- 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement#McLeod_gauge
- 2 Anticartographicism
- 3 Uday Hussein
- 4 Gibraltar
- 5 Dispute Resolution
- 6 Animal Farm
- 7 Thanks
- 8 I don't know what to do
- 9 Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?
- 10 deletion - bmi
- 11 ANI & Yahia
- 12 Notification of DRN submission
- 13 ANI discussion
- 14 Just wondering
- 15 Wealdstone
- 16 Please comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups
- 17 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 18 Please comment on Talk:Slaughter and May
- 19 Please comment on Talk:KitchenAid
- 20 bicycle wheel
- 21 DeFacto
- 22 Please comment on Talk:Denny's
- 23 Stockport, Grand Slams, and Andrew Murray
- 24 ANI
- 25 AC/DC (electricity)
- 26 Letre
- 27 September 2013
- 28 October 2013
- 29 More detail please
- 30 Please explain
- 31 Italia
- 32 What is your problem?!?
- 33 DeFacto again
- 34 Thanks :)
- 35 Cornwall
- 36 You're Welcomed!
- 37 City of London
- 38 March 2014
- 39 Warning!
- 40 Flying pigs
- 41 You spoke too soon
- 42 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)
- 43 Undeclared
- 44 Unexplained removal
- 45 (top-posted, moved)
- 46 American Academy of Financial Management
- 47 Federal Court Order Approving AAFM Lawsuit to go Against Brett King and Geoff Baring in US Federal Court
- 48 Verbally
- 49 Water Polo
- 50 Rollback
- 51 revert on London (European Parliament constituency)
- 52 Re: Pascal (unit)
Hello NebY. I saw that you removed a reference to Harwood & Moody from the above article. The reference was not intended to the source of the photo (the proper place for that would be on the photo itself not an article). The reference was meant to be to a reference source that shows how to use such an apparatus. Perhaps the ref could be placed elsewhere in the article? Regards -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hi,
- You asked where you should place a reference to a printed book that describes how to use a McLeod gauge. As it's not a source for the information provided in the article, it should be added as further reading rather than as a footnote-style reference. MOS:APPENDIX and specifically WP:FURTHER may be helpful, but of course WP:NOTMANUAL could be relevant. NebY (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- NebY - OK, thanks for getting back to me. Use your judgement as to wether you wish to retain the reference in it's current placement. Yes I agree with WP:NOTMANUAL, that's why it was added as a reference source, rather than the "how-to" information actually being added to the article. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you've made several edits in the Gibraltar article. I think they are quite accurate and straight to the point, and I think I agree in general with the criteria you've applied.
On the other hand, I am not sure about one specific edit. You've said that mentioning a specific town as the main destination of Gibraltarians is "superfluous".
My own opinion would be that the main destination of the massive exodus of a whole town is quite notable: Gibraltarians didn't simply vanish in the air; most of them established themselves in a very specific location called San Roque. Take into account that San Roque kept an administrative continuity with Gibraltar, all of its official records (which means that it is an important destination in order to research the History of Gibraltar pre-1704), its symbols (the banner), the largest part of the population (which means that it kept demographic continuity with pre-British Gibraltar), and is within sight of the original town (which means that there has been an important amount of interactions -both friendly and hostile- between the two sites during centuries). It has also kept a tradition of being a point of reference with regards to the culture and people of pre-British Gibraltar.
But I would say that the mentions in most reliable authors and sources are more important than my own opinion. Please check below a sample of mentions in the sources that are most widely used with regards to the History of Gibraltar:
|Sample of quotes regarding San Roque|
You are right to say that this information may be "contentious", but only when it is used by Spanish irredentists (pretending that San Roque is "the real Gibraltar"), or by British nationalists (pretending that life in Gibraltar did simply not exist pre-1704).
On the other hand, I hope you agree on the factuality, notability and relevance of the exodus and its destination for the inhabitants of Gibraltar (at least for the ones pre-1704). It would be controversial if we were to say that "San Roque is the real Gibraltar", but this is not the case if we just mention that it was the main destination. Furthermore, this fact is mentioned by most relevant and uncontroversial sources.
