User talk:NebY/Archive 5

Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder category

Hi Neby, I've gone through a couple and removed the category when the article doesn't mention the condition anywhere in the text. I agree with you that that sort of statement needs to be sourced. Red Fiona (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Red Fiona, I was quite uncertain whether those categories even counted as "defining characteristics" per WP:COPDEF in most of those cases. NebY (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My question at WT:MOSNUM

The changes I made were in good faith (I moved posts about me into the discussion headed "Dondervogel 2", as that seemed to be the most natural place for them). The problem I see now is that my recent post appears in a vacuum, with no indication concerning the posts to which I am responding. What is the best way of making that clear? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You can edit your own post's indentation and insert underscored text into it using <ins>...</ins>, such as prefixing it with "<Replying to....>" - see WP:TALK#REVISE. You can follow it with "the above was a response to" or some such. But you must respect other editors and not try to manage or chair how they discuss the matter in general, let alone how they discuss your edits or yourself. You may find it useful to reread WP:TPG not merely as a series of specific strictures but as overarching principles that have then been progressively spelt out in detail in many different ways as different disruptive editors have found new ways to breach the spirit, claiming that the letter of the specific restictions doesn't cover their actions. NebY (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. I edited my post to clarify which posts I was responding to. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello Neby,

Can you give me a feedback why my changes about the Turkish bath where reverted? I'm feeling kinda offended by it because I, myself, am Turkish.

I hope that you would be so kind to give me feedback. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.asenova.d (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You did not provide a reliable source and instead linked to a promotional website. Please stop doing that. NebY (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks a lot for your help with Niese's source. It has helped a lot in the revamp of the Andriscus article, and will probably be very useful for other related articles. Some good tea with my thanks, and do stay safe and healthy! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

​Thank you! I really didn't know if that would work out for you. It's great to see what you've done with the article – a massive improvement, and I particularly appreciate the reflection on the hostility of ancient sources. All quite fascinating! NebY (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Duh

I can hardly believe I committed such a cock-up, and not once but twice. Somebody bury me, please. Haploidavey (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, live burial seems to have horrified Romans! Seriously, a small slip in the middle of monumental improvements must be a normal part of the editing process, and it was so easily sorted. NebY (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Political movements

Howdy. The aforementioned political movement (which another editor brought up) that you commented on at the RFC concerning Australian governors being called heads of state, has me concerned. If the other editor who brought up that 'movement' is trying to promote it on Wikipedia through Australian state governors articles? That would be a big no-no under WP:ADVOCATE. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are making personal attacks now. Kindly cease.

Neby, there's no political movement going on. I keep an eye on these things and the fact that all but one of the five States made a significant change in the way they describe their head of state arrangements is significant. I don't have to advocate for anything; this has already happened at a level far higher than mine. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Merely mentioning my concerns. If you say you're not advocating or attempting to advocate for said-political movement? Then, I humbly apologise for having such fears or suspicions & airing them, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, you say "I keep an eye on these things". Looking at your talk page to see if you've been warned before for breaching WP:TALKNO (you have), I see that you have been editing Wikipedia on the subject of head(s) of state in Australia for many years, sufficiently contentiously that it's been raised on your talk page repeatedly. Adding that to your following GoodDay to my talk page here and deleting their comments, and to the great length and poor quality of your arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#RFC: Are Australian state governors, heads of state?, it seems you are so highly engaged and persistent on this topic that if presented with the evidence, the community might decide a topic ban was the minimum necessary to prevent continued disruptive editing. NebY (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"Poor quality"? What makes you say that? I know my subject, and I present my sources. Nor did I delete GoodDay's contributions here. Perhaps you could check your facts before levelling accusations? If we stick to the facts, we make writing an encyclopaedia a matter of harmony rather than rancour, surely? --Pete (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, you reinstated a comment that GoodDay wished to withdraw. I hope you don't think that's any better. You still haven't apologised or shown any indication that you realise it was wrong. NebY (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It was wrong of me. GoodDay was making a personal attack, realised this and withdrew, as is right and proper. Over to you. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Spartan myth

