User talk:Neveselbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Neve-selbert)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TFL notification[edit]

Hi, Neve-selbert. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Neve-selbert. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth place photo of Thatcher[edit]

Hello Neve-selbert,

I appticiate your effort in Margaret Thatcher's article. But, recently, you have shifted her birth place photo in lead section which is not okay according to me. Her birth place is completedly related to her early life. There is no reason to shift it in lead para. Don't change it again and if you wish to chage then plz discuss it on talk page at the first place. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

List of British monarchs[edit]

This article is not improved by deleting the Length of reign column. Richard75 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the column for consistency with the List of English monarchs article. Both articles ought to be consistent with each other.--Nevéselbert 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Parliamentary election pages[edit]

I understand that "posttitle = Elected prime minister" isn't accurate I think changing the post title on those pages to "posttitle = Prime Minister after election" is better than what you changed it to "posttitle = Appointed Prime Minister". let me know what you think עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: For elections where the ruling party is re-elected, I'd have no problem with |posttitle=Prime Minister after election.--Nevéselbert 23:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
why not fr any election as it's accurate and uniform עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it would be ideal. Prime ministers are appointed rather than elected, although not all are reappointed after re-election.--Nevéselbert 18:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thats why i want it changed to prime minister after election which doesn't mean elected the one who is appointed is the pm after the election עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, but then the infobox wouldn't be consistent with other election-related articles, such as the United States presidential elections, which use "Elected President" rather than "President after election". "Appointed Prime Minister" is accurate enough IMHO.--Nevéselbert 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
its not anyway עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You should open a discussion about this, probably at WP:UKPOLITICS.--Nevéselbert 19:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have found a solution![edit]

@Nveselbert:Just wanted to let you know personally that there is a way to centerise the text. There is more details via the talk back link below.

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Neveselbert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 21:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, though I would rather not bother with using this template at all. Warm regards Face-smile.svg.--Nevéselbert 19:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Ywwuyi, GCCPK (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Per the notice you received above, a tag had been placed on Lock Her Up requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Please note that after review, I have removed the deletion request on the basis that the redirect was kept at WP:RFD and nothing significant has changed about the redirect or the phrase since then, so you do not need to worry about this page being speedily deleted. However, speedy deletion is not the only deletion processes on Wikipedia; my removal does not prevent users from invoking other, longer term deletion methods if it were to be re-nominated at redirects for deletion. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. IffyChat -- 12:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks Good![edit]

Your new talk page seems to have a good green rage to it, if you need anything you can ask. Smiley.jpg Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1979 British winter[edit]

Hello, Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 1979 British winter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

PamD 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of British winter of 1978–1979[edit]

Hello, Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, British winter of 1978–1979, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

PamD 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hello, Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

PamD 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1979 British winter listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1979 British winter. Since you had some involvement with the 1979 British winter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

British winter of 1978–1979 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British winter of 1978–1979. Since you had some involvement with the British winter of 1978–1979 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom. Since you had some involvement with the Winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No MP in the lede, please[edit]

I'm afraid it has always been regarded as inappropriate for the lede paragraph of current British Parliamentarians to include a postnominal 'MP'. The issue is that it is not, as required by MOS:POSTNOM, an official postnominal designation "issued by a country" but simply an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians. As such they belong in infoboxes but not the lede. The custom is also transitory - anyone may cease to be a Member of Parliament at any time. As an example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2012 archive#Need help on titles and honorifcs. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Blacketer: Thanks for informing me about this. It's just that I've noticed that for Canadian parliamentarians, for example Justin Trudeau, the post-nominal "MP" is used. According to List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom), "MP" is included as a post-nominal. Perhaps an RFC is necessary to clarify matters.--Neve:selbert 21:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Sam is correct. We use MP (and similar postnoms) in infoboxes, but not in the lede. In general we do not use any postnoms that are transitory. This applies to all countries; presumably a Canadian editor has also added them without realising this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Hi Neve, are you still interested in starting an A-Class review for Margaret Thatcher? WP Conservatism now has A-Class review capability. I'd like to invite you and your team to nominate the article here. – Lionel(talk) 07:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Lionelt, thanks for the heads up. I've been quite busy with personal issues lately, but I'll be sure to submit a review sometime next week. Thanks.--Neve~selbert~ 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
trout Self-trout Good lord, this week went pretty quickly. I'm going to have a look at the article now, copy-editing before I submit the review.--Neve~selbert 20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Template editor granted[edit]

