A Golden Handmaid of Hephaestus for you![edit]

A Golden Handmaid of Hephaestus for you!
Thanks for helping with the Hephaestus automatons section!

And the part about the Minoan civilization, I found it already there, I had doubts too but I didn't want to interfere so i simply rearranged it. Xclamationmark (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello sir. I know what I edited and It's true.Zuijin have been described as guardians and protectors of people. Also what I added was from the Japanese wikipedia, you can check it if you want. You could also replace what I added in history just by saying the same with other words but please don't always say that I make vandalism 2A02:587:1E69:6839:DD81:488E:4225:FA00 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To edit Wikipedia, log in to your account and appeal your block at User talk:Akaora. NebY (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I don't remember my Akaora account, can you send me the password. Also I said that Persephone isn't the goddess of life.She didn't gave birth to humans. Also since she is the queen of the underworld it's ruler.Every god according to different mythologies can destroy anything what does goddess of destruction mean??? 2A02:587:1E69:6839:287D:F948:66AD:5390 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have access to your password - see Help:Reset password for instructions. In order to be unblocked, you will have to address the issues that caused you to be blocked and convince the administrator that you not only understand what you were doing wrong but will also take steps to avoid repetition. Your attempts to reason about religion and mythology rather than relying on reliable sources indicate that you do not understand the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You would need to read Wikipedia:No original research, understand it and show that you understand it and would edit in accord with it. NebY (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Stop following and hunting down my edits to revert them. You do not get to remove sourced content and keep only what YOU desire. I had already come to consensus with Skyerise. Rote1234 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I recommend reading that page in its entirety to work towards a well-rounded understanding of how we build this encyclopedia, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content, shortcut WP:NOTEVERYTHING, is particularly pertinent: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." NebY (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you allow mention of Aristotle, Elagabalus, Alexis Bela and King George but no one else because you are the authority? Rote1234 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Skyerise said on your talk page, "Encyclopedias are not built by inserting little bits of trivia." If you wish to argue that the description of Tostig Godwinson's rule as "despotic" is so significant it belongs in our articles on Despotism and Enlightened absolutism as beneficial to our readers' understanding of those subjects, make that case on the articles' talk pages and gain consensus for your insertions there. NebY (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Caius Titus (senator)[edit]

Hello NebY. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Caius Titus (senator), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not sure this is obvious enough to fall under G3. Thank you. BangJan1999 00:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've never had occasion to use that tag before and was quite unsure what we'd regard as sufficiently blatant. There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Caius Titus (senator)?; I guess one of us can write it up at AfD but I've run out of time for now. NebY (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verba volant[edit]

Hello there! Thanks for your help with the Caius Titus/Verba volant issues. I realize you're busy IRL (I read the top here), but I wonder whether, if you have the time in the next few days, you could look over/help with verba volant. I've tried to improve it a little given what little I could find—I was unsuccessful finding it in any of my printed Latin texts, although some of them are unindexed, but I found a few instances online and cited them, and tried rewording the parts I thought could use it—though the last paragraph remains unsourced (but pretty obvious). I thought perhaps Black's Law Dictionary might have it, but evidently not.

I cited three books of proverbs, of which the last, from some group called S.O.M.A. (but titling their book "SOMA") that I couldn't identify, may be the least useful. The third one I found, from 1893, seemed important to include, since it predates the others considerably. I cited Turretin, since it was the oldest and most authoritative use of the full phrase in context that I could find, and quoted the passage in which it occurs in a footnote, but you found partial matches that were older still—I didn't cite them as they were partial, aside from being in sources that looked difficult to cite correctly (and I'm not even sure I cited Turretin properly, given that it was an 1848 printing of a 1687 collection of previously-published works that I couldn't date individually).

I also tried to provide clear guidance on how to translate/interpret the phrase, being slightly less literal than the article previously implied, as it's hard to do so literally (for instance, no version says "spoken" words, although it's implied in all of them; littera is "letter", not word; various translations give "fly, fly away, are fleeting", "remain, endure"). I'm afraid I've made a bit of a muddle of it all, just trying to clean it up and make it a little clearer than it was, with some kind of citations. Any help you can provide—or advice you can give—would be welcome! P Aculeius (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: I don't think I've got anything to hand but I'll see if there's anything I can contribute - I'm hoping to catch up with a few things! NebY (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I'm noticing User:Sleyece is specifically reverting several of your edits on two articles. I have left a warning on his talk page about edit warring in the Alexander the Great article. Have they been targeting other articles that you work on? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Not that I've noticed, and as Ifly6 (with whom Sleyece had the arguments at Talk:Julius Caesar#Sleyece 1 and Talk:Julius Caesar#Sleyece 2) has recently done so much good work on Julius Caesar, S might have expected the first response to be from them, not me. NebY (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello mr NebY. Why did you deleted my asking for help??? I just wanted only to find more informations why did you delete it? 2A02:1388:208D:C1CC:0:0:DA3B:B756 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not try to get other editors to proxy for you. You're blocked and if they make edits for you, they can wind up blocked too. If you want to edit Wikipedia, do it on your account: appeal your block at User talk:Akaora. NebY (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why deleting Content[edit]

Hello again mr NebY. Give me a good reason why you deleted my informations about the agathodaemons. I said where I add the informations from. Also I can't be logged in my account because they don't let me. Any Time I try to get inside my account even if I write correct both the password and my username they say incorrect username or password. Please stop deleting my work because that't unfair 2A02:1388:2181:46B3:0:0:DBF8:6F19 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated your copyright violation - see WP:COPYVIO. That alone is grounds for maintaining your block but if you wish to appeal your block, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Until you have successfully done so, you are blocked from editing Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Account[edit]

Hello mr NebY. Can you please delete all of my Wikipedia accounts like Akatora, Fuyujin, Greatgeo and Akaowl please??? I don't want them anyomore and I don't know how to add more informations on the pages of zuijin and agathodaemon. So please delete all of my accounts. 2A02:1388:14A:5D22:0:0:47FF:7C45 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DISAPPEAR - but Akatora, Fuyujin, Greatgeo and Akaowl are not your Wikipedia accounts anyway. NebY (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. I made those accounts. Besides most of them have the same password 2A02:1388:14A:5D22:0:0:47FF:7C45 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of those have not been registered, let alone edited any article. NebY (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

interpretatio graeca[edit]

hi i tried to fix interpretatio graeca by making thoth the right gender, but i accidentally made him phoenician. can you fix it? Ghost_Cacus (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert yourself. But do beware of that table. Nothing in it is sourced, and the impression it gives that many gods across multiple belief systems are equivalents of each other is grossly misleading. Casaubon wasted a lifetime and cruelly neglected his marriage in his attempt to compose The Key to All Mythologies; aligning superficialities in that table, filling gaps and determining genders could consume anyone likewise. NebY (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i made a bunch of edits on it trying to fix it. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So revert them all. If you're ever tempted to work on that table again, do remember that These are not necessarily gods who share similar traits (as viewed by modern scholarship or readers, at least), and rarely do they share a common origin (for that, see comparative Indo-European pantheons); they are simply gods of various cultures whom the Greeks or Romans identified (either explicitly in surviving works, or as supported by the analyses of modern scholars) with their own gods and heroes. In other words, unless the Greeks or Romans themselves knew of those gods and saw them as equivalent, either writing about the identification directly or (according to the analyses of modern scholars) clearly alluding to the identification, those other gods and goddesses should not be included in the table. NebY (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Keep the faith! Oh and it looks like the game is up - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exnihilox 10mmsocket (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good report! Enough detail but not too much. I did not expect them to auto-destruct like that, and I see they now "intend to get the user removed from Wikipedia!"[1] so that'll be interesting. :) NebY (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Any idea which user? You? Me? I'll get my bag of popcorn. I hope you're OK b.t.w. that once both are properly blocked I'll look to work with [[@PamD to restore the article back to where it was before all the shenanigans. Thanks for your help so far. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought it was me but you may be on the list now. Yes, I'm fine, thanks; hope you are too. I'll happily leave the article to you and PamD to sort out - just as long as that one-day workshop in 2015 and the "broader initiative" that is "also relevant" and "it should be noted" don't last long! NebY (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted and is also relevant that Pam and I will take a broader initiative, possibly via a one day workshop, to see how to restore the article back to normality. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
bwahahaha! NebY (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine deities[edit]

You didn't answer yet, so:

Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussion must be at an article talk page or project talk page; an editor's talk page is not the place to establish WP:CONSENSUS among all editors interested in the matter. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology is virtually moribund and this is a matter of ancient religions rather than mythology, so you could raise your questions at the considerably busier Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and link to it from the talk pages of the 15–20 articles. NebY (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thank you for the project suggestion. I will move the topic to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome then, but before that I would like to know your personal idea on how to include that info. How would you personally integrate it into the articles? Based on the WP:LEAD page you linked, I suppose you would expand the info in the body of the articles first and then add it to the lead, correct? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been told at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sabine deities / User:NebY (edit-war, potential vandalism), this is the wrong place. NebY (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for working on that troubled section and for changing the heading! I did not know the tag for maintaining links when the heading changes.

I have become obsessed with that article and ultimately it's all so horrible. I hope the following is not too much unwelcome verbiage spilled on your talk page.

The "glue" that for me is missing in the article is something I remember reading a decade ago that I have yet to stumble back upon. To cut to the chase, it's that a privileged verna is rather like Jon Snow, if GOT references make sense to you. Or Jon Snow when the pretense that he was Ned Stark's bastard was operational. It's often mentioned that the vernae might have actually been the children of males in the household; that's been conjectured for that sweet little fellow in the bust under "Vernae". But in terms of origins, the thing I can't locate but have seen is that in earliest Rome, what you're really talking about is something like concubinage or even polygamy, when the clan leader fathered children with multiple women, one of whom was the head wife. (This existed still for some of Rome's neighbors; according to Caesar, Ariovistus had two wives.) For whatever reasons, the Roman legal mind evolved and all that became too messy; for clarity of inheritance and alliances between families, the Romans became distinctly monogamous (serially, though—look at how many wives Caesar and Pompey had).

So the point is that the potestas exercised by the "hand" of the paterfamilias was in essence the same over his sons and his slaves—hence emancipatio and manumissiomancipium actually being the logical opposite of emancipatio, a point of legal history that will probably come up when this section is fully developed. We often underestimate the extent to which a freeborn male under the age of thirty was not considered a full adult if his father was still alive, and legally in some ways was still a minor, constrained as to what kind of business decisions he could make because he didn't actually own property. Like those privileged slaves who conducted business, he could get stuff done, but the res was still not really his but his father's. (And by curious not-coincidence, thirty is the standard age for manumission in the imperial household.) So technically in earlier times, the father had the same right to kill his own son or sell him into slavery as he did slaves. That's the point that I find hard to get my modern head around. While the term emancipatio is not used elsewhere in the article, it is implicit in the "Origins" section as part of the father's potestas, the power of life and death he held over both his offspring and his slaves (mostly vernae in relatively small numbers before the wars of conquest). But the paths of legitimate sons and bastards diverge after being released from the "hand"—Rob Stark gets to succeed his father, and the Jon Snows of the Roman world have to go make their own way. Now, obviously only a limited number of vernae in the best-attested periods are the biological children of the pater or of his legitimate sons. But if you treat some vernae too differently, you have to admit who they really are. (Peripherally, Ronald Syme loved to conjecture who among the late Republican elite had fathered children with women of their same class married to someone else, children left politely unacknowledged.)