I think you're probably right. Plutarch always seems rather overawed by them; my primary school teacher idolized them (god help me!). Lovely work with the translation - I assume that's what it is? Anyway, it's nice and concise. Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The classical Spartans did a good job with that mirage, that it survived to reach Plutarch and be perpetuated by him. Who knows what they'd have made of adulation from Rousseau, the Nazis, your primary school teacher and Frank Miller? Glad you like the translation. My Greek's very poor but does let me look behind a translation when curious, sometimes with a result. A very crude literal translation would be something like "victory over enemies to be habitual activity and work befitting/belonging to them so that neither killing-offering more than a rooster as victory sacrifice in the city nor ....." I felt on much safer ground with a précis translation! NebY (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

hi, I don't know how to create a new category, but I would like to send the quotes from Lucan and Virgil, on both pages because it is specified that they are roman sources and most of the sources cited in the page are already roman or from greece after the roman period (after 200 bc) and most people don't visit Proserpina's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.7.161.77 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Observation

Just an observation. I think some of the editors who support HoS for the Australian governors, are being confused by the fact that their political divisions are called states I'm guessing there'd be less dispute, if those six bodies were called provinces, departments, etc. Anyways, back to the RFC :) GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you don't go back to the RFC. In the last few days, more than half the edits to that talk page, by count or volume, have been from you or Pete/Skyring. To be exact, of 95 contributions in 37,351 bytes on 17 August and since (up to this edit and excluding bot edits), 45 were yours (6,450 bytes) and 16 Pete/Skyring's (13,038 bytes).) One other editor has made 8 (4592 bytes), the rest up to 3. You're both in WP:BLUDGEON territory and I'm surprised neither of you has noticed and backed off without needing stats. NebY (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take your sound advice & practice self-restraint, from here on. If I'm pinged there, I'll have to respond though. You're correct on your assessment & I hope Skyring will 'likewise' practice self-restraint :) PS- Indeed the 'survey' section has morphed into another 'discussion' section. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There's only one of us doing any actual research and presenting sources. And coming up with a possible consensus position. The real-world usage of "head of state" is of a national leader, so it's a little jarring to describe a state Governor as head of state in Wikivoice. Realistically, that's just going to lead to casual editors changing articles in good faith according to whatever their grade school teacher taught them fifty years ago. And where do we get our sources for this?

On the other hand, in the context of the Australian republican movement - something I've been participating in since the 1990s - this move by six vice-regal officers to describe themselves as heads of state is extremely significant. It's not random website IT guys putting up whatever they want. Kim Beazley in Western Australia certainly knows what he's about and wouldn't put up with that sort of nonsense. He and I were both at the 1998 Constitutional Convention which thrashed out the possible path to removing the Australian monarchy. He was the Federal Opposition Leader at that time, and a canny supporter of the republican side, while I was a very junior journalist enjoying the show. Kimbo came within a whisker of becoming Prime Minister a couple of times and after leaving politics was a well-respected ambassador to the USA. The others I don't know much about, but it is rare that people without long careers in public service as senior judges, military officers, and so on get appointed to vice-regal positions here. I don't know how long they have been collectively describing themselves as heads of state but it's likely years rather than months without it making any fuss in the media. Anyway, it's a thing, and looks to have bipartisan support, and so here to stay as Australia prepares for the inevitable ditching of the monarchy when the Queen dies.

Ignoring reliable sources is not Wikipolicy, so the real question isn't whether Wikipedia jumps up and down and complains about governors doing governor stuff, it's about how we respond and present the information. I think my solution that instead of declaring something contentious in Wikivoice we merely report and source the words of the governors and the Governor-General is workable but if anyone else can suggest a workable consensus position I'm all ears.

As for the idea that I'm getting annoyed or losing my temper, that's a non-starter. Five years of being a night cabbie taught me to reach inside and turn that switch off! --Pete (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I mention WP:BLUDGEON and you respond by more of the same, on my talk page this time (and then tell me how calm you are). Don't do that. NebY (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:BLUD.

Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you.

My intention is not to yell at other editors until they feel cowed into agreeing with me. I'd like editors to be informed though access to sources. GoodDay, by moving the discussion away from a forum where Australian editors aware of Australian circumstances, was ensuring that participating editors would tend not to be well-informed of Australian constitutional practice. It is like asking Americans to decide on how cricket should be presented, or asking the English to define the sport of baseball.

I am grateful for your warning and for your participation. I don't think you are setting out to annoy me so much as presenting your views honestly and directly, and I am never going to find fault in that. I have great faith in Wikiprocedure; getting thousands of volunteer individuals to work together to come up with the crown jewel of the internet by setting their own rules speaks for itself. --Pete (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to follow your advice (at RFC), but Skyring/Pete is testing my patients. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry NebY, I lost my temper with 'you know who' at the Australian notice board. GoodDay (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes in Ares

Hi NebY, great new addition per lists (in open-edit mode) but some of it's not showing in article - it has something to do with the template(s) but exactly what the problem is, I don't have a clue. Big red notice at the bottom of page.Haploidavey (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC) And as if by magic...... Tx

I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Maybe I'll try my sandbox first. <sigh> NebY (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You're bringing such good things to the table, and getting punishment for it just ain't fair :( Haploidavey (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a cruel wiki. :) Cracked it - a surplus pipe character. NebY (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, its an affront. Is the pipe character the vertical line? I really gotta get a grip on this stuff. Haploidavey (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the common name here - Vertical bar#Pipe explains it, except I seem to conceive of the flow backwards on Wikipedia. Whatever works. NebY (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deimos. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting...

Hard to believe eight editors are siding with the Australian governors being head of state while acknowledging they represent the monarch, based on the governors claiming so. Thank goodness, the governors' websites didn't claim they were monarchs, too. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Shrug. There's no need to bother about every survey response in an RFC, let alone complain. If it spoils your rolling count, strike out your count; it's antithetical to the process anyway. NebY (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Help desk and Teahouse addition on WP:VPP

Hey Neby! I saw your addition on WP:VPP's intro and I really think it is helpful as that would have helped me better know where to ask my question. I have one proposal though. MAYBE it would be wise to make some changes in regard to the names of Help desk and/or Teahouse. In many small wikis the Village Pump (or whatever they may be calling it) is the place where everything is discussed. Keeping that in mind, my thought process was: I have a question, I need to go to the village pump. And there I saw 2 parts of it, which in my eyes were read as the technical part and the non-technical part and, of course, I went on the later. I do believe this is the thought process of many other users with homewikis other than EnWiki. Maybe you could better incorporate HD and/or TH as a section in WP:VP... I don't know exactly what would be the best way to tackle that problem but I'd thought it would be wise to share my experience in case you find it helpful for any future changes. Keep up the good work! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting idea, thanks (and thanks for saying the addition looks helpful too). I think to persuade other editors that the Help Desk should be added to the Village Pump would be quite hard. It might well be argued that the numbers of editors arriving from other wikis is comparatively small, and even that en.wiki's separation of the Help Desk evolved in response to scale of en.wiki, just as the creation of the various noticeboards did. There's also an argument that six tabs on the Village Pump header are quite enough and more would be overload, and there's an "if it ain't broke" conservatism borne partly of seeing too many changes negotiated and later largely reversed. So for the moment, I'd like to see if my little change makes a useful difference. Then we can see if we've got a significant problem that needs a bigger change. NebY (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Coinissuer

I've taken Coinissuer to wp:ANI.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've warned them for edit-warring but that might not lead to much. NebY (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to talk some sense into them at Talk:Phanes (coin issuer), but I fear that they're not going to listen to reason... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right, but you shouldn't have to carry all the burden by yourself and I thought maybe an extra voice would help. Not a very different voice, though - a couple of times I was too slow and found you'd said pretty much just what I was going to say, just a bit better! NebY (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2022

Happy New Year! How should we use the unblock template? CFDG123 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't use the "unblocked" template; that indicates that the IP address has been unblocked and no further action is required. I see you've also asked a number of administrators to unblock and raised a question on the Administrators Noticeboard. I suggest you leave it at that. NebY (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Lewisham Deptford

Hi there I know you have undone a bunch of my edits on this page without checking the figures first, so I will demonstrate for you:

If the Labour candidate got 18,724 votes, Conservative 11,953 and SDP 6,513 you get a turnout figure of 37,190 (easily arrived at by a calculator most modern smartphones and such like have). Now divide 100 by 37,190 and multiply it by 18,724 to get a vote share for Labour of 50.34%. Not 48.59% as it stated previously. If one then divides 100 by the turnout figure again and times it by 11,953 they will get a figure of about 32.14%, as roundups they give us a majority of 18.2% and not 17.93% as it formerly said, and you reverted back to. And now take the swing in 1992. If the Labour vote share increased to 60.9 that is an increase of about 10.6%, not 12.27% arrived at erroneously by the 48% figure for 1987. Then take the Conservative vote of 27.9%, down from 32.1% at the previous election. This gives you a figure of -4.2. The swing is therefore 7.4%, so please do not simply undo edits that have actually corrected error-ridden mathematics when I had only made them a couple minutes earlier: you wrote your edit summary clearly without checking the maths first.

As regards to exact numbers, we tend not to have these displayed for elections from 1983 onward, certainly not from 1997 election figures onward, so following the well established norm for these election pages I have rounded up, as I believe should be the case on all pages for all elections anyway.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:A913:F50A:9EC4:88E2 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the comment! I like what you had to say, and frankly I was a "b." person as well before others made me think about it a bit more. In the end, I don't care what we decide, but I really would like for us to hopefully at least choose one or the other and then add a tiny line of "recommended" to which ever it is we choose, if not "required"... Here is a "cookie" for your time for dealing with this hassle I began. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! NebY (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I see now. Did you want to make the change yourself then though? It just read easier to me, but no worries if you don't wish to. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No. That's how I wanted to present it and it still is. It is not the first discussion in which I've participated. NebY (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. My apologies. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Proserpine and Persephone

I would like to ask you to keep the quotes from Lucan and Virgil, on both pages, because it is specified that they are Roman sources and most of the sources already cited on the page are Roman or from after the Roman occupation of Greece (after 200 BC), and it is a interesting way to interpret her evolution with the centuries and most people don't see Proserpina's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.7.161.77 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

and the case of Proserpine case is a little special, she is basically Persephone who was brought to italy by greek colonists, Hades doesn't even change his name most greeks already called him Pluto

Regarding inappropriate content and disruptive talk

Hi, i hope the reply does not offend you. If offended please inform at my talk page. I want to know if my grammer of writing the concept is wrong or the concept is wrong. Please reply at my user talk page. Virapaligautam (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your concept is wrong . You were claiming that since the Earth appears blue from the space and so it's sky appears blue and the moon is seen as white , so it's sky must be white too but it's not true , the sky on the moon is black as it has no atmosphere or water to reflect the light of the sun unlike the earth . And you also claimed that planets after Mars don't exist ando a year has 730.5 days . Talk pages are for discussion to how to improve the article , so please get your facts right before starting a discussion otherwise it may seem completely off-topic or a blatant hoax . Kpgjhpjm 05:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Educational/explainer videos

Hi, I noticed you reverted adding educational/explainer videos to some articles. These are not external links, these are videos by top scientists which explain the subject. There are many explainer videos like that used on Wikipedia: [1]. There is nothing mentioned in Wikipedia:External links about explainer videos. Please explain on the talk page of each individual article why the content is not valid instead of reverting everything. If you don't agree with a certain part of the video, there is also the option to set a later starttime of the video or an earlier endtime. --PJ Geest (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

PJ Geest, let's not have parallel discussions on multiple talk pages with some of us engaging on each and others only on this one or that. Pick one. I'll start a discussion there and add notes on the other talk pages that the issue is being discussed there.</nowiki> NebY (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That ping was badly scrambled (something wrong with my use of Reply and its editor). PJ Geest, I'd hoped you'd look for my response to your post here anyway, rather than reinstating without opening a discussion on any talk pages per WP:BRD. Would you like to pick one now? NebY (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any comment on one of the video's because the content of the videos is good, so it's not my task to start a conversation on an individual talk page, I don't have anything to say. An extra argument for keeping the videos is that commercial websites like YouTube become more and more attractive and users increasingly expect answers to their search queries in rich content (e.g., image, video, and audio formats), see following post What does the world need from us now? External Trends to Watch. So Wikipedia cannot stay behind, it should stay attractive. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

And I am sorry I did not follow WP:BRD, my bad, my excuses! I will follow it from now on. --PJ Geest (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO

Linking a copyright violation is copyvio. Most paywalled publications do not allow authors to separately post contributions elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove that link and cite the source. NebY (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Bloodlust, anybody?

What a splendid edit summary! Haploidavey (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Working on Ares with you and reading Burkert on your recommendation has done me good! NebY (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

?

Parthian star and crescent coins are from the 1st century, its source is everywhere on the internet, why are you deleting my edit??? Chamroshduty (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability is essential on Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to cite a reliable source; it is not enough to say something is "everywhere on the internet". You may find Help:Referencing for beginners useful. NebY (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Speed of light

Thanks for this reminder. I did not actually know there had been an ArbCom case about it, though having seen a few physics-article-related arguments, I'm not too surprised that similar things had happened and escalated before my time. For work and family reasons, I'll probably have to step away from things here anyway (hard to say how completely or how long), so this sounds like a good point for me to stand back and not say something I'll really regret. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Some editors can keep going and going, but I often take time out, especially when I realise I'm spending too much time thinking about a dispute. It's a shame because collaborative working on Wikipedia can be such a joy, whether overhauling an article or spontaneously sorting out some phrasing together, as we did over articles about SI units. But, priorities! Hope things go well. NebY (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's good sometimes. Can't exactly remember when one of those times was, but they did happen, that I do recall. Anyway, I think my overall burnout level is high enough that I really am running the risk of acting thoughtlessly, so I'm going to purge my watchlist, ask at least one editor whose judgment I trust to warn me if they see me editing again ("Are you sure you want to get into this?"), and get on with the 1,001 other things calling for my attention this month.

Thanks again, XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is maybe for if/when you ever return. I looked at your user page before you cleared it and broke out into a big grin at the first para of User:XOR'easter#Articles created or substantially improved. You've achieved far more here than I ever have and hope you're still proud of it.

The watchlist is a tyrant and often depressing; why won't people leave well enough alone? So many editors spend so much time defending the 'pedia.

But then lightning strikes. A talk-page objection jumbled up with talk of threats, the FBI and unrelated plagiarism at Monash University[2] launched another editor and myself on what turned out to be a weeks-long overhaul, to our mutual surprise and enjoyment. If you do come back, I hope you get such luck – or make it! NebY (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Notice Board Requested

This simply serves to notify you that your user name was included in a request for dispute resolution regarding the speed of light article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMmpds (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there's been some mistake

My edit was in response to ghmyrtle breaching consensus and rolled back an edit that constitutes as edit-warring. In addition, I had indeed taken the discussion to the talk page, and it was ghmyrtle who failed to do so by continuing an edit war. Please can you take the issue up with him, as you are, I'm afraid, talking to the wrong person.

Additionally, we have not only found a new consensus, but if we had not, your edits would be in breach of past consensus and would be continuing an edit war. Please do not continue a past edit war, especially on the side that is in breach of not only the current consensus but the previous one as well, as this is not helpful. Thanks.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no mistake. WP:3RR is quite straightforward and your justifications are not relevant to it. NebY (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a mistake. I am maintaining consensus from edit-warring, nothing more, and that is quite relevant indeed. Please maintain the established consensus on the article.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read WP:3RRNO. NebY (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, you are still mistaken here and are still talking to the wrong user. However, please can you not roll back the current established consensus and the previous one for an edit that goes against everything that has been established, as that is inarguably counter-productive.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking to the person who started this discussion on my talk page and will not, it seems, stop, let alone read Wikipedia policy and understand that they are in the wrong. NebY (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the mistake that you are making as I mentioned, along with the mistakes you are making regarding what said person has done. I have pointed you in the direction of the individual you meant to speak to.

I started a discussion on your page due to you contacting the wrong individual. That is not a reason to continue responding to the person who has pointed out your errors and pointed you in the direction of the one who has perpetrated the mistakes you have mentioned, but instead a reason to stop these mistakes and talk to the correct individuals, if you are to continue a discussion.

I will not stop discussing these issues nor stop from pointing people from the right direction, because this would be a mistake. Again, please read the policy you speak of, as I have done. And has been made clear, it is not me who is in the wrong. Please speak to those who are, instead of to me, and reflect on your own mistakes, for it's you who has been in the wrong here.82.4.221.138 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As I told you when I warned you on your talk page, you reverted four times on 5 September 2022: [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Please read WP:3RR, including "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." That applies to you. As I told you then, reverting during a discussion is not exempt from Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring. Please read WP:3RRNO; not one of those exemptions applies to your actions. NebY (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

And as I have told you on your talk page, some of these edits are reverting edit-warring on the part of other users, who you again should be contacting regarding this. It is appropriate to stop edit-warring and refer individuals to the active and ongoing discussion that they were knowingly choosing to ignore, and so does not apply to me. The complaints of edit-warring do, however, apply to yourself, as you made the same mistake as the other user, and if you read the policies you shall see that you are not justified in making such edits. If you wish to complain about edit-warring, please do so to the appropriate parties as opposed to choosing to solely contact the user preventing breach of consensus.82.4.221.138 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"reverting edit-warring on the part of other users" is not exempt from WP:3RR. It is not an "appropriate [way] to stop edit-warring and refer individuals to the active and ongoing discussion" and you are wrong to say that WP:3RR "so does not apply to me." You miscounted when you say above "you are not justified in making such edits" and at Talk:West Country you falsely wrote "in attempt to quell the renewed edit-warring of NebY"[7] (I made one edit). You are still failing to acknowledge your clear breach of WP:3RR. Your persistent posts here have thus become disruptive and it is time for you to drop the stick. NebY (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting edit-warring on the part of other users is exempt from this. It is an appropriate way to stop edit-warring and refer individuals to the active and ongoing discussion, and you are wrong to deny that it does not apply to me. I did not miscount, you misread - I did not say that you performed three reverts, I pointed out the fact that you are not justified in making such edits, and that is because you are not. I correctly wrote that it was an attempt to quell the renewed edit-warring of NebY, because that is exactly what you were doing as I have successfully and clearly outlined. It is irrelevant that you made that edit as it perpetuated an edit war - again, you have misread. You are still failing to acknowledge that I clearly did not breach it, you are still failing to acknowledge that you breached consensus by edit-warring and you are still failing to address the individuals guilty of perpetuating the edit war that required correcting and are instead solely contacting the user preventing breach of consensus. Your persistent posts here have thus become disruptive, certainly not the other way around as I am clearly rectifying your disruptive posts. It is time for you to drop the stick here, not me.82.4.221.138 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Reverting edit-warring on the part of other users is exempt from this." Where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it say that? NebY (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Boudica article

Hi, thanks for your edits on the article, and I agree with them. If I find that modern sources state the Romans travelled down Watling Street, Ill add it as a separate note. I haven't seen it yet Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's always better to discuss such things on the article talk page, but as we're here I'll remark that as editors, we have the editorial choice of what to include and what to omit. There are modern accounts of Boudica or her revolt that include all sorts of extra detail to make the story more understandable, relatable or vivid. Many authors will regard the idea that Suetonius would have travelled along Watling Street as a reasonable and plausible supposition, but we know it's not in the original accounts and that there's no other evidence for it. NebY (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: it's similar to the situation with Londinium and Verulamium. One modern source was cited for a statement that the rebels went from Londinium to Verulamium up Watling Street. That's supposition again. It's a plausible route, but it's also plausible that the rebels would have chosen not to use the Roman road, for whatever reasons. Worse, we don't know which the rebels sacked first (Tacitus and Dio don't say, and Vandrei tells us that modern accounts vary) or even that they proceeded in a single force and didn't sack them separately in the general and diffuse laying waste of Roman settlements that Tacitus describes. Happily, we can simply not say which was sacked first. The article's none the worse for that. NebY (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

All true, see you on the talk page next time! Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice contributions to Wikipedia! Also sorry for my unsourced edit. I hope you forgive :( MintyEditor (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hermes

Please im telling you truth, Hermes Is also a winter because in some stories he was associated with death because he was a psychopomp and when someone dies his body becomes cold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaora (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Akaora: You have never presented a reliable source that says Hermes was a god of winter, therefore you must not add such claims to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our most important policies. Your chain of reasoning above - that association with corpses makes one a god of winter because corpses are cold - is entirely inadequate. I read on your talk page that "I just wanted a greek god who is an olympian to be associated with winter" and we can believe that is your motive, but it does not justify knowingly adding your fabrication to Wikipedia. You must stop doing that, otherwise you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I can send you a link of the greek Wikipedia here https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%95%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%AE%CF%82_(%CE%BC%CF%85%CE%B8%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B1) Akaora (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You are quoting the addition you yourself made to the Greek Wikipedia[8] and which is contrary to the source quoted there. I have that book beside me as I write, open to that section. It does not say Hermes is a god of winter. You are knowingly inserting your own invention. Stop. NebY (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Kuraokami

Kuraokami Is the god of winter and storms since he is an asian dragon because those dragons are associated with protection, good luck and power. Also chinese/japanese dragons are mino weather deities since they bring water, breath Clouds and move the seasons Akaora (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm moving this and the previous section to your talk page as the issues are with your editing. NebY (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop reverting additions of new prefixes

The prefixes were made official today, and one of the main drivers for them per the BIPM proposal was precisely informatics. There is a ridiculous amount of precedent on WP for giving all prefix multiples, even the ones that basically nobody uses in real life other than to continue the pattern (e.g. yottagrams, yottametres, etc. when everybody actually working on those scales uses scientific notation and probably other units like Earth masses or light-years/parsecs/redshifts respectively). The additions to {{Quantities of bytes}} were made by three editors (including myself), and at Tonne we have yet another different one who originally added the R and Q prefixes for the grams column. And yet a different editor (Quondum) added them to {{SI multiples}}, which naturally creates a whole bunch of completely new prefix-unit combinations that have never been seen before (which is obviously natural since the prefixes were made official today). Only you seem to be reverting the additions. Given just how many Wikipedians are clearly on the side of adding the new prefixes throughout immediately, it seems to me that the burden of D for discussion in WP:BRD rather lies on you. Double sharp (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

...and I just got thanked by Dondervogel 2 for reverting you at {{Quantities of bytes}}, precisely proving my point about the obvious consensus. Double sharp (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Ridiculous", "nobody uses in real life other than to continue the pattern", "everybody actually working on those scales uses scientific notation and probably other units", "prefix-unit combinations that have never been seen before", "just how many Wikipedians", "I just got thanked by Dondervogel 2".

You know of WP:BRD but rather than read and follow it by opening a discussion on an article's talk page, you choose to come to my talk page instead. Now that you've finished putting your case together, please do go ahead and make it on an article talk page (or even at WT:PHYSICS) so that other editors, whether those "many" or others, can join in. NebY (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't see why I need to, since you seem to have stopped reverting. Like I said, the burden of discussing is on you, as you are the one making changes against the obvious consensus. Double sharp (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer not to edit-war. You might like to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Add ronna- and quetta- to units articles?. NebY (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I gotta confess, I wasn't aware that getting thanked for an edit was all it took to prove that the edit was valid. I'll keep that one in my back pocket for future disputes. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Kuraokami

Why you deleted my Hard work??? It took me so long to read all of theese and you still deleted everything??? Akaora (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Kuraokami

I didn't vandalize anything I just wanted to add more informations to a god I thought it could be interesting Akaora (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your conduct on the flag of Antarctica discussion

You came into a heated discussion and helped calm things down and keep them productive. It was model conduct, much harder to do than you made it seem. It was very much appreciated.  Not A  Witty Fish 15:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Gosh. Thank you very very much and I'm very pleased that suited you - it might not have done! I think editing Wikipedia does something to some of us; "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has developed and even codified some pretty good norms. NebY (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass reversion of my edits.

Hello. It seems like you revert other people's edits without understanding what you are talking about. I did my research and it is it is only the {{Expand}} template which is put out of use. The {{Expand language}} are one of the alternatives users are encouraged to use instead. Read Template:Expand again perhaps.

This feels very frustrating for me. If you revert me again, you'll rediscover my name not on this talk page but on the Administrators' noticeboard. Synotia (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is only {{Expand}} that is deprecated (my comments were wrong in that and I apologise) but I hope by now you have read my other comments on your talk page and will take an interest in improving the encyclopedia for our readers. NebY (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I respect you admitting you were wrong and I will take into account what you said. Since I see you use the Javascript Twinkle tool, could you please unrevert my edits? I assume it would be easier for you than for me.

And by the way, I occasionally translate stuff myself too. For instance, the bilingual square in Jäger Report was artisanally translated by me like a few days ago. Synotia (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Despite my error in the edit summary, my objections to your mass tagging stand and are only enhanced by your argument that the tagging serves to tell readers they could also look at an article in a foreign language which most will not understand. I see you have been editing since 22 October 2022 and since then have tried various ways of contributing, sometimes being cautioned accordingly. If you can provide attributed translation (and are aware of the serious problems with machine translation, which have had repercussions), then do so! NebY (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

NebY, I have to agree with Synotia here. Edits like this are incorrect and should be reverted. It seems you are fundamentally opposed to the use of these templates: if so, start a TfD or a policy discussion, but don't revert an editor who uses an accepted template correctly, and don't lecture them about being new (WP:BITE) or about unrelated stuff lile machine translations. Fram (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Fram, my summary focused on a single aspect and in that I was wrong. I went into more detail on Synotia's talk page, where I wasn't the first to raise concerns about those tags and have not been the last. Not every permitted edit is an improvement, not everything that can be done should be done, and not even every tag that can often be placed should be placed often. Nevertheless I won't seek out more such tags by Synotia nor revert again if my reverts are reverted by Synotia, yourself or whoever. The comment about machine translation was meant to be a helpful caveat to my positive encouragement (I've glimpsed too much trouble and drama) and I was trying to sympathise with a new editor that was trying to find good ways to contribute, but as they'd already threatened me with the Administrators' noticeboard, this was probably not the time and did therefore cross into WP:BITE. I apologise and accept your warning. NebY (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kindly stop.

I think you ought to listen to what people above are saying to you. People don’t appreciate mass reversion of edits. You’ll find yourself very widely disliked if you carry on this sort of behaviour. For the record, you’ll find if you care to look back enough that it was me who used the hours it took to put in those rounded figures in the first place, and it’s therefore my discretion to remove them. If no one bothered earlier, they have no right to remove what was originally my edit(s). The majority is determined by difference of percentages, absolutely no one supports your thesis of a majority based on division of the turnout. 2A02:C7F:9884:C000:8954:378B:4EC9:5579 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not a matter of your discretion to remove your edits, you have agreed "to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL" The majority is the difference between votes. The majority percentage is that difference as a percentage of the turnout. You used to know this. What's changed? NebY (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought of the reader for a change and developed some sense! 2A02:C7F:9884:C000:3460:DF8A:E915:4C1D (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We show respect for our readers by being honest. NebY (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)