Jump to content

User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


Neve-selbert, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Neve-selbert! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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 Nancy Davis. 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) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Blue

Hi there. I noticed that on Rupert Blue you changed "fourth" to "4th". You also failed to leave an edit summary, so other editors have no idea why you did this. As per WP:MOS, "in general, write whole numbers from one to nine as words". Why did you change this? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page. Which Wikipedia policy places "consistency" over the Wikipedia:Manual of Style? I'm not saying there isn't one, I just haven't seen it. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, you are likely correct. Thomas Jefferson says "3rd". Let me look into this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thatcher

I reverted your changes to the dab page, mainly because you performed a cut-and-paste move. WP:RM would be the best avenue. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Explan, please

Regarding this, could you please explain? I'm unaware of ever removing such a template. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've discovered what edit this is about. But, feel free to expound. I'm interested to know why you thought templating me over something like that was necessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Please keep discussion in one place. I am moving your comments from my talk page to here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I checked the articles Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, and they all had the template Template:Marriage removed, somewhat concerning me that you had removed the template elsewhere in other articles I had inserted it into, e.g. David Cameron. I am working my way through the U.S. President articles to include the template, just needed to gather some time. Thank-you. Neve-selbert (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there policy that states templates must be used in infoboxes? If not, I think it would be best that you discuss why you are changing article infoboxes and then edit warring over them. As well, explaining why you are placing warnings on editor talk pages when the templates removed aren't really the templates the warning is for. I see you are new in Wikipedia; new editors often make the mistakes you are making. Perhaps you could stop for a moment (or more) and think about how what you are doing in the midst of your template campaign is seen by other editors? You are also, habitually, not using edit summaries. It's important (although not required) you do so. And please respond here, not on my talk page. This is where I started the discussion and here is where it should take place. It is confusing and refactoring discussions to have them jumping from talk page to talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
All fine, I understand you are watching this talk page. So, let me go through your points one by one, and hopefully come to an understanding.
Is there policy that states templates must be used in infoboxes?
  • Not that I am aware of, no; although the Template:Marriage seems to be inoffensive to most people, why not embrace it?
If not, I think it would be best that you discuss why you are changing article infoboxes and then edit warring over them.
  • I understand, I will do better to follow this in future. Sorry for any inconvenience.
As well, explaining why you are placing warnings on editor talk pages when the templates removed aren't really the templates the warning is for.
  • Now this startles me, a "warning"? I am sorry, but I had assumed I was simply use the latter option of "Warn/notify". If I offended you, I apologize unequivocally.
I see you are new in Wikipedia; new editors often make the mistakes you are making.
  • This is true, I am new; although I have been following Wikipedia most of my computing life.
Perhaps you could stop for a moment (or more) and think about how what you are doing in the midst of your template campaign is seen by other editors?
  • I am not editing disruptively, I am not a vandal, I am just as committed as you are when it comes to anti-vandalism/disruptive editing; I could say the same thing about you. You edited the articles Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, etc. to revert the template and add something which looks like this:
Michelle Obama (m. 1992-present)
Not only do you use a hyphen instead of an en dash, but the text is so small most normal people can hardly see it. Compare, if you will:
​
(m. 1992)​
What is wrong with the template? I do not understand. You told me that is was not consistent with the other U.S. President pages, so I went round to all of them, except Buchanan of course, to add the template. I have not yet checked if you reverted, or rolled back of course, my edits, but if you have I am very disappointed.
You are also, habitually, not using edit summaries. It's important (although not required) you do so.
  • That's true, I am quite fast when editing, mostly in a rush (although I am not reckless, I do double-check). I will try to use edit summaries more often now on.
And please respond here, not on my talk page. This is where I started the discussion and here is where it should take place. It is confusing and refactoring discussions to have them jumping from talk page to talk page.
  • Here I am: one goal, one mission, one heart, one soul – just one talk page, one section (Queen reference, by the way, just to ease any tension, if any.)
So, I hoped I clarified what you hoped I would. I don't mean to cause inconvenience, and I am quite sure you don't either. Thanks for the message, I will learn just as you did once, and probably are doing still – as you can never stop learning, because life never stops teaching. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a request in at the U.S. Presidents project page for comments regarding these changes. Am currently waiting to see what others have to say. Now, after all the above, since you admit there is no policy that states in the Infobox MOS that such a format is required, please tell me why the template is superior over what was already there? Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After all the above – I did not mean to go on and on and on; but, may I add that I hope you did not simply scan-read or skim through what I wrote. What exactly did I forget to explain? Neve-selbert (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:YEAR

Per WP:DATERANGE, the end year in a year-year range "is usually abbreviated to two digits". DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I had to undo both your recent edits because they really don't make any sense. In particular, italics don't show up in HTML comments because HTML comments don't show up! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Edmund Lawrence

Hi.

Regarding this edit:

  • I agree that it's a title, and should be capitalised in contexts such as "He was Governor-General of St Kitts and Nevis".
  • But in a disambiguation tag, which this is, it's a generic reference. It's saying that this particular Edmund Lawrence was not the one who was a writer, an actor, an astrologer, a xylophonist, a historian, a football player or whatever, but the one who was a governor-general. Here, it doesn't matter where he was g-g of, and in this sense it does not function as a title. It should remain in lower case. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

GovernATorate

My correction is not a vandalism! The correct name of that Vatican office is governATorate, not governorate! See President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State --Jerus82 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, don't threaten blocks at the first (first!) action that seems a vandalism in your opinion! First check, and then send warnings. Thank you. --Jerus82 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

List of state leaders in year

Linking to the exact same article & per exact same showing, repetatively, is WP:OVERLINK. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

hey

In Hugo Chávez, care to explain why there are two "vice presidents" sections? That is so confusing. Incendiary Iconoclasm 13:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Incendiary Iconoclasm: Chávez was removed from office for 48 hours during the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. It's difficult to understand but military officers that arrested Chávez and gave him the chance to resign because he called for Plan Avila and the use of Bolivarian Circles didn't agree with Pedro Carmona's actions was technically in office next) and then tried to make the make the next person under Chávez president in order to maintain a somewhat balanced government, which is where Diosdado Cabello becomes president (they wanted to have someone else president too since Cabello was in hiding). Hope this helps.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: I understand, but do you think that is relevant enough to be mentioned? Also, this creates a problem. After Cabello, Chavez became president again, and was then succeeded by Maduro. However, the infobox in Hugo Chávez doesn't mention that. Incendiary Iconoclasm 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Oh, I think I've figured out why the confusion. In the infobox, Chavez's presidency before the coup appears below, and the presidency after the coup, appears before. That is really confusing. I will try to fix that myself. Incendiary Iconoclasm 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Incendiary Iconoclasm: I see now. Thanks for understanding!--ZiaLater (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

List

Whether or not this is simple, it's plainly wrong and biased and overall subject to the same criticism you levelled against my edit. The flag of the Commonwealth does not represent 15 of the Commonwealth realms. Elizabeth hasn't been queen of all 16 realms since 1952. Elizabeth II is "best known" as Queen of England. The list isn't about what any leader is "best known" as, where they live mostly, or constitutional differences between countries, anyway; so, "she lives in...", "there's a governor-general", and "best known" are red herrings ("best known" an unverified one) being used to suppress the verified equality among the Commonwealth realms by representing the UK a special prominence you think it deserves. The verified equality meets WP:NPOV far better than does the prominent status for the UK because you said so. And the fact my edit left out Pakistan, Fiji, Ceylon, and "countless" (really?) other countries applies equally to your version. You can either choose to remedy it or leave it out of any further argument against my edits.

How would you like to proceed toward finding a resolution to the issues above? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's verifiable that Elizabeth II is viewed as first & for most Queen of the United Kingdom. Per WP:WEIGHT, we should be reflecting this on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide the source, please? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is Neve-selbert's talkpage, only he should be making such a request. But anyways, here, CBC news opens with "Queen of Britain and the Commonwealth" & latter mentions about the British royal family visiting Manitoba, many times. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
CBC World news here also, show British prominantly in their article's title & content. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
CNN here also uses Britain & British in their articles heading & content. Shall I go on further, Neve-selbert? GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So, you've proven some journalists have used the word "British" in relation to Elizabeth II. The media doesn't trump scholarly and government sources. But, no, I don't see where in any of those links it says Elizabeth II is viewed first and foremost as Queen of the United Kingdom. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as this is Neve-selbert's talkpage. We'll have to let him judge the sources & decide on what he wishes to do, next. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I honestly do not understand why "and the other Commonwealth realms" is simply not quite adequate enough for your liking; all of her sovereign thrones trace their origins to the British throne—the root of all her realms. It would be tedious and time-consuming for most to link every—more than a quarter of a hundred (almost countless)—single sovereign throne she has ever "sat and continues to sit on", and it would be much easier to let the article stand the way it is. On her actual article page (which, of course, can be clicked upon), there is a collapsible list for people interested to know what her other realms are and were. It would be fallacious to claim the UK is just another realm of equal significance: she lives there; was born and bred there; represents herself there on a day-to-day basis, etc. She is first and foremost Queen of the United Kingdom also, in part, because she does not allocate any of her national duties to a representative governor-general there, giving her full responsibility of her daily actions—without regard for sharing or allocating her de jure power. British colonialism remains the principal reason why the Queen is monarch of more than a dozen countries, this is a basic, fundamental and cultural fact. Neve-selbert (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I outlined a number of current problems with the field in the list as you've left it. The stale canards you've served up only take us right back to every point I made above, except the matter of including all Elizabeth's former realms. On that, I already said: your version includes them no more than mine does. So, either you propose a way your version might be altered to include them or we move on and understand the former realms are not an issue to give attention to.
Now, how about: 1) Elizabeth's personal flag does not represent 15 of the Commonwealth realms. 2) Elizabeth has not been queen of all 16 realms since 1952. 3) The list isn't about what any leader is "best known" as, where they live mostly, or constitutional differences between countries. 4) It's inconsistent to list other countries individually, each with a corresponding national flag, and also lump 15 particular countries together as "other states". And 5) what Elizabeth is "best known" as is speculation, at best, certainly unverified, and just saying it doesn't justify why the UK should get special treatment in the context, whereas the equality of the realms is well verified by reliable sources and thus meets WP:NPOV far better.
Could you also please explain: What (other than the absence of former realms, which it has already been established is applicable to your version, as well) did you object to about my last edit? It was far more consistent with the rest of the table. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Congrats Neve-selbert, on your concise & compact solution. I'm impressed :) GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a request for dispute resolution. I did not list you as a participant as you haven't responded to my last remark made here four days ago and I took such to mean you had no more objection. If you'd like to add yourself as a party, though, please feel free to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I objected the readability of your contribution, I understood what you were trying to convey, although it just seemed untidy and not exactly straight-to-the-point—quite frankly. If I may, I will try and get through your points (avoiding any so-called stale canards):

1 · Elizabeth's personal flag does not represent 15 of the Commonwealth realms.

  • Green tickY Probably true: It does not, but it was the closest thing I could find to replace the non-free image of which was the previous; it has since been removed.

2 · Elizabeth has not been queen of all 16 realms since 1952.

  • Not exactly true: She has been the queen of every single one of her current and present realms and territories since February 1952 as dependent states, but not all as sovereign / totally independent entities. For example, Antigua and Barbuda, Tuvalu, Jamaica and Canada (even counting those days before the Constitution Act, 1982), etc. all had links to the British throne.

3 · The list isn't about what any leader is "best known" as, where they live mostly, or constitutional differences between countries.

  • Question? Questionable: The only state leader on this list whom had once served office within two sovereign states simultaneously is Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was the French President and the French Co-Prince of Andorra. The main difference here is twofold—he held different titles, and was named as the French Co-Prince, confirming his more "best-known" nationality.

4 · It's inconsistent to list other countries individually, each with a corresponding national flag, and also lump 15 particular countries together as "other states".

  • Red XN Not exactly: Elizabeth is unique in the fact that she countlessly reigns throughout many different states, entities, etc. I must refer to my point about Giscard above.

5 · what Elizabeth is "best known" as is speculation, at best, certainly unverified, and just saying it doesn't justify why the UK should get special treatment in the context, whereas the equality of the realms is well verified by reliable sources and thus meets WP:NPOV far better.

  • Red XN The Queen of England paradox: This surely cannot be speculation, it would be laughable to suggest she is equally known as the Queen of Jamaica and Queen of Canada vis-à-vis being The Queen of England. Of course, this title is unofficial, but she is most commonly referred to this way, you must admit. It can be annoying, irritating and frustrating, as she has never reigned solely in England as a single state throughout her entire reign; but yet, people still call her this. I can bring up a whole barrage of sources confirming this misconception, although I'm sure just a simple Google Search could easily clear these doubts up.

As per the "equality of her realms", this can be perceived as ambigious. Yes, absolutely, she is seperately and equally monarch of all of them (de jure). But, de facto? I think this is open to debate, quite honestly. There is a considerable one going on Down Under, as per the Australian head of state dispute. She has no British governor-general, surely this is something worth noting / jotting down?

Could you also please explain: What (other than the absence of former realms, which it has already been established is applicable to your version, as well) did you object to about my last edit? It was far more consistent with the rest of the table.

  • Simplicity should be encouraged, in my opinion. We already have a link per the Commonwealth realms, superseding the need for your edit. This article section does not indeed link at all collectively towards the Commonwealth realms, therefore justifying the situation over there.

To conclude, I believe we should try to keep the list as simple and straightforward as possible; overcomplicating it by adding more than 25 different sovereign states from past and present will hinder rather than help. The other Commonwealth realms or "15 other states" (redirect) collectively represents her outside realms of which she does not personally represent on a day-to-day basis, thus clear and concise. Neve-selbert (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The countries in the list are all sovereign states. Twelve of the present Commonwealth realms were not sovereign states in 1952.
Aside from the false logic of the argument the French president being also French Co-Prince of Andorra "confirms" the president's "best known" nationality, Elizabeth II holds 16 different titles.
Elizabeth's uniqueness as monarch of 16 countries simultaneously does not justify the relegation of the not-UK Commonwealth realms to second class status relative to the UK and every other country in the list. Indeed, it gives reason to show all the countries. Elizabeth II is not unique in being the only leader to be head of more than one country at once, as you know. Both France and Andorra are shown next to Giscard; not "France and one other country".
"Best known" is a red herring. Even if it's true Elizabeth II is "best known" as queen of the UK, and saying so requires the assumption "England" equals "United Kingdom" whenever someone says "Elizabeth II is Queen of England", it doesn't justify the inconsistency and reduction of lumping 15 particular sovereign countries into "15 other states".
Certainly, the list should be as simple and straightforward as possible. But, it must do so within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV. Showing in full the countries of which Elizabeth II is queen is neither complex nor indirect (indeed, "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is, by definition, an indirect way to refer to the Commonwealth realms). I think you underestimate most readers' intelligence if you hold they can handle two countries beside one person's name but not 16.
Is this discussion to go on here or at the list talk page? It shouldn't be happening in two places (possibly three) simultaneously. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still in agreement with you, Neve-selbert, as to how Elizabeth II's entry should be shown. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, GoodDay. I tried to make it clearer with this edit.
  1. Linked 15 other states to Commonwealth realm § Current Commonwealth realms.
  2. Added 16 former states, linking to Commonwealth realm § Former Commonwealth realms.

