| Revision as of 13:51, 12 November 2007 editNawlinWiki (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators221,644 edits afd2 | Revision as of 15:33, 12 November 2007 edit undoApostolos Margaritis (talk | contribs)1,885 edits →NyLonNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|NyLon}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|NyLon}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Appears to be a neologism for "New York and London", used in one Financial Times article. ] 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | Appears to be a neologism for "New York and London", used in one Financial Times article. ] 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| You are not really right Nawlin... See also . I didn't make up this term. There is such a thing as a "] commuter" to give you just one example. BTW I live in London so I know this term is widespread. Don't rush and delete this article just because. Can't you see it is used in the prestigious FT ? If they gave it a greenlight why erase it? The term already exists, we cannot do anything about it! BTW And there are plenty more refferences in the media ready to be added . ] 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You've got NO RIGHT to decide on your own what to delete or not just because it happens that you dislike an article. | |||
| And it is not used ONLY in ONE FT article. Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's ]. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist.] 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==NyLon exists and it is acknowledged as such even by German language sources== | |||
| London wiederum ist eng verbunden mit New York, sodaß manche schon von NyLon (New York-London) sprechen. | |||
Revision as of 15:33, 12 November 2007
NyLon
Appears to be a neologism for "New York and London", used in one Financial Times article. NawlinWiki 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not really right Nawlin... See also . I didn't make up this term. There is such a thing as a "NyLon commuter" to give you just one example. BTW I live in London so I know this term is widespread. Don't rush and delete this article just because. Can't you see it is used in the prestigious FT ? If they gave it a greenlight why erase it? The term already exists, we cannot do anything about it! BTW And there are plenty more refferences in the media ready to be added . Apostolos Margaritis 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You've got NO RIGHT to decide on your own what to delete or not just because it happens that you dislike an article. And it is not used ONLY in ONE FT article. Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's arithmetics. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist.Apostolos Margaritis 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
NyLon exists and it is acknowledged as such even by German language sources
London wiederum ist eng verbunden mit New York, sodaß manche schon von NyLon (New York-London) sprechen.
Categories: