User talk:NebY

You're Welcomed!

"Thank you for teaching me yet another difference between American English and British English. I recognise a couple of contributors to that article as users of British English; that might explain how the usage crept in but there's no question which is appropriate for articles such as United States customary units. Sorry for troubling you. NebY (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"

Thank you for your gentle editing. The differences between the various versions of English poses difficulties in international publications when the publisher hasn't declared which version to use in all articles. The problem is particularly acute when combining commas, the most commonly used punctuation mark in English, with Latin abbreviations like "i.e." and "e.g." Unfortunately, the portion of the Wikipedia Manual of Style dealing with commas does not address these two introductory phrases although it does include the Chicago Manual of Style in the Further Reading section. That manual states that commas are mandatory after "i.e." and "e.g." I haven't checked, however, to see if the other sources in the Further Reading list say the same thing. Once I found support for my position, I quit my research. I can only sustain my attention to the intricacies of comma use for a limited time!

Quite so. I'll just pass on the little bit of reference-seeking I did. For British English I turn to Burchfield's The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press); the entry for i.e. has "It is not normally followed by a comma...." As you say, WP:MOS doesn't address it directly but we do have redirects for i.e. and e.g. to entries that discuss American and British punctuation. As a result, it's clear how WP:ENGVAR should be applied in the two articles you edited - your way! NebY (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

City of London

This is just to reply to your comment on the 'City' talk page ... A shorter version of this is on that page.

There is definitely no need for a change re the Mayor/Authority question. After a quick look at your link, I realised that ALL the 'City' coverage is plagued by the same problem. This was put succinctly by David in 2011 (on that talk page) "There is still considerable confusion going on between the City of London as a geographic entity (with its Corporation) and "the City" as a metonym for the wider British financial services industry.". This is a confusion that journalists like Monbiot seem happy to exploit for rhetorical effect (ditto Wikipedia editors?).

I find myself in the unlikely position on Wikipedia of defending bankers and archaic institutions for which I have little respect or affection, but who - as it happens - don't actually eat babies/give the Queen permission to fart or ... whatever else!

I haven't read the Shaxson book either, (though some of it he has himself since withdrawn). The book is repeatedly cited on the 'City' pages, and (from the quotes), it similarly makes vague generalised assertions and also makes little distinction between the Corporation and the banks etc. within its boundaries.Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

ps here is a link to a Shaxson article on 'City' http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city .Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading the Monbiot, Peston and Shaxson articles, I'm left with the impression that Shaxson's a viable source for WP articles on the City, Monbiot's interpretation of him less so. Peel away the colourful ceremonies and we are still left with a Corporation answerable to its extraordinary electorate, employing officers who become acutely aware of the background and interests of the elected Members. The metonomy is not entirely misleading and the association may be significantly closer than it was 200 years ago. NebY (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Myners Report may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *The government's response, [[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning!

You may find that your attempts to promote communication and understanding may be considered to be subversive.
On the other hand, I find them useful, and I VERY MUCH appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez mate! Keep this up and you might get recognition for promoting simplicity, harmony, etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC) (aka Even if no-one else does/has, I have noticed.)

Flying pigs

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

You spoke too soon

Thanks for the message. I replied on my talk page and then this [1] happened! I'm not going to try to revert again, but I'm happy for other editors to. Cheers. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I did, didn't I! Oh well, he's had his answer; now I can just keep reverting. NebY (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I just posted this on WP:ANI:

"Another change [2] but he's left the topic collapsed so I suggest we leave this one be and see what happens next. If he doesn't leave the talk page alone then further reverts and semi-protection would be the way to go."

Does that sound like a plan? 2.25.115.116 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It does. Unfortunately I saw the edit first, reverted it on sight, then saw ANI, then this. I'll try to slow down a little. NebY (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Phew. You're not as green as you're IP-looking. :) NebY (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Undeclared

Why reverted a lot of my valuable edits with out explanated. You should restored info related to Hinduism separately.Septate (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

You have reverted a lot of valuable edits without explanation. Its right that I have removed Hinduism but you have reverted other edits with out explanation.Septate (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You prevented the specific undoing of the various, often multiple, edits in which you removed Hinduism with your further edits, which included unhelpful acts such as changing 60% to 60.0%. NebY (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact Septate, it should be you who should be explaining your removals. I can see no logic to these removals and have asked for an explanation on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(top-posted, moved)

Neby, If it as a problem then I would appreciate if if you delete all edits made by Silvershamrock124. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvershamrock123 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

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

On July 17th, 2013, a US Federal Judge ordered that all of the of seven lawsuit counterclaims by AAFM and Mentz could go forward to court against the former trainers: Brett King, Geoff Baring and the IABFM. The US Court order stated that AAFM and Mr. George Mentz could sue Mr. Brett King, Mr. Geoffrey Baring and IABFM individually for numerous lawsuit counts in federal court including: (1) theft (2) defamation, (3) breach of contract, (4) intentional interference with contractual relationships,(5) conspiracy, (6) copyright infringement, and (7) fraud violations of the Consumer Protection Act. After this key decision, the case was settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBLSLAW (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Verbally

@NebY (and @Deeday-UK): When I insisted on using the word "verbally" at Farad, I thought it pretty specifically meant "spoken" (and specifically not "written"). I think a lot of people (particularly those working in law who use the term "verbal contract") might be as surprised as I was to see my meaning as only the 3rd definition in Merriam. "Ya learn something new every day."

... time passes ...

• Cambridge University Press dictionary, however, gives "spoken rather than written" only.
• Oxford University Press gives only "1. Relating to or in the form of words" and "2. Grammar: Of, relating to, or derived from a verb: 'a verbal adjective'", but adds:

It is sometimes said that the true sense of the adjective verbal is ‘of or concerned with words,’ whether spoken or written (as in verbal abuse), and that it should not be used to mean ‘spoken rather than written’ (as in a verbal agreement). For this strictly ‘spoken’ sense, it is said that the adjective oral should be used instead. In practice, however, verbal is well established in this sense and, even in legal contexts, a verbal agreement is understood to mean a contract whose accepted terms have been spoken rather than written.

• Collins has my usage down at #3 also: "in speech; oral rather than written (usage objected to by some)"

Wonderful language, ours. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First, sorry if my edit coment came over as rather supercilious; I immediately feared it might.

It is indeed a wonderful language. I was glumly contemplating using "oral" just so that no-one else who's as twitchy as I am would be upset but no, much easier to switch to Old English roots instead. I ought to carry on editing that paragraph - it's terribly disjointed - but I can't quite see how to do it yet. Maybe you can?

Oh, you might also be amused by Verbal contract - a valiant attempt to impose logic on English usage. NebY (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Speech can be formal as well as informal, so "in speech" does not render the informality of terms like "puff" or "pic", in my view. Conversely, if it's true that "colloquial" can refer to the written word, it is especially referred to the spoken language and either way it always conveys the idea of informality. That's why I still think it's the best choice of words in this case. Deeday-UK (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't revert you. I do feel that here, "colloquial" by itself relies not just on the reader understanding that colloquialisms are more often spoken than written, but also that these two colloquialisms are never written. Maybe "often colloquially pronounced "puff" or "pic""? NebY (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. BTW, Black's (i.e. the legal) definition of a verbal contract is "a contract that is spoken and is not written down" and other phrases containing "verbal" are similar. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to Deeday-UK for the edit; I hope my tweak's OK. I'll add support at Talk:Verbal contract - surprising where these things lead! NebY (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Water Polo

Hi NebY, the original reason this edit by 134.223.230.152 was reverted was not that the edit changed the sense of the article. The reason was that 134.223.230.152's edit changed the paragraph from saying that water polo was unlike Association football in that players have no fixed position to saying that the sport was like football in that it's players have no fixed position. These statements can obviously not both be true. ~ Anastasia (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

But it is a good description of Association football to say that its players do not have fixed positions and manifestly incorrect to suggest that they do, otherwise Total football would have been impossible. This is the IP's point; the article was right to say that water polo does not have fixed positions but wrong to say that it was unlike Association football in this regard. NebY (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone knows about these things :) Thanks for helping out. ~ Anastasia (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

You have it. Let me know if you have any questions and thanks for your anti-vandalism work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

revert on London (European Parliament constituency)

Hi,
I was just creating the other end of the red link... I reverted your revert, but, if you think this link should not exist, please feel free to revert again (and do tell me!).
--Zeugma fr (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Sorry for being too hasty. NebY (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Pascal (unit)

I noticed you undid my change with the comment: "a Pascal is indeed a unit of measurement, just as the Newton is". I agree, but it is even more specifically a unit of pressure, which is what I was trying to emphasise. I've tweaked it again - in a slightly different way this time. I hope you see my intention correctly. If you still disagree please change back - but compare it with [[Newton (unit)" first. Bog snorkeller (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I like it - a marked improvement, according better with (for example) BS350. Sorry I wasn't more constructive with my revert - I didn't see what you were aiming at. NebY (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam warnings to Poojasapra12

@NebY hi. . This is regarding the links i posted on the ITM grous and LDC institute page. The links i am posting is not for any kind of promotion. it is just a reference for people. so i request u not to misunderstand it and kindly let me repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojasapra12 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not you are seeking to promote that website for commercial, reputational or other purposes , it is against Wikipedia's policy to link to it. Please read the material I have linked to on your talkpage. Your attempts to add such links to many articles on Wikipedia constitute spamming. NebY (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Farley

Interesting situation! I think the biggest problem with this is the level of input from the subject himself. There are points in the article which are impossible or very difficult to verify, even though they may be true. For example, if he was player of the year a couple of times at Droylsden and once at Marine, that's not likely at all to be online anywhere. We'd have to look at club publications like matchday programmes, that kind of thing. That said, someone who played over 200 times for a club is quite likely to have been voted player of the year at least once, so while very hard to verify, these facts are perfectly plausible.

I can find nothing to say he was man of the match in the 1998 FA Youth Cup Final. This [3], while possibly not a particularly solid source, credits Eaton with man of the match that day. So there's certainly a big question mark over that claim. Enough to take it out, I'd say.

The personal life section was entirely invented by the editor suspected of being the subject himself[4]. That quote is nowhere else online, and I suspect he's just made that up. So while it does at least appear to be a quote from the subject (!), it's unverifiable.

The part about the aborted move to Sheffield Wednesday is almost certainly unverifiable. I would be surprised if a club like Wednesday would baulk at a £20,000 price tag for a player they supposedly wanted. £120,000 seems a hefty price tag for a 24 year old Northern League centre half in 2004, but either way it cannot be substantiated, and neither can the claim that Farley was annoyed at being "held back" by Droylsden. Sounds like we only have the player's word for that, which if it were quoted somewhere in the press, then fair enough. But it isn't.

The "betting on your own team" aspect is probably the most important. The Liverpool Echo source is pretty clear – Farley was banned and fined for betting against his own team. There's a quote from the FA Regulatory Commission, and a quote from the Marine chairman. It's unequivocal. Here's an FA source [5] which might be worth adding. It's definitely important to clarify that these were not legal charges but FA charges, but I think the article wording satisfies that. Maybe it could be made clearer if necessary. I can't find anything to say the ban and/or the fine were overturned later. In FA terms, it's a very serious charge – betting on your own team to lose, playing in that game yourself and the result being a 4–0 defeat – it's very damning. I might go as far as to say that displays a character with zero integrity. No wonder he doesn't want it on his article.

It's a shame Farley made that substitute appearance for Everton all those years ago because that's the one slim claim he has on notability... Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I always like a challenge! Regarding yearbooks, now you mention it, there is a Northern Premier League Yearbook [6], but whether or not it would habitually carry the details of club awards, I don't know. The Youth Cup Final – yes, it was two legs, and the article says he was MotM in the second leg, which does differ from the source I found. I agree that any technical improvement of the article will result in it being more negative, as it seems to be the positive aspects that are the dubious ones! I agree with you entirely about the Right to Disappear and such, and it is a shame that this article will ultimately not shine a very positive light on its subject. Shame for him, and I wonder if he'd prefer the article didn't exist at all. The FA disciplinary charge is probably just as notable as his substitute appearance for Everton, ironically, and it does help towards satisfying WP:GNG. But the football notability criteria are clear, if a little questionable, so we're probably stuck with it! I don't envy you the task of cleaning it up, but I'm happy to help or support you if I can, just let me know. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(top-posted, moved #2)

Вы можете пойти на хуй с быка дерьмо. Я был в Украине несколько раз и кажется, что большинство людей, есть члены православной веры. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Provlovski (talk • contribs) 19:13, 01 September 2014 (UTC)

You vandalised the statistics for religious belief in the articles Ukrainians, Religion in England, Religion in Russia and Austrians with intent to deceive. Your reaction to being warned is to come here swearing and talking about having visited Ukraine. How old are you? NebY (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Feel free to revert me again, but check my recent edit history if you don't think the sharks are circling with the intent of muddling the concept. Sooner or later, those of us who see the difference are going to take antisemitism back. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think you and I are in agreement that we should use "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". But I do recognise that people who use "anti-Semitism" use it to express the same thing that others use "antisemitism" to express. Staunch campaigners against antisemitism, working within organisations that use "antisemitism" in their titles, can still be seen using "anti-Semitism" in their work - I suspect sometimes just because of some publishers' house styles. In short, we're not going to change how "anti-Semite" is used and we shouldn't try to; we just want to use "antisemite" instead. We should not start telling our readers that "anti-Semite" is normally used to mean opposition to Semites. NebY (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kasur (city in Pakistan)

Hi, this is the first time my submission has been reverted and I wish to communicate to you that the changes I made were the result of research on the topic. I can provide the details as quoted on the website of the city's page and some other sources from people who have been associated with Kasur and Lahore, both in Pakistan. This is my first clarification and I am not sure whether I have posted the thing on the correct platform. Do feel free to amend me. Thanks and regards, pratiksharma172000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratiksharma172000 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. NebY (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Screenreaders and spaces in numbers

Hi Neb, yes, plain spaces don't work well with screen readers, but the templates that you mentioned to me work fine. I think it'd be a good idea to put it into the MOS but I can't think of good wording at the moment (it kinda used to be there and I've mentioned this problem before). Graham87 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone and added some text about this to the guideline. I came up with the wording while trying to get to sleep last night. Graham87 04:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you?. You deleted two reliable sources, one of them is from Eurostat Eurobarometer poll which the same sources that's used in the led picture, I think it's was wrong that it's was big paragraph and i had to summarize the paragraph, but the statistical are non-argumentative, but it's very reliable and it's used in many of wikipedia articales, these two sources were from Eurostat Eurobarometer poll and Pew reacherch, Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you both read WP:LEDE and also consider the reader of the article. The lead should help the reader to proceed further into the article, not make their eyes glaze over and their hands reach for something more accessible. NebY (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Westhoughton

Re your deletion. But then neither is Barrow on Furness, Chatham, Devonport, etc. Are you going to delete them? Plucas58 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd watchlisted the article for another reason, so I saw your addition but hadn't checked the old entries. Done now, in small batches which I hope may make matters a bit easier if there is any dispute about particular entries. NebY (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pascal

Thanks for checking my edits to Pascal. If you read the article, you will in fact find that it is inconsistent. I checked which definition of the Pascal is correct and tried to make it consistent. I changed 101.325 to 101,325 because it appeared that it was a use of European number format--1 atm emphatically does not equal 101 Pa. And if in fact 100 Pa equalled 1 mbar, then 1 bar would equal exactly 100000 Pa, which is nonsense. I appreciate your efforts, but I don't appreciate you calling my work vandalism and deceit. We wikipedians need to assume good faith and support each other, not call each other names. Do you ever wonder why so many people are discouraged from editing wp? Tdimhcs (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It took me a minute to see my mistakes due to anger from your insults. My "corrections" were in fact invalid and the article is correct as is. Thanks for catching it. No thanks for the name calling. Tdimhcs (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Freshfields page

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

I've read the article. It was printed before the restructuring and actually in 2000 at the time of the merger hence why I thought it better to remove restructuring as that could be misleading when the article was actually about the merger. I'm happy to leave restructuring as it is if you'd rather leave it in.

Are there any other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wptraineem (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on your understanding of WP:LEAD and other miscellaneous point but a little harsh to just delete!

I agree in your understanding of the MOS and lead. I would like to let off steam against the ONS here that my confusion for the association with the 2011 Census, to which I wrongly attributed a fact for a source, is that the National Tables form for the detailed Land Use Survey carried out in 2005 (see Physical Environment) was only published after 2011. It is shocking how local authorities were unable to put into context their planning policies, until this came out. I should just like to let known one tiny criticism of you, quite personally, but not at all disrespectfully, which is that per WP:BOLD only unverifiable or unnotable edits really ought be rolled back, you should just rephrase and retain important data on subjects where it is clearly attested by a reliable source. Obviously the speed of my edit which was very fast and so mentioned the wrong borough played a role in your sudden reaction.- Adam37 Talk 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't know there was a discussion and it is interesting. NebY (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Paisley

Now look what you've done :p. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth. NebY (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

La Fondation du Mérite européen

So ... A tag has been placed on Fondation du Mérite européen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I reply fairly quickly why it should not be deleted. And then ... poof! ... it's gone. I am the webmaster of http://www.merite-europeen.eu and I also host the website. I have full authority from the Fondation to do anything I like .... the logo is NOT copyright as we haven't copyrighted it and nor shall we, nor is the photograph of the late François Visine. Put it into commons if that is what needs to be done. Please would you be so kind as to put the page back again?

Thank you

Giles Edmondston-Low (webmaster@merite-europeen.eu)

Thank you.

I've replied on your talk page, as it may be that other editors will help by clarifying or expanding on my comments. I'm removing the OTRS tag you place here as it doesn't apply to this page. NebY (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

London

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

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

Protection of water polo

Hi, as I was looking through the revision history of water polo it struck me that you have reverted many of the vandals' edits. Several times I have attempted to post multiple requests at WP:RPP for indefinite semi-protection on this page, which have always been declined [7] [8] [9] [10] (edits going newest==>oldest). Would you agree that this page deserves indefinite semi-protection, or am I missing something? JZCL 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, JZCL, I'm not really surprised by those declines. Semi-protection's usually only applied for short periods and after surges of problematic editing that have become hard to manage. My general impression is that the vandalism levels for Water polo aren't uncommon for Wikipedia and are part of the price of being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Digging into the article records, I see the 81 edits by IPs in 2014[11] have been fairly evenly spread through the year. The page history for 2014 shows broadly similar levels of vandalism from IPs and from registered accounts, Cluebot catching quite a lot straight away and a satisfyingly broad range of editors reverting the rest. Sadly few editors improved the article in 2014; you were one, of course, but there were also positive contributions from 172.4.53.191[12][13], 134.223.116.158[14], 134.223.230.152[15] - incorrectly reverted by registered accounts,68.101.170.109[16] and 140.32.16.3[17]. (Apologies to anyone I've missed!) So there's a good case to be made that long-term semi-protection would not only have been against Wikipedia's principles but also would have resulted in a worse article! Sorry! NebY (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. JZCL 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox coat of arms

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

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

Double warning

Hi NebY, it's probably no biggie, but we've double-warned at User talk:72.53.179.173. When I encounter vandalism happening in real time, I warn first, then revert, so as to give the disruptive user an opportunity to see the warning before they start revert warring. In this case, I slapped an L3 for their three Monsters University disruptions, and was going to revert afterward. I'm not really suggesting that you should do anything here, mostly just dropping a note as an FYI. Happy editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd not thought of doing it that way round, and using Twinkle has reinforced the warn-later habit - the canned messages talk of having just reverted. But it's a good approach to bear in mind. Thank you. NebY (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's an easier way to get them "on paper" sooner. If you revert first, they could presumably revert you before you have a chance to warn 'em, which can extend the disruption. But everybody does it the way they're most comfortable with. I'll shut up now. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NebY

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

Okay, NebY, this is personal

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

(blank)

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

(blank 2)

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

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

Aap and redirect

You had read https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=AAP_(disambiguation)&redirect=no ? It is not a disambiguation it is a redirect. Fundarise (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AAP (disambiguation) is a redirect to AAP. It does not redirect to Aam Aadmi Party. AAP is a disambiguation page which includes links to many articles, including Aam Aadmi Party. It does not redirect to Aam Aadmi Party. Therefore we cannot put a note at the top of Aam Admi Party saying that AAP redirects to Aam Admi Party. NebY (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I really didn't knew how it worked, now I do. Fundarise (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It can be hard to follow - especially when another editor's tried to change everything around! NebY (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Football Clubs

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

football and years

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

A cheeseburger for you!

Hello. I have a question, when you reverted my edit on the Ancient Rome government template, you said Rome was not part of the Eastern Roman Empire until 1453. What does that mean. Wasn't the Eastern/Byzantine empire a direct continuation of the Roman Empire? Thanks Miss Paris Slue (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that Rome wasn't part of that empire. NebY (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Justinian reconquer it, though? --Miss Paris Slue (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but within a few years Byzantine control was tenuous at best and Rome had moved thoroughly outside it centuries before the fall of Constantinople (see for example Rome#Middle Ages and Papal States#Relationship with the Holy Roman Empire). NebY (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Revision (647397895) Undid

@NebY: Hello, I would like to let you know that I am a new-born in the Wikipedia family and I do rely on the nurture from adult members like you! I was, in fact, watching the Documentary & simultaneously looking if the article on Wikipedia needed any update/citation. In my contribution, the scientific analysis of the photographs from the Hubble leading to the best evidence yet of liquid water on Europa was my intended subject. I agree that the geysers were described with greater detail (& less drama!?) in the previous paragraph. Now I see that my mentioning of the height (twice as in Kilometer & Miles!!) has overshadowed the intended subject, huh! Repetition was never the intention. If you've felt [18] that my contribution did not make any sense, then I am accepting it just in a way that a kid would accept decisions of elders in the family! I hope to evolve in a better way with these experiences - Anand2202 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My Edits

Don't fuck with my edits. I don't mess with your stuff, leave mine alone.

Sorry

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

Marie Antoinette

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

Replied on your talk page.[19] I'll just add that I am glad to see you add sources other than Fraser and remove copyright violations. Sadly, there is still much to do to in terms of making this one article more readable (and the prose less embarassing) and removing unencyclopedic excesses. If your message above signals that you are now more ready to let your fellow editors do this, then that is most welcome. NebY (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

United States customary units

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

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

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

I see that you have chosen to have an edit war instead of discussing this civilly. Strange that you advise me to "respect WP:BRD" while violating it yourself. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BRD process is that the first editor makes a bold edit, the second reverts and the first, if s/he wishes to persist, avoids edit-warring by opening a discussion on the article's talk page. You reverted the revert instead and then said it was I who chose to edit-war. You still haven't opened a discussion on the article talk page. If you wish to persist. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you there. NebY (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:United_States_customary_units#Dispute_over_"agreed_to" J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Courts leet

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

Engineering vs Science

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

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

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

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

loudspeakers

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

The source does not support the claim. I have replied on your talk page.[20] NebY (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the whole phrase. Now you should like that. I saw your old edit, in which you stated the Birmingham one is the first one, although the book says something else. -- AHLM13 talk 10:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

<anon>

Roll over and die::

<redacted>

31.209.153.12 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Onomacles (Whalestate)

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

Good work on the East London Mosque adhan issue

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

Thank you! It's bothered me ever since some fruitless discussions at Talk:Religion in England so I thought I should follow up while we're all clear about it - well, nearly all. It's been quite difficult to discuss the matter with the various IPs and short-lived accounts who have promoted ELM with that image and such claims. 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can be annoying when you know the source doesn't support a claim but you have to battle with numerous editors who don't care about that, and you don't have many people to back you up. I'll try to keep an eye on the East London Mosque article to make sure that it doesn't creep back in. At least it seems to have attracted a fair bit of attention on the article talk page now. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyborg the Wikipedian

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

Accepting those spellings is part of the price of being a Wikipedian - cyborg or not! Maybe you could rewire yourself a little.... NebY (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I'm a human. I'm not an immortal robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote tabulation

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

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

@Mandruss: Yes, I get that too. For fun and maybe clarity, here's a full table - I threw in the totals because the weight of options 1 and 3 seemed quite striking.

n		nA	nB	nC	total
0 (current)	#BD2400/white	24   You have 24	-	-	24
1	#00528C/white	25   You have 25	24   You have 24	-	49
2	#F9C557/black	14   You have 14	-	-	14
3	#008560/white	12   You have 12	24   You have 24	-	36
4	#F9C557/black #008560/white	-	-	2   You have 2	2
5	#8EED9D/black	0   You have 0	12   You have 12	-	12
6	#CBBAE8/black	0   You have 0	19   You have 19	-	19
7	#ED8EDE/black #8EED9D/black	-	-	6   You have 6	6
9	#006400/white	3   You have 3	2   You have 2	-	5
10	#008740/white	2   You have 2	0   You have 0	-	2
11	#F9C557/#006400	2   You have 2	3   You have 3	-	5

NebY (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and I noticed that the voting heavily favored the earlier candidates. I'm telling myself that's because the best choices were nominated first. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible explanation. NebY (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

'National English'

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

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

Hi

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

Byzantine Empire Edit

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

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

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

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

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

You removed links that had been there for years. There is now nothing to be done about it. There is no appeal - you don't care what I have written or who am am. I will not add any content to Wikipedia - this has been a very bad experience for me. That won't matter to you either nameless one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.49.60 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello NebY

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

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

Orifice plate and 'pressure'

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

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

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

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

Water polo

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

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

Got the message!

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

Number of water polo players.

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

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

Robinson Crusoe

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