User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 3

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

Welcome back.

Let me take this opportunity to welcome you back. I hope this marks a new chapter in your time here. Blackmane (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Labeling edits as "minor" have become a bit of a habit of mine, as I rarely make substantial writing edits outside of list-articles, although I will certainly bear your advice in mind in future. Thanks John.--Neve–selbert 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronald Reagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Food stamp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloody Sunday. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William IV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Cameron

Hello. I don't really mind and this is certainly not meant to sound hostile or critical, but do you have something strongly against the whole it/they group nouns thing? You seem to be determined to avoid it at the Cameron article. Not a big prob though and your second edit was great ... Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Cameron basically is the government, or rather the human personification of it, I personally thought that referring to his government as "it" on his article ultimately seemed rather odd and out of tune with the tone of the rest of the article.--Neve–selbert 23:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for the nice reply. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Please don't vandalise the Alec Douglas-Home article. It is not good practice to make drive-by edits to a Featured Article, and changing the correct "Foreign Secretary" to the incorrect "Foreign secretary" is illiterate and arbitrarily altering the existing dash style is rude and contrary to the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 06:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I do not remember changing the correct title of "Foreign Secretary" to the incorrect "Foreign secretary", these changes must have been automatic in the clean-up of the article that I proceeded to make and I would apologise for that. If you are referring to the title of "Foreign and Commonwealth secretary", I changed the title due to the hard fact that this was not an official title. But I must clearly state: my edits were certainly not vandalism. That is a totally misguided assessment and I wholly refuse to accept it. For example: my intentions were mainly involved in cleaning up the article and creating consistency with the layout and link adjustments of the other British Prime Minister articles such as Edward Heath, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, etc. I had also tried to adjust a number of links piped to articles that have been since renamed. I also removed whitespaces and implemented the miscellaneous elements of uniformity with the articles of his successors. I would therefore urge you to professionally review this edit in future please, before dismissing and reverting it as vandalism. You are assuming bad faith for no good reason. I made many valuable improvements to the article—your response was premature. I would like to refer you to WP:NOTVAND. I admit that I made some some bold edits to a featured article, but they were not meant in bad faith whatsoever and my intention was for the greatest improvement of the article. I simply cannot restate that I was not "vandalising" enough. Your edit summary was entirely groundless and provocative, and somewhat insulting and upsetting.--Neve–selbert 08:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I note your comments, and accept your apology. In a similar spirit I agree that I could have said "disrupt" rather than "vandalise". Tim riley talk 09:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I would appreciate if you would inform me of any of the other particular changes I made that you had disapproved of / disagreed with. Indeed, not all of those edits I made could credibly be construed as "disruptive".--Neve–selbert 09:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's most accommodating of you, thank you. As above, the mangling of the ulc and the changes of the dashes were what dismayed me. Some, e.g. The Guardian, make a point of eschewing capitals for cabinet posts, so that the minister would be called "foreign secretary" – fair enough, though it looks a bit odd to me and is a minority preference in British usage – but a capital F and lower case s just looks daft. I don't object to unspaced em-dashes, and use them in some articles I've taken to FA when in tandem with other editors; it was the unannounced change without discussion that nonplussed me. As to the addition of white spaces in the infobox I have no opinion one way or another. I'm not sure what function is served, but as long as it doesn't adversely affect what the reader sees I'm easy. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 12:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation of redirects

Hi Neve-selbert! Thanks for taking the time to volunteer and contribute to Wikipedia! I just wanted to remind you that redirects should only be made for things that are reasonable search terms or are known alternatives for the particular article subject. Some of your redirects are toeing that line and some don't seem necessary. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's guidelines on redirects if you haven't done so already. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I do apologise for any inconvenience. I will read up on WP:RDR, certainly. Thanks for letting me know.--Neve–selbert 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan

Hi Neve-selbert! Thanks for noticing my photograph of Sadiq Khan and requesting that a crop be made of my photograph. I have now revisited this photo with the benefit of the raw file and uploaded a new version with corrected colour balance, it is similar but now more pleasing on the eye. I hope you like the results. As an aside, if there are any UK events you think it may be good for me to attend, do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks again! Katy Blackwood (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please retract your accusation of misogyny

I consider your accusation that I take no issue with acts of misogyny and the insinuation that I am pushing a pro-misogyny POV made in this edit [1] to be a personal attack. If you do not striek or otherwise retract it, I will take it to ANI. GoodDay, you seem to be Neve's mentor, so I would like your take/advice on this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I apologise Patar knight. I am truly sorry if I caused any offence.--Neve–selbert 16:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. You should strike out the offending comments like this, then, to show that you hvae retracted them. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Was there anything else I may have said that offended you, Patar knight?--Neve–selbert 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the only personal attack in the comment, the rest is merely interpretation of guidelines that I don't agree with. :) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Grand Duke of Luxembourg

It might be best to wait until September, before requesting a page move. Besides, I can't remember how to set up an RM. BTW, thanks for the Award :) GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Denis Thatcher into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Patar knight: I sincerely and profusely apologise. Had I fully known of such a policy, I certainly would have credited you in the edit summary. Also, although this may sound slightly hypocritical of me, I would not mind if you or I created a Mrs Philip May redirect to article Theresa May, the incoming Prime Minister, as a sort of peace offering or something. Again, I fully understand that you are anything but sexist or misogynistic; you were only acting and evaluating the weight of sources at hand that you saw fit. Although I may have disagreed, I wholly respect the way you conducted yourself during the discussion and I cannot apologise enough for implying anything improper against you. Thanks for the message.--Neve–selbert 06:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries, many users are not that familiar with the requirements of attributing content from other Wikipedia article. I also have no intention of creating such a redirect because Theresa May practices poltiics in a time when such naming conventions are far less common among reliable sources. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of infobox on Barack Obama presidency article

Please explain to me your rationale for removing the infobox on the Barack Obama presidency article. The info in the infobox (dates of presidency, Obama's party, his vp) does seem to, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes puts it, "[summarize] key features of the page's subject." Orser67 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You can revert the edit, but I just wanted to spread some consistency over the "Presidency of" articles. In my opinion, an infobox is unnecessary as the dates of his presidency, his party and his VP are already included in the lede section.--Neve–selbert 18:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Orser67: These changes may need discussing on the talkpage, I concede.--Neve–selbert 18:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I'll create a section on the talk page. Orser67 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hostile message

Consequences? @EdJohnston: @TracyMcClark: @JzG: @Blackmane: @OpenFuture: @JamesBWatson: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Baking Soda: Contrary to his effusive promises made while begging his way out [2] of a block in April, Neve-selbert not only hasn’t refrained from editing the List of state leaders in XXXX articles, but has just reverted my edit twice on List of state leaders in 2004. So? ZBukov (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR etc

This might be a tricky situation. Recommend you avoid those articles-in-question, entirely. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If this situation persists, would it be wise to request some sort of a formal topic-ban? Of course, avoiding those articles in future is probably the only logical way forward now.--Neve–selbert 00:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Merely avoid those articles, self-restraint is the best course. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:IBAN perhaps. I personally can't stand Zoltan and I know full well he can't stand me either.--Neve–selbert 00:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's quite possible that many editors dislike me :) IBANs are more problems then they're worth. Yas just have to avoid each other. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: you have already given him the same advice on 18 May ([[3]]), and he has been either unwilling or unable to heed it, and continued editing the List of state leaders articles unchallenged after being re-admitted. (By the way, have you, as his mentor, raised this with him?) Initially I thought I don't want to make a fuss about it, but now he has crossed further lines. ZBukov (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've advised Neve-selbert to stay away from those articles & yourself. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: And he has apparently ignored your advice and proceeded to edit the List of state leaders articles right after being unblocked. So what do you suggest? ZBukov (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've advised him (yesterday) not do go around those articles again. I wish he'd of waited until November. Anyways, if he were to go around them again, mistakenly or not, I reckon the matter will no longer be in my hands & he'd be at the mercy of others. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

According to my understanding the "constant WP:1RR concerning all articles" will not end in November. ZBukov (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll need a refresher (a link) on that. It's been months. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It was his own undertaking on 17 May "I have already agreed to many restrictions and sanctions on my editing on any future unblock with GoodDay: i.e. total ban from editing or modifying articles/sections concerning WP:IsPal & constant WP:1RR concerning all articles". See here: [[4]] ZBukov (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, if he keeps his nose cleaned 'til November 17? the 1RR might be lifted. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? You want to give him a preemptive carte blanche to ignore his own promises? ZBukov (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been in the grey zone that he's in now. I was cured of my bad habits, so surely we must give him that chance to also be cured. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So his current behaviour is the proof that he is getting rid of his 'bad habits'? So much so that it merits exonerating him from his own promise for good behaviour...?! Who are we kidding? ZBukov (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to take Neve-selbert's recent behaviour to AN, ANI etc, then that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Does his current behaviour mean to you that he is getting cured of his bad habits, so much so that he should be exonerated of his promise of WP:1RR...? ZBukov (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's my recommendation that his behaviour be reviewed on November 17, 2016. Administrators can then decide on what should take place, next. Right now, blocking is unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I got pinged by Zoltan as well, I thought I would drop a couple cents as well. If you want a topic ban, then that this certainly something you can ask for, but GoodDay's suggestion to just stay away is best. I've seen a lot of IBANs come up on ANI and I've generally found them to be troublesome at best and downright toxic at worst. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)