Jump to content

User talk:N0n3up/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Playa Vista

I support your removal of the "Aerial view of Marina del Rey, Playa del Rey, Playa Vista and Los Angeles International Airport" from the Playa Vista page. I have removed it myself. Phatblackmama (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Silat

I'm a bit confused by your edits on silat in the Philippines. Ironically when the article was quite new, I frequently reverted edits which claimed silat originated in the Philippines. But in your case you deny the art's existence in the country. First of all, silat has influenced local Filipino martial arts. Second, it was historically practiced there and it is in fact the traditional fighting style of the Sulu, Bajau and Malay communities of the Philippines. Third, it is still practiced primarily in the south by people of Tausug and Malay descent. Old systems like Telu Bituun are unique to the Philippines, created there and practiced nowhere else. Finally, all this information is verifiable. I used Draeger as a source for the sentences you removed, but Wiley is another. Both are seen as reliable. I can provide more citations if you like. But as I'm sure you're aware, you cannot simply remove material you don't believe if reliable sources are given. If you wish to dispute them, you would have to find an equally reliable source which states it to be wrong. Morinae (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Before anything, next time you start a section in a user's talk page I ask that you use the "New section" button rather than manually place a section on top as you did and made it a bit confusing in trying to find your post. Regarding the Silat article, after checking the edit history, someone seems to have added the Philippines in the past and got accumulated into the source that mentions the list of countries which is supposedly the only source mention of the Silat presence in the Philippines when it got there by accident due to later edits, and if mentioned then it would be scantily supported since it would not mention the Silat presence but the native Filipino art that probably incorporated Silat forms. Since there is no clear support nor reliable source for Silat presence in the Philippines then it shouldn't be there, otherwise I wouldn't even dare remove it. If you have citations then we can look over them in the talk page (N0n3up (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC))
Sorry I wasn't sure how to start a new section on my phone. The source given (Draeger's book on Indonesian fighting arts) mentions that the seafaring communities were instrumental in spreading silat to Borneo and the Philippines, which is what is written in the article's history section. I'll refrain from using online sources since I consider them unreliable and you could just Google them yourself if you wanted. I do have other books which mention it, particularly those by Mark Wiley. In the book Cabales Serrada Escrima he writes that migrants crossed a land bridge to Philippines bringing the influence of Indonesian cakalele and Malay silat. In the book Filipino Martial Culture he gives silat as one of the major groupings of Filipino fighting systems, in this case the southern group. The book Arnis expounds on what he refers to as Filipino silat, its practices, and its influence on Filipino martial arts as a whole. I also have issues of Black Belt magazine, one of which mentions the historical practice of silat in the Philippines and another which names the country as one of the main hubs of the art today. Also the History Channel documentary Raiders Of The Sulu Sea says that the Tausug people traditionally practiced silat and shows that they still do today. If you want me to add these sources to the article, I can do so Morinae (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility

I need to remind you that "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars." Your edit summaries here and here are clearly in breach of the guideline WP:ESDONTS. Snide remarks in edit summaries are worse than in ordinary text page comments, since the edit summary cannot be retracted. --T*U (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor: I know, I just couldn't stand the IP's constant edit-warring. (N0n3up (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC))

Blocked IP

Note: Another editor accidentally removed your archiving info when they put a new section at the top of this page. I have put it back as it was.

As you will have noticed, I have taken a closer look at some of the articles where you had reverted the IP101.178. In some cases I agree; in other cases I disagree and have argued and/or edited accordingly. I am not sure if or when I will find time to do more, but I will try. Seeing that the IP's block now has expired, it is conceivable that I will come across them while editing. Therefore it would be useful if you could do as NeilN has asked you to do, provide some diffs of vandalism by the IP. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@TU-nor Thanks for restoring the archiving info. I also appreciate you overlooking the edits made by the IP. One thing I've been lacking recently is time which makes it harder to keep track on what's happening in Wikipedia. I will provide some diffs of vandalism by the IP although it might take some time due to my current situation. also, I accidentally reverted your message, I noticed that someone messed with the archiving info until I read your message, thanks for restoring it. (N0n3up (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC))
Re your comment I also appreciate you overlooking the edits made by the IP: Then, per WP:NPA, please do not accuse me of hounding when I do. Accusations made in an edit summary in this way is even worse, since it cannot be retracted. --T*U (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Since your list of edits now seem to indicate that you have some more time for Wikipedia, could you please provide NeilN with the diffs of vandalism you have promised. Some of your recent comments and edit summaries seem to indicate that your definition of vandalism differs from the Wikipedia definition. --T*U (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Still waiting for an answer on this one. --T*U (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Well the IP got blocked anyways so it's gratuitous at this point. Also chill out TU-nor. (N0n3up (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC))
Not that I understand why the one week block of the IP should release you from your promise of providing diffs for NeilN, but suit yourself. I will continue from the assumption that there is no vandalism to show. I have seen edit war from the IP (and from you), I have seen edits touching on the disruptive from the IP (and some from you), but I have not seen vandalism from the IP (or from you). --T*U (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly gratuitous as I block editors who repeatedly make unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
My apologize, in that case I will proceed to gather the differences which will be ready soon. (N0n3up (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC))
I don't think that's necessary as long as you understand you need to be ready to back up accusations of vandalism when asked. --NeilN talk to me 17:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dead on arrival. Among others. This pattern of abusive behavior must end. Your edits are beyond disruptive. You have a vendetta against some IP and undo useful/helpful edits out of spite, and then go on to undo all of my edits. Let it go now. Also removing my warnings and explanations on your talk page doesn't delete them from its history. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC) JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain this edit summary. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN That was a result that said content should have been placed under "other" section rather than creating a new one. I think the other section basically simplifies the article without creating new sections. In no way do I ever revert without reason, only things that don't seem to add any value to a talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC))
You could have done that yourself without reverting. And your edit summary here is an attack. More reflexive reverts may earn you a block for disruptive editing. --NeilN talk to me 16:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
NeilN I apologize. I left a post on JesseRafe's talk page in order to talk about his concern then he goes on rambling on how I'm being an abusive editor and so on. We could had talked it out as civilized men yet JesseRafe pretty much threw a lot in my plate from these accusations to attacks and even a complain in AN/3 when all I've been doing is what seemed right. Also the reason I reverted that edit was because adding a new section didn't really add value but I'll keep what you said in mind. (N0n3up (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC))

Revert war

Your revert wars with 101.178.163.208 are disruptive. You seem to be constantly reverting all edits the IP makes just on principle. The edit summary looks about right, but how bout discussing it on talk page first sounds to me like "I cannot find anything wrong with the edit, but I revert it anyway." Looking at your last 100 edits in article space, the overwhelming majority consists of reverts of the IP, and I have looked very hard to find more than a handful where you actually have contested the content. Repeated changes back and forth of article content make the encyclopaedia unstable and less useful for those who use Wikipedia as a source for information. Remember that Wikipedia is not there for the editors, but for the end users.

Edit war also scares other editors away from the articles. I have spent quite a lot of time trying to find solutions to some of the disputed articles, a task that is made very difficult by the obsessive reverts from the two of you. In some cases I have tried to find a middle way, in other cases I have agreed with one or the other, but have been forced to make long explanations and detailed descriptions about rather trivial and simple things. Now I am fed up. There are limits for how long I am willing to use time cleaning up after the two of you. I have better things to do both in real life and in Wikipedia. At least no-one can say that I have not tried.

I have still not seen any examples of vandalism from any of you two. Neither have I seen you bringing any evidence of vandalism, so I hope the accusations about that is something in the past. I wish that the edit wars were history, too, but that seems to be beyond reach.

