User talk:NebY/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement#McLeod_gauge

Hello NebY. I saw that you removed a reference to Harwood & Moody from the above article. The reference was not intended to the source of the photo (the proper place for that would be on the photo itself not an article). The reference was meant to be to a reference source that shows how to use such an apparatus. Perhaps the ref could be placed elsewhere in the article? Regards -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hi,

You asked where you should place a reference to a printed book that describes how to use a McLeod gauge. As it's not a source for the information provided in the article, it should be added as further reading rather than as a footnote-style reference. MOS:APPENDIX and specifically WP:FURTHER may be helpful, but of course WP:NOTMANUAL could be relevant. NebY (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NebY - OK, thanks for getting back to me. Use your judgement as to wether you wish to retain the reference in it's current placement. Yes I agree with WP:NOTMANUAL, that's why it was added as a reference source, rather than the "how-to" information actually being added to the article. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anticartographicism

Well done in the NWLLRP, though you spoiled my fun. I was looking forward to those in the attic proposing an extension to run through the Tower Subway.--SilasW (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good grief!--SilasW (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Uday Hussein

Hi, sorry this [1] was my mistake. I was editing too quickly. raseaC^{talk to me} 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hi, I've seen you've made several edits in the Gibraltar article. I think they are quite accurate and straight to the point, and I think I agree in general with the criteria you've applied.

On the other hand, I am not sure about one specific edit. You've said that mentioning a specific town as the main destination of Gibraltarians is "superfluous".

My own opinion would be that the main destination of the massive exodus of a whole town is quite notable: Gibraltarians didn't simply vanish in the air; most of them established themselves in a very specific location called San Roque. Take into account that San Roque kept an administrative continuity with Gibraltar, all of its official records (which means that it is an important destination in order to research the History of Gibraltar pre-1704), its symbols (the banner), the largest part of the population (which means that it kept demographic continuity with pre-British Gibraltar), and is within sight of the original town (which means that there has been an important amount of interactions -both friendly and hostile- between the two sites during centuries). It has also kept a tradition of being a point of reference with regards to the culture and people of pre-British Gibraltar.

But I would say that the mentions in most reliable authors and sources are more important than my own opinion. Please check below a sample of mentions in the sources that are most widely used with regards to the History of Gibraltar:

Sample of quotes regarding San Roque

Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.: “ All bar about 70 of the 4000 inhabitants elected to leave, crossing the isthmus with whatever possession they could carry and seeking shelter over a wide area of Andalucia (..) Many settled in San Roque and the museum there has many mementoes of this troubled period; the town was granted formal recognition by Philip V in 1706 as 'My city of Gibraltar in the fields'. Other travelled as far afield as Ronda and Malaga. ” William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.: “ Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia. But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. ” George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. p. 166. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.: “ Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia. The number of refugees was probably about 4,000. Some found shelter in the mountain villages and towns as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Malaga. The wealthier refugees owned property within the extensive city boundaries beyond the isthmus. One of them, the regidor (town councillor), Bartolomé Luis Varela, gave houseroom in his country mansion to the city's standard and records; the City Council continued to meet there, and in 1706 obtained royal authority for the Gibraltarian refugees to establish themselves round the hermitage of San Roque. Philip V, in granting the authority and in subsequent communications, addressed them always as My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo. ” Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8. “ (..) a consequence of the allied occupation of the peninsula in 1704 was to break the established connections with the people and resources of the mainland. Compounding this diffi culty, the allied occupation in 1704 prompted the exodus from Gibraltar of virtually all the resident civilian population. True, such departures had happened on previous occasions in Gibraltar’s history when new regimes took over after successful sieges, as in 1309 and 1333. But this time the civilian population’s concerns for their safety under British control were compounded by not unreasonable fears of mistreatment by Protestant troops. Most Catholics, perhaps 1,500 families, maybe 5,000–6,000 people, transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque. A British officer listed the names of those few Spanish who remained and were still resident in 1712. There were twenty-five family groups and sixteen individuals, including a couple of friars and two Catholic priests, possibly as few as 70 people, or 120 at most (..) ” Isidro Sepúlveda (2004). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza (in Spanish). Madrid: Alianza. pp. 91–92. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) “ Tras la salida de la ciudad, unos cuatro mil gibraltareños se asentaron en los alrededores. Aunque algunos viajaron a las grandes ciudades de Sevilla y Málaga, los más quedaron cerca de donde pensaban pronto volver: algunos pescadores gibraltareños se instalaron en las ruinas de Algeciras, un grupo más numeroso creó el núcleo de Los Barrios, aunque el grueso de la población y el concejo se constituyó de nuevo en la cercana ermita de San Roque, que había sido fundada en 1640 a media legua de las ruinas de Carteia; el nuevo pueblo, a quién nadie tuvo la tentación de llamar Nuevo Gibraltar ante lo que se esperaba pronto retorno, ya fue reconocido en 1706 por Felipe V como "Mi ciudad de Gibraltar en ese Campo", y pasó a ser el heredero directo y continuador institucional de Gibraltar con su ayuntamiento, el archivo y el pendón que la reina Isabel la Católica había concedido a la ciudad "llave de estos reinos" ” Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 54. “ A small number came back to inhabit a hillside quarter where the dust of the rubble eddied in the down-draught of the wind over the Rock. But most of them settled in Spain round the hill of San Roque, within sight of the lost city. Their Sovereign, the Bourbon Philip V, whom the British soon recognised as lawful King of Spain, never ceased to regard them as the future burgesses of the fortress he daily mourned, and recognised the new municipality by Royal Patent as the Council, Tribunal, Officers and Gentlemen of the City of Gibraltar. To this day San Roque bears the arms and constitution of the Spanish City of Gibraltar in Exile. ” Edward G. Archer (2006). Gibraltar, identity and empire. p. 34. “ When the Anglo Dutch fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke occupied the Rock for England in 1704, the Spanish population, with a few exceptions, left Gibraltar and moved to San Roque, some miles inside Spain. ” Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. p. 117. “ Numbers fell by the way victims to hunger and fatigue some reached Tarifa, Medina Sidonia, Ronda and other towns in the neighbourhood while many especially the authorities remained at St Roque keeping with them the archives of their ancient city. ” Melissa R. Jordine (2006). The Dispute Over Gibraltar. p. 9. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) “ Most of the civilians who left Gibraltar never returned. Of those who left, most settled in the town of San Roque, overlooking the Bay of Gibraltar. These individuals not only remained within sight of “the Rock” but preserved the traditions of Spanish Gibraltar, retaining the flag and the standard that was bestowed by Queen Isabella. ” Dr. Johannes Kramer (1986). The History of Gibraltar: English and Spanish in Gibraltar. Buske Verlag. p. 10. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) “ The bulk of those who left turned to the nearby town of San Roque, taking with them all oficial documents of Gibraltar. San Roque was regarded as temporary refuge for the exiled Gibraltarians; it received the right to bear the city arms of Gibraltar and was given the official denomination “La Ciudad de San Roque donde reside la muy noble y mas leal de Gibraltar”. ”

You are right to say that this information may be "contentious", but only when it is used by Spanish irredentists (pretending that San Roque is "the real Gibraltar"), or by British nationalists (pretending that life in Gibraltar did simply not exist pre-1704).

On the other hand, I hope you agree on the factuality, notability and relevance of the exodus and its destination for the inhabitants of Gibraltar (at least for the ones pre-1704). It would be controversial if we were to say that "San Roque is the real Gibraltar", but this is not the case if we just mention that it was the main destination. Furthermore, this fact is mentioned by most relevant and uncontroversial sources.

Sorry for the long text, and thank you for your edits and your attention. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I admit, my use of the term "superfluous" was imprecise shorthand. The process of editing the encyclopaedia can be one of patiently considering the advantages and disadvantages of different phrasings, then realising with a start that the text works better if a phrase is simply excised so that the reader may be brought more rapidly to an understanding that might then serve as a platform for and an encouragement to further exploration. In that sense the excised phrase, however true, turns out to be "superfluous". The alternative may be that the phrase, at least as it is currently located, will need expansion and qualification if it is not to be misunderstood, to appear to claim something inaccurate or merely to be present to support some particular standpoint. Yes, sometimes that expansion and qualification can be delivered quickly and easily, but if it cannot we might do better to leave the matter to be expanded upon later, perhaps even in a section that directly discusses the existence of different standpoints.

In this instance, we have a paragraph that so far is describing the events of August 1704 and currently is even limited to 4 days of that month. (We could change that, of course.) It said that the townsfolk fled to San Roque and the neighbouring region. It requires no qualification to say that on August 7th they fled to the surrounding region, but it requires significant qualification to say that they fled to San Roque. We would have to explain that (in the quotations you sent me) Harvey says they first sought "shelter over a wide area of Andalucia" and Jackson says "Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia" and eventually "the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque", receiving royal recognition in 1706.

These are hazardous waters. If we accept the statements of Harvey, Jackson, Hills, Sepulveda and Andrews that you provided then Jordine and Kramer are anachronistic: there was no pre-existing town of San Roque in which they could settle and the Gibraltarians could not have turned towards that town. Examine Sayer and we stumble over "numbers fell by the way victims to hunger and fatigue" before we even reach the implication that the burgesses simply stopped as soon as they reached St Roque.

What’s worse, we don’t know if the phrase we had in Wikipedia, “fled to San Roque and ...”, misleads by suggesting San Roque was the main intended destination. Some readers would take it that way, some wouldn’t; some historians might claim it but it seems most wouldn’t.

So, that’s some of why I called that phrase superfluous. I’m leaving open the question of whether and how San Roque should be mentioned here or elsewhere in this article because I’d rather try to solve that by creating suitable text. But not now, especially as I seem to be writing very ponderous English! NebY (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do welcome any improvement in the grammar of that piece btw could you point to any source that says they fled to San Roque? As you seem to have some domain knowledge and access to sources I would welcome your comments. As written it implies an urgency that simply does not sit comfortably with the historical depiction. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot point to any source that says they fled to San Roque. The version you see now is not the product of my edits, which last read

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Violence followed the surrender with rape, looting and desecration of churches by occupying forces and reprisal killings by inhabitants.[10][11][12] By 7 August order was restored but almost all the population departed with the Spanish garrison.[11]

In the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) Spain ceded Gibraltar and Minorca to Great Britain, which had already begun to exercise sole control over Gibraltar. Minorca changed hands several times over the next century but Gibraltar remained under British rule despite various negotiations, blockades and a series of sieges culminating in the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1779-1783). It became a key base for the Royal Navy and played an important part prior to the Battle of Trafalgar (1805).

After I made the edits to produce that version, User:Imalbornoz contacted me as above rather than on the article's talk page. I read the quotes provided and responded, as above, that the quotations did not seem to support a claim that the destination of the inhabitants on that day was San Roque. I made no changes to the article. About half an hour later my edits were reverted by User:86.147.105.126. I hope to return to the matter one day but I'd rather not waste a lot of time on it. My responses to Imalbornoz above and yourself now already seem disproportionately longwinded! NebY (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to help keep these page discussions reasonable. Unfortunately, there is no longer any point. Two weeks after reaching consensus on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote the entire page to reflect his version of history stating that "he didn't agree with the consensus" calling it "capitulation." I give up. No evidence or explanation is accepted if it deviates from Mr. Wolfowitz' beliefs. I have more important things to do than argue with someone who refuses to see any viewpoint but his own, while Mr. Wolfowitz has nothing to do but sit on WP all day and monitor pages he has taken a personal interest in. With editors like him, Wikipedia becomes less and less accurate every day and will continue to discourage new editors who run across a Wolfowitz (and apparently some long-time editors have given up too). I hope that someday, WP has the desire to consider accuracy over ego and have some fact-checkers stop out-of-control editors from trying to change history. Hulcys930 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm

I just wanted to thank you for getting involved in the discussion, and for putting things in a way that both makes sense to me and apparently may have satisfied Jesse and Medeis...at least until they speak up again. Right now I'm planning to stay clear of the discussion unless other editors speak up, unless you feel I should speak up again, but I really think the unsourced "references" need to go, and that we should have clear criteria for inclusion per WP:LSC. Thanks again. Doniago (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe this skeleton just got dragged out of the closet...though I guess Halloween is coming up soon... Doniago (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Following the success of my last argument (who could have imagined References to Hamlet existed?) I'm considering pointing out that only scoundrels, debt defaulters and traitors resort to "self-evident truths". NebY (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for your help on Bicycle helmet. It's appreciated. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! NebY (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do

An editor who spent quite some time attempting to alter the page "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and was finally forced to accept a consensus (and has now reverted the consensus in the last 3 minutes again) is now "cleaning up" another page by the same author of the Heroes in Hell series and I have been told his "edits" are not considered "vandalism" by WP standards. This page, The Sacred Band of Stepsons, has stood unmolested for a year and a half but suddenly it needs to be "cleaned up" i.e., removing book cover images, rewording many paragraphs, taking out any mention of LGBT issues, and generally diluting the information on the page. I have no idea what to do in this case when there is a distinct lack of WP:AGP but he stays within the boundaries of "acceptable" behaviour. In the last 5 minutes he has also gone back into the Heroes in Hell series page, the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, the Heroes in Hell (book) and has redone all the edits that had been decided against by consensus. Can you help me? Hulcys930 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

deletion - bmi

hello,

i've posted my comment on the discussion section, is it possible we can establish some sort of discussion there?

thanks,

busybeeBusybee007 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI & Yahia

Thanks for spotting and correcting my mistake. In my defense, I had about 2 hours of sleep last night and am surprised I'm even functioning. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! But of course you've nothing to apologise for, that was just a typo on the way to fixing a bigger problem. Good to see you got such quick results. NebY (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of DRN submission

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a discussion on ANI about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering

Thanks for your diligence on the sources at Porscia Yeganeh. There is still one that I'm questioning if you have time to comment. Also, it seems someone has undone all the careful formatting of citations that I did on the bio and now the citations are all in a format that is not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. Not sure what to do about that. Thanks for all your help. --LarEvee (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wealdstone

I don't think the pages for Wealdstone, Harrow and etc should mention stations that are close or nearby. They should just mention the Stations that are in those areas. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 Oksen Mirzoyan Udder Northwick Park South Hampstead Cherrywood Village, Kentucky Kilburn tube station St Raphael's Estate Preston Road tube station International Lefthanders Day Sudbury & Harrow Road railway station Mapesbury Church End, Brent Sigil (application) Mingiyan Semenov Brent Park Frost line Harlesden station Preston, London

Cleanup London Borough of Southwark Harrow High School EPUB Merge List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density Nintendo DS Swiss Cottage tube station Add Sources North Wembley West Hampstead Kenton Wikify Namloyak Cath lab Kilburn Library (Camden) Expand List of churches in London Greater London Innocence of Muslims

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slaughter and May

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slaughter and May. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:KitchenAid

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:KitchenAid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

bicycle wheel

As you requested, I commented on article page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto

Hi NebY

Thank you for requesting the SPI on User:MeasureIT. I was beginning to get the feeling that (s)he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto. MeasureIT's initial ploy (three months ago) was to state that the UK was entirely metric (as a result of mis-interpretting a statement on the US metric association website) where Defacto had taken a strong anti-metric line. Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's all rather sad. Once I put the DeFacto and Lucy-marie accounts together I realised how much time she was spending here. But the "Ornaith" socking was particularly appalling; she simply saw Guy Macon as someone she could exploit. Feel free to add to the submission, or at least to be ready if I've not been clear enough. NebY (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denny's

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Denny's. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stockport, Grand Slams, and Andrew Murray

Read the criteria for grand slams. Andy Murray has not achieved all the components for one, though Fred Perry did, and is the last British person to so do. Although not a Reliable Source, the wikpedia article does contain accurate criteria and accurate lists of people, and you can see that Andy Murray has achieved but one component of a Grand Slam. Do not revert it unless you can supply accurate reliable sources that claim that he has done so, otherwise, long-standing editor (though "semi-retired") or not, you would not be abiding by the conventions of wikipedia here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I confused "Grand Slam" and "Grand Slam Title". I must not do that again. NebY (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite all right: we all make mistakes, and I am certainly not immune from making them myself. I must apologize for the slightly abrupt message, we have had some potential edit-warring about this in the past, and I got tired of it.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but don't worry, I know it's pretty much impossible to be pitch-perfect when you're dealing with the latest in a long run of fools. NebY (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

That is a properly closed thread, but as to your sentence

"I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that".

the correct phraseology instead of "why do you think that" is, "why would anyone think that", directing the conversation to the group instead of to any one individual. I can not guarantee that every group that uses parliamentary procedure does it properly, and if you look across the pond, the US uses phrases such as "my colleague" when you know they really mean "you slime". England engages in a great deal of yelling and jeering that is not tolerated in the United States. One of the most common set of rules for parliamentary procedure is called Roberts Rules of Order[2] "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!" Apteva (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)

You provided some input to the discussion about renaming this article. We are looking to close this off. If you have a preference for either of the two proposed titles, it would be appreciated if you could indicate your preference at Talk:AC/DC (electricity)#Requested move. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Letre

Check out my comment on the talk page. I tried to only remove content that wasn't plausible sourceable, meaningless or boarding on senseless.I am One of Many (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your recent editing history at Goldhawk Road tube station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harrow, London 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:

• Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital]] and [[Ladbrokes]], which has its headquarters in Harrow.<ref>[http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s63118/draft%20of%20Core%20Strategy.pdf Retrieved on 20

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

More detail please

Hello NebY, can you explain on Talk:Pint why you reverted my last change to Pint, particularly explaining what you think was inaccurate with the details I added. EzEdit (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess if you could support it, you would have by now. EzEdit (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It has already been explained at generous length, not least in the very article whose legibility and accuracy you have repeatedly damaged in the pursuit of some bizarre political correctness. Please do not post on my talk page again. NebY (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Looking at this edit, you refer to one of mine as an indirect attack. Excuse my obtuseness, but how do you work that out? I certainly didn't intend it as an attack on anybody, indirect or not. --Pete (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You implied that User:Lukeno94 was unreasonable with your "a reasonable person ... but you" construction[3] and you did so with such care that you chose to describe your edit as merely "indent after dot point". NebY (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm with you now. I thought that saying "If I'm told to stay off a talk page and I do precisely that, a reasonable person would take that as acceptable behaviour," was so transparently obvious that nobody could possibly take offence, and that Lukeno94 would then follow the logical path that he was actually proposing to block me for something which had already been addressed and remedied by Kim Dent-Brown. Given that no other editor supported such a block, and Luke chose not to articulate his logic, we can only speculate. I prefer to think that it was a misunderstanding and that Luke is, in fact, a reasonable person. I don't see anything to suggest otherwise. I like to take the Platonic view that we are all reasonable people and can accept facts and logic when clearly presented.

As for the edit summary, I adjusted the indentation. I then took the opportunity to refine my wording and thought it not worth adding further. Looking through my contributions, most of the time I don't add anything at all to the autogenerated inclusion of the section title, and when I do, it's just a few scant words. Some people write a paragraph of edit summary. I don't. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Italia

Hello, I reverted your last edit Italy (Ancient Rome). The article is about the political entity called "Italia" (a sort of special province of the Roman Empire). It's not about the history of the Italian peninsula and the military expansion of Rome through it. --Enok (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not clear at present. The title suggests the article is about Italy during the time of Ancient Rome. The first sentence ends "during Roman era" which - bad English side - does nothing to restrict the period either. As it would be tautologous to end it "during the period when Italy was governed by Rome and no longer independent", you need to find some other means such as a point in time, e.g. "from around 7 BC". I will try that change. But I'll avoid referring to it as a province of any kind at all, and also avoid the phrase "administrative division" which suggests Italy was just one of the divisions of the penninsula. NebY (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)NebY (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What is your problem?!?

Fist in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number website IBAN page ecbs.org (not owned by the European Committee for Banking Standards) also have a iban checker!

Second:what you understand from IBAN?!?

Third: Why remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sort_code link? you know other websites, use it? Are they your friends? Why not remove them too??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialenspe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DeFacto again

If you have time and inclination, I'd appreciate another set of eyes on Kilometers per hour. I've already started the SPI. Thanks. Garamond Lethet
c 01:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I was inclined to avoid that discussion but then I saw experienced editors joining in with new and positive contributions. Good to see and I hope they'll be able to carry on without being treated as new pastimes. NebY (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation to my comment on the Roman Numerals page, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and missed the 'Edit Details' entirely.

Thanks again, Jo

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanAllan2011 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cornwall

I've reverted your reversion, because it is a straight duplication of a later section of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Aargh! Sorry and thanks. I'll hold off trying to fix the messes left by those two new users until I've had more coffee. Looks like you and others are catching them all anyway. NebY (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)