User talk:N0n3up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page N0n3up[edit]

User page.

Your request on my page[edit]

Hi, N0n3up! Welcome to Wikipedia. How can I help you? I notice that you're currently edit warring with User:BilCat on Americans with regard to the religion/ethnicity of Einstein. Is that what you're worried about?

I have to say, I don't quite understand your view there. Your note on the article talkpage is very short and general, and you don't offer any sources for what you say. Considering that the article Albert Einstein contradicts your claim that Einstein was a Jew "religiously", you really need to offer some evidence for your view. I note from Albert Einstein that Albert's parents were non-observant Jews, that he went to a Catholic elementary school, and that he's in the category Category:Jewish agnostics (plus various other kinds of agnostics). What's your basis for saying he was a Jew "religiously"? Did you notice that BilCat referred you, in an edit summary, to "his bio article" (i.e. Albert Einstein) and sources there? (N.b., please don't edit war.) Bishonen | talk 13:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pier Paolo Pasolini. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Pier Paolo Pasolini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:N0n3up reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: ). Thank you. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, N0n3up. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Pier Paolo Pasolini[edit]

how was i being a troll? please go back over the log, actually i was the first to offer an explanation to my actions by stating that i felt salo was notable, you simply removed my contributions, but i think we both shared the same obsession with the page don't you? anyway i understand i was overly aggressive initially and that was unnecessary but i simply could not understand the logic, saying salo is not a notable pasolini film is like saying a clockwork orange is not a notable kubrick film, or The Phantom Carriage i not a notable victor sjostrom film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.42.20 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

by the way i am not ignoring your help about signing my comments i'm just not sure how to do that, again i rarely use wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.42.20 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you i'm glad we have cleared that up, i hope there are no hard feelings (86.137.42.20 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Europe, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The source does not mention Ancient Rome. So please don't add it again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Michelangelo[edit]

Michelangelo requested to be buried in "his beloved city of Florence". Can I ask you why you changed a referenced statement that was quite specific to a generalised statement? I don't think it had anything to do with his "birthplace". It had to do with his love and loyalty for the city where he was educated as an artist. Amandajm (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your change to the article seems to be quite arbitrary, and I cannot understand why you made it, or why you imagined that what was stated in the article might be erroneous, since it was referenced, and since it was so very obviously correct, from the context of the article itself!
  • There is a whole section in the article about Michelangelo's apprenticeship in Florence.
  • There are three sections in the article in which the city name '"Florence" is given.
  • There is a sentence in the article that states: "A siege of the city ensued, and Michelangelo went to the aid of his beloved Florence by working on the city's fortifications from 1528 to 1529. "
So why would anyone who had actually read the article, imagine that the region of Tuscany (which includes the rival city Siena, among others) be what was meant, instead of "Florence"?
The source is Coughlan. The page number is given. The exact words, as written by Coughlan are "As he wanted, his body was taken home to Florence". Coughlan's source is Vasari.
Please don't make changes like this unless you really know the subject, know that what you are reading is wrong, and can reference the change you have made. You can do a lot of damage to an article by stuffing up referenced material. If your change is slight, you allow the reference to remain, and the person who watches the article doesn't have detailed knowledge and presumes your change has been sourced, then you have lost an accurate fact, in favour of an inaccurate one.
Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)