Looking through your edit history, I see that you, too, have had several blocks for edit warring some time back in time. Please do not go down that road again. --T*U (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Seconding the above. JesseRafe (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
T*U I only reverted edits that seemed unreasonably made by the IP. Even though I tried telling the IP to use the talk page he/she wouldn't listen and continue on without using the talk page first. This is more disruptive than anything else. I'm not saying I'm a perfect editor, no one is, I just don't want this IP becoming a nuisance for me or anyone else. And also the key word there is "time back" as in along time ago, not anymore do my past actions reflect who I currently am now. (N0n3up (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC))
Just for your information: Pinging does only work if you save the ping at the same time as signing. If you want to add a ping afterwards, you have to re-sign the posting. No problem in this case, since I watch pages where I am currently active.
You say that you [only reverted edits that seemed unreasonably. How come I do not find this credible?
  • You do not only revert some of the IPs edits, you revert virtually every single edit the IP does. Some of their edits are problematic, others may need fixes regarding formulation or placement, but others still are perfectly good and unproblematic. You revert them all. You even revert edits that according to yourself looks about right.
  • Among all your reverts, I have problems finding any edit summary describing that the particular edit is unreasonable, far less why it is unreasonable.
Now JesseRafe has reacted and acted on the same evidence, and what do you do then? Blank revert of all their edits. At least this time explained with edit summaries. Or perhaps not? Let's analyse:
  • At Boom barrier your third removal of picture, edit summary This is not a valid entry in my opinion as an image. How is it not a valid entry? It is a boom barrier. In the talk page we could discuss if the picture is good enough, if there are too many pictures, if this picture should replace one of the others... As long as the edit war goes on, all other editors are prohibited from giving their view.
  • At HMS Ocean your second removal of added text about the ship going to the Brazilian navy, edit summary Reverted due to no source provided. The edit of JesseRafe had the edit summary "Info on transfer to Brazilian Navy is apparent on ship's article." You could easily have checked the ship's article yourself, concluding that the fact is legitimate. You could have added a source yourself, or you could at least have added a "citation needed" tag. Your edit summary also has you should probably consider why this image fits appropriately. Image? There is no image involved. Are you in such a hurry to revert blindly that you have not even time to make a relevant edit summary?
  • At Rachel (given name) you readd the word "former". Here I actually tend to agree with you, something that I am prohibited from expressing because of the edit war. The edit summary This is why we should take such matters to the talk page is almost hilarious. Yes, that is a good idea; why don't you do exactly that?
  • At Dead on arrival your second removal of two "See also"-entries with edit summary Reverted due to no source/argument provided. "See also"-entries are never sourced, their relevance is established by the content of the target article. As far as I can see, this addition is well founded in the guideline WP:SEEALSO. Also this edit summary has you should probably consider why this image fits appropriately. Comment above.
  • At Code Black your second removal of an addition. Exact same edit summary as "Dead on Arrival". As you have been told before, dab page entries do not have or need sources if supported by the target article. The target article supports this addition, as 101.178.163.208 said in their very first addition: Going by what is stated in the article. Needless to say, this edit has also nothing to do with any image.
I see that your edits now have been reverted by JesseRafe, and that you have been reported to ANI. I post this message anyway, since it has taken quite some time to prepare it. Perhaps you even will consider thinking twice before you revert next time. And please do not insult other editors intelligence with nonsense edit summaries. --T*U (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
TU-nor Let me explain each of your list according to each article (answers will be presented as this):
  • At Boom barrier your third removal of picture, edit summary This is not a valid entry in my opinion as an image. How is it not a valid entry? It is a boom barrier. In the talk page we could discuss if the picture is good enough, if there are too many pictures, if this picture should replace one of the others... As long as the edit war goes on, all other editors are prohibited from giving their view. (because there is already enough images of boom barriers, especially for such a small article)
  • At HMS Ocean your second removal of added text about the ship going to the Brazilian navy, edit summary Reverted due to no source provided. The edit of JesseRafe had the edit summary "Info on transfer to Brazilian Navy is apparent on ship's article." You could easily have checked the ship's article yourself, concluding that the fact is legitimate. You could have added a source yourself, or you could at least have added a "citation needed" tag. Your edit summary also has you should probably consider why this image fits appropriately. Image? There is no image involved. Are you in such a hurry to revert blindly that you have not even time to make a relevant edit summary? (Referring to another article doesn't necessarily legitimize an edit, that's why we have sources and talk page, we don't use other Wikipedia articles as references. And even though. And you're telling me that If there's no citations, I should add citation needed when there is nothing to support in the first place? When someone adds something in an article it should be well cited or supported on the talk page, I don't have time to get fancy with citation needed tags, they're responsible for fixing their own edits, if you or someone else wants to do it for them, that's fine. Also, last time I saw someone presented an article that the ship's transfer to the Brazilian navy was a proposition until Trappist the Monk brought a new article that it was to take into effect, so yeah, an article would help, and no I'm not doing it for someone else's edit, that's up to the person who brought the edit in the first place)
  • At Rachel (given name) you readd the word "former". Here I actually tend to agree with you, something that I am prohibited from expressing because of the edit war. The edit summary This is why we should take such matters to the talk page is almost hilarious. Yes, that is a good idea; why don't you do exactly that? (Because I'm not the one who made the edit, remember WP:BRD)
  • At Dead on arrival your second removal of two "See also"-entries with edit summary Reverted due to no source/argument provided. "See also"-entries are never sourced, their relevance is established by the content of the target article. As far as I can see, this addition is well founded in the guideline WP:SEEALSO. Also this edit summary has you should probably consider why this image fits appropriately. Comment above. (I kinda agree with you there, but ER's are different from DOA's since ER's are a physical place whereas DOA is a term used for describing when a patient was found to already be dead upon the arrival of a hospital. And by image I meant how it looks on the article, not an actual image)
  • At Code Black your second removal of an addition. Exact same edit summary as "Dead on Arrival". As you have been told before, dab page entries do not have or need sources if supported by the target article. The target article supports this addition, as 101.178.163.208 said in their very first addition: Going by what is stated in the article. Needless to say, this edit has also nothing to do with any image. (I do agree with you there, although it seemed that the edit was just a mere rearanging of words just for the sake of editing, but in that case, they might as well added personnel but you're right, I agree with you there)
Hope this clears things up before you proceed to analyze these edits. (N0n3up (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC))
You must excuse me for not quite believing your excuses for edit warring. Your user page states that you, unlike me, are a native speaker of English. I would then expect you to know what you are saying.
  • Boom barrier: "This is not a valid entry" is supposed to mean "because there is already enough images"? You had three chances to say that. I can follow the argument about too many pictures, but edit war has denied me the chance to discuss it.
  • HMS Ocean: When JesseRafe gave the edit summary "Info on transfer to Brazilian Navy is apparent on ship's article.", it would take you half a minute to look at the target article and verify that there were no less than four different sources supporting the fact of the sale, one of them the one now added to the article. In a list like this, it is usually not considered necessary to give sources for every detail, as long as the facts mentioned are consistent with well sourced content in the target articles. But if you really think it needs specific sourcing, that is exactly what the {{cn}}-tag is meant for. Adding this tag is really not very sophisticated. Thousand of editors have done it. It is actually used in more than 363,000 pages.
  • Rachel (given name): There is actually no guideline against taking things to the talk page even if you did not make the initial edit. I often do, and it is usually quite helpful.
  • Dead on arrival: by image I meant how it looks on the article, not an actual image I do not think your command of the English language is that limited. Also: How can a "See also" section "not fit appropriately as an image"?
  • Code Black: I suppose that by image you meant something else also here?
Please stop making weird excuses for your disruptive revert-warring. Perhaps it is time to start being constructive instead? --T*U (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Carles Puigdemont

Hello Non3up. If you keep reverting on Puigdemont's nationality after it was exhaustively discussed on the Talk page, you are risking a block for edit warring. If you think the talk page made a mistake, wait until you can get support for your change there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents# Carles Puidgemont revisited. Don't remove my comments from article talk pages again. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

N0n3up, as I mentioned at the ANI thread, your edit-warring at the Carles Puigdemont article and beating a dead horse at the article talk-page is disruptive. If you continue such behavior, you will be blocked without any further warnings. Please move on. Abecedare (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Abecedare and EdJohnston. After the first time I saw the disagreement by RichardWeiss I was about to move on until he modified my post in the talk page, which I interpreted as a form of provocation to modify my message to his own way (which btw is violation of Wikipedia guidelines) and reverted his edit in the talk page and article since I thought his intentions either illegitimate or biased. Since it's been one day after his revert, thus can't technically be considered "edit warring" per WP:3RR. Noticing RichardWeiss and the other editor were affiliated with Spain in one way or another I though a neutral American point of view would free the article from any biased. But if consensus believes otherwise, then I respect that decision. (N0n3up (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC))
Glad to see you accept the advice. Hope you have a more pleasant and productive time editing other articles and topic. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
You were reopening an RFC thread that had been closed, which was illegitimate. I moved your comment to where it would be seen, i.e. at the bottom and I did not modify your comment, I moved it as it was badly placed. This is a legitimate activity I have done on many occasions. My opinions on the opening is not in accord with Catalan from Spain but IMO we all have a duty to enforce that rfc unless consensus on the talk pge happens to change it. Which must be done by opening a new thread, that Rfc thread had already been closed and so can never be revisited. I was doing you a favour moving your comments to where they would be seen, i.e. new comments to the bottom, and your response was to remove my comment while again illegitimately reopening the closed rfc thread. Please respect rfc consensus in the future and only try to change it through a new discussion thread. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
RichardWeiss I understand. I'm sorry for misinterpreting the situation. And thanks for responding. (N0n3up (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC))

Time for another SPI? Or is there some more permanent solution?

Hi . Upon examining Skyrim9's edit history (and telltale bad grammar), I'm convinced there's a strong basis to initiate another WP:SPI, or perhaps an WP:ANI. I'd be supportive of such a move, but don't have much experience in initiating SPIs. Is there some more permanent solution which might prevent the creation of future JournalManManila sockpuppets? - Alternativity (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alternativity, I made an SPI for JournalmanManila and his/her sockpuppets in the past and apparently will do it again. I talked with Gunkarta about this, and for now the best we can do is an SPI but we do need to find a permanent solution or the very least a way to make sure this doesn't become a regular thing. (N0n3up (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC))
Hi N0n3up, I think you missed one suspect; user:Reign05 is more likely turned up as another sockpuppet of JournalmanManila, as shown in his/her edit here and here. I've tried to help in SPI. Shutting down a persistent sockmaster/sockpuppet is way harder than I thought. Gunkarta  talk  18:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Gunkarta, Alternativity. The SPI already confirmed Skyrim9 and the other sockpuppets and blocked them. I'm also letting Bbb23 know about Reign05. Honestly, after this, I think there should be a way to deal with this once and for all, like a free pass to block anyone suspected of being JournalmanManila's sockpuppet. Thank you guys, I couldn't have done it without you. (N0n3up (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC))

I think the next time he shows up (and he will) we should pursue an WP:ANI instead of an WP:SPI. But we need to be ready with quick evidence. Any suggestions for where can we store a cache of incident reports? Also, I'd like to invite User:Stricnina to participate in this conversation. She's had extensive run-ins with JournalManManila too. - Alternativity (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gunkarta, Alternativity and everyone else! Thanks for inviting me in this conversation although I have no idea what is the proper permanent solution to such a problem. I also want to admit that I don't remember that much about JournalmanManila. I have no idea about the motivations that drive him. Can someone make me a very brief summary of what happened since my last confrontation with him? Thanks in advance. Stricnina (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Alternativity, Stricnina. First of all, I would like to apologize for my late response, I had a lot of things happening. The things that JournalmanManila and his/her sockpuppets has been doing ever since was editing articles in an arbitrary manner using bunk sources and constantly violating the 3RR multiple times to the point of becoming vandalism, and even acting violent up to the point of him/her calling me a "dog" and other things I dare not say. I think that up to this point it will take more that SPIs and ANIs to stop JournalmanManila since s/he made it clear that s/he won't stop. (N0n3up (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC))

@Alternativity, @Stricnina, @Gunkarta. I think your long-time-no-see friend, JournalmanManila, has back again. He reappear again as User: Enola gay0, and I have revert his disruptive edit in Baybayin article. (From: I'm anonymous user, but actually I was former User:Lyndonbaines -114.124.165.49 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)). PS: You should check this account, User:Philipandrew2, it has many similarities with User:JournalmanManila.

