User talk:NebY/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

You're Welcomed!

"Thank you for teaching me yet another difference between American English and British English. I recognise a couple of contributors to that article as users of British English; that might explain how the usage crept in but there's no question which is appropriate for articles such as United States customary units. Sorry for troubling you. NebY (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"

Thank you for your gentle editing. The differences between the various versions of English poses difficulties in international publications when the publisher hasn't declared which version to use in all articles. The problem is particularly acute when combining commas, the most commonly used punctuation mark in English, with Latin abbreviations like "i.e." and "e.g." Unfortunately, the portion of the Wikipedia Manual of Style dealing with commas does not address these two introductory phrases although it does include the Chicago Manual of Style in the Further Reading section. That manual states that commas are mandatory after "i.e." and "e.g." I haven't checked, however, to see if the other sources in the Further Reading list say the same thing. Once I found support for my position, I quit my research. I can only sustain my attention to the intricacies of comma use for a limited time!

Quite so. I'll just pass on the little bit of reference-seeking I did. For British English I turn to Burchfield's The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press); the entry for i.e. has "It is not normally followed by a comma...." As you say, WP:MOS doesn't address it directly but we do have redirects for i.e. and e.g. to entries that discuss American and British punctuation. As a result, it's clear how WP:ENGVAR should be applied in the two articles you edited - your way! NebY (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

City of London

This is just to reply to your comment on the 'City' talk page ... A shorter version of this is on that page.

There is definitely no need for a change re the Mayor/Authority question. After a quick look at your link, I realised that ALL the 'City' coverage is plagued by the same problem. This was put succinctly by David in 2011 (on that talk page) "There is still considerable confusion going on between the City of London as a geographic entity (with its Corporation) and "the City" as a metonym for the wider British financial services industry.". This is a confusion that journalists like Monbiot seem happy to exploit for rhetorical effect (ditto Wikipedia editors?).

I find myself in the unlikely position on Wikipedia of defending bankers and archaic institutions for which I have little respect or affection, but who - as it happens - don't actually eat babies/give the Queen permission to fart or ... whatever else!

I haven't read the Shaxson book either, (though some of it he has himself since withdrawn). The book is repeatedly cited on the 'City' pages, and (from the quotes), it similarly makes vague generalised assertions and also makes little distinction between the Corporation and the banks etc. within its boundaries.Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

ps here is a link to a Shaxson article on 'City' http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city .Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the Monbiot, Peston and Shaxson articles, I'm left with the impression that Shaxson's a viable source for WP articles on the City, Monbiot's interpretation of him less so. Peel away the colourful ceremonies and we are still left with a Corporation answerable to its extraordinary electorate, employing officers who become acutely aware of the background and interests of the elected Members. The metonomy is not entirely misleading and the association may be significantly closer than it was 200 years ago. NebY (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Myners Report may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *The government's response, [[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning!

You may find that your attempts to promote communication and understanding may be considered to be subversive.
On the other hand, I find them useful, and I VERY MUCH appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez mate! Keep this up and you might get recognition for promoting simplicity, harmony, etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC) (aka Even if no-one else does/has, I have noticed.)

Flying pigs

Chuckle. ;-). Laugh. LOL! ROTFL!! (I think you get the picture.) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You spoke too soon

Thanks for the message. I replied on my talk page and then this [1] happened! I'm not going to try to revert again, but I'm happy for other editors to. Cheers. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I did, didn't I! Oh well, he's had his answer; now I can just keep reverting. NebY (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I just posted this on WP:ANI:

"Another change [2] but he's left the topic collapsed so I suggest we leave this one be and see what happens next. If he doesn't leave the talk page alone then further reverts and semi-protection would be the way to go."

Does that sound like a plan? 2.25.115.116 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It does. Unfortunately I saw the edit first, reverted it on sight, then saw ANI, then this. I'll try to slow down a little. NebY (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Phew. You're not as green as you're IP-looking. :) NebY (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Undeclared

Why reverted a lot of my valuable edits with out explanated. You should restored info related to Hinduism separately.Septate (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

You have reverted a lot of valuable edits without explanation. Its right that I have removed Hinduism but you have reverted other edits with out explanation.Septate (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You prevented the specific undoing of the various, often multiple, edits in which you removed Hinduism with your further edits, which included unhelpful acts such as changing 60% to 60.0%. NebY (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact Septate, it should be you who should be explaining your removals. I can see no logic to these removals and have asked for an explanation on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(top-posted, moved)

Neby, If it as a problem then I would appreciate if if you delete all edits made by Silvershamrock124. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvershamrock123 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

Federal Court Order Approving AAFM Lawsuit to go Against Brett King and Geoff Baring in US Federal Court

On July 17th, 2013, a US Federal Judge ordered that all of the of seven lawsuit counterclaims by AAFM and Mentz could go forward to court against the former trainers: Brett King, Geoff Baring and the IABFM. The US Court order stated that AAFM and Mr. George Mentz could sue Mr. Brett King, Mr. Geoffrey Baring and IABFM individually for numerous lawsuit counts in federal court including: (1) theft (2) defamation, (3) breach of contract, (4) intentional interference with contractual relationships,(5) conspiracy, (6) copyright infringement, and (7) fraud violations of the Consumer Protection Act. After this key decision, the case was settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBLSLAW (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Verbally

@NebY (and @Deeday-UK): When I insisted on using the word "verbally" at Farad, I thought it pretty specifically meant "spoken" (and specifically not "written"). I think a lot of people (particularly those working in law who use the term "verbal contract") might be as surprised as I was to see my meaning as only the 3rd definition in Merriam. "Ya learn something new every day."

... time passes ...

• Cambridge University Press dictionary, however, gives "spoken rather than written" only.
• Oxford University Press gives only "1. Relating to or in the form of words" and "2. Grammar: Of, relating to, or derived from a verb: 'a verbal adjective'", but adds:

It is sometimes said that the true sense of the adjective verbal is ‘of or concerned with words,’ whether spoken or written (as in verbal abuse), and that it should not be used to mean ‘spoken rather than written’ (as in a verbal agreement). For this strictly ‘spoken’ sense, it is said that the adjective oral should be used instead. In practice, however, verbal is well established in this sense and, even in legal contexts, a verbal agreement is understood to mean a contract whose accepted terms have been spoken rather than written.

• Collins has my usage down at #3 also: "in speech; oral rather than written (usage objected to by some)"

Wonderful language, ours. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First, sorry if my edit coment came over as rather supercilious; I immediately feared it might.

It is indeed a wonderful language. I was glumly contemplating using "oral" just so that no-one else who's as twitchy as I am would be upset but no, much easier to switch to Old English roots instead. I ought to carry on editing that paragraph - it's terribly disjointed - but I can't quite see how to do it yet. Maybe you can?

Oh, you might also be amused by Verbal contract - a valiant attempt to impose logic on English usage. NebY (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Speech can be formal as well as informal, so "in speech" does not render the informality of terms like "puff" or "pic", in my view. Conversely, if it's true that "colloquial" can refer to the written word, it is especially referred to the spoken language and either way it always conveys the idea of informality. That's why I still think it's the best choice of words in this case. Deeday-UK (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't revert you. I do feel that here, "colloquial" by itself relies not just on the reader understanding that colloquialisms are more often spoken than written, but also that these two colloquialisms are never written. Maybe "often colloquially pronounced "puff" or "pic""? NebY (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. BTW, Black's (i.e. the legal) definition of a verbal contract is "a contract that is spoken and is not written down" and other phrases containing "verbal" are similar. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to Deeday-UK for the edit; I hope my tweak's OK. I'll add support at Talk:Verbal contract - surprising where these things lead! NebY (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Water Polo

Hi NebY, the original reason this edit by 134.223.230.152 was reverted was not that the edit changed the sense of the article. The reason was that 134.223.230.152's edit changed the paragraph from saying that water polo was unlike Association football in that players have no fixed position to saying that the sport was like football in that it's players have no fixed position. These statements can obviously not both be true. ~ Anastasia (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

But it is a good description of Association football to say that its players do not have fixed positions and manifestly incorrect to suggest that they do, otherwise Total football would have been impossible. This is the IP's point; the article was right to say that water polo does not have fixed positions but wrong to say that it was unlike Association football in this regard. NebY (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone knows about these things :) Thanks for helping out. ~ Anastasia (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

You have it. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks for your anti-vandalism work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

revert on London (European Parliament constituency)

Hi,
I was just creating the other end of the red link... I reverted your revert, but, if you think this link should not exist, please feel free to revert again (and do tell me!).
--Zeugma fr (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Sorry for being too hasty. NebY (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Pascal (unit)

I noticed you undid my change with the comment: "a Pascal is indeed a unit of measurement, just as the Newton is". I agree, but it is even more specifically a unit of pressure, which is what I was trying to emphasise. I've tweaked it again - in a slightly different way this time. I hope you see my intention correctly. If you still disagree please change back - but compare it with [[Newton (unit)" first. Bog snorkeller (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I like it - a marked improvement, according better with (for example) BS350. Sorry I wasn't more constructive with my revert - I didn't see what you were aiming at. NebY (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam warnings to Poojasapra12

@NebY hi. . This is regarding the links i posted on the ITM grous and LDC institute page. The links i am posting is not for any kind of promotion. it is just a reference for people. so i request u not to misunderstand it and kindly let me repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojasapra12 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not you are seeking to promote that website for commercial, reputational or other purposes , it is against Wikipedia's policy to link to it. Please read the material I have linked to on your talkpage. Your attempts to add such links to many articles on Wikipedia constitute spamming. NebY (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Farley

Interesting situation! I think the biggest problem with this is the level of input from the subject himself. There are points in the article which are impossible or very difficult to verify, even though they may be true. For example, if he was player of the year a couple of times at Droylsden and once at Marine, that's not likely at all to be online anywhere. We'd have to look at club publications like matchday programmes, that kind of thing. That said, someone who played over 200 times for a club is quite likely to have been voted player of the year at least once, so while very hard to verify, these facts are perfectly plausible.

I can find nothing to say he was man of the match in the 1998 FA Youth Cup Final. This [3], while possibly not a particularly solid source, credits Eaton with man of the match that day. So there's certainly a big question mark over that claim. Enough to take it out, I'd say.

The personal life section was entirely invented by the editor suspected of being the subject himself[4]. That quote is nowhere else online, and I suspect he's just made that up. So while it does at least appear to be a quote from the subject (!), it's unverifiable.

The part about the aborted move to Sheffield Wednesday is almost certainly unverifiable. I would be surprised if a club like Wednesday would baulk at a £20,000 price tag for a player they supposedly wanted. £120,000 seems a hefty price tag for a 24 year old Northern League centre half in 2004, but either way it cannot be substantiated, and neither can the claim that Farley was annoyed at being "held back" by Droylsden. Sounds like we only have the player's word for that, which if it were quoted somewhere in the press, then fair enough. But it isn't.

The "betting on your own team" aspect is probably the most important. The Liverpool Echo source is pretty clear – Farley was banned and fined for betting against his own team. There's a quote from the FA Regulatory Commission, and a quote from the Marine chairman. It's unequivocal. Here's an FA source [5] which might be worth adding. It's definitely important to clarify that these were not legal charges but FA charges, but I think the article wording satisfies that. Maybe it could be made clearer if necessary. I can't find anything to say the ban and/or the fine were overturned later. In FA terms, it's a very serious charge – betting on your own team to lose, playing in that game yourself and the result being a 4–0 defeat – it's very damning. I might go as far as to say that displays a character with zero integrity. No wonder he doesn't want it on his article.

It's a shame Farley made that substitute appearance for Everton all those years ago because that's the one slim claim he has on notability... Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I always like a challenge! Regarding yearbooks, now you mention it, there is a Northern Premier League Yearbook [6], but whether or not it would habitually carry the details of club awards, I don't know. The Youth Cup Final – yes, it was two legs, and the article says he was MotM in the second leg, which does differ from the source I found. I agree that any technical improvement of the article will result in it being more negative, as it seems to be the positive aspects that are the dubious ones! I agree with you entirely about the Right to Disappear and such, and it is a shame that this article will ultimately not shine a very positive light on its subject. Shame for him, and I wonder if he'd prefer the article didn't exist at all. The FA disciplinary charge is probably just as notable as his substitute appearance for Everton, ironically, and it does help towards satisfying WP:GNG. But the football notability criteria are clear, if a little questionable, so we're probably stuck with it! I don't envy you the task of cleaning it up, but I'm happy to help or support you if I can, just let me know. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(top-posted, moved #2)

Вы можете пойти на хуй с быка дерьмо. Я был в Украине несколько раз и кажется, что большинство людей, есть члены православной веры. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Provlovski (talk • contribs) 19:13, 01 September 2014 (UTC)

You vandalised the statistics for religious belief in the articles Ukrainians, Religion in England, Religion in Russia and Austrians with intent to deceive. Your reaction to being warned is to come here swearing and talking about having visited Ukraine. How old are you? NebY (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Feel free to revert me again, but check my recent edit history if you don't think the sharks are circling with the intent of muddling the concept. Sooner or later, those of us who see the difference are going to take antisemitism back. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think you and I are in agreement that we should use "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". But I do recognise that people who use "anti-Semitism" use it to express the same thing that others use "antisemitism" to express. Staunch campaigners against antisemitism, working within organisations that use "antisemitism" in their titles, can still be seen using "anti-Semitism" in their work - I suspect sometimes just because of some publishers' house styles. In short, we're not going to change how "anti-Semite" is used and we shouldn't try to; we just want to use "antisemite" instead. We should not start telling our readers that "anti-Semite" is normally used to mean opposition to Semites. NebY (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kasur (city in Pakistan)

Hi, this is the first time my submission has been reverted and I wish to communicate to you that the changes I made were the result of research on the topic. I can provide the details as quoted on the website of the city's page and some other sources from people who have been associated with Kasur and Lahore, both in Pakistan. This is my first clarification and I am not sure whether I have posted the thing on the correct platform. Do feel free to amend me. Thanks and regards, pratiksharma172000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratiksharma172000 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. NebY (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Screenreaders and spaces in numbers

Hi Neb, yes, plain spaces don't work well with screen readers, but the templates that you mentioned to me work fine. I think it'd be a good idea to put it into the MOS but I can't think of good wording at the moment (it kinda used to be there and I've mentioned this problem before). Graham87 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone and added some text about this to the guideline. I came up with the wording while trying to get to sleep last night. Graham87 04:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you?. You deleted two reliable sources, one of them is from Eurostat Eurobarometer poll which the same sources that's used in the led picture, I think it's was wrong that it's was big paragraph and i had to summarize the paragraph, but the statistical are non-argumentative, but it's very reliable and it's used in many of wikipedia articales, these two sources were from Eurostat Eurobarometer poll and Pew reacherch, Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you both read WP:LEDE and also consider the reader of the article. The lead should help the reader to proceed further into the article, not make their eyes glaze over and their hands reach for something more accessible. NebY (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Westhoughton

Re your deletion. But then neither is Barrow on Furness, Chatham, Devonport, etc. Are you going to delete them? Plucas58 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd watchlisted the article for another reason, so I saw your addition but hadn't checked the old entries. Done now, in small batches which I hope may make matters a bit easier if there is any dispute about particular entries. NebY (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pascal

Thanks for checking my edits to Pascal. If you read the article, you will in fact find that it is inconsistent. I checked which definition of the Pascal is correct and tried to make it consistent. I changed 101.325 to 101,325 because it appeared that it was a use of European number format--1 atm emphatically does not equal 101 Pa. And if in fact 100 Pa equalled 1 mbar, then 1 bar would equal exactly 100000 Pa, which is nonsense. I appreciate your efforts, but I don't appreciate you calling my work vandalism and deceit. We wikipedians need to assume good faith and support each other, not call each other names. Do you ever wonder why so many people are discouraged from editing wp? Tdimhcs (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It took me a minute to see my mistakes due to anger from your insults. My "corrections" were in fact invalid and the article is correct as is. Thanks for catching it. No thanks for the name calling. Tdimhcs (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Freshfields page

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

I've read the article. It was printed before the restructuring and actually in 2000 at the time of the merger hence why I thought it better to remove restructuring as that could be misleading when the article was actually about the merger. I'm happy to leave restructuring as it is if you'd rather leave it in.

Are there any other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wptraineem (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on your understanding of WP:LEAD and other miscellaneous point but a little harsh to just delete!

I agree in your understanding of the MOS and lead. I would like to let off steam against the ONS here that my confusion for the association with the 2011 Census, to which I wrongly attributed a fact for a source, is that the National Tables form for the detailed Land Use Survey carried out in 2005 (see Physical Environment) was only published after 2011. It is shocking how local authorities were unable to put into context their planning policies, until this came out. I should just like to let known one tiny criticism of you, quite personally, but not at all disrespectfully, which is that per WP:BOLD only unverifiable or unnotable edits really ought be rolled back, you should just rephrase and retain important data on subjects where it is clearly attested by a reliable source. Obviously the speed of my edit which was very fast and so mentioned the wrong borough played a role in your sudden reaction.- Adam37 Talk 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't know there was a discussion and it is interesting. NebY (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Paisley

Now look what you've done :p. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth. NebY (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

La Fondation du Mérite européen

So ... A tag has been placed on Fondation du Mérite européen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I reply fairly quickly why it should not be deleted. And then ... poof! ... it's gone. I am the webmaster of http://www.merite-europeen.eu and I also host the website. I have full authority from the Fondation to do anything I like .... the logo is NOT copyright as we haven't copyrighted it and nor shall we, nor is the photograph of the late François Visine. Put it into commons if that is what needs to be done. Please would you be so kind as to put the page back again?

Thank you

Giles Edmondston-Low (webmaster@merite-europeen.eu)

Thank you.

I've replied on your talk page, as it may be that other editors will help by clarifying or expanding on my comments. I'm removing the OTRS tag you place here as it doesn't apply to this page. NebY (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)