Wikipedia

User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 11

< User talk:Neveselbert
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Neveselbert in topic Amess murder talk
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

B. B. vs B.B., etc.

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Neveselbert! Thanks for sorting all that out! If I were a barn star sorta guy, I'd give you one. This has been a long time coming, but you know what they say about patience...! (I gave up many years ago, but am thankful that others didn't.) Cheers! Technopat (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Technopat! Thanks for the message, this has been bugging me for a long time too, and I'm glad it could be resolved. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for that! And while you're on a winning streak, how 'bout...? Nah, better not push it! Just savour the sweet taste of victory. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GEOLINK

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have written "Italy" on all famous Italian people born before 1947, inserting the wikilink that leads back to the Kingdom of Italy. If you think I made a mistake, you are free to check all my edits on this and operate according to your own view (as you did for Silvio Berlusconi). JackkBrown (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi JackkBrown, the issue I have with linking Kingdom of Italy is that I think it's too broad, while Fascist Italy (1922–1943) would probably be more helpful as it's more specific. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: I have just finished sorting out my mistakes. However, I think "Kingdom of Italy" is correct, because Fascist Italy was under the Kingdom of Italy anyway, and for various reasons indicating the Kingdom of Italy is preferable (also historically). JackkBrown (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@JackkBrown: Kingdom of Italy is more of an overview of the historical period in Italy, much like United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is in the case of the UK, so I don't think a link would be all that helpful. If we are to include a link, Fascist Italy (1922–1943) makes the most sense, as it's specifically about the state that existed at the time, though it's probably a better idea just to leave it at "Kingdom of Italy" unlinked, per MOS:EGG and MOS:GEOLINK, since most readers will understand what that means without the need to read another article for context. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: exactly, that is precisely what I did before reading your message. JackkBrown (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Generic question

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I take this opportunity to ask if I have put the picture in the right place on this page: Via Margutta; and also on this one: Tommaso Laureti. JackkBrown (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I would place the Via Margutta image at the top, in the lead section, per MOS:LEADIMAGE. As for the Tommaso Laureti image, I would probably place that at the top of the "Biography" section. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: done. JackkBrown (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please go to here for some context surrounding the edit-- ill be reverting your edit. I just forgot to add a summary. Thanks. BillClinternet (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left a message. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Kind hearts and coronets

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tedious, but all done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Mr Serjeant ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

  Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

AutoSectionLink

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Are you having a problem with the last update to AutoSectionLink? If so, can you point to a page where it didn't work correctly? Nardog (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nardog. Sorry, I just didn't want to bother you, but the problem I was having is that it kept removing the section title from the edit summary whenever I edited the article text, and I had to keep clicking the arrow to restore it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, can you tell me on which page that happened? Nardog (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's the page, but I was editing the top section of Dianne Feinstein at the time. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, now it doesn't remove "top" if you're editing the lead. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago55 comments7 people in discussion
 