Neve-selbert (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's slightly more crowded, but certaintly more accurate. It's acceptable. :) GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The sequal

I'm not certain as to how the Rfc will turn out. But, I got this queezing feeling, if the result is status quo? the dispute won't be over. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I understand. One of the reasons why I am unable to comment as frequently is that I am currently involved in another dispute with another editor—also relating to Queen Elizabeth II. Miesianiacal gave his two cents worth recently (seemingly siding with the editor against me). Would you care to have a look? Neve-selbert 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Governor-general

Thanks for bringing this one up. I tried quite a while ago with abject failure as nobody seemed to understand what a common noun is. Looks good now, though. Epistemos (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Neveselbert/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl t c 16:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

List of state leaders in 2016

Your conduct concerning List of state leaders in 2016 was unnecessary, profoundly silly, and showed a lack of cooperativeness. First you nominated the article for deletion, on the grounds that it wasn't yet 2016 in some parts of the world. Then, while that nomination was running, you also nominated it for speedy deletion as G6. However, G6 is a deletion to make way for an uncontroversial move. You either knew or should have known that the move was controversial, since it was being opposed at AFD. Maybe you thought that your version of the list was superior. If so, you could have edited the list. You didn't make an argument that amounted to blow it up and start over, so that your speedy nomination was incorrect and wasted the time of the administrator who declined it. Then, after your AFD was closed as Speedy-Keep, you went to the Teahouse to ask again whether the article could be temporarily deleted. I don't know why you were so insistent that you had to get the list deleted and replaced. Was it because you just wanted author's credit for being the first author of the list? That isn't worth disrupting Wikipedia. Was it that there were a few errors or improvements needed? You could have worked the edit process. Was it because you thought that referring to 2016, when it was only 2016 in most of the world, was "factually incorrect"? If so, the list didn't say that they were the leaders and that it was 2016. It said that they were the leaders in 2016. Most world leaders either serve fixed terms that have a date of expiration, or serve indefinite terms at the will of their parliaments, or serve for life, or otherwise can be expected to continue to serve until some date. You didn't need to go to such bizarre lengths to try to get the article deleted in order to replace it. Before being so persistent about any visible and drastic request that has opposition, consider that you may be alienating editors whom you will later want on your side. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Robert McClenon. Your conduct at WP:Articles for deletion/List of state leaders in 2016 was very poor. This is a collaborative project, and it makes no difference whatsoever who is the very first to create an article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. I absolutely regret my actions, although I have also learnt a very important lesson. Never, would I have any intentions of disrupting Wikipedia. New Year's Day happened to be quite hectic for me; I frankly overreacted upon learning the page had already been created. Had I known about WP:TNT, I probably would have attempted it. This matter no longer matters, I have moved on. I plan to proofread the article for errors and updates around next week. Thanks, Cullen328 and Robert McClenon for making this clear to me. Retrospectively, it is perfectly true that I acted poorly and bizarrely, and I take full responsibility. I hope now to move on. Kindest regards, and indeed a Happy New Year. Neve-selbert 05:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your thoughtful, self reflective response. Please move on and focus now on collaboratively improving the encyclopedia. Thanks again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your ambitious intentions of creating the article List of state leaders in 2016 Ninney (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hehe. I may have not created my first article, but I just earned my first barnstar. Thank-you, Ninney. Neve-selbert 05:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for taking my comments as they were meant. Your reply was very clear and I think it will help us move forward. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Put {{DRN-notice}} on their talk pages and sign it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing the sections at the top of DRN. Edit in response to my question below my question. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I sincerely apologise. I shall remember to do so in future. Neve-selbert 22:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations

Neve checking to if your Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations request was resolved, so I can archive it -Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@FOX 52: It was resolved on 5 January—you are free to archive it. Neve-selbert 05:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders: Viceroy, Queen's/King's representative or Monarch's representative

I've been around Wikipedia for over 10 years & so I can tell when a dispute should go to Rfc. The alternative (IMHO) would be editors getting into edit-wars & ending up blocked. It's the only way to break the logjam, without anyone getting into any trouble. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You are probably right. I suggest we go to the RfC on Sunday, giving us 48 hours to review our case. Neve-selbert 05:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you & the others, as to when to open an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: The constant condescending tone of ZBukov is really starting to give me a headache, now. He keeps on going on how he has more people on his side than I do. I almost always lose my temper when dealing with him. Could you please tell him (again) that Viceroy is in-fact a gender-neutral term—as proved on the actual article Viceroy—he just ignores me when I tell that to him. Thanks. Neve-selbert 10:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
From my observations over the last few days, it appears ZBukov isn't going to accept anyone's suggestion that Viceroy is gender-neutral. An Rfc will bring comments from many other editors. GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Could you help me in preparing for the Rfc? I have a tendency to be quite lengthy while getting a point across, and I not sure whether or not that would be a good advantage or disadvantage. Neve-selbert 10:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
What's important is that the wording is neutral. Here could be your Rfc question - "What should we call the royal representative of the Cook Islands? A) Queen's representative, B) Viceroy or C) Monarch's representative.". GoodDay (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Is it against the rules to influence any editors who land on the Rfc? Should they be redirected to the discussion, or will the pro and con arguments need being repeated? Neve-selbert 11:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Both sides are allowed to try & persuade those toward their camp (for lack of better word), who comment. Shortly after an Rfc is opened, it will be listed in the appropiate area which notifies others of its existance. GoodDay (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I've set up the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If I may so, thanks for the help so far, I really appreciate it. To clarify matters, it seems clear to me that the mission of Mies and ZBukov is to change the descriptors of not just the Cook Islands representatives but all of the royal representatives collectively. I believe this breaches WP:NPOV. For example, some may refer to Governor General Johnston either as: Monarch's Representative – or De facto Head of State –. I presume monarchists would prefer the former and republicans would prefer the latter. I believe this is a major source of contention. Neve-selbert 04:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The Governors-General are official titles, which shouldn't be changed. I'd be very suprised if anyone succeeded in doing so. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Mies and ZBukov are attempting to change each of their different descriptors, their individual titles would however remain the same. Neve-selbert 05:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I have come the conclusion that Mies wants to fire up another Monarchist vs. republican issue at the Rfc. He would prefer Monarch's Representative – as this emphasizes the Queen's roles in the Commonwealth realms more so. Others may prefer De facto Head of State –, such as yourself, perhaps. In my belief, only Governor-General – abides to the NPV, and therefore only the issue of the Cook Islands should be dealt with—otherwise it seriously complicates and compromises matters. Neve-selbert 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There's very little that can be done, int terms of breaking any deadlock, until we can get input from outsiders. This may take awhile. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been around the 'pedia long enough, to sense which way an Rfc wind is blowing. My senses tells me that the Rfc result will be keep the status-quo - Queen's representative. We shall have to accept that result, if it comes to pass. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Could RFM be considered? Neve-selbert 19:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
No matter what the Rfc result, I wouldn't advise you, Zb or Miesianical to not go the RFM route. But, that would be up to you three. IMHO, an RFM would be unsucessful & would end in status-quo being kept, as there's no willingness to compromise between the Viceroy camp & the Monarch's representative camp. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: How long do you view the RfC lasting from now? Neve-selbert 20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Rfc tend to last for 30 days. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Is there really nothing else we can do? I feel the case for Viceroy has been unfairly misheard by others. Neve-selbert 20:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I could write you a list of many items on Wikipedia, that should be corrected. But, they likely never will be, due to resistence from different groups of editors. Examples: You'll never get Derry changed to Londonderry, even though it's in the UK & you'll never get Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania changed to Soviet Union for those born or died between 1940 & 1991, in those areas. In otherwords, sometimes ya bite the bear & sometimes the bear bites you. Anyways, you're certaintly free to take whichever steps you choose. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand, the feeling of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Neve-selbert 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, on a personal note. If this dispute were to somehow end up at Arbcom? I'd have to back away from it. I already did 1-year (April 2013 - May 2014) in the wilderness :) GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Of course, I promise to respect that. Although, I don't think we should throw in the towel just yet; I still believe that there is still a chance that we can further the case for Viceroy with concise and cohesive cases in point—in contrast to the verbosity prior. If there is anything more you can contribute to help defend the option before the RFC closes, I would greatly appreciate it. Many thanks and Godspeed. Neve-selbert 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, the Rfc is headed towards the result of Queen's Representative. Even if there's no consensus for either proposed changes? the default is the status quo :) GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Wonderful news, just goes to show that tactical voting can indeed pay off splendidly. I guess now my only question is whether or not we will still have to wait until the Rfc ends in precisely 3 weeks from now. I believe we should end it all now, as the result is clear. Neve-selbert 16:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's entirely up to you. Personally, I hold off from requesting Rfc closure, as ZB and Mies would push for it to remain open. Thus we'd have another dispute, in another area. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Figured I'd seek input at the Rfc from all participants, as to whether it should be closed or not :) GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
As you can see. They've haven't taken the suggestion of closure, very well ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: The debate died a long time ago, anyway. For the most part, the whole dispute boiled down to petty personal feuding between me and Mr. Bukovszky day-after-day, repeatedly dismissing and reiterating the same old arguments. After 39 days, I cannot help but feel that it is finally time to stop flogging this dead horse and sensibly move on. I, of course, would hope that ZB follows a similar lead and allows the horse to rest in peace also. Neve-selbert 03:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I reckon the entire description debate is over :) GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

