This user is busy inreal life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1,2,3,4,5

Hello sir. I know what I edited and It's true.Zuijin have been described as guardians and protectors of people. Also what I added was from the Japanese wikipedia, you can check it if you want. You could also replace what I added in history just by saying the same with other words but please don't always say that I make vandalism2A02:587:1E69:6839:DD81:488E:4225:FA00 (talk)21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To edit Wikipedia, log in to your account and appeal your block atUser talk:Akaora.NebY (talk)01:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember my Akaora account, can you send me the password. Also I said that Persephone isn't the goddess of life.She didn't gave birth to humans. Also since she is the queen of the underworld it's ruler.Every god according to different mythologies can destroy anything what does goddess of destruction mean???2A02:587:1E69:6839:287D:F948:66AD:5390 (talk)01:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have access to your password - seeHelp:Reset password for instructions. In order to be unblocked, you will have to address the issues that caused you to be blocked and convince the administrator that you not only understand what you were doing wrong but will also take steps to avoid repetition. Your attempts to reason about religion and mythology rather than relying on reliable sources indicate that you do not understand the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You would need to readWikipedia:No original research, understand it and show that you understand it and would edit in accord with it.NebY (talk)13:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following and hunting down my edits to revert them. You do not get to remove sourced content and keep only what YOU desire. I had already come to consensus with Skyerise.Rote1234 (talk)14:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is described atWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I recommend reading that page in its entirety to work towards a well-rounded understanding of how we build this encyclopedia, butWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content, shortcutWP:NOTEVERYTHING, is particularly pertinent:"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."NebY (talk)14:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you allow mention of Aristotle, Elagabalus, Alexis Bela and King George but no one else because you are the authority?Rote1234 (talk)15:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AsSkyerise said on your talk page,"Encyclopedias are not built by inserting little bits of trivia." If you wish to argue that the description ofTostig Godwinson's rule as "despotic" is so significant it belongs in our articles onDespotism andEnlightened absolutism as beneficial to our readers' understanding of those subjects, make that case on the articles' talk pages and gain consensus for your insertions there.NebY (talk)15:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NebY. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion ofCaius Titus (senator), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not sure this is obvious enough to fall under G3. Thank you.BangJan199900:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've never had occasion to use that tag before and was quite unsure what we'd regard as sufficiently blatant. There's a discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Caius Titus (senator)?; I guess one of us can write it up at AfD but I've run out of time for now.NebY (talk)00:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for your help with the Caius Titus/Verba volant issues. I realize you're busy IRL (I read the top here), but I wonder whether, if you have the time in the next few days, you could look over/help withverba volant. I've tried to improve it a little given what little I could find—I was unsuccessful finding it in any of my printed Latin texts, although some of them are unindexed, but I found a few instances online and cited them, and tried rewording the parts I thought could use it—though the last paragraph remains unsourced (but pretty obvious). I thought perhapsBlack's Law Dictionary might have it, but evidently not.

I cited three books of proverbs, of which the last, from some group called S.O.M.A. (but titling their book "SOMA") that I couldn't identify, may be the least useful. The third one I found, from 1893, seemed important to include, since it predates the others considerably. I cited Turretin, since it was the oldest and most authoritative use of the full phrase in context that I could find, and quoted the passage in which it occurs in a footnote, but you found partial matches that were older still—I didn't cite them as they were partial, aside from being in sources that looked difficult to cite correctly (and I'm not even sure I cited Turretin properly, given that it was an 1848 printing of a 1687 collection of previously-published works that I couldn't date individually).

I also tried to provide clear guidance on how to translate/interpret the phrase, being slightly less literal than the article previously implied, as it's hard to do so literally (for instance, no version says "spoken" words, although it's implied in all of them;littera is "letter", not word; various translations give "fly, fly away, are fleeting", "remain, endure"). I'm afraid I've made a bit of a muddle of it all, just trying to clean it up and make it a little clearer than it was, with some kind of citations. Any help you can provide—or advice you can give—would be welcome!P Aculeius (talk)17:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: I don't think I've got anything to hand but I'll see if there's anything I can contribute - I'm hoping to catch up with a few things!NebY (talk)10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm noticing User:Sleyece is specifically reverting several of your edits on two articles. I have left a warning on his talk page about edit warring in the Alexander the Great article. Have they been targeting other articles that you work on? ---Steve Quinn (talk)22:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Not that I've noticed, and asIfly6 (with whom Sleyece had the arguments atTalk:Julius Caesar#Sleyece 1 andTalk:Julius Caesar#Sleyece 2) has recently done so much good work onJulius Caesar, S might have expected the first response to be from them, not me.NebY (talk)23:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk)19:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mr NebY. Why did you deleted my asking for help??? I just wanted only to find more informations why did you delete it?2A02:1388:208D:C1CC:0:0:DA3B:B756 (talk)16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not try to get other editors to proxy for you. You're blocked and if they make edits for you, they can wind up blocked too. If you want to edit Wikipedia, do it on your account: appeal your block atUser talk:Akaora.NebY (talk)17:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again mr NebY. Give me a good reason why you deleted my informations about the agathodaemons. I said where I add the informations from. Also I can't be logged in my account because they don't let me. Any Time I try to get inside my account even if I write correct both the password and my username they say incorrect username or password. Please stop deleting my work because that't unfair2A02:1388:2181:46B3:0:0:DBF8:6F19 (talk)12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated your copyright violation - seeWP:COPYVIO. That alone is grounds for maintaining your block but if you wish to appeal your block, seeWikipedia:Appealing a block. Until you have successfully done so, you are blocked from editing Wikipedia.NebY (talk)12:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mr NebY. Can you please delete all of my Wikipedia accounts like Akatora, Fuyujin, Greatgeo and Akaowl please??? I don't want them anyomore and I don't know how to add more informations on the pages of zuijin and agathodaemon. So please delete all of my accounts.2A02:1388:14A:5D22:0:0:47FF:7C45 (talk)13:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:DISAPPEAR - but Akatora, Fuyujin, Greatgeo and Akaowl are not your Wikipedia accounts anyway.NebY (talk)13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are. I made those accounts. Besides most of them have the same password2A02:1388:14A:5D22:0:0:47FF:7C45 (talk)16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of those have not been registered, let alone edited any article.NebY (talk)17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi i tried to fix interpretatio graeca by making thoth the right gender, but i accidentally made him phoenician. can you fix it?Ghost_Cacus (talk)16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert yourself. But do beware of that table. Nothing in it is sourced, and the impression it gives that many gods across multiple belief systems are equivalents of each other is grossly misleading.Casaubon wasted a lifetime and cruelly neglected his marriage in his attempt to composeThe Key to All Mythologies; aligning superficialities in that table, filling gaps and determining genders could consume anyone likewise.NebY (talk)16:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i made a bunch of edits on it trying to fix it.Ghost_Cacus (talk)21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So revert them all. If you're ever tempted to work on that table again, do remember thatThese are not necessarily gods who share similar traits (as viewed by modern scholarship or readers, at least), and rarely do they share a common origin (for that, see comparative Indo-European pantheons); they are simply gods of various cultures whom the Greeks or Romans identified (either explicitly in surviving works, or as supported by the analyses of modern scholars) with their own gods and heroes. In other words, unless the Greeks or Romans themselves knew of those gods and saw them as equivalent, either writing about the identification directly or (according to the analyses of modern scholars) clearly alluding to the identification, those other gods and goddesses should not be included in the table.NebY (talk)21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the faith! Oh and it looks like the game is up -Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exnihilox10mmsocket (talk)20:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good report! Enough detail but not too much. I did not expect them to auto-destruct like that, and I see they now "intend to get the user removed from Wikipedia!"[1] so that'll be interesting. :)NebY (talk)21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Any idea which user? You? Me? I'll get my bag of popcorn. I hope you're OK b.t.w. that once both are properly blocked I'll look to work with [[@PamD to restore the article back to where it was before all the shenanigans. Thanks for your help so far.10mmsocket (talk)21:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was me but you may be on the list now. Yes, I'm fine, thanks; hope you are too. I'll happily leave the article to you and PamD to sort out - just as long as that one-day workshop in 2015 and the "broader initiative" that is "also relevant" and "it should be noted" don't last long!NebY (talk)21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted and is also relevant that Pam and I will take a broader initiative, possibly via a one day workshop, to see how to restore the article back to normality.10mmsocket (talk)21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bwahahaha!NebY (talk)21:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Est. 2021 (talk ·contribs)11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer yet, so:

• How would you integrate the essential info about them being Sabine gods way before being adopted by Romans too? I would genuinely like to know. As I told you before, I would also like to expand that sourced statement in the body of the articles.
• Where would you prefer to discuss this dispute? Your talk page or WikiProject Mythology?

Thanks,Est. 2021 (talk ·contribs)15:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussion must be at an article talk page or project talk page; an editor's talk page is not the place to establishWP:CONSENSUS among all editors interested in the matter.Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology is virtually moribund and this is a matter of ancient religions rather than mythology, so you could raise your questions at the considerably busierWikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and link to it from the talk pages of the 15–20 articles.NebY (talk)15:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thank you for the project suggestion. I will move the topic toWikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome then, but before that I would like to know yourpersonal idea on how to include that info. How would youpersonally integrate it into the articles? Based on theWP:LEAD page you linked, I suppose you would expand the info in the body of the articles first andthen add it to the lead, correct?Est. 2021 (talk ·contribs)08:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sabine deities / User:NebY (edit-war, potential vandalism), this is the wrong place.NebY (talk)09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for working on that troubled section and for changing the heading! I did not know the tag for maintaining links when the heading changes.

I have become obsessed with that article and ultimately it's all so horrible. I hope the following is not too much unwelcome verbiage spilled on your talk page.

The "glue" that for me is missing in the article is something I remember reading a decade ago that I have yet to stumble back upon. To cut to the chase, it's that a privilegedverna is rather like Jon Snow, ifGOT references make sense to you. Or Jon Snow when the pretense that he was Ned Stark's bastard was operational. It's often mentioned that thevernae might have actually been the children of males in the household; that's been conjectured for that sweet little fellow in the bust under "Vernae". But in terms of origins, the thing I can't locate but have seen is that in earliest Rome, what you're really talking about is something like concubinage or even polygamy, when the clan leader fathered children with multiple women, one of whom was the head wife. (This existed still for some of Rome's neighbors; according to Caesar, Ariovistus had two wives.) For whatever reasons, the Roman legal mind evolved and all that became too messy; for clarity of inheritance and alliances between families, the Romans became distinctly monogamous (serially, though—look at how many wives Caesar and Pompey had).

So the point is that thepotestas exercised by the "hand" of thepaterfamilias was in essence the same over his sons and his slaves—henceemancipatio andmanumissio—mancipium actually being the logical opposite ofemancipatio, a point of legal history that will probably come up when this section is fully developed. We often underestimate the extent to which a freeborn male under the age of thirty was not considered a full adult if his father was still alive, and legally in some ways was still a minor, constrained as to what kind of business decisions he could make because he didn't actually own property. Like those privileged slaves who conducted business, he could get stuff done, but theres was still not really his but his father's. (And by curious not-coincidence, thirty is the standard age for manumission in the imperial household.) So technically in earlier times, the father had the same right to kill his own son or sell him into slavery as he did slaves. That's the point that I find hard to get my modern head around. While the termemancipatio is not used elsewhere in the article, it is implicit in the "Origins" section as part of the father'spotestas, the power of life and death he held over both his offspring and his slaves (mostlyvernae in relatively small numbers before the wars of conquest). But the paths of legitimate sons and bastards diverge after being released from the "hand"—Rob Stark gets to succeed his father, and the Jon Snows of the Roman world have to go make their own way. Now, obviously only a limited number ofvernae in the best-attested periods are the biological children of thepater or of his legitimate sons. But if you treat somevernae too differently, you have to admit who they really are. (Peripherally,Ronald Syme loved to conjecture who among the late Republican elite had fathered children with women of their same class married to someone else, children left politely unacknowledged.)

Anyway, I didn't want to seem to be barking ownership, beclouded by my current obsession with understanding this repulsive institution (I've concluded that I would undoubtedly be a slave in ancient Rome)—but this is why I didn't want to imply thatemancipatio andmanumissio are unrelated, because they are both manifestations of the same paternalpotestas to control the people of his house. And in terms of social history, the nature of thatpotestas in relation to both family andfamilia is one thing that makes the institution of slavery among the Romans functionally different from that of the US Confederacy, arguably the most notorious manifestation.Cynwolfe (talk)20:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unwelcome at all, or too much; it's just enough to set my mind to reshuffling its fragments. Thank you! The GOT references are unfamiliar but classicists are used to reconstructing from very little. I don't think I've come across the idea of concubinage in early Rome, and now I'm trying to imagine the consequences; for example, if warlords/patricians and their officers practiced polygamy, would that leave lots of single men to fight and die for Rome?

I too have had trouble withpotestas, eased a little when I read more about Roman law; how fundamentalpotestas was to it and how clearpotestas was within it; how contract and commercial law was thoroughly conditioned bypotestas, from loans to sons inpotestas being not merely not lawful but downright prohibited by Vespasian, to the institution ofpeculia leading to a complicated limitation of the father's liability in commerce, because anyone in potestas might have apeculium, not just slaves. Aha, you're right - there's a lot more to it than the superficial similarity of theemancipatio process, to which I wasn't paying attention anyway.