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Foreskin. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I did not attempt to revert the same material on more than three occasions. Can you please change the block to a ban on the page Foreskin, as had been previously done by User:ScottishFinnishRadish here? This would be more proportionate as I haven't been involved in any other dispute on any other article since. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to continue to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Foreskin, which I'm now unable to do. Can you please reconsider this block as a ban on editing that particular page for 2 weeks? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: can you please respond? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
To clarify the above, I was previously banned from editing Circumcision for the same amount of time by ScottishFinnishRadish some time ago, and I respected that ban and haven't been involved in a dispute on that article any time since. Therefore I think I can be trusted to do the same again in this situation with respect to this particular article, so can you please consider this? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(  Buttinsky) I myself think an indefinite WP:TBAN on all penis-related topics might be warranted, if this[1] sort of thing reccurs. These topics are difficult enough without this kind of disruption. Bon courage (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage, I certainly did not intend to be disruptive, rather I saw it as my intention to restore the status quo until a consensus could be reached on the talkpage. I think an indefinite ban on all related topics would be disproportionate, given that I'm entirely committed to respecting consensus, in good faith, and I would wish to continue to be part of the conversation. As for the message I left, it was clear to me that the claims being reintroduced were fringe, given that they are only attributed to one source which has a conflict of interest, thereby undermining reliability. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Doubling-down on your fringe warning is not wise, and suggests you are a lost cause. We'll see. Bon courage (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
That was not what I meant, Bon. I was just trying to explain why I left the message in the first place. I don't understand what you mean by "lost cause". What cause? We all share the same cause, that's why we're editors. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The cause is being a useful contributor to Wikipedia. You seem to be in denial your actions have been a problem, and not in accord with that goal. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I apologise if my actions were not in accord, which as I've said, were not intended to be disruptive, and I wholly commit myself to respecting consensus. I involved myself purely to restore the edits of two other editors who voiced similar concerns, though I accept I did not do so in the way that was most appropriate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
If I might add, your claim that Brian Morris (biologist) apparently makes anti-circumcision activists see red is rather like saying Mehmet Oz makes anti-homeopathy activists see red. I don't think that's a fair characterisation. Morris is himself an activist, for one thing. His being an author on a lot of very high-quality (secondary, peer-reviewed, well-published) material on this does not negate the conflict of interest that is inherent in this material. Indeed, I can't find a single peer review that is unaffiliated with Morris or his associates. I think it's more accurate to say that if Wikipedia allowed otherwise high-quality sources to be tossed out just because a random scientist hated them, we would all be lost. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'll not contribute here further: when your block expires you'll have the WP:ROPE. Bon courage (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm waiting for Bbb23 to respond on the possibility of a block on editing the page-in-question, which another admin had implemented before on another article when I fell short in my actions. I wish you well, Bon. I know you'll agree that consensus is the only right way forward. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Neveselbert, please stop pinging me and don't e-mail me again. If you wish to make an unblock request, another administrator will review the request. The sitewide block for two weeks is warranted based on your history. As you know, you were pblocked from the Circumcision page for one week six months ago. The fact that you were edit-warring on another article demonstrates that pblocking is not enough and that one week is not enough. I suggest you take some time to reflect on your approach to editing and collaboration here. Otherwise, you may eventually find yourself indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    OK. I'll consider an unblock request after I hear from ScottishFinnishRadish. I can't see how a sitewide block is in any way warranted given that this is the only topic area that I've been involved with any dispute since my time back in 2020. Pblocking was absolutely enough, it effectively ended the dispute, which I was able to resolve in the normal way. If a topic ban of all related articles for a period of two weeks is warranted, I would agree to that. I just can't see how this is in any way proportionate when I've tried to discuss this matter with other editors only to be ignored and then reverted by the same ones. I'm not going to find myself in that situation you mention ever again, and if that means I have to walk away from this topic completely, I'll have to accept that. It's not the main reason I'm here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    I would say the full block is warranted, as it's clear that a partial block was not sufficient to dissuade you from edit warring. The escalation from partial block to full block is normally how I handle repeated edit warring. I think that if you cannot keep yourself from edit warring in this topic area you should avoid it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for replying ScottishFinnishRadish. Can I just ask on what grounds you may consider an unblock request, or at least support one I might make? I'm willing to accept a topic ban on an indefinite basis if that's what you think is warranted. I just really want to get on with the other work I do here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    Bbb23, would an indefinite tban on penile anatomy satisfy you for an unblock? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: A topic ban sounds fine, but I think we need a broader one. Looking back over Neveselbert's edits for the last few months, they also edit articles related to female genitalia, e.g., Clitoridectomy, Labia pride, and Clitoral hood reduction. So, how about an indefinite topic ban on human genitalia? Also, it should be made clear that if Neveselbert violates their topic ban, a block of at least two weeks would be imposed. Additionally, the ban may not be appealed for at least one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    That seems reasonable to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks both for responding. @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm inclined to accept these terms in exchange for lifting the 2 weeks, but can I ask what your thoughts are regarding a definite topic ban (technically what this block is, albeit one for all topics, yet still definite), one that can last as short as two weeks or even as long as a year (as Bbb23 referred to in respect of an appeal being considered)? I would also be open to discussing whether a particular regimen could be established around my conduct in these articles, such as perhaps a no-revert rule on my part (if I'm reverted, I cannot revert back, that sort of thing), going forward, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Indefinite but appealable topic bans are relatively standard. I'm not particularly pleased with your wish to negotiate the terms. I also don't understand what you mean about a "no-revert rule". You do understand that while the topic ban is in effect, you cannot edit any page that's related to human genitalia, broadly construed, which means articles, article Talk pages, project pages, in orther words all pages?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    (talk page watcher) - Really harsh absolutism terms used here, Bbb23: you might be an administrator, but there's no need to strongarm a discussion like this. I'm sure Neveselbert knows what a tban is, and "I'm not particularly pleased with your wish to negotiate the terms" is just piffle. When you've got a postitive contributor like Neveselbert who has been blocked, admittedly over edit-warring (not a good thing, but not really egregious: just a step out of line) then absolutely he has the right to try and negotiate an appropriate penalty; he's not asking for nothing, after all. A temporary tban on penis-related topics (three months or so) and unblock seems fine to me, from a non-administrator's POV. A two-week block really seems like overkill. I've interacted with Neveselbert on WP:POLUK related topics before, and he's always been a positive and understanding contributor there, and locking the entire project for sake of a few reverts is not right. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Dunno about other topic areas, but I don't really think it can be said that Neveselbert has been an asset to the Project for genitalia-related topics. I don't think it's reasonable for admins to be 'negotiated' into elaborate sanctions regimes (with associated time cost) for problem editors. Bon courage (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    An unblock and three-month tban isn't really an "elaborate sanctions regime". I'm not sure why some here are so hellbent on keeping this user blocked: we are trying to build an encyclopaedia here. I think sometimes people forget that. We're not here to score points against our opponents, we're not here to hold grudges, we're not here to "punish" other users that may have stepped out of line: we are trying to build. Neveselbert has time and time again been a valuable, good-faith contributor to POLUK-related articles, and long may that continue: he shouldn't be blocked, then tarred-and-feathered over a misdemeanour on one article. When we are faced with the near-impossible task of creating a scholarly, free, user-generated encycloclopaedia, every helpful user matters. So, Mr S F Radish? Tear down this wall. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    The solution is a TBAN; block them on the genitals stuff where they don't seem to be able to work constructively, while leaving other areas free-to-edit. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks so much Tim, I really appreciate the kind words. Take care, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    No problem. WP injustices are unfortunately rampant. Glad to have had a small part in quashing this one. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Really appreciate it, Tim, you're the best. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    I was only asking whether such a rule would be reasonable as a possible alternative, and apparently I have my answer. So there we have it, and I accept that. I'm happy to accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    I've unblocked you. The terms of the topic ban are in the block log, but I will also add them to WP:Editing restrictions. Good luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, Bbb23. If I may, can I ask for a few clarifications regarding this tban? Firstly, I understand this means I can't contribute to nether-related discussions. I accept that, although I would appreciate if you could clarify as to whether it would be possible to appeal this part of the topic ban sooner than a year? Anyway, thanks again. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    No, topic bans don't work that way, and it's not what you agreed to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    ​Alright, thanks for the clarification. Can I ask what the conditions would be for an appeal once a year has elapsed? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Bbb23: I thought that saying "you cannot appeal this block for such and such time" was not allowed. Please see this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    That is AE/CTOP/DS, which is a whole other ball of yarn.
    It is common language, used in most topic bans, and does not preclude process based appeals, e.g. that the sanction was placed by an involved admin or was otherwise incorrect. It can always be appealed at WP:AN on those grounds. Proposing an unblock condition, agreeing to an unblock condition, then deciding that you no longer like what you agreed to is not really a process issue. An appeal can still be attempted at AN, but it would likely be an enormous waste of time. The entire purpose of the "can be appealed after x time" statements is to avoid such time sinks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. Prcc27 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Hi Prcc27, thanks for dropping by. I'll have a look at that link you posted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: OK, so am I correct in understanding that the ban on appeals for a year has to stand, regardless of any uninvolved admin's opinion? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    It's unlikely that any uninvolved admin will unilaterally overturn another admin, especially as you agreed to the sanction as a condition for an unblock. That said, there is technically nothing preventing you from appealing at AN other than your own agreement that you would not. People have appealed before the time limit had passed before. If you decided to go that route, this is how I foresee it playing out:
    1. The appeal quickly fails
    2. There are multiple calls for the time limit to be extended or reset to a year from the time of your early appeal
    3. There are possibly calls for additional sanctions because of wikilawyering
    4. It calls additional attention to your editing, and makes other editors more likely to push for sanctions if they're in conflict with you
    5. Other editors become more likely to support sanctions against you in the future
    6. Admins will be less likely to accept your word on any unblock conditions in the future, as they've seen that you won't abide by conditions you've agreed to in the past
    7. Admins will be less likely to see with good faith any compromises you offer when under threat of sanctions, as you've shown a hesitance to follow such compromises in the past
    That's just my thought of how it would play out, based on how I've seen such things okay out in the past. I can't see the future, and I could be wrong, but I imagine most other editors would agree with that prediction.
    I strongly urge you to abide by the unblock conditions that you agreed to, and initially proposed. Another uninvolved admin popped up on my talk page to offer you the same advice. Please strongly consider what we're saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    I just find it odd that, had I not agreed to the ban, I would've been unblocked after two weeks without further sanction. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Watching this case as a third party, I feel like it might've been handled in way that eventually lead to User:Neveselbert receiving a punishment that is disproportionately harsh compared to his initial mistake. His 70k+ edits show that he is undoubtedly a serious user with a long history of helpful contributions and not some random wikipedia troll. Involvement in an edit war is something that at some point inevitably every wikipedia editor will find him/herself in. I believe that the mistake here is that he accepted the proposal possibly in a state of panic, which lead him to making a decision that clearly wasn't the best for him. There is no doubt that otherwise an indefinite tban so early would definitely not be warranted as a punishment. Piccco (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    +1 - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with Piccco. Getting an indefinite topic ban for breaking WP:3RR once or twice does not seem like a fair consequence. I think a temporary topic ban is/would have been more appropriate. Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yep, me too. However, unfortunately, that was apparently an "elaborate sanctions regime". The person who made that comment isn't an admin, but those who are, I would say: if you think a three-month ban is "elaborate", if you can't keep track of it, if you think an unblock and an amicable fix isn't "pleasing" to you as an individual, then you aren't fit to hold the mop. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    It's not a sanction I would have levied, but it is the sanction that was initially put forth by Neveselbert. They certainly could have been unblocked in two weeks had they chosen to go that route. They could have also have made an unblock request and allowed another administrator to review it. They didn't, though. They suggested an infinite topic ban, then agreed to terms of an unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yes I have seen this and I understand that you, ScottishFinnish, as an admin just do your job. I referred to it as a mistake likely made in panic, because obviously no wikipedia editor would normally inflict such a sanction upon themselves if they were thinking clearly. That is why I referred to the editor's whole contribution and wikipedia status, since his case is a bit uncommon -at least for me- and could potentially deserve a more thoughtful approach. Piccco (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Alright, so what about this: a year-long tban on human genitalia-related topics, appealable after three months. Yes, I know: not what was agreed to. But it's clearly not what Neveselbert agrees with at all, actually. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; I think revisiting this makes sense. Tim O’Doherty’s suggestion sounds fair. Prcc27 (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: They suggested an infinite topic ban I've just now noticed this and I think there's been a misunderstanding. I agreed to accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. "Indefinite" isn't the same thing as "infinite". I think Tim's proposal (with Prcc27's backing) is certainly something I can get behind. I don't see why this would be opposed at ANI given that I've already received unsolicited support from at least three different editors. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    That was the swipe to type on my phone. It's indefinite, not infinite. That's also how it's recorded at WP:RESTRICT. I again urge you to take the advice that admins have given you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    ScottishFinnishRadish, I have done, for the past three weeks. I just can't understand how the terms proposed by editors above wouldn't be in line with what I agreed. I did not agree to a ban on appeals for one year. I repeat, I never agreed to that. I agreed to an indefinite but appealable topic ban. I did not agree to a ban on my appealing for a year. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • A topic ban sounds fine, but I think we need a broader one. Looking back over Neveselbert's edits for the last few months, they also edit articles related to female genitalia, e.g., Clitoridectomy, Labia pride, and Clitoral hood reduction. So, how about an indefinite topic ban on human genitalia? Also, it should be made clear that if Neveselbert violates their topic ban, a block of at least two weeks would be imposed. Additionally, the ban may not be appealed for at least one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks both for responding. @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm inclined to accept these terms in exchange for lifting the 2 weeks, but can I ask what your thoughts are regarding a definite topic ban (technically what this block is, albeit one for all topics, yet still definite), one that can last as short as two weeks or even as long as a year (as Bbb23 referred to in respect of an appeal being considered)? I would also be open to discussing whether a particular regimen could be established around my conduct in these articles, such as perhaps a no-revert rule on my part (if I'm reverted, I cannot revert back, that sort of thing), going forward, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      • I was only asking whether such a rule would be reasonable as a possible alternative, and apparently I have my answer. So there we have it, and I accept that. I'm happy to accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to emphasize, I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word. is what you said. The one year condition was plainly stated, and you were aware of it. You didn't have to agree to the unblock conditions, but you did. Please respect what you agreed to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that was not what I agreed prior to Bbb23 unblocking me. I said specifically I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word. Key word here, "we". I did not expressly agree to the one-year condition, which I only said I was inclined to agree with, which isn't the same thing as actually agreeing. This is in contrast to my later statement in which I clearly expressed my acceptance of what I referred to as an indefinite but appealable topic ban. I implore anyone to please respect what I actually agreed to, which was not the one-year appeal ban, which is completely ridiculous and not what I agreed to. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible WikiProject Conservatism A-Class nominee

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again Neveselbert, hope the admins aren't giving you too much grief. Saw that you were the main string-puller in getting Margaret Thatcher to A-Class on Project Conservatism; is there any formal way to nominate articles, or do you just post a casual message on the project talkpage asking for a review? I'd like to get the freshly-FA'd Liz Truss to the same status but wasn't sure how to go about it. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tim, nice to hear from you again. In answer to your question, I followed the process at WP:RYT/AT, but I don't necessarily think it's worth going through that process with Liz Truss seeing as it's now rated above WP:ACLASS, unlike Margaret Thatcher, which is still a WP:GA. Speaking of which, I'm impressed by the job you've done on Truss, especially in respect of referencing. I don't know if you've considered doing something similar for Thatcher, possibly getting that article to FA status as well? All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, assumed A-Class on an individual WikiProject trumped the general FA-status. Truss was a bit of a doozy to reference well, but we have a good biography and The Times and The Guardian are both great papers to use, with Times Radio a great oral source (although I underused it a bit). Since I rewrote the article, there's been a good documentary by Laura Kuenssberg called State of Chaos, which I might reference at some point as well. Re Thatcher, that would be a massive project as she's arguably one of the most significant figures in world history, and second only to Churchill as the most famous British PM. My long, long-term project is to get UK PMs to featured topic, but only slightly over half would have to be FAs or FLs, meaning Churchill, Thatcher and Brown can be left as is. It would probably be easier to get the older or more obscure prime ministers like Wilmington, Shelburne and Aberdeen to FA, and leave the big, controversial ones like Thatcher, Blair and Cameron to GA. Sunak I'm looking at doing next, with the bio by Lord Ashcroft acting as the core source as Cole and Heale was for Truss. Good job on Thatcher too, though: tackling such a colossus in British history is not easy, and more power to you for doing that. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  0xDeadbeef
  Tamzin
  Dennis Brown

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery
 

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: our eminent new Foreign Secretary

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

S'pose you're right, I'll wait until Cameron's gone until I rearrange his article lead. Mad how he's made a comeback, though. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tim, yes, that's what I had in mind. It's certainly quite the surprise. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

About the 2005 MP portraits

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You know the UK member of parliament portraits published in 2005 you've used on several pages? Where can I find them, I want to see them in higher resolution and use them for my projects. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi BlakeIsHereStudios. I found the portraits off of Google, and you'll probably be able to find higher resolution versions of them in a reverse image search. I would be mindful of the copyright situation for the high-resolution versions, though, as they appear to have been licensed commercially, unlike the lower-resolution versions which can be found online in news articles, etc. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Alistair Cooke postnominals

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

Yesterday I edited "Alistair Cooke" to fix a disambiguation link added by a passing IP editor. Looking back through the edit history I noticed you'd removed the postnominals in March. MOS:POSTNOM would seem to permit them. I've no strong opinion either way, although if they stay, of course they should be corrected to KBE (KBEh). Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jean-de-Nivelle. Seeing as Cooke was no longer a British/Commonwealth citizen at the time of his award or by the time of his death, I wouldn't think it appropriate to include the post-nominals in Cooke's article, in accordance with MOS:POSTNOM. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous policy interpretation

Latest comment: 5 months ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding your edits to the following pages, Margaret Thatcher and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

First off with the Margaret Thatcher page you state that Wikipedia:NOPIPE doesn't apply because there's no pipe, which isn't true; the policy states:

First of all, keep links as simple as possible:

  • Avoid making links longer than necessary:

 N [[George Washington|President George Washington]]

 Y President [[George Washington]]

Which clearly mandates title outside the brackets.

Secondly your reversion to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh cites Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN and MOS:JOBTITLES. Looking at both of those in turn, NOTBROKEN says: That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect".

None of those cited examples include 'president' in the link, therefore indicating its an improper form. For the record I was not changing a redirect, but removing the title from the link as per NOPIPE. With JOBTITLES, the guidance reads: When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II).