HoS representatives?

I've opened up a couple of more discussions concerning inclusion/exclusion of HoS representatives. For the most part, my recommendations will likely be rejected by the locals. But, that's up to the locals :) GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Funnily enough, according to a 2008 sample poll taken among select Canadians, 42% thought Stephen Harper was the head of state—followed by 33% feeling that it was Michaëlle Jean and only 24% naming Queen Elizabeth.[1] It seems as if Canada, et al have no universally accepted head of state. Neve-selbert 18:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
On average, most Canadians aren't even aware that Canada is a monarchy. This lack of awareness, is likely what sustains the institution ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ EKOS Research Associates (30 May 2002). "F. Monarchy". Trust and the Monarchy: an examination of the shifting public attitudes toward government and institutions (PDF). Montreal: EKOS Research Associates. p. 47. Retrieved 8 February 2009.

Signature

Can you shorten your signature length? It takes up three lines on my screen. See WP:SIG#Length for more. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: Fixed. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for notifying me. An experiment a bit too far, I concede. Neve–selbert 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks and no worries, I've been there too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Neveselbert/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

WP:ARBPIA block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation WP:1RR on the page List of state leaders in 2016, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Neveselbert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unaware of WP:1RR—only WP:3RR. Indeed, it was Spirit Ethanol who breached WP:3RR. I was simply trying to restore the status quo while the discussion for possible changes went on. Is it possible this block could be reduced to a topic ban instead?--Neve–selbert 14:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you. I was wrong about the Talk page and the warning when you edit the article. I have spent the last several minutes trying to figure out what I saw and where, but I've been unsuccessful thus far. I may continue to investigate my own error, but it's unfair to keep you blocked while I do so. My comments related to edit warring are still apt, but that wasn't the basis of the block, so it would be inappropriate to retain the block based on something else. My apologies. Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • First, even if you didn't technically violate 3RR on the 11th, you were edit warring and you were continuing a war with the same user from February 9. You don't have to violate 3RR to be sanctioned for edit warring. Second, the Talk page of the article has the WP:ARBPIA restrictions at the top of the page, and even more prominently, there is a warning every time you edit the article. You should really pay more attention. All that said, what kind of topic ban would you propose?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

It is hard to edit anything at all about Palestine without entering the domain of WP:ARBPIA. Whether Palestine should be considered a state is certainly there. In my opinion WP:1RR applies to edits on ARBPIA-related material anywhere in article space. Your removal of another editor's comments from talk pages does raise concerns, and could expose you to admin action. I recommend you don't continue that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at List of state leaders in 2016‎, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: I have. You are the one suggesting that you own the title of the talk page section. The section title is misleading. Nobody is suggesting that Palestine is some sort of sub-state of Israel. This could not even be further from the truth. Please change "sub-state" to "quasi-sovereign state" (as this term is more accurate and less dubious).--Neve–selbert 09:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC is clear in stating on whether to include Palestine in a standalone manner in list or as a sub entry to Israel, subject of edit dispute. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Spirit Ethanol: It is not clear at all. Some may believe we are trying to refer to the PNA as some sort of subdivision (substate) of Israel—this is completely false. The RfC question is biased and misleading, and gives an unfair advantage to the pro-Palestine side.--Neve–selbert 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
According to above, content of RfC question, and not only title need to be updated. Will try to rephrase taking above perceived bias into consideration.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Spirit Ethanol: I honestly believe that this has just been a mix-up.  Palestine has been mistakenly used to direct to the State of Palestine article. I (along with Bolter21) have since fixed it to link to the Palestinian National Authority article. As the PNA is partly occupied de facto by Israel, it is best to just leave the article as it is just for now. The PNA on its own is not considered a sovereign state.
Could you please consider closing the Rfc in the coming days? This is a very sensitive issue for many people—a can of worms if you will.--Neve–selbert 10:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is allowed/against policy to change an RfC question while already going on. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Em dashes vs En dashes

Thanks for clarification, and fixing page moves. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 2016 Rfc

I've been reading that Rfc over & from what I can tell, there's likely not going to be a consensus for the proposed changes. Thus the status-quo will most likely be retained. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The user who started this whole palaver has requested the closure of the Rfc on Super Nintendo Chalmers's talk page; I am unsure of his motives for such a behest.--Neve–selbert 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The individual either feels that there's a consensus for his proposed changes or he/she wants to start all over again. Best ya get a clarification from him/her. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Newyorkbrad seems uninterested in reviewing the dispute. Shall I call on another admin, or should we wait a while?--Neve–selbert 17:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You can try Resolute or Alison. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Could I try both?--Neve–selbert 17:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Whomever you want. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: There is an underlying problem with this issue. The fact that the Rfc creator worded the question in a misleading fashion, the consensus at the Rfc may be perceived to be in his favour. Could you try and ask for admin help?; I am unsure how to word my request without bludgeoning somewhat. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 19:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I've contacted Administrator Alison. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: This dispute is really getting beyond farcical at the moment. Spirit Ethanol is canvassing like mad (a whole truckload of editors are now going to swarm to the article objecting to the woefully inaccurate assertion in the Rfc that Palestine is somehow a "sub-state of Israel"). We desperately need the admin(s) to review this case ASAP, as that user seems determined at all costs to impose his POV on the article(s).--Neve–selbert 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Be very careful. Uttering statements like "pro-Palestine campaigners" can be viewed or painted by many as a breach of WP:AGF. It won't help your efforts in that Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Ah, OK. I thought only "POV-pusher" was considered poor taste, although I will refrain from using such a term in future. Thanks for letting me know.--Neve–selbert 15:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
No probs. Also, it's a statement that could easily be used against you. Others might claim that you're a pro-Israel campaigner. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Rfc schism? - I don't know if it's allowable. But the only other route I can think of, would be start up a Rfc at List of state leaders in 2016 of your own, with the question presented as should be. Again though, I don't know for sure if 'concurrent' Rfcs on the same topic at the same article or at List of state leaders in 2015, 2014, 2013 etc etc, is allowed. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Be careful, when you make statements that you won't allow the Rfc results to be implemented, if administrators judge the Rfc results valid (at AN). Any attempts of opposition via 'reverts', would be treated by administrators as possible obstructionism. I'm just letting you know ahead, what could (and I hope won't) happen GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: OK, I understand. Although, I just wish we weren't the only ones arguing/supporting for the status quo. ZB and BU should also be arguing for its retention—I know this as they thanked my edits reverting the pointy ones. It feels unfair that they both are not willing to get involved (with ZB: not any further).--Neve–selbert 18:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, the inertia is towards SE's proposal. Don't be too discouraged, though. There are about 5 or more areas on Wikipedia, that I wish I could correct or keep from being damaged. But, I can't accomplish either, due to my being out-numbered. I've been Arb restricted from one of those areas, going on 4 years. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I am afraid I cannot just let SE get away with this one. He both refused to discuss locally to seek a local consensus & he worded the Rfc question incorrectly. The article would be fundamentally incorrect and biased if he were to get away with his changes, and he is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. All in all, he is confusing a government with a sovereign state. I remain confident that the status quo will be kept, the reverse would be quasi-vandalism and would grossly breach WP:NPOV. If (god forbid) he does get away with the changes, I will both report him to an administrator & open a new Rfc aiming to revert the changes.--Neve–selbert 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If you go that route, the next place would have to be WP:AN, as Robert McClennon pointed out at the Help desk. I hope you'll understand, that I won't be able to take part in that report, if it's made. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixing broken redirects to article sections

No one responded to you, but it's possible WP:VPT can help. I know I've created a number of redirects or piped links to sections whose titles might have changed, and while I remember reading about anchors, I never tried to create one. I'd like to see it done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Palestine

I don't know what you are asking or suggesting that I do about the RFC. It is being discussed at WP:ANRFC. Are you suggesting or asking that I do something out of process? If so, I won't. If you are just asking for advice, my advice is to let it run its course unless an admin chooses to intervene. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am worried for the end result of the Rfc (as the editor may seek to impose his controversial changes the moment after it expires). Would it be possible to pause the Rfc for now, i.e. a moratorium, so we can assess whether or not the Rfc is misleading other editors or not? I must also note that similar concerns for the neutrality of the Rfc have also been raised by three other editors (namely GoodDay, Zoltan Bukovszky, and Bogdan Uleia). The WP:ANRFC seems frozen in time at the moment, as Aervanath has already dismissed the case for closure. I had wanted to discuss the issue with Spirit Ethanol on the talk page, although he ignored both me and this recommended path and jumped straight to towards an Rfc; I honestly do believe he should be reprimanded for ignoring local consensus.--Neve–selbert 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If the editor in question imposes his controversial changes, take him to arbitration enforcement. He has been cautioned about ArbCom discretionary sanctions with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestine. I still suggest letting the RFC run its course, but that you can reasonably restate your objections to the RFC in the RFC. Don't ask me to do anything out of process, and don't do anything out of process. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand. Are you asking me to do something out of process, such as pausing the RFC? Or are you asking me for advice? Of course the WP:ANRFC is frozen in time. The request for closure was out of process, because the RFC hasn't run 30 days. If you want to have the RFC reviewed while it is still running, ask at WP:AN, being aware that it is likely that your post there will be ignored, but at least won't be out of process. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope that this is not necessary

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

AWB edits

Hello, is it possible with AWB in one click to add to all lists of state leader pages before 1900 {{State leaders by year}}? updated to include all years. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Hello, you've already violated 1RR, as pointed by EdJohnston here, sanctions apply to list too... kindly undo your edits... Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: Please see WP:STATUSQUO.--Neve–selbert 05:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Kindly self revert, yet another 1RR violation. Already heavily discussed on talk page. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spirit Ethanol: Why are you so impatient? There is absolutely no consensus for showing the State of Palestine instead of the Palestinian National Authority. Ideas have been thrown around, although consensus is not crystal clear at the moment. And besides, consensus can change, so it should be best to wait until the deadline.--Neve–selbert 20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
It's the other way around, no consensus on linking to Palestinian National Authority, please see Talk:List_of_state_leaders_in_2016#Footnote_or_no_footnote.3F, furthermore, flag shown is not for PNA. Kindly self-revert, and discuss on page talk, feel free to change to PNA with consensus. It's silly to resort to admin board twice in a week...Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spirit Ethanol: I debunked the arguments in favour of your proposition without further reply. As for the "flag shown is not for PNA" red herring, the template {{Country data Palestinian National Authority}} renders as  Palestinian National Authority automatically, this point you try and make is irrelevant. To be clear, the territories claimed by the Palestine are under Israeli occupation, and hence are underneath the Israel entry. Comprende? Please learn to give and take (and compromise) for once. I gave way for you on the footnote, yet you have given nothing back in return. You are the one being intransigent.--Neve–selbert 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
For the future, you have to self revert, only one revert per 1RR. There is no clause in WP:3RRNO that exempts removal of WP:STATUSQUO from the counting of reverts, so that's a poor idea. Kindly self-revert and discuss on talk page... Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spirit Ethanol: Come back once you read WP:STATUSQUO. The alternative you propose it provocative in nature. It should either be the PNA or nothing, in my opinion. The State of Palestine is synonymous with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Have you ever wondered why the SMOM is excluded from the list, at all?--Neve–selbert 22:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Have you read comments on talk page? Already no consensus to linking to PNA. Feel free to check with EdJohnston if 1RR exempts removal of WP:STATUSQUO edits. In my opinion you are edit warring, as it was clarified on talk page to you that consensus to linking to PNA is nil. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Look, you are being ridiculous. Just keep the status quo for now and save your tantrum for 12 March.--Neve–selbert 23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: ). Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu

Hi Neve, do you consider that Băsescu ceased being president while he was suspended? This issue is in no way connected to the debate about Palestine. ZBukov (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zoltan Bukovszky: I find it hard believing that there were two Presidents holding the exact same state position at the exact same time. We can however, come up with a solution (similar to below, 2007):
I am unsure as to whether Băsescu remained as either both president as head of state or simply just the former. If it is the former, then the above compromise may not work.
FWIW: I also removed Dick Cheney for the same year, having acted as Acting President under the 25th Amendment—although with this situation I retrospectively believed that this was a mere formality not worth mentioning.--Neve–selbert 21:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Neve, what happened in Romania was that Băsescu was suspended, so temporarily released from exercising the duties of president (in the case of Romania the president is the head of state, so someone cannot be president without being the head of state). But the referendum on whether to dismiss him as president failed, therefore he resumed exercising all the head of state functions (but he did NOT have to be elected again). For the duration of the impeachment process there was an acting president installed who was discharging the presidential duties. So Băsescu did not cease to be President of Romania at any point, only the exercise of his duties was affected. It is similar to when an incumbent is on sick leave with some deputizing for them. The person does not cease to be president, yet someone else performs their job for a period. Or think of the Regency era, George III remained the King (head of state), yet someone else (the Prince Regent) was performing the head of state functions. ZBukov (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: I understand that. Although I must note that, in the case of George VI he held the position of Regent (one tier below the King). Your reverts do not reflect a similar degree of conciseness. So, I removed the acting presidents altogether here and here, as per the Cheney situation—both having served within a mere formality and nothing more. Many leaders are discreetly incapacitated (e.g. PM Netanyahu of Israel, for one).--Neve–selbert 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Neve, George VI was never Regent. And I think acting president and acting prime ministers should be included. Because if someone looks at the article to find out who held the head of state powers in the given year, than for the duration of the impeachment process against Băsescu, it was the acting president who was discharging the duties of the head of state. What do you think? ZBukov (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Oops, wrong George. Perhaps adding a footnote with Nicolae Văcăroiu & Crin Antonescu included could be a good idea.--Neve–selbert 09:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't really understand why you want to exclude them from the list. Their exercise of state power was not mere formality. ZBukov (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: It is hard to fathom how a country can have two presidents at the same time. We can opt to include them, although I would rather slice his tenure into three parts for the sake of simplicity. Furthermore, this is not entirely unprecedented. Hugo Chávez also was de jure president during the brief 2002 coup, but his tenure is divided as (2002–2013) instead of (1999–2013) from the 2002 list onwards.--Neve–selbert 09:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't find it hard to fathom. To bring up another example, when someone is incapacitated by illness for a while , and an acting president steps in to do the job. Do you consider the ill president as having lost his office? Or the acting president who performs the job as being a mere formality? And I think that showing one tenure for Basescu (as was legally the case, since he did not cease to be President of Romania at any point) is simpler, than slicing it up into three separate presidencies. That would be akin to claiming that George III's reign ended when the regency began. Venezuela was a regime change situation, while the Romanian impeachment was not. ZBukov (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: You mention the George III situation (as highlighted below). However, it must be noted that the regent is displayed in a separate position to that of the country's monarch, whereas this was not the case with Romania (as the two presidents were both listed under President –).
Since Băsescu was neither a claimant nor a co-claimant of his office, and remained de jure president of Romania throughout his suspension, I believe that there are three options on the table:
  1. Relegate the acting presidents to footnote status (i.e. a simple summary of the constitutional situation, etc. in addition)
  2. Imitate the George III scenario, hence including the APs one tier below the president (and thus positioned as separate)
  3. Simply exclude them altogether (as Băsescu legally remained the president, albeit without executive power)
--Neve–selbert 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Do I sense it correctly that you have no problem with treating Basescu's time in office as one presidency? Forget the British example, please and answer this question. When someone is incapacitated by illness for a while, and an acting president steps in to do the job. Do you consider the ill president as having lost his office? Or the acting president who performs the job as being a mere formality? ZBukov (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: It depends. On average, I would exclude an acting president or prime minister on the grounds of an illness inflicting the de jure president (as with George W. Bush and Cheney on two occasions). However, when it comes to the issue of a suspended president, my concerns are somewhat ambivalent. FWIW, a co-presidency has never existed in Romania. If you insist on including them, I am open to the idea of relegating them into a footnote.--Neve–selbert 23:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And I am not open to the idea of you deleting or relegating them into a footnote. Both of them exercised the presidential powers for over a month. Plus in every other instance the acting president or prime minister or governor-general was put into the same box as their substantive counterparts, so your suggestion would decrease the article series' internal consistency. So far the only exception to this rule are the regents, but if you insist, we can put them into the same box as the monarchs, for the sake of complete consistency.
Please confirm if you accept that Basescu was president from 2004 to 2014, or still want to split it into three presidencies.
I know perfectly well that co-presidency doesn't exist in Romania. And if you understand what suspension from office means then it must be clear that having a suspended president and an acting president at the same time is not co-presidency.
My past experience with you is that if you make up your mind about something, than there is simply no use trying to argue with you. So please confirm if you already have a firm, final opinion about this. Because if you do, then we don't need to spend another month on this and can go straight to RfC, or something. ZBukov (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Now, now. Remember, bygones are bygones. Ahem, look. Now, below is how I believe this scenario should pan out, i.e.
  1. We split the presidency of the former Romanian leaders into three parts for the sake of conciseness—preserving the acting presidents
  2. A hybrid style of the British regency / North Korea situation is imitated:
The second idea certainly should not be dismissed as a solution. I shall be implementing it in due course (unless you voice your firm opposition).--Neve–selbert 11:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The de facto vs de jure distinction refers to situations where the legally prescribed situation and the real life situation on the ground significantly diverge. This was the case for example when Suriname (1980-88), Panama (1968-89) or the Dominican Republic (1930-61) was actually run by a military strongman, who held no state office, and there was a puppet president (also Libya's Gaddafi from 1979 onwards). The Romanian situation had no such split between law and reality, as the impeachment against Basescu was a constitutionally prescribed process, so the acting presidents were not illegal or extraconstitutional actors. So I'm sorry but I cannot accept this proposal.
And for the reason described above I cannot accept splitting the Basescu's presidency into three, since it simply was not the case. (And it would be much LESS concise than retaining the current setup.) ZBukov (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
My compromise suggestion is keeping the single presidential term and the acting presidents, but adding a footnote to Basescu in the articles of 2007 and 2012 saying that he was suspended between 20 April to 23 May 2007, and 10 July 2012 to 28 August 2012. And this would clarify why there are two people in the list for the same period. ZBukov (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) @Zoltan Bukovszky: Your compromise suggestion will keep the current layout fundamentally the same and this is something that just simply cannot do and I unfortunately cannot accept. A footnote could indeed be added, but to rather explain this extraordinary constitutional exception (similar to the 2011 Vanuatu political crisis) instead alongside a change of layout. Out of curiosity—considering the upcoming constitutional situation in Burma—will Aung San Suu Kyi be listed as the de facto head of state / president? Interestingly enough, I recall the Rwandan president from after the 1994 genocide up until 2000 being referred to as a "puppet president" under VP Paul Kagame. Neither has been or will be included, I presume?--Neve–selbert 11:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, both List of Presidents of Romania and his article page itself split his presidential tenure into three separate parts.--Neve–selbert 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
You are right, I want to keep the current layout. It was set up like that for good reason. Just out of curiosity, how would you want to change it? And do you have any comment on the fact that all other acting president and prime ministers is listed under the box of president and prime minister, therefore your layout altering suggestion would decrease consistency? ZBukov (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Answer my questions first please. On the subject of consistency, I must note that there is no other constitutional situation quite like this Romanian one. Most of the time, when there is an acting leader in place, the person that they have just replaced is already gone beforehand. So, in a way, this dilemma is unprecedented.--Neve–selbert 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint but there were other instances of incumbents being temporarily deputized for without losing their office, so this situation is not unprecedented. And this is the layout I have used for such situations consistently throughout this article series (with the exception of the regents). Were are discussing the office of the President of Romania in 2007 and 2012, so I do not want to start off-topic conversations about Rwanda and Myanmar just out of curiosity. ZBukov (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: If I may, what were those other instances?--Neve–selbert 12:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are some: President of Argentina 1975, Governor-General of The Bahamas 1976-79, President of Bangladesh 1971, President of Brazil 1981 and 1983, President of South Africa 1989 (Heunis deputizing for Botha), President of Gabon 2009 (the Bongo / Divungi Di Ndinge overlap), Prime Minister of Iceland 1961, President of Israel 2007 (January to July, Katzav on leave of absence), President of Laos 1986-91, President of Macedonia 1995, Prime Minister of Romania 2015 (Ponta/Oprea), Head of State of Spain 1974, Prime Minister of Thailand 2006, President of Transnistria 1991. ZBukov (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Some are even missing, so I've just added the Norwegian Acting Prime Ministers who were in office during the Prime Minister's leave of absence in 1984 and 1998. ZBukov (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zoltan Bukovszky: First things first, I must note that I fundamentally disagree with including concurrent acting leaders: they add nothing of value and are—in my opinion—a detrimental waste of space (article List of heads of government of Norway does not even mention an Acting Norwegian Prime Minister). Just my two pennies worth. However, as this suspension situation seems to be quite an extraordinary exception to each of the others, I am now willing to review your compromise suggestion. As all other layout suggestions seem to render unsuitable, adding a footnote explaining the constitutional situation whilst the layout is kept intact is probably the best way to go from here.--Neve–selbert 22:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Neve, in the 2007 Israel case the president went on a leave of absence because of a pending criminal investigation against him - this, I guess, very much resembled the Romanian impeachment situation. And even in the cases where the leaders were on a leave of absence for medical reasons, it still resulted in a situation of the incumbent being away and an acting leader stepping in temporarily. So - at least to my mind - the similarities are relevant enough to treat them the same way. I don't want to bore you with my arguments, but the value I see in adding both the substantive and the acting leader is that it indicates those relatively rare situations where the legal possessor of the office and the performer of the task diverges (without a regime change or some illegal or extraconstitutional intervention).
As I was comparing my notes with the relevant Wikipedia articles yesterday (while I was looking up the above examples for you) I noticed that a few acting leaders are missing. So I linked the Norwegian government website's relevant part in the edit summary of the 1984 and 1998 articles to provide a reliable official source for the information I was contributing.
What do you think would be a good footnote to describe the Romanian situation of 2007 and 2012? ZBukov (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Just decided to have a go at implementing footnotes onto the articles-in-question (as per here & here). Seems fine, I reckon.--Neve–selbert 10:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. ZBukov (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus at List of state leaders in 2016