It may not be surprising thatvernae weren't acknowledged as children of the owners (or their sons) but I've been mystified that moderns don't consider it more often; I suppose it's not obvious in the sources and Victorian scholars wouldn't want to admit it of their role models, but still. Your section onvernae is a revelation, especially concerning their privileges, and it's been a pleasure to see you creating the beautifully sourced and terribly difficult section on sexual ethics and attitudes, but I remain very surprised that the use of female slaves by their owners isn't taken for granted; not "the done thing", perhaps, but it's not as if there'd even be a question of having to send the pregnant maidservant away. We have Martial on slave boys; it's a mystery to me there aren't more traces of the use (abuse) of women and girls - or is it hiding in plain sight?

I could go on, but it's late here, and I want to think some more too!NebY (talk)23:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, thanks, it helped me, I didn't know that, thanks. A greeting. --LukeWiller (talk)20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate that the general election hasn't been called but the parties have started selecting candidates. Given that why wouldn't those candidates be included on constituency pages.BenDavis72 (talk)22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not candidates yet. AsBondegezou noted, we wait for the returning officer's Statement of Persons Nominated to discover who has actually been nominated. This also has the virtue of avoiding any rush to list members ofthis or that particular party on Wikipedia, and doesn't involve us inbetting on a new Parliamentary Constituencies Act passing before the next general election. If you've not seen it already, you may findthis recent discussion at ANI about "preparation" edits interesting as well.NebY (talk)22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion indeed. I actually disagree and think the listing of selected candidates now is ok but it isn't important enough to argue about to be honest.

BenDavis72 (talk)04:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the correction re the different varieties.

much appreciatedWprlh (talk)11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wprlh: Ah good! You may findAmerican and British English spelling differences interesting, and its associated articles on other differences. What's more, thoughMOS:ENGVAR is written largely in terms of American and British English, asMOS:TIES indicates, we recognise several other varieties andWP:RETAIN applies to them too.NebY (talk)13:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedSecond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageJerk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)05:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mr NebY spiritualists also fulfil the role of psychopomp because in their sleep they see the spirits of the dead and return them back to the afterlife. Please don't delete that edit. You can see other sources of Spiritualism if you don't believe me2A02:586:1E33:AAFC:C47D:75A3:E14B:37DE (talk)14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user is posting barely-comprehensible complaints about you and death deities on my talk page. I can't see anything actionable coming out of it but just making you aware.Stifle (talk)13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Stifle! Those are impressively model answers you're giving them. That's blockedUser:Akaora, who keeps trying to insert theirWP:OR about religion and mythology with extraordinary reasoning (eg[2][3] and yesterdaythe above) and copyvios. I routinely revert them in mainspace perWP:RBI but not on user talk pages. That specific issue of whetherList of death deities should include deities associated with death or only those who actually end lives (as Akaora seems to think) is being discussed atTalk:List of death deities#What is the Selection Criteria?; if you do have any interest, your contribution would be very welcome.NebY (talk)13:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well,{{sofixit}} is sometimes useful.

As to the underlying issue, I am afraid I have no knowledge of the subject so will not therefore attempt to add any further ignorance to the discussion.Stifle (talk)08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mr NebY. Im sorry for my not accurate edit on doomsday page i just thought doomsday had invulnerability and razor-sharp claws and teeth. Im so sorryKizetora (talk)08:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akaora/Kizetora: You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia and you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia whether or not you log in to an account. That is all.NebY (talk)07:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not??? What i am doing wrong???Kizetora (talk)13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problem with the proposed map. Please reply to my requests in the talk page of mauryan empire. The caption says "Mauryan map as per Vincient arthur and RC majumdar" while the map doesnt include aria at all, while Both RC majumdar as well as Vincient Arthur have talked about aria as being the part of Mauryan empire. Thank you.Magadhan3933 (talk)11:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to a 2024 full of intriguing discoveries …

I don't know what Father Time's looking at,
but I appreciate Wikipedia editors like you.
Cynwolfe (talk)

Time (1810) by Pieter Christoffel Wonder

Cynwolfe (talk)16:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I should have done, although I confess I was a little concerned how the edit would be received!Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it does make some sense that I do it, and I can draw on some experience of other RFCs to chat about process if need be.NebY (talk)21:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even click the link to Ultrakill? Sisyphus is inside of it.2001:8003:E864:3100:A57A:4EDF:5012:BAA1 (talk)06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeeMOS:ALSO.NebY (talk)10:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am that editor. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, this was my first substantial edit. My goal was to add to Artemis’s mythology section in the same way that Apollo’s page is structured. (His page explains his myths in detail.) I saw the link to undue weight. Is the main problem that it was explained in too much detail? Would it have been acceptable if it were more paraphrased rather than the full story? A big difference between Artemis and Apollo is that the latter appears much more in mythology. Does the undue weight rule mean that Artemis's comparatively small myths and minor appearances shouldn't be elaborated on the same way? How long would be considered too long?

I did understand the complaint of it being my own interpretation though. I was recounting the story exactly, only trying to use slightly more modern and accessible language but I realize now that it may have seemed like I was making up my own version. I see the issue. I want to get a better understanding and give it another, better attempt in the future. I hope you can point me in the right direction, thanks.— Precedingunsigned comment added by204.210.183.186 (talk)08:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of questions here and other issues too. I may not cover all of them. Broadly speaking,Greek mythology, though often charming and preserved by copyists, wasn't central toGreek religious beliefs and practices. Nor was it sacred; there was no "gospel truth". Greek dramatists and poets freely invented and embellished, and the surviving texts are full of literary conceits and framing devices unique to a particular work. This may be particularly true of Callimachus, a very prolific writer working centuries after Homer and Hesiod, or indeed the great tragedians. We should rely on the treatment of such material inWP:RS reliable sources of modern scholarship, not go straight toWP:PRIMARY sources ourselves. We should not bulk out articles using scanty material to match the quantity on another subject.WP:OTHERCONTENT applies too; other articles may not be examples that we should follow (see how different ourAres andApollo articles are). And of course, we should always think of the reader. We're not here to do Artemis justice or be fair to her; we're giving readers an encyclopedia article that they can easily read and find relevant without having to slog through one particular writer's rendition.WP:NOTEVERYTHING, part of a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, puts it well: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."NebY (talk)12:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we shouldn't use it.[4].Doug Wellertalk14:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion did surprise me and took a little time to assess so thank you for posting this!NebY (talk)14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You removed Brinkmanship from the See also list of Tyrant. In my opinion, Brinkmanship is suited for the Tyrant page because of the use of nuclear deterrents, WMDs, or threats of war by contemporary and historical tyrants.Lau737 (talk)14:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brinkmanship is commonplace and not particular to tyrants.Brinkmanship makes hardly any reference to people regarded as tyrants, and none to "tyrant" or tyranny. Contemporary and historical tyrants have also used armies, prisons and taxation but we're not going to recommend our readers also see those articles.NebY (talk)14:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is nowno longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improvingRfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated byHouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box atWikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and3b, initiated byBarkeep49 andUsedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated bySilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and6d, initiated byBilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated byLee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated byReaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c,21, and21b, initiated byCity of Silver,Ritchie333, andHouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated byNovem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated byKusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and16c, initiated byThebiguglyalien andSoni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at theadministrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated byBilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated bySchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated bytheleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated bySportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of theoptional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated byFemke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated byWereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated byHouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please seeWikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing!theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your corrections onBBC controversies. The source given wasn't exactly a news report but a blog-like entry in a history section on the BBC website. I am unsure how to reflect that best. ~JackTheSecond (talk)12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - you're right, though the colouring is the same as the news section, it's not a news report, yet I think calling it a blog might be misleading too. Tricky. It's anonymous but it doesn't seem right to describe it as "The BBC, in itsHistory of the BBC pages, describes it as ...." Perhaps something more like "The BBC's online history of itself describes it as ..."?NebY (talk)12:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds close to the mark to me. "The BBC, on its website, describes it as ..." would be an even less authoritative version, since more general. I'm going to leave it to you- tricky indeed.JackTheSecond (talk)13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think! :) For me, "BBC describes" is more authoritative so (not feeling very inspired) I've gone for the "BBC's history describes" approach - maybe you or someone else will improve on it.NebY (talk)17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located atSpecial:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located atSpecial:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Just Step Sideways^{from this world ..... today}17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!NebY (talk)17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I wonder if you could be more specific about what material may have been copyrighted in the edits I added to this page, though I can make at least two guesses. The first is that I wrote in the caption on the quick facts box what was written on the display page in the photo itself; the second could be that I included the display page itself in the photo, which is museum material technically separate from the (hopefully obviously) ancient marble. Let me know what I should do differently: I'm happy to put my caption in plain language, add a citation, crop the photo, or any combination of those or whatever else you might suggest. I do want this photo uploaded in the stead of the photo there before. Let me know!Non-pegasus (talk)15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption you provided was a copy of the museum's text and violated their copyright. As to reinstating the picture, please don't; it's inferior in many ways, it does not have the virtues your ascribe to it and you do not have consensus to reinstate it. If you wish to discuss that further, the proper place is the article's talk page,Talk:Eros, where other editors may participate.NebY (talk)16:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're breaking my heart, NebY. While I don't accept your claim that it doesn't have the virtues I ascribe to it, I accept that I should have (and I suppose, still could) initiate a discussion on the talk page. LaterNon-pegasus (talk)16:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User: Rodericksilly has reverted my edit on the Ray Teret article for no explained reason; you may remember them for their edits on using the word "accusations" on The Reckoning (2023 TV series) article. I tried to write the Teret article in a more neutral way and I just felt that it seemed a bit weird how they gave no explantion to revert it. I don't know.92.17.198.220 (talk)14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step should be to open a discussion on the article talk page perWP:BRD.NebY (talk)14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.92.17.198.220 (talk)15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having seldom been involved in deletion discussions before, I was genuinely unfamiliar with the prohibition against canvassing. I apologize. Now thata similar category I created has been nominated for deletion (and many of the same editors are involved), I would like to post notices in the manner which is allowed.

I will not post on user talk pages. I intend to post on the talk pages of the category’s three WikiProjects, as well as the Politics and Government workgroup of WikiProject:Biography. Based on the rules, I will keep it very brief. Here is what I plan to say:

Title: Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office has been nominated for deletion.

Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide officehas been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate inthe discussion here. Thank you.

Would that be acceptable? If it is, could I also please say that I received approval/clarification from you for this message and link to here - I can imagine some still interpreting the notice as continued canvassing, considering what happened last time, and would like to preempt the discussion getting sidetracked.

Thank you for your time.1Matt20 (talk)15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I can recognise egregious canvassing, I am not an authority on how to notify correctly and it would be wrong to invoke me as one, saying that I've approved any form of words or even provided clarification on it, as if that makes it right, or linking here. I suggest following the guidance atWikipedia:Categories for discussion#Notifying interested projects and editors.NebY (talk)16:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of theWikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion):Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA andRequire links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial):Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial):Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented):Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion):Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs andCommunity recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion):Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion):Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented):Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See theproject page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II.theleekycauldron (talk), viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on restoring death parameters on select BLP articles. This is morbid. There is no established criteria whether or not to include death parameters in a BLP infobox, but the vast majority of BLPs do not include them. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems prejudicial.Ieonine (talk)23:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the vast majority of BLPs do not include them is an extraordinary assertion; do you have any evidence of that? BLPs that use{{Infobox person}} and similar templates include such parameters by default and it is not in the least morbid that they do, let alone prejudicial. We all die eventually.NebY (talk)23:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove mycomment and its reply. Was it accidentally removed by you? I think so. Kindly explain the reason.Neutralhappy (talk)13:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Yes, it was either a software glitch because of various edit conflicts or my failure to cope with them properly. Thanks for letting me know quickly, in time for me to self-revert. My apologies.NebY (talk)13:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPersephone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePallas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks by the way for taking that up. I noticed it just a few moments ago, in part because I wasn't a watcher of theRoman empire page. (I think, after the tyrants take over, I'm just not that interested.) Even as I take a holiday, it seems to turn into my wade-into-text-walls era.Ifly6 (talk)05:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I suppose wading into a wall-o-text can be a holiday from meticulously sourced content creation. My interest fades too, and I read Roman history for pleasure rather than to edit, but the current opening sentence got under my skin.NebY (talk)13:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, about the Dionysus article, can you please create a way to vote so a consesus can be reached? I know there is a way to create a vote but I never started one myself. Also it's very strange how the current Dionysus article has even less mentions of Thracians than I first edited. If Dionysus is considered to be 100% Greek why shouldn'tOrpheus orRhesus of Thrace orSpartacus be considered 100% Greeks since all Thracians are now Greeks according to wikipedia editors?Herodotus as well as all other ancient sources mention that Dionysus has either Thracian origins or at least that he has foreign origins, Dionysus being considered a "foreign god".

Thank you in advance.Ninhursag3 (talk)00:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:BRD and open a discussion on the article talk page (this is not the place). The discussion may go better if you first readWP:UNDUE,WP:OTHERCONTENT andWP:LEAD, and avoid hyperbole. We don't vote to reach consensus - seeWP:CONSENSUS andWP:VOTE.NebY (talk)01:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you could have given that advice before threatening me to beblocked from editing. Wikipedia has a policy toAssume good faith. I already mentioned that it can be put to vote, thus reaching aConsensus. I never created a vote before though so that's why I asked you do create one for me. But now I will first open a discussion on theDionysus talk page.

Have a good day.Ninhursag3 (talk)01:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you. I gave you a standard warning. You might do well to readWikipedia:Assume good faith.

On Wikipedia, we do not reach consensus by voting.NebY (talk)01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ninhursag3, firstly, comparing Orpheus and Spartacus is like comparingAchilles andLeonidas I. Please do not confuse myth, legend, and flawed ancient testimonies with reality. Regarding Dionysus, in my opinion further discussion would be pointless and only waste our times, because modern scholarship has long rejected the origin of the Dionysian cult from Thrace, especially after the decipherment oflate-Bronze AgeLinear-B tablets with the name of Dionysus from Southern Greece. Hope that helps.Piccco (talk)11:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, don't get confused. I only mentioned them because ancient sources say they're Thracian in origin, just like ancient sources say Dionysus was Thracian in origin. The way I phrased my sentences was more tongue-in-cheek.

" because modern scholarship has long rejected the origin of the Dionysian cult from Thrace, especially after the decipherment oflate-Bronze AgeLinear-B tablets with the name of Dionysus from Southern Greece." That still doesn't mean Dionysus in the era ofHerodotus was the same cult as the one inlate-Bronze Age. Dionysus as we know him today was a result of religiousSyncretism viaInterpretatio graeca that combines elements of Greek religion as well asThracian religion. Still, Dionysus was seen as a foreign god and that text was before I started editing. I think we can reach aConsensus by combining our information and not deleting all mentions of Thrace or Thracians.Ninhursag3 (talk)12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninhursag3 @Piccco This discussion about the article belongs on the article talk page, where others can participate and where it will remain visible so that others will be able to see how the article came to be in whatever state it may eventually be.NebY (talk)12:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just responded to @Piccco.Ninhursag3 (talk)12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

Sorry for my edit on the Kabul page. I simply moved the coordinates to the city center as shown on Google Earth but this appears wrong?

AlexThaGreenlander (talk)17:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article and click on the triangle to the left of the infobox co-ordinates; you'll see how off-centre it is, especially when you repeat the operation with the previous version. It may be that Google Earth is wrong, you may be making some other error, I don't know, but several edits you have made have similar problems. Please stop making such changes without gaining further authentication and consensus that you are processing map data appropriately; the small ones are not useful and the large ones are problematic.NebY (talk)17:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I was just wondering if I could revert your edit that you performed onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road yesterday (Sunday, 25 August 2024) at 22:25UTC. This is because I think that it is necessary as it is about an editor's views (@JMF, @10mmsocket etc.) on the matter. Also, I did the same with putting a comment from @Ajpolino atWikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Removing redirects (re-creating pages), and everything was fine with it, so I do not understand why it is not allowed here. Also, it is quite confusing to have the same conversation with alternating opinions in alternating places. Hope you understand what I am trying to say!Roads4117 (talk)19:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue now, as the AfD is closed, but no, it was not appropriate to copy those comments into the AfD. AfDs are a formal process that should remain focused on whether the article should be deleted, kept, merged or redirected and include only what editors wish to say about that question in that formal venue. There is often much discussion about the article on its talk page or elsewhere, before and during the AfD; it is not appropriate for anyone to paste that discussion into the AfD. It also risks gratuitously offending other editors, presuming to make the choice for them as to whether or not to contribute to the AfD. Your previous lesser copy to the Wikiproject talk was at the suggestion of others to go some way towards repairing the problem you'd created of "a virtually identical discussion on 49 different articles"; such a situation should not arise again.NebY (talk)17:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for clarifying things.Roads4117 (talk)07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a RfC process onAthena talk page to include or exclude the added content, you are welcome to vote and give your opinion on the matter.Potymkin (talk)11:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of theRfA discussion-only period passed atWP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate atWikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing!MediaWiki message delivery (talk)09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about not correcting 'Princess Diana' from a quote where the author got it completely wrong. Thanks.
But withUS Metrication the ridiculous, foul-mouthed quote from irrelevant movie should be removed.B. Fairbairn (talk)16:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you take the point about changing quotations. As forMetrication in the United States, do readWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, commonly referred to asWP:NOTCENSORED; especially the first and third paragraphs. Complaining of "obscene language" or calling it "foul-mouthed" will not justify a quote's removal from Wikipedia.NebY (talk)16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

May i ask why you deleted my edit?

ThanksJutewin (talk)11:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in my edit summary. It isWP:UNDUE, just as in 2022 when you repeatedly added material about the ideas of one Ender Tosun[5][6][7] and were reverted by three different editors with edit summaries includingNot seeing evidence this writer is an expert in this field[8] (indeed, the works of Ender Tosun areWP:SPS and you have offered noWP:RS for their standing). You eventually opened a section on the article talk pageTalk:Existence of God/Archive 7#A recommendation for a new heading (3.1.5 Unitary Argument) but did not change the consensus that such material should not be included. Repeatedly attempting to add such material is thus contrary to consensus and disruptive.

I note that your only edits to Wikipedia have been to add material about Ender Tosun's ideas and so must also tell you that if you have any conflict of interest in the matter - seeWikipedia:Conflict of interest for what that includes - that is yet another reason why you should not add such material.NebY (talk)12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications.

I see. And I am sorry, for not following the guidelines precisely, this is because I am not an experienced wikipedia editor.

Yet a few notes: I think that Tosun is a subject-matter expert, since he has a PhD degree in Islamic studies ( (1) (PDF) An Ethical Approach to Anti-Money Laundering Regulations: A Framework for Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Countries (researchgate.net). So, I think the content about the book "unitary proof of Allah under the light of the Quran" should not be subject to the restrictions under self published work. The guidelines say that self published work are not "largely" reliable, not "entirely" reliable. The book itself is much more comprehensive than most books in the reference list. So, I the edit I made will be an important and useful contribution to the page.

Furthermore, I think the page on the existence of God misses the "cumulative case" for God. So, I suggest that with some changes you add my edit at least related to it. Again, I think a unitary proof of God is very crucial, since I sincerely believe that other arguments for God really fail for not being a full argument for the existence of God. So, I suggest that you keep the contribution even though you may want to remove the reference to Tosun's book. Anyways, I do not know any other resource on a unitary proof as such.

Btw, yes, there is a conflict of interest between with respect to my edit about Tosun. Take this also into account for your considerations.

Thanks for your time. Let me know if I can help with respect to my suggestions.

I sincerely believe that my edit will be useful.

Regards.Jutewin (talk)10:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A PhD gained for a thesis on about money-laundering regulations doesn't make one a recognised theologian. The terms "cumulative case" and "unitary proof" are uncommon terms in this context and you yourself know of no other source for "unitary proof"; your proposed inclusion would thus breachWP:UNDUE (in 2022 another editor mentionedWP:FRINGE, which is also pertinent). The inclusion of your argument without supportingreliable sources would be a breach ofWP:OR -in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. You'll find another expression of the same principles atWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the sectionWikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I hope that if you read the various policies and guidelines I've linked, you will understand that material such as your edits will not be accepted on Wikipedia and that you should not make another attempt at inserting it or having it inserted. Maybe eventually those ideas will receive such coverage inreliable, published sources that they becomeWP:DUE for inclusion, at which time some other person without a conflict of interest may be moved to summarise them here.NebY (talk)20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. However, your claim that the cumulative case does not deserve being on that page for being uncommon is astonishing to me. Because it is much better known than many arguments that already exist on that page. For example prominent figures like Swinburne and Craig often use it; and it is a central point in Swinburne's argument for God. And I think a single editor's personal understanding or view or authority should not be a basis to decide what is reliable and what is not. At least you should open it to discussion. Otherwise, wikipedia may become a biased source of information.Jutewin (talk)14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my comment about "cumulative case". The rest stands.NebY (talk)15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good.Jutewin (talk)12:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NebY,

First of all, thank you for describing my12 Oct 2024 message as "gentle and constructive" - as an admin, I'm sort of used to getting all kinds ofnastygrams, so this sincerely appreciated.

My guess here is that Aisxulos is a beginner editor who quite possibly is unaware that they have a talkpage, with a very low level of activity - just keep reverting if and when it happens, would be my advice.

Peter in Australia akaShirt58 (talk) 🦘10:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Right, will keep going and hope they discover talking eventually.NebY (talk)17:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NebY: Enjoy theholiday season andwinter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,P Aculeius (talk)14:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius (talk)14:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!Ifly6 (talk) wishes you & yoursthe very best of the season!

Whether you celebrateChristmas,Diwali,Hanukkah,Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even theSaturnalia,
here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and
-especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding{{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 18:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC))Ifly6 (talk)18:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear—I have made a habit of populating|life_span= for polities BC, because the automatic display messes up the dash situation (e.g.221 BC–206 BC versus221‍–‍206 BC. Is it kosher to use the parameter for this purpose?Remsense ‥ 论19:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, displaying the era twice is fine according toMOS:DATERANGE and I think a little clearer, saving the general reader a moment's hesitation while they figure out what they're looking at (I'm currently looking at BC/BCE dates every day, but I think I might be odd). Still, I might not have paid any attention to it if the edits hadn't included a problematic duration, and in fairness using a freeform parameter called life_span does offer that temptation. On general principles, I prefer not to use undocumented features; they too often turn out to be deprecated or in the long run, simply break.NebY (talk)19:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the dash isn't spaced correctly—perMOS:YEARRANGE,221–206 BC is correct,221 BC – 206 BC is equally correct, but221 BC‍–‍206 BC is incorrect. Presently, the|life_span= parameter is the only way I am aware of to ensure that all dates display properly for polities entirely BC(E)—awful nbsp hacks almost work, but don't quite.Remsense ‥ 论19:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see; I hadn't noticed the nbsp use. Do you know if this has ever been raised atTemplate talk:Infobox country? The current code is so simple, even I can read it,

(| subheader = {{#if:{{{life_span|}}} | {{{life_span}}} | {{#if:{{{year_start|}}}|{{{year_start}}}{{#if:{{{year_end|}}}|–{{{year_end}}} }} }} }})

but though I can imagine describing a rule, I couldn't confidently code it.NebY (talk)20:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what we can do, but seemingly all we'd have to do is check if|year_start= begins or ends in something other than a numeral orA. If it does, we pad the dash.Remsense ‥ 论20:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You're catching dates beginning in AD, which I hadn't thought of, but testing if|year_start= begins in a number or ends in an A seems superfluous. Trouble is, if we have any legacy spaces at the end of|year_start= or the start of|year_end=, we don't want to duplicate them. Efficient code might not look anything like I'd imagine.NebY (talk)20:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tinkering already! Will let you/the talk page know if anything works.Remsense ‥ 论20:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!NebY (talk)20:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It works okay! However, since it elides the flexibility of choosing between the above two options, I think it may be best to allow the undocumented parameter here? I'm not sure how you feel about that.Remsense ‥ 论21:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't spend time hunting down every use of|life_span=. But it is certainly worth modifying the code of{{Infobox country}} to give good spacing, perMOS:YEARRANGE. Once that's done, then if I saw a use of|life_span= while I was editing, I'd likely switch it to using the normal and documented parameters, and I'd react to seeing bulk changes to / additions of|life_span= if some of them cropped up on my watchlist. I wouldn't suggest removing the parameter from the template unless someone could first salvage all its current uses, and though most of them would be straightforward and might be doable with AWB, I assume there'd be awkward ones too. Formally deprecating it might be appropriate, or even documenting it as only useful in exceptional circumstances – right now, I don't know what they might be.NebY (talk)10:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say it's worth keeping in mind that this is presently a case where|life_span= is needed.Remsense ‥ 论09:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even bother to do research of the data you delete??? Or does it make you soooo inteligent to just delete my edits. So yes I forgot to add the sources; since you are sooooo advanced; couldn't you check the new data and see??? You guys are very predictable. Very quick to add good data on European or Western countries but Earth forbid for Africa no it can't until bad news. At this time I just give up. Please undo all my edits your majesty.RickyBlair668 (talk)21:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't lower our standards for African countries and think we can just put anything we like in the infoboxes. It's your responsibility to provide citations for your edits to show that they are valid, no-one else's. Your edits remain in the page histories. If you can cite sources for them, then go ahead and reinstate them with citations that support them.NebY (talk)21:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently commented on a discussion atFeedback on Wikidata inclusion on Watchlist and Recent Changes lists, about changing the way information of Wikidata edits is shown on a Wikipedia Watchlist / Recent Changes list.

We'd like to invite you to a 45 minute ~ 1-hour interview with our UX researcher. The interview will be conducted in English andcompensation is available. If you would like to participate, please register your interest as a reply to this post. Thank you, -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk)08:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could participate. Sorry for the delay in answering while I didn't have spare time. I'm not looking for compensation unless WMF thinks universal compensation somehow helps ensure sampling's sufficiently broad.NebY (talk)18:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NebY, no problem for the delay, happy to hear from you. I leave the compensation decision up to you, you are volunteering your time after all, but you can also donate your compensation fee back to the WMF to be used again for another participant. I will send you an email shortly with all relevant information. Thanks a lot! -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk)07:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based edits onPompey: the original lede saying that he made the Roman empire was way too teleological and definitely needed to go.Ifly6 (talk)15:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Less backshadowing! More sideshadowing - it was good enough for Thucydides, it's good enough for us! OK, as a battlecry it needs work, but thank you.NebY (talk)16:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can give it a try. It might be better received coming from someone not me. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)15:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted a little note (that the immediate (p)block-now rush may have passed, it'll be rough but please do engage), then decided that Bbb will be well aware and a simple ping from Drmies will mean far more than a stranger butting in on his talk page, telling him what he knows already. If it was me, I'd need a little time to get my first near-physical reactions under control and respond constructively.NebY (talk)15:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor grabbed my attention withthis message. I am not too experienced with Wikipedia and don't edit frequently; in fact, I just created this account to report this unacceptable behavior because it has to stop. I find it surprising that User: Isjadd773 hasn't received an indefinite block yet. Many of their edits appear to be intentionally malicious or POV-pushing, and it seems that no one has taken action to prevent further damage to the articles on Wikipedia. Here’s a couple of examples1,2,3Johnatan Koryewzsky (talk)10:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the subject. I do see edit-warring on both sides. Take it to the article talk page; discuss atTalk:Meghann Cuniff what sources are or aren't appropriate and what it's appropriate for the article to say.NebY (talk)10:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects are being misrepresented in a misleading way—for instance, a high-profile legal affairs journalist is portrayed as an untrustworthy blogger, or an actress is falsely depicted as a porn performer, etc. Theres clearly a pattern. I am choosing not to engage with the user on the talk page, as their behavior appears to be trolling.Johnatan Koryewzsky (talk)11:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first step should always be discussion on the talk page, not in edit summaries. If that's unsuccessful, we have many administrators and many venues for dispute resolution and reporting problems. I am not one and my talk page is not one.NebY (talk)11:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the user you are responding to above is likely vandal and persistent sockJ-Majestik who's sock master isGiubbotto non ortodosso. I recently reportedJ-Majestik to another user and the were blocked following a SPI. After which they proceeded to make numerous more socks to revert my edits on various articles. For exampleJohnatan Koryewzsky above revert two of my edits today. Although their edits are actually good faith edits as they provided a good source that challenge my source. But nevertheless they are a sock. They also have other socks such as10 years in the game;Rock nation boy;109.113.13.233;Cant stop wont stop baby;I will still be here in 2035 Instant, reverting my edits on Gastroenterology, Medicine and Medical School articles. I will look into this matter later with a SPI. Thanks.Isjadd773 (talk)17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make such accusations at an appropriate place, not here.NebY (talk)18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your diligence in dealing with misinformation and navigating sources atCarus' Sasanian campaign —ImaginesTigers (talk)01:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - my first barnstar!NebY (talk)11:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been systematically and indiscriminately removing all references to the book chapter:

