User talk:N0n3up

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

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.


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)

Reference Errors on 27 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peru, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paracas and Moche. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grid plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High culture may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] [[Sistine Chapel ceiling]]]][[File:Acropolis of Athens 01361.JPG|thumb|250px|The [[Parthenon]]]]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Information icon Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Chowder (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Diffs: [1][2][3] and resubmission here.

Wikipedia is pretty clear about how it treats contributed information. If information comes from reliable sources, it is typically acceptable, assuming that the content isn't trivial. Though your edits were intended in good faith, you have submitted improperly sourced claims about what sort of creature the title character in Chowder is. Though you have resubmitted the content in this edit, and though you make some sort of an attempt to explain your sources, both of your sources ( and,) are not acceptable for our purposes on Wikipedia, because both sources rely on user contributions, and have no clear editorial oversight. For this reason, your contribution has been reverted again. Please do not resubmit this content until you can support it with a reliable published source as explained by WP:RS. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Submitting the content after I explained in significant detail why your contribution is inappropriate to add, is disruptive. If you add the content again without finding a suitable reliable source, it will be considered vandalism. As I have explained to you above and at my talk page, is not a reliable source because it can be edited by users. Notice the "Edit" link next to "SHOW SUMMARY" in this link. Sites that allow community submissions are not considered reliable sources:, Wikia, IMDb, Wikipedia,, Yahoo! Answers, blogs, etc. are some examples of sites that do not meet WP:RS Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Café Procope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks boo ;) (N0n3up (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

KFC in Italy[edit]

Excuse me sir, could you explain me excatly what is your problem with KFC in Italy??? As you can see here (, the first KFC restaurant has been opened in Rome on 21st November and a second one will be opened in Turin on 27 November. Can you also explain me why don't you delete the "Sweden" section, country in which KFC is currently not operating and you still delete "Italy" in which KFC is currently operating? I cordially invite you to stop changing the "Italy" section. Thank you. --TeddyDTE (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with his statement. KFC has opened in Rome yesterday as you can see here, or here, or even here and again here. References can be provided even from its italian website KFC Italia. On the other hand, there are no outlets in Sweden opened yet and no official KFC website, but only few articles on the net dating back to February. So, why do you think references of KFC in Sweden (regarding a future event) are more reliable than the ones of an already operating outlet in Italy?–Kingston28 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved "Sweden" to "Currently abandoned markets or never opened" section.–Kingston28 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

New World[edit]

No dictionary definition of the "New World" includes Oceania or Australia. If you want to include them in "New World" then please provide appropriate sources. Thank you. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources stating that the New World is North and South America, or the Western Hemisphere:
--Whattheheyhey (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion continues at the article talk page:
--Whattheheyhey (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen Factories[edit]

Hi there. Not sure why you have an issue with the phrase "the United States". The country is always referred to in this way hence you don't say or write "flag of United States", it's "flag of the United States". Please leave the correct English as it is. Thanks.  Philg88 talk 07:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Van Gogh[edit]

Discuss here: [4]...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Hallo N0n3up, can you please join the discussion on Talk:Lecce? thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Deunanknute. I noticed that you recently removed some content from BDSM without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Deunanknute (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

R welch[edit]

The source doesn't provide what I'm trying to prove?. I saw that interview with her on that show online but now they took it down and just left the dialog of what she said in the interview.. If the interview "video" can be found again i investigate and in the text too clearly states that she says her father was from Bolivia which is totally correct and then she goes on to say "he was of Spanish descent" .. what exactly do you think that means? She's knows what "descent" means otherwise she didn't need to say it... You think she is wrong?. and doesn't know what descent means?. Maybe you need to see the actual video.. but that's the dialog of it. ill see. Regards. Puertorico1 (talk)

barnstar award[edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
TYTA Mahesh (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please attain consensus before adding a contested change[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


You went waaay past WP:3RR at Swedes yesterday. If you disagree with someone, respect WP:BRD and discuss the matter rather than reverting back and forth.

