User talk:NebY/Archive 4

Please familiarize yourself with self published sources
Such sources should be used with caution, not outright avoided. You have removed a citation, but retained the contribution. Why? Because the contribution was helpful, it was written by a knowledgeable professional with expertise in this area, and a higher quality source is not available. Go ahead and find a better source, rather than wantonly deleting someone's work.

Obviously you agreed that the information benefited the article, but intended to hide the source.


 * Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Your declaration that you are "a knowledgeable professional with expertise in this area" does not satisfy verifiability, and the website of Robert Miller is a self-published source. You seem to identify yourself as the author of http://www.robertmiller.ca/content/how_calculate_residential_property_tax_using_mil_rate, setting out to "help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources". You must understand that saying something is true because you've written it on your website is not verification.
 * Regarding your second para above, I haven't taken a view on whether the information benefits the article, and certainly haven't obviously agreed that. But in any case, your authorship is not hidden; every edit to Wikipedia is available in the article history, a history which is even searchable. You are clearly the contributor. All that's been removed is a citation which is not adequate for Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year... with return of old acquaintances!
Hello NebY - Do you happen to remember this case ? After case was closed last August, same reappeared under new names & was caught, resulting with closing of accounts that probably run to close to a dozen. I now suspect same has reappeared under new name. Having learned last year that getting into edit warring was dangerous, I will not take that route again & am asking for help at very beginning of what seems to be a new case when article & contributors are going to be held hostage, as happened to Marie Antoinette & Chartres. In other words, I am not going to revert last edit. Please check edits of today from here to here Method, style of writing, subject, poor English with same type(s) of mistakes, plus overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August.

I hope you will be willing & have the time to help.

Thank you in advance,

--Blue Indigo (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You were right to take it to ; they have the smarts and the tools to deal with this, plus they're around more often than I am - and as we've just seen, their talk page is watched by others with smarts and tools! NebY (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - After leaving my msg to you & seeing no movement on your page, I thought of who had intervened on my talk page last year. I do hope that team has "the smarts & the tools to deal with this", as you put it. I do trust they have. Thank you for your help. You all work pretty fast! Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hello NebY,

Thank you for your note. This is my first time commenting on a talk page so I hope I'm doing this correctly.

Regarding the changes I made to the Muhammad page, there were intended to make the page consistent. God is the English equivalent for the Arabic "Allah". God, when capitalized, is understood by most to be the God of the Judaic and Christian traditions. This is the same God as that of Islamic traditions. So to use Allah in a passage that is otherwise in English suggests that Allah is a different God than that of the Jews and Christians, which, again, He is not. It is simpler to just be consistent and use the word God in every instance, except in certain names, like 'Abd Allah.

Thank you,

StealthStar talk 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you discuss it on the article talk pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. NebY (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC) On checking further I find that we have a clear guideline at WP:ALLAH, part of Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Most of the changes you made were directly contrary to that guideline, as Allah was "used as part of an English-language quote" whether or not marked with quotation marks. The two exceptions were references to the relationship between triple goddesses and Allah, a situation in which it's poor English and places an unneccessary burden of interpretaion on the reader to use the repetitive "God". NebY (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Protection
I've semi-protected your talk page for a week because of the repeated vandalism, in the hope it might dissuade them from wasting their life in this way. If you'd prefer leaving it open, let me know and I'll release the protection - alternatively, if it continues after expiry and you'd like further protection I'll be happy to do that too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and thanks to everyone else who's reverted this repeated vandalism. I hope the vandal's dissuaded too; I suspect it's much less gratifying for them than it is for me and the other targets. NebY (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NebY
Hi NebY, I'm just letting you know that I got the world population info. on the UN website, a reliable source, so please stop changing my edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-dog12.0 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article cites the UN as the source for 7.3 billion. We can't update the figure without supporting the update with a fresh reference. What fresh reference have you found? And did it really say in January 2016 what the world population was as of February 2016?
 * I'll leave a note on your talk page explaining how to sign posts on talk pages. NebY (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi NebY it's me again. Thanks for the advice on how to sign posts. B-dog12.0 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Doug Bresler
Hello NebY, I do not see why the article on Doug Bresler was unreliably sourced. The user GauchoDude had previously approved my edit and said that those sources will suffice. Please add more information later; I will be undoing the edit. 74.138.130.163 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)User


 * GauchoDude thanked you for adding a source. They did not note that the source was not a reliable one - see Identifying reliable sources. PLease also read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You need to gain consensus for your edit before reinsering it. NebY (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Buckley
You removed my addition of Patrick Buckley (priest) from the disambiguation page Patrick Buckley. I assume it was because it is a red link. However, the guideline states: "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere". Patrick Buckley (priest) is used in six other articles and I believe meets notability requirement; I'm surprised that there isn't an article on him already but expect one will eventually be written based on what a quick search turns up. Mb66w (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You removed my addition again without reason. I had discussed this with User:Some Gadget Geek and he agreed with my position.  Please see this User talk:Some Gadget Geek and revert your change. A redlink is within the MOS and considered useful. Mb66w (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to discuss this on the article talk page - see WP:BRD - and try to gain consensus there, not negotiate separately with different editors. In doing so, do bear in mind the purpose of a Wikipedia disambiguation page. NebY (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Which claim is unsourced in my edit on Christian Church?
Which claim is unsourced in my edit on Christian Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kszorp (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All of it. Please read No original research; it is "is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." If you then wish to continue, follow Bold, Revert, Discuss and discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, not here. NebY (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Will start following conventions more often, and being more meticulous. Thanks for the tips. -Cynulliad, 10 March 2016, 19:58 (UTC)

Greene's Tutorial College
A whole lot of reasonable changes, many made by yourself, to the Greene's Tutorial College page has just been undone. I'd undo them myself but am a very inexperienced Wikipedian who thought you might want to know.Mifachispa96 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion
This may be of interest, since you were involved in the previous round of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)