Treese, Steven A. (2018). "Historical Area".History and Measurement of the Base and Derived Units. Springer. pp. 301–390.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77577-7_5.ISBN 978-3-319-77576-0.

(Or maybe to the whole book, I'm not sure.)

But this seems inappropriate to me, especially if you don't intend to find what you consider to be better sources for the various claims made. As far as I can tell you haven't given any examples where this book is incorrect or misleading, or evidence that the book author or publisher did anything dishonest or improper, and the only criticism is that some information from the book was also found in contemporary versions of Wikipedia (which were cited by the author). This doesn't seem to me like sufficient cause for a blanket ban on citing the book.

Many of the places where this is cited as a source, the claim being made is quite trivial, and the purpose for giving a source like this is to point readers somewhere that they can learn about the topic more broadly. For example inSquare the claim being sourced is:

Conventionally, since ancient times, most units ofarea have been defined in terms of various squares, typically a square with a standard unit oflength as its side, for example asquare meter orsquare inch.

This is an uncontroversial claim, and the cited book chapter goes into much greater depth about various area units which are based on linear units. The source clearly wasn't using Wikipedia as its source for such an obvious claim, so your claim that this is"circular" sourcing doesn't seem supportable.

(I have no problem with your removing such citations for specific claims where Treese clearly used Wikipedia as his source. I also have no objection if you put in the effort to find a better alternate source for each of the claims you are concerned about, whether or not they are specifically circular.) –jacobolus (t)18:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My removals have not been indiscriminate; I examined each use and Treese's own referencing for that part of his book and I have left one use of Treese in place. We don't set the bar for removingWP:CIRCULAR references so high as to require that they must remain unless and until they can be replaced. I don't recognisethe purpose for giving a source like this is to point readers somewhere that they can learn about the topic more broadly as describing the point ofWikipedia:Citing sources; that's the use of a "Further reading" section. I do agree that that statement inSquare is uncontroversial, and noteWP:CITE,Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. I should perhaps be entirely clear about one point, in case anyone ever searches for Treese on Wikipedia and finds themselves here; I am not suggesting that the book is incorrect or misleading, or that Treese or his publisher did anything dishonest or improper, and have not said anything of the sort here, or in my edit comments or elsewhere. Those are your words, not mine, and are not relevant to the basic principle: we don't cite Wikipedia, directly or indirectly.NebY (talk)19:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a book which includes citations to Wikipedia is not the same as citing Wikipedia, unless the book specifically cites Wikipedia for the claim made. You've broadened the rule in an unsupportable way."My removals have not been indiscriminate;" – do you have any examples of citations to this book which you left, because you thought they were fine? My impression is that you are systematically removing citations to it."I don't recognise" – there's nothing that says wecannot cite more sources than are narrowly required to verify claims, nor is there any rule that says we can't add citations for uncontroversial claims, nor that we can't try to make citations useful to readers. But sure, there's one other motive in adding citations like this, which is that it prevents complaints from pedantic busybodies who will throw{{cn}} templates up after any sentence that doesn't include a footnote, and responding to those generally wastes more time than adding citations even in cases where they aren't really necessary. –jacobolus (t)19:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my removals were not indiscriminate; I examined each use and Treese's own referencing for that part of his book and I have left one use of Treese in place. I left one use inVolume.[9], as stated in that edit summary. In each edit summary, I listed some Wikipedia articles which Treese had cited for his section which included the cited page(s), articles which clearly related to the specific content for which we were now citing Treese. Certainly we can add multiple citations, but none of them should be to Wikipedia, and we should not add circular references just to deceive "pedantic busybodies". Meanwhile, you might enjoyWikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. I see the page is not being so actively maintained as it was, yet as Wikipedia matures (25 soon!) we will increasingly be used as a source, perhaps most commonly for material that's slightly peripheral to a writer's specific expertise. This will be a growing problem for us and we have to get used to spotting and dealing with it. Treese, I'm happy to say, not only did nothing wrong, he took care to make his use of Wikipedia clear, not only honourably but as if he was already aware of the problem of citogenesis.NebY (talk)20:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your characterization of the citation fromSquare as eitherdeceptive or circular. I didn't carefully examine all of the other ones you removed.

Do you agree that the fact that Treese cited Wikipedia as a source for some claims in his bookdoes not invalidate his book's use as a source for different claims? Did you check that Treese cited Wikipedia for the specific claims being attributed to him by the citations you removed? It still seems from your edit summaries and from a cursory examination of Treese's book that you consider his citation of several Wikipedia articles to invalidate his book as a source even for unrelated claims.