If I see this pick up again, I will request that you both be blocked temporarily. Take it to talk:Swedes.

Peter Isotalo 09:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. Please see my page. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC).


The fact that you disagree with someone else's edit does not give you the right to call it vandalism. That's failure to assume good faith and a personal attack. Please read WP:Vandalism, which says that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". I provided a perfectly legitimate reason as to why Mozart shouldn't be pictured in the Austrians article and you didn't even address it. Also, like it or not, Hitler is probably the most well-known Austrian in history and Stalin is pictured in the Georgians article, so I don't see why Hitler can't be pictured in the Austrians one. If you took the time to discuss the issue rather than just constantly revert, you would see that there are editors on Talk:Austrians who agree with me. -- (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your British Empire edits....[edit]

You gave one reason for deletion of a phrase in this article which was probably a misread on your part..and when I reverted with why it was give another. Is this point important enough to you to take it to that talk page? Juan Riley (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Empire. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

You need to be aware of policy here ----Snowded TALK 18:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page conduct[edit]

Please do not address statements such as "it might be the Irish temper of yours" at other editors, as you did to User:JuanRiley. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Making slurs about other editors' nationalities is a pretty good way to get yourself blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

N0n3up: If you thought the "old fart" comment referred to you I apologize for an unintended insult. I was referring to myself. Juan Riley (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Careless editing[edit]

You made a mess with your edits at Johnny Test and my own talk page. Please edit more carefully. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mdrnpndr, all I did was remove an unsupported sentence and left a message on your talk page, I don't see what is the mess or carelessness I did, maybe if you explained yourself more thoroughly I could understand what you are trying to say. (N0n3up (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC))

At Johnny Test, your edit left the implication that Ontario is part of British Columbia. On my talk page, you double posted and then when fixing that mistake left an extra vertical space that I had to fix. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mdrnpndr, the first problem was already there and the second was a minor typo. (N0n3up (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC))
No, the first problem was not "already there". When you removed the third item in the list you removed the "or" as well, leaving a comma between "Ontario" and "British Columbia". Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll make sure it won't happen again. (N0n3up (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC))

Your attempt to delete vandalism[edit]

Hello, You've recently edited the article of Akon, removing his legal birth name and claiming it was vandalism. To clarify, Akon is his "stage name", not his legal name.

Before you removed his name, you should have first confirmed his name by doing a quick internet search, or by looking at his relevant official artist biographies:

Please revert the article as it was before. Regards (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Jango reference you submitted credits Wikipedia for the information, so that site's no good. IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Discogs is user contributed and should be avoided. For all we know and HotNewHipHop pulled content from Wikipedia too. You're going to need a reliable published source, like a magazine, newspaper, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: I've found a source more reliable than the others, I think. Also, N0n3up, your incomplete edit mucked up the lede sentence. Please be careful next time. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias[edit]

Hi, I have restored the stable version of birth dates on Enrique Iglesias. If you have a reliable reference for the date that you changed it to then please state it on the talk page of the article so that it can be evaluated and to avoid further edit warring over this. Keith D (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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:Calidum (Result: ). Thank you. Calidum 04:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Calidum yeah, you started that discussion. (N0n3up (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

United States[edit]

I am reverting your ideological "multi-culti" edit in the "United States" article. How many edit blocks do you wish to earn on Wikipedia? I've been with WP since 2004 and have never been blocked; you manage a block within months. Meanwhile, your responses to other WP editors are quite breathtaking. You revert by fiat, edit without re-reading your work (inserting syntactical and grammatical errors), you are blocked for 24 hours, and still you persist. Why?Mason.Jones (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your puerile, long-winded responses on my talk page are unread, but they do match your "editing history" on WP: arrogant sniping at other editors, sloppy "corrections," a poor knowledge of English grammar and syntax, and an edit block from WP after only two months. Again, you are the worst kind of editor, and this will go to an administrator.Mason.Jones (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Bishonen, the discussion above isn't one that I normally receive but I was surprised on how the user acted just like Mason.Jones in regards to the same edit. You've seen our conversation and clearly Golbez's Edit Summary doesn't really reflect on the conversation we've had with Mason.Jones, which Golbez probably accidentally or intentionally dismissed. (N0n3up (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Which conversation with Mason Jones, the most recent one where he calls you puerile, arrogant, sloppy, and "the worst kind of editor"? Yeah, looks like great consensus there. --Golbez (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Golbez Not his accusations, my arguments as a response smart one. There you will see why I've made the edit and he doesn't provide a logical reason for his revert. You can check our conversations with Me, Mason.Jones and Bishonen. But I'm pretty sure you won't bother looking so don't even bother responding to this because I already know your answer. (N0n3up (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC))
16 hours in and you're beginning to learn. --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, In response to the message you put on Golbez's talk page, it's probable that he won't listen to my arguments that I've put in Mason.Jones and your talk page. Although Golbez though that I lied when I said that we've reached a consensus. We did reach a consensus in a sense, but that depends on my and Golbez's concept of a consensus. Either way he will probably still not listen to what I wrote. Ps. Thanks for writing despite being on break for 3 months I reckon. (N0n3up (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up, I'm not really impressed by how Golbez handled this block. But you've made the same edit 5 times, been reverted by 3 different people (and reverted all three of them), and claimed consensus when there is no consensus. Edit warring right after an edit warring block expires isn't wise. a 48 hour block is perfectly reasonable; I imagine the next one will be 1-2 weeks, so you should really change your approach.

The problem is the behavior the blocking admin. A block by an admin involved in the article, snarky yelling edit summaries, mocking you on your talk page... not good. well, no, worse than not good.

In theory, I could "take over" the block, by unblocking you, and then reblocking in my own (uninvolved) name, which would expire the same time Golbez' original block did. But that would add 2 lines to your block log, and people who don't look at block logs closely would say "N0n3up has 4 entries in the block log". So if you want, I'll do that, but it might make more sense to leave the block log alone, and just know that (a) a 48 hour block is reasonable, and (b) you should not have been subjected to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

An admin "involved in the article" is pretty free to block people who edit war on it. The "involved" part comes from being involved in the edit war, which I consider myself not to have been. My first revert was a gift, to warn that to continue to edit war would result in a block. If I had done so on this talk page and someone else had reverted, it would have been substantially the same action, just slower. I have no preference one way or the other for which version should be there, my preference is to not have people mislead about having obtained consensus. My second revert was strained but still, somehow, assuming good faith, when in reality I should have blocked N0n3up the moment they made the edit. But then I discovered I'd been lied to, and I don't take that well, my assumption of good faith was at an end, and I reacted appropriately. I'm at this point assuming N0n3up is simply a troll. I stand by my actions, except the tone of my last edit summary. That's the tone of an admin ready to block but still holding back from it by the thinnest of threads of good faith. It should not have happened - I should have simply rolled back and blocked. It was an unfortunate combination of timing and frustration. The only thing other that I don't like is that admins I respect disagreed with my action. My hope is by explaining it, I regain their favor. --Golbez (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Floquenbeam I will explain. Since the first editor that reverted me didn't assume good faith. Even user Bishonen left a message on Golbez's talk page letting him know of the situation, even though I'm not sure if you knew of my arguments with Mason.Jones, apart from the accusations he blasted me. The whole thing began when I edited an image caption in regards to early immigration in Ellis island. Then user Mason.Jones reverted my edit without giving a solid reason and he did the same thing again with this time with blast of accusations. The latter of what happened can be seen here and here (the discussion between me and Mason.Jones). These two here are discussions with Mason.Jones and Bishonen and this is the talk in Bishonen's talk page. I don't wan't to add the trouble of having you look at these and puzzling them together so I'll tell you a brief summary: I made the edit, Mason.Jones repeatedly reverted my edit without giving a concrete reason nor support to his stance and instead proceeded to blast me with all sorts of accusations. I told Bishonen, (the previous and first user as a matter of fact to block me) of the problem, she proceeded to put things right by pointing out Mason.Jones' personal attacks and her response in general to Mason.Jones. Either way, Golbez, like Mason.Jones blasted me in here and here where he calls me a jerk and his sas response. I didn't lie about the consensus part like Golbez accused me as you can see. And even if i did, it's not normal for an editor or worse an admin to insult or even act so eccentric in such manner unless there is a personal problem we should know about, bad day? who knows. What also astounds me is the phrase both Golbez and Mason.Jones used in here and here, the "stand by" part in referring to their actions and the same manner they respond to the edit. And in response of you taking over the block, I appreciate it but I don't want a long logs of blocks so I'm fine if it's left alone. (N0n3up (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC))
Please tell me you're accusing me Mason.Jones of being the same person. Why else would it "astound" you? --Golbez (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
You are uncalled for. Bishonen told you to stop posting on my talk page and Floquenbeam told you to apologize, which you failed to do. (N0n3up (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC))
Please stop that, N0n3up. I did ask Golbez to stop posting on your page, and he agreed, but all that was after he posted the above. Please check chronologies and timestamps before you bark up the wrong tree. Also, nobody can "tell" anyone to apologize, and Floquenbeam certainly didn't try. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen Sorry. It's the fact that he thinks that I'm accusing him of him being Mason.Jones, something I didn't say, I was just pointing out the differences. And I find it intriguing that Golbez came out of nowhere to intervene in the edit. And when he calls Mason.Jones claim accurate in your talk page when he was the one who started to blast me unlike me who provided reason and logic to why the edit should be made. (N0n3up (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC))
I didn't tell anyone to apologize; I suggested it. Also, just to tie up loose ends, Your comment to me of 06:16 5 Sept is misleading. One of the reasons that Golbez's and Mason Jones's snarkiness was unhelpful is because it distracts from the original issue, making it hard to solve that. But their snarkiness doesn't mean you were right. You didn't deserve the snarkiness, but you did deserve the block, and if you continue to focus so heavily on reverting without talk page discussion, you're probably going to get blocked for 2 weeks next time. When admins see a pattern of edit warring in a new editor, they don't spend too much time waiting to see if the new editor sees the light. It sometimes helps to limit yourself to 1 revert only, no matter what the other person does, and instead discuss on the talk page; if you're right, that should be demonstrated soon enough, and the edit can be reinstated with "per consensus on talk page". If you aren't, then it's a good thing to stop reverting early, right? I see this seems to have worked out on the article talk page in this case, so no need to reply if you consider the matter settled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

List order[edit]

N0n3up, please do not leave ambiguous rationales for reversions (List of pioneers in computer science). "The list is not done in alphabetical order," is unhelpful; it says nothing about how it is actually sorted. Also, the page is three entries away from alphabetical (only one of which you changed, the other two of which are simple sorting errors from the past), which I was correcting. It is pretty clear from looking at the list that the past consensus has been to sort it alphabetically. I am writing a comment on the talk page outlining why I think it should remain in alphabetical order, and I am unreverting your change. Bottom line is, there is already a Timeline of computing article, and the list would become more difficult to maintain and use. Rememberlands (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


I figured I would go ahead and go here since its no longer related to that article. Just some advise just ignore JaunRiley, if he continues to harass you I would then bring it up with an admin. It just not worth it IMO. Just remember the 3 revert edit rule and you will be ok. We all can be hard-headed its in our nature as humans, but learn to give a little and see reason and you will be fine. I have watched how you use to interact with people in past. I come to look in the good in people and you have surly improved a lot. Good job with that, btw. Reb1981 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reb1981 Thanks bro, lots love! (N0n3up (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC))


Callanecc Thanks for the unblock. Btw I've been here one year and so, there's been an admin using foul language in dealing with problems who unjustly blocked me. These show the situation in sequence, just to let you know a nasty edit summaryother users disapproving posts and admin's rejection and cursing me after leaving a message even though one may erase or disapprove of someone's opinion, he just barks. I'm mentioning this to inform that my second block was an unfair one. You seem to actually care about the contents and how things are ran unlike some people. And the IP gets two days of block who's IP address constantly keeps changing unknowing he might have been a vandal who knows? And I've been here a year or so in Wikipedia and don't often have time to use it until in recent times. (N0n3up (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Best thing to do, just avoid them as best you can. It looks like two other admins have already mentioned that they way they go about things isn't ideal. So there probably isn't much to gain from me getting involved. You did start the personal attacks on their talk page which wasn't a good idea at all, but it is disappointing that an admin responded in kind rather than ignored and got over it. Just avoid them and move on. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc Thanks for understanding. But I fear that he constantly will do this, I was hoping to report him or something, But thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
While ever you're engaging in the same behaviour (edit warring, incivility and personal attacks) and not doing what he's asked and not staying away from his talk page, it's not going to get you anywhere in a report. As I said, avoid him and if he follows you around then think about doing someone, but make sure you're own behaviour is squeaky clean. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc Thanks bro. (N0n3up (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
Callanecc Btw, I've added the source that was provided by the IP to the section that was in dispute. I'm just letting you know of the action, since that part has been on heat from edit-war. (N0n3up (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Your comments[edit]

Your reply to Golbez at Talk:United States#Redundant is exactly what I told you not to do. It's incivil and continues the disruption already caused. You should have just ignored it as I told you to do. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

CallaneccI know, but that was before our conversation. I wanted you to see the pat that supports my view to why Ellis island should simply be referred to as simply an immigration gateway rather to "European gateway". (N0n3up (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

October 2015[edit]

Just read this WP:Canvassing before you dig your self in any deeper. Two cases of you breaking the policy so far. ----Snowded TALK 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Snowded It would be considered WP:Canvassing if I was trying to get other to agree with me as a gang-rat against reference and all, but I have references and even though some don't agree, I have consensus along with sources, something you haven't provided. Giving them the chance to make their own decision. (N0n3up (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Read the policy. It says nothing about what evidence you claim, it very specifically says that you cannot approach editors you think will agree with you. I debated using the warning template here but decided it would be better to simply make you aware of the policy given the level of emotion you are investing in this. But whatever, you can't say you were not aware ----Snowded TALK 22:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You said to go to look for consensus, you pointed out to Wiki-Ed who didn't agree. This has gone too far. The British Empire was a "Superpower" during it's latter stages. (N0n3up (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Just spotted, its three examples of canvassing. I hadn't seen this one until I checked. If you want other editors involved you raise a RFA as three separate editors have now told you. You don't seek out individual editors who you think might agree with you ----Snowded TALK 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded How was I supposed to know that? I'm just asking for consensus, where would I look for consensus may I ask? And I see what you're doing there, you're trying to diverge the topic away from the discussion regarding the British Empire being a "Superpower" I even gave you academic sources. Why do you insist on ignoring? You never provided any academic source and only try to find something to screw me over along the lines of Wikipedia policy? This is insane. (N0n3up (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
You were kinda supposed to know because you're kinda supposed to have a vague idea of Wikipedia's policies when you raise hell like you're doing. When you made a report to ANI, I told you to start a WP:RFC instead. That document explains exactly how it's done. Instead, you didn't read it and just made a report on WP:RFC's talk page (?!). I already pointed out to you that you should have read it instead. Why don't you actually read it now and do what it says? LjL (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I can help ya. If you don't know how to set up an Rfc at the talkpage of British Empire, then I suggest you ask an administrator to do it for you. Remember, in an Rfc, you must discuss the content of the article & not the participating editors. If you feel an editor's behaviour is a problem? then you go to WP:ANI. But, if you go to ANI, you must have diffs to back your assertions about any editors you feel are behaving wrongly. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GoodDay, I don't know if you can help me, but I appreciate the tip. Thanks for telling me. No one tells me anything anymore :( (N0n3up (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
If I knew how to set up an Rfc for you, I would. Recommend getting an administrator for that. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
There is very little to set up actually: you create a new section on the article's talk page, where you ask a question - as simple as possible, ideally "should we...?" and answerable with yes/no, and at the top of the section, you put {{rfc|hist}} ("hist" for history topics). That's all. But it's all here, really. LjL (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Gonna have to give ya some tough advice, here. According to WP:BRD, the onus is on you to get a consensus for the changes you want at British Empire before you impliment them. You were Bold in making the changes, then Snowded Reverted your changes & now through Discussion, you must get agreement. If you were to continue to impliment the changes you wish -without- an agreement at the talk page? then you risk being reported to ANI, by the other editor. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw, the canvassing accusation is also false. I went to Cliftonian because he helped resolve an edit dispute a while ago as I left him message here since I've seen he was also involved in the same topic during that time. And he wasn't the first I went to, I wennt to Bishonen first, another editor I knew along the way and left her a message here because they seemed honest and very porfessional in the way they have handeled things as I've seen. (N0n3up (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

Looking for a mentor? Try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


Howdy N0n3up, as a member of WP:RETENTION, I'm requesting that you end your efforts at the British Empire article. IMHO, there's no consensus for what you're proposing & there's a strong possiblity that you will end up blocked, should you persist. PS: This isn't a warning, just friendly advice. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring, as you did at American Revolutionary War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc I think there is amisconception about what Juan Riley's post. I gave the opportunity to the user who complained to revert me as you can see in the post in your talk page. I only reverted his edit when he went ahead without consulting in the talk page and after that I literally invited him to revert me. (N0n3up (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

N0n3up (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Callanecc I cordially invited juanriley here to revert my edit if he or someone else disagreed because I wanted to avoid Edit-Warring. Even though I posted this when Juanriley reverted the edits without talking on talk page, I advised him to do so in one of the reverts before posting the message that I wasn't going to do any more edits because like I said, I didn't want to edit-war. And it's very fine how Juanriley doesn't get blocked but I do for a ridiculously amount of time after I said that I was going to walk out because I didn't want anyone edit-warring. N0n3up (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What you're saying is not a mitigating factor, rather, it might sound like an aggravated one because you, basically, not only edit warred yourself but also invited others to do the same. Please understand: you just don't do it, rather than do and then try to find an excuse. Max Semenik (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Admin observation: I see from your block log that you have been blocked four times for edit-warring in the last 3 months. That alone is ridiculous. The last time, in October, Callanecc unblocked you in good faith, yet you've continued the edit-warring. I don't know that a 1 month block is unreasonable considering you don't seem to understand that the excessive reversions are disruptive. If you didn't want anyone edit-warring, why didn't you just avoid the resubmissions? Or revert yourself and drop the stick? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb Cyphoidbomb That my friend is what I would do. I will revert myself. I invited Juanriley to revert me as a matter of fact in here because like I said, I want to avoid an edit-war and considering Juanriley's persistant action is why I invited him to revert me. So basically I would be more than happy to as you said "drop the stick". And don't let Juanriley and Snowded give you the wrong idea since they have a personal dislike towards me, I saw them trying to convince you in your talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC))
Reverting yourself isn't the same as asking others to revert you. The former is a sign of "dropping the stick", the latter can be seen as a sign of "daring". LjL (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'll keep that in mind. (N0n3up (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC))

{{unblock|reason=This is my second and last block appeal. Even though no admin will probably read this, I'll still take a shot at it. Callanecc blocked me because of an edit-war in [[American Revolutionary War]]. Juanriley reverted the edits because he said that the topic had been discussed before, which is not true because I checked the talk page. Normally i'd talk on the talk page about it, but Juanriley has had somewhat of a fixation with my edits since our first dispute and reverted my edit due to his dislike towards me and not because he actually cared about whether the topic was discussed or not. So I reverting him, knowing it was him. I then asked him to talk about the edit in the talk page after he lied about his edits in his edit summary. We both are to blame for this edit-war but I left Juanriley a message in the talk page that I didn't want to edit-war anymore since he is notorious for edit-warring. And so [ I left and dropped the stick]. But then juanriley went to Callanecc complaining that I was edit-warring despite having told him that I stopped and wan't to avoid any further edit-wars. Callanecc blocked me without even sending a message of a warning whatsoever, he simply took juanrileys word for it. A bit extreme since people who edit-war get like hours, days or a week of block but never an entire month, and juanriley never got blocked for it, making the block more uncivil. Maxseminik declined my first block appeal saying that ''I edit warred myself'' made no sense what he was saying since I took the initial steps to prevent that from happening when things were starting to heat up in the edit section of the article. Second saying that I ''invited others to do the same'' meaning of inviting others to edit-war is far from even understanding of how the whole situation went. Juanriley even tried to canvass Cyphoidbomb by convincing him to ignore my block appeal [ here]. [[User:N0n3up|N0n3up]] ([[User talk:N0n3up#top|talk]]) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)}}

If this is really your last unblock request before just waiting it out, I'll take it out of the queue using "nowiki" rather than decline it, so you can try to do it right. You've been blocked for edit warring many times, the last time you were unblocked because you claimed you wouldn't do it again. Then you did it again. You claim edit warring blocks should be for hours, days or a week, but that's been tried before with you and it didn't work. You claim you weren't edit warring, the other person (who reverted less often than you) was. And on top of everything else, around 60% of the unblock request is blaming someone else. Did you read the guide to appealing blocks? Have you seen WP:NOTTHEM? This is not a realistic unblock request. If you put up the same basic thing again, I (or pretty much any other admin, I imagine) will decline it. You're going to need to convince someone that you are not going to edit war anymore; I'm not sure how in the world you'll be able to do that, but this request isn't it. Also be aware that the next block for edit warring will likely be indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Floquenbeam I appreciate your concern, but what do you suggest I do? (N0n3up (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC))
Have you actually read what they said above? and WP:NOTTHEM (actually, the whole guide to appeals, but especially that part)? LjL (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
LjL Thanks again. And Floquenbeam, thanks for the advice. (N0n3up (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC))
I really don't have any good advice beyond what I just said 10 minutes ago. I don't know that there is anything you can say that would make people believe that you will not edit war if you are unblocked. You keep doing it, you keep claiming that you either didn't do it (when you did) or won't do it any more (and then you do)... kind of a "boy who cried wolf" thing. It's possible that there is nothing you can do to get unblocked early, but it is guaranteed that you won't be unblocked with the unblock request above. Focus on yourself, focus on what you did wrong, focus on how you will avoid doing it wrong in the future. Doesn't it seem like almost everything you do here results in conflict? Think about, and address, that. Then hope for a lenient admin? That's all I've got. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I suggest something like a voluntary 1R restriction on any article. If you promise to abide by that, no matter what, no ifs ands or buts, it should go a long way toward setting up the conditions for releasing you from this block. Also be careful not to blame others for the edit-warring. But be careful: if you break your 1R promise, most likely you'll end up in a worse situation than you are now. Dr. K. 00:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dr.K for caring. (N0n3up (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC))
You are very welcome N0n3up. I'll keep an eye to see if I can be of any further help. Dr. K. 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to thank you Floquenbeam for caring. Thanks for preventing me from doing a bad move. (N0n3up (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC))