User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 9

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Polyamorph in topic Commons talk


Disruptive edits to Template:Marriage edit

Your edits to {{Marriage}} are disruptive. I have now reverted your broken edits three times. This template is used in 42,000 pages. The template editor permission is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. Please discuss any proposed changes and demonstrate them in the sandbox and on the testcases page. Please do not edit the live template again until there is talk page consensus to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: I'm sorry. Duly noted. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Re: Downscaling non-free images to <100k pixels edit

With regards to your request via email about downscaling your images, did you try asking its operator, User:DatGuy, first?

I may fulfill your request whenever possible, if time and bandwidth allows. Ntx61 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ntx61, DatGuy was notified about the issue here. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done scaling down the images. Can I ask for your feedback on reduced images by the way? (Some may prefer automatic reduction, so I am requesting feedback.) I did the reduction manually, using the following steps:
  1. The image to be reduced is opened in GIMP (version 2.8.18 is used). The color space is then converted to sRGB if prompted.
  2. As the images appear grayscale, the color mode is then converted from RGB to Grayscale to remove color information from exported images and minimize file sizes (save for File:William-Stanley-Shepherd.jpg, which had a color tint).
  3. The target image size is then calculated per WP:IMAGERES using a self-made tool, and its output is then entered in image scaling operation with cubic interpolation.
  4. The resulting image is then exported as JPEG with 95% quality, with most metadata removed (EXIF/XMP data not saved and comment blanked out).
Ntx61 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Thank you Ntx61. I much prefer it your way. Best, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ntx61: can you also reduce these 5 images, please, when you have the time? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (mobile) (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done reducing the images.
  Not done for File:Leo Blair.jpeg: Image is small enough (82,243 pixels) to meet WP:IMAGERES. Ntx61 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again, Ntx. Can you also please look at these 4? Much appreciated, ‑‑Neveselbert (mobile) (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done. This time, metadata has been carried over.Ntx61 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, quality for some files have been adjusted to avoid going over the size of original images. Ntx61 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ntx61: can you possibly upload the higher quality versions of those files you mention? I don't see anything in NFCC policy that prohibits smaller versions going over the size of the originals. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

John Hume/Patricia edit

I have added a citation for your tag for his wife's name. I was suprised there was none in the article itself. Arnkellow (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

August 2020 edit

  Hi Neveselbert! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Pol Pot that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You removed information on a marriage from the article without explaining why you did it, and you marked it Minor, which it certainly was not (but may have been, with proper explanation). — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry UncleBubba, I shouldn't have marked my edit as such and, especially in light of the sensitive subject matter of the article, I should have given a more proper explanation. As for why I hid the information (I didn't remove the code), it contains a deprecated value in one of the parameters. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Blair ministry edit

Hello. I think I've managed to disambiguate all the links to Blair ministry and get rid of all the {{dn}} tags but it might help if you could check. I've linked those which spanned two or three governments to Premiership of Tony Blair which, although more focused on the leader than the ministers, seems to be the nearest thing we have to a BCA covering the entire period. I see that an unusually high number of articles link through Blair ministry (disambiguation); I don't think either target is wrong. Certes (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you Certes, all seems fine. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Help with disambiguation edit

Hi Neveselbert, at your tag on Mari Kim, I have replaced the disambiguation of Iron Lady with a link to Iron Lady at Thatcher's page....is it correct to do this? The artwork is a take on Margaret Thatcher as the Iron Lady. I'll depend on your expertise in this. Thanks--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thatcher ministries edit

Could you explain why you keep reverting my edits? What I don’t understand is how can a ministry be dissolved on election day (11 June 1987) when people are still voting and no one knows who’s going to form the next government. Normally ministries are dissolved the next day when the results are all in: Explain! Ciaran.london (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ciaran.london, see page 412 of ASIN 0720123062, Facts About British Prime Ministers (1995), which has a subsection titled "Dates of Administration" (continued from page 411). If you're able to, you can buy the book and see the information for yourself. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

👍 Ciaran.london (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ciaran.london, you can borrow the book from here: [1] ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 November 2020 edit

Descriptive edit summaries edit

Minor request: for heavily edited pages that are under intense scrutiny, please use more descriptive edit summaries that say what you're doing and why. (Example: say what it was you formatted.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'll be sure to keep that in mind if/when I edit such articles in future. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate parameter error edit

Hello, you've got an error in {{Infobox administration/sandbox}}. There are duplicate parameters for label3 and data3, one for Monarch and one for President. Normally I'd fix it, but I'm not sure if you want to keep both or get rid of one of them. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2020 edit

Cite Unseen update edit

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

  • You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new   generally reliable icon (described below).
  • New categorizations/icons:
    •   Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
    •   Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
    •   Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
    • Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as   generally reliable,   marginally reliable,   generally unreliable,   deprecated, and   blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as   varied reliability. Note that   generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
  • With the addition of the new categorizations, the   biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

The Signpost: 28 December 2020 edit

Margaret Thatcher edit

The protection log indicates that the reason the page was given semi-protection was because of vandalism. Geminin667 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of an image edit

Hello, I wanted to ask why you deleted the image I added showing Margaret Thatcher during a visit to Israel? It is a relevant picture to the "foreign affairs" chapter. --DoritG (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi DoritG, I moved the image to Premiership of Margaret Thatcher § Foreign affairs. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Townshend ministry (disambiguation) edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Townshend ministry (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion of Premiership of Winston Churchill (disambiguation) edit

You requested deletion of this redirect on G14 grounds. While I suppose you're entitled to request G7 deletion as the sole contributor to the page, G14 doesn't quite apply as the current target is a disambiguation page. If you still think it should be deleted, I'm happy to act on this as a G7 case, but was hoping to hear your reasoning as well. signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2021 edit

February 2021 edit

  It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston‎. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. You must notify all previous participants not just the ones who agreed with your viewpoint. DrKay (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

DrKay, I'm under no obligation to notify everyone. I'm free to notify those who have previously supported my rationale, you're free to notify those who supported yours. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Teresa May" edit

I've reverted your change to the Teresa May page. "Teresa May" is not a correct use for Theresa May; arriving at this disambiguation should prompt people to fix any incorrectly-spelled links. Note that search engines are not confused by this- if anything, the presence of this disambig provides information that helps them do the autocorrection correctly. -- The Anome (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@The Anome: please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Teresa May. You may nominate the redirect at WP:RFD but you cannot change the target until there is consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing out the discussion, which I didn't see before making the revert. That seems fine to me. -- The Anome (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
OK Anome, but still feel free to nominate the redirect at WP:RFD. WP:Consensus can change and it's been nearly four years since the last discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

MOS:SEAOFBLUE edit

Hi Neveselbert. I would like to ask why you inserted 'hsp' [2] instead of 'br' [3] to avoid a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. MOS:SEAOFBLUE is a great style guide but I am not sure how 'hsp' solves the issue at hand; 'br' would seem a more intuitive solution. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
On the other hand, it is common practice to avoid a line break between honorifics. Actually, 'hsp' is a better idea. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 February 2021 edit

Edit warring over RfD closure edit

I have reverted your involved relist of this RfD and restored CycloneYoris' close. Instead of furthering an edit war, discuss the closure with CycloneYoris or bring it up at DRV. J947messageedits 05:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK J947, will do. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Linking to a redirect for a non-notable song edit

Hi. For somebody who questions others where their edit summary is, I find it a little bit of a double standard that you didn't leave one beyond "restored revision" (to a prior edit by me). What is the purpose of linking to a redirect here? If you think there's potential to expand the article, then by all means go ahead and create it before linking to it, but I'm debating that in my summary (I clearly meant to say "I don't believe the song is notable", not "don't believe the song is not notable"). I don't see extensive independent coverage of the song and it did not chart, so what do you expect an article to be made on? If it's the reason why you reverted my removal of it, I don't believe links to redirects encourage editors to create them, especially if the song is debatably even notable in the first place. If the song had charted, it would most likely have an article on it already, just like the prior single. By that same token, you could link to all songs by London Grammar that don't have articles yet. Ss112 04:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ss112: understood. I still think there is time for the song to chart in time for the album's release. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Edit war edit

Please halt your attempts at edit warring immediately. There is no justification or basis for it, given the edits are stylistic improvements to article ledes only. Not appropriate for you to attempt to mass remove these based on nothing. Vaze50 (talk), 22:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Vaze50: Surely then, why not justify your improvements on the talkpage, rather than ramrodding them throughout, without any input from other contributors? Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to begin a discussion and reach a consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Neveselbert: As you know full well it is definitely not the standard approach to begin discussion and reach consensus on moving several sentences around within a lede so that the structure of the paragraphs flow better. It is not the addition of new information, it is not removing existing sourced information, it is arranging a lede to read better than it currently does. That is done right across this website on countless articles all of the time, and it is absurd to suggest starting a discussion on talk pages around it. If I was trying to add or remove controversial or sourced/unsourced information then I would completely agree and would do so. Why is it you are trying to stop improvements to lede structure exactly? Can you explain, please? Let's have that discussion you're so keen on. Vaze50 (talk), 22:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC).Reply
I don't agree that your changes are improvements, frankly. Anyway, make your case at the respective talkpages, in accordance with WP:BRD please. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Neveselbert: You think that on a page where in the very first paragraph it is made clear that the subject holding all four Great Offices of State is significant, that the same page should then hide said offices in the infobox? Can you justify that view please? Vaze50 (talk), 22:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC).Reply
@Neveselbert: Anyway, super clever man, I'll take them to those talk pages and unless there's disagreement, will revert to the obvious improvements put there by me. Thanks for the guidance. Vaze50 (talk), 22:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC).Reply
Neveselbert, this user has had three editors reverting them on this edit. I’ve given them the standard 3rr warning. They’ll be blocked if they revert again. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@DeCausa: This edit has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what you were engaged in, so you can get lost. Take your bigotry elsewhere, and stop trying to crawl up the backside of other people, it's nauseating to watch. Vaze50 (talk), 23:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC).Reply
Your contribs are there for all to see. A 3rr warning means you can be taken to the EW noticeboard (and be deemed to understand 3rr) for any edit-warring. You don’t get to say on which talk pages I post. DeCausa (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@DeCausa: Carry on screaming into the void there, Anglophobe. Vaze50 (talk), 23:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

The Signpost: 28 March 2021 edit

"President Walker Bush" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect President Walker Bush. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#President Walker Bush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"President Herbert Walker Bush" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect President Herbert Walker Bush. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#President Herbert Walker Bush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 01:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Henry Bannerman" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Henry Bannerman. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Henry Bannerman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 25 April 2021 edit

User talk:80.189.225.48 edit

Hi, just thought you might like to know this is an LTA vandal. Violates WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN, mainly British poitics and children's TV programmes and presenters. Comes from Portsmouth. Can be reverted on sight and reported to AIV. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 June 2021 edit

John Major edit

Hey! Around two weeks ago you reversed my edits to John Major as they were unsourced. All of the information about styles was sourced and included in the rest of the article, so would a section on styles require sources or not? I'm happy to add them if they would be, but I assumed not as the information was in the rest of the article. Thanks for your time and have a nice rest of evening! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi FollowTheTortoise! DrKay previously removed such a section in 2019, and personally I wouldn't restore it without also including inline citations. Best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's really useful. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

{{Infobox administration}} changes edit

Hello! I see that you've been working on the {{Infobox administration}} template. It appears that your changes have broken the link that is attached to the image on some pages. It appears that the link parameter, {{ns0|[[{{Remove first word|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}|sep=of}}]]}} is not getting the name of the officeholder, but it is only getting the last part of the name - to see examples, see Alex Salmond, Philip Hammond (where the link is to nd) and Carwyn Jones (where the link is to nes). -Niceguyedc (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Niceguyedc, thanks for the message. It should be fixed now. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
The link is now to the image file, but the tooltip is still the name fragment. -Niceguyedc (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  Fixed. Thanks again, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Template:Infobox administration/seal is transcluding itself edit

Template:Infobox administration/seal is populating Category:Pages with template loops with the bios of a lot of important politicians. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry wbm1058, I've split the template to resolve this. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
So now I'm looking at Clement Attlee in preview mode, and "Page exceeded the expansion depth" Highest expansion depth 41/40wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why that is. I've prevented the templates from transcluding themselves. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
The bios that were in "template loops" have now moved to Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded. "This category is populated automatically by the MediaWiki software. It contains pages where MediaWiki has detected that the expansion depth limit of 40 levels has been exceeded. If the limit is exceeded then parts of the page can fail to render or be rendered incorrectly. A solution may require to omit or edit a template used on the page. See more at meta:Help:Expansion depth and Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit." – wbm1058 (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Do you know of a way that might fix this? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I haven't tried to figure out what you're trying to do. It seems complicated. You could try WP:VPT. wbm1058 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
User:Primefac might be able to help. In the meantime, I'll try my best to diagnose the problem myself. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
It seems that there may be too many "if then else" instances, which may or may not cause some issues according to the help pages. As far as I can tell, looking at the categorised pages, there doesn't appear to be any immediate rendering issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 25 July 2021 edit

Premiership of William Pitt moved to draftspace edit

An article you recently created, Premiership of William Pitt, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Less Unless (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Less Unless, I've submitted the draft for review. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Premiership of William Pitt has been accepted edit

 
Premiership of William Pitt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:2017 United Kingdom parliamentary election edit

 Template:2017 United Kingdom parliamentary election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Sleepy Eyes" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sleepy Eyes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Sleepy Eyes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 August 2021 edit

Nomination of Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

 

  Administrator changes

  Jake Wartenberg
  EmperorViridian Bovary
  AshleyyoursmileViridian Bovary

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 September 2021 edit

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

  Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 October 2021 edit

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2021 edit

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

 

  Administrator changes

  A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

  Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

  Arbitration



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 December 2021 edit

Kenneth Arrow’s students edit

Why is Alain Lewis not listed with the other doctoral students? 2600:1700:1C64:C090:F840:D338:CF70:B354 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image File:Arthur Power.jpg edit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Arthur Power.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) 03:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sandboxing edit

Hi. Just letting you know I reverted this change because it broke the wikilink on many articles. You can preview on Phua Bah Lee for debugging. I also noticed you frequently self-revert on that template (eg [4][5] [6][7], etc). I'd recommend testing changes in the sandbox before deploying them on widely transcluded templates; better to be extra safe. I find the User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js script can be useful to preview changes on live articles, too, especially if you don't have all the right testcases. Hope this helps. Cheers, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that ProcrastinatingReader, I wrongly assumed the change would be foolproof going by the documentation of {{Linkless exists}}, which I had hoped would be a quick fix to an issue brought to attention at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 24#Suspect this template is causing lots of incorrect Wanted Pages. Thanks for letting me know of that script, I'll be sure to download it shortly. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  Fixed {{Trim brackets}} caused a piping loop in the particular parameter on Phua Bah Lee that contained a piped link, having removed the bookending brackets only. I've replaced both instances of said template with {{delink}}, which displays without issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Thatcherism edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thatcherism

I opened the news section.--Storm598 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Knighthoods edit

Hello. Could you kindly direct me to where it has been established, either by editor consensus or anywhere else, that knighthoods should be included within an honorific prefix section of an infobox, rather than being part of a name? Many articles do not use this format, and I would be grateful if you could clear this up for me. Many thanks. Vaze50 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vaze50, see MOS:SIR. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Jack Dromey edit

On 9 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jack Dromey, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 January 2022 edit

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022 edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Attlee followup edit

Hello. At first I misunderstood your criticism on my edit then I realized that it was I who was fully in the wrong. Tony Blair did serve more years as Prime Minister while leading the Labour Party however Attlee did serve as party leader longer despite Labour not being in power. I apologize for the misunderstanding, there is no need for me to insert outside sources because you are correct. Thank you for your time. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 15:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

CSV template edit

Hi, you changed the hlist templates in Clive Sinclair's infobox to csv. Can you point me to any documentation regarding one format over the other? For example does the csv template work as well as hlist for accessibility with screen readers (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Sciencefish (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sciencefish, {{cslist}} is recommended by the {{Infobox writer#Parameters}} (rather than {{csv}}), so I'll replace the template to that one. I think the use of a comma-based template is preferable to {{hlist}} in terms of punctuational flow after preceding text ("Founder/Inventor of"), as opposed to bullets that appear less continuous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Striking out my previous comment; {{cslist}} is a block template, {{csv}} an inline one. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 February 2022 edit

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022 edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Milošević edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Joy, is there any particular reason why you cannot nominate the redirect at WP:RFD? Per WP:3RR, I won't revert again but I'd really appreciate if you could just nominate the redirect there for others to chime in. Talk:Milošević isn't watched by many people at all so there really isn't much point in discussing there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've posted a WP:RM because that fits in better with the policy (the redirect mechanism wasn't necessarily proper in one of these solutions), and notices should get cross-posted by bots to the noticeboards about page moves, the disambiguation and other wikiprojects, etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday! edit

Happy Birthday! Have a good rest of the day and happy editing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you Tim! ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 March 2022 edit

Template:Infobox cricketer edit

Hello. You made some edits to Template:Infobox cricketer at the beginning of March which, I think, might have done something that isn't necessarily what we'd want. But I'm not sure.

In the past, removing the name field from the infobox meant that no name was displayed above it. At all. I **think** that your edits stopped this from happened - i.e. forced a name to be displayed at all times. In some cases I'm not sure we need to do that - for example, where the infobox is used not he same page as another infobox - so, pages such as Everard Blair, Sidney Boucher and Archibald Harenc. To my mind, with two infoboxes it looks a bit off to have the name above the cricket one (but I could be wrong). There are only 43 pages where the name field is not included - most of them deliberately (see Category:Pages using infobox cricketer with no name parameter (88)).

Firstly, I assume it was your edit on 5 March that did this. It might not have been! Secondly, do you think there's mileage in undoing it to allow for the very occasional case where it's seen as desirable to deliberately avoid displaying the name? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Blue Square Thing, feel free to revert my edit if necessary, admittedly I should've done more testing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted my edit. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I don't think it was necessarily a testing problem - only 40-odd out of the 30,000-odd articles that use it do that, so I doubt it would have been found. I think it was probably just one of those things that couldn't necessarily have been expected. Thanks for reverting it - not sure I could have done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022 edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Eden family" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eden family and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Eden family until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

just a question edit

Nice to meet you. Are you aware of the discussions for Beethoven and Sibelius? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Harrison Birtwistle edit

On 20 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harrison Birtwistle, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 April 2022 edit

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022 edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 May 2022 edit

Lester Piggott edit

Dear friend, your recent edit to the above list of major wins has removed many very significant races, like the 1000 and 2000 Guineas in France, and the Irish Derby and Irish Oaks. May I respectfully recommend that you undo that very good faith edit, as I feel it would be wrong to do so myself? Of course, it can go to Talk, although my recent comment there about Piggott's List of significant horses went unanswered. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, please ignore the above ramblings. I'm braindead tonight...! regards, Bill Billsmith60 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022 edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 June 2022 edit

ITN recognition for Deborah James (journalist) edit

On 3 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Deborah James (journalist), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022 edit

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

  Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE edit

I see we are adopting the style of suboffice for Shadow Cabinet posts for people in ministerial offices. I am happy to go about making this change per consensus but I have a few questions:

  • How shall we make this change for serving members of the Shadow Cabinet or people whose most senior role has been to serve in the Shadow Cabinet?
  • Should we be doing the same for members of the SNP and Lib Dem frontbenches?
  • Lastly, is there a template I can place on pages requesting updates to succession boxes? I feel we should be updating those in lockstep with these changes but some succession boxes are woefully out-of-date.

Many thanks. Alex (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex B4, I think it would be wise to consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom on this issue. My personal view would be to discuss any changes to individual articles on the individual talkpage, though per WP:BOLD you could try implementing such changes yourself and discuss afterwards. I'm not sure if such a template exists myself, though Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization may be of assistance. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Commons talk edit

Please don't send me inappropriate template messages on commons. Saying an image is crap is not uncivil. Polyamorph (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Polyamorph, please read WP:AGF and familiarise yourself with the guideline. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean? Where have I not assumed good faith? Where have I been uncivil? Making such accusations is in itself uncivil.   Please stop. Polyamorph (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
You're obviously implying that PawełMM set out to make the image look like "crap", which was clearly not his intention and yet you're implicitly assuming bad faith. I haven't said anything out of line, you just need to treat other people with more respect than you're doing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I implied nothing of the sort. Maybe read what was written at the commons helpdesk. The mistake PawełMM made was replacing the existing image that was in use across multiple wiki's instead of as a derivative copy. Pointing out that fact and asking them not to do it again is not uncivil, not assuming badfaith, and not disrespectful. If you're unhappy with me discribing the blurring as "crap", LordPeterII described it as looking "absurd", Alsoriano97 described it as "weird" and "horrendous". PawełMM's mistake needed to be rectified, hence why I opened the commons helpdesk discussion. Then X201 kindly fixed it. Frankly PawełMM should have acknowledged his mistake rather than implying I was rude because I called the blurred version "crap". Polyamorph (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Shinzo Abe edit

“Per John F Kennedy” is not really a reason to revert (see WP:OSE). A cause of death is the actual medical cause found on a death certificate, not something like “murder” or “assassination”, which is manner of death. --IWI (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I meant WP:OTHERCONTENT, sorry. --IWI (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi ImprovedWikiImprovment, thanks for the feedback. I've made this edit to {{Infobox officeholder}} so that the label will display "Manner of death" in circumstances where the subject was assassinated and there is no further context beyond "Assassination". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think that is appropriate because the medical cause is what is intended to be displayed, but it does solve the issue on a technical level, which is better than nothing. But I don’t think we want to see manner of death being encouraged; it’s not specific enough. Best, --IWI (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I mean, in reality, the manner of death is more properly “homicide”. --IWI (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
That's a mostly American term though, whereas "assassination" is more commonly used. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
No it's not, it's a legal term. --IWI (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
See Manner of death. --IWI (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, in the US. It is not a term used in the UK, where I'm from. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for David Trimble edit

On 26 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Trimble, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply