User talk:NebY

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
18 August 2016

Latest Tech News[edit]


Hi, per revert here. That was not any spiritual leader. London is the center of the largest Caliphate in existance. That is worthy of notability.--Peaceworld 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Any discussion of whether Mirza Masroor Ahmad should be mentioned in the London article, where in the article and in what terms, should take place on the articles's talk page, not on the talk page of an individul editor. NebY (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection of water polo[edit]

Hi, as I was looking through the revision history of water polo it struck me that you have reverted many of the vandals' edits. Several times I have attempted to post multiple requests at WP:RPP for indefinite semi-protection on this page, which have always been declined [9] [10] [11] [12] (edits going newest==>oldest). Would you agree that this page deserves indefinite semi-protection, or am I missing something? JZCL 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, JZCL, I'm not really surprised by those declines. Semi-protection's usually only applied for short periods and after surges of problematic editing that have become hard to manage. My general impression is that the vandalism levels for Water polo aren't uncommon for Wikipedia and are part of the price of being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Digging into the article records, I see the 81 edits by IPs in 2014[13] have been fairly evenly spread through the year. The page history for 2014 shows broadly similar levels of vandalism from IPs and from registered accounts, Cluebot catching quite a lot straight away and a satisfyingly broad range of editors reverting the rest. Sadly few editors improved the article in 2014; you were one, of course, but there were also positive contributions from[14][15],[16],[17] - incorrectly reverted by registered accounts,[18] and[19]. (Apologies to anyone I've missed!) So there's a good case to be made that long-term semi-protection would not only have been against Wikipedia's principles but also would have resulted in a worse article! Sorry! NebY (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. JZCL 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette[edit]

Hy, it seems you have a problem,I was always positive with you and from the first you send negative comments ,I only completed an article and I 'm working in a positive way with the new editor to find common ground,I reverted part of his work then I took most of his contributions into account, please see the Talk Page Marie Antoinette, the new Editor acknowledge he know little about the subject and acknowledge his mistake and you are here making problems and reverting me .I tried and was able to find a middle ground with the new editor ,it is you who are making problems. The new editor corrections were accepted ,a lot of his ideas were taken into consideration although he acknowledge he know so little about the subject.Thank you.(Aubmn)AubmnAubmn (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. NebY (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I said this article is not mine and any help is welcome, I was having positive discussions on the Talk Page with the new editor, he acknowledge he know so little about the subject, I accepted even without discussion many of his contributions and you reverted me pushing him to assume a negative attitude, please see Marie Antoinette talk page and the new editor talk page before your intervention.(Aubmn)Aubmn (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi NebY, please be aware I have asked for dispute resolution over Marie Antoinette. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to it. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox coat of arms[edit]

Hey there, I've noticed that usually countries do have an image of the coat of arms of the capital in the infobox and few exceptions remain/ed in Europe. (e.g. Russia, Bulgaria, United Kingdom) I've been attempting to standardize the infobox a little for those countries as well. Even the rule you cited seems to suggest that certain images can be used: "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not." YoursBadDay (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As WP:INFOBOXFLAG puts it, Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. The use of the City of London's coat of arms doesn't tell the reader anything more about the UK. Nor does it help the reader understand the word "London"; it's hard to believe any readers would recognize the coat of arms but not recognise the word. Nor is this a long list of countries in which it might arguably be easier to find one by looking for its flag. What's more, it's not the coat of arms of the capital of the UK! The City of London is only a small part of London and it does not include either the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or its government offices, or the London home of the monarch. NebY (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Double warning[edit]

Hi NebY, it's probably no biggie, but we've double-warned at User talk: When I encounter vandalism happening in real time, I warn first, then revert, so as to give the disruptive user an opportunity to see the warning before they start revert warring. In this case, I slapped an L3 for their three Monsters University disruptions, and was going to revert afterward. I'm not really suggesting that you should do anything here, mostly just dropping a note as an FYI. Happy editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd not thought of doing it that way round, and using Twinkle has reinforced the warn-later habit - the canned messages talk of having just reverted. But it's a good approach to bear in mind. Thank you. NebY (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's an easier way to get them "on paper" sooner. If you revert first, they could presumably revert you before you have a chance to warn 'em, which can extend the disruption. But everybody does it the way they're most comfortable with. I'll shut up now. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NebY[edit]

I'm Moka Mo, and I just read your message you sent me and I want to get back to you. First, thank you for supporting my edits. I am very grateful. However, all of my edits include the metropolitan area and if you visit the reference page, you can see that. I found that adding "metro" was unnessessary and that is why I removed your edit. Thank you for trying to contribute to my edits. Please visit my talk page. User talk:Moka Mo — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, NebY, this is personal[edit]

I am very ticked off that you think you have the authority to change my edit. I will give you one last chance, but don't cross the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moka Mo (talkcontribs) 18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Okay fool. We're going to war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moka Mo (talkcontribs) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(blank 2)[edit]

Alright. I'm now going to respond to your note. I believe you're taking advantage of Wikipedia's policies to justify acts of vandalism. I can see on your talk page that you're a frequent vandalist. Once again, whether you like it or not, we are at war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moka Mo (talkcontribs) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What "acts of vandalism"? NebY (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Aap and redirect[edit]

You had read ? It is not a disambiguation it is a redirect. Fundarise (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AAP (disambiguation) is a redirect to AAP. It does not redirect to Aam Aadmi Party. AAP is a disambiguation page which includes links to many articles, including Aam Aadmi Party. It does not redirect to Aam Aadmi Party. Therefore we cannot put a note at the top of Aam Admi Party saying that AAP redirects to Aam Admi Party. NebY (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I really didn't knew how it worked, now I do. Fundarise (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. It can be hard to follow - especially when another editor's tried to change everything around! NebY (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Football Clubs[edit]

Okay, when you read this then i will make a final decision. The problem of football clubs you had mentioned, i too was having the same doubt. But when i saw that some players like Pique had the name Barcelona against it though played for 3 clubs; I thought to add info of others too. And the edits i have made of the players, either i like their style of play or belong to my favorite clubs. about the guarantee, i can. if i have access to internet, Wikipedia is the you can find me surely. Yesterday was Edison Canavis' Birthday but as per Wikipedia he was a Napoli player: But he is in PSG squad. So i decided to fix it and add teams of other players. I thought and Yes I will maintain the record for it, being careful with the transfer window each time. I won't make any further edits about the years. But after reading this if you still want this to be reverted, I will surely do it :) thanks! --aGastya 05:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talkcontribs)

football and years[edit]

I guess i did it :) see life is unpredictible: but everyday may it be a happy one for me or a worse one; i never left Wikipedia nor i want to. Well can you check if all edits are perfect (I made some edits other than the FCs' also with them for the first time too) thanks! aGastya (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Hello. I have a question, when you reverted my edit on the Ancient Rome government template, you said Rome was not part of the Eastern Roman Empire until 1453. What does that mean. Wasn't the Eastern/Byzantine empire a direct continuation of the Roman Empire? Thanks Miss Paris Slue (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The trouble is that Rome wasn't part of that empire. NebY (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't Justinian reconquer it, though? --Miss Paris Slue (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but within a few years Byzantine control was tenuous at best and Rome had moved thoroughly outside it centuries before the fall of Constantinople (see for example Rome#Middle Ages and Papal States#Relationship with the Holy Roman Empire). NebY (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Revision (647397895) Undid[edit]

@NebY: Hello, I would like to let you know that I am a new-born in the Wikipedia family and I do rely on the nurture from adult members like you! Face-smile-big.svg I was, in fact, watching the Documentary & simultaneously looking if the article on Wikipedia needed any update/citation. In my contribution, the scientific analysis of the photographs from the Hubble leading to the best evidence yet of liquid water on Europa was my intended subject. I agree that the geysers were described with greater detail (& less drama!?) in the previous paragraph. Now I see that my mentioning of the height (twice as in Kilometer & Miles!!) has overshadowed the intended subject, huh! Confused.png Repetition was never the intention. If you've felt [20] that my contribution did not make any sense, then I am accepting it just in a way that a kid would accept decisions of elders in the family! Cry.png I hope to evolve in a better way with these experiences - Anand2202 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My Edits[edit]

Don't fuck with my edits. I don't mess with your stuff, leave mine alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for the long quote I put in the Superdiversity article. I just wanted to get it established. Will try to work on it now. BrumEduResearch (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette[edit]

Hy first, keep your warning for yourself, you always interfere between me and other editors reverting me without opening a debate on the talk page, these two days I was not available, I have other stuff in my life than Wikipedia, everyday I log out only one or 2 hours. Second Marie Antoinette page is read by 3000\5000 persons everyday so don 't make assumptions you don 't have proof about. Third I don t believe in confrontation but in consensus and expert work, you must know that the editor who before you removed the information about size was not liking my work on the Napoleon article which by the way is 16000 words almost the double of Marie Antoinette, I was trying to trim it a little and he restored many of the informations. Anyway soon I 'll work on Napoleon and I wish you help me a little. Finally I 'm going to answer your Question on the debate page of Marie Antoinette and lets work on consensus , we can 't have it both ways, demanding my help on other sources than Fraser and reverting me on the spot. Be positive and I 'll be. Hope we work together, thank you.Aubmn (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.[21] I'll just add that I am glad to see you add sources other than Fraser and remove copyright violations. Sadly, there is still much to do to in terms of making this one article more readable (and the prose less embarassing) and removing unencyclopedic excesses. If your message above signals that you are now more ready to let your fellow editors do this, then that is most welcome. NebY (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

QUICK REPLY First Marie Antoinette not my page and I was very positive with working with others. Second I reduce it before any body demanded it. Third I worked on Napoleon because before this debate because the subject interest me , I only wish you concentrate like me on other articles as well on working together on this article ,no problem.Fourth about edit warring, I repeat 5000 persons see this article every day.Aubmn (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Respect them

United States customary units[edit]

Hello. I reverted your reversion of my edit, so I think I owe you an explanation. The whole sentence, as I edited it, reads,

This definition was agreed to with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, and so is often termed international measure.

The parties that agreed to the definition in question were the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth countries. In other words, the US agreed with the UK et al., and they all agreed to the definition. Your edit (and the original sentence) would have the parties agree the definition, as if agree were a transitive verb. This usage has been catching on in the UK recently (e.g., "The bank has agreed the loan."), but it's incorrect in my opinion. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have chosen to have an edit war instead of discussing this civilly. Strange that you advise me to "respect WP:BRD" while violating it yourself. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The WP:BRD process is that the first editor makes a bold edit, the second reverts and the first, if s/he wishes to persist, avoids edit-warring by opening a discussion on the article's talk page. You reverted the revert instead and then said it was I who chose to edit-war. You still haven't opened a discussion on the article talk page. If you wish to persist. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you there. NebY (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:United_States_customary_units#Dispute_over_"agreed_to" J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Courts leet[edit]

Thanks for your courteous note about dead links. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Engineering vs Science[edit]

Sorry but I just wanted to make the information more coherent here in wiki as both pages of applied sciences and Template:Science state that engineering is a subset of science in a broad sense, alongside healthcare. I'm a layman of this but would like to get a clearer picture. Biomedicinal (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2015

The article applied science has many flaws. The sentence "This includes a broad range of science fields from Engineering to Child Care" might lead you to think that child care is a science, but would you call everyone who's ever raised a child a scientist? Similarly, the next sentence's attempt to group several sciences as relating to engineering should not be taken to mean that engineering as a science, and that is true of Template:Science too. You'll find there are many flaws in Wikipedia and we must resist the temptation to spread them across even more articles. NebY (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. I see what you meant. But I think if those pieces of info. are really wrong, why don't we just correct or clarify them to avoid further misunderstanding? Not all readers have relevant expertise. I believe that clear statements about the differences between the two disciplines may be required. Biomedicinal (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2015

Well, I didn't even know we had an article on applied science! I'll admit there are a few other problematic articles I'd like to tackle before trying to improve that one, but I might yet NebY (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi. A reliable source has been added on London Muslim Centre. -- AHLM13 talk 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The source does not support the claim. I have replied on your talk page.[22] NebY (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed the whole phrase. Now you should like that. I saw your old edit, in which you stated the Birmingham one is the first one, although the book says something else. -- AHLM13 talk 10:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Roll over and die::

<redacted> (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Onomacles (Whalestate)[edit]

I've reworded this now, yes i was unaware of the issue of Wikipedia:Plagiarism in respect to non-copyright restricted works (i.e. copyright expired works), now i know, thanks. Whalestate (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Good work on the East London Mosque adhan issue[edit]

Hey. I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts to modify/removing that unsupported material about the East London Mosque being amongst the first in Europe to broadcast the adhan. It seems to have found its way into a lot of articles! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! It's bothered me ever since some fruitless discussions at Talk:Religion in England so I thought I should follow up while we're all clear about it - well, nearly all. It's been quite difficult to discuss the matter with the various IPs and short-lived accounts who have promoted ELM with that image and such claims. 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it can be annoying when you know the source doesn't support a claim but you have to battle with numerous editors who don't care about that, and you don't have many people to back you up. I'll try to keep an eye on the East London Mosque article to make sure that it doesn't creep back in. At least it seems to have attracted a fair bit of attention on the article talk page now. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyborg the Wikipedian[edit]

Apologies for my Metric system edit; I don't like how British people use "-ise" instead of "-ize" to end "-ize" words. I'm sorry, I just don't like that ending; whenever I see the "-ise" ending on an "-ize" word I instantly get upset because I ABSOLUTELY HATE that ending! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Accepting those spellings is part of the price of being a Wikipedian - cyborg or not! Maybe you could rewire yourself a little.... NebY (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Dude, I'm a human. I'm not an immortal robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote tabulation[edit]

Hi, it's time to tabulate the color votes. ―Mandruss  15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My answer: 0A(24, not that it matters), 1A(25), 1B(24), 3B(24). ―Mandruss  15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Yes, I get that too. For fun and maybe clarity, here's a full table - I threw in the totals because the weight of options 1 and 3 seemed quite striking.
n nA nB nC total
#BD2400/white  24   You have 24   - - 24
1 #00528C/white  25   You have 25   24   You have 24  - 49
2 #F9C557/black  14   You have 14  - - 14
3 #008560/white  12   You have 12   24   You have 24  - 36
4 #F9C557/black
- -  2   You have 2  2
5 #8EED9D/black  0   You have 0   12   You have 12  - 12
6 #CBBAE8/black  0   You have 0   19   You have 19  - 19
7 #ED8EDE/black
- -  6   You have 6  6
9 #006400/white  3   You have 3   2   You have 2  - 5
10 #008740/white  2   You have 2   0   You have 0  - 2
11 #F9C557/#006400  2   You have 2   3   You have 3  - 5
NebY (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and I noticed that the voting heavily favored the earlier candidates. I'm telling myself that's because the best choices were nominated first. ―Mandruss  16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a sensible explanation. NebY (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

'National English'[edit]

Thanks for your comment, however I totally disagree with you. Whilst there is little I can do about the poor spelling of the Americans, metrification deals with International standards, which transcends national differences. If the entire scientific community spells these international standards in one way, why should it be any different for Americans. Whilst I admit that this article is about the lacklustre US attempts to employ metric standards, that should not remove itself from correct spelling of said standards. The article starts off discussing the 'Metre Convention'. By your logic, this should be changed to the METER convention, for fear of confusing people. But that wouldn't do, would it? Because the convention signed is about the METRE. Why, therefore, does the rest of the article reject this convention. The US is a signatory of the Metre Convention, agreeing to it, and said spelling. I doubt that you'll change the article back, because heaven knows that were scientific thinking is involved, the US falls woefully behind, and here we have the perfect example of why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidj85 (talkcontribs) 09:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the US to adopt metre/litre spelling too. But Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs - see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and any number of vigorous discussions at WP:ANI, WP:ARBCOM and so many other places where disputes are aired and digital blood spilt. Also, the truce over spelling summed up by WP:ENGVAR works in favour of metre/litre spelling because most articles about the metric system began with that spelling. If they weren't protected by the WP:ENGVAR convention, we'd probably have seen them all changed by now - I've often had to revert such edits myself - as well as many other articles that use British English spelling. It's a truce that's well worth honouring. NebY (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the message! Yes, all of the edits by this IP seems to be the vandalism! Bearas (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Edit[edit]

Hi NebY - please look in the site and see how many scientific reports on Byzantine excavations there were in Istanbul? There are also many pages on emperors, palaces, 1204 and many topics. For example please look at the page on the Pantokrator excavations - on the right side you will see how I have added side history pages. I have side columns on Byzantine marbles. I trust your judgment. I care deeply about Byzantine studies and was to be a responsible contributor. I have not added any of my own content to pages, I need to learn more before I do that. You will see I corrected a spelling error. I will follow whatever guidance you can give me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzantinearts2015 (talkcontribs) 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Byzantinearts2015: do add content to Wikipedia! That's the way to improve the encyclopedia. Of course, it needs to be content that's verifiable in reliable sources and that does mean citing references other than your website (which doesn't qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms). Just in case, I should point out that you can't just paste in text that you've already published elsewhere, on a website or anywhere else, unless you're prepared to go to the trouble of actually donating copyright in that text to Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll add a brief guide to your talk page with many links to advice on adding material to Wikipedia. Happy editing! NebY (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am mostly interested in the Deesis mosaic - I would never post anything anywhere on Byzantine subjects that have already been done. All the pages I have seen are very good and don't need any additions to the text. I promise to tread lightly and with great care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzantinearts2015 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I should do my profile page so people know who I am. I worked with Robert Van Nice from the Byzantine Institute when I was in college and worked on excavations in the area of the Great Palace - specifically St. George of the Mangana and the Mangana Palace. I also worked at the Zerek Djami - the former Pantokrator Monastery. This was all a very long time ago.Byzantinearts2015 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You might wish to wait until you've had more experience editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Expert editors discusses some of the issues. In general, Wikipedia editors are respected for their ability to marshal and clearly explain verifiable and reliably sourced material, not for their qualifications or experience. At present and for the foreseeable future, editors have the right to remain anonymous and it has even happened that anonymous editors have harassed editors who have disclosed their identities or had their identities made public. It's completely up to you, but I suggest editing first and disclosing later, when you've become a little more familiar with the environment. NebY (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You removed links that had been there for years. There is now nothing to be done about it. There is no appeal - you don't care what I have written or who am am. I will not add any content to Wikipedia - this has been a very bad experience for me. That won't matter to you either nameless one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello NebY[edit]

Hello, I'm Nadavzara741. First of all, thank you for writing to me. I wanted to let you know that in the page Jon Brower Minnoch, before Jon Brower Minnoch himself, the record of the heaviest man was preceded by Francis John Lang (aka Michael Walker), and not by Robert Earl Hughes because Robert Earl Hughes weighed 486 kg, and Francis John Lang weighed more: 538 kg (you can see this in the page List of the heaviest people). — Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

When I saw you'd changed it to a red-linked pair of names, I feared you were a vandal inserting the name of some friend or enemy - I see that all too often. I was wrong and I apologise. I'll add a note to your talk page saying so. I do have a couple of worries about the succession box, which I've raised in Talk:Jon Brower Minnoch#Succession box; you may well be able to clear them up there. Again, I'm sorry for saying your edits didn't appear constructive; they were. NebY (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Orifice plate and 'pressure'[edit]

If I may impose on you, since you seem to be the most recent 'real' editor having contributed to this article, could you look at a linked semi-disambiguation page? Orifice has a link to Orifice plate accompanied by text with a misspelling that has me confused.

"... and thus by conciding the edge of orifice plate ..."

there has me flummoxed. I'd think they meant "coinciding with", which would match up with such snippets as "... and installed concentric with the pipe ..." and "... the plate may have an orifice the same size as the pipe ...". But hey the typo doctor wants to "do no harm" so I refrain... :-) Shenme (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That was interesting! First I struggled with the word, then the sentence, then the line - all of which quite misunderstood flow measurement - but finally I realised that this edit had added far too much detail for a disambiguation page and had maybe been more interested in anuses and penises anyway. I went back to an earlier version and copy-edited it a little - see what you think. NebY (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Water polo[edit]

My apologies! In my local water polo federation we have made the change from 6 field players to 5. I was unaware the change did not extend to the rest of the game. Thank you ever so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminL42 (talkcontribs) 11:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to you; I shouldn't have said your edit wasn't constructive - it might not have been universally correct, but the old version wasn't either! Now that you've alerted me on my talk page that some leagues play with fewer players, I've opened a discussion at Talk:Water polo#Number of players asking how we can best describe this in the article. Would you like to chip in? I've put this message on your talk page too, just to make sure anyone looking there will see you didn't earn that warning. NebY (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Got the message![edit]

Hello NebY - I just wanted to leave a hidden note, which was the only way to give my thoughts and not remove the "double chin", as I wanted to avoid the 3-revert accusation. I guess I went overboard some & A replied there. Beside, the article talk page does not seem to do much good: it's filled to the brim with discussions on same problem(s) that arose about a year ago. It is difficult to ignore an article laden with unnecessary details & written in such a poor style in some parts. The poor style, in fact, does not matter, because it can be corrected, but here, the person keeps on putting everything back, the unnecessary details, the words misspelled & the style. I am at the point where I am beginning to wonder if it is not being done on purpose. It is so strange that someone has set himself at the door of that article, making anyone's contribution impossible. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of water polo players.[edit]

Perhaps we could say something along the lines of "the standard number of players is 7 (six field players plus a goalie). However, some leagues have reduced this to 6 (five field players and a goalie) to better 'work' with their unique situations."

A more precise word than "work" is open to suggestion. BenjaminL42 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Robinson Crusoe[edit]

Neby: You removed my addition to the Robinson Crusoe article, which reads in part "German board game designer Friedemann Friese designed a card game called Friday ("Freitag" in German), which loosely refers to Crusoe's adventure." Your comment was "only loosely." I don't think that's a justifiable reason for removing the reference. Indeed, the game is loosely based on the book.... but not any more loosely than any number of other items mentioned in the article, such as Gilligan's Island. I have manually reverted the edit. Miconian (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

More of the same[edit]

NebY, Would you mind taking a look at those?

My first edit at Chartres article today [23]

and where article stands now with latest revert from new editor who has created a new account to Wikipedia only to revert my edits [24]

My talk page [25]

His latest [26]

As you will notice, English and tactics seem quite familiar. I am also bringing these latest incidents to the attention of Flyer22 & NeilN

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi NebY. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))


Caucasian is not an obsolete term; in fact, it has far more scientific credibility in its uses of scientific discourse and forensics than "white". If Arabs and other Middle Easterners are not white (and it is proven and easily observable fact they possess nearly all if not all the same traits as Europeans, ESPECIALLY Levantines), what on Earth are they? And no, saying "lol race doesn't real" is not an argument; in fact, I would wasger that this ethnic erasure and modern attitude shared by the young liberal Anglo-American majority sphere on Wikipedia is a clear example of this Project's systemic bias. the rest of the world should not have to prove itself for a small minority's privilege.--Sιgε |д・) 19:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Presuming this relates to your edit to the England article, Sigehelmus, the background to this is that British Arab associations lobbied for the inclusion of an Arab tick-box option in the latest census. As for "In most Western government and census data, peoples of the Middle East are considered white", I'd say that's a problematic assertion given that most censuses rely on self-definition for identity questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh...well then. I suppose that's an issue beyond our powers. This is a bit embarrassing. Hmm...sorry have a nice day.--Sιgε |д・) 20:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Irreligion in Malta and elsewhere[edit]

Hi, I have reported the block evasion [27]. JimRenge (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversion on Early Bardley[edit]

Hello I see that you have recently reverted a change I made on the Earl Bardley article to make it less biased and more balanced. I am interested in your motivations behind the reversion. Thank you Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page in the section you titled "the worst pedophile in American history is a significant example of subtle bias". NebY (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi NebY, I noticed you deleted some additions made to the page Coulomb, with the comment that 'those units are not defined in terms of the coulomb'. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion? As far as I can see, the units are indeed defined in terms of a coulomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumpih (talkcontribs) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The volt is defined as "the potential difference between two points of a conducting wire carrying a constant current of 1 ampere, when the power dissipated between these points is equal to 1 watt."[1] The ampere is defined as "that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2 × 10−7 MKS unit of force [newton] per metre of length."[1] Neither they nor the other units you listed are defined in terms of the coulomb. NebY (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but the description of Volt goes on to say: "It is also equal to the potential difference between two parallel, infinite planes spaced 1 meter apart that create an electric field of 1 newton per coulomb. Additionally, it is the potential difference between two points that will impart one joule of energy per coulomb of charge that passes through it.". It is this latter definition that I drew from in the words on the page.
And Amp similarly can be defined as "... equivalent to one coulomb (roughly 6.241×1018 times the elementary charge) per second.[2] Amperes are used to express flow rate of electric charge." So while the canonical definition may not include the coulomb, the units can be defined in terms of the coulomb. This applies to all the definitions that were made.
The aim of the inclusion I made and you deleted was to show how the coulomb forms part of the SI system. I feel the article would benefit from such understanding. I trust this explanation satisfies your quite valid desire for correctness.Chumpih (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The description of volt that you quote above is framed in terms of other SI derived units, not SI base units, and merely says that it's "equal to", not "defined as". Your quotation concerning the ampere again says "equivalent to", not "defined as". To persist, as you do above, in calling these equivalences "definitions" is akin to someone who, having been told that two is defined as one plus one, asserts that it is also defined as seven minus five, as six divided by three and as the square root of four. It's confusing to the naive reader and leaves the moderately knowledgeable reader deeply suspicious of the writer's understanding. Even if you can find other examples on Wikipedia, we have no need to propagate that error or to demonstrate how inventive we are by coming up with fresh expressions. Farad#Equalities demonstrates how rapidly such expressions proliferate. It also shows how they can be managed, though sadly it also wanders into square coulombs. NebY (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. Given that the coulomb is a SI derived unit, and that the other units referenced are also SI derived units, I can't see the rationale in restricting base units over derived units in a page who's subject is a derived unit. If you feel strongly about this, you should also edit the definitions of Amp and Volt which include equivalences to other derived SI units, e.g here. I suspect that the text you deleted text should probably lose 'defined' and instead use 'equivalence' to satisfy some criterion for precision.
The units that many engineers are familiar with are Amps, Volts etc., so relating these clearly to coulomb is most likely useful in providing some understanding. You pose a Straw man argument re. 6/3 etc., which is possibly fallacious. To state that this will lead to a mass of unmanageable relationships is a slippery slope argument, and again possibly fallacious. To state that relevant equivalences are confusing, I feel, misses the point - these relationships may have a great benefit to a coherent understanding of the subject of the page. Chumpih (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b BIPM SI Brochure: Appendix 1, p. 144
  2. ^ Bodanis, David (2005), Electric Universe, New York: Three Rivers Press, ISBN 978-0-307-33598-2 

flowmeters and reliable sources[edit]

Dear NebY,

Thank You for your attention.

I must take issue with several things.

First, I suggest that the class being referred to as 'linear resistance meters' is too easily confused with apparatus for measuring ohmic resistance. I suggest returning to 'Viscometric flow meters' and moving the somewhat hypothetical 'multi-tube', and porous element meters to their own sub-classifications of 'pressure differential types'.

Also, I don't see the point of pointing out that a longer tube yields a larger pressure differential, this is evident from the equation. Indeed, a reason the viscometric flowmeter became viable was improvement in technology to take reliable and inexpensive low differential voltage measurements, which correspond with shorter sensing elements. Indeed, shorter elements are preferred since they do not induce as great a pressure drop in the system as would a longer element.

Also, these devices are not restricted to 'very low flows', and are not restricted to laminar flows except in the special case of those 'pressure differential' types which do indeed use the Hagen-Poiseuille relationship.

Also, I'm not sure why the US Patent office does not classify as a reliable source. Seems independent, rigorous, and staffed by reasonable subject matter experts. On further research, I see how to properly cite a patent as a sounrce here:

Also, there is the 'viscometer', and there is the 'flowmeter', and there is a 'viscometric flow meter', which performs either function at a given time.

Also the last edit seem to infer flowmeters using "a bundle of such tubes, or a long porous plug" are governed by the Hagen-Poiseuille relationship, and this is not the case.

Lastly I suppose I would say it is somewhat misleading to characterize the viscometric flowmeter as having a similar temperature related error characteristic as the super-set of linear resistance meters, as viscometric flow meters specifically measure and compensate for temperature variation over some range. This is the charachteristic which separatesthem non-temperature compensated implementations.

Please advise. Regards, Herr baumeister (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Herr Baumeister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr baumeister (talkcontribs) 02:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I will copy this to the article's talk page and respond there. NebY (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with self published sources[edit]

Such sources should be used with caution, not outright avoided. You have removed a citation, but retained the contribution. Why? Because the contribution was helpful, it was written by a knowledgeable professional with expertise in this area, and a higher quality source is not available. Go ahead and find a better source, rather than wantonly deleting someone's work.

Obviously you agreed that the information benefited the article, but intended to hide the source.

Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Your declaration that you are "a knowledgeable professional with expertise in this area" does not satisfy verifiability, and the website of Robert Miller is a self-published source. You seem to identify yourself as the author of, setting out to "help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources".[28] You must understand that saying something is true because you've written it on your website is not verification.
Regarding your second para above, I haven't taken a view on whether the information benefits the article, and certainly haven't obviously agreed that. But in any case, your authorship is not hidden; every edit to Wikipedia is available in the article history, a history which is even searchable. You are clearly the contributor. All that's been removed is a citation which is not adequate for Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year... with return of old acquaintances![edit]

Hello NebY - Do you happen to remember this case [29]? After case was closed last August, same reappeared under new names & was caught, resulting with closing of accounts that probably run to close to a dozen. I now suspect same has reappeared under new name. Having learned last year that getting into edit warring was dangerous, I will not take that route again & am asking for help at very beginning of what seems to be a new case when article & contributors are going to be held hostage, as happened to Marie Antoinette & Chartres. In other words, I am not going to revert last edit. Please check edits of today from here [30] to here [31] Method, style of writing, subject, poor English with same type(s) of mistakes, plus overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August.

I hope you will be willing & have the time to help.

Thank you in advance,

--Blue Indigo (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: You were right to take it to BBB23; they have the smarts and the tools to deal with this, plus they're around more often than I am - and as we've just seen, their talk page is watched by others with smarts and tools! NebY (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@NebY: - After leaving my msg to you & seeing no movement on your page, I thought of Bbb23 who had intervened on my talk page last year. I do hope that team has "the smarts & the tools to deal with this", as you put it. I do trust they have. Thank you for your help. You all work pretty fast! Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello NebY,

Thank you for your note. This is my first time commenting on a talk page so I hope I'm doing this correctly.

Regarding the changes I made to the Muhammad page, there were intended to make the page consistent. God is the English equivalent for the Arabic "Allah". God, when capitalized, is understood by most to be the God of the Judaic and Christian traditions. This is the same God as that of Islamic traditions. So to use Allah in a passage that is otherwise in English suggests that Allah is a different God than that of the Jews and Christians, which, again, He is not. It is simpler to just be consistent and use the word God in every instance, except in certain names, like 'Abd Allah.

Thank you,

StealthStar talk 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss it on the article talk pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. NebY (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC) On checking further I find that we have a clear guideline at WP:ALLAH, part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Most of the changes you made were directly contrary to that guideline, as Allah was "used as part of an English-language quote" whether or not marked with quotation marks. The two exceptions were references to the relationship between triple goddesses and Allah, a situation in which it's poor English and places an unneccessary burden of interpretaion on the reader to use the repetitive "God". NebY (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


I've semi-protected your talk page for a week because of the repeated vandalism, in the hope it might dissuade them from wasting their life in this way. If you'd prefer leaving it open, let me know and I'll release the protection - alternatively, if it continues after expiry and you'd like further protection I'll be happy to do that too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to everyone else who's reverted this repeated vandalism. I hope the vandal's dissuaded too; I suspect it's much less gratifying for them than it is for me and the other targets. NebY (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NebY[edit]

Hi NebY, I'm just letting you know that I got the world population info. on the UN website, a reliable source, so please stop changing my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-dog12.0 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The article cites the UN as the source for 7.3 billion.[1] We can't update the figure without supporting the update with a fresh reference. What fresh reference have you found? And did it really say in January 2016 what the world population was as of February 2016?
I'll leave a note on your talk page explaining how to sign posts on talk pages. NebY (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi NebY it's me again. Thanks for the advice on how to sign posts. B-dog12.0 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Doug Bresler[edit]

Hello NebY, I do not see why the article on Doug Bresler was unreliably sourced. The user GauchoDude had previously approved my edit and said that those sources will suffice. Please add more information later; I will be undoing the edit. (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)User

GauchoDude thanked you for adding a source. They did not note that the source was not a reliable one - see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. PLease also read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You need to gain consensus for your edit before reinsering it. NebY (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Buckley[edit]

You removed my addition of Patrick Buckley (priest) from the disambiguation page Patrick Buckley. I assume it was because it is a red link. However, the guideline states: "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere". Patrick Buckley (priest) is used in six other articles and I believe meets notability requirement; I'm surprised that there isn't an article on him already but expect one will eventually be written based on what a quick search turns up. Mb66w (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You removed my addition again without reason. I had discussed this with User:Some Gadget Geek and he agreed with my position. Please see this User talk:Some Gadget Geek#Patrick Buckley and revert your change. A redlink is within the MOS and considered useful. Mb66w (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
You need to discuss this on the article talk page - see WP:BRD - and try to gain consensus there, not negotiate separately with different editors. In doing so, do bear in mind the purpose of a Wikipedia disambiguation page. NebY (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Which claim is unsourced in my edit on Christian Church?[edit]

Which claim is unsourced in my edit on Christian Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kszorp (talkcontribs) 21:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

All of it. Please read Wikipedia:No original research; it is "is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." If you then wish to continue, follow Wikipedia:Bold, Revert, Discuss and discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, not here. NebY (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Will start following conventions more often, and being more meticulous. Thanks for the tips. -Cynulliad, 10 March 2016, 19:58 (UTC)

Greene's Tutorial College[edit]

A whole lot of reasonable changes, many made by yourself, to the Greene's Tutorial College page has just been undone. I'd undo them myself but am a very inexperienced Wikipedian who thought you might want to know.Mifachispa96 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion[edit]

This may be of interest, since you were involved in the previous round of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)