I accept that I got this wrong in the Prince Philip article when amending the King to the king, but the above passage again removes the title Queen from the link. Based on the above I think it's pretty clear that titles don't belong in links. Ecrm87 (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ecrm87. First of all, the example you give of [[George Washington|President George Washington]] is not the same as [[President George Washington]]. In my understanding, the difference with kings and queens is that the title "King" or "Queen" is not just a job title, it's their personal title, which makes linking them together with the name more desirable, much like linking "Sir" in Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet or indeed "Mahatma" in Mahatma Gandhi. Also, it's more consistent such as in cases where Queen Victoria is linked, making a link to George III as King George III appear inconsistent by comparison. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
If that were true then the Elizabeth II page would be titled Queen Elizabeth II and encyclopaedia entries on Louis XIV would be titled King Louis XIV. This is not the case and never has been. Ecrm87 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
No, because that isn't necessary for disambiguation purposes. In the case of Queen Victoria, it is deemed necessary. If, by some chance in the future, states and capitals are named "Elizabeth II" or "Louis XIV", it's possible that both articles would be renamed to include their titles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
By that same argument Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg would be Princess-Abbess Elisabeth II of Quedlinburg. But she isn't, because it violates the above policies. Monarchs' titles aren't part of their names, and for that matter the 'Sir' in the Sir George Stokes title shouldn't be there either, see Rowland Hill or Robert Peel (2nd baronet). Consistency has already been achieved with a simple policy; no title in the link or page title. Why go against this? Ecrm87 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
No, but a link to Princess-Abbess Elisabeth II of Quedlinburg would be entirely acceptable in prose. Monarch's titles are often treated as part of their names, hence Queen Victoria. Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet conforms to WP:NCBRITPEER because the name is ambiguous, George Stokes being a disambiguation page. The consistency you refer to applies to page titles, not wikilinks. There is no hard-and-fast rule against including "King" or "Queen", or even "President" (e.g. President Biden), inside links. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've literally quoted you the rule!! 'Avoid making links longer than necessary'. I didn't realise Sir George Stokes needed disambiguating, but apparently you don't realise that Queen Victoria is also a disambiguation; Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation), this is why there's a 'Queen' in the title at all. Ecrm87 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but that rule is not absolute. Queen Victoria has a disambiguation page, but it's still the primary topic for that title and indeed Victoria of the United Kingdom. For consistency's sake, there's nothing wrong in including "King" or "Queen" in a link, given the Queen Victoria situation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Queen Victoria is an exception, not the rule. 99% of other monarch's pages do not include King or Queen in the title. As far as I can tell there are only four pages that do. To be consistent the title should be removed. Titles aren't in the page titles, there's no need for them in a link and it breaks the 'keep links short' rule. Based off going against a rule and going against consistency there's nothing to justify your points. In fact based on consistency alone the Queen Victoria page should be renamed. Ecrm87 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Right, but it hasn't been renamed, and most incoming links to Queen Victoria are as Queen Victoria, such as on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, which is why I believe we should be consistent on "King" or "Queen" within links throughout the article. As for Margaret Thatcher, I'll concede the point there, and you can remove "Queen" from the link there if you really want to. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with using Queen Victoria as there isn't a better alternative and adding a pipe just to remove the title would itself violate the rule. The trouble with being consistent with the one article as you propose is that it doesn't equal consistency across wikipedia as a whole. It means every article that mentions Queen Victoria even once will have to follow this example and that doesn't do much for consistency. It would be better to use Queen Victoria for all links talking about her and move the title out of the links for everyone else. Ecrm87 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I can't agree with that. Consistency across Wikipedia as a whole is regulated by the Manual of Style, and neither style of including the title within the link or outside violates MoS. So it should depend per article, such as if Queen Victoria is linked like so. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
As it looks like we're not going to agree, would you mind if I asked for a third opinion? Ecrm87 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
It probably makes sense to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Amess murder discussion

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess#Should_this_article_reflect_trial_accounts_of_the_attack/Ali’s_behaviour

I have added a discussion on the death article talk if it should reflect trial accounts of the event.

By the way, thanks for your edits on the main article on Amess92.17.199.182 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"P. W." listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect P. W. 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 December 20 § P. W. until a consensus is reached. Silcox (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thank you so much for your kind greetings, hope you've had a wonderful Christmastime and a Happy New Year! Please enjoy this pie, or perhaps some leftover Turkey sandwiches   GnocchiFan (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robert-Villiers-Grimston-1st-Baron-Grimston-of-Westbury.jpg

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robert-Villiers-Grimston-1st-Baron-Grimston-of-Westbury.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) 18:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Joyous Season

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
 
 

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday!   Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages. 

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 
Happy New Year!

Neveselbert,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! Thanks so much, and a very Happy New Year to you too. Best wishes, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alan Burns.jpeg

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alan Burns.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) 18:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Unpipe.js

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a little more context here. I'm finding it's easy to get carried away! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jean-de-Nivelle, nice to hear from you again! Thanks so much for making that request as well as linking me to that discussion. I'm well aware of that particular evader, yes, having had to report them multiple times. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding earlier titles discussion

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I have found a policy which provides clearer guidance on including titles within links. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). The consorts section says that titles can be included at the beginning of a link if the individual is living (and I'm guessing this possibly applies to the sovereign as well), but I can't find any other use of a title before name in link otherwise. Ecrm87 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ecrm87, that's fine. I still think you should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunak collab?

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again. First of all, you've done a brilliant job on Thatcher and it's great to see such a high-quality article on one of the biggest figures in British history. Secondly, after this year's election's happened and Sunak is ... erm ... no longer prime minister, do you want to work together on getting his article to GA (and then maybe FA)? In December I started a draft in my sandbox on his premiership. It's a bit sparse and scrappy right now and only contains a few flashpoints from what's happened so far, but it's a decent starting point. The problem is that unlike how I did Truss, there's no book or biography of Sunak we can use as the "backbone" of the article, so can only patch together different sources into a coherent draft. I'll try to piece together some good journal articles and book chapters when I start seriously writing it. We've got 5–11 months until the election according to Brand Rishi™ so no worries about rushing into anything. No worries, also, if you're not interested either: I don't blame you! Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tim! Thank you for your kind words about my work on the Thatcher article, I appreciate it. You've done such a good job with the Truss article (far better than she might deserve, dare I say). I've looked over your draft for the Sunak article, and you've made a great start, especially considering the challenges of piecing together information from various sources. As for collaborating, I'm currently uncertain about my availability in the near future, but I'll certainly see what I can do when the time comes. Best regards, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
As for a book or biography of Sunak we can use as the "backbone" of the article, may I suggest Michael Ashcroft's All to Play For: The Advance of Rishi Sunak? I've got a copy of it on Kindle. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually did ask about All to Play For at FAC's talk page (here) and it was kiboshed for two reasons: it was written and published by Ashcroft, so can't be used for BLPs per SPS; and Ashcroft isn't a reliable source because he has a history of fabrications (Piggate being the obvious one). It's unfortunate, but hey-ho. I have The Right to Rule by Ben Riley-Smith instead, which does go into the early bits of Sunak's premiership (October 2022 – May 2023) which I've used quite a bit and plan to use more of. I'll see if I can also get Johnson at 10 to fill in the COVID-era stuff (I used this for Truss, but only borrowed it). Cheers and thanks for your help — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

 

  CheckUser changes

  Wugapodes

  Interface administrator changes

 

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

  Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

  Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Resignation Honours

Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Please at least attempt to gather consensus before doing a page move - just (Truss) and (Johnson) were accurate, there is no need to include the full name and it looks clunkier as a result. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@OGBC1992: it's not at all standard to include only the surname in disambiguations. Neither Johnson nor Truss redirect to Boris Johnson and Liz Truss respectively. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
When dealing with articles regarding Prime Ministers, it is - Johnson ministry and Truss ministry, for example, rather than Boris Johnson ministry or Liz Truss ministry. OGBC1992 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
That's not parenthetical disambiguation though, so it's a different matter. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, it’s best to attempt to get consensus before moving pages. OGBC1992 (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Just jumping into this discussion to say that surnames are already in common use as parenthetical disambiguators. For instance, see the list of artworks titled The Annunciation that use exactly this method of disambiguation. In this case, the prime ministers' surnames are sufficient to disambiguate, so I would support reverting the moves in light of WP:CONCISE. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: not the same. It's common to use surnames when disambiguating artworks, but not in other cases. It's standard to use the full name in other articles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you have examples for that? I'm not aware of any. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
See intitle:/"(Margaret Thatcher)"/, for example. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Template paragraph error

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Your recent edit on Template:Non-free use rationale is triggering an unclosed <p> tag on (at the moment) 2400+ pages this template is used on. Would you revisit this edit and see if you could correct this? My suspicion is the p tag pair towards the top of the template since that looks multilayered and the others look more straight forward, but I'm not certain as I try not to deal with if statement syntax often. This caught my eye since File space is typically quiet and we've had the tracked syntax errors eradicated in File space (barring the occasional popup) for while. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Working on it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Zinnober9: should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing! Looks good. It'll take a few minutes for the site to realize and purge those File pages to the latest template version, but that's no issue. Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your template editor permission. The thread is Template editor permission review request. Thank you. — Primefac (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Primefac. I've responded there and apologised for falling short in my actions. I've always tried my best for the past six years with the privileges that come with template permissions, though I fully admit that lately my actions have not been up to standard, as well as a few from a year ago which I tried my utmost to rectify in consultation with the community. If there is anything you would like me to clarify in the meantime, please let me know. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"1792 presidential election" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect 1792 presidential election 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/2024 February 20 § 1792 presidential election until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

promise re template editing

Latest comment: 2 months ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Neveselbert, you agreed at ANI that you would not make template edits. Specifically, you said If I keep the TE user right, I am prepared to commit to editing only sandboxes and testcases, not live protected templates, unless I've discussed it with you or other editors beforehand. Last week, you make six consecutive edits to Template:Multiple candidates images, despite failure to properly create or edit a sandbox or testcases page. You did not do that simple step and edited the live template multiple times anyway. I view this as a total breach of your promise, and I think it merits removal of your TE rights. Pinging SMcCandlish, Pppery, and Primefac, the other participants in that ANI discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Multiple candidates images is not template protected. It's reasonable to interpret that promise as only applying to protected templates. I'm not happy about the way that AN thread fizzled with what looks to me like an unactioned consensus for removal, but I see no breach of a promise here. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Six consecutive edits to a live template without creating a sandbox or testcases page is a continuation of this editor's poor judgement regarding template editing. How long will we let this situation fester? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I guess Pppery is technically correct; the promise says "protected". Once in a blue moon I (as a TE) directly edit a live template, but generally one that is very simple and barely used, or rarely even one that's broadly used iff the change is extremely simple and couldn't break anything (fix a typo in plain text, not change conditional code, etc.). But it's unwise in general, and Neveselbert has a very poor track record in this area. I think it's extremely likely that Neveselbert is going to break something in one of these "wild" edits, and then end up back at AN[I] for removal of the TE permission, which this time will certainly happen. So, the obvious and probably only solution is to stop directly and experimentally editing live templates, and just edit sandboxes and text cases until proof of proper functionality is established, and only then update the live template. The dicussion at Jonesey95's talk page with Neveselbert, in which the latter seems virtually incapable of following the simplest instructions to test-case what they are actually changing in the code, is rather alarming. At this point, I think I would support removal of the TE permission anyway, on competence grounds.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, to address the concerns raised about my editing practices: firstly, I have consistently refrained from editing protected templates without consulting Jonesey95, as demonstrated in my handling of Template:Infobox rugby biography and Template:Page needed. This shows my dedication to maintaining the commitment I made. I acknowledge the oversight in not using a sandbox for the unprotected {{Multiple candidates images}} and commit to employing sandboxing and testcasing for all future changes, protected or not. The claim that I can't follow simple instructions is unfounded. I sought guidance from Jonesey95 to improve my sandboxing and testcasing skills. This shows my willingness to learn and adapt. I am committed to adhering to the agreed-upon practices. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I regret that, and I can clarify from now on that I will create a sandbox or testcases page before editing any template in future. Can you please just try to bear with me instead of constantly assuming bad faith? It's tiresome, and I don't know how I can communicate with you if we can't reason with each other. Again, the promise I made was in respect of protected templates. I'm willing to promise that from now on, any change I make to an unprotected template, I will have sandboxed/testcased first. Why you couldn't just clarify this point with me instead of immediately concluding I've broken my vows I don't know. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
We have constantly assumed good faith, despite years of this pattern of making many consecutive edits to live templates. It is you who have consistently said that you would change your behavior and then returned to the previous disruptive pattern. I think that enough grace has been provided to you in the past, but I am at the end of my patience. I acknowledge the statements in the e-mail message that you sent to me, but that does not change my position that the edits have been disruptive to live Wikipedia pages that are displayed throughout the world. This is not personal; it is about the pattern of edits.
Without the TE privilege, you will still be able to edit sandboxes and testcases pages and then propose edits to live templates when testing is complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a fair characterisation. I have abided by my promises to change my behaviour, which is why I've consulted you twice now on your talkpage regarding protected templates. I explicitly stated in my initial promise that I understood it to apply only to protected templates. I'm now willing to promise not to edit any templates without sandboxing/testcasing beforehand, which should be reasonable. I'm afraid I've never felt you've assumed good faith, you've constantly given me the cold shoulder despite my efforts to reason with you, and it also appears you're uninterested in apologising for mistakenly accusing me of breaking my promise. I don't know what else I can say to you, and I don't think it's worth trying to anymore, even with what I've tried to explain to you via email. You neglect to mention in your reference to my years of template editing any of the constructive changes I've helped bring about, as if to imply I've contributed nothing of value but bother. It might not be personal to you, but it's a thankless task from my end, and your unwillingness to allow me to explain myself is so tiring. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but is this what you consider my giving you the cold shoulder? Me asking you over and over again to create a relevant test case, and you not doing it? This discussion is me giving you the cold shoulder? I've been bending over backwards to help you, despite your inability to follow through on simple requests and your inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done. In this 2020 discussion, it was clear that you had agreed to do testing before implementing edits, and then you plowed ahead with edits that broke a widely used template. You have repeatedly said that you would do testing before implementing template edits, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. This has been going on for years, so why should we believe you when you say that this time it is different? The evidence is all stacked against that assertion. It would be frustrating to lose a dedicated template editor who really cares about the project, so I hope that you will continue with sandbox and testcase editing after your TE privileges are removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as your initial message was in reference to that very template under discussion, it certainly felt as if you had. You asked me to create a testcase and, after discussing that with you while editing the sandbox, I created a testcase, all without touching the live template. That other discussion was from nearly four years ago, and I don't think we've had anything like that camaraderie since. I'm genuinely appreciative of your help in the past, I made a point of remembering to wish you a happy Christmas to express my gratitude. I'm not in any way ungrateful, though I can't say I feel very welcome either. What you refer to as my inability to follow through on simple requests just isn't fair. I've made an effort to consult with you, to discuss things with you. I have something resembling a life outside Wikipedia, and I can't always follow things through to schedule, but I'll always try my utmost. As for any inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done, I've recognised this problem in my comments since, and I've told you repeatedly that I'm prepared to pledge myself in future to resist doing so. My previous promise was in reference to protected templates, and I adhered fully to that promise. Now, I'm prepared to add to it. Regarding that other discussion from four years ago, that was in reference to that specific template, which I did abide by. It says something though that you have to go that far back to find a similar case where I've fallen short in my actions. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1212032326 would appear to be an example of an inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done, given there was no edit to {{Infobox royalty/sandbox}} and {{Infobox royalty/testcases}} on your part. Do as I say, not as I do, as someone once said... ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I discussed a plan with Jonesey95 which was the result of that discussion, addressing the concerns you and others raised, and there was no consensus against such a plan. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Jonesey95, I must clarify that my agreement was specifically about not editing live protected templates without prior discussion. {{Multiple candidates images}} is not a protected template. My edits were within the bounds of the agreement, focusing only on non-protected templates. While I understand the concerns raised, my actions have not breached the promise made at ANI. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
from now on that I will create a sandbox or testcases page before editing any template That probably works for me (after a short chat we also had in email). I'm inclined to give another opportunity in most cases, often even after previous ones haven't worked out too well. That said, observing a poor track record of template editing isn't "assuming bad faith". That has a rather strict definition, namely the negation of assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. No one here is assuming you are deliberately trying to hurt wikipedia, only observing that some of your actions have had negative results (using a permission for which positive ones are pretty consistently expected, and negative ones can have serious, albeit not long-term, consequences across a very large number of public pages), and observing a pattern of failing to address this problem. If you now commit to addressing the problem, then all should be well. PS: I'm also no gatekeeper of the TE bit; I'm just a TE and PM who sometimes chimes in on permissions-related matters. It's ultimately up to the admin corps who manage these permissions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you SMcC, for your understanding and willingness to give another opportunity. I would emphasise though that my overall track record in template editing isn't solely defined by recent issues; I've made numerous constructive contributions to template space over time. I acknowledge however the concerns raised about my editing practices and am fully committed to addressing them. From now on, I will ensure to create a sandbox or testcases page before editing any template, regardless of its complexity. This is my commitment towards rectifying past mistakes and improving the quality of my contributions. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Lord Lucan talk page

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm starting a new discussion on at the Lord Lucan talk page, in light of a recent article by Laura Thompson. ~~ 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In light of a recent article that talks about a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked, I wonder if you could be able to help with how I should phrase the paragraph I have added about it. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character. Even the author of the article finds the possibility too unbelievable even comparing it to something out of a Agatha Christie story. 80.43.251.32 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Lord Cameron (minister)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Lord Cameron (minister) 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/2024 March 18 § Lord Cameron (minister) until a consensus is reached. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Delete!" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Delete! 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/2024 March 24 § Delete! until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments2 people in discussion
 
Happy Birthday!
 

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

PS: the Sunak rewrite I was talking about in January's coming along slowly, but nicely. It's a bit of a mess right now; hopefully Sunak takes his time in calling the election(!) Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Tim! I will just say though that your lede reads just a little presumptuously. I'd be a bit more guarded with my crystal ball; you never know until it actually happens, and Starmer is no Blair. When's your birthday, if you don't mind me asking? All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Starmer is no Blair, but I'm intending to publish it after Sunak's gone: unless the party kicks him out (they won't) I can't see any other way—even if I'm wrong, a fix is only an edit away (although if I was doing a John Major rewrite in 1991 I might have had egg on my face ;) ). I'm 23 November, or as the box on my page insists on formatting it, "November 23". Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there'll be a landslide until it actually happens, to be honest. Anyway, thanks for telling me about your birthday (which, coincidentally, is also my stepfather's birthday)  . ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I think there will be, and the way it's shaping up it has the potential to be even worse than 97. Everything I've read in research for both Truss and Sunak is just grim for the Conservatives. There's clearly huge appetite for change, especially up here, and I just can't see the inevitable Labour win being slim. We'll see  . Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd say the same if Labour had a charismatic and youthful leader like Blair, but I just can't imagine Starmer being that person. He's a latter-day Harold Wilson at best, and I think the election will probably result in a 1964-style victory for Labour. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It's an interesting comparison. Sunak is similar is some ways to Home: wealthy, fairly stiff in interviews, fairly shaky claim to the premiership, a warring cabinet and (presumably) a Parliament dissolved at the last minute. Similar too to Ted Heath: large EU negotiations, a premiership dogged by strikes and issues with energy supply, similar cabinet divisions, troubles in Northern Ireland and both created one of their predecessors foreign secretary. Wilson didn't get a convincing majority (or majority at all) in either 1964 or Feb 1974 (or even in Oct 1974; 1966 is a bit different). Anyway, the admins will have my guts for garters if I keep FORUMing; just food for thought. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Garret FitzGerald