I hope you humbly accept the consensus at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016 that your insistence on listing Palestine as a sub-state/dependency of Israel was simply wrong and unacceptable. It was WP:OR and a plain violation of WP:NPOV AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: If you feel the need to be blame someone for such violations, then I would duly refer you to Zoltan Bukovszky (as he was the one who originally included the Palestine/Palestinian Authority entry indented underneath the Israel entry). As a frequent contributor (and a somewhat frenemy to the particular editor) to the SLBY series, I simply felt that it was my duty to defend the status quo. Also, AusLondonder, I would have preferred if you had suggested your changes first on the talk page, so we could have discussed this like reasonable gentlemen without the need for another user to take charge and launch an Rfc prematurely. And for the millionth time, I have never dared to suggest that Palestine was a non-state administrative authority of Israel. Since, why would anyone?--Neve–selbert 08:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to note that RfC result applies to previous list pages, and other foreign minister pages too... I find it ridiculous that you resorted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Spirit Ethanol: Um, I don't think so. The evaluator did not state this in his evaluation. Moreover, I find it odd that you decided to move the Kosovo entry, which had nothing to do with the Rfc. Oh well, of course, with you it is just provocation after provocation.--Neve–selbert 09:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to check, I am certain RfC result applies across all pages. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sigh.--Neve–selbert 09:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, Neve-selbert. It would be best at this point, that you walk away from the topic-in-question. It's not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of there being a number of editors 'peeved' at this moment. This is one of those times, where a fella's gotta let go. GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: OK, I will personally step back. Although if ZB wants to debate the ruling, I will be inclined to support him.--Neve–selbert 23:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
And you didn't step back. Seriously, you really need to drop the WP:STICK on this one. There was an RfC, where every one who posted an opinion disagreed with you. Yes, every single one in that RfC disagreed with your standpoint. I made a quick count and it was at least 15 persons. Yet you continue.
Sometimes when you lose you are wrong, sometimes you are right. I've been both several times on Wikipedia, but honestly, most time when my standpoint doesn't get consensus, it's because I'm wrong, but the penny hasn't dropped yet.
I've seen others trying to WP:BATTLE the entirety of Wikipedia. They never win, and they finally get so frustrated that they WP:THROW a fit, break all rules and get banned. That's a waste of everybody's time. You need to follow rules and procedures, and when consensus goes against you, you need to consider if you actually are correct. If you after that still believe you *are* correct, you need to wait around until other people show up that supports you. You can't do it yourself. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: I agree. I'm sorry about my actions and I accept the majority verdict. As a compromise, I am now going to instead vie for a footnote to be included next to the Palestine entry from the 2013 article onwards. Anyway, thanks for the advice, and I duly take it.--Neve–selbert 08:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouting vitriol
No. DROP THE STICK AND BACK AWAY FROM THE HORSE. Seriously. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Is that really too much? Sigh. I have OCD and sometimes I find it hard to know when to stop.--Neve–selbert 09:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia will be here in a month and even a year. Nobody will die if that list has a mild possibility for unclarity. Get some distance in. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I understand. We have plenty of time to think up a footnote as there is no deadline.--Neve–selbert 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but don't spend your time thinking of that. Take a break from the topic. Think about other things. Then reconsider all your positions, including if we even need a footnote. Then possibly you can return back to this topic in a constructive manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
OK that you don't listen to others, but you apparently don't even listen to yourself. You probably should. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: I beg your pardon? So, would you like me to campaign for Palestine to be included under Israel again? I have accepted the result at the Rfc, and my edit was reverted without any just or reasonable justification. The current revision is unsustainable and is inconsistent with the rest of the article.--Neve–selbert 09:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You said several times that you would take a break, step off and cool down. You did not. You should. You are wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm walking away from a couple of articles at this moment (oddly enough, I'm in the majority there), as I've reached my boiling point with 2 individuals, in another area of Wikipedia. I've learned to do this over the years & it's helpful. A complete breakaway, is the best option for you. Wait & see, if the tide changes. BTW - I've got ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), thus the reason for my prolific editing on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Just to let you know, I've been unfortunately blocked until 26 March (despite not breaking WP:3RR and the article concerned not being subject to Arbcom).--Neve–selbert 15:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This may be a difficult pill to swallow. IMHO, for your own sake, you should sit out the 3-day block. Then voluntarily stay away (at least for 6-months) from anything to do with Israel/Palestine topic. It's not a matter of who's right or wrong, but a matter of a number editors being currently peeved with your behaviour/conduct. I've been in a similar situation years ago & know what can potentially happen, when not letting go. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: You are absolutely right, GoodDay, thanks for the advice and consolation. It's sad things had to get this far, although I feel it is somewhat more of an injustice that SE gets away with his edit warring empty-handed. Anyway I will wait until the 26.--Neve–selbert 15:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: What on earth could be possibly wrong with this edit? It seems perfectly fine and is in line with the result of the Rfc.--Neve–selbert 09:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm giving up on you, you aren't listening. Have fun. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: I promise that I will restrain myself from now on. I have opened a new Rfc and we need to take it from there. I will not edit war. FWIW, I did actually tweak my edits with each revert (responding to each criticism), although I am unsure whether or not that counts or not.--Neve–selbert 13:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Foul-mouthed vitriol
Oh, for fucks sake. For the love of all things that are holy, why did you start another 30 day process? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: Holiness indeed. Anyway, the Rfc was shut down by Spirit Ethanol and I moved it to the In case it was not clear section over here. Drama over. Until an agreement is reached at the talkpage? I invite others to rectify the Palestine entry.--Neve–selbert 14:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thank god, Spirit Ethanol closed it. I've come to realize that the drama will only be over when you leave. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Your animosity is irritating and it really needs to stop. I am open to discussion.--Neve–selbert 14:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
No, unfortunately you aren't. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Give me a second chance, please. I will make it count.--Neve–selbert 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've given you a third and a fourth already. So no. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You have? Goodness, you have been hostile to me the entire time I hardly even noticed. No surprise there, then.--Neve–selbert 14:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been the opposite of hostile to you, up until you yesterday, for the third time, reneged on your promise to take a break from this article, and I gave up on you. See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I give up. I want to be constructive and I must curb my obsessiveness.--Neve–selbert 03:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: ). Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of state leaders in 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neveselbert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am extremely sorry and I promise not to edit the List of state leaders in 2016 article again at any time, until the dispute is solved. I am desperate to edit other pages on Wikipedia as I have tons of other constructive work to get done. Please—per WP:ROPE and WP:CHEAP—I need one last chance and I absolutely promise that I will not (and I repeat not) make the same terrible mistake again. I am determined to be a constructive editor and I will certainly abide by the standard expected of me from now on. I unfortunately suffer from obsessive–compulsive disorder and I sadly need several warnings in order for me to properly get the message that I am not helping the situation. I honestly feel that a block is just far too harsh. I kindly ask for an admin to reconsider, or at least consider a topic-ban instead.--Neve–selbert 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia isn't on a schedule. It's obvious that you need a little extra time to familiarize yourself with our policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've been blocked for 3 days, not indefinitely. It would be well worth your time to read up on some policy pages like WP:3RR, WP:EW. If you have the time, you may consider having a browse of WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA2 and WP:ARBPIA3. A topic area that is the result of 3 Arbitration cases generally means administrators have little patience with anyone who disrupt any articles that are construed as involving Israel and Palestine. Blackmane (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane and EdJohnston: As far as I am aware, the article List of state leaders in 2016 is not subject to Arbcom. I have urgent work to get done on 25 March—pinpointed and allocated on my calendar for months—and this temporary block seriously disrupts my editing schedule. I promise not to edit-war again. Please spare me the benefit of the doubt.--Neve–selbert 13:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Why in the world do you have an 'editing schedule'? You are obsessing far too much about Wikipedia if you have an 'editing schedule'... --Tarage (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tarage: FWIW, I have OCD.--Neve–selbert 07:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Why wasn't I warned that I could be blocked? I adhered to WP:3RR. I find this block really quite cruel. I am familiar with policy. That Spirit Ethanol edit-warred just as often as I had done and more, yet he manages to get away with it. If you could unblock me for tomorrow, then block me again after Wednesday, I would very much appreciate that. Moreover, I allocated that day for months on end, and the fact that I can't edit on that day is absolutely devastating. Besides, would it be too much just to topic-ban me instead?--Neve–selbert 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Adhered to 3RR you say? You've even made a forth revert within 24 hours after being reported to AN3. So you edit warred even from a plain technical perspective. Not good by itself and continuing to misinterpret facts will only increase the scrutiny you're under now.--TMCk (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@TracyMcClark: ☒N Not true. Please re-read the report. I initially made two reverts on 22 March (09:40–54) and then a further three on 23 March (11:25 – 12:20). They were not exactly reverts either as I tweaked my edits each time.--Neve–selbert 07:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Revert 1 - 11:25, March 23, 2016‎
Revert 2 - 12:08, March 23, 2016‎
Revert 3 - 12:20, March 23, 2016‎
Revert 4 - 13:40, March 23, 2016‎
--TMCk (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Warned? You have already been blocked once for a 1RR violation on that same article. [1] You then got unblocked because you were unaware of the 1RR rule. You can not claim ignorance a second time. Who do you think you are fooling? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop the nastiness. You have already swore at me, anyway—your hate campaign is pointless. If that article was subject to WP:1RR? It would have had a damn banner atop the edit box.--Neve–selbert 15:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Neve-selbert, your block may be lifted if you will agree to indefinitely refrain from editing List of state leaders in 2016 or its talk page. You'd also have to agree to make no edits regarding the status of Palestine on any page of Wikipedia. Let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a better idea would be to agree to refrain from editing any "List of state leaders" page? [2], [3]? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Would a 6-month break from such articles mainspace, but talkpage participation allowed, be alright? We should give Neve-selbert the oportunity to prove he can make adjustments. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
A 1RR on all article and talk pages + EdJohnston's above mentioned indef. re. status of Palestine could be reasonable helpful. Their revert, ownership, insulting/attacking non-agreeing editors and so on pattern is similar all over the site.--TMCk (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As a retention member, I'd recommend that Neve-selbert take a 6-month voluntarily break from anything to do with the Israel/Palestine topic. Would that be acceptable, EdJohnston? GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
[Involved and hence perhaps not entirely unbiased opinion] Neve-selbert has repeatedly apologized for his behavior, promised to never to it again, and then immediately done it again. He also promised to step back and take breaks but never did. So I don't think a voluntary break would work. Also, my experience with blocking and then unblocking people is that the only message they get is "you can break the rules and get away with it". I don't know if that's true for Neve-selbert, but his earlier 1RR-violation block didn't even teach him that the article had an 1RR rule in place. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Besides, there is hardly much point to ending the block now since I have already rewritten my schedule. Oh (and BTW), the first block made back in February was made by mistake—so that one hardly counts. FWIW, I completely disagree with the above proposal of Ohnoitsjamie—without underestimating my understanding of the drawbacks that I have committed. On the other hand, I will certainly take a step back from the whole Palestine dispute (as per GoodDay)—considering now that this has happened. Besides, I am always determined to be a constructive (and a cooperative) contributor. Since blocks aren't exactly punishment, I have retrospectively come to the mindset that this temporary blocking is rather more of a time-out or cooling period that I have desperately needed for a while. A backhanded thanking, if you will.--Neve–selbert 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The first block was NOT made by mistake. You were blocked because you broke the 1RR rule. It's not a good sign that you don't understand this. That you take blocks as something positive for you could possible be construed as good. But that you take it as a "thanking" is not. It is not a "thanking" it's a way to make you get the message that your behavior is bad. You don't seem to get that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: Erm, actually it was. If you could have been bothered enough to check the log, Bbb23 stated that it was an Erroneous block.--Neve–selbert 07:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You keep making excuses instead of listening. Did you violate the 1RR rule or not? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm asking questions I know the answer to. I already checked earlier, and you did violate it, and you admitted that you did but said you were unaware, and if that wasn't enough Edjohnston also wrote: "WP:1RR applies to edits on ARBPIA-related material anywhere in article space" later, and Spirit Ethanol has reminded you of this at least twice. You can not claim to not be aware of the 1RR rule. Yet, you still claim to be unaware of it, and pretend that you didn't violate it. You are making excuses, instead of listening, and that's why you got blocked. And you still are making excuses. If you don't change that behavior, you will end up in new fights and get blocked again, etc, etc, etc.
I'm telling you this because I assume good faith. I believe you when you say that you want to become a constructive contributor. But then you have to listen to others, and not try to force your opinions through like a some sort of battle tank. It doesn't work. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: Going by your logic, Spirit Ethanol should have been blocked also.--Neve–selbert 08:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Pretending that this is some sort of personal logic that you can ignore is an excuse to avoid looking at your own behavior. So is your attempt to claim that somebody else also did wrong. That's not constructive. You still have not accepted that you actually was non-constructive, did wrong, and deserved a block. This means that the block will end when it's time runs out, and you will continue to the disruptive behavior as previously, and you will get blocked again, ad nauseum, until either your penny drops, or you get banned. You are not the first one to be in this situation, nor are you the last. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please give it a rest, this is getting irritating. When the block is over? Hallelujah. Have I accepted any wrongdoing? Yes I have, hence my regret at being blocked. Disruptive behaviour? Apply this logic fairly, please. Moreover, I have proceeded to take GoodDay's advice. I may or may not have deserved a block. That is for the admins to decide, not me.--Neve–selbert 08:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you deserve your block because you been edit warring so much that the ArbCom condsiered for a topic ban. Please read our policies until you familarized with our rules.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Recommend we let Neve-selbert serve out the rest of his block, in peace :) GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neveselbert/Archive_1&oldid=1251642550"