User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ITN recognition for James Lovelock[edit]

On 28 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article James Lovelock, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:David Atkinson MP.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:David Atkinson MP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking prefixes in the info boxes of biographical articles[edit]

Greetings. I have restored the link to Dame in the info box for Olivia Newton-John as I don't believe that your removal of it is supported either by common practise or by WP:OVERLINKING. It seems to be the overwhelmingly common practise to link Sir and Dame etc in info boxes in biographical articles so removing such links shouldn't be done arbitrarily based either on personal preference or an interpretation of a guideline which doesn't actually specify these as the kind of terms that shouldn't normally be linked to. Please discuss if you wish, but unless you can provide something specific to support your removal of such links then I don't believe it is supported by the MOS or by what seems to be the almost universal practise. Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Afterwriting: see User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms. The post-nominal DBE after the name in the infobox is linked as this is where the title of dame is derived. There is no need to link to Dame as well; it's not linked in the lead section and is instead bolded with the name for a reason. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but with respect I don't think this is relevant. Yes, "Dame" is not linked with the name in the opening sentence but this is not the style same issue there as its use in info boxes. Also, "Dame" as a title may be considered a "common term" in the UK but it certainly isn't universally common or understood. In my view and, apparently, in the view of most other editors, there actually is a need to link to such titles in info boxes and their association with post-nominals is not going to be very obvious to most non-UK readers. So in the absence of any specific MOS guideline against doing so it seems appropriate to allow the common practise and not unnecessarily make an issue of it when there is not an obvious MOS reason to do so. Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js delinks it in accordance with MOS guidelines. There is simply no need to link it when the letters "DBE" are linked directly beneath the name, letters standing for Dame of the British Empire. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford spelling on Salman Rushdie[edit]

Hi there Neveselbert. I wonder if you could explain this edit? I don't see any recent discussion in talk to change this. John (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, nice to hear from you again. I made the change after noticing "Western civilizations" spelt as such in the lead paragraph, so I assumed changing the spelling to Oxford would involve the least respelling. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Yes, that makes sense. Sorry to bother you, and thanks for caring about this stuff. John (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation params[edit]

You keep changing the param name of {{citation}} from "work" or "publisher" to "agency". At one point I was confused that work was not preferred. However, citation bot keeps switching "agency" for Reuters and NYT back to "work".

  • "title", work
  • title, publisher
  • title {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  • "title", work, publisher
  • "title", work, agency

If your goal is to produce the same format as "agency" only citation, "publisher" already works as intended without triggering the bot. I just want clarification. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sameboat, the two scripts I use to correct references are Ohconfucius/script/Sources and Citation bot. I tend to defer to Citation bot on whether to use "work" instead of "agency", so I usually try to run the Ohconfucius script beforehand. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated RfD notice[edit]

@realDonaldTrump, which you created, is at RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Donald Trump and Twitter. Your contribution is welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Thatcher is indeed "of Kesteven"[edit]

Her full title is "baroness Thatcher of Kesteven" (her old school near Grantham). My modification only intended to correct a strange absence compared with most of the articles on British peers. Even though the page is quite obviously a frequent target of wrong contributions, your "redwarning" on counter-vandalism is not justified here and you haven't explained your cancellation of the modification. Saint Paul Dédalus (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul Dédalus, this has been discussed many times previously, hence the hidden comment. Please look through the results at insource:"baroness Thatcher of Kesteven" prefix:"Talk:Margaret Thatcher". If you want to raise this matter again please do so at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing me with the relevant links. To be honest, I feel this aspect is only put forward here because it's about the Wikipedia introduction to the popular figure that is Margaret Thatcher. Well, there's hardly any point in raising the matter anew as it appears to be a traditional formality preserved by a barrier of gatekeepers. Otherwise the odd contradiction goes that the vast majority of British peers are referred to with their full titles. Saint Paul Dédalus (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on Jean-Luc Godard? TheBobs9 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheBobs9, would that edit be Special:Diff/1110690791? A link to Paris is not needed per MOS:OVERLINK, as it is a universally known, global city. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks! TheBobs9 (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Plante[edit]

