User talk:JuanRiley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Cullen328 247 0 1 100 16:38, 23 July 2017 2 days, 23 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


  • This user is relatively new and does not edit a whole lot.
  • This user originally intended to edit articles on various technical subject areas; however, until that seems less like work that is still a goal only.
  • This user does not archive (he deletes) because: (a) he can't be bothered learning how to do so and (b) seriously, like anything on this page is important enough to do so. So if you want, try 'history'.
  • This user does not like comments/discussion on his page that are appropriate to an article's talk page. REALLY!
  • This user does, however, appreciate appropriate, friendly, and/or amusing asides concerning ongoing article talk page discussions.
  • On unfriendly comments:
    • warnings or (OMG) block notices by admins will usually be left here for a decorous period of time before being deleted;
    • warnings by self appointed keepers of the truth will be deep sixed quite rapidly.
      • some admins (and god help us now some arbcomms) are such self appointed keepers of the truth so I might just delete them too.


This post is left because I find it occasionally helpful and as an example of what rarely happens: a helpful post from a collegial editor.

Thank you for your interest in references :). You can find an example of a number of different techniques at the article Ketamine where I have just reworked them. When using shortened footnotes inside ref tags I use {{harvnb|...|...}} because {{sfn|...|...}} won't work. Blah... If you have questions or want help on refs anytime, post to my talk page. Yours in detail oriented reference formatting. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Just wanted to say "Hello" :) GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: And to you sir: a wish for a very good day. Must admit though that I looked around to see what (omg) did I do now. :) Juan Riley (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Haha. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


I put in a lot of effort back in 2007 substantially writing the Omaha Beach article and getting it promoted to FA status, and still someone can come along and reveal to me some facet that I missed, so thank you for improving my knowledge on the subject, and for discussing differences in opinion so reasonably. It was a pleasure. FactotEm (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You put a lot into just these recent edits--and I thank you sir. I am just a dilettante. A pet peeve of mine (and I know I shouldn't have them here) is that so-called "minor" contributors to the WWII effort are many times overshadowed in the articles by the "major" contributors--whether the minor element is a Polish brigade, a Canadian minesweeper, a Solomon Islander scout unit, etc.... You are right, however, in insisting on some reference-able citation. Juan Riley (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. My pet peeve is minor aspects of a subject being given undue weight and emphasis in the lead, specifically in the infobox. The lead, often the only section a visitor reads, is supposed to summarise the salient points of an article. ISTM that giving, for example, the Free French what is effectively equal Belligerent billing at Omaha Beach for the sake of 2 cruisers misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying that such 'minor' aspects should be eliminated from the article itself, I just don't see that they have a place in the lead. When I finally gain my rightful place as Supreme Being and Master Of The Whole Wide Universe those flags will be gone, but until then it's lemonade, mmm good for me. :-) FactotEm (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Lemonade..good for me good for you? Now I will look up your link to see if I guessed your allusion correctly.Juan Riley (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope I was wrong. Thought your reference was to Full Metal Jacket. Though in that case it was 'PT' that was "good for you, good for me'.Juan Riley (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Polemic after block for personal attacks. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Given this comment, your polemic attack here was clearly deliberate provocation, and I have obliged with the indefinite block that you appear to want. I have also removed your violation of WP:POLEMIC - if you put it back or post anything similar here again, you will lose the ability to edit this talk page. If you want to be unblocked, I suggest you agree to stop the attacks/polemic and to stop deliberately messing us about. Any admin is free to unblock you without consulting me if they are convinced you will stop the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, JuanRiley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


..nuff said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If you lie down with Wiki-Hounds you get up with flees[edit]

User:Seraphimblade and User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:Lankiveil, I have to ask if what follows is a personal attack?

Quite a while ago N0n3up was blocked for among other things questioning my good faith (i.e., I was Irish (?) or American or nationalistic or some such nonsense). Between now and then he has been blocked for similar behavior. Ever since then tho he has followed me around doing what I think protectors of wikipedia call wiki-hounding. Some examples of this I find over the last year or so are given below. In this list I give typically the date/time of an edit of mine on a article and then (oops) N0n3up's first ever appearance on the article--which is typically to revert or edit my edit. You can check out content issues if you want, but the real point is...wherever I go..within a day or so N0n3up shows up? Would you like more?

A list of N0n3up coincidental? first edits of articles after mine[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (User:Born2cycle personal attacks)
    • My comment(s): 20:21, 23 October 2016
    • N0n3up first edit on topic: 02:59, 24 October 2016 [He came in from the blue to tell others not to listen to me as I was a troublesome editor.][1]
  • Schiaparelli EDM lander
    • My edit: 22:48, 21 October 2016
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 02:56, 22 October 2016 [Actually not an non-constructive edit...geesh he couldn't find a rationale to revert my edit so he just rearranged it? Or is technical stuff beyond his ken? Or just wanted me to know he was there?][2]
  • Battle of Milne Bay
    • My edit: 23:18, 25 September 2016
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 21:56, 26 September 2016 [He changed an infobox item I think he suspected was due to me..he got immediately reverted by another editor.][3]
  • Battle of Edson's Ridge
    • My edit: 21:20, 14 August 2016
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 03:31, 18 August 2016 [He reverted my edit, ignited a wee war..I decided it wasn't worth it and left.][4]
  • Battle of the Tenaru
    • My edit: 20:43, 14 August 2016
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 03:39, 18 August 2016 [He reverted my edit, ignited a wee war..I decided it wasn't worth it and left.][5]
  • Guadalcanal Campaign
    • My edit: 17:57, 14 August 2016
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 04:12, 18 August 2016 [He reverted my edit, ignited a wee war..I decided it wasn't worth it and left.][6]
  • Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo
    • My edit: 18:27, 13 August 2016
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 04:14, 18 August 2016 [He reverted my edit, ignited a wee war..I decided it wasn't worth it and left.][7]
  • Utah Beach
    • My edit: 17:33, 2 July 2016‎
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 02:41, 5 July 2016 [Edited my edit.][8]
  • Omaha Beach
    • My edit: 17:38, 2 July 2016‎
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 02:36, 5 July 2016 [Edited my edit.][9]
  • Talk:Second Battle of El Alamein
    • My edit (article): 23:07, 29 December 2015‎
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 00:48, 4 January 2016‎ [At least he went to the talk page eh? In order to argue against the edit I had just made. The argument tho was between him and another editor..note his accusation of nationalism that backfires on him.][10]
  • Trinity (nuclear test)
    • My edit: 20:18, 14 November 2015
    • N0n3up second ever edit on page: 23:50, 14 November 2015 [He reverted my edit..was almost immediately reverted by another editor.][11]
  • Lend-Lease
    • My edit: 21:43, 8 November 2015‎
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 01:53, 14 November 2015‎ [He reverted my edit..was almost immediately reverted by another editor.][12]
  • USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere
    • My edit: 23:17, 24 September 2015‎
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 00:59, 25 September 2015‎ [He reverted my revert of another editor..started an edit war with me and another far as I can see edit currently stands as I restored it.][13]
  • Trinity (nuclear test)
    • My edit: 00:10, 24 September 2015‎
    • N0n3up first ever edit on page: 22:32, 25 September 2015‎ [Reverted my relatively minor edit. I reverted his revert.][14]

To be fair I saw this while perusing: me apparently editing an article for the first time right after N0n3up[edit]

  • Treaty of Versailles
    • N0n3up edit: 23:54, 13 January 2016‎‎
    • My first ever edit on page: 01:49, 14 January 2016‎ [I reverted his change to the infobox order of the signatories of said treaty. If you wish, peruse the talk page arguments of his attempt to change this order[15] in which he again accuses another editor of "patriotic bias" and "personal attacks".][16]