On 28 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article James Lovelock, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the
candidates page.
PFHLai (
talk) 18:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)reply
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (
T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the
2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed
here. There are also a number of
in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Thanks for uploading File:David Atkinson MP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Linking prefixes in the info boxes of biographical articles
Greetings. I have restored the link to
Dame in the info box for
Olivia Newton-John as I don't believe that your removal of it is supported either by common practise or by
WP:OVERLINKING. It seems to be the overwhelmingly common practise to link
Sir and
Dame etc in info boxes in biographical articles so removing such links shouldn't be done arbitrarily based either on personal preference or an interpretation of a guideline which doesn't actually specify these as the kind of terms that shouldn't normally be linked to. Please discuss if you wish, but unless you can provide something specific to support your removal of such links then I don't believe it is supported by the MOS or by what seems to be the almost universal practise. Regards,
Afterwriting (
talk) 10:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Afterwriting: see
User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms. The post-nominal DBE after the name in the infobox is linked as this is where the title of dame is derived. There is no need to link to
Dame as well; it's not linked in the lead section and is instead bolded with the name for a reason. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 10:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for replying, but with respect I don't think this is relevant. Yes, "Dame" is not linked with the name in the opening sentence but this is not the style same issue there as its use in info boxes. Also, "Dame" as a title may be considered a "common term" in the UK but it certainly isn't universally common or understood. In my view and, apparently, in the view of most other editors, there actually is a need to link to such titles in info boxes and their association with post-nominals is not going to be very obvious to most non-UK readers. So in the absence of any specific MOS guideline against doing so it seems appropriate to allow the common practise and not unnecessarily make an issue of it when there is not an obvious MOS reason to do so. Regards,
Afterwriting (
talk) 11:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi there Neveselbert. I wonder if you could explain
this edit? I don't see any recent discussion in talk to change this.
John (
talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
John, nice to hear from you again. I made the change after noticing "
Western civilizations" spelt as such in the lead paragraph, so I assumed changing the spelling to Oxford would involve the least respelling. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Likewise. Yes, that makes sense. Sorry to bother you, and thanks for caring about this stuff.
John (
talk) 14:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
If your goal is to produce the same format as "agency" only citation, "publisher" already works as intended without triggering the bot. I just want clarification. --
Sameboat - 同舟 (
talk ·
contri.) 00:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether
Fox News is
reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a
Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the
questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up
please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding
Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee
passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the
open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Her full title is "baroness Thatcher of Kesteven" (her old school near Grantham). My modification only intended to correct a strange absence compared with most of the articles on British peers. Even though the page is quite obviously a frequent target of wrong contributions, your "redwarning" on counter-vandalism is not justified here and you haven't explained your cancellation of the modification.
Saint Paul Dédalus (
talk) 21:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for providing me with the relevant links. To be honest, I feel this aspect is only put forward here because it's about the Wikipedia introduction to the popular figure that is Margaret Thatcher. Well, there's hardly any point in raising the matter anew as it appears to be a traditional formality preserved by a barrier of gatekeepers. Otherwise the odd contradiction goes that the vast majority of British peers are referred to with their full titles.
Saint Paul Dédalus (
talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of
FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The
Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at
WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences →
Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a
motion.
Hi-I added Illinois to the lead sentence in the Bill Plante article so that the readers has the information of where Chicago is located at. This was not overlinking; it was to help the readers. Thank You-
RFD (
talk) 11:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
RFD, that is still considering overlinking. Per
MOS:OVERLINK, Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, locations which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar, such as Illinois, are usually not linked. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 18:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank You. I was trying to help the readers-
RFD (
talk) 19:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank You for your reply-
RFD (
talk) 20:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Explaining your reverts
Are you refusing to use the edit summary to explain why you are reverting explained edits?
Surtsicna (
talk) 22:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Your "explanation" was completely inadequate and I disagree with it. Make your case on the talkpage, please. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
You do not need to agree with my reasoning. What you need to do when reverting explained good-faith edits is explain why you are reverting them. I will quote
WP:REVEXP for you: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." I suggest you read the rest of
WP:REVEXP. If you are still unable to process that you need to explain your reverts, I will happily ask administrators to elucidate it to you.
Surtsicna (
talk) 22:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have done, I don't believe removing that section is justified. You're perfectly capable of discussing this matter on the talkpage rather than on my userpage, so please do so. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 22:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
No, you have not done. The mere word "discuss" is nowhere near "a valid and informative explanation". It is a demand that your blessing be sought, which is not your due. Here I am discussing your conduct, though that too can be discussed elsewhere.
Surtsicna (
talk) 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Why can't you discuss the matter on the talkpage? You were bold, I reverted, it's on you to discuss the matter per
WP:BRD, which I referred to in my edit summary. You should reflect on your own conduct, frankly. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 22:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I can discuss the content dispute there. Here I am discussing something else. Do you think that, in the future, you might be able to invest a little more effort into explaining in the edit summary why you are reverting explained, good-faith edits?
Surtsicna (
talk) 22:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have nominated
Elizabeth II for a
featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the
featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are
here.
John (
talk) 15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Revert of Assassination of Spencer Perceval
In your revert of
Assassination of Spencer Perceval, you state that "there is no risk of ambiguity". I understand that, but what is wrong with having the year added to the date, which is typically what
WP:DATE requests? Edits are usually reverted because they are incorrect, and that's not the case here.
Truthanado (
talk) 17:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Truthanado,
WP:DATE says Omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity. I don't see any ambiguity in the sentence He was hanged at Newgate Prison on 18 May, one week after the assassination and one month before the start of the War of 1812., given that the year 1812 has already been mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph as well as in the following sentence after the day and month. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 22:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Please stop linking
The Australian Women's Weekly. That magazine was founded in 1933
[1]. It is not the same magazine, Australian Woman's Weekly that Griffiths worked as an editor for in 1913. The magazine Griffiths worked for was operated by Denton & Spencer between 1911 to 1921. I reverted your incorrect edit once and you reinserted the link. I have reverted your error again and will not engage a 3rd time on your mistake. Per
Patricia Clarke (historian) "Jennie was appointed editor of the Australian Woman.s Weekly (AWW), a periodical for women begun in 1911 that ran for ten years. (The AWW should not be confused with the Australian Women's Weekly which started in 1931 and is still appearing as a monthly.)" (p 5)
SusunW (
talk) 04:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
SusunW, please assume good faith. I did not know this and there ought to have been a hidden comment explaining the situation. Can you please add one to deter future editors from making the same mistake? Thanks, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 21:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not assuming bad faith, but am concerned that you may be editing too fast and not reading edit summaries. I wrote "delink, not same magazine as the Australian Women's Magazine begun in 1933" when I reverted, yet you relinked. I am skeptical that a hidden comment in the text will keep someone from adding a link in the info box. I am happy to put it as a note, so that it is visible.
SusunW (
talk) 21:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
An
RfC is open to discuss having open
requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a
bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{
rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Sorry I don't understand why did you repeatedly remove the infobox from that article without explanation, and repeatedly warn and report to AIV the involved IPs. The admin action may have turned against you. Please avoid.
Materialscientist (
talk) 21:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Materialscientist, I won't bother to revert again. I've already explained why I reverted the addition of an infobox with
this edit, yet this IP is unwilling to discuss why they believe an infobox is justified and has carried on relentlessly restoring it, which to my mind is
wp:disruptive editing. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand your reasoning, but it is weak - Wikiediting is incremental, and it is easier to add details into infobox than start it from scratch. Experienced editors don't edit war on such marginal matters. Cheers.
Materialscientist (
talk) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
?
Why do you keep
removing the word
Manhattan entirely, under the guise of delinking common terms? Not only are you not delinking (you're just removing it), I wouldn't agree that is Manhattan as universally common as New York, LA, Jesus etc. anyways. Aza24 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Aza24, sorry for not expanding on that automatic edit summary. Per {{Infobox person#Parameters}}, the recommended format is as follows, Place of birth: city, administrative region, country. Manhattan is a borough of a city, so including it would be unnecessarily precise in this context. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Elizabeth of the United Kingdom
The disambiguation page was completely stable until you started removing Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's name and insisting that Elizabeth II was the primary topic. Note that
Mary of the United Kingdom redirects to Mary of Teck and
Alexandra of the United Kingdom redirects to Alexandra of Denmark, both of whom were queens consort, so the argument that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon could not have been known or referred to as "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" due to her status as a queen consort is nonsense. And a
WP:RM cannot be opened for a page that is not even in the main space as an article; not to mention our debate doesn't revolve around renaming the page, but what its content needs to be. Keivan.fTalk 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
To the contrary
Keivan, the redirect page was completely stable until you started a disambiguation page. There has never been a queen regnant of the United Kingdom titled Mary or Alexandra, so neither example is all that helpful. I did not make that argument, but I have never seen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon being referred to as such, as usually the (name) of (country) format is reserved for monarchs and heirs. OK, granted, I should've recommended
WP:RFD, if you wish to nominate the redirect there feel free. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the
Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the
wide-vector-2022 gadget. (
T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to
vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen
here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A
motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing
Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Dear Sir,
I am wondering why the file "Sir Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel" (portrait by Walter Stoneman) is continually taken down. National portrait gallery apparently offer Stoneman portraits to the commons free under CCA ShareAlike 3.0.
I must confess my novelty to Wikimedia, so I would really appreciate some help uploading it.
Best wishes,
Fitzkarl
Fitzkarl (
talk) 12:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Fitzkarl, unfortunately the NPG do not offer them to Commons under a free licence, the licence they offer it under is
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, which cannot be accepted on Wikimedia projects as explained at {{
cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}}. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks,
I assume it can be uploaded to Wikipedia then like the other NPG portraits?
(Apologies for the Asquith image; that was a mistake)
Fitzkarl (
talk) 21:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Fitzkarl: no because the image is not yet 95 years old, so US copyright still applies. You can upload any other NPG portrait to Wikipedia dated before 1927 (or 1928 if you wait until Sunday
) ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 21:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Neveselbert, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See
this for background context.
—Moops⋠
T⋡ 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting for the
Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using
bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent
Coolest Tool Awards.
The argument that "Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used" fails because the capitalization is not currently consistent.
Also, I'm not sure if you are aware that this article is currently a
featured article candidate. Citation consistency and following the MOS are both part of the
featured article criteria, so reverting these changes could interfere with its opportunity for FA status.
RL0919 (
talk) 05:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RL0919: I just don't see the need to alter the capitalisation from what the sources themselves use, which happens to be sentence case. As these are all article titles, I don't believe there to be any inconsistency as these are all titles enclosed in quotation marks, not in italics like a book title, and such titles commonly use sentence case. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 06:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There are other sources with titles using different capitalization, so yes there is an inconsistency. Our guidelines in this case are definitely not to match whatever capitalization is used in the original. What is needed (particularly for FAC) is both a consistent citation style and compliance with our MOS guidelines on title capitalization. I believe the edits you reverted achieved that. I'm going to restore the consistent, MOS-compliant form, and I hope you won't edit war over it because you "just don't see the need" when others do see the need. --
RL0919 (
talk) 06:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
RL0919, I'm not going to edit war over it, but I do believe the guidelines should be clarified. Maybe this is more of a New York Times thing in terms of consistency/precedent, which I'm not very familiar with since in the UK for example, major outlets including The Times never use title case for their article titles. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 06:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reverting edits
Why are you reverting my edits??
Koppite1 (
talk) 17:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
What on earth are you going on about??? All i did was remove 1 line from Pele's records and add a couple of needed links??
Koppite1 (
talk) 17:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
{{Cite web |last=Luhn |first=Michele |date=29 December 2022 |title=Pelé, Brazilian soccer star and the only player to win the World Cup three times, dies at age 82 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/29/pel-brazilian-soccer-star-dies-at-age-82.html |access-date=12 January 2023 |website=CNBC |language=en}}
Have not got the foggest what you are going on about. All i did was change the reference type of the first link because what was there DIDNT reflect FIA calling Pele the greatest. I changed it to a link that does confirm FIA calling Pele GOAT. So, i'f you have no further objections. i'll revert your reversion.
Koppite1 (
talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No point in edit warring. I'm actually going to reinsert the citations. And yes, i always do check my edits before publishing. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes at times. Thanks for your assistance and no hard feelings.
Koppite1 (
talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting in the
2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip:
Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Hey, just a little question regarding your RMTR request. Just curious, did you try moving the article yourself first, but encountered an error, or did you post directly to RMTR? Thanks,
Silikonz💬 15:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you're able to, when the redir is made as result of a move, as was the case here. I've seen multiple non-pagemovers do this.
Silikonz💬 15:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
You might want to try moving this request yourself first. If you can't do it for some reason, then I'll be glad to help out.
Silikonz💬 15:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel
Hi there, I appreciate your concern and must admit that this file:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Walter_Cameron_of_Lochiel,_25th_Chief_2.jpg is absolutely copyright infringement. It is taken off the internet from an original signed portrait that was auctioned, but I cannot find the source again. For this to be on the commons requires it to credit the original author and I've no idea who that is - certainly not me! Please do nominate the file for deletion again and it should get deleted. Thanks
Given that this image above is not free, and quite frankly a poor-quality image and given his age at that time does not help identify the person. The Stoneman portrait
here is non-free but qualifies for fair usage and should be used in Donald's article. I hope this gets sorted and again, very sorry for the trouble it has caused you.
Following a
request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (
P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and
P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The
Terms of Use update cycle has started, which
includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
On 14 March 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lynn Seymour, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the
candidates page. —
Bagumba (
talk) 04:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I see you're a long time editor with a boatload of experience, so I'm not going to bother with a template. Please don't edit war at
Circumcision. Take it to the talk page, if you must, and seek consensus. Thanks.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Can I point out though that it does look like
KlayCax is guilty of the same behaviour and it doesn't look like they're willing to self-revert. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 14:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for uploading File:Sir-Charles-Fletcher-Fletcher-Cooke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
There is absolutely no need to create a redirect like you imply
doing here. You ought to look at NBA BLPs at
Category:FA-Class NBA articles or
Category:GA-Class NBA articles before making such edits (hiding behind
WP:OVERLINK or
MOS:MORELINKWORDS, which is meant for a completely different situation, does not help your case). In addition, you seem to be edit-warring (not to mention doing that with two accounts, which
WP:ILLEGIT forbids in this case) for which you have already been blocked in the past so I advise you to stop. –
sbaio 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sbaio: No, I'm not warring at all, I'm just implementing the
Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js which delinks basketball per
MOS:OVERLINK. I'm not "hiding behind" anything of the sort. How are the guidelines meant for "a completely different situation"? The first is automatically referenced in the script's edit summary, and the second is applicable in that linking attributive nouns alone rather than the noun phrase is bad practice. Also, what's so wrong with linking to a redirect, especially one more specific than just "basketball"? I think it makes more sense to link professional basketball than basketball player, but I think either would be better than just linking to something as prevalent as basketball. Finally, your Absolutely not edit summary was clearly inappropriate. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Neveselbert. I think the plain text "basketball" should link to the basic page,
basketball. Going to
Basketball in the United States seems like
MOS:EGG, and doesn't deal with the specific playing of the game and its use of the ball. I see that you've made numnberous changes already on this page surrounding the linking of the term basketball. If you still disagree, please start a discussion in lieu of further reverting, and establish consensus for any further changes in this area. Thanks.—
Bagumba (
talk) 12:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Bagumba. OK, I can understand that. What I don't understand though is how linking to
professional basketball is so controversial. Yes, I can also understand why linking to
basketball player might be pointless given that it's a redirect to the same page, but
professional basketball links to a specific section of
Professional sports, which describes the professional aspect of the sport and indeed provides a link to the basic page. I think most people have a rudimentary understanding of the sport itself, though not necessarily the professional aspect of it, which is why I agree with the
Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js that linking to the basic page is excessive and a more specific link is warranted should the term be linked at all. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for responding. If you have further concerns, consider discussing this at
WT:NBA. FWIW, I had a different take on "professional" links, and commented before at
User talk:Ohconfucius/script § Professional sports links (unfortunately, with no response). While the script may have made the change, the
WP:MEATBOT policy says that the Wikipedia user using a script is ultimately responsible for making sure there is consensus for the change. Regards.—
Bagumba (
talk) 18:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The
rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
I'd love to help make more improvements on the Marriage Template. I don't have template editor rights, but I figure I could coordinate some proposals with you on the talk page.
Not sure if you had any specific ideas for improvements beyond the wikidata implementation in sandbox right now. Happy to chip away at some things if you've got a backlog of wish-list items on your end.
Hi
Pedantical, yes, I'm currently working on trying to fetch referenced data from Wikidata while parameters are left unfilled. So, for example, if {{marriage/sandbox}} were included in
George H. W. Bush without any parameters, it would render the dates of marriage and spouse's death with a name missing error message above noting that the spouse has not been specified. As you may have noticed, the code is rather complicated, but I've troubleshot it over the past few weeks, and it seems foolproof. There's also the issue of the appearance of the code itself, as the spacing and line breaking is rather inconsistent, so I don't know if that's something you might be able to look at. All the best, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 18:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Neveselbert — I can definitely take a look at the spacing and line breaks in there and see if it can be improved.
On a different note, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the templates I put together for Wikidata spouse info (
Template:Wdsi) and Wikidata death info (
Template:Wddi). I swapped in those 2 templates in place of the Wdib usage as an attempt at some cleanup.
Pedantical (
talk) 06:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Pedantical, I really appreciate it. Those templates seem like an excellent idea. I had been thinking of ways to streamline the main template by splitting it off, but I wasn't sure of the best way of going about it. All the best, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems like I missed something. Maybe the results I was seeing were cached, but it looks like the abstraction of the original Wdib templates into the Wddi/Wdsi templates no longer produce the same result on a blank transclusion of marriage/sandbox on some test pages. Now it shows "(before <person's full death date>)" Edit: I made a goofy syntax error on the templates; should be fixed now! :)
Pedantical (
talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Pedantical, thanks again for your troubleshooting. I'll have a look a bit later to see that everything is in the same working order. Take care, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Rishi Sunak
Hello Neveselbert; the image I put in Sunak's IB was edited on the 28th to have that weird rotation, but that edit was reverted the next day. For some reason it still looks slanted on Commons, but it doesn't show up in the infobox. "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak arrives in Downing Street (cropped).jpg" is actually rotated 2°, which looks worse. Cheers,
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 18:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Tim, I'm not sure if I see what you mean. The rotation isn't weird at all to me, it corrects the slant/tilt of Sunak's head. See
John Major's article which has the same 2° rotation in the IB image. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The Number 10 door looks strange with the rotation. Major's image, extracted from a larger picture of him with Clinton, looks to have been originally taken at that angle. Seeing as "Rishi Sunak's first speech as Prime Minister (crop).jpg" has been used for quite some time, it's probably best to keep it that way.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 19:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Tim O'Doherty: FWIW, Major's image wasn't originally taken at that angle, it was rotated. Do you think a less noticeable rotation would be acceptable or would you prefer there to be no rotation whatsoever? My main issues with "Rishi Sunak's first speech as Prime Minister (crop).jpg" are the dimensions and the zoom level. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 19:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd prefer there to not be a rotation. I think, compared with the original, Sunak's head and shoulders look odd rotated, as if he's falling backwards. The door is the main issue though; the slanted background just doesn't look right. That's not how Downing Street is.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 19:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Tim O'Doherty: OK, I'll contact the original uploader and ask if they can reupload the crop without the rotation. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Neveselbert, air your thoughts on the talkpage. Don't revert just because you don't like it. There is a rough consensus; you aren't helping.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 19:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Tim, there are problems with that new image, I should know since I uploaded it and I regret doing so as I'm no longer confident regarding the copyright. I think there should be a wider consensus before changing an image that has been the lead image in a featured article for many years. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I was told about the shaky copyright status on the talkpage; this is obviously really important, but putting that aside for a minute - I'm glad you've explained your reverts; we can talk about it further on Chamberlain's talk. Thanks -
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 19:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
A
request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the
Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their
2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
As you have done in the past with {{Marriage}}, you broke {{Longitem}} today, causing at least one infobox to display in a broken way. Once again, I am here to encourage you to slow down and use the testcases page to ensure that you are not breaking existing usages of templates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Jonesey95, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm sorry about that, the diff I copied some of the code over from omitted the third }, which seems to be part of a larger problem I have with displaying diffs on my current userscript setup, as I've noticed other characters being omitted in diffs when a change is highlighted. I was actually troubleshooting at the time prior to
MJL's edit, and I didn't realise this was the cause of the problem. I'm not sure how to fix this but I'll be extra careful to read the code next time. Thanks, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for uploading File:R. (Dick) Burke.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's
currently at MFD, and
a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. —
SamX [
talk·contribs] 05:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the heads up,
SamX. I wasn't aware, and I'll be sure to keep this in mind if/when I use this script in future. For my part, I've always checked the diffs of every edit I've made using this script, and more recently I've only chosen to select references for expansion which involve the least change. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for uploading File:IS (Ivor) Richard.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Following
an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by
community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's
IP Masking project, a
new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An
associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of
IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Thanks for uploading File:Michael O'Kennedy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
You, too, are required to respond to latest talk pages entries, not just
revert at your own pleasure. Goes for everyone, no exceptions re: subject nor user. Please comment on my Turner talk page entry! If not, I will keep making this change. Lead looks ridiculous obviously avoiding where she was from. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 15:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That is your opinion. New talk page entries start new discussions. Discuss or abstain! --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 15:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
SergeWoodzing: it's not, I don't make the rules. Per
WP:CONSENSUS, we have to abide by it, and no individual editor may ride roughshod over it. Until your new discussion results in a new consensus, the old consensus remains. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 15:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PS Please acquaint yourself with
WP:CCC second §. Discuss the new Turner talk entry or abstain! Your refusal to discuss does not override guideline. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
SergeWoodzing: I just made that point, but until it does, you have to abide by current consensus. I'd also invite you to acquaint yourself with
WP:AGF. I've responded to you at
Talk:Tina Turner#Turner was ... in good faith and I would expect you to return the same courtesy. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 15:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You made a good-faith mistake in reverting without discussion as per WP:CCC. Now read the 2nd § there again! The problem only worsens as long as you stick by your unloaded guns. Referring to an RfC which became obsolete once I started a new discussion is not relevant. Discuss the issue of the laughable, obviously resentful, immature and objectionable lack of her nationality or abstain! --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 16:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Consensus on Wikipedia is not invalidated simply by starting a new discussion. Changes should reflect a new consensus among the community. I've participated in the discussion you initiated, and encourage others to join. Until a new consensus is reached, the existing one stands. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 16:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Read
WP:CCC §2 again please. You have not participated at all in substance on the article's talk page. You have talked policy (as you see it) over and over and said not a word about the issue at hand there now. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 12:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've underscored policy because it guides our actions here on Wikipedia. Your assertion that I haven't engaged with the substance is inaccurate - my engagement has been about procedure, which is just as critical. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, so you should have followed WP:CCC in good faith & started a new discussion rather than just reverting. The substance problem per se has been solved for now by someone who cares not only about policy, but about article content. It's always a good idea. We have way way way more than enough users who just go around reverting, without trying to make improvements. Try to be constructive: "I feel what you did is against procedure, but here's my suggestion for a solution to this embarrassment ..." Try it, you might like it! --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 13:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your interpretation of
WP:CCC doesn't supersede the existing consensus. I reverted the change to preserve that consensus until a new one is reached, which is in line with Wikipedia's policies.
It seems you've misconstrued adherence to policy as a lack of constructive contribution. For future reference, starting a discussion before making significant changes would be more in line with Wikipedia's procedures.
Your suggestion is noted. However, your comments would be more productive if they focused on the issue at hand rather than making assumptions about other users' intentions or contributions. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 17:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Article talk pages are primarily for constructive discussion of article content, not for pointers about policy and procedure. Whenever (whenever) you do not comment at all on article content you are not using the page for its main purpose. Sure, it's OK to comment on policy and procedure, but such a comment alone is not constructive without some idea on improving article content. There was a rather urgent need for improvement in the very beginning of that article, which looked ridiculous and did the subject gross injustice. Fixed now by someone else, but I'm sure you could have thought of something too. That's the issue at hand. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 10:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your assertion that I've neglected content is not accurate. Ensuring that changes align with consensus and policy is inherently about preserving the integrity of the article's content.
Your 'urgent need for improvement' was your personal interpretation. A single perspective does not dictate urgency or necessity of change—consensus does. I'm glad to see that you're satisfied with the current changes made by another editor. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 16:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It is still my hope that you will be interested in the actual content of an article, the words in it, not just in procedure. That's the main reason for this whole project. It's easy to take on the position of policy police without contributing content. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your continuous insinuation that I don't care about content is unfounded and detracts from our purpose here. I value both content and procedure, as they are intrinsically linked. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 18:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
After I moved the article per your request at
WP:RM/TR, I was requested to move it back. You will have to open a formal
discussion to move it again. -
UtherSRG(talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Rishi
You cannot simply revert a close by an uninvolved party without discussing it with them first. That's a key rule of
WP:RM.
estar8806 (
talk)
★ 23:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Someone else wrote it and I just added the source, but what is undue about a statement his death by a former US president in a section about individuals and organizations?
DarmaniLink (
talk) 00:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
a statement on his death, rather
DarmaniLink (
talk) 00:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Dweller. Since you're an admin, is there any reason why you're unable to do this yourself? ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 15:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes. I'm not very technically proficient, and I'd rather not break a template in use on squillions of pages! (I think knowing my limits is one reason why I'm an admin) --
Dweller (
talk)
Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles
here and
here. Cheers.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I updated dmy dates template in the page
Fahd of Saudi Arabia and you reverted it saying it should be updated when it's necessary. Could you please show me the related rule? I've have been here for a long time, but I don't know anything about this rule. Thanks,
Egeymi (
talk) 04:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Egeymi, there's no need to update the template every month, if there was then this could be done automatically by the system anyway. It updates itself every time you run
Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates, if you have that installed. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 12:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Following
an RfC,
TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at
WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for
dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in
XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of
XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of
Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.