User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 6

Asquith
This edit of yours was out of process. The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You Boldy changed the page to a redirect, I Reverted you. The next stage would be discussion, not you to reinsert your Bold edit. You do not get to re-revert just so that you can pretend that the discussion is about an existing redirect. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you discuss changing a 6-year-old redirect in 2014? Did you? No, you didn't.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhh... Bold, Revert, Discuss. I was Bold, and NOBODY REVERTED. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop shouting for crying out loud. WP:BRD is an essay and not a policy. Whether someone reverted you or not is totally irrelevant.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lady Di (disambiguation)


The article Lady Di (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is essentially a WP:TWODABS. There was a dicussion just opened by the creator of this DAB, at Redirects_for_discussion, which the creator and nominator then withdrew, fair play, stating they would make this DAB. But there's not a lot of point to this DAB. It has two entries, that's WP:TWODABS, and the first prima facie was said at RfD was blatantly primary, so if anything Diana, Princess of Wales should have a hatnote saying "Lady Di redirects here. For the EastEnders dog, see Lady Di (Eastenders). The granddaughter of Platon Lebedev is not notable, does not belong on the dab, and in bad faith I suggest was only stuck on there to pad it out.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to PROD that
I've prodded your DAB at Lady Di (disambiguation). I don't understand why you withdrew the nomination at RfD, but as you did (without saying "I'll make a DAB"), it is rather unsurprising that there is now a DAB at Lady Di (disambiguation). Perhaps more surprising that I have PRODded it, so I should like to say why:
 * There is no need to disambiguate it. That's WP:TWODABS, there are only two Lady Di's
 * the Princess of Wales
 * the doggie named after her

The third one is patently not notable because the DAB says "Diana Lebedeva (c. 1997–2016), nicknamed "Lady Di", granddaughter of Platon Lebedev", is nowhere in that article, it does she or anyone else was called "Lady Di", in fact searching for "Di" as two characters brings up sod all results on that page, so that's about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. (You should excuse me, inky prints tend to know their way around typography but they can swear like stevedores too. I have done many trades over time.)

Although redirects and DABs do not have to meet RS, a bit of WP:V would be handy. Sorry, Neve-selbert, cos you have supported me in a lot of my somewhat wayward Rs that are this or that side of the border, but on this one you're wrong. I very much love your intelligent contributions to RfD, but this is not one of them, I'm sorry. Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

I hope you had a great Christmas and I do sincerely like your contributions to RfD, even when I'm wrong, your intelligence shines out of you, and you make it a better place. Si Trew (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand why you prodded it, . I was going to add more "Lady Di"s when I had time, just now added some. I suppose we can get rid of the late Russian, but the others I added have the nickname/byname sourced in their article. Likewise, I hope you had a good Christmas and I very much wish you a Happy New Year. Kind regards.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let you get on with it. Don't remove the prod, but I'll do it when you're done, give me a nod. Sheesh, the number of times I am wrong with these Eubot redirects, you are bloody lucky only to get one! Si Trew (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The late Russian teenager has been removed from the dab, . All the others added have "Lady Di" sourced in their articles.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Neve-selbert!


Happy New Year! Neve-selbert, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. MB298 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks, . A very Happy New Year to you to! All the best.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leaderene


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Leaderene requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dr Strauss  talk  19:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the page was deleted. It was a redirect to leaderene, a Wiktionary entry that was appropriately categorised through Template:Wiktionary redirect. I was having a break from Wikipedia and I didn't have time to contest the deletion, I feel that is really rather unfair.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Whoops! You are quite right, Neve-selbert. That page was not empty and the CSD tag should have been declined. I've restored it and do apologize for the my haste. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

copy editing problems
if you spot problems, please specify them so we can fix them. Rjensen (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few errors regarding dash formatting and capitalisation, etc. and I don't really have the time now to name all of them. Please remember that the tag is not there to demean or degrade the article in any way, but rather as a way to encourage other editors to come along and scan the article for any errors in need of copy-editing. All in all, the tag is an incentive for editors (especially those at WP:GOCE, where many keep an eye on Category:All articles needing copy edit).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 11:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Handbagging listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Handbagging. Since you had some involvement with the Handbagging redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

1st Presidential Inauguration listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1st Presidential Inauguration. Since you had some involvement with the 1st Presidential Inauguration redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Pattern of content removal
OK so, you don't just remove any and all mainspace content you don't like, you even have a pattern of removing talk messages left on here that you don't like. A lot of the things you do seem a little contrary to the spirit of this project no? --Ethanbas (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLANKING, users are permitted to remove most communications from their talk pages. When they do, it's deemed as an acknowledgement of having read them. Largoplazo (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He can do anything he wants with what I leave on his talk page. --Ethanbas (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

