| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: ( successful, unsuccessful) |
- This user is relatively new and does not edit a whole lot.
- This user originally intended to edit articles on various technical subject areas; however, until that seems less like work that is still a goal only.
- This user does not archive (he deletes) because: (a) he can't be bothered learning how to do so and (b) seriously, like anything on this page is important enough to do so. So if you want, try 'history'.
- This user does not like comments/discussion on his page that are appropriate to an article's talk page. REALLY!
- This user does, however, appreciate appropriate, friendly, and/or amusing asides concerning ongoing article talk page discussions.
- On unfriendly comments:
- warnings or (OMG) block notices by admins will usually be left here for a decorous period of time before being deleted;
- warnings by self appointed keepers of the truth will be deep sixed quite rapidly.
- some admins (and god help us now some arbcomms) are such self appointed keepers of the truth so I might just delete them too.
This post is left because I find it occasionally helpful and as an example of what rarely happens: a helpful post from a collegial editor.
Thank you for your interest in references :). You can find an example of a number of different techniques at the article Ketamine where I have just reworked them. When using shortened footnotes inside ref tags I use {{harvnb|...|...}} because {{sfn|...|...}} won't work. Blah... If you have questions or want help on refs anytime, post to my talk page. Yours in detail oriented reference formatting. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say "Hello" :) GoodDay ( talk) 04:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ GoodDay: And to you sir: a wish for a very good day. Must admit though that I looked around to see what (omg) did I do now. :) Juan Riley ( talk) 00:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I put in a lot of effort back in 2007 substantially writing the Omaha Beach article and getting it promoted to FA status, and still someone can come along and reveal to me some facet that I missed, so thank you for improving my knowledge on the subject, and for discussing differences in opinion so reasonably. It was a pleasure. FactotEm ( talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- You put a lot into just these recent edits--and I thank you sir. I am just a dilettante. A pet peeve of mine (and I know I shouldn't have them here) is that so-called "minor" contributors to the WWII effort are many times overshadowed in the articles by the "major" contributors--whether the minor element is a Polish brigade, a Canadian minesweeper, a Solomon Islander scout unit, etc.... You are right, however, in insisting on some reference-able citation.
Juan Riley (
talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. My pet peeve is minor aspects of a subject being given undue weight and emphasis in the lead, specifically in the infobox. The lead, often the only section a visitor reads, is supposed to summarise the salient points of an article. ISTM that giving, for example, the Free French what is effectively equal Belligerent billing at Omaha Beach for the sake of 2 cruisers misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying that such 'minor' aspects should be eliminated from the article itself, I just don't see that they have a place in the lead. When I finally gain my rightful place as Supreme Being and Master Of The Whole Wide Universe those flags will be gone, but until then it's
lemonade, mmm good for me. :-)
FactotEm (
talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lemonade..good for me good for you? Now I will look up your link to see if I guessed your allusion correctly.
Juan Riley (
talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nope I was wrong. Thought your reference was to Full Metal Jacket. Though in that case it was 'PT' that was "good for you, good for me'. Juan Riley ( talk) 23:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lemonade..good for me good for you? Now I will look up your link to see if I guessed your allusion correctly.
Juan Riley (
talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. My pet peeve is minor aspects of a subject being given undue weight and emphasis in the lead, specifically in the infobox. The lead, often the only section a visitor reads, is supposed to summarise the salient points of an article. ISTM that giving, for example, the Free French what is effectively equal Belligerent billing at Omaha Beach for the sake of 2 cruisers misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying that such 'minor' aspects should be eliminated from the article itself, I just don't see that they have a place in the lead. When I finally gain my rightful place as Supreme Being and Master Of The Whole Wide Universe those flags will be gone, but until then it's
lemonade, mmm good for me. :-)
FactotEm (
talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Polemic after block for personal attacks. Thank you.
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 11:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Given this comment, your polemic attack here was clearly deliberate provocation, and I have obliged with the indefinite block that you appear to want. I have also removed your violation of WP:POLEMIC - if you put it back or post anything similar here again, you will lose the ability to edit this talk page. If you want to be unblocked, I suggest you agree to stop the attacks/polemic and to stop deliberately messing us about. Any admin is free to unblock you without consulting me if they are convinced you will stop the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, JuanRiley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: ( successful, unsuccessful) |
- This user is relatively new and does not edit a whole lot.
- This user originally intended to edit articles on various technical subject areas; however, until that seems less like work that is still a goal only.
- This user does not archive (he deletes) because: (a) he can't be bothered learning how to do so and (b) seriously, like anything on this page is important enough to do so. So if you want, try 'history'.
- This user does not like comments/discussion on his page that are appropriate to an article's talk page. REALLY!
- This user does, however, appreciate appropriate, friendly, and/or amusing asides concerning ongoing article talk page discussions.
- On unfriendly comments:
- warnings or (OMG) block notices by admins will usually be left here for a decorous period of time before being deleted;
- warnings by self appointed keepers of the truth will be deep sixed quite rapidly.
- some admins (and god help us now some arbcomms) are such self appointed keepers of the truth so I might just delete them too.
This post is left because I find it occasionally helpful and as an example of what rarely happens: a helpful post from a collegial editor.
Thank you for your interest in references :). You can find an example of a number of different techniques at the article Ketamine where I have just reworked them. When using shortened footnotes inside ref tags I use {{harvnb|...|...}} because {{sfn|...|...}} won't work. Blah... If you have questions or want help on refs anytime, post to my talk page. Yours in detail oriented reference formatting. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say "Hello" :) GoodDay ( talk) 04:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ GoodDay: And to you sir: a wish for a very good day. Must admit though that I looked around to see what (omg) did I do now. :) Juan Riley ( talk) 00:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I put in a lot of effort back in 2007 substantially writing the Omaha Beach article and getting it promoted to FA status, and still someone can come along and reveal to me some facet that I missed, so thank you for improving my knowledge on the subject, and for discussing differences in opinion so reasonably. It was a pleasure. FactotEm ( talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- You put a lot into just these recent edits--and I thank you sir. I am just a dilettante. A pet peeve of mine (and I know I shouldn't have them here) is that so-called "minor" contributors to the WWII effort are many times overshadowed in the articles by the "major" contributors--whether the minor element is a Polish brigade, a Canadian minesweeper, a Solomon Islander scout unit, etc.... You are right, however, in insisting on some reference-able citation.
Juan Riley (
talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. My pet peeve is minor aspects of a subject being given undue weight and emphasis in the lead, specifically in the infobox. The lead, often the only section a visitor reads, is supposed to summarise the salient points of an article. ISTM that giving, for example, the Free French what is effectively equal Belligerent billing at Omaha Beach for the sake of 2 cruisers misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying that such 'minor' aspects should be eliminated from the article itself, I just don't see that they have a place in the lead. When I finally gain my rightful place as Supreme Being and Master Of The Whole Wide Universe those flags will be gone, but until then it's
lemonade, mmm good for me. :-)
FactotEm (
talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lemonade..good for me good for you? Now I will look up your link to see if I guessed your allusion correctly.
Juan Riley (
talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nope I was wrong. Thought your reference was to Full Metal Jacket. Though in that case it was 'PT' that was "good for you, good for me'. Juan Riley ( talk) 23:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lemonade..good for me good for you? Now I will look up your link to see if I guessed your allusion correctly.
Juan Riley (
talk) 23:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. My pet peeve is minor aspects of a subject being given undue weight and emphasis in the lead, specifically in the infobox. The lead, often the only section a visitor reads, is supposed to summarise the salient points of an article. ISTM that giving, for example, the Free French what is effectively equal Belligerent billing at Omaha Beach for the sake of 2 cruisers misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying that such 'minor' aspects should be eliminated from the article itself, I just don't see that they have a place in the lead. When I finally gain my rightful place as Supreme Being and Master Of The Whole Wide Universe those flags will be gone, but until then it's
lemonade, mmm good for me. :-)
FactotEm (
talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Polemic after block for personal attacks. Thank you.
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 11:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Given this comment, your polemic attack here was clearly deliberate provocation, and I have obliged with the indefinite block that you appear to want. I have also removed your violation of WP:POLEMIC - if you put it back or post anything similar here again, you will lose the ability to edit this talk page. If you want to be unblocked, I suggest you agree to stop the attacks/polemic and to stop deliberately messing us about. Any admin is free to unblock you without consulting me if they are convinced you will stop the disruption. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, JuanRiley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)