Hi-I added Illinois to the lead sentence in the Bill Plante article so that the readers has the information of where Chicago is located at. This was not overlinking; it was to help the readers. Thank You-RFD (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RFD, that is still considering overlinking. Per MOS:OVERLINK, Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, locations which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar, such as Illinois, are usually not linked. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. I was trying to help the readers-RFD (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I'm sure you made the edit in good faith. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for your reply-RFD (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining your reverts[edit]

Are you refusing to use the edit summary to explain why you are reverting explained edits? Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "explanation" was completely inadequate and I disagree with it. Make your case on the talkpage, please. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to agree with my reasoning. What you need to do when reverting explained good-faith edits is explain why you are reverting them. I will quote WP:REVEXP for you: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." I suggest you read the rest of WP:REVEXP. If you are still unable to process that you need to explain your reverts, I will happily ask administrators to elucidate it to you. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done, I don't believe removing that section is justified. You're perfectly capable of discussing this matter on the talkpage rather than on my userpage, so please do so. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not done. The mere word "discuss" is nowhere near "a valid and informative explanation". It is a demand that your blessing be sought, which is not your due. Here I am discussing your conduct, though that too can be discussed elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you discuss the matter on the talkpage? You were bold, I reverted, it's on you to discuss the matter per WP:BRD, which I referred to in my edit summary. You should reflect on your own conduct, frankly. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can discuss the content dispute there. Here I am discussing something else. Do you think that, in the future, you might be able to invest a little more effort into explaining in the edit summary why you are reverting explained, good-faith edits? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe Trudeau" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Joe Trudeau and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Joe Trudeau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Assassination of Spencer Perceval[edit]

In your revert of Assassination of Spencer Perceval, you state that "there is no risk of ambiguity". I understand that, but what is wrong with having the year added to the date, which is typically what WP:DATE requests? Edits are usually reverted because they are incorrect, and that's not the case here. Truthanado (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthanado, WP:DATE says Omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity. I don't see any ambiguity in the sentence He was hanged at Newgate Prison on 18 May, one week after the assassination and one month before the start of the War of 1812., given that the year 1812 has already been mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph as well as in the following sentence after the day and month. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Realms of Elizabeth II[edit]

Template:Realms of Elizabeth II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Scott Griffiths[edit]

Please stop linking The Australian Women's Weekly. That magazine was founded in 1933 [1]. It is not the same magazine, Australian Woman's Weekly that Griffiths worked as an editor for in 1913. The magazine Griffiths worked for was operated by Denton & Spencer between 1911 to 1921. I reverted your incorrect edit once and you reinserted the link. I have reverted your error again and will not engage a 3rd time on your mistake. Per Patricia Clarke (historian) "Jennie was appointed editor of the Australian Woman.s Weekly (AWW), a periodical for women begun in 1911 that ran for ten years. (The AWW should not be confused with the Australian Women's Weekly which started in 1931 and is still appearing as a monthly.)" (p 5) SusunW (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, please assume good faith. I did not know this and there ought to have been a hidden comment explaining the situation. Can you please add one to deter future editors from making the same mistake? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming bad faith, but am concerned that you may be editing too fast and not reading edit summaries. I wrote "delink, not same magazine as the Australian Women's Magazine begun in 1933" when I reverted, yet you relinked. I am skeptical that a hidden comment in the text will keep someone from adding a link in the info box. I am happy to put it as a note, so that it is visible. SusunW (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Reich[edit]

Sorry I don't understand why did you repeatedly remove the infobox from that article without explanation, and repeatedly warn and report to AIV the involved IPs. The admin action may have turned against you. Please avoid. Materialscientist (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Materialscientist, I won't bother to revert again. I've already explained why I reverted the addition of an infobox with this edit, yet this IP is unwilling to discuss why they believe an infobox is justified and has carried on relentlessly restoring it, which to my mind is wp:disruptive editing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, but it is weak - Wikiediting is incremental, and it is easier to add details into infobox than start it from scratch. Experienced editors don't edit war on such marginal matters. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Why do you keep removing the word Manhattan entirely, under the guise of delinking common terms? Not only are you not delinking (you're just removing it), I wouldn't agree that is Manhattan as universally common as New York, LA, Jesus etc. anyways. Aza24 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, sorry for not expanding on that automatic edit summary. Per {{Infobox person#Parameters}}, the recommended format is as follows, Place of birth: city, administrative region, country. Manhattan is a borough of a city, so including it would be unnecessarily precise in this context. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth of the United Kingdom[edit]

The disambiguation page was completely stable until you started removing Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's name and insisting that Elizabeth II was the primary topic. Note that Mary of the United Kingdom redirects to Mary of Teck and Alexandra of the United Kingdom redirects to Alexandra of Denmark, both of whom were queens consort, so the argument that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon could not have been known or referred to as "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" due to her status as a queen consort is nonsense. And a WP:RM cannot be opened for a page that is not even in the main space as an article; not to mention our debate doesn't revolve around renaming the page, but what its content needs to be. Keivan.fTalk 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary Keivan, the redirect page was completely stable until you started a disambiguation page. There has never been a queen regnant of the United Kingdom titled Mary or Alexandra, so neither example is all that helpful. I did not make that argument, but I have never seen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon being referred to as such, as usually the (name) of (country) format is reserved for monarchs and heirs. OK, granted, I should've recommended WP:RFD, if you wish to nominate the redirect there feel free. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel[edit]

Dear Sir, I am wondering why the file "Sir Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel" (portrait by Walter Stoneman) is continually taken down. National portrait gallery apparently offer Stoneman portraits to the commons free under CCA ShareAlike 3.0. I must confess my novelty to Wikimedia, so I would really appreciate some help uploading it. Best wishes, Fitzkarl Fitzkarl (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fitzkarl, unfortunately the NPG do not offer them to Commons under a free licence, the licence they offer it under is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, which cannot be accepted on Wikimedia projects as explained at {{cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I assume it can be uploaded to Wikipedia then like the other NPG portraits? (Apologies for the Asquith image; that was a mistake) Fitzkarl (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzkarl: no because the image is not yet 95 years old, so US copyright still applies. You can upload any other NPG portrait to Wikipedia dated before 1927 (or 1928 if you wait until Sunday ) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Neveselbert![edit]

Happy New Year!

Neveselbert,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moops, a very Happy New Year to you too! ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TY very much for the kind reception of my greeting. Be well, healthy, and filled with love. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lansbury[edit]

There are a couple of problems with your edit summary comments about the source title capitalization in Angela Lansbury:

  • The section of WP:Citing sources that you reference defers to the Manual of Style regarding title capitalization, and the MOS calls for typographic conformity for English-language titles and gives very specific rules for the capitalization.
  • The argument that "Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used" fails because the capitalization is not currently consistent.

Also, I'm not sure if you are aware that this article is currently a featured article candidate. Citation consistency and following the MOS are both part of the featured article criteria, so reverting these changes could interfere with its opportunity for FA status. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: I just don't see the need to alter the capitalisation from what the sources themselves use, which happens to be sentence case. As these are all article titles, I don't believe there to be any inconsistency as these are all titles enclosed in quotation marks, not in italics like a book title, and such titles commonly use sentence case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources with titles using different capitalization, so yes there is an inconsistency. Our guidelines in this case are definitely not to match whatever capitalization is used in the original. What is needed (particularly for FAC) is both a consistent citation style and compliance with our MOS guidelines on title capitalization. I believe the edits you reverted achieved that. I'm going to restore the consistent, MOS-compliant form, and I hope you won't edit war over it because you "just don't see the need" when others do see the need. --RL0919 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919, I'm not going to edit war over it, but I do believe the guidelines should be clarified. Maybe this is more of a New York Times thing in terms of consistency/precedent, which I'm not very familiar with since in the UK for example, major outlets including The Times never use title case for their article titles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits[edit]

Why are you reverting my edits?? Koppite1 (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koppite1, read my edit summary. Why are you replacing the {{short description}} with a citation? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you going on about??? All i did was remove 1 line from Pele's records and add a couple of needed links?? Koppite1 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koppite1: I'm talking about this:
−
{{short description|Brazilian footballer (1940–2022)}}
+
{{Cite web |last=Luhn |first=Michele |date=29 December 2022 |title=Pelé, Brazilian soccer star and the only player to win the World Cup three times, dies at age 82 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/29/pel-brazilian-soccer-star-dies-at-age-82.html |access-date=12 January 2023 |website=CNBC |language=en}}
Why did you do that? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have not got the foggest what you are going on about. All i did was change the reference type of the first link because what was there DIDNT reflect FIA calling Pele the greatest. I changed it to a link that does confirm FIA calling Pele GOAT. So, i'f you have no further objections. i'll revert your reversion. Koppite1 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koppite1: see Special:Diff/1133189673 and Special:Diff/1133196517. I object to your changes to Line 1. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No point in edit warring. I'm actually going to reinsert the citations. And yes, i always do check my edits before publishing. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes at times. Thanks for your assistance and no hard feelings. Koppite1 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RMTR request[edit]

Hey, just a little question regarding your RMTR request. Just curious, did you try moving the article yourself first, but encountered an error, or did you post directly to RMTR? Thanks, Silikonz💬 15:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silikonz, as I'm not a page mover I'm not able to move over a redirect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're able to, when the redir is made as result of a move, as was the case here. I've seen multiple non-pagemovers do this. Silikonz💬 15:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can, thanks for telling me this Silikonz, I didn't know I was able to. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try moving this request yourself first. If you can't do it for some reason, then I'll be glad to help out. Silikonz💬 15:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel[edit]

Hi there, I appreciate your concern and must admit that this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Walter_Cameron_of_Lochiel,_25th_Chief_2.jpg is absolutely copyright infringement. It is taken off the internet from an original signed portrait that was auctioned, but I cannot find the source again. For this to be on the commons requires it to credit the original author and I've no idea who that is - certainly not me! Please do nominate the file for deletion again and it should get deleted. Thanks

Fitzkarl (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this image above is not free, and quite frankly a poor-quality image and given his age at that time does not help identify the person. The Stoneman portrait here is non-free but qualifies for fair usage and should be used in Donald's article. I hope this gets sorted and again, very sorry for the trouble it has caused you.
Regards, Fitzkarl (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your help and understanding.

Fitzkarl (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Lynn Seymour[edit]

On 14 March 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lynn Seymour, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Infobox prime ministerial spouse" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Template:Infobox prime ministerial spouse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Template:Infobox prime ministerial spouse until a consensus is reached. MClay1 (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Circumcision) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Circumcision[edit]

I see you're a long time editor with a boatload of experience, so I'm not going to bother with a template. Please don't edit war at Circumcision. Take it to the talk page, if you must, and seek consensus. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, ScottishFinnishRadish. I know there's no excuse for warring, and I apologise for falling short in my edits. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I point out though that it does look like KlayCax is guilty of the same behaviour and it doesn't look like they're willing to self-revert. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sir-Charles-Fletcher-Fletcher-Cooke.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sir-Charles-Fletcher-Fletcher-Cooke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday[edit]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim! ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring at Willis Reed[edit]

