User talk:N0n3up/Archive 1

Michelangelo
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
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Peru page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618666271 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F618666271%7CPeru%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
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
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
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624740228 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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)
 * ] Sistine Chapel ceiling]]Acropolis of Athens 01361.JPG]]

Chowder
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: 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 (TV.com and Wikia.com,) 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, TV.com is not a reliable source because it can be edited by TV.com users. Notice the "Edit" link next to "SHOW SUMMARY" in this link. Sites that allow community submissions are not considered reliable sources: TV.com, Wikia, IMDb, Wikipedia, Answers.com, 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
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
Excuse me sir, could you explain me excatly what is your problem with KFC in Italy??? As you can see here (http://www.kfc.it/ristoranti-kfc-in-italia), 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
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:


 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/New%20World?s=t


 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new%20world


 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/new-world?q=New+World


 * http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-new-world#the-new-world_1


 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/New-World?q=New+World


 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/New-World


 * --Whattheheyhey (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion continues at the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_World#Reference_.2F_Australasia
 * --Whattheheyhey (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen Factories
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
Discuss here: ...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

February 2015
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)

Careless editing
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
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:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1868102/bio

http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/Akon/profile/

http://www.mtv.com/artists/akon-1/

http://www.jango.com/music/Akon?l=0

http://www.discogs.com/artist/229665-Akon

Please revert the article as it was before. Regards 81.151.87.122 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 MTV.com 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
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
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: 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)
 * 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 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
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)

Blockhead
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 &#124; 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
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)

JuanRiley
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))

Thanks
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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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
Your reply to Golbez at Talk:United States 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 (talk • contribs • logs) 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))

Best of the Season to you

 * Thank you Dr.K! I wish you the best this year and that your wishes are realized in 2016. And I also thank you for being the first to wish me a very Christmas :). Merry Christmas. (N0n3up (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC))

Bernie Sanders
I suspect Sanders' view is that economic growth is not today a major problem. The economy has expanded greatly in the past 40 years but all the benefits have gone to a small minority and that is the problem. So it may not be something he has said much if anything about, although it may come later with the release of further policy statements. The problem is that if you add something he may have said in passing, then other editors are sure to want to add alternative views and we will have a huge "Bernie Sanders economic growth controversy section." That's fine if the media had paid any attention to his views on the topic, in which case we would be able to determine the relative acceptance of them. Otherwise you are just opening the door to Fox News viewers to add fringe views with no mainstream economists' views to balance them. In the worst case, this article would be introducing opinions previously confined to the echo chamber into the mainstream. While I do not know whom the editor who made the suggestion supports, I know that he is a strong advocate of GMO, which Sanders opposes. TFD (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD You're right and I kinda noticed that after posting my last post on the talk page. And regarding the editor who opened the discussion, it was probably best to bring a solid argument. Although I don't know where you got that the editor supports GMO, something I couldn't find in either the editor's posts or his sources.. (N0n3up (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 * No problem Hawkeye7! I'm sure you'll make a great admin :-) (N0n3up (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Oh my, I'm sorry Hawkeye7 for the RFA results. I do hope that someday you will become an admin. (N0n3up (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC))

British Empire
Howdy, remember me? Just a friendly reminder, stay away from the revert button :) GoodDay (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing GoodDay, I wasn't even planning to use it anyways. (N0n3up (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Jolly great :) GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * GoodDay Haha, don't worry. (N0n3up (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Speaking of British empire: Non3up, please stop casting aspersions, or even dispersions, about User:Snowded. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Non3up, I think those diffs (removed in the edit before this one) were clear. You have no choice but to respect Snowded's request. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3
I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you have made at least 10 edits to the article, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage archiving
Hi N0n3up. At the top of your talkpage you can copy and paste the following code: 

See also: User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. If you have any questions let me know. Dr.  K.  00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dr.K., so it will archive every 30 days I presume? (N0n3up (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC))
 * You are very welcome N0n3up. You can change it to any number of days you choose. Dr.   K.  05:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr.K. I also wanna thank you for being the only few to spell my name correctly :) (N0n3up (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Hi N0n3up. I saw your edit summary regarding the thread not archived by the bot. It didn't get archived because the signature had no date attached, so the robot didn't know when it was created. Dr.   K.  05:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr.K. Oh yeah :) a sneaky one was the one who posted it. (N0n3up (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC))

The Signpost: 24 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating new page.
Hey bud long time no talk. I saw where you were wondering about creating new page. Seems you finally found your "footing." I will be more than happy to help you where I can with one. Here is an example of one of my more recent ones. Fort St. Andrews. Reb1981 (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Reb1981, good to see you again! Yes, I was thinking of creating some new articles, and help to determine whether such articles are necessary. And using redirects to other articles and judge if necessary such as using Nika revolt to refer to the Nika riots article of 532 against emperor Justinian I, or wubba lubba dub dub to redirect to the Rick and Morty article, (apparently it's becoming a common catchphrase). (N0n3up (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC))
 * for redirect check out WP:R good info there. It's real easy. Reb1981 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)