User talk:Neveselbert

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

• From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online

• News and notes: You like RecentChanges?

• In the media: Taking it sleazy

• Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia

• Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties

• Humour: The Dehumourification Plan

• Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia power sharing – just an advisory role for the volunteer community?

• In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?

• Obituary: Nosebagbear

• Serendipity: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no paywall, for thou, Wikipedia Library, art with me

• Featured content: Catching up

• Concept: Strange portal opened by CERN researchers brings Wikipedia articles from "other worlds"

• Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GEOLINK

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

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

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

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)

September 2023

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)