This is an archive of past discussions with User:Neveselbert. 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.
@Neveselbert: Can you please explain why you've reverted all my edits on that article? Note these weren't vandalism, since they were marked as a RedWarn. They were mistakes. If you think they were vandalism, please carefully look at the revisions. If you're saying in the recent revert revision caption "they are not the same links", what do you mean by that? They are both the same links as I've checked. Thanks. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi PEPSI697, I made sure to mark my revert as one of a good-faith edit, so, despite the use of RedWarn, there was no intention on my part to imply your edits were made in anything other than good faith. I apologise if it came across any other way. As for the revert itself, I undid it because they're not necessarily equivalent links, even though they target the same page. It's entirely possible 8 May 1945 might be retargeted sometime in the future, even if just to a section to Victory in Europe Day, so I think linking both can be helpful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
No worries! Now I understand that 8 May 1945 may be retargeted in the future. I understand that you and lots of other contributors are just trying to protect Wikipedia and revert good faith edits, vandalism, mistakes or remove content that doesn't have a reliable source. I just wanted to make sure because I was feeling a little bit suspicious about how you came across, but I knew that was never your intention or the case. Because I know that attacking other contributors violate Wikipedia's policy and could result of a discussion at ANI or result being blocked from editing on Wikipedia, which I previously said, was never your intention. Wikipedia makes it very possible for every editors on Wikipedia to be safe and welcomed (this isn't criticism, it's just me telling what I know about Wikipedia's policy) Please keep protecting Wikipedia and enjoy yourself! PEPSI697 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
OJ Simpson main article "In popular culture" section needs updating
On the OJ article bio, the section in the "In popular culture" section needs updating:
"In 2018, it was announced Boris Kodjoe would portray Simpson in a film titled Nicole & O.J. The film was never completed."
The film has been retitled The Juice and will be released in 2025, so it is no longer accurate to say the film was never completed. 92.17.197.110 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Creating new article: Premiership of Lord Liverpool
@Neveselbert Please don’t mind me saying this, but, can we reserve the page “Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool” to turn it into a actual article about the events that happened and policies that were implemented during the premiership of Lord Liverpool? I have tried to create a new article for this particular topic, but since I’m using a mobile device, I struggle bit to be accommodated to this kind of system. But the main problem is that there numerous “redirects” to the main article at Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool so it is difficult already to get a grip on what article to create. Also if the before mentioned “redirect” is turned to a new article, should we start a discussion beforehand to talk about an official title for the article as well? Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay thanks @Neveselbert. Also want to ask one more question, when texts from a mother article is copied and pasted on a new article should it be paraphrased or rewritten in order to accommodate into a new version of the same article as well? And also is it okay? Altonydean (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Altonydean, I think you've done a great job. Just to let you know, {{Split from}} should be included on the talkpage, rather than on the page itself. In the meantime, you can add {{Draft article}} in its place and submit it for review once you feel it's ready. I'll have a look at fixing that reference. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 18:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Neveselbert the draft is complete and only one section needs expansion, which I hope other editors might consider extending. Nevertheless, it is almost complete and I have submitted it for review just like you instructed. Thank you so much for your help and assistance. Altonydean (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Neveselbert I admire your abilities and your willingness to help in creating the article for Lord Liverpool Premiership article. Since which I hold in the highest of regard and respect for your advice. But following your recent changes to the main article about Lord Liverpool, which saw countless amounts of content removed just to include it in the premiership section isn’t how I envisioned you would made the improvements. And also, since I specifically didn’t understood what kind of changes you proposed (I was off due to some medication) therefore I think that I would need to revert the edit you made and ask another or several editors about this particular kind of process. Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Altonydean: thank you for your kind words. Regarding the recent edits, the content removed from the main article was already included verbatim in the premiership article, making it duplicative. According to WP:ANOTHER, this process is recommended to avoid redundancy. Now that the content has been restored, it ought to be significantly cut down in line with WP:SYNC to maintain proper synchronisation between the articles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand @Neveselbert. But these days I’m taking a certain serious medication for an illness of mine and I won’t be able to edit as frequently anymore. But however, I do appreciate your efforts and your help is as always highly valued by me and as well as the wider Wikipedia community. I think, that since the new article for Lord Liverpool has the same information about his premiership, we should expand the content in the new article instead of cutting down the original content. Like, we can expand and write additional information about events and policies that happened and were implemented during his tenure as prime minister that is not mentioned in the original article. This is my opinion and we should have a wider discussion about this if we are to avoid future conflicts. Altonydean (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Also @Neveselbert can you re-include more content on the original page? It severely lacks information on certain important topics and areas of history significance. At least include three paragraphs or more paragraphs about sections like on economic policy, liberal policy or dissent and repression perhaps? It also need more contextual information on the foreign policy section as well in the original article. As always good luck and keep going. Altonydean (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Adding more content to the parent article at this stage might lead to unnecessary duplication and confusion. Once the child article is more detailed, we can then summarise and include the most relevant information in the parent article. This way, we maintain clarity and coherence across both articles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Altonydean: I understand, and I appreciate your continued efforts despite your current circumstances. I've removed the duplicative content from the main article and replaced each section with the most relevant paragraphs excerpted from the premiership article using {{Excerpt#Replacing summary section with excerpt of child article}}. This is a temporary solution until we can better summarise these topics in the main article without duplicating content. We can certainly discuss expanding the premiership article further, but for now, this ensures clarity and avoids redundancy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok @Neveselbert but please do not mind me saying this, I think we need a bit more expansion on the original page. I mean like two paragraphs is not enough to summarise any of the important measures Lord Liverpool took in terms of economic or social policy initiatives. I think it needs three more detailed or in-depth information other than simple reductions. Foreign affairs are also important and needs more detail as of the current revision. But I always do support new ideas and proposals, but this seems a bit unprecedented due to the fact that I have previously stated that I would return to editing after my brief interval of rest so I can expand the new article on premiership. Again, I do wholeheartedly agree with many of your points and although at least consider my suggestion to expand a bit on the suggested article sections in the main Lord Liverpool article. Good luck and thanks for your reply. Altonydean (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
The short description for Grover Cleveland includes both his terms of office, so why can't the short description for Abe? WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION merely states that most descriptions are very short. There is no requirement that it can't be slightly longer to be specific. Векочел (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Векочел, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I still think that's a bit too verbose, and I think the same of Cleveland's SD as well. I'll try to see if Abe's can be condensed somewhat, while keeping both terms. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
On second thought, having read WP:SDDATES, it recommends Period in office most important as the criterion, which can be interpreted as simply including the period in office "most important", which in Abe's case is his latter term. For a case like Cleveland, I would think his latter term would suffice as well, but I won't involve myself there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Please help
I saw you uploaded this image from trumanlibrary.gov to Commons with a very detailed full caption. Can you tell me if the image in this link can be uploaded to Commons? If so, what is the exact image copyright tag? A similar example is the photo in this link, which was also uploaded to Commons with the copyright tag PD-USGov, but I'm not sure if this is correct or not. Thank you.CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.
You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.
You say there is no exception for "Dame" listed at MOS:PREFIX. You seem to be missing The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
However, it makes absolutely no sense for the title to be bolded in the first line but not in the infobox! It looks utterly weird. That's my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I wonder if the murder article should be detailed more as to describe how the manner of it took place; it obviously does not need to be excessive but it is merely a suggestion. The phrase "suspect" is odd placed especially as the attacker did not dispute that he was the one responsible. It is unclear if Amess died quick or was left unconscious in the minutes after the attack but later accounts do suggest he was sadly already gone when paramedics reached him. 80.45.146.138 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
.jpg){kind=link}
