User talk:NebY/Archive 4
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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"
.[1] 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)
Latest Tech News
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Over the next three weeks, dark mode will become available for all users, both logged-in and logged-out, starting with the mobile web version. This fulfils one of the top-requested community wishes, and improves low-contrast reading and usage in low-light settings. As part of these changes, dark mode will also work on User-pages and Portals. There is more information in the latest Web team update. [2]
- Logged-in users can now set global preferences for the text-size and dark-mode, thanks to a combined effort across Foundation teams. This allows Wikimedians using multiple wikis to set up a consistent reading experience easily, for example by switching between light and dark mode only once for all wikis. [3]
- If you use a very old web browser some features might not work on the Wikimedia wikis. This affects Internet Explorer 11 and versions of Chrome, Firefox and Safari older than 2016. This change makes it possible to use new CSS features and to send less code to all readers. [4][5]
- Wikipedia Admins can customize local wiki configuration options easily using Community Configuration. Community Configuration was created to allow communities to customize how some features work, because each language wiki has unique needs. At the moment, admins can configure Growth features on their home wikis, in order to better recruit and retain new editors. More options will be provided in the coming months. [6]
- Editors interested in language issues that are related to Unicode standards, can now discuss those topics at a new conversation space in MediaWiki.org. The Wikimedia Foundation is now a member of the Unicode Consortium, and the coordination group can collaboratively review the issues discussed and, where appropriate, bring them to the attention of the Unicode Consortium.
- One new wiki has been created: a Wikipedia in Mandailing (
w:btm:
) [7]
Problems
- Editors can once again click on links within the visual editor's citation-preview, thanks to a bug fix by the Editing Team. [8]
Future changes
- Please help us to improve Tech News by taking this short survey. The goal is to better meet the needs of the various types of people who read Tech News. The survey will be open for 2 weeks. The survey is covered by this privacy statement. Some translations are available.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Happy New Year... with return of old acquaintances!
Hello NebY - Do you happen to remember this case [9]? 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 [10] to here [11] 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)
- @Blue Indigo: You were right to take it to BBB23; 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)
- @NebY: - After leaving my msg to you & seeing no movement on your page, I thought of Bbb23 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 Wikipedia: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.[1] 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)
References
- ^ "UN projects world population to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, driven by growth in developing countries". United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. July 29, 2015. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
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 Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. PLease also read Wikipedia: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#Patrick Buckley 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, NebY. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)