Wikipedia Template editor.svg

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Election box templates[edit]

What is your rationale for changing the Election box templates? I'm concerned that such widely used templates were changed so abruptly without any consensus from anyone else. Kiwichris (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my summaries, all I did was shade the cells meant to represent headers in order to contrast them from adjacent cells.--Neve~selbert 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Kiwichris has left a message about this on my talk page. Can you please have a look at the list and self-revert the respective edits? And then work towards a consensus on the matter? Thanks heaps. Schwede66 16:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
My edits were made both in good faith and per WP:BOLD, and honestly I don't believe they're significant enough to warrant a mass revert. Kiwichris is frankly overreacting here. All I did was shade bolded cells that are meant to represent headers. Please see this diff. Again, all I did was shade said cells unrelated to the header above.--Neve~selbert 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is accusing you of bad faith. Kiwichris would like you to revert five specific edits; that’s hardly a mass revert. Schwede66 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but reverting is entirely unnecessary. They asked me what my rationale for mildly tweaking the Election box templates, and I responded to them. All I did, please do bear this in mind, was shade cells masquerading as ordinary cells when in reality they were headers unrelated to the header above. These weren't significant changes by any stretch of the imagination. Unless they can give me a good reason as to why my edits weren't desirable, I really would like to discuss this issue on a talkpage rather than have to revert them, see WP:DONTREVERT. For the umpteenth time, all I did was shade a cell. Simply that, just shading a cell meant to represent a header. I literally find it incredible how this is seen as such a problem, and I cannot even fathom how one can consider this as controversial. That I need "a consensus" to make minor edits is WP:OWNERSHIP and contrary to WP:BOLD.--Neve~selbert 20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. here's a before and after of my edits, the example being {{Election box majority}}:
Before
Majority {{{votes}}} {{{percentage}}} {{{change}}}
After
Majority {{{votes}}} {{{percentage}}} {{{change}}}
As you can see above, there is no way my edits were significant enough to warrant a revert. That is just silly.--Neve~selbert 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The template section of WP:BOLD states that extra caution should be used for templates as it can affect a huge number of pages with only a single edit, as is the case here. It also advises to consider proposing changes on associated talk pages and notifying appropriate WikiProjects. The changes have disregarded this, so I feel they should be reverted until they can be agreed to through due process. Kiwichris (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, and per WP:BOLD I did indeed take extra caution. I haven't disregarded anything at all whatsoever, all I did was shade a few headers for crying out loud. Please take the time to review my edits, and please just give me an actual rational and level-headed reason why they should be reverted. Because frankly, right now, you're exhibiting unnecessarily hostile behaviour and you're essentially accusing me of bad faith. Minor formatting changes really don't need a consensus unless they cause a major disruption or change in terms of functionality. My changes haven't disrupted or changed the functionality of anything. See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".--Neve~selbert 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the lack of consensus my largest concern is that the altering of the shading of the cell is unnecessary. The edit summaries say it was for contrast, but I think that the contrast was already sufficiently clear by virtue of the rightwards alignment and bolding of the text. According to Wikipedia:TPEREVOKE changes that significantly affect a template's visual appearance to the reader should be made only after substantial discussion. Kiwichris (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Shading was certainly not unnecessary, it's completely imperative. The contrast wasn't "already sufficiently clear" by any stretch of the imagination. I was literally confused the other day when I noticed the lack of shading as I actually thought that there was a candidate named "Majority" in one election box. With the benefit shading, such confusion would need not occur. And again, these changes did not significantly affect the template's visual appearance. They were more accurately subtle changes. You are deliberately misinterpreting WP:TPERREVOKE.--Neve~selbert 13:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(pinged) For what it's worth, I completely agree with the changes you made. That being said, someone has contested your edit, and as a TPE it is now your responsibility you self-revert and start a discussion. I also have one question for Kiwichris: is the only reason you're contesting this because there was "no consensus"? From a readability/accessibility standpoint, this seems like a reasonable change to make. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

If they'll link to me the diffs they specifically want reverted, I'll self-revert. I'm quite busy today so I don't have time to go through my contribs.--Neve~selbert 16:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It is the following templates. In all cases it is the most recent edit on 30 March 2018.
In regards to Primefac's question, no the lack of consensus is not my only objection. Above I have stated that I think that the shading of the cells were unnecessary. In my opinion the rightwards text alignment, bolding of the text and spanning multiple columns already sufficiently differentiated these cells from those for candidates. Kiwichris (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Um, apparently you told Schwede66 you only wanted five edits reverted. Anyway, your argument that the shading of cells were unnecessary simply makes no sense. The rightwards text alignment hardly makes any difference. For the visually impaired, one could easily assume the unshaded cell corresponds with the shaded cell above (as I had done in the past week). The bolding of text doesn't make any difference either, since winning candidates are usually bolded in election tables. The spanning of multiple columns is also unsatisfactory, since at first glance one may not even notice the cells were spanned. The following is what I propose. I'll revert the first link, start a discussion on its talkpage and ping Schwede66 and PrimeHunter. As PrimeHunter already supports these changes, if Schwede66 consents to the changes I believe we should agree to keep the changes on a 3-1 consensus. If Schwede66 objects, I'll start a wider discussion and revert all of the edits. Does that sound reasonable enough for you? This is my attempt at a compromise here.--Neve~selbert 07:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A revert and then discussion on a talkpage is satisfactory for me. However it needs to be a wide discussion from the beginning and open to other users as well as those of us who have been involved here as consensus is not the result of a vote (see WP:VOTE). Kiwichris (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing a vote, I was proposing we move forward based on a local consensus. So far, you're the only editor to have objected to the changes. "A wide discussion" is entirely unnecessary for such a minor change that likely wouldn't even result in a wide discussion, given how absolutely trivial it is. I will revert the first edit, and in the event that Schwede66 replies in opposition to the changes I shall start a discussion on the template talkpage.--Neve~selbert 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the first template. Are you going to start the talk page discussion or shall I? Kiwichris (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Think nothing of it, I am very much looking forward to reverting my revert in due course. Please be patient until Schwede66 voices his opinion.--Neve~selbert 19:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've just returned from some holidays and have had a quiet spot to look at that in detail, including sandbox testing. The changes in shading appear reasonable to me. They may not be entirely necessary, but they also don't "break" anything, so I'm happy with where it's at now. Schwede66 08:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Night of the Long Knives (1962)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Night of the Long Knives (1962) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Night of the Long Knives (1962)[edit]

The article Night of the Long Knives (1962) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Night of the Long Knives (1962) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Working at the moment on another project. I'll get round to fixing those issues by next week. Thanks.--Neve~selbert 09:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Night of the Long Knives (1962)[edit]

The article Night of the Long Knives (1962) you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Night of the Long Knives (1962) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Pocahontas (nickname) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pocahontas (nickname) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocahontas (nickname) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Neveselbert. You have new messages at Talk:President of China#Redirect or disambiguation.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your A-Class nomination of Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Symbol a class.svg

Congratulations! The article Margaret Thatcher which you nominated for A-Class has passed. This is the first article to be promoted from the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class Review. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher for comments about the article. You are now entitled to display the A-Class Award {{User A-class}}.

Palace coup listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palace coup. Since you had some involvement with the Palace coup redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PRehse (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

LLoyd George[edit]

The problem with this edit is that you have combined refs to John Grigg's Lloyd George and Wales which are lacking page numbers, and may well be to different pages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)