is because you are actually the one who is inciting people? I've seen the way you write and its totally one sided. You attack a person's character by trying to find articles that justify your agenda. For example you have recently gone after John Reid. Your SW article is full of anti-John Reid comments. On your home page you have targeted the police and suggested they had sent a spy in to a rally.

Why are you so biased? You seem to like to delve in to the history of people but many observers like me are very interested and curious as to who you are? Where are you from, what do you do? You yourself have become a celebrity of sorts and I think as a member of the public we should know who you really are. Some people seem to know you like the ones at Tepper. If of course their claims are not true then I suggest that you identify who you really are as opposed to hiding behind an alias. What worries me is what more damage you will do to your own reputation. I will be starting my own blog just on you and it will feature all the comments made on you by others. It's time to find out who you really are. I'll give you one chance for you to voluntary reveal who you are. I hope you will comply and be honest and transparent, two factors you like to preach but sadly do not practise. Retroconned 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to readers to say that 'Retroconned' is the latest in a series of sock puppet vandal accounts, all of which appear to have been created by the same individual, and all of which have been blocked by Wikipedia admins. He/she has vandalized my wikipedia userpage on several occasions and created a number of impersonator userpages.--Neoconned 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who reported Retroconned, may I ask why someone has so strongly decided to come against you? What does this person have against you anyway? People don't try this hard to impersonate someone or defame them without a reason. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem - and thanks for your work against vandalism. I think the reason is fairly clear. I would imagine it's someone I've written about on SourceWatch, or who represents an organisation I've written about. Since they can't identify any factual errors in those article(s), they've been unable to get the content they object to removed from SourceWatch. Hence they've resorted to these extremely childish tactics. Based on the timing of when this started, and when it has sporadically resumed, I can make some guesses about which individual/organisation, but those really are only guesses so I don't intend to say whom! Cheers, --Neoconned 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I start, I would like to state to the Wiki admins I am not being abusive, rude or carrying out and y vandalism. Therefore I would appreciate if I am not banned for simply stating my case.

Now, if I may wade in to this timely debate, I would like to point out that Neoconned is an individual that used to work for my firm but was fired after it was discovered that he had child pornography photos on his computer. I would like to point out that I tried hard to help him deal with his problem and even offered to pay for his treatment but it was thrown back in my face. Instead, he decided to write incorrect and harmful comments about people I know and the company on SourceWatch. None of Neoconned’s pages are fair or balanced. He manipulates everything he writes about. He also has a very strong personal relationship with Bob Burton who has given him carte blanch to attack people on SourceWatch. Also all wiki users should bear in mind that SourceWatch has been very critical of wikipedia. That includes Neoconned. Neoconned is also the person that has been phoning up people and harassing them as stated on his SourceWatch home page. Although Neoconned, or ‘Neo’ as he used to like to be called hides behind his alias I will not publicly embarrass him as it is up to him to reveal his identity. However, I do think it is very pertinent that he should tell people who he is. Why does he keep hiding behind his names and why does he keep ignoring this question? Where is the transparency? Answers on a postcard! R.Cooley - wiki 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RCooley first popped up on SourceWatch when I started writing about Tepper Aviation. He initially complained about the contents of the articles on Tepper [1] and its former boss Bud Petty [2]. However he was unable to point to any inaccuracies in those articles when he was repeatedly challenged to do so by myself, SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton, and the SourceWatch editor. He also resorted to directly vandalising articles [3][4]. It was only after he'd failed to get the material about Tepper and Bud Petty deleted that he made up the nonsense about me that he's repeating above [5]. The course of events can easily be traced from his contributions record on the site. He also subsequently resorted to using a sock puppet. --Neoconned 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah dear Neo, what a tragic and sordid web of lies you cocotte to hide your true agenda. I think any intelligent Internet user will clearly see that I am not these other individuals or sock puppets that you describe. I do not know for example Couch Potato but he seemed to know you particularly well as he pointed out a function both of you were at.

It is a simple fact of reality that you are deeply unpopular and have upset many people with your interference and harassment. I hope people do look at the SourceWatch pages about Tepper because they will quite clearly see that your article lacks any sources whatsoever. The reality is that SourceWatch unlike wikipedia is a collection of conspiracy theorists. Many have pointed out that you and the other X-Files gang do not allow anyone to make changes unless its fits in to your ideological viewpoint. You guys are so radical I think you would be suited to North Korea.

One additional point that you seem very very reluctant to talk about. Why do you hide behind an alias? You mouth on about transparency yet do not practise it yourself. You clearly have something to hide. It is worrying what harm you may do to children. Please for the sake of honesty, identify who you are. Then people will understand where your warped view come from. However, once again I'm willing to leave the past behind, I'm willing to help you but it can only happen when you start helping yourself. I know you can't work for us again but we can help you get another job. Please let me help. I offer once again an olive branch. R.Cooley - wiki 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

R. Cooley's statement that "I hope people do look at the SourceWatch pages about Tepper because they will quite clearly see that your article lacks any sources whatsoever" contains a straightforward lie. In fact, people who look at the articles on Tepper and Bud Petty will see that they are very carefully sourced, mostly from articles archived in the LexisNexis database. Those articles are from mainstream broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent. Lexis requires a payment of $3.00 each to view them (via this link). SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton has stated that the SourceWatch articles on Tepper and Petty accurately quote those archived articles. Given Rampton's long association with Wikipedia - he coined the name "Wikimedia" - it seems likely to me that most readers will trust his opinion over R. Cooley's. The SourceWatch articles also cite FAA records, Florida company records, and a number of published books.

As for anonymity, I should think it's pretty obvious why someone who writes about and researches CIA-linked entities should prefer to remain anonymous. These are not nice or gentle people I'm writing about. By the way, R. Cooley has previously implied that he represents Tepper. [6] [7] Perhaps he would like to take the opportunity to clarify what if any link he has with the company?

I won't bother responding to the remainder of R. Cooley's reply, as it consists of a mismash of feeble lies and insults that have already been dealt with both here and on SourceWatch. --Neoconned 16:06, 16:25,16:28 and 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It’s amazing how obsessed you are Neo at hiding your slithering agenda. If you are so scared of an intelligence agency, then you should not write about them. After all you claim to be interested in transparency, but how can anyone take someone called Neoconned seriously? Secondly, don’t you think with their high level of intelligence and technology they could identify who you are anyway? Also your good friends at SourceWatch like Burton and Rampton make all kinds of pathetic allegations yet they don't hide behind allias and nothing has ever happened to them, so your excuse is really pathetic and I’m sure everyone what reads this will agree. The reality is that you have a creepy past one of many misdemeanours and you want to cover it up. Grow up Neo and please stop vandalising pages on wikipedia. You are not an administrator here, you can't exploit your agenda on wikipedia. R.Cooley - wiki 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't really add much to what I've already said. I hope that readers will note your abusive tone and gratuitous use of invective, and draw their own conclusions about the validity of your arguments. As I said before, you've established yourself as a proven liar through your postings here: the SourceWatch articles on Tepper Aviation (and Evergreen Aviation, which you're also complaining about) are both well researched and richly referenced. Yet you quite falsely claim that the Tepper article "lacks any sources whatsoever". In fact, the principle value of these articles lies precisely in the fact they synthesize archived newspaper articles (which have only recently become accessible thanks to services like LexisNexis) in a convenient form. Since you've hinted [8] [9] that you have a personal connection with Tepper, I'd imagine that this is your real objection to the SourceWatch articles. Which makes you the one with an agenda, not me. I invite readers of this thread to follow the links to the Tepper and Evergreen articles, and see for themselves just how untrue your statements here are. --Neoconned 11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why

I often look at SourceWatch and wikipedia and notice that you are a prominent person. What I don't understand is that don't you think that as you are researching all kinds of people and organisations, that you should state who you really are. I mean where is your transparency? I'm not here to start a fight but I do find it hard to understand how you can be so matter of fact in all your pages and at the same time hide behind an alias? Also your pages on Gordon Brown and Reid seem to be extremely one sided. Do you not think that for the sake of the integrity of citizen journalism you should make it clear where you stand? Only then can everone judge why you structure articles the way you do. I also hope that wiki admin notices that I have not been abusive at all as it seems your like to ban everyone that comments on this page. No doubt you will also want to check my ip. Please do, unlike you I have nothing to hide. Sadly I know yo will not give the answers to my questions and will somehow side-step the issue totally. Try and prove me wrong geezer.

[edit] reply

Hi W.marsh,

As the author of the SourceWatch articles on Kovalesky, Hume and Elarbee, I've been following this discussion with interest. There's one statement you made which I think deserves a little more discussion:

"It just can't be attributed to another Wiki, which is an unreliable source, no matter how great its sources are."

Fair enough, however it's worth pointing out that SourceWatch has a significant difference from Wikipedia - it has a number of paid editors and interns who supervise the wiki. Now it's important to emphasize that that doesn't mean they've checked and approved every single edit to the wiki, and it certainly doesn't mean they're vouching for the accuracy of the particular articles we're discussing here. But it does mean there's a level of oversight and professional editorial control that's absent on Wikipedia.

Regards,

--Neil Conley 11:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that perhaps this sort of article is just a rare case of one that's best left to something like SourceWatch? If Wikipedia keeps these articles up, the pages will quickly become the top Google results for those names, and like it or not, many people still assume that if something is on Wikipedia, it's accurate... so Wikipedia can cause some defamation. I still am thinking that without English, third-party, non-Wiki sources... these articles just aren't going to work. But I will accept that it is possible for a Wiki to be a reliable source, if the identities of the people making the edits is clearly established. But then you're more attributing a claim to that person, than to the Wiki. Hopefully that makes sense. --W.marsh 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied to on W.marsh's talk page. --Neil Conley 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the group, and their webpage seems to be down today... so I can't really answer your question, sorry. --W.marsh 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous

For anyone that reads this please be aware that this individual calling himself Neil Conley used to be aclled Neoconned. It's very very intresting why he changed his name. It's obvious this individual wnats to try and have a normal name rather than a name hat sounds left-wing. Of course this gentlemen claims he seeks the truth yet why does he hide behind two alias names ? I would like to add that this man hounded my husband claiming he was an investigative journalist to the extent that my husband had to go to hospital because of his high blood pressure. For the record my husband has nothing to do with any airline or or aircraft. I would also like to point out to the wiki admins, I have not used any foul language in this message. But I do hope that action will be taken agaibnst this person who houndsa dn hurts people like myself and my husband Clint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Mcgill (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this issue. Neil Conley or Neoconned has developed a reputation as a bully on SourceWatch. He claims to be all resonable but in reality he acts like a mini-Hitler. He recently carried a huge tirade against one user called 'Mike' it was cyber-bullying at its worst. I have also read on blogs dedicated to Neil Conley/Neoconned about he has phoned people up and given them a very tough time. The sad reality is that Neil Conley/Neoconned has no real purpose in life other than to think he carries some importance by being active on SourceWatch. It would be good if the wiki users take a look at how little respect Neil COnley/Neocnned has towards wikipedia. He has abused the website. I sympathise with women above and hope she can somehow expose this vile creature that is Neil Conley / Neoconned

As has already been stated above, Neil Conley who also called himself Neoconned is a very dangerous individual. He was arrested a couple of months ago. He is a paedophile and was caught downloading child pornography pictures. If I’m wrong then let him prove it. The date today is 8 March 2008. Let’s see how long it takes him to deny these facts. The reality is that he won’t. Why ? Because he has been locked up, put away to keep the public safe from his evil. He as other people have stated harasses innocent people and their children. This man has a crazed obsession with aircrafts and it has driven him insane. Badri Manata -- 8 MARCH 2008