PROD
wait, I removed the PROD on Protests against Barack Obama, and you undo my PROD removal? you realize that's not how PRODs work right? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_against_Barack_Obama&diff=763209978&oldid=763154740 --Ethanbas (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting your moves on Donald Trump policies
Greetings Neve-selbert! I saw that you WP:BOLDly moved several pages about the policies "of Donald Trump" to policies "of the Donald Trump administration". While those changes may be worthwhile, I believe they should go through the WP:move request process. Please build a rationale and propose the moves for consideration by the community. — JFG talk 00:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, . I thought those moves were pretty uncontroversial, per WP:SCOPE. Guess I was wrong, shall open an RM accordingly. Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Nixon's resignation
Howdy. Assuming we aren't gonna agree on this topic, it's best we sit back now & allow others to chime in :) GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK sure. Now nominated at Rfd .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?
To work on a page for multiple days, and to have a user who advocated for it to be deleted slap a false charge on the page while I work on it...is the equivalent of spitting in the face of a man while he's building a house. Informant16 3 February 2017
 * I reverted my edit, . Apologies for any misunderstanding, and very well done on the sources you have provided.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that now, and thank you. I've been trying to contribute. Informant16 3 February 2017

A-Class question
I left a response at 00:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC), but it's been archived to Help desk/Archives/2017 February 2, so further discussion there has been prohibited. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read your response, and I guess I won't bother with the A-Class proposal, as it seems rather impractical. Thank-you anyway.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidential template
Hi, and nice work on the proposed template. There is now an Outline of Abraham Lincoln, do you think a new section 'Outlines' should be added? Eventually, as the months, years, and decades go by, there will probably be outlines of every US presidency. Just another ingredient in the mix. Randy Kryn 18:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a hatnote called For outline. I'll add it to the Abe Lincoln article.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good addition. If the template gets loose into the wild I'll probably add an 'Outline' section for Lincoln (I don't know if any other US presidents have outlines yet), but for now the discussion is progressing. Randy Kryn 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

note
Drdpw has beed reported here, in case you wish to add a comment there or an observation. Cheers. Holy Goo (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Teresa May (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Teresa May (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G6

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Compensatory non-undeletion
Hi Neve-selbert, instead of undeleting, you can view the page you want at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_date_of_death Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . But, that link only shows half of the deleted revision, the rest of it is cut off.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Davie Cameron
Hi,

Thanks for your edits to this article; however, I've reverted them for the following reasons.

Firstly, "Davie Cameron" could- since it's not a qualified article title- plausibly refer to any of the other "David Camerons" out there. That's why that line is required; had it been (e.g.) "Davie Cameron (Scottish footballer)"- not that I'm saying it *should* be called that!- this would not have been the case.

Secondly, I included the other footballer's birth year in the first place because it's likely to make much clearer which footballer is the one in question between two otherwise similar-sounding Scottish footballers.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All well and good, . It's just that per WP:NAMB, the following hatnote should be removed: Thanks for the message.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree- or rather, I don't see why you think WP:NAMB (which I'm aware of) applies here. That refers specifically to cases where the article title is unambiguously clear- beyond any reasonable argument- as to what it refers to.
 * This is why we don't need a hatnote on David Cameron (American soccer player); there are no other articles on American soccer players of that name and no likely risk of confusion.
 * On the other hand, "Davie" is a moderately common variant of the name "David", and it's far from implausible that one or more of the other "David Camerons" might have been referred to- and hence looked up as- "Davie Cameron". Ubcule (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Thatcher's children for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thatcher's children is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thatcher's children until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. South Nashua (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Thatcher's children


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Thatcher's children requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What about this for the presidencies template?
There's a lot of redlinks, but that's common in chronologically organized navboxes to encourage editors to get out the blue paint. YBG (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, . It looks rather confusing at face value. Great effort, though.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 05:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. They all run together. A vertical format would be better.

Is this one bettter? Notice I broke Cleveland up to keep the columns from becoming too wide. 08:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice job. I've made a few tweaks at my sandbox, and I thought it best if the timelines were left out of the group, and relegated below.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 09:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like yours even better, but still think that the timelines should be included in the same list. Is there a calendar icon that could be wikilinked to the timeline? YBG (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe Icons-mini-calendar.gif??? YBG (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I struggle to see how linking the timelines is really that necessary. It's linked as (timelines) at the bottom. One more click is hardly going to hurt anyone.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 09:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't think Thatcher's common nickname, by which she is known by millions, shouldn't appear anywhere in her article? Really? Frankly, words fail me... -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's hardly any need for it to appear in the lead section, . Feel absolutely free to add her common nickname further down the article (in bold, if you wish), but I see no reason why it should appear at the top of the page. Unlike such predecessors as Ted and Jim, a majority of journalists and commentators remember her as Mrs Thatcher.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't agree with you there. She is remembered as Maggie by vast numbers of people who lived through her premiership. The only difference is that her family and friends called her Margaret and Maggie was a diminutive bestowed on her by others, whereas Heath and Callaghan (and, indeed, Tony Blair) were generally known by their diminutives among their circle as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the nickname to Margaret Thatcher, bold and all .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 10:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: have removed the bold. MOS:BOLD doesn't encourage bolding further down a page, so Maggie's now in quotation marks instead.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 03:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wets and dries
Thanks for the note - I'm not sure what I was thinking about or seeing! It does look I goofed up. Sorry! I have restored the article back to your edits. --  Brookie :) { - like the mist - there  one moment and then gone!}  (Whisper...) 16:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Brief note:
Just a brief note to let you know that I have restored the "US Presidential Administrations" template to its format prior to the markup tweaks you made to the template yesterday; in doing so, I made it a point to keep the "100 days'" links you included. I hope you can understand my reasons, as stated in the edit summary, for doing this. Drdpw (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)