Anyway, I didn't want to seem to be barking ownership, beclouded by my current obsession with understanding this repulsive institution (I've concluded that I would undoubtedly be a slave in ancient Rome)—but this is why I didn't want to imply that emancipatio and manumissio are unrelated, because they are both manifestations of the same paternal potestas to control the people of his house. And in terms of social history, the nature of that potestas in relation to both family and familia is one thing that makes the institution of slavery among the Romans functionally different from that of the US Confederacy, arguably the most notorious manifestation. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unwelcome at all, or too much; it's just enough to set my mind to reshuffling its fragments. Thank you! The GOT references are unfamiliar but classicists are used to reconstructing from very little. I don't think I've come across the idea of concubinage in early Rome, and now I'm trying to imagine the consequences; for example, if warlords/patricians and their officers practiced polygamy, would that leave lots of single men to fight and die for Rome?
I too have had trouble with potestas, eased a little when I read more about Roman law; how fundamental potestas was to it and how clear potestas was within it; how contract and commercial law was thoroughly conditioned by potestas, from loans to sons in potestas being not merely not lawful but downright prohibited by Vespasian, to the institution of peculia leading to a complicated limitation of the father's liability in commerce, because anyone in potestas might have a peculium, not just slaves. Aha, you're right - there's a lot more to it than the superficial similarity of the emancipatio process, to which I wasn't paying attention anyway.
It may not be surprising that vernae weren't acknowledged as children of the owners (or their sons) but I've been mystified that moderns don't consider it more often; I suppose it's not obvious in the sources and Victorian scholars wouldn't want to admit it of their role models, but still. Your section on vernae is a revelation, especially concerning their privileges, and it's been a pleasure to see you creating the beautifully sourced and terribly difficult section on sexual ethics and attitudes, but I remain very surprised that the use of female slaves by their owners isn't taken for granted; not "the done thing", perhaps, but it's not as if there'd even be a question of having to send the pregnant maidservant away. We have Martial on slave boys; it's a mystery to me there aren't more traces of the use (abuse) of women and girls - or is it hiding in plain sight?
I could go on, but it's late here, and I want to think some more too! NebY (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citing journal articles[edit]

Hi, yes, thanks, it helped me, I didn't know that, thanks. A greeting. --LukeWiller (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

UK constituency pages[edit]

I appreciate that the general election hasn't been called but the parties have started selecting candidates. Given that why wouldn't those candidates be included on constituency pages. BenDavis72 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not candidates yet. As Bondegezou noted, we wait for the returning officer's Statement of Persons Nominated to discover who has actually been nominated. This also has the virtue of avoiding any rush to list members of this or that particular party on Wikipedia, and doesn't involve us in betting on a new Parliamentary Constituencies Act passing before the next general election. If you've not seen it already, you may find this recent discussion at ANI about "preparation" edits interesting as well. NebY (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion indeed. I actually disagree and think the listing of selected candidates now is ok but it isn't important enough to argue about to be honest.
BenDavis72 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English varieties[edit]

Many thanks for the correction re the different varieties.

much appreciated Wprlh (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wprlh: Ah good! You may find American and British English spelling differences interesting, and its associated articles on other differences. What's more, though MOS:ENGVAR is written largely in terms of American and British English, as MOS:TIES indicates, we recognise several other varieties and WP:RETAIN applies to them too. NebY (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jerk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


mr NebY spiritualists also fulfil the role of psychopomp because in their sleep they see the spirits of the dead and return them back to the afterlife. Please don't delete that edit. You can see other sources of Spiritualism if you don't believe me 2A02:586:1E33:AAFC:C47D:75A3:E14B:37DE (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death deities[edit]

An IP user is posting barely-comprehensible complaints about you and death deities on my talk page. I can't see anything actionable coming out of it but just making you aware. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Stifle! Those are impressively model answers you're giving them. That's blocked User:Akaora, who keeps trying to insert their WP:OR about religion and mythology with extraordinary reasoning (eg [2][3] and yesterday the above) and copyvios. I routinely revert them in mainspace per WP:RBI but not on user talk pages. That specific issue of whether List of death deities should include deities associated with death or only those who actually end lives (as Akaora seems to think) is being discussed at Talk:List of death deities#What is the Selection Criteria?; if you do have any interest, your contribution would be very welcome. NebY (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ((sofixit)) is sometimes useful.
As to the underlying issue, I am afraid I have no knowledge of the subject so will not therefore attempt to add any further ignorance to the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hello mr NebY. Im sorry for my not accurate edit on doomsday page i just thought doomsday had invulnerability and razor-sharp claws and teeth. Im so sorry Kizetora (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akaora/Kizetora: You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia and you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia whether or not you log in to an account. That is all. NebY (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not??? What i am doing wrong??? Kizetora (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauryan map.[edit]

If you have problem with the proposed map. Please reply to my requests in the talk page of mauryan empire. The caption says "Mauryan map as per Vincient arthur and RC majumdar" while the map doesnt include aria at all, while Both RC majumdar as well as Vincient Arthur have talked about aria as being the part of Mauryan empire. Thank you. Magadhan3933 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing RfC[edit]

Thanks for doing that. I should have done, although I confess I was a little concerned how the edit would be received! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it does make some sense that I do it, and I can draw on some experience of other RFCs to chat about process if need be. NebY (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisyphus Prime[edit]

Did you even click the link to Ultrakill? Sisyphus is inside of it. 2001:8003:E864:3100:A57A:4EDF:5012:BAA1 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:ALSO. NebY (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Childhood[edit]

Hello, I am that editor. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, this was my first substantial edit. My goal was to add to Artemis’s mythology section in the same way that Apollo’s page is structured. (His page explains his myths in detail.) I saw the link to undue weight. Is the main problem that it was explained in too much detail? Would it have been acceptable if it were more paraphrased rather than the full story? A big difference between Artemis and Apollo is that the latter appears much more in mythology. Does the undue weight rule mean that Artemis's comparatively small myths and minor appearances shouldn't be elaborated on the same way? How long would be considered too long?
I did understand the complaint of it being my own interpretation though. I was recounting the story exactly, only trying to use slightly more modern and accessible language but I realize now that it may have seemed like I was making up my own version. I see the issue. I want to get a better understanding and give it another, better attempt in the future. I hope you can point me in the right direction, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of questions here and other issues too. I may not cover all of them. Broadly speaking, Greek mythology, though often charming and preserved by copyists, wasn't central to Greek religious beliefs and practices. Nor was it sacred; there was no "gospel truth". Greek dramatists and poets freely invented and embellished, and the surviving texts are full of literary conceits and framing devices unique to a particular work. This may be particularly true of Callimachus, a very prolific writer working centuries after Homer and Hesiod, or indeed the great tragedians. We should rely on the treatment of such material in WP:RS reliable sources of modern scholarship, not go straight to WP:PRIMARY sources ourselves. We should not bulk out articles using scanty material to match the quantity on another subject. WP:OTHERCONTENT applies too; other articles may not be examples that we should follow (see how different our Ares and Apollo articles are). And of course, we should always think of the reader. We're not here to do Artemis justice or be fair to her; we're giving readers an encyclopedia article that they can easily read and find relevant without having to slog through one particular writer's rendition. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, part of a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, puts it well: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." NebY (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, we shouldn't use it.[4]. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion did surprise me and took a little time to assess so thank you for posting this! NebY (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Brinkmanship from Tyrant article[edit]


You removed Brinkmanship from the See also list of Tyrant. In my opinion, Brinkmanship is suited for the Tyrant page because of the use of nuclear deterrents, WMDs, or threats of war by contemporary and historical tyrants. Lau737 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brinkmanship is commonplace and not particular to tyrants. Brinkmanship makes hardly any reference to people regarded as tyrants, and none to "tyrant" or tyranny. Contemporary and historical tyrants have also used armies, prisons and taxation but we're not going to recommend our readers also see those articles. NebY (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC controversies[edit]

Hey there, thanks for your corrections on BBC controversies. The source given wasn't exactly a news report but a blog-like entry in a history section on the BBC website. I am unsure how to reflect that best. ~ JackTheSecond (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - you're right, though the colouring is the same as the news section, it's not a news report, yet I think calling it a blog might be misleading too. Tricky. It's anonymous but it doesn't seem right to describe it as "The BBC, in its History of the BBC pages, describes it as ...." Perhaps something more like "The BBC's online history of itself describes it as ..."? NebY (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds close to the mark to me. "The BBC, on its website, describes it as ..." would be an even less authoritative version, since more general. I'm going to leave it to you- tricky indeed. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think! :) For me, "BBC describes" is more authoritative so (not feeling very inspired) I've gone for the "BBC's history describes" approach - maybe you or someone else will improve on it. NebY (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! NebY (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removing eros photo[edit]

Hi there! I wonder if you could be more specific about what material may have been copyrighted in the edits I added to this page, though I can make at least two guesses. The first is that I wrote in the caption on the quick facts box what was written on the display page in the photo itself; the second could be that I included the display page itself in the photo, which is museum material technically separate from the (hopefully obviously) ancient marble. Let me know what I should do differently: I'm happy to put my caption in plain language, add a citation, crop the photo, or any combination of those or whatever else you might suggest. I do want this photo uploaded in the stead of the photo there before. Let me know! Non-pegasus (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption you provided was a copy of the museum's text and violated their copyright. As to reinstating the picture, please don't; it's inferior in many ways, it does not have the virtues your ascribe to it and you do not have consensus to reinstate it. If you wish to discuss that further, the proper place is the article's talk page, Talk:Eros, where other editors may participate. NebY (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're breaking my heart, NebY. While I don't accept your claim that it doesn't have the virtues I ascribe to it, I accept that I should have (and I suppose, still could) initiate a discussion on the talk page. Later Non-pegasus (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Teret article[edit]

User: Rodericksilly has reverted my edit on the Ray Teret article for no explained reason; you may remember them for their edits on using the word "accusations" on The Reckoning (2023 TV series) article. I tried to write the Teret article in a more neutral way and I just felt that it seemed a bit weird how they gave no explantion to revert it. I don't know. (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step should be to open a discussion on the article talk page per WP:BRD. NebY (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking to ensure deletion discussion notices are “neutral, limited, and non-partisan”[edit]

Having seldom been involved in deletion discussions before, I was genuinely unfamiliar with the prohibition against canvassing. I apologize. Now that a similar category I created has been nominated for deletion (and many of the same editors are involved), I would like to post notices in the manner which is allowed.

I will not post on user talk pages. I intend to post on the talk pages of the category’s three WikiProjects, as well as the Politics and Government workgroup of WikiProject:Biography. Based on the rules, I will keep it very brief. Here is what I plan to say:

Title: Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office has been nominated for deletion.

Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the discussion here. Thank you.

Would that be acceptable? If it is, could I also please say that I received approval/clarification from you for this message and link to here - I can imagine some still interpreting the notice as continued canvassing, considering what happened last time, and would like to preempt the discussion getting sidetracked.

Thank you for your time. 1Matt20 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I can recognise egregious canvassing, I am not an authority on how to notify correctly and it would be wrong to invoke me as one, saying that I've approved any form of words or even provided clarification on it, as if that makes it right, or linking here. I suggest following the guidance at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Notifying interested projects and editors. NebY (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death parameter for BLPs[edit]

You insist on restoring death parameters on select BLP articles. This is morbid. There is no established criteria whether or not to include death parameters in a BLP infobox, but the vast majority of BLPs do not include them. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems prejudicial. Ieonine (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the vast majority of BLPs do not include them is an extraordinary assertion; do you have any evidence of that? BLPs that use ((Infobox person)) and similar templates include such parameters by default and it is not in the least morbid that they do, let alone prejudicial. We all die eventually. NebY (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reason[edit]

Why did you remove my comment and its reply. Was it accidentally removed by you? I think so. Kindly explain the reason. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Yes, it was either a software glitch because of various edit conflicts or my failure to cope with them properly. Thanks for letting me know quickly, in time for me to self-revert. My apologies. NebY (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]