Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Thatcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Neve-selbert, can you add some info to Maiorana article please, and the links might have to be removed, I don't want to make mistakes on article, but I'm fair sure you can help, thanks if you can.-- Theo Mandela ( talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Theo Mandela, thanks for creating this, it's fine. Surname pages are tricky because they are technically articles but are often mistaken for, or formatted like, disambiguation pages. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 16:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Theo Mandela, Xezbeth's version was very good, those references are best back in. I like the website you linked to, it looks like it would be a good reference for many of the surnames listed. Most (but not all) of those listed will have a Wikipedia page, but surname pages are generally too short and under-referenced. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 09:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your reverts of my edits on UK politician navboxes, please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Your edit summary here was misleading, given that you had already raised this idea and failed to get support for it on the talk page. Please use more care in the future. VQuakr ( talk) 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if you might consider reading the query I've put forth at WT:MOS. Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter, and I'd like to hear it, if you do. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Neve-selbert, on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s, the last images at the side (which go down too far as well) don't mention Drake and Ed Sheeran's other number ones that decade or the year which they became number one, do you know what can be done to make this article better? Thanks, -- Theo Mandela ( talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, would you like to make a comment in this section? Thanks.-- Sein und Zeit ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Comey is irrelevant as there are several name-holders. If there's only two, with one being treated as the primary topic, then there is no point in having a set index. — Xezbeth ( talk) 06:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:Neve-selbert, before some day I had added 2 reference in Margaret Thatcher article about her foreign policy. Both were about her policy on Iraq. Both were verified source like Financial Times and Huffpost. Why did you remove that??? Ominictionary ( talk) 10:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Thanks for replying User:Neve-selbert. I understand about your view on HP reference and after reading ur reply, I agree with u also. But I can't agree with u about FT ref because in Wikipedia we can give more than on ref about a single information. Look at Featured articles like Nelson Mandela. Giving more reference make the point strong, so, the FT ref should be there. If you have to remove the ref you have to present arguement over that wikipedia doesn't want more than one verified source about a single information unless you can't remove it. Bests Ominictionary ( talk) 21:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You have been editing wikipedia since 2015 so I am surprized you don't know the major wikipedia rules about verifiability of information and about reliable sources. Please read it carefully and notice that wikis, including wikipedia itself, cannot be used as references. See also Talk:Lina Medina for discussion about her alleged death. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I note you've left a comment on the lead section of the article on Maurice Benyovszky which I re-wrote recently. I am happy to cut down the lead section, if you can perhaps give me some indication of what you think is superfluous. I noted from two (quite random) other articles (Barack Obama and Martin Luther) that lead sections can sometime be quite large without anyone complaining. All advice welcome, so please let me know. MurdoMondane ( talk) 15:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Neve-selbert. My suggestion is to restate at the FLRC that you would like to withdraw it, and allow myself or one of the delegates to close it. Sometimes FLC candidates that are quickly withdrawn don't go through the archival process, but since there were some outside comments in this case, the FLRC should definitely be archived by a closer. Great work in improving the article, by the way. Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
What is your rationale for moving this page? No Swan So Fine ( talk) 23:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Neve-selbert! PC is not used as a post-nom unless the individual is a peer. This is because membership of the Privy Council is signified by the use of The Right Honourable. As lords/ladies use The Rt Hon by right of their title, they also use PC to show that they are additionally members of the Privy Council. None-peers NEVER use PC. On Wikipedia, titles such as The Rt Hon are only used in the infobox. This does not, however, mean that PC can then be used elsewhere. It simply isn't correct. These would be correct: "John Smith, Baron Bolton, PC" for the first sentence of the introduction; £The Right Honourable John Smith, Baron Bolton, PC" for the infobox; "Jane Smith" for the intro; "The Right Honourable Jane Smith" for the infobox. PC is an extra indicter only used for the nobility. Does this make sense? As per Debrett's "In a social style of address for a peer who is a privy counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the prefix ‘Rt Hon’ before the name is sufficient identification." [3] Could you therefore remove all the incorrect PC additions that you have made. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Abdication of Edward, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Abdication of Edward and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Abdication of Edward during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
DGG (
talk ) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to add a subsection to the WP:BLP page, and would like to solicit the opinions of editors who have been involved with it. Can you offer your thoughts here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I was /wrong/ about the housing crisis DAB page. I was not aware of that policy, and you were right to revert. Sorry if I got defensive, and for any other trouble. Cheers!
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia
ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santo Jeger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Neve-selbert. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 9. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 9 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You've fucked up an enormous number of articles based on the theory that a general election meant a new ministry. This is not how any reliable reference sources treat the issue, and is simply untrue for any period up to very recently (probably Thatcher - even there it's debatable at best. Certainly I've never heard of 1959 being talked about as the beginning of the "second Macmillan ministry" or 1966 as the beginning of a "second Wilson ministry"). A new ministry comes in when the government resigns, not simply because there's been a general election. The ministry serves at the pleasure of the monarch, not parliament, and an election did not necessarily have any effect on it whatever. Please, find me an actual source that calls Asquith's coalition his "fourth ministry" or that talks about "Campbell-Bannerman's second ministry" formed after the 1906 general election. That's pure nonsense that you made up. john k ( talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As someone who has been watching numerous ministry pages, I'm glad this issue being perused. It got brought up on
Talk:Chancellor of the Exchequer months ago and was somewhat brushed under the carpet. After reading the recent discussions on the matter, I have to say I'm extremely pissed off that what is effectively
original research has been allowed to stay on Wikipedia and spread like this. I took this ministry system and went with it, propagating it myself in lists of UK office holders and making a fool of myself. It's clear to see how this happened though, not too long ago you started dividing terms of office for UK government ministers in a similar fashion until I pointed out how illogical it was, and that it was possibly
WP:OR. This unhelpful inconsistency is still actually present on the List of UK Prime Ministers. These aren't even the only times you've been pulled up on your radical unilateral edits, as someone who is interested in a lot of the same subjects and pages as you I'm all too aware how frequently it happens. Furthermore you've even been blocked from editing in the past for similar behaviour!
Neve, you really messed up here, and elsewhere, a lot. As much as I think it would be the appropriate thing to do, I can't block you from editing, or even tell you to not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What I will say is that you would be well advised to exercise some amount of caution before proceeding with edit rampages in the future.
ToastButterToast (
talk) 07:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Thatcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Neve-selbert, can you add some info to Maiorana article please, and the links might have to be removed, I don't want to make mistakes on article, but I'm fair sure you can help, thanks if you can.-- Theo Mandela ( talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Theo Mandela, thanks for creating this, it's fine. Surname pages are tricky because they are technically articles but are often mistaken for, or formatted like, disambiguation pages. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 16:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Theo Mandela, Xezbeth's version was very good, those references are best back in. I like the website you linked to, it looks like it would be a good reference for many of the surnames listed. Most (but not all) of those listed will have a Wikipedia page, but surname pages are generally too short and under-referenced. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 09:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your reverts of my edits on UK politician navboxes, please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Your edit summary here was misleading, given that you had already raised this idea and failed to get support for it on the talk page. Please use more care in the future. VQuakr ( talk) 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if you might consider reading the query I've put forth at WT:MOS. Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter, and I'd like to hear it, if you do. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Neve-selbert, on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s, the last images at the side (which go down too far as well) don't mention Drake and Ed Sheeran's other number ones that decade or the year which they became number one, do you know what can be done to make this article better? Thanks, -- Theo Mandela ( talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, would you like to make a comment in this section? Thanks.-- Sein und Zeit ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Comey is irrelevant as there are several name-holders. If there's only two, with one being treated as the primary topic, then there is no point in having a set index. — Xezbeth ( talk) 06:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:Neve-selbert, before some day I had added 2 reference in Margaret Thatcher article about her foreign policy. Both were about her policy on Iraq. Both were verified source like Financial Times and Huffpost. Why did you remove that??? Ominictionary ( talk) 10:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Thanks for replying User:Neve-selbert. I understand about your view on HP reference and after reading ur reply, I agree with u also. But I can't agree with u about FT ref because in Wikipedia we can give more than on ref about a single information. Look at Featured articles like Nelson Mandela. Giving more reference make the point strong, so, the FT ref should be there. If you have to remove the ref you have to present arguement over that wikipedia doesn't want more than one verified source about a single information unless you can't remove it. Bests Ominictionary ( talk) 21:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You have been editing wikipedia since 2015 so I am surprized you don't know the major wikipedia rules about verifiability of information and about reliable sources. Please read it carefully and notice that wikis, including wikipedia itself, cannot be used as references. See also Talk:Lina Medina for discussion about her alleged death. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I note you've left a comment on the lead section of the article on Maurice Benyovszky which I re-wrote recently. I am happy to cut down the lead section, if you can perhaps give me some indication of what you think is superfluous. I noted from two (quite random) other articles (Barack Obama and Martin Luther) that lead sections can sometime be quite large without anyone complaining. All advice welcome, so please let me know. MurdoMondane ( talk) 15:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Neve-selbert. My suggestion is to restate at the FLRC that you would like to withdraw it, and allow myself or one of the delegates to close it. Sometimes FLC candidates that are quickly withdrawn don't go through the archival process, but since there were some outside comments in this case, the FLRC should definitely be archived by a closer. Great work in improving the article, by the way. Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
What is your rationale for moving this page? No Swan So Fine ( talk) 23:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Neve-selbert! PC is not used as a post-nom unless the individual is a peer. This is because membership of the Privy Council is signified by the use of The Right Honourable. As lords/ladies use The Rt Hon by right of their title, they also use PC to show that they are additionally members of the Privy Council. None-peers NEVER use PC. On Wikipedia, titles such as The Rt Hon are only used in the infobox. This does not, however, mean that PC can then be used elsewhere. It simply isn't correct. These would be correct: "John Smith, Baron Bolton, PC" for the first sentence of the introduction; £The Right Honourable John Smith, Baron Bolton, PC" for the infobox; "Jane Smith" for the intro; "The Right Honourable Jane Smith" for the infobox. PC is an extra indicter only used for the nobility. Does this make sense? As per Debrett's "In a social style of address for a peer who is a privy counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the prefix ‘Rt Hon’ before the name is sufficient identification." [3] Could you therefore remove all the incorrect PC additions that you have made. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Abdication of Edward, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Abdication of Edward and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Abdication of Edward during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
DGG (
talk ) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to add a subsection to the WP:BLP page, and would like to solicit the opinions of editors who have been involved with it. Can you offer your thoughts here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I was /wrong/ about the housing crisis DAB page. I was not aware of that policy, and you were right to revert. Sorry if I got defensive, and for any other trouble. Cheers!
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia
ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santo Jeger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Neve-selbert. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 9. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 9 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You've fucked up an enormous number of articles based on the theory that a general election meant a new ministry. This is not how any reliable reference sources treat the issue, and is simply untrue for any period up to very recently (probably Thatcher - even there it's debatable at best. Certainly I've never heard of 1959 being talked about as the beginning of the "second Macmillan ministry" or 1966 as the beginning of a "second Wilson ministry"). A new ministry comes in when the government resigns, not simply because there's been a general election. The ministry serves at the pleasure of the monarch, not parliament, and an election did not necessarily have any effect on it whatever. Please, find me an actual source that calls Asquith's coalition his "fourth ministry" or that talks about "Campbell-Bannerman's second ministry" formed after the 1906 general election. That's pure nonsense that you made up. john k ( talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As someone who has been watching numerous ministry pages, I'm glad this issue being perused. It got brought up on
Talk:Chancellor of the Exchequer months ago and was somewhat brushed under the carpet. After reading the recent discussions on the matter, I have to say I'm extremely pissed off that what is effectively
original research has been allowed to stay on Wikipedia and spread like this. I took this ministry system and went with it, propagating it myself in lists of UK office holders and making a fool of myself. It's clear to see how this happened though, not too long ago you started dividing terms of office for UK government ministers in a similar fashion until I pointed out how illogical it was, and that it was possibly
WP:OR. This unhelpful inconsistency is still actually present on the List of UK Prime Ministers. These aren't even the only times you've been pulled up on your radical unilateral edits, as someone who is interested in a lot of the same subjects and pages as you I'm all too aware how frequently it happens. Furthermore you've even been blocked from editing in the past for similar behaviour!
Neve, you really messed up here, and elsewhere, a lot. As much as I think it would be the appropriate thing to do, I can't block you from editing, or even tell you to not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What I will say is that you would be well advised to exercise some amount of caution before proceeding with edit rampages in the future.
ToastButterToast (
talk) 07:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)