User talk:NebY

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You're Welcomed![edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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

You spoke too soon[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management[edit]

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

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. [AAFM1 1] After this key decision, the case was settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBLSLAW (talkcontribs) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Verbally[edit]

@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. Face-blush.svg "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. Face-smile.svg —[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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

@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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)