Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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]

See MOS: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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.183.186 (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 to Greek 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 in WP:RS reliable sources of modern scholarship, not go straight to WP: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 our Ares and Apollo 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.[1]. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 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 the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no 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 improving RfA'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 by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, 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 by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, 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 by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, 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 by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, 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 by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia: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 on BBC 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 its History 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 to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special: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. Later Non-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 per WP: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 that a 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 office has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the 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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Notifying interested projects and editors. NebY (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia: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 and Require 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 and Community 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 the project 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), via MediaWiki 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 my comment 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 edited Persephone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pallas.

(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 the Roman 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't Orpheus or Rhesus of Thrace or Spartacus 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]

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

Ok, you could have given that advice before threatening me to be blocked from editing. Wikipedia has a policy to Assume good faith. I already mentioned that it can be put to vote, thus reaching a Consensus. 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 the Dionysus 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 read Wikipedia: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 comparing Achilles and Leonidas 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 of late-Bronze Age Linear-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 of late-Bronze Age Linear-B tablets with the name of Dionysus from Southern Greece." That still doesn't mean Dionysus in the era of Herodotus was the same cult as the one in late-Bronze Age. Dionysus as we know him today was a result of religious Syncretism via Interpretatio graeca that combines elements of Greek religion as well as Thracian religion. Still, Dionysus was seen as a foreign god and that text was before I started editing. I think we can reach a Consensus 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?

Alex ThaGreenlander (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 on Wikipedia: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 at Wikipedia 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 on Athena 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 the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia: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 with US 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 for Metrication in the United States, do read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, commonly referred to as WP: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?

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

I explained it in my edit summary. It is WP:UNDUE, just as in 2022 when you repeatedly added material about the ideas of one Ender Tosun[2][3][4] and were reverted by three different editors with edit summaries including Not seeing evidence this writer is an expert in this field[5] (indeed, the works of Ender Tosun are WP:SPS and you have offered no WP:RS for their standing). You eventually opened a section on the article talk page Talk: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 - see Wikipedia: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 breach WP:UNDUE (in 2022 another editor mentioned WP:FRINGE, which is also pertinent). The inclusion of your argument without supporting reliable sources would be a breach of WP: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 at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the section Wikipedia 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 in reliable, published sources that they become WP: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 my 12 Oct 2024 message as "gentle and constructive" - as an admin, I'm sort of used to getting all kinds of nastygrams, 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 aka Shirt58 (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]

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

(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 versus 221‍–‍206 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 to MOS: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—per MOS:YEARRANGE, 221–206 BC is correct, 221 BC – 206 BC is equally correct, but 221 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 at Template 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 or A. 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, per MOS: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 at Feedback 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 and compensation 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 on Pompey: 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 with this 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 examples 1, 2, 3 Johnatan 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 at Talk: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 sock J-Majestik who's sock master is Giubbotto non ortodosso. I recently reported J-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 example Johnatan 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 as 10 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 at Carus' 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 in Square the claim being sourced is:

Conventionally, since ancient times, most units of area have been defined in terms of various squares, typically a square with a standard unit of length as its side, for example a square meter or square 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 removing WP:CIRCULAR references so high as to require that they must remain unless and until they can be replaced. I don't recognise the 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 of Wikipedia:Citing sources; that's the use of a "Further reading" section. I do agree that that statement in Square is uncontroversial, and note WP: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 we cannot 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 in Volume.[6], 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 enjoy Wikipedia: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 from Square as either deceptive 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 book does 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 of density. 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 the WP: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 readers somewhere 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 in Volume 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 that capacity 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 in special:diff/1104063450 by user:CactiStaccingCrane as part of a significant rewrite of the article from August–October 2022 special: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, citing WP: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 see WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Greco-Roman literary sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Guides/Primary sources and Wikipedia:Primary sources in classics. The claim that Athena rules in favour of Apollo is an example of the misuse of primary sources. The citation of https://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, with Nigeria and Bahrain 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 our Darius 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}}, as I 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 page MacedonLinguist (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 page Talk:Ancient Macedonian language#Changes Macedonian in Classical sources MacedonLinguist (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my 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 to edit-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 be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant 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's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss 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 an edit 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 to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive 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's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NebY does literally nothing on the relevant page since your last post here at 18.05 UTC and your response to doing, again literally nothing, is to template him for edit warring. Stop casting aspersions and pull up to WP:ANI. Ifly6 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MacedonLinguist (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are too quick to judge someone who wants to be better.@NebY ~2025-32793-82 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who wants to be better doesn't write things like I am a cyber who can do anything I want, what do you want to do to me, scare me?, threaten me?, block my account? Go ahead my friend, let's see who wins here. or Bro, who is that admin? I'm not afraid of him. I come from a superpower country and I work for the United States government's cyber team. Even you can't scare me or block my account. You've already lost here.. Your original account isn't completely blocked yet, but you're headed for an indefinite block and more if you keep acting like this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a further SPI should be brought. Ifly6 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not judge someone from their previous mistakes, I ask whether you have never made mistakes to other parties before?@NebY ~2025-32793-82 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My friend did make a mistake but I have made peace with it, and regarding my words to my friend @Spike 'em I have made peace with him and can that be extended, you are not religious if you cannot forgive someone@NebY ~2025-32793-82 (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be allowed to edit the encyclopedia freely, you must appeal your block, as described on your talk page User talk:Yeremia Nayoan. NebY (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit? And that claim clearly goes against what is stated in the entirety of article elsewhere. It was clearly not accepted by the whole of Greece. So why did you revert my edit? Jino john1996 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NebY (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse. But here the situation is different. Its a claim that goes against the entirety of article. Either the content that I have removed should be edited to give a more neutral perspective or it should be removed whole together. Jino john1996 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it should be removed whole together" is completely contrary to WP:NPOV. NebY (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content that I have removed itself is against WP:NPOV. Because it goes against entirety of the article. Either it could be edited to give a neutral perspective or it could be removed because it violates WP:NPOV. Jino john1996 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is one of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and thus not a violation of WP:NPOV. Our policy is not to only present one view or to excise from an article all content that goes against one majority or editorially preferred view. NebY (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. It goes against every thing that is stated in the rest of the article.I am putting the content in the scholarship section. Jino john1996 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NebY, Thanks for pointing out some of refs I added. I'll double check them, but essentially I'm going through the citations needed task helper prompt, researching each prompt offered me, then adding the ref. I'll comment on each of the questioned refs on my talk page. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prompt is called Citation Hunt on the task page. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're double-checking; I've responded on your talk page, in particular concerning the WP:MEDRS citation. NebY (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how come a symbol row is overstuffing when list of physical quantities gets to have 6 different row, also don't say because it's more useful because tell me the bijective scalar thing is remotely useful Misterpotatoman (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the right place to discuss an article, so that other editors can participate and later editors can review the discussion. It would help everyone if you expressed yourself more clearly; the words you're using here don't mean what I'm guessing you want them to.

More generally, please stop doubling down, as you've been doing at Unit of time and other places such as Draft:Base quantity (which you submitted four times without substantive improvement, with extraordinary errors and without heeding the advice given) or Icosium (where you tried to reimpose changes that were contrary to MOS:LEAD, and then escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as some guy keeps reverting my edits). You'll enjoy editing Wikipedia much more if you learn from experience, from the advice given directly, and from our policies and guidelines. Help:Introduction and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia are good starting points and worth re-reading too. NebY (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i quit dumbass, can't even study for my exams because of this shit, i also don't care about editing anymore so you won't have to worry. Misterpotatoman (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Mic drop*

Gigman (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the section I added about his significance: "Although his reign began with public celebration and senatorial support, the rest of his reign was marked by his erratic governance, lavish spending, and autocracy throughout his short reign"

You mentioned that this section is self-contradictory; I don't see how this is self-contradictory or outdated to the next section of the article; could you point me to the right direction? What it seems to me is that the sentence follows accurately what the next paragraphs talk about. Please advice NebY, Thank you. Davidninjaking (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion at the proper place, the article's talk page Talk:Caligula#Lead, where other editors can participate and later editors can review the discussion. NebY (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert m edits? It is classic "I just don't like it" behavior.

You poured so much effort into an painstakingly built article that turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking—a total fringe theory. I get that it hurts you.

You’ve lost the intellectual battle in the debates, so now you’re trying to bully me with reverts, which is a primitive administrative tactics. Substituting 'I just don't like it' for actual reasoning is a dead end.--Countler (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Blocked sock of Stubes99 NebY (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for your edits. Just asserting victory and proclaiming victimhood is puerile. Ifly6 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I reverted your edits in the edit summaries, referring also to the centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Constitutional doubts, where it's been explained to you at length and you have not satisfied WP:ONUS. Those are the proper places for such explanations, where other editors can see them and participate in or later review the discussion. For the rest of your above post, please do be aware that Wikipedia:Civility is policy throughout the site. NebY (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome with summary "strike blocked sock", you used <s>...</s> to strike multiple paragraphs, but this creates a misnested tags error, as <s> is an inline tag and cannot be used to wrap entire blocks. The workaround, which I already performed, is to use {{Strikethroughdiv|1=...}}. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Anomalocaris. I'd never had so much to strike and didn't know how best to do it. I'm grateful for your work explaining it and putting it right. NebY (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]