There is absolutely no need to create a redirect like you imply doing here. You ought to look at NBA BLPs at Category:FA-Class NBA articles or Category:GA-Class NBA articles before making such edits (hiding behind WP:OVERLINK or MOS:MORELINKWORDS, which is meant for a completely different situation, does not help your case). In addition, you seem to be edit-warring (not to mention doing that with two accounts, which WP:ILLEGIT forbids in this case) for which you have already been blocked in the past so I advise you to stop. – sbaio 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbaio: No, I'm not warring at all, I'm just implementing the Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js which delinks basketball per MOS:OVERLINK. I'm not "hiding behind" anything of the sort. How are the guidelines meant for "a completely different situation"? The first is automatically referenced in the script's edit summary, and the second is applicable in that linking attributive nouns alone rather than the noun phrase is bad practice. Also, what's so wrong with linking to a redirect, especially one more specific than just "basketball"? I think it makes more sense to link professional basketball than basketball player, but I think either would be better than just linking to something as prevalent as basketball. Finally, your Absolutely not edit summary was clearly inappropriate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neveselbert. I think the plain text "basketball" should link to the basic page, basketball. Going to Basketball in the United States seems like MOS:EGG, and doesn't deal with the specific playing of the game and its use of the ball. I see that you've made numnberous changes already on this page surrounding the linking of the term basketball. If you still disagree, please start a discussion in lieu of further reverting, and establish consensus for any further changes in this area. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bagumba. OK, I can understand that. What I don't understand though is how linking to professional basketball is so controversial. Yes, I can also understand why linking to basketball player might be pointless given that it's a redirect to the same page, but professional basketball links to a specific section of Professional sports, which describes the professional aspect of the sport and indeed provides a link to the basic page. I think most people have a rudimentary understanding of the sport itself, though not necessarily the professional aspect of it, which is why I agree with the Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js that linking to the basic page is excessive and a more specific link is warranted should the term be linked at all. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. If you have further concerns, consider discussing this at WT:NBA. FWIW, I had a different take on "professional" links, and commented before at User talk:Ohconfucius/script § Professional sports links (unfortunately, with no response). While the script may have made the change, the WP:MEATBOT policy says that the Wikipedia user using a script is ultimately responsible for making sure there is consensus for the change. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collab on Template:Marriage[edit]

Happy Friday!

I'd love to help make more improvements on the Marriage Template. I don't have template editor rights, but I figure I could coordinate some proposals with you on the talk page.

Not sure if you had any specific ideas for improvements beyond the wikidata implementation in sandbox right now. Happy to chip away at some things if you've got a backlog of wish-list items on your end.

Pedantical (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Pedantical (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedantical, yes, I'm currently working on trying to fetch referenced data from Wikidata while parameters are left unfilled. So, for example, if {{marriage/sandbox}} were included in George H. W. Bush without any parameters, it would render the dates of marriage and spouse's death with a name missing error message above noting that the spouse has not been specified. As you may have noticed, the code is rather complicated, but I've troubleshot it over the past few weeks, and it seems foolproof. There's also the issue of the appearance of the code itself, as the spacing and line breaking is rather inconsistent, so I don't know if that's something you might be able to look at. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Neveselbert — I can definitely take a look at the spacing and line breaks in there and see if it can be improved.
On a different note, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the templates I put together for Wikidata spouse info (Template:Wdsi) and Wikidata death info (Template:Wddi). I swapped in those 2 templates in place of the Wdib usage as an attempt at some cleanup. Pedantical (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pedantical, I really appreciate it. Those templates seem like an excellent idea. I had been thinking of ways to streamline the main template by splitting it off, but I wasn't sure of the best way of going about it. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like I missed something. Maybe the results I was seeing were cached, but it looks like the abstraction of the original Wdib templates into the Wddi/Wdsi templates no longer produce the same result on a blank transclusion of marriage/sandbox on some test pages. Now it shows "(before <person's full death date>)" Edit: I made a goofy syntax error on the templates; should be fixed now! :) Pedantical (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedantical, thanks again for your troubleshooting. I'll have a look a bit later to see that everything is in the same working order. Take care, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Sunak[edit]

Hello Neveselbert; the image I put in Sunak's IB was edited on the 28th to have that weird rotation, but that edit was reverted the next day. For some reason it still looks slanted on Commons, but it doesn't show up in the infobox. "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak arrives in Downing Street (cropped).jpg" is actually rotated 2°, which looks worse. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, I'm not sure if I see what you mean. The rotation isn't weird at all to me, it corrects the slant/tilt of Sunak's head. See John Major's article which has the same 2° rotation in the IB image. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Number 10 door looks strange with the rotation. Major's image, extracted from a larger picture of him with Clinton, looks to have been originally taken at that angle. Seeing as "Rishi Sunak's first speech as Prime Minister (crop).jpg" has been used for quite some time, it's probably best to keep it that way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: FWIW, Major's image wasn't originally taken at that angle, it was rotated. Do you think a less noticeable rotation would be acceptable or would you prefer there to be no rotation whatsoever? My main issues with "Rishi Sunak's first speech as Prime Minister (crop).jpg" are the dimensions and the zoom level. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer there to not be a rotation. I think, compared with the original, Sunak's head and shoulders look odd rotated, as if he's falling backwards. The door is the main issue though; the slanted background just doesn't look right. That's not how Downing Street is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: OK, I'll contact the original uploader and ask if they can reupload the crop without the rotation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Chamberlain[edit]

Neveselbert, air your thoughts on the talkpage. Don't revert just because you don't like it. There is a rough consensus; you aren't helping. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, there are problems with that new image, I should know since I uploaded it and I regret doing so as I'm no longer confident regarding the copyright. I think there should be a wider consensus before changing an image that has been the lead image in a featured article for many years. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was told about the shaky copyright status on the talkpage; this is obviously really important, but putting that aside for a minute - I'm glad you've explained your reverts; we can talk about it further on Chamberlain's talk. Thanks - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the testcases page[edit]

As you have done in the past with {{Marriage}}, you broke {{Longitem}} today, causing at least one infobox to display in a broken way. Once again, I am here to encourage you to slow down and use the testcases page to ensure that you are not breaking existing usages of templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonesey95, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm sorry about that, the diff I copied some of the code over from omitted the third }, which seems to be part of a larger problem I have with displaying diffs on my current userscript setup, as I've noticed other characters being omitted in diffs when a change is highlighted. I was actually troubleshooting at the time prior to MJL's edit, and I didn't realise this was the cause of the problem. I'm not sure how to fix this but I'll be extra careful to read the code next time. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:R. (Dick) Burke.jpeg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:R. (Dick) Burke.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReferenceExpander[edit]

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, SamX. I wasn't aware, and I'll be sure to keep this in mind if/when I use this script in future. For my part, I've always checked the diffs of every edit I've made using this script, and more recently I've only chosen to select references for expansion which involve the least change. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:IS (Ivor) Richard.jpeg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IS (Ivor) Richard.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Michael O'Kennedy.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michael O'Kennedy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

You, too, are required to respond to latest talk pages entries, not just revert at your own pleasure. Goes for everyone, no exceptions re: subject nor user. Please comment on my Turner talk page entry! If not, I will keep making this change. Lead looks ridiculous obviously avoiding where she was from. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: see Talk:Tina Turner#Lead section. That's the consensus, and until there is a new consensus, the article must respect it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. New talk page entries start new discussions. Discuss or abstain! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: it's not, I don't make the rules. Per WP:CONSENSUS, we have to abide by it, and no individual editor may ride roughshod over it. Until your new discussion results in a new consensus, the old consensus remains. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please acquaint yourself with WP:CCC second §. Discuss the new Turner talk entry or abstain! Your refusal to discuss does not override guideline. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: I just made that point, but until it does, you have to abide by current consensus. I'd also invite you to acquaint yourself with WP:AGF. I've responded to you at Talk:Tina Turner#Turner was ... in good faith and I would expect you to return the same courtesy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made a good-faith mistake in reverting without discussion as per WP:CCC. Now read the 2nd § there again! The problem only worsens as long as you stick by your unloaded guns. Referring to an RfC which became obsolete once I started a new discussion is not relevant. Discuss the issue of the laughable, obviously resentful, immature and objectionable lack of her nationality or abstain! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on Wikipedia is not invalidated simply by starting a new discussion. Changes should reflect a new consensus among the community. I've participated in the discussion you initiated, and encourage others to join. Until a new consensus is reached, the existing one stands. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CCC §2 again please. You have not participated at all in substance on the article's talk page. You have talked policy (as you see it) over and over and said not a word about the issue at hand there now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've underscored policy because it guides our actions here on Wikipedia. Your assertion that I haven't engaged with the substance is inaccurate - my engagement has been about procedure, which is just as critical. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you should have followed WP:CCC in good faith & started a new discussion rather than just reverting. The substance problem per se has been solved for now by someone who cares not only about policy, but about article content. It's always a good idea. We have way way way more than enough users who just go around reverting, without trying to make improvements. Try to be constructive: "I feel what you did is against procedure, but here's my suggestion for a solution to this embarrassment ..." Try it, you might like it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of WP:CCC doesn't supersede the existing consensus. I reverted the change to preserve that consensus until a new one is reached, which is in line with Wikipedia's policies.
It seems you've misconstrued adherence to policy as a lack of constructive contribution. For future reference, starting a discussion before making significant changes would be more in line with Wikipedia's procedures.
Your suggestion is noted. However, your comments would be more productive if they focused on the issue at hand rather than making assumptions about other users' intentions or contributions. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article talk pages are primarily for constructive discussion of article content, not for pointers about policy and procedure. Whenever (whenever) you do not comment at all on article content you are not using the page for its main purpose. Sure, it's OK to comment on policy and procedure, but such a comment alone is not constructive without some idea on improving article content. There was a rather urgent need for improvement in the very beginning of that article, which looked ridiculous and did the subject gross injustice. Fixed now by someone else, but I'm sure you could have thought of something too. That's the issue at hand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that I've neglected content is not accurate. Ensuring that changes align with consensus and policy is inherently about preserving the integrity of the article's content.
Your 'urgent need for improvement' was your personal interpretation. A single perspective does not dictate urgency or necessity of change—consensus does. I'm glad to see that you're satisfied with the current changes made by another editor. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still my hope that you will be interested in the actual content of an article, the words in it, not just in procedure. That's the main reason for this whole project. It's easy to take on the position of policy police without contributing content. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your continuous insinuation that I don't care about content is unfounded and detracts from our purpose here. I value both content and procedure, as they are intrinsically linked. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 July 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar Britain[edit]

After I moved the article per your request at WP:RM/TR, I was requested to move it back. You will have to open a formal discussion to move it again. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi[edit]

You cannot simply revert a close by an uninvolved party without discussing it with them first. That's a key rule of WP:RM. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybot" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Maybot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 11 § Maybot until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Death date and age[edit]

Please do not use this template or others like it for non-Gregorian dates. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Celia Homeford's comment. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Animal IB[edit]

Thanks for your edit there. Glad it was resolved without an edit war. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Hello Neveselbert!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invocation of WP:UNDUE[edit]

Someone else wrote it and I just added the source, but what is undue about a statement his death by a former US president in a section about individuals and organizations? DarmaniLink (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a statement on his death, rather DarmaniLink (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DarmaniLink. I'm afraid your edits appear to have constituted a copyright violation, as per 149776051. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my addition, it was someone else's. I just added the source. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-nominals[edit]

Please will you fix this so the LSA designation on Alfred Grace works. It's an archaic designation of Licenciate of the Society of Apothecaries and is mentioned at the top of the LSA disambig page. Thanks so much. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller. Since you're an admin, is there any reason why you're unable to do this yourself? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm not very technically proficient, and I'd rather not break a template in use on squillions of pages! (I think knowing my limits is one reason why I'm an admin) --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: OK, but I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do here. {{Post-nominals}} doesn't look to be in use on Alfred Grace. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place[edit]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert[edit]

I updated dmy dates template in the page Fahd of Saudi Arabia and you reverted it saying it should be updated when it's necessary. Could you please show me the related rule? I've have been here for a long time, but I don't know anything about this rule. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egeymi, there's no need to update the template every month, if there was then this could be done automatically by the system anyway. It updates itself every time you run Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates, if you have that installed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Copyonly[edit]

Template:Copyonly has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Anatomist Barnstar
Great work! Yoleaux (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Christian mysticism}}[edit]

Apologies, I misinterpreted the edit diff. You're right. – Scyrme (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neveselbert/Archive_10&oldid=1178214357"