User talk:N0n3up/Archive 2

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge on Aircraft Catapult
I am contacting you today for your input on a proposed merger on Aircraft catapult. You can check the discussion here. Thanks for your assistance. Reb1981 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing Reb1981, I agreed and approved your merge proposition since both seem to belong within the same topic and should be mentioned within the article. (N0n3up (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

The Signpost: 04 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Judaism article
Debresser (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw your reply. The reason I am not replying to it, is because it is obvious our opinions vary on this subject, and I hope other editors will express their opinions as well. Perhaps we should post a link to the talkpage section on WT:JUDAISM? Debresser (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser Perhaps, although since it's a very small change and difference of opinion, I reverted it back to its original form but I'll give it a shot anyways just to hear some feedback on the subject. (N0n3up (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC))

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How things going?
I saw that little drama recently. Some people just can't move past things. I'm glad you learned from it. If you need any advise on anything just drop a line. I been busy policing a few I just haven't had a lot of time recently working on projects. Reb1981 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Reb1981. Yes, apparently JuanRiley is one heck of a headache. He recently falsely accused me of stalking his edits right after coming out of a block for personal attacks, when had done the thing he accused me of a while ago, creeping edits on articles right after I edited them. Let alone the fact that he keeps spouting nonsense about me in his talk page and throws a fit everytime someone reverts him or doesn't agree with him. Well enough about me, tell me how you've been? (N0n3up (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Oh things are going well for me. Just try to stay away from anything that will cause drama, lol. I saw some of the things with JR. I mean I recall one of the little spats you had on the Guadalcanal Campaign. I say just avoid him if possible. Reb1981 (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol True, although as a politically correct history freak (political correctness limited to history only), I try to do the right thing, sadly sometimes being underappreciated. (N0n3up (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC))

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Order of Allies
I see you involve a dispute about allied order in page Allies of World War II. Actually the original allied order is USSR first. The link of the original version is .This is the same order in original version of main article world war II which is .This order is based on many discussions about World War II. One of the discussion is. The country list of World War II has been removed from main page World War II based on the consensus of Talk:World War II/Archive 51. The order in Allies of World War II was changed by E-960 without discussion in that time. Then this order is insisted by E-960, Calidum and some other users. This is how the current order comes from. I see another discussion about this order after that Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 9 but did not change the current order. Basically, I guess no one will continue the discussion about order dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.4.237 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Regarding the "religion in Carthage" article: linking Persian Achaemenid Empire as one block is a little awkward to me, and I think popping the Persian out of the link (Persian Achaemenid Empire) or transposing it (Achaemenid Persian Empire) would flow a little better. That's all, it's nothing that warrants putting your foot down and delivering demands. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 165.234.252.11 This is what you were supposed to do as soon as you were reverted, engage in discussion instead of edit-warring. I wasn't "putting my foot down and delivering demands" but simply wanted to verify you were a serious editor and not a vandal. Sadly IP's often get marginalized as petty vandals, that's why I advised you to get an account so you wouldn't get mistaken as a vandal and be taken more seriously. You can revert back to your version if you want, now that I know your good intentions. Cheers. (N0n3up (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC))

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Feedback request
Hey I am contacting you today for some feedback on a simple discussion on Talkpage of Mid-Atlantic accent, since you have prior experience with the article. Reb1981 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

97.123.120.226
Did you notice something oddly farmiliar with his edit and way it was worded? Who does it remind you of? I know who it reminds me of check this out. Sockpuppet investigations/JuanRiley -- Reb1981 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reb1981 There is no doubt that it's him. I should've seen it before. Thanks for letting me know, gonna be more attentive on the articles he edited. (N0n3up (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Pisco
Regarding your edit, which I acknowledge to be one minor link in the very long chain of the never-ending struggle over whether Peru or Chile is considered the supreme producer of pisco, I notice that the lead section says that Chile produces about three times as much pisco as Peru. If most of the world's pisco is from Chile, wouldn't it be reasonable to list Chile first when we talk about where it is produced? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason being is that the fact that Chile produces more Pisco than Peru doesn't make it more entitled to the drink being "more" Chilean. The previous status quo was first arranged with Peru and Chile in that order, and one thing which should have been obvious in the page is the tension between Peru and Chile and their claim to being the original owners of the Pisco. Up to this point, I simply revert what I see as a biased edit. Although I'll look up the sources to ensure a better perspective. Up to this point, both Peru and Chile are equally entitled to the pisco. (N0n3up (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

The Signpost: 15 July 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Searcher0
I think so too. What a troublesome character this JournalmanManila/Theseeker2016/Jasper0070/Cleaner880/Parashurama007/Xcalliber and possibly Searcher0 is. His/her zombie sockpuppets keep coming backǃ His/her persistence on creating new block-evading accounts must be rewarded by another SPI. Thank you for your initiative to take care this problem. While you at it, I also suspected the recently created account (25th August 2017) of Hunter05 as another sockpuppet. In his edit in Kingdom of Tondo he seems to be another sockpuppet of JournalmanManila. —  Gunkarta  talk 05:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources are valid based on books I guess you just either not famillar to the Rulles of WP:Deletion policy and WP:Source, or you just promoting a slow-burn conflict of interest based on what you view or what your friends think So its a right thing that will revert this and if we take this further im ready because it is the right thing .(Searcher0 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC))


 * The problem is a possible sockpuppetry Searcher0. I think although you might be a new user, you might be familiar about this; wikipedia encourages a single account for single user, and multiple accounts are generally not allowed. Once an account proven as a sockpuppet, his/her accountability and credibility went out of the window, and wikipedia community just can not trust a sockpuppet. And there is a suspicion that you are another sockpuppet of JournalmanManila. If one editor wish to keep editing wikipedia, he/she must resolves the problem of its first/initial account, and not creating a new account(s) as a block-evading effort. —  Gunkarta  talk 05:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Gunkarta i don't know what is on your mind or what is you thinking about me but i just working based in that academic source i never add statements more than it just what the books say's you can confirm it so no mater where this mater taken up i'm ready because it is clear an academic books and sources that's all what i can say (Searcher0 (talk))


 * Hello N0n3up, heads-upǃ in case you did not notice, Searcher0 has just reported you in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in Editing based Conflict of interest. This might be the right time to pursue SPI. —  Gunkarta  talk 06:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * i don't like edit wars and i think fighting an editor NOT going to be good, so Let the admin settle Nothing will loose if we find out that i made a edit with non-academic books, and SPI is not a tool for a slow-burn Conflicts of interest , and im not afraid of what will happened next because i can prove that sources which i mentioned so good day! PS: Becareful, im watching you ! (Searcher0 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
 * @Gunkarta Should I use the checkuser? (N0n3up (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
 * @N0n3up I think you should ask for Checkuser. I used the SPI like I did to Cleaner880 and Parashurama007. If this Searcher0 and Hunter05 are another sockpuppet of/with JournalmanManila/Theseeker2016/Jasper0070/Cleaner880/Parashurama007/Xcalliber, we're dealing with pathological persistent chronic case of block evading sockpuppetry. An ultimate solution is needed, maybe even by taking this case as far up as ArbCom? —  Gunkarta  talk 19:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Gunkarta I'll try my best, considering it's my first time doing this. (N0n3up (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
 * Also, Searcher0, if you don't like edit wars, then why do you edit war and refuse to use the talk page? (N0n3up (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC))

Seems you have problem with JournalmanManila. But, I think he resurrected again with another newly made sockpuppet account; Dashcam and Xpose09. Reporting those account to SPI its not enough to prevent any persistent sockpuppet evasion made by JournalmanManila ever. -114.124.151.236 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

, Hi N0n3up, regarding your message in my talkpage, yes. I shared your concern too. Im also believe JournalmanManila sockpuppetry is back again, this time as User:Dashcam and possibly also User:Xpose09. Actually I started to be suspicious to Dashcam after he continued the work of blocked Hunter05 in List of artifacts in Philippine history in this extensive edits here. The most common behavior of blocked sockpuppet is to return to the "crimescene" to finish or continue the unfinished business (edit/work) of his past sockmaster/sockpuppets. I'm also found some of IP addresses that might be also operated by the same person; 175.158.201.49 that you have encountered edited in Chopsticks here. Also 122.54.197.173 that support Dashcam's vote to keep the Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history here. I do not know how to deal with this scale of persistent sockpuppetry other than SPI — the way that we both has done before repeatedly. I learned that you have contacted User:Berean Hunter to asked for his opinion on this, that's good. I believe he has more authority and knowledge to deal with this kind of problem. You have my support to stop this sockpuppetry. Thank you for your efforts. —  Gunkarta  talk 05:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you miss this one 49.149.97.134. More harder measures must be taken because making a new account in Wikipedia is terribly easy, even you just need several hours for making hundreds Wikipedia account. (I'm sorry, do you know about this account: Minesweep0) -114.124.203.206 (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you 114.124.203.206, I'll see to it immediately. Also, let me know if there is any more sockpuppets. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC))

My instincts tell me to be wary of User:Keroscene777, whose range of interests and unwillingness to explain edits match this sockpuppetry. But that user hasn't shown the same/signatur bad grammar, so I can't be sure. (But maybe that's why he isn't explaining edits?) Anyway. Possibly worth watching. - Alternativity (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Then again, my instincts may be wrong. The user's refusal to meaningfully describe his/her edits leaves many many questions. :s -Alternativity (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have strong suspicion that user:Pricedelink is user:JournalManManila again. And I continue to have a bad feeling about user:keroscene777,but I'm less sure there. Both have a predilection for unexplained edits and an overglossy presentation of Filipino culture and/or history. Alternativity (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have spotted several his sockpuppet account also; here are: user:Pricedelink, user: Skyrim9, 122.54.197.173, 49.150.227.202, 122.54.119.100, and 49.146.9.171 -114.124.211.185 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing of Philippine section
I see that you had been removing the Philippine sections in Ramayana which is revised by the members already, i don't understand why you like to remove the Philippine part  these following references

{Cite journal| last=Francisco|first=Juan R.|date=|title=Maharadia Lawana|url=http://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-07-02-1969/franciso-maharadia%20lawana.pdf|journal=|volume=|pages=|via=}}

these sources where written by the Indiologists from University of the Philippines that means its authentic, or as if you don't honor their works these are even passed in standards of the WP:SOURCES  (you can check the qualifications of WP:SOURCES for more information). i am trying to be nice here, and i believe in the examining sentences per cited references and not based on the personal opinions i hope you understand this and i know that you understand what i said.(Skyrim9 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC))

The Signpost: 18 December 2017
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Just curious; what is this unexplained revert supposed to mean? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LouisAragon It means that if someone disagrees with you, you take it to talk per WP:BOLD. Even though I agree you changing "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia", you threw me off deleting the "Middle East" and adding "Bangladesh" in the infobox without explaining why. (N0n3up (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
 * "Bangladesh" had been on the page as far back as 18 November 2017. On 9 December 2017, a random IP changed "Bangladesh" into "Iran". Then, for whatever reason, instead of restoring the orginal version, prior to the IP disruption, you simply changed "Iran" into "Middle East" on 23 December 2017 and added "Middle East" to the lede.-


 * I simply restored the original status quo prior to the IP disruption and your erroneous edit (WP:GF). Oddly enough, today, on 17 January 2017, you surprisingly restored the version that contained the IP disruption.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LouisAragon The reason I changed Iran to Middle east was to five a broaden the possible presence of Naan, Iran does make a significant percent of the middle east (if you exclude Egypt which it's sometimes considered part of the Middle East), and places like Iraq, eastern Syria and southeastern Turkey have a variation of this bread. I didn't know about the IP until you told me. (N0n3up (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
 * LouisAragon I just re-added Bangladesh . (N0n3up (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
 * The thing is, the article is about a specific product called "naan" which is eaten in the Subcontinent. In the Middle East "naan/nan" is just the general word for "bread" and doesn't carry any specific significance (i.e. "nanê loş / nan-e lavash"; Kurdish and Persian respectively for Lavash bread). The current revision of the lede/infobox is therefore mixing two things up. I propose restoring the original infobox/lede, removing "Middle East". - LouisAragon (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, I noticed! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You might suggest that the term naan is used in the Middle East as a term for bread and in South Asia as a type of bread, yet the vocabulary and region suggests a connection. In India, naan is a flatbread, and most of the Middle East uses flat bread, not to mention the historic connections between India and Middle East, thus possibly having similar origins or connections. (N0n3up (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Perhaps, but thats WP:OR. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At the same time we had Iran in the infobox (Middle East), thus it's either best to leave it as is or start a discussion on talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

First Barbary War
I wasn't being biased. If you say you know the topic and the result was Swedish/American victory then I respect that. But your revert put the result back to Libyan victory which does not reflect your edit summary. Accordingly I am reverting back the other way - misleading edit summary. Slight <i style="color: teal;">Smile</i> 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightsmile You are right! But the reason I'm reverting you is because you're not being honest. Instead of reverting the IP by simply clicking the revert button, you placed "American victory" which is not the original version either until you decided to do so. So I'm reverting your un-original version of your so-called revert of an un-original edit of an IP. I will be more than happy when you edit back the original version of "Swedish-American victory", not "American victory". Until you do so, I will revert your edit if it keeps spelling "American victory" because that's not the original version. (N0n3up (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC))
 * I see now that the previous versions say Swedish-American victory. I had gone back to yet earlier versions where it says American victory and reasonably assumed that was the original version. You're too quick with the accusations my friend. If you try having a more positive attitude here you might not be feeling so much of the burnout that you complain about on your user page. Slight <i style="color: teal;">Smile</i> 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightsmile Perhaps. (N0n3up (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC))