This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

12 December 2024
News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited Op-ed: On the backrooms In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge? In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You didn't answer yet, so:

• How would you integrate the essential info about them being Sabine gods way before being adopted by Romans too? I would genuinely like to know. As I told you before, I would also like to expand that sourced statement in the body of the articles.
• Where would you prefer to discuss this dispute? Your talk page or WikiProject Mythology?

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 manumissio—mancipium 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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here's to a 2024 full of intriguing discoveries …

I don't know what Father Time's looking at,
but I appreciate Wikipedia editors like you.
Cynwolfe (talk)

Time (1810) by Pieter Christoffel Wonder

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

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]

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]

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 204.210.183.186 (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]

Hi

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]

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:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

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]

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

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]

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]

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. 92.17.198.220 (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. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

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]

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]

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]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks by the way for taking that up. I noticed it just a few moments ago, in part because I wasn't a watcher of the Roman empire page. (I think, after the tyrants take over, I'm just not that interested.) Even as I take a holiday, it seems to turn into my wade-into-text-walls era. Ifly6 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I suppose wading into a wall-o-text can be a holiday from meticulously sourced content creation. My interest fades too, and I read Roman history for pleasure rather than to edit, but the current opening sentence got under my skin. NebY (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, about the Dionysus article, can you please create a way to vote so a consesus can be reached? I know there is a way to create a vote but I never started one myself. Also it's very strange how the current Dionysus article has even less mentions of Thracians than I first edited. If Dionysus is considered to be 100% Greek why shouldn't Orpheus or Rhesus of Thrace or Spartacus be considered 100% Greeks since all Thracians are now Greeks according to wikipedia editors? Herodotus as well as all other ancient sources mention that Dionysus has either Thracian origins or at least that he has foreign origins, Dionysus being considered a "foreign god".

Thank you in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD and open a discussion on the article talk page (this is not the place). The discussion may go better if you first read WP:UNDUE, WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:LEAD, and avoid hyperbole. We don't vote to reach consensus - see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE. NebY (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you could have given that advice before threatening me to be blocked from editing. Wikipedia has a policy to Assume good faith. I already mentioned that it can be put to vote, thus reaching a Consensus. I never created a vote before though so that's why I asked you do create one for me. But now I will first open a discussion on the Dionysus talk page.

Have a good day. Ninhursag3 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you. I gave you a standard warning. You might do well to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

On Wikipedia, we do not reach consensus by voting. NebY (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ninhursag3, firstly, comparing Orpheus and Spartacus is like comparing Achilles and Leonidas I. Please do not confuse myth, legend, and flawed ancient testimonies with reality. Regarding Dionysus, in my opinion further discussion would be pointless and only waste our times, because modern scholarship has long rejected the origin of the Dionysian cult from Thrace, especially after the decipherment of late-Bronze Age Linear-B tablets with the name of Dionysus from Southern Greece. Hope that helps. Piccco (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, don't get confused. I only mentioned them because ancient sources say they're Thracian in origin, just like ancient sources say Dionysus was Thracian in origin. The way I phrased my sentences was more tongue-in-cheek.

" because modern scholarship has long rejected the origin of the Dionysian cult from Thrace, especially after the decipherment of late-Bronze Age Linear-B tablets with the name of Dionysus from Southern Greece." That still doesn't mean Dionysus in the era of Herodotus was the same cult as the one in late-Bronze Age. Dionysus as we know him today was a result of religious Syncretism via Interpretatio graeca that combines elements of Greek religion as well as Thracian religion. Still, Dionysus was seen as a foreign god and that text was before I started editing. I think we can reach a Consensus by combining our information and not deleting all mentions of Thrace or Thracians. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninhursag3 @Piccco This discussion about the article belongs on the article talk page, where others can participate and where it will remain visible so that others will be able to see how the article came to be in whatever state it may eventually be. NebY (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just responded to @Piccco. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

Sorry for my edit on the Kabul page. I simply moved the coordinates to the city center as shown on Google Earth but this appears wrong?

Alex ThaGreenlander (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article and click on the triangle to the left of the infobox co-ordinates; you'll see how off-centre it is, especially when you repeat the operation with the previous version. It may be that Google Earth is wrong, you may be making some other error, I don't know, but several edits you have made have similar problems. Please stop making such changes without gaining further authentication and consensus that you are processing map data appropriately; the small ones are not useful and the large ones are problematic. NebY (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I was just wondering if I could revert your edit that you performed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road yesterday (Sunday, 25 August 2024) at 22:25UTC. This is because I think that it is necessary as it is about an editor's views (@JMF, @10mmsocket etc.) on the matter. Also, I did the same with putting a comment from @Ajpolino at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Removing redirects (re-creating pages), and everything was fine with it, so I do not understand why it is not allowed here. Also, it is quite confusing to have the same conversation with alternating opinions in alternating places. Hope you understand what I am trying to say! Roads4117 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue now, as the AfD is closed, but no, it was not appropriate to copy those comments into the AfD. AfDs are a formal process that should remain focused on whether the article should be deleted, kept, merged or redirected and include only what editors wish to say about that question in that formal venue. There is often much discussion about the article on its talk page or elsewhere, before and during the AfD; it is not appropriate for anyone to paste that discussion into the AfD. It also risks gratuitously offending other editors, presuming to make the choice for them as to whether or not to contribute to the AfD. Your previous lesser copy to the Wikiproject talk was at the suggestion of others to go some way towards repairing the problem you'd created of "a virtually identical discussion on 49 different articles"; such a situation should not arise again. NebY (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for clarifying things. Roads4117 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a RfC process on Athena talk page to include or exclude the added content, you are welcome to vote and give your opinion on the matter. Potymkin (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about not correcting 'Princess Diana' from a quote where the author got it completely wrong. Thanks.
But with US Metrication the ridiculous, foul-mouthed quote from irrelevant movie should be removed. B. Fairbairn (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you take the point about changing quotations. As for Metrication in the United States, do read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, commonly referred to as WP:NOTCENSORED; especially the first and third paragraphs. Complaining of "obscene language" or calling it "foul-mouthed" will not justify a quote's removal from Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

May i ask why you deleted my edit?

Thanks Jutewin (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in my edit summary. It is WP:UNDUE, just as in 2022 when you repeatedly added material about the ideas of one Ender Tosun[5][6][7] and were reverted by three different editors with edit summaries including Not seeing evidence this writer is an expert in this field[8] (indeed, the works of Ender Tosun are WP:SPS and you have offered no WP:RS for their standing). You eventually opened a section on the article talk page Talk:Existence of God/Archive 7#A recommendation for a new heading (3.1.5 Unitary Argument) but did not change the consensus that such material should not be included. Repeatedly attempting to add such material is thus contrary to consensus and disruptive.

I note that your only edits to Wikipedia have been to add material about Ender Tosun's ideas and so must also tell you that if you have any conflict of interest in the matter - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for what that includes - that is yet another reason why you should not add such material. NebY (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications.

I see. And I am sorry, for not following the guidelines precisely, this is because I am not an experienced wikipedia editor.

Yet a few notes: I think that Tosun is a subject-matter expert, since he has a PhD degree in Islamic studies ( (1) (PDF) An Ethical Approach to Anti-Money Laundering Regulations: A Framework for Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Countries (researchgate.net). So, I think the content about the book "unitary proof of Allah under the light of the Quran" should not be subject to the restrictions under self published work. The guidelines say that self published work are not "largely" reliable, not "entirely" reliable. The book itself is much more comprehensive than most books in the reference list. So, I the edit I made will be an important and useful contribution to the page.

Furthermore, I think the page on the existence of God misses the "cumulative case" for God. So, I suggest that with some changes you add my edit at least related to it. Again, I think a unitary proof of God is very crucial, since I sincerely believe that other arguments for God really fail for not being a full argument for the existence of God. So, I suggest that you keep the contribution even though you may want to remove the reference to Tosun's book. Anyways, I do not know any other resource on a unitary proof as such.

Btw, yes, there is a conflict of interest between with respect to my edit about Tosun. Take this also into account for your considerations.

Thanks for your time. Let me know if I can help with respect to my suggestions.

I sincerely believe that my edit will be useful.

Regards. Jutewin (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A PhD gained for a thesis on about money-laundering regulations doesn't make one a recognised theologian. The terms "cumulative case" and "unitary proof" are uncommon terms in this context and you yourself know of no other source for "unitary proof"; your proposed inclusion would thus breach WP:UNDUE (in 2022 another editor mentioned WP:FRINGE, which is also pertinent). The inclusion of your argument without supporting reliable sources would be a breach of WP:OR - in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. You'll find another expression of the same principles at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the section Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I hope that if you read the various policies and guidelines I've linked, you will understand that material such as your edits will not be accepted on Wikipedia and that you should not make another attempt at inserting it or having it inserted. Maybe eventually those ideas will receive such coverage in reliable, published sources that they become WP:DUE for inclusion, at which time some other person without a conflict of interest may be moved to summarise them here. NebY (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. However, your claim that the cumulative case does not deserve being on that page for being uncommon is astonishing to me. Because it is much better known than many arguments that already exist on that page. For example prominent figures like Swinburne and Craig often use it; and it is a central point in Swinburne's argument for God. And I think a single editor's personal understanding or view or authority should not be a basis to decide what is reliable and what is not. At least you should open it to discussion. Otherwise, wikipedia may become a biased source of information. Jutewin (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my comment about "cumulative case". The rest stands. NebY (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good. Jutewin (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NebY,

First of all, thank you for describing my 12 Oct 2024 message as "gentle and constructive" - as an admin, I'm sort of used to getting all kinds of nastygrams, so this sincerely appreciated.

My guess here is that Aisxulos is a beginner editor who quite possibly is unaware that they have a talkpage, with a very low level of activity - just keep reverting if and when it happens, would be my advice.

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Right, will keep going and hope they discover talking eventually. NebY (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]