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there! Figured I should bring up the shortdesc over at Garret FitzGerald up here. How is the previous description better? It will very likely lead to the belief that FitzGerald was Taoiseach continuously between 1981 and 1987, which he was not. How is it not better to be more accurate? Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there estar8806, sorry for late replying, it's been my birthday today and I've been away for a bit. As for the description, it's the most concise, as it correctly states he was Taoiseach between those two years, as opposed to being in office from one year to the next, and also matches the sentence in the lead which states his being twice Leader of the Opposition between 1977 and 1982. That said, I've gone back and forth on what the descriptions for taoisigh should be exactly, as I'm not sure the ordinal necessarily should be included, as it isn't included in short descriptions for US presidents, though that might be because of WP:SDLENGTH. There's also the issue of capitalising "Taoiseach" if we do retain the ordinal, per MOS:JOBTITLES, which may or may not be necessary depending on whether we're able to consider it a common noun like "prime minister". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries about the late reply! Hope you had a nice birthday. Regarding your point on concision, the description I wrote is only 1 character longer than the current description. In my opinion, 1 character shouldn't be a big deal when considering accuracy. It's also more consistent with how other world leaders who served non consecutive terms have their descriptions written (eg. Grover Cleveland, Harold Wilson, Alexis Tsipras, etc.). I'm likewise not sure about the inclusion of ordinals for taoisigh, I've seen some editors say that it should only be used for U.S. Presidents considering it's not exactly common to refer to leaders by their number in office elsewhere, but I can't be certain of that. Capitalization is obviously a sort of spinoff question of the inclusion of ordinals thing. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Mostitle

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I believe you are misunderstanding WP:MOSTITLE and it is perfectly correct to use a capital when referring to, e.g., "10th Taoiseach of Ireland", as it is referring to a specific position. This would be in common with what's done with English prime ministers' short descriptions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, regarding British prime ministers' short descriptions, the difference is that they're not numbered, and the standard appears to be to use lowercase when the title is numbered; see Donald Trump's lead for example, 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. I'm not entirely clear whether this should apply to taoiseach, as it's a term borrowed from another language. Ordinarily, we would italicise it if in lower case, or use {{lang}}, though I don't know if such markup would be advisable here. I suppose we can leave it capitalised, though I'm not entirely convinced this is consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't italicise it, as while, yes, it comes from the Irish language, taoiseach is also the English-language word for the leader of the Irish government. See Taoiseach, specifically the lead paragraph. Regarding MOS:JOBTITLES, it's not at all clear that an unnumbered office should be Prime Minister while a numbered one should be taoiseach or president. I would suggest the opposite seems more likely as the numbered ones point to specific posts. Or maybe we should just leave well enough alone? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II Interview?

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I greatly appreciate your improvements to my reference to the audio of the Queen's recollections of VE Day 1945. I added a further reference to programme name "The Way We Were" because the original programme name is not mentioned in the other sources. I struggled with what the title= should be, as the programme listing does not have an official title.

I have some qualms about the programme being described as an "interview", which is a question and answer format. I recall Alastair Bruce in I think it was The Coronation TV programme saying something along the lines of "the Queen is never interviewed", the protocol being that she was never asked direct questions by the media. Unfortunately I have been unable to find the whole programme so I am unable to find the context to determine if Godfrey Talbot had asked a question which would support the description of "interview".

Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Corsac Fox Kazakhstan, I'm glad to be of help. I was able to find the interaction described as such on Google. Thanks for adding a further reference, which I'll have a look at. As for the title, I struggled with that as well while reformatting the citation, which made me reluctant to use {{cite episode}} instead. I would take Bruce's remarks as a general rule of thumb, rather than an absolute rule, as the Queen had been interviewed on specific topics of her interest where the questions were known to her in advance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the trouble is that the Way We Were programme does nor quite fit any of the available citation categories, characteristic trammels of the products of modern American TV, that have no imaginative space for the more rambling nature of reminiscence. So interview is probably the best that we can do with what we have. I don't have time to get into investigating how new citation categories might be formed.
In The Coronation TV programme I was amused watching Alastair Bruce asking about how long the Queen spent in the coach, and she pointedly ignored him and carried on saying what she wanted to say. But then ignoring the question happens frequently in interviews. Do you have an example of where Queen Elizabeth is interviewed with prepared questions? I'd like to see how it was done. Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Oooh I like what you did with the combined reference. Should it link to 8th May 1985 listing on the BBC website, rather than the 24th December 1985 listing? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be best. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Amess murder talk

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess#Should_this_article_reflect_trial_accounts_of_the_attack/Ali’s_behaviour?

I have added the following link to the discussion as to whether we should rewrite the article to reflect how later accounts described the David Amess attack. This will be the last I will do the Amess articles, as it is too painful for me personally. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for telling me, however in future it would be more efficient if you notified some of the multiple WikiProjects these articles are of interest to, such as WT:CRIME, WT:ISLAM, WT:POLUK, WT:TERROR or WT:DEATH, in the case of Murder of David Amess, rather than individual talkpages. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neveselbert/Archive_11&oldid=1223085346"