This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Hi Neveselbert! Thanks for sorting all that out! If I were a barn star sorta guy, I'd give you one. This has been a long time coming, but you know what they say about patience...! (I gave up many years ago, but am thankful that others didn't.) Cheers! Technopat ( talk) 20:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have written "Italy" on all famous Italian people born before 1947, inserting the wikilink that leads back to the Kingdom of Italy. If you think I made a mistake, you are free to check all my edits on this and operate according to your own view (as you did for Silvio Berlusconi). JackkBrown ( talk) 20:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I take this opportunity to ask if I have put the picture in the right place on this page: Via Margutta; and also on this one: Tommaso Laureti. JackkBrown ( talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Please go to here for some context surrounding the edit-- ill be reverting your edit. I just forgot to add a summary. Thanks. BillClinternet ( talk) 19:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Tedious, but all done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 19:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Are you having a problem with the last update to AutoSectionLink? If so, can you point to a page where it didn't work correctly? Nardog ( talk) 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 02:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)( Buttinsky) I myself think an indefinite WP:TBAN on all penis-related topics might be warranted, if this [1] sort of thing reccurs. These topics are difficult enough without this kind of disruption. Bon courage ( talk) 03:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Brian Morris (biologist) apparently makes anti-circumcision activists see redis rather like saying Mehmet Oz makes anti-homeopathy activists see red. I don't think that's a fair characterisation. Morris is himself an activist, for one thing. His being
an author on a lot of very high-quality (secondary, peer-reviewed, well-published) material on thisdoes not negate the conflict of interest that is inherent in this material. Indeed, I can't find a single peer review that is unaffiliated with Morris or his associates. I think it's more accurate to say that if Wikipedia allowed otherwise high-quality sources to be tossed out just because a random scientist hated them, we would all be lost. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
They suggested an infinite topic banI've just now noticed this and I think there's been a misunderstanding. I agreed to
accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. "Indefinite" isn't the same thing as "infinite". I think Tim's proposal (with Prcc27's backing) is certainly something I can get behind. I don't see why this would be opposed at ANI given that I've already received unsolicited support from at least three different editors. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
A topic ban sounds fine, but I think we need a broader one. Looking back over Neveselbert's edits for the last few months, they also edit articles related to female genitalia, e.g., Clitoridectomy, Labia pride, and Clitoral hood reduction. So, how about an indefinite topic ban on human genitalia? Also, it should be made clear that if Neveselbert violates their topic ban, a block of at least two weeks would be imposed. Additionally, the ban may not be appealed for at least one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both for responding. @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm inclined to accept these terms in exchange for lifting the 2 weeks, but can I ask what your thoughts are regarding a definite topic ban (technically what this block is, albeit one for all topics, yet still definite), one that can last as short as two weeks or even as long as a year (as Bbb23 referred to in respect of an appeal being considered)? I would also be open to discussing whether a particular regimen could be established around my conduct in these articles, such as perhaps a no-revert rule on my part (if I'm reverted, I cannot revert back, that sort of thing), going forward, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I was only asking whether such a rule would be reasonable as a possible alternative, and apparently I have my answer. So there we have it, and I accept that. I'm happy to accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to emphasize, I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word.
is what you said. The one year condition was plainly stated, and you were aware of it. You didn't have to agree to the unblock conditions, but you did. Please respect what you agreed to.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 20:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word.Key word here, "we". I did not expressly agree to the one-year condition, which I only said I was
inclinedto agree with, which isn't the same thing as actually agreeing. This is in contrast to my later statement in which I clearly expressed my acceptance of what I referred to as
an indefinite but appealable topic ban. I implore anyone to please respect what I actually agreed to, which was not the one-year appeal ban, which is completely ridiculous and not what I agreed to. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello again Neveselbert, hope the admins aren't giving you too much grief. Saw that you were the main string-puller in getting Margaret Thatcher to A-Class on Project Conservatism; is there any formal way to nominate articles, or do you just post a casual message on the project talkpage asking for a review? I'd like to get the freshly-FA'd Liz Truss to the same status but wasn't sure how to go about it. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
S'pose you're right, I'll wait until Cameron's gone until I rearrange his article lead. Mad how he's made a comeback, though. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
You know the UK member of parliament portraits published in 2005 you've used on several pages? Where can I find them, I want to see them in higher resolution and use them for my projects. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk) 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Yesterday I edited " Alistair Cooke" to fix a disambiguation link added by a passing IP editor. Looking back through the edit history I noticed you'd removed the postnominals in March. MOS:POSTNOM would seem to permit them. I've no strong opinion either way, although if they stay, of course they should be corrected to KBE (KBEh). Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 10:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to the following pages, Margaret Thatcher and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
First off with the Margaret Thatcher page you state that Wikipedia:NOPIPE doesn't apply because there's no pipe, which isn't true; the policy states:
First of all, keep links as simple as possible:
[[George Washington|President George Washington]]
President [[George Washington]]
Which clearly mandates title outside the brackets.
Secondly your reversion to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh cites
Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN and
MOS:JOBTITLES. Looking at both of those in turn, NOTBROKEN says: That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]]
to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]]
just to "fix a redirect".
None of those cited examples include 'president' in the link, therefore indicating its an improper form. For the record I was not changing a redirect, but removing the title from the link as per NOPIPE. With JOBTITLES, the guidance reads: When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II).
I accept that I got this wrong in the Prince Philip article when amending the King to the king, but the above passage again removes the title Queen from the link. Based on the above I think it's pretty clear that titles don't belong in links. Ecrm87 ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
[[George Washington|President George Washington]]
is not the same as [[President George Washington]]
. In my understanding, the difference with kings and queens is that the title "King" or "Queen" is not just a job title, it's their personal title, which makes linking them together with the name more desirable, much like linking "Sir" in
Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet or indeed "Mahatma" in
Mahatma Gandhi. Also, it's more consistent such as in cases where
Queen Victoria is linked, making a link to
George III as King
George III appear inconsistent by comparison. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 16:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)the name is ambiguous, George Stokes being a disambiguation page. The consistency you refer to applies to page titles, not wikilinks. There is no hard-and-fast rule against including "King" or "Queen", or even "President" (e.g. President Biden), inside links. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
I have added a discussion on the death article talk if it should reflect trial accounts of the event.
By the way, thanks for your edits on the main article on Amess 92.17.199.182 ( talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect P. W. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § P. W. until a consensus is reached. Silcox ( talk) 05:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind greetings, hope you've had a wonderful Christmastime and a Happy New Year! Please enjoy this pie, or perhaps some leftover Turkey sandwiches GnocchiFan ( talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Robert-Villiers-Grimston-1st-Baron-Grimston-of-Westbury.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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday!
Whether you celebrate
Christmas,
Hanukkah,
Kwanzaa,
Hogmanay,
Festivus or your hemisphere's
Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Neveselbert,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 23:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alan Burns.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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
There's a little more context here. I'm finding it's easy to get carried away! Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 01:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I have found a policy which provides clearer guidance on including titles within links. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). The consorts section says that titles can be included at the beginning of a link if the individual is living (and I'm guessing this possibly applies to the sovereign as well), but I can't find any other use of a title before name in link otherwise. Ecrm87 ( talk) 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again. First of all, you've done a brilliant job on Thatcher and it's great to see such a high-quality article on one of the biggest figures in British history. Secondly, after this year's election's happened and Sunak is ... erm ... no longer prime minister, do you want to work together on getting his article to GA (and then maybe FA)? In December I started a draft in my sandbox on his premiership. It's a bit sparse and scrappy right now and only contains a few flashpoints from what's happened so far, but it's a decent starting point. The problem is that unlike how I did Truss, there's no book or biography of Sunak we can use as the "backbone" of the article, so can only patch together different sources into a coherent draft. I'll try to piece together some good journal articles and book chapters when I start seriously writing it. We've got 5–11 months until the election according to Brand Rishi ™ so no worries about rushing into anything. No worries, also, if you're not interested either: I don't blame you! Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
book or biography of Sunak we can use as the "backbone" of the article, may I suggest Michael Ashcroft's All to Play For: The Advance of Rishi Sunak? I've got a copy of it on Kindle. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Please at least attempt to gather consensus before doing a page move - just (Truss) and (Johnson) were accurate, there is no need to include the full name and it looks clunkier as a result. OGBC1992 ( talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Your recent edit on Template:Non-free use rationale is triggering an unclosed <p> tag on (at the moment) 2400+ pages this template is used on. Would you revisit this edit and see if you could correct this? My suspicion is the p tag pair towards the top of the template since that looks multilayered and the others look more straight forward, but I'm not certain as I try not to deal with if statement syntax often. This caught my eye since File space is typically quiet and we've had the tracked syntax errors eradicated in File space (barring the occasional popup) for while. Thanks, Zinnober9 ( talk) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your template editor permission. The thread is Template editor permission review request. Thank you. — Primefac ( talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect 1792 presidential election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20 § 1792 presidential election until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
Neveselbert, you agreed at
ANI that you would not make template edits. Specifically, you said If I keep the TE user right, I am prepared to commit to editing only sandboxes and testcases, not live protected templates, unless I've discussed it with you or other editors beforehand.
Last week,
you make six consecutive edits to Template:Multiple candidates images, despite failure to properly create or edit a sandbox or testcases page. You did not do that simple step and edited the live template multiple times anyway. I view this as a total breach of your promise, and I think it merits removal of your TE rights. Pinging
SMcCandlish,
Pppery, and
Primefac, the other participants in that ANI discussion. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
inability to follow through on simple requestsjust isn't fair. I've made an effort to consult with you, to discuss things with you. I have something resembling a life outside Wikipedia, and I can't always follow things through to schedule, but I'll always try my utmost. As for any
inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done, I've recognised this problem in my comments since, and I've told you repeatedly that I'm prepared to pledge myself in future to resist doing so. My previous promise was in reference to protected templates, and I adhered fully to that promise. Now, I'm prepared to add to it. Regarding that other discussion from four years ago, that was in reference to that specific template, which I did abide by. It says something though that you have to go that far back to find a similar case where I've fallen short in my actions. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done, given there was no edit to {{ Infobox royalty/sandbox}} and {{ Infobox royalty/testcases}} on your part. Do as I say, not as I do, as someone once said... ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
from now on that I will create a sandbox or testcases page before editing any templateThat probably works for me (after a short chat we also had in email). I'm inclined to give another opportunity in most cases, often even after previous ones haven't worked out too well. That said, observing a poor track record of template editing isn't "assuming bad faith". That has a rather strict definition, namely the negation of
assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful.No one here is assuming you are deliberately trying to hurt wikipedia, only observing that some of your actions have had negative results (using a permission for which positive ones are pretty consistently expected, and negative ones can have serious, albeit not long-term, consequences across a very large number of public pages), and observing a pattern of failing to address this problem. If you now commit to addressing the problem, then all should be well. PS: I'm also no gatekeeper of the TE bit; I'm just a TE and PM who sometimes chimes in on permissions-related matters. It's ultimately up to the admin corps who manage these permissions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting a new discussion on at the Lord Lucan talk page, in light of a recent article by Laura Thompson. ~~ 80.43.251.32 ( talk) 20:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
In light of a recent article that talks about a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked, I wonder if you could be able to help with how I should phrase the paragraph I have added about it. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character. Even the author of the article finds the possibility too unbelievable even comparing it to something out of a Agatha Christie story. 80.43.251.32 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Lord Cameron (minister) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § Lord Cameron (minister) until a consensus is reached. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Delete! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Delete! until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! Figured I should bring up the shortdesc over at Garret FitzGerald up here. How is the previous description better? It will very likely lead to the belief that FitzGerald was Taoiseach continuously between 1981 and 1987, which he was not. How is it not better to be more accurate? Cheers, estar8806 ( talk) ★ 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
twice Leader of the Opposition between 1977 and 1982. That said, I've gone back and forth on what the descriptions for taoisigh should be exactly, as I'm not sure the ordinal necessarily should be included, as it isn't included in short descriptions for US presidents, though that might be because of WP:SDLENGTH. There's also the issue of capitalising "Taoiseach" if we do retain the ordinal, per MOS:JOBTITLES, which may or may not be necessary depending on whether we're able to consider it a common noun like "prime minister". ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe you are misunderstanding WP:MOSTITLE and it is perfectly correct to use a capital when referring to, e.g., "10th Taoiseach of Ireland", as it is referring to a specific position. This would be in common with what's done with English prime ministers' short descriptions. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. I'm not entirely clear whether this should apply to taoiseach, as it's a term borrowed from another language. Ordinarily, we would italicise it if in lower case, or use {{ lang}}, though I don't know if such markup would be advisable here. I suppose we can leave it capitalised, though I'm not entirely convinced this is consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
I greatly appreciate your improvements to my reference to the audio of the Queen's recollections of VE Day 1945. I added a further reference to programme name "The Way We Were" because the original programme name is not mentioned in the other sources. I struggled with what the title= should be, as the programme listing does not have an official title.
I have some qualms about the programme being described as an "interview", which is a question and answer format. I recall Alastair Bruce in I think it was The Coronation TV programme saying something along the lines of "the Queen is never interviewed", the protocol being that she was never asked direct questions by the media. Unfortunately I have been unable to find the whole programme so I am unable to find the context to determine if Godfrey Talbot had asked a question which would support the description of "interview".
Corsac Fox Kazakhstan ( talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I have added the following link to the discussion as to whether we should rewrite the article to reflect how later accounts described the David Amess attack. This will be the last I will do the Amess articles, as it is too painful for me personally. 92.17.198.220 ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
On 8 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank Stella, 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) 16:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that, as a retired book editor, I already know to italicize the title of a book, film, album, magazine, or TV series. Not only that, but I know how to do it as well. LewisChessman ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Hi Neveselbert! Thanks for sorting all that out! If I were a barn star sorta guy, I'd give you one. This has been a long time coming, but you know what they say about patience...! (I gave up many years ago, but am thankful that others didn't.) Cheers! Technopat ( talk) 20:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have written "Italy" on all famous Italian people born before 1947, inserting the wikilink that leads back to the Kingdom of Italy. If you think I made a mistake, you are free to check all my edits on this and operate according to your own view (as you did for Silvio Berlusconi). JackkBrown ( talk) 20:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I take this opportunity to ask if I have put the picture in the right place on this page: Via Margutta; and also on this one: Tommaso Laureti. JackkBrown ( talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Please go to here for some context surrounding the edit-- ill be reverting your edit. I just forgot to add a summary. Thanks. BillClinternet ( talk) 19:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Tedious, but all done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 19:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Are you having a problem with the last update to AutoSectionLink? If so, can you point to a page where it didn't work correctly? Nardog ( talk) 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 02:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)( Buttinsky) I myself think an indefinite WP:TBAN on all penis-related topics might be warranted, if this [1] sort of thing reccurs. These topics are difficult enough without this kind of disruption. Bon courage ( talk) 03:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Brian Morris (biologist) apparently makes anti-circumcision activists see redis rather like saying Mehmet Oz makes anti-homeopathy activists see red. I don't think that's a fair characterisation. Morris is himself an activist, for one thing. His being
an author on a lot of very high-quality (secondary, peer-reviewed, well-published) material on thisdoes not negate the conflict of interest that is inherent in this material. Indeed, I can't find a single peer review that is unaffiliated with Morris or his associates. I think it's more accurate to say that if Wikipedia allowed otherwise high-quality sources to be tossed out just because a random scientist hated them, we would all be lost. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
They suggested an infinite topic banI've just now noticed this and I think there's been a misunderstanding. I agreed to
accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. "Indefinite" isn't the same thing as "infinite". I think Tim's proposal (with Prcc27's backing) is certainly something I can get behind. I don't see why this would be opposed at ANI given that I've already received unsolicited support from at least three different editors. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
A topic ban sounds fine, but I think we need a broader one. Looking back over Neveselbert's edits for the last few months, they also edit articles related to female genitalia, e.g., Clitoridectomy, Labia pride, and Clitoral hood reduction. So, how about an indefinite topic ban on human genitalia? Also, it should be made clear that if Neveselbert violates their topic ban, a block of at least two weeks would be imposed. Additionally, the ban may not be appealed for at least one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both for responding. @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm inclined to accept these terms in exchange for lifting the 2 weeks, but can I ask what your thoughts are regarding a definite topic ban (technically what this block is, albeit one for all topics, yet still definite), one that can last as short as two weeks or even as long as a year (as Bbb23 referred to in respect of an appeal being considered)? I would also be open to discussing whether a particular regimen could be established around my conduct in these articles, such as perhaps a no-revert rule on my part (if I'm reverted, I cannot revert back, that sort of thing), going forward, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I was only asking whether such a rule would be reasonable as a possible alternative, and apparently I have my answer. So there we have it, and I accept that. I'm happy to accept an indefinite but appealable topic ban. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to emphasize, I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word.
is what you said. The one year condition was plainly stated, and you were aware of it. You didn't have to agree to the unblock conditions, but you did. Please respect what you agreed to.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 20:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm entirely committing myself to respecting what we can agree here, and you have my word.Key word here, "we". I did not expressly agree to the one-year condition, which I only said I was
inclinedto agree with, which isn't the same thing as actually agreeing. This is in contrast to my later statement in which I clearly expressed my acceptance of what I referred to as
an indefinite but appealable topic ban. I implore anyone to please respect what I actually agreed to, which was not the one-year appeal ban, which is completely ridiculous and not what I agreed to. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello again Neveselbert, hope the admins aren't giving you too much grief. Saw that you were the main string-puller in getting Margaret Thatcher to A-Class on Project Conservatism; is there any formal way to nominate articles, or do you just post a casual message on the project talkpage asking for a review? I'd like to get the freshly-FA'd Liz Truss to the same status but wasn't sure how to go about it. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
S'pose you're right, I'll wait until Cameron's gone until I rearrange his article lead. Mad how he's made a comeback, though. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § Category:Foreign Ministers of X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
You know the UK member of parliament portraits published in 2005 you've used on several pages? Where can I find them, I want to see them in higher resolution and use them for my projects. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk) 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Yesterday I edited " Alistair Cooke" to fix a disambiguation link added by a passing IP editor. Looking back through the edit history I noticed you'd removed the postnominals in March. MOS:POSTNOM would seem to permit them. I've no strong opinion either way, although if they stay, of course they should be corrected to KBE (KBEh). Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 10:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to the following pages, Margaret Thatcher and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
First off with the Margaret Thatcher page you state that Wikipedia:NOPIPE doesn't apply because there's no pipe, which isn't true; the policy states:
First of all, keep links as simple as possible:
[[George Washington|President George Washington]]
President [[George Washington]]
Which clearly mandates title outside the brackets.
Secondly your reversion to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh cites
Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN and
MOS:JOBTITLES. Looking at both of those in turn, NOTBROKEN says: That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]]
to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]
or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]]
just to "fix a redirect".
None of those cited examples include 'president' in the link, therefore indicating its an improper form. For the record I was not changing a redirect, but removing the title from the link as per NOPIPE. With JOBTITLES, the guidance reads: When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II).
I accept that I got this wrong in the Prince Philip article when amending the King to the king, but the above passage again removes the title Queen from the link. Based on the above I think it's pretty clear that titles don't belong in links. Ecrm87 ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
[[George Washington|President George Washington]]
is not the same as [[President George Washington]]
. In my understanding, the difference with kings and queens is that the title "King" or "Queen" is not just a job title, it's their personal title, which makes linking them together with the name more desirable, much like linking "Sir" in
Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet or indeed "Mahatma" in
Mahatma Gandhi. Also, it's more consistent such as in cases where
Queen Victoria is linked, making a link to
George III as King
George III appear inconsistent by comparison. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 16:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)the name is ambiguous, George Stokes being a disambiguation page. The consistency you refer to applies to page titles, not wikilinks. There is no hard-and-fast rule against including "King" or "Queen", or even "President" (e.g. President Biden), inside links. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
I have added a discussion on the death article talk if it should reflect trial accounts of the event.
By the way, thanks for your edits on the main article on Amess 92.17.199.182 ( talk) 09:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect P. W. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § P. W. until a consensus is reached. Silcox ( talk) 05:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind greetings, hope you've had a wonderful Christmastime and a Happy New Year! Please enjoy this pie, or perhaps some leftover Turkey sandwiches GnocchiFan ( talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Robert-Villiers-Grimston-1st-Baron-Grimston-of-Westbury.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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday!
Whether you celebrate
Christmas,
Hanukkah,
Kwanzaa,
Hogmanay,
Festivus or your hemisphere's
Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Neveselbert,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 23:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alan Burns.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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
There's a little more context here. I'm finding it's easy to get carried away! Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 01:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I have found a policy which provides clearer guidance on including titles within links. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). The consorts section says that titles can be included at the beginning of a link if the individual is living (and I'm guessing this possibly applies to the sovereign as well), but I can't find any other use of a title before name in link otherwise. Ecrm87 ( talk) 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again. First of all, you've done a brilliant job on Thatcher and it's great to see such a high-quality article on one of the biggest figures in British history. Secondly, after this year's election's happened and Sunak is ... erm ... no longer prime minister, do you want to work together on getting his article to GA (and then maybe FA)? In December I started a draft in my sandbox on his premiership. It's a bit sparse and scrappy right now and only contains a few flashpoints from what's happened so far, but it's a decent starting point. The problem is that unlike how I did Truss, there's no book or biography of Sunak we can use as the "backbone" of the article, so can only patch together different sources into a coherent draft. I'll try to piece together some good journal articles and book chapters when I start seriously writing it. We've got 5–11 months until the election according to Brand Rishi ™ so no worries about rushing into anything. No worries, also, if you're not interested either: I don't blame you! Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
book or biography of Sunak we can use as the "backbone" of the article, may I suggest Michael Ashcroft's All to Play For: The Advance of Rishi Sunak? I've got a copy of it on Kindle. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Please at least attempt to gather consensus before doing a page move - just (Truss) and (Johnson) were accurate, there is no need to include the full name and it looks clunkier as a result. OGBC1992 ( talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Your recent edit on Template:Non-free use rationale is triggering an unclosed <p> tag on (at the moment) 2400+ pages this template is used on. Would you revisit this edit and see if you could correct this? My suspicion is the p tag pair towards the top of the template since that looks multilayered and the others look more straight forward, but I'm not certain as I try not to deal with if statement syntax often. This caught my eye since File space is typically quiet and we've had the tracked syntax errors eradicated in File space (barring the occasional popup) for while. Thanks, Zinnober9 ( talk) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your template editor permission. The thread is Template editor permission review request. Thank you. — Primefac ( talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect 1792 presidential election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20 § 1792 presidential election until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
Neveselbert, you agreed at
ANI that you would not make template edits. Specifically, you said If I keep the TE user right, I am prepared to commit to editing only sandboxes and testcases, not live protected templates, unless I've discussed it with you or other editors beforehand.
Last week,
you make six consecutive edits to Template:Multiple candidates images, despite failure to properly create or edit a sandbox or testcases page. You did not do that simple step and edited the live template multiple times anyway. I view this as a total breach of your promise, and I think it merits removal of your TE rights. Pinging
SMcCandlish,
Pppery, and
Primefac, the other participants in that ANI discussion. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
inability to follow through on simple requestsjust isn't fair. I've made an effort to consult with you, to discuss things with you. I have something resembling a life outside Wikipedia, and I can't always follow things through to schedule, but I'll always try my utmost. As for any
inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done, I've recognised this problem in my comments since, and I've told you repeatedly that I'm prepared to pledge myself in future to resist doing so. My previous promise was in reference to protected templates, and I adhered fully to that promise. Now, I'm prepared to add to it. Regarding that other discussion from four years ago, that was in reference to that specific template, which I did abide by. It says something though that you have to go that far back to find a similar case where I've fallen short in my actions. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
inability to resist editing live templates before adequate testing has been done, given there was no edit to {{ Infobox royalty/sandbox}} and {{ Infobox royalty/testcases}} on your part. Do as I say, not as I do, as someone once said... ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
from now on that I will create a sandbox or testcases page before editing any templateThat probably works for me (after a short chat we also had in email). I'm inclined to give another opportunity in most cases, often even after previous ones haven't worked out too well. That said, observing a poor track record of template editing isn't "assuming bad faith". That has a rather strict definition, namely the negation of
assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful.No one here is assuming you are deliberately trying to hurt wikipedia, only observing that some of your actions have had negative results (using a permission for which positive ones are pretty consistently expected, and negative ones can have serious, albeit not long-term, consequences across a very large number of public pages), and observing a pattern of failing to address this problem. If you now commit to addressing the problem, then all should be well. PS: I'm also no gatekeeper of the TE bit; I'm just a TE and PM who sometimes chimes in on permissions-related matters. It's ultimately up to the admin corps who manage these permissions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting a new discussion on at the Lord Lucan talk page, in light of a recent article by Laura Thompson. ~~ 80.43.251.32 ( talk) 20:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
In light of a recent article that talks about a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked, I wonder if you could be able to help with how I should phrase the paragraph I have added about it. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character. Even the author of the article finds the possibility too unbelievable even comparing it to something out of a Agatha Christie story. 80.43.251.32 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Lord Cameron (minister) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § Lord Cameron (minister) until a consensus is reached. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Delete! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Delete! until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! Figured I should bring up the shortdesc over at Garret FitzGerald up here. How is the previous description better? It will very likely lead to the belief that FitzGerald was Taoiseach continuously between 1981 and 1987, which he was not. How is it not better to be more accurate? Cheers, estar8806 ( talk) ★ 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
twice Leader of the Opposition between 1977 and 1982. That said, I've gone back and forth on what the descriptions for taoisigh should be exactly, as I'm not sure the ordinal necessarily should be included, as it isn't included in short descriptions for US presidents, though that might be because of WP:SDLENGTH. There's also the issue of capitalising "Taoiseach" if we do retain the ordinal, per MOS:JOBTITLES, which may or may not be necessary depending on whether we're able to consider it a common noun like "prime minister". ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe you are misunderstanding WP:MOSTITLE and it is perfectly correct to use a capital when referring to, e.g., "10th Taoiseach of Ireland", as it is referring to a specific position. This would be in common with what's done with English prime ministers' short descriptions. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. I'm not entirely clear whether this should apply to taoiseach, as it's a term borrowed from another language. Ordinarily, we would italicise it if in lower case, or use {{ lang}}, though I don't know if such markup would be advisable here. I suppose we can leave it capitalised, though I'm not entirely convinced this is consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
I greatly appreciate your improvements to my reference to the audio of the Queen's recollections of VE Day 1945. I added a further reference to programme name "The Way We Were" because the original programme name is not mentioned in the other sources. I struggled with what the title= should be, as the programme listing does not have an official title.
I have some qualms about the programme being described as an "interview", which is a question and answer format. I recall Alastair Bruce in I think it was The Coronation TV programme saying something along the lines of "the Queen is never interviewed", the protocol being that she was never asked direct questions by the media. Unfortunately I have been unable to find the whole programme so I am unable to find the context to determine if Godfrey Talbot had asked a question which would support the description of "interview".
Corsac Fox Kazakhstan ( talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I have added the following link to the discussion as to whether we should rewrite the article to reflect how later accounts described the David Amess attack. This will be the last I will do the Amess articles, as it is too painful for me personally. 92.17.198.220 ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
On 8 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank Stella, 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) 16:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that, as a retired book editor, I already know to italicize the title of a book, film, album, magazine, or TV series. Not only that, but I know how to do it as well. LewisChessman ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)