User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 5

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

Clinton gets Trumped

Yeah, the pollsters had me fooled. I really thought the Clintons were gonna return to the White House --- albeit as President & First Gentleman :) GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Privy Council

Hi Neve-selbert. I just wanted to let you know why I reverted your edit on the Tony Blair article. Blair should have 'PC' after his name on occassions when the style 'Rt Hon' is not before his name. Appointment to the Privy Council is what grants MPs the use of the style 'Rt Hon' and therefore if the style is not used then the post-nominals should be used instead. As suggested by your edit summary you already are aware that members of the House of Lords are automatically afforded the style 'Rt Hon' and therefore always use 'PC' even when the prefix is used. I'm sure you probably know this all already but just thought I would give you a quick reminder. Ebonelm (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to inform you Ebonelm, I was reverted back in July for making almost the exact same edit, by Hazhk just the next day.--Nevé–selbert 00:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm suprised you tried to remove PC from the Tony Blair article again, the impression I got from your above comment was that you agreed with my revert. I had updated the Privy Council of the United Kingdom article with a reference which supports the use of PC for non-peers when the style Rt Hon is not being used but did not realise a similar note existed at List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom)#cite note-pc-4, I have now provided an expanded explanation there as well. Ebonelm (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am myself confused, Ebonelm. I think you're going to have to open a talk discussion on this someplace, as there is a major inconsistency. Take Winston Churchill for example, no "PC" there. Or even Ed Miliband, Sadiq Khan, no "PC" there either. This is a rather peculiar scenario indeed.--Nevé–selbert 13:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Most non-peer Privy Counsellors don't have the "PC" nominal. I think it's a Lords-only thing.--Nevé–selbert 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually Winston Churchill's article does have PC, it's roughly in the middle. Ebonelm (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my bad with that one. Although I'm not wrong with William Ewart Gladstone, William Pitt the Younger, though.--Nevé–selbert 13:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful it is to look at articles at the moment. Take the Miliband one for example, it doesn't even have the post-nominal MP after his name at the moment (though I am about to edit and change this), I think little details like this are often overlooked. I have sources which back me up and the Debrett's sources which were already being used don't contradict my sources either they just don't mention the issue of what to do when Rt Hon is not being used at all. Ebonelm (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Having just clicked on a number of the PCs at List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present), it really does seem that "PC" as a P-N is reserved for peers and peers only. That being said, I'm not entirely sure and I'd advise you take up this issue at User talk:Hazhk (the user who reverted me a few months ago).--Nevé–selbert 13:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

GroverCleveland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GroverCleveland. Since you had some involvement with the GroverCleveland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Feel free to delete them, can't exactly remember as to why I created all those redirects anyway (probably out of boredom). I apologise for creating them (if only I had known at the time that CamelCase redirects now render redundant); by all means, please go ahead with getting rid of them.--Nevé–selbert 00:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Living PMs

Any interest in reformatting the list of Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, which I see you've had some involvement on. And any comments on my recent change in font size and line spacing on the list of Living Presidents of the United States? I realize it isn't as pretty, but I thought it would be definitely helpful to enable the reader to see more context at a time. YBG (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again YBG. With regard to Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, I'm going to have to think about that one. I would stress that (unlike America), since Britain doesn't officially number each prime minister and there isn't immediate succession if a PM died or resigned on the spot (when Lord Palmerston died, there wasn't another PM appointed by Her Majesty for weeks), the table might risk getting a bit too complicated (especially regarding the latter point). Very pleased with the change in font size you made at Living Presidents of the United States, looks absolutely fine to me.--Nevé–selbert 09:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I presume that in the case of PMs, there would be no need to number the incumbents. 03:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Neve-selbert. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for feedback

You have recently contributed to the discussion at talk:Living Presidents of the United States about changes I have made. I initiated that discussion and have tried to drive it to consensus, in the process making more recent talk page edits than the other editors combined. For your participation in that discussion, I thank you. I am, however, wondering about my participation in that discussion.

• Have I been pushing my own ideas too much?
• Have I ignored those with opinions different from mine?
• Can you think of any way my talk page involvement could have been improved?

You may answer me here, on my talk page, or by e-mail. Thank you for your desire to improve this online encyclopedia! YBG (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

YBG, please could you just temporarily restore the old table (until we come to an agreement on the alignment)? Thank-you,--Nevé–selbert 18:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me think on this for a bit. I have two concerns: (1) I tried restoring the original version once before, but I was reverted (2) If this were restored, should we build the replacement version in my sandbox or is there a better place? YBG (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: (1) If Drdpw reverts and therefore obstructs, we can report him to EdJohnston who gave him a light warning. (2) I think your sandbox is probably the best place. However, in the meantime all we need to do is gauge a consensus on the alignment (and other minor tweaks); the table should be back up in no time thereafter.--Nevé–selbert 14:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring

Neve, on talk:Living Presidents of the United States, you recently made two edits (here and here) in the section § Headers after implementing date range which I think aren't really to germain to the discussion of headers. I plan to move them (and my response) to a new subsection called "wikilinks and/or tooltips", either in § Date column or in § Event column. It appears per WP:RTP § Refactoring overview that "moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion" is considered OK, but I wanted to let you know. YBG (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine.--Nevé–selbert 01:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Partial title matches

Hi. You recently created Bhumibol (disambiguation), but it consisted only of Bhumibol Bridge and Bhumibol Dam as entries. These are partial title matches, which should not be listed on disambiguation pages (because neither the bridge nor the dam is referred to by the King's name alone). It's unnecessary to create a disambiguation page in this case. Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, Paul 012; nominated page WP:SPEEDY. If you don't mind, you are more than welcome to join the move discussion at Talk:Adulyadej.--Nevé–selbert 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Succession box template on selective US presidential articles. Greetings Nevé. A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Politics talk page by an editor who's advocating that the succession box at the bottom of each "Presidency of ..." article be removed, and I thought that you may want to express your view on this. Thank-you. Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)