- Thank you for your kind words. I admit, my use of the term "superfluous" was imprecise shorthand. The process of editing the encyclopaedia can be one of patiently considering the advantages and disadvantages of different phrasings, then realising with a start that the text works better if a phrase is simply excised so that the reader may be brought more rapidly to an understanding that might then serve as a platform for and an encouragement to further exploration. In that sense the excised phrase, however true, turns out to be "superfluous". The alternative may be that the phrase, at least as it is currently located, will need expansion and qualification if it is not to be misunderstood, to appear to claim something inaccurate or merely to be present to support some particular standpoint. Yes, sometimes that expansion and qualification can be delivered quickly and easily, but if it cannot we might do better to leave the matter to be expanded upon later, perhaps even in a section that directly discusses the existence of different standpoints.
- In this instance, we have a paragraph that so far is describing the events of August 1704 and currently is even limited to 4 days of that month. (We could change that, of course.) It said that the townsfolk fled to San Roque and the neighbouring region. It requires no qualification to say that on August 7th they fled to the surrounding region, but it requires significant qualification to say that they fled to San Roque. We would have to explain that (in the quotations you sent me) Harvey says they first sought "shelter over a wide area of Andalucia" and Jackson says "Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia" and eventually "the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque", receiving royal recognition in 1706.
- These are hazardous waters. If we accept the statements of Harvey, Jackson, Hills, Sepulveda and Andrews that you provided then Jordine and Kramer are anachronistic: there was no pre-existing town of San Roque in which they could settle and the Gibraltarians could not have turned towards that town. Examine Sayer and we stumble over "numbers fell by the way victims to hunger and fatigue" before we even reach the implication that the burgesses simply stopped as soon as they reached St Roque.
- What’s worse, we don’t know if the phrase we had in Wikipedia, “fled to San Roque and ...”, misleads by suggesting San Roque was the main intended destination. Some readers would take it that way, some wouldn’t; some historians might claim it but it seems most wouldn’t.
- So, that’s some of why I called that phrase superfluous. I’m leaving open the question of whether and how San Roque should be mentioned here or elsewhere in this article because I’d rather try to solve that by creating suitable text. But not now, especially as I seem to be writing very ponderous English! NebY (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do welcome any improvement in the grammar of that piece btw could you point to any source that says they fled to San Roque? As you seem to have some domain knowledge and access to sources I would welcome your comments. As written it implies an urgency that simply does not sit comfortably with the historical depiction. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot point to any source that says they fled to San Roque. The version you see now is not the product of my edits, which last read
- On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Violence followed the surrender with rape, looting and desecration of churches by occupying forces and reprisal killings by inhabitants. By 7 August order was restored but almost all the population departed with the Spanish garrison.
- I cannot point to any source that says they fled to San Roque. The version you see now is not the product of my edits, which last read
- In the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) Spain ceded Gibraltar and Minorca to Great Britain, which had already begun to exercise sole control over Gibraltar. Minorca changed hands several times over the next century but Gibraltar remained under British rule despite various negotiations, blockades and a series of sieges culminating in the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-1783). It became a key base for the Royal Navy and played an important part prior to the Battle of Trafalgar (1805).
- After I made the edits to produce that version, User:Imalbornoz contacted me as above rather than on the article's talk page. I read the quotes provided and responded, as above, that the quotations did not seem to support a claim that the destination of the inhabitants on that day was San Roque. I made no changes to the article. About half an hour later my edits were reverted by User:126.96.36.199. I hope to return to the matter one day but I'd rather not waste a lot of time on it. My responses to Imalbornoz above and yourself now already seem disproportionately longwinded! NebY (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your attempt to help keep these page discussions reasonable. Unfortunately, there is no longer any point. Two weeks after reaching consensus on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote the entire page to reflect his version of history stating that "he didn't agree with the consensus" calling it "capitulation." I give up. No evidence or explanation is accepted if it deviates from Mr. Wolfowitz' beliefs. I have more important things to do than argue with someone who refuses to see any viewpoint but his own, while Mr. Wolfowitz has nothing to do but sit on WP all day and monitor pages he has taken a personal interest in. With editors like him, Wikipedia becomes less and less accurate every day and will continue to discourage new editors who run across a Wolfowitz (and apparently some long-time editors have given up too). I hope that someday, WP has the desire to consider accuracy over ego and have some fact-checkers stop out-of-control editors from trying to change history. Hulcys930 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for getting involved in the discussion, and for putting things in a way that both makes sense to me and apparently may have satisfied Jesse and Medeis...at least until they speak up again. Right now I'm planning to stay clear of the discussion unless other editors speak up, unless you feel I should speak up again, but I really think the unsourced "references" need to go, and that we should have clear criteria for inclusion per WP:LSC. Thanks again. Doniago (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can't believe this skeleton just got dragged out of the closet...though I guess Halloween is coming up soon... Doniago (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to do
An editor who spent quite some time attempting to alter the page "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and was finally forced to accept a consensus (and has now reverted the consensus in the last 3 minutes again) is now "cleaning up" another page by the same author of the Heroes in Hell series and I have been told his "edits" are not considered "vandalism" by WP standards. This page, The Sacred Band of Stepsons, has stood unmolested for a year and a half but suddenly it needs to be "cleaned up" i.e., removing book cover images, rewording many paragraphs, taking out any mention of LGBT issues, and generally diluting the information on the page. I have no idea what to do in this case when there is a distinct lack of WP:AGP but he stays within the boundaries of "acceptable" behaviour. In the last 5 minutes he has also gone back into the Heroes in Hell series page, the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, the Heroes in Hell (book) and has redone all the edits that had been decided against by consensus. Can you help me? Hulcys930 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?
According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.
When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
deletion - bmi
i've posted my comment on the discussion section, is it possible we can establish some sort of discussion there?
ANI & Yahia
- Wow! But of course you've nothing to apologise for, that was just a typo on the way to fixing a bigger problem. Good to see you got such quick results. NebY (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Notification of DRN submission
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence on the sources at Porscia Yeganeh. There is still one that I'm questioning if you have time to comment. Also, it seems someone has undone all the careful formatting of citations that I did on the bio and now the citations are all in a format that is not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. Not sure what to do about that. Thanks for all your help. --LarEvee (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the pages for Wealdstone, Harrow and etc should mention stations that are close or nearby. They should just mention the Stations that are in those areas. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Please comment on Talk:Slaughter and May
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slaughter and May. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:KitchenAid
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:KitchenAid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for requesting the SPI on User:MeasureIT. I was beginning to get the feeling that (s)he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto. MeasureIT's initial ploy (three months ago) was to state that the UK was entirely metric (as a result of mis-interpretting a statement on the US metric association website) where Defacto had taken a strong anti-metric line. Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's all rather sad. Once I put the DeFacto and Lucy-marie accounts together I realised how much time she was spending here. But the "Ornaith" socking was particularly appalling; she simply saw Guy Macon as someone she could exploit. Feel free to add to the submission, or at least to be ready if I've not been clear enough. NebY (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Denny's
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Denny's. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Stockport, Grand Slams, and Andrew Murray
Read the criteria for grand slams. Andy Murray has not achieved all the components for one, though Fred Perry did, and is the last British person to so do. Although not a Reliable Source, the wikpedia article does contain accurate criteria and accurate lists of people, and you can see that Andy Murray has achieved but one component of a Grand Slam. Do not revert it unless you can supply accurate reliable sources that claim that he has done so, otherwise, long-standing editor (though "semi-retired") or not, you would not be abiding by the conventions of wikipedia here. (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I confused "Grand Slam" and "Grand Slam Title". I must not do that again. NebY (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is quite all right: we all make mistakes, and I am certainly not immune from making them myself. I must apologize for the slightly abrupt message, we have had some potential edit-warring about this in the past, and I got tired of it. (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a properly closed thread, but as to your sentence
"I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that".
the correct phraseology instead of "why do you think that" is, "why would anyone think that", directing the conversation to the group instead of to any one individual. I can not guarantee that every group that uses parliamentary procedure does it properly, and if you look across the pond, the US uses phrases such as "my colleague" when you know they really mean "you slime". England engages in a great deal of yelling and jeering that is not tolerated in the United States. One of the most common set of rules for parliamentary procedure is called Roberts Rules of Order "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!" Apteva (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You provided some input to the discussion about renaming this article. We are looking to close this off. If you have a preference for either of the two proposed titles, it would be appreciated if you could indicate your preference at Talk:AC/DC (electricity)#Requested move. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Goldhawk Road tube station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harrow, London 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:
- Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital]] and [[Ladbrokes]], which has its headquarters in Harrow.<ref>[http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s63118/draft%20of%20Core%20Strategy.pdf Retrieved on 20
More detail please
Hello NebY, can you explain on Talk:Pint why you reverted my last change to Pint, particularly explaining what you think was inaccurate with the details I added. EzEdit (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- It has already been explained at generous length, not least in the very article whose legibility and accuracy you have repeatedly damaged in the pursuit of some bizarre political correctness. Please do not post on my talk page again. NebY (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this edit, you refer to one of mine as an indirect attack. Excuse my obtuseness, but how do you work that out? I certainly didn't intend it as an attack on anybody, indirect or not. --Pete (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- You implied that User:Lukeno94 was unreasonable with your "a reasonable person ... but you" construction and you did so with such care that you chose to describe your edit as merely "indent after dot point". NebY (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm with you now. I thought that saying "If I'm told to stay off a talk page and I do precisely that, a reasonable person would take that as acceptable behaviour," was so transparently obvious that nobody could possibly take offence, and that Lukeno94 would then follow the logical path that he was actually proposing to block me for something which had already been addressed and remedied by Kim Dent-Brown. Given that no other editor supported such a block, and Luke chose not to articulate his logic, we can only speculate. I prefer to think that it was a misunderstanding and that Luke is, in fact, a reasonable person. I don't see anything to suggest otherwise. I like to take the Platonic view that we are all reasonable people and can accept facts and logic when clearly presented.
- As for the edit summary, I adjusted the indentation. I then took the opportunity to refine my wording and thought it not worth adding further. Looking through my contributions, most of the time I don't add anything at all to the autogenerated inclusion of the section title, and when I do, it's just a few scant words. Some people write a paragraph of edit summary. I don't. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted your last edit Italy (Ancient Rome). The article is about the political entity called "Italia" (a sort of special province of the Roman Empire). It's not about the history of the Italian peninsula and the military expansion of Rome through it. --Enok (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's not clear at present. The title suggests the article is about Italy during the time of Ancient Rome. The first sentence ends "during Roman era" which - bad English side - does nothing to restrict the period either. As it would be tautologous to end it "during the period when Italy was governed by Rome and no longer independent", you need to find some other means such as a point in time, e.g. "from around 7 BC". I will try that change. But I'll avoid referring to it as a province of any kind at all, and also avoid the phrase "administrative division" which suggests Italy was just one of the divisions of the penninsula. NebY (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)NebY (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
What is your problem?!?
Fist in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number website IBAN page ecbs.org (not owned by the European Committee for Banking Standards) also have a iban checker!
Second:what you understand from IBAN?!?
Third: Why remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sort_code link? you know other websites, use it? Are they your friends? Why not remove them too??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialenspe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was inclined to avoid that discussion but then I saw experienced editors joining in with new and positive contributions. Good to see and I hope they'll be able to carry on without being treated as new pastimes. NebY (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation to my comment on the Roman Numerals page, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and missed the 'Edit Details' entirely.
Thanks again, Jo
- ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanAllan2011 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aargh! Sorry and thanks. I'll hold off trying to fix the messes left by those two new users until I've had more coffee. Looks like you and others are catching them all anyway. NebY (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
"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)
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/
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.)
You spoke too soon
Thanks for the message. I replied on my talk page and then this  happened! I'm not going to try to revert again, but I'm happy for other editors to. Cheers. 188.8.131.52 (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  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."
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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.
@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)"
- 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)
Hi NebY, the original reason this edit by 184.108.40.206 was reverted was not that the edit changed the sense of the article. The reason was that 220.127.116.11'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)
revert on London (European Parliament constituency)
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)
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)
- Colorado Federal Court Order Lawsuit against IABFM Brett King and Geoffrey Baring, Colorado United States District Court.