Thanks IP. All the sockpuppets except for one got deleted. Someone took notice of the sockpuppets and opened an SPI investigation. (N0n3up (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC))
Can you just stop JournalmanManila back for evading Wikipedia? He's now back as Enola gay0, I spotted him on this article, List of mammals of the Philippines and Malay styles and titles, when someone revert all of my edits and I have realized if JournalmanManila has back again. I need your help right now. -114.124.166.145 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I do concur that Enola gay0's edits are problematic because they jump to conclusions simplistically (for him/her, for example, just because someone refers to the ruler using a word that is sometimes interpreted as a synonym "king" automatically implies that the societal structure is "monarchical"), and that this behavior matches JournalmanManila. Is that enough for an SPI? - Alternativity (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @Alternativity, @114.124.166.145 I think there really needs to be a long-term solution to this. Too bad this vandal doesn't have a static IP which can assure us once he's blocked he'll remain blocked rather than always coming back as he is. I left a message in his talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

I cannot find any good reason why you would omit a statement: My recent activity we're about Tagalog people it is supported by artifacts found in Tondo ,and Batangas with its references cited . you keep reverted it and the reason was "reverting blocked editor sockpuppet of JournalmanManila" Well, "if" this user was reverting information by judging "if" that was a work of a Sockpuppet, then that was "pathetic", (since it has a backing of the legit materials not a problematic / vandalism)The other "professional" members who check a statement would tell " reverting a work for example : "Revering edits of _______ because of the statements where not supported by this "supposed" reference in citation." and N0n3up reverted the statements just because he think that it was work by a supposed sock? well, that was inappropriate to be honest it was clear that you never check or scoped the references or any citations tagged in the statement before you decided to remove it . So this is a matter of content dispute , Members must be check the sections and its references / sourcing before he / she would decide to omit nor delete and information which is already backed by a legitimate sourcing or else , he is willing to compromise the quality of information by just of his personal thoughts or ego.

this is a clear irony of content dispute as what you did on Datu Daya i added supporting reference on it via Phil Star news which previously had no sourcing and then you remove, So would you beter scope the reference(s) to see the quality rather than boosting your Ego.(Enola gay0 (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC))

@Alternativity, @114.124.166.145 I think there really needs to be a long-term solution to this. Too bad this vandal doesn't have a static IP which can assure us once he's blocked he'll remain blocked rather than always coming back as he is. I left a message in his talk page. Although it's likely that Enola gay0 might be another sockpuppet, at least this time the user is using the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC))
a statements with legit sourcing are NOT vandalism, that was only your egotism because every statements with references where on scope. and one more thing, stop putting any nonsense on my talkpage and that Ip have an improper behavior of stalking.

(Enola gay0 (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC))

Heads up, Ilustrado05 and 112.206.196.10 exhibit the same grandiose narratives, gradeschool-level simplistic interpretations (that's not an insult, that's an academic assessment), outdated citations (Beyer, Zaide), and bad grammar that Journalmanmanila has shown in the past. Sounds like more sockpuppetry to me. :S - Alternativity (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please check Kinnara and Seal (East Asia) article, it seem IP disguised JournalmanManila sockpupet revert your edit -202.80.215.130 (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, N0n3up. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

United States citizenship law & John Elkann

Whatever the laws of other countries, the laws (and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution) of the United States of America confer automatic citizenship on anyone born on its soil. See Birthright citizenship in the United States for details. John Elkann is not excepted from this! Anyone claiming he is no longer a citizen needs to bear the burden of proof. LE (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N0n3up/Archive_3&oldid=896679348"