User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 7

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
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)

Fix on a page
'''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) '''
 * Hello, . Please see WP:BOLD, and have a go at editing the page yourself .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, . I've already been bold by removing a lot of what was on there already, do you think page is ok? and do you know any editors who specialise in surname articles? Thanks--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know of and  as editors known to edit such pages. The page looks fine, in my opinion.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

, 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)
 * Thanks User:Boleyn, but I am regretting removing references from the last version by User:Xezbeth (here ), also have you editing Wikipedia articles on any of these surnames from the bottom of this page ? Please tell me which, if you did, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 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)

External links in navboxes
Regarding your reverts of my edits on UK politician navboxes, please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9 --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
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)

A conversation of interest
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)
 * I'll try to have a look at it later today.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 13:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s images
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)
 * Hi again . I don't too often edit music-related articles, but I'm sure the WP:HELPDESK or WP:RD/E can help you out .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Hello, would you like to make a comment in this section? Thanks.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Scaramucci
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. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:2DABS does not apply to set index articles.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed Reference
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)
 * I removed the FT reference as there was already a BBC reference on the same story. As for the HuffPost reference, frankly the source itself is notorious and hardly reputable (some would call it the left-wing WP:DAILYMAIL), there was already a 2011 Financial Times reference that justified the claim that she supplied Iraq from 1981 until 1990 at the latest.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:09, 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)

Lina Medina
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)
 * Citing WP:RS works both ways. Have you any sources that prove she is still alive?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No it does not work both ways. The article does not say she is still alive. And therefore I do not need to "prove" it. The article does not even say that it is unknown whether she is alive or dead. We do not need references for things not stated in wikipedia. We do not need references that she was not alcoholic. We do not need references that she hated her stepbrother,... and so on. On the other hand, I agree that her inclusion in category:Living people raises a question you mentioned. But this is a technical issue better to be raised is some common place, e.g., in category talk page or at the village pump.  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Maurice Benyovszky lead section
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)

Withdrawing an FLRC
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)

Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II
What is your rationale for moving this page? No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency with .--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of those articles are titled as such due to the official names of their subjects (e.g. medals/places) and most of the other others have been moved by you in the last few days. Even her majesty's own page lacks an honorific. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do realise that when her name is used in a clause or sentence she is usually referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II".--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PC
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." Could you therefore remove all the incorrect PC additions that you have made. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, damn. Had I known this I would not have made all those edits, although it would take me ages to revert all of them and I simply do not have the time do so at present. I should note that I was reverted twice here and here by for removing the "PC" post-nominal letters. Perhaps a discussion should take place at WP:MOSTALK about this.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad I made sense, and thck you for being understanding. You did make quite a few edits! Would you like me to go through and revert them? As you've pinged, he might drop by to read this. I've updated the Privy Council article to clarify things. The PC post-noms have been contentious for a while and it took me ages to find a definitive reference. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, I was following guidance from the article and I am sure this has come up before when somebody added or deleted PC and it was decided that PC was OK in the intro. Although we call them Post Noms we dont always follow the official rules, one I can think of is adding bars to military medals in the intro (sometimes also the infobox) when that doesnt happen in the real world. That said I dont have problem with what GOA has said, as long as we are consistent across all the articles. As you are aware there are some areas of wikipedia were users would rather walk on glass than have a infobox on one of there articles, in that case we should probably use Rt Hon in the intro. MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you have the time, here are the 500+ edits. Thanks for modifying the Privy Council article.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neve-selbert! 500+ is rather a lot... but I shall have a go! Shouldn't take too long... Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All done! Some were correct (barons etc who should have had PC), so thank you for those! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Abdication of Edward
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 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)

Proposed addition to WP:BLP
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)

A goat for you!
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) 

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
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 ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Santo_Jeger check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Santo_Jeger?client=notify 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)

TFL notification
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)
 * I just pulled the article per your request on my talk page. Sorry, but we can't leave it on the schedule with a dispute like this a handful of days before the list is scheduled to run. The list can run later after the content becomes stable again. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

IPhone 9 listed at Redirects for discussion
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. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ministries
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)
 * I am preparing a longer response, but why do you have to be so damn rude? I was acting in good faith and agreed with the moves.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you changed dozens of articles with no discussion anywhere! (and if RGloucester agrees with you, he's also wrong.) john k (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A bunch of these alleged ministries only appear in google on Wikipedia and mirrors. Look at actual reference sources! john k (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you acting like a lunatic? You are being deliberately disruptive. It is the norm in British politics for a new ministry to be formed after the election. For the sake of historical convenience and consistency, we decided to apply the same standard to earlier ministries. Again just stop the editing spree and discuss this on a relevant talkpage so other editors can comment.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Applying it to earlier ministries is absurd because literally no sources do so. Many of these elections (e.g. 1831, 1832, 1837, 1847, 1852, 1857, 1865, 1895, 1906, 1910, 1910) didn't even result in reshuffles! There are numerous reference sources that list British governments, and none of them make the distinction you are making. john k (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reshuffles having nothing to do with it. Elections do. Mrs Thatcher reshuffled her cabinet in 1989 but did not form a fourth ministry. Basically in British political doublespeak, a ministry is basically what a term constitutes in the United States. A new ministry is formed when a new government is initiated by the Sovereign which happens whenever a new Parliament begins. Surely you must realise this. I am going to be civil here but I am absolutely fuming at the misuse of your power here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just absolutely 100% not true for any period beyond the very recent past. I do not realise that the Sovereign initiates a new government whenever a new parliament begins, because that is absolutely not true. I'll say with a fair degree of confidence that nobody even considered such a thing to be happening at any point before World War II, and I'm highly doubtful that anyone considered such a thing to be happening in 1950, 1959, or 1966, though I'm less familiar with that time period. Again, please show me where you discussed this prior to implementing these massive changes. john k (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it untrue? For a ministry to function it must consist of Members of Parliament and when Parliament is dissolved MPs are no longer able to discharge their parliamentary duties, hence their ministerial ability is impeded. Once Parliament is reconvened so will a ministry be recreated. Your ignorance on this subject is astounding but I guess I'll try and be the adult here and let this slide. I admit that I cannot recall discussing the subject on an article talkpage but I discussed it with RGloucester and he seemed to agree with most of the moves. He only reverted me once and I admitted my mistake. I am just seeking consistency and for me it seems completely illogical and absurd for a ministry to continue if ministers are no longer able to discharge their parliamentary duties per Parliament's dissolution.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When parliament is dissolved there are no MPs. Ministers don't have formal "parliamentary duties" - it is merely customary that ministers sit in parliament. A ministry ends when the prime minister resigns. This doesn't happen after an election the prime minister wins. Sitting prime ministers have resigned and been reappointed to lead new governments only a few times. Between the Great Reform Act and the end of World War II, the only times I'm aware of where the same prime minister is generally considered to have formed a new govenrment are 1) 1839, when Melbourne resigned and told the Queen to call for Peel, but Peel proved unable to form a government, and the Queen went back to Melbourne and got him to form a new government instead; 2) 1915, when Asquith's liberal government resigned and the Queen invited him to form a new coalition ministry with the Unionists; 3) August 1931, when MacDonald's Labour ministry collapsed and he was appointed to form a National Government instead; 4) November 1931, when the National Government was reconstituted after the huge Conservative win in the 1931 general election; 5) September 1939, when Chamberlain formed a "War Ministry" after the British declaration of war on Germany; 6) May 1945, when the Labour Party withdrew from Churchill's coalition after the German surrender, and Churchill formed a caretaker government until the general election. You'll note that only one of those (November 1931) was the result of a general election. I suspect you'll find no sources declaring a new government to have been formed following the 1831, 1832, 1837, 1847, 1852, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1895, 1900, 1906, January 1910, December 1910, 1922, or 1935 general elections. New governments, with new prime ministers, were formed directly after the 1841, 1868, 1874, 1880, 1886, 1892, 1924, and 1929 general elections. After the 1835, 1885, and 1923 elections, the old government attempted to stay on despite not winning a majority, and only resigned after losing a vote of confidence in the new parliament. john k (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, most of which I already knew but misinterpreted. We'll go by what this source says and take it from there.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad we're starting to come to some consensus, and sorry for coming in hot. There's better sources than that. Check out the appendices to the various "Oxford History of England" volumes, for instance - the one to Taylor's can be found in Amazon Look Inside, but all the relevant volumes have them. There's also the Longman Handbook of Modern British History, which I think has lists, as well, though I can't check online. john k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the online version of Longman's. I think the political chronology is visible, and lists all ministry changes. It calls ministries "administrations" up to 1868, named for the prime minister, and then "governments," named for the party. Once we get into the 19th century, it generally doesn't consider changes of prime minister with the same party staying in power as changes in administration/government (as in July 1834, 1865, February 1868, 1894, 1902, 1908. john k (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also worth looking at are the Palgrave British Historical Facts series, as here. They're, I believe, where we got the full lists of members of governments from. Again, they generally consider ministries to belong to parties, rather than to individual PMs. john k (talk) 18:35, 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)
 * I've been watching this for a while as well, but got tired of arguing with RGloucester over the issue. I'm glad it is finally being sorted out. Though his edits were based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between Parliament and HM Government, Nevé-selbert has admitted he was wrong (rather graciously, I thought, especially given the tone of the discussion up to that point) and has since been working to correct the situation. I think he should be given credit for this, rather than being subject to further ear-bashings about it. Opera hat (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)