The citation you left to Treese's book is attached to the claim that lower density fluids take up more volume for the same mass, which is a trivial repetition of the ordinary definition ofdensity. The citation seems entirely superfluous. –jacobolus (t)22:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re.Did you check that Treese cited Wikipedia for the specific claims being attributed to him by the citations you removed?, if you have made a cursory examination of the book, you have observed that Treese provides citations for sections, not lines. As I said, my removals were not indiscriminate; I examined each use and Treese's own referencing for that part of his book, finding Wikipedia articles cited which clearly concerned the specific content for which we were now citing Treese. I am not passing opinion on the book as a whole or saying no part of it can be used; I'm not considering using it (in which case of course theWP:ONUS would be on me) and have not carried out such an examination. Being attacked by you for removing citations, I'm not eager to remove the one you find superfluous, especially given that you object above to the removal of citations for content which you see as trivial and uncontroversial, citations which serve only to keep "pedantic busybodies" away or which you argue should be retained for the unrelated purpose of pointing readerssomewhere that they can learn about the topic more broadly.NebY (talk)23:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "attacking" you. I resent your tone here in repeated replies, which seems frankly quite rude and sarcastic. This interaction would be significantly more pleasant if you would cut it out. –jacobolus (t)00:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a bit more closely; maybe the whole paragraph inVolume is intended to be supported by the cited pages of Treese's book. If so, the source doesn't actually support the full paragraph:"Capacity is the maximum amount of material that a container can hold, measured in volume or weight. [...]" What up-to-2022 versions of Wikipedia said, and what Treese's book says, is thatcapacity is the maximum volume of filling material a container can hold, the volume of the interior of a container, with no mention of weight. The current paragraph was apparently added inspecial:diff/1104063450 byuser:CactiStaccingCrane as part of a significant rewrite of the article from August–October 2022special:diff/1099877568/1114060265, which was on balance probably helpful (the article was pretty mediocre before), but could probably use further review, if anyone wants to go through it. –jacobolus (t)00:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NebY,

I'm interested in correctly adding citations for the claims on this page which are tagged "citation needed." I noticed that you recently reverted citations that I added, citingWP:RS The website I cited (theoi.com) contains direct quotations from the original sources that support the claims. For example, the first claim is "In the cave, he found a tortoise and killed it, then removed the insides. He used one of the cow's intestines and the tortoise shell and made his lyre."and theoi.com quotes the following:Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3. 113 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :

"Outside the cave [of his mother Maia] he [the infant god Hermes] found a tortoise feeding. He cleaned it out, and stretched across the shell strings made from the cattle he had sacrificed, and when he had thus devised a lyre he also invented a plectrum ... When Apollon heard the lyre, he exchanged the cattle for that. And as Hermes was tending the cattle, this time he fashioned a shepherd's pipe which he proceeded to play. Covetous also of this, Apollon offered him the golden staff which he held when he herded cattle. But Hermes wanted both the staff and proficiency in the art of prophecy in return for the pipe. So he was taught how to prophesy by means of pebbles, and gave Apollon the pipe."

Likewise, the second claim is "Apollo advocates Orestes at the trial, and ultimately Athena rules in favor of Apollo."

and the source quotes the following from AESCHYLUS, EUMENIDES

"ATHENA[752] This man is acquitted on the charge of murder, for the numbers of the casts are equal."

So basically these appear to be direct quotations from the original source, but simply conveniently organized and available on the website, which is a secondary source that serves the purpose of making the information easily accessible. Is your main concern the accuracy of the quotations on the site or are you saying that citing a website is not appropriate in general? Is there an alternative citation format that you would prefer? Thanks.Dekadoka (talk)12:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources might perhaps be used directly, but not theoi.com - however seeWP:PRIMARY,Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Greco-Roman literary sources,Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Guides/Primary sources andWikipedia:Primary sources in classics. The claim that Athena rules in favour of Apollo is an example of the misuse of primary sources. The citation ofhttps://www.theoi.com/Olympios/HermesMyths.html appears to have been ccopied from elsewhere complete with inappropriate data. It was followed by a copy of the end of the previous paragraph complete with an inadequate reference and its tag, placed more than three years ago, identifying it as incomplete.NebY (talk)13:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, thank you for letting me know and directing me to the appropriate guidance.Dekadoka (talk)13:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drive by and leave a thank you.Onel5969^{TT me}16:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you!NebY (talk)17:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However it was not until 1937 that the trade of slaves was made illegal throughout the British Empire, withNigeria andBahrain being the last British territories to abolish slavery.^[1][2][3][4]31.164.184.21 (talk)19:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the citation and properly integrating my edit into the text.

Oceanbed347 (talk)09:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Those forceful rejections of the hypothesis, and the (at least superficial) contrast between the surnames of the writers cited for either side, have made me more curious about modern conceptions of Darius - for example, to what extent is he now seen as a formative or crucial figure in Iranian history? Perhaps it would be worth a brief closing section in ourDarius the Great article, though I don't have any material to hand for it. Perhaps you might?NebY (talk)16:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NebY!,

That's a great idea!.

Unfortunately I only have a few sources with me, try reaching out to other editors, they will have plenty.

Thanks again for correcting my edit, you were pretty quick, very impressed.

Thanks to you, now I know that Daryaee, is not the author, but only the editor. I will try to keep this in mind when I make future edits from that book.

Let's keep in touch!

Have a Good Day,

Take care.

Oceanbed347 (talk)19:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NebY!

I just noticed that you had reverted some of the edits which I had made just now. Could you please explain what conscious bad citation means?

Just a while ago some of my other edits were reverted by Remsense. I reached out to him and he un-reverted some of them. I asked him whether he could do the same to my Darius edits. I waited for some time and as he had not replied, I re-reverted just one of my edits for which I had given a reference for.

I do not whish to antagonize anyone and neither am I acting in bad faith. Could you please clarify what exactly the issue is so that there is no confusion and that such mistakes may be avoided in the future.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk)11:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above "now I know that Daryaee, is not the author, but only the editor. I will try to keep this in mind when I make future edits from that book" but instead you consciously provided bad citations.NebY (talk)11:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the citation I gave. I was not quoting from Daryaee, or any of the other authors directly.

could you please explain what exactly was wrong with the citation or how it may be re-written properly.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk)11:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You represented Daryaee as the author. That's false.NebY (talk)12:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, next time I will mention within brackets that he is the editor.

Thank you for clarifying.

Oceanbed347 (talk)12:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not "mention within brackets that he is the editor". Use the proper parameters in{{cite book}}, asI did.NebY (talk)12:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk)12:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your changes. Go to talk pageMacedonLinguist (talk)19:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raise your disagreement on the article talk page, not on mine.NebY (talk)19:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make any significant changes you have to reach consensus. I have created for you a talk pageTalk:Ancient Macedonian language#Changes Macedonian in Classical sourcesMacedonLinguist (talk)19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created for you a new topicTalk:Ancient Macedonian language#Changes Macedonian in Classical sourcesMacedonLinguist (talk)19:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in disruptive editing. Go to the talk pageMacedonLinguist (talk)17:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please useyour sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page. Thank you.MacedonLinguist (talk)18:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my talk-page post.Don't do that. If you intended instead toedit-war on the article, don't do that either.NebY (talk)18:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Thank you.,MacedonLinguist (talk)18:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a lurker. But constantly emitting templates to try to cast aspersions of disruptive editing does not fool anyone. This is especially the case when it seems you (MacedonLinguist) are the cause of such disruptive editing and nothing is offered in defence of such edits except ludicrous assertions of "consensus" based on nothing but nobody stopping you for a few hours.Ifly6 (talk)18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring isdisruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article'stalk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection.If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may beblocked from editing.MacedonLinguist (talk)18:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pages with missing files