User talk:Nev1/Archives/January–February 2010

Bodiam castle

Hello, I noticed you removed the information (and footnote) about the ownership of Bodiam by the Levett family, for whom the lane in front of the castle is named, so I reinserted. I own the original volume about Bodiam by Nathaniel Curzon and the Levetts figure prominently in Curzon's text. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not my habit to add unsourced material to any entry here. There are many sources on the Levett ownership of the castle, including the book "Bodiam and Its Lords" by Mark Antony Lower, a prominent Sussex historian [1], as well as this book including deeds and other records from the files of Battle Abbey [2]. This last volume contains from the Battle Abbey records many deeds relating to Levett ownership. (The book's contents can be searched for Levett to provide more than enough documentation.) Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, I've re-added mention of John Levett, although I've not added the book to the bibliography eyt as I'm still trying to work out the author, publisher, and if I can abbreviate the title. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Many thanks and have a happy new year. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, frankly, I don't find that acceptable, to be honest. Curzon didn't have to rely on that volume for sourcing. He owned the castle after all, and he had access to more than that one volume. I have seen many references to Levett ownership over the years, including the Mark Antony Lower book I mentioned earlier. I will try to find some more references for you, but I can assure you that Levett ownership of the castle was a fact. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that ownership does not confer knowledge. Nevertheless, the documents in the charters from Battle Abbey are primary source documents. I will find some other secondary sources. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Among several entries listed at The National Archives concerning Levett ownership of Bodiam Castle is this one from 19 June 1623: "Valuation of Bodiam Castle and manor of Broomham preparatory to its purchase by Sir Nicholas Tufton from John Levett." The record from The National Archive notes that the original is in the East Sussex Record Office. [3] Several other deeds searchable by Levett and Bodiam at The National Archives [4] further confirm Levett ownership of the castle, which was also attested to by the primary sources from Battle Abbey previously mentioned. These sources, combined with Sussex historian Mark Antony Lower's mention of the family's ownership of the castle, easily establish it as fact.MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more recent? These are the primary sources, created at the time. That's what primary sources consist of: documents created contemporaneously with the event. In historical terms, that's as good as it gets. MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, the record from The National Archives notes that Lord Curzon confirmed Levett's sale on pp. 37-39 of his Bodiam Castle, the work he published on the history of the building. MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The File:Plan of Bodiam Castle.jpg would appear to need a free-use rationale. As you are aware, the article it appears in has been nominated for Featured Article status. This cannot be achieved it all images used are not in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just replaced the jpg image with a vector version I've corrected (rotation and contrast etc), traced and re-captioned (not to mention mis-spelt it in the filename!). Due to the amount of work I did on it I've re-licensed it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting this out Fred, redrawing the image was ideal but beyond my own skills. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Picture nomination of Bodiam-castle-10My8-1197.jpg

Hi Nev1! thanks for your interest for the VPC of this image. As a key contributor to the article the image appears in, your opinion is extremely valuable. Actually, there was recently a proposal to invite by each new VPC/FPC the contributors to the articles the image appears in to provide their assessment of the encyclopaedic value (EV) of the nomination. I found the proposal had considerable merit, but it looks like is not going to be implemented at Featured Pictures (FP). Regarding the chances of this image as a FPC, I can say that the current trend I noticed (and don't really agree with), is towards very high technical quality and very high level of detail, while less consideration is given to composition or aesthetics. See this recent FP for example. And see what's happening with this current nomination. By the Bodiam-castle-10My8-1197.jpg, I imagine there would be some objections regarding lack of detail and/or sharpness. Unfortunately, there is also less interest in architectural images noticable by the current participants, so I think it would have a hard time. However, if you feel strongly that the image deserves to be a FP, you shouldn't hesitate to nominate it, just be prepared to face some opposition :). Elekhh (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Hi Nevi - a note of thanks for your comments about this image and VP nomination. It motivates me to add other high resolution images of architecture of historical and architectural interest. The comments on your talk page also remind me that I really ought to sharpen them to some degree possibly for display on monitor rather than for print instead of leaving that to the end user. Thanks again. WyrdLight (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Malvern - GA nomination

Hi Nev ! We now have a first review for GA. On the whole it doesn't look too bad. As you know, I am a local resident in absentia, and as a published author, a 'prose artist', but anything you can do to improve the language or address some of the more technical points as quickly as possible would be much appreciated, particularly with your experience as an admin and your success with the Mancunian articles. Any work on the new referencing system does not affect the overall quality and scope of the article for GA but you may be able to put put some of the wrong referencing things right and offer some suggestions on the other points made by the reviewer. It would be great for the Worcs project to have a GA of this envergure in its repertoire. See Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#GA Review - and Happy New Year!--Kudpung (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your ultra rapid interventions :) --Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we've all had a go at the recommended improvements for GA, and it looks as if all points have been addressed. Would someone care to have a final proof read please? See comments on Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1--Kudpung (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have a proof read later today. Nev1 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think we have reached the point where all the reviewer's original points have been addressed. Apart from proof reading and correcting any glaring errors, let's try to achieve GA with the article as is. See the revierwers latest comment at Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1#Next_set_of_comments. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Chetham's

It's my next project (if I can quit procrastinating and get on with it... I've had the entire Christmas holiday to get on with it, but oh well). I have two books in my possession about it - one that mostly described the medieval college, and the other the school up to the late 1980s. Those along with other sources from Google Books and news should make it easy to work on. Now that I've got the hard bit over, writing the first bit of substance, it should be easier to reference and expand. The books are kind of all over the place with regards to chronology, and go on into too much detail so are a little hard to use at times! Happy new year by the way. Majorly talk 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it certainly could do with an overhaul, the college is one of Manchester's landmarks and should have a decent article. Unfortunately, this edit exhausted my knowledge of the place! I think there should be a little in in Alan Kidd's Manchester, so I'll take a look tomorrow; it will probably cover ground already in the two books you've got, but it should give some context if they don't. There are some interesting free-use images of the place, but no commons category unfortunately; I'll see what I can do about that. Apart from that, I think all the help I can offer is that I should be able to create a results section in the style of Audenshaw School#Results if you think it worthwhile (I can't find sources before 2005). Happy new year to you too. Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have some pics of Chethams, library here, exterior here, and a corridor near the library here. Shitty lens so there's odd flares, but if you want more I can always go back. All commons compatible licences so knock yourself out. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, surely the best source of history about Chethams will be in the library itself? If you haven't been, its a wonderful place. Free entry. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I worked there (well, just for an hour or so keeping watch one day). I think the book (by Claire Hartwell) is fairly authoritative. Majorly talk 22:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The library is a Grade I listed building (but not a Scheduled Monument), so Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester may have some useful links. Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

You'll like it here. Half the tabs and a tenth of the hassle. – iridescent 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, its a shame. Nev1 is one admin I'd trust 100%, without even thinking about it. Parrot of Doom 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Parrot of Doom, I'm flattered but I thought it was time for a break from the tools. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dammit. Who will look after my userpage now in times of trouble? (*looks at Parrot of Doom desperately...*) Majorly talk 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You should let Mother Mary come to you :) Parrot of Doom 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan geographical distribution

Your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)/archive2 reminded me of another interesting point about Japanese National Treasures (NT) that you might be interested in. Most of the NT are located in the Kansai region which is undoubtly due to the fact that the capitals of Japan were located in this region for a very long time. However even after looking very hard I could not find any reliable source confirming this correlation. That's why in National Treasures of Japan I formulated more neutrally: "Most of Japan's National Treasures are located in Kansai which had been the region of the capital of Japan from ancient times to the 19th century. Kyoto boasts about one in five national treasures". Also compare this discussion where the question about the uneven geographical distribution was raised. bamse (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem is when you're almost certain you know why, but can't find a source. All you can do to avoid falling foul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is to lay out the facts for the reader and let them come to their own conclusions. Nev1 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

John Lyon

Change it or delete it yourself, I'm really not interested. Nick mallory (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you really should be interested. Depending which way you look at it, the article you created is either a breach of copyright or plagiarism. People sometimes get things wrong, but that's ok as long as they take steps to correct it and prevent it from reoccurring. Do you understand the problem? Is this going to happen again? This is your responsibility. Nev1 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern

Hi Nev! Some of us think the article is as ready as it will ever be for GA.. If you have a moment, please go to Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Consensus. Thanks --Kudpung (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

MGC

Hi Nev1/Archives/January–February 2010! An article within the scope of the WikiProject Worcestershire has been proposed for moving. Please see the discussion at Talk:Malvern Girls' College#Move proposal, and leave your comments there. Thanks. This is a message to Worcestershire project members; if it has been placed on your talk page in error, please ignore and/or delete it.--Kudpung (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

I am usually a cool and frank person, until some one really pisses me off, you can check my past discussions in several other articles.

I would suggest you should drop such a comment to user simonus's page as well, he is already been listed as a personal attacker by user warrior and surprisingly he isnt accepting that he ever attacked some one personally. I respect wikipedia rules, but i am accustomed to pay people in their own coin, and i cant help it.

Thanks for warring me thus correcting me.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you attacked Simanos because he attacked you and you would never make an unprovoked attack? What about "By the way do u understand english ?", "I though you were a native speaker but ur english seems worst then mine", and "Dont act like a jerk put some effort and weight to your argument buddy"? Did I attack you before that comment? Simanos then correctly identified that as a personal attack; there's no harm in calling a spade a spade.

You came onto the page thinking you knew better than a host of academic sources, describing those who disagreed with you as "pathetic" and "fantasists", when the simple truth is that we cannot be certain of numbers at the Battle of Thermopylae at all, and one guess has as much merit as another. If you continue like that, you're going to end up in a lot of confrontations. Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Nev1/Archives/January–February 2010! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

If you or Dougweller aren't able even to argue at discussion sections, then remove all my changes which I made at:

1) Battle of the Persian Gate (before vs. after my edits)

2) Ariobarzan (discussion and article changes by my IP address 93.143.xxx)

Why double standards?

I've promised to Georgewilliamherbert that I won't made any changes on main articles, but only at discussion sections, and then you and Dougweller started to delete all my relevant discussions, which pissed me off. So, or leave my discussions alone, or delete all my contributions which I made.

By the way, note I'm not Paradoxic, and I won't made any change at main articles so it's irrelevant if you'll block this IP or not. Bye. Orijentolog or --93.142.183.46 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a history of being abusive and are no longer welcome at Wikipedia [5] [6] [7] [8]. I'm sure we'll survive without your invaluable input. Nev1 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Thanks for adding your voice at Northern Cyprus. (Taivo (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

No problem. Since it appears that there are three IPs trying to make the article less neutral have you considered asking for semi-protection at WP:RPP? Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nev

Thanks for your help there - I have reported it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring before your revert, as well as notices on all IP users pages, the last being a "You may be edit warring" notice.

Nice to see you again btw, I have had some problems here and with family but should be back on more often now and hopefully I can get more involved with GM affairs again !

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope everything's ok now and that you still enjoy editing Wikipedia; edit wars POV pusher can sometimes suck the fun out of this. Nev1 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariobarzan

A banned editor, yes, but he seems to have a point about several people with this name. And the family section and the rest do seem to be about different people. Should something be done? Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The family section does seem superflous, best to just remove it? Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wythenshawe

Indeed. But, in what way does our 'addition' contradict anything already written ? Do you know 'withy' ? ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It would help if it was written properly ("There be four areas"? There be? No, there are). But more importantly, personal knowledge is not enough, you need to back up your edits with sources. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before someone culls the unreferenced material. The point of adding sources is so that the reader can check that Wikipedia isn't making stuff up; living in Wythenshawe or knowing the place is one thing, but the reader doesn't know who you are so can't assess whether you're reliable. Nev1 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens

I'm determined to get Belle Vue up to GA if for no other reason than to finish off the excellent work that WebHamster wasn't allowed to complete. I know we've talked about this article before, and it's always difficult to retrofit citations, but I think it's getting there. Apart from the lack of citations in certain areas, I can see that the lead needs to be expanded, there's a little too much (unattributed) peacock language, and more needs to be said about Belle Vue during the war years. If you could find the time (and motivation) to take a quick look through and see if anything else strikes you, that would be much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As you (MF) know, the symbiotic relationship between transport infrastructure and amusement parks is something of a hobby-horse of mine. While I've never heard of this one before so probably don't have anything myself, from experience I'd strongly suggest that a quick jaunt to Ian Allan would be worthwhile; train-and-road books tend to be meticulously referenced and sourced, and are generally very good at providing background context. (How did people get to this one after the station closed in 1958, incidentally?) If (as suggested by the Longsight railway station article) the special platform built for the Gardens still exists, that would probably make a good "the site today" image if you can get a photo; disused stations are always a good image as they have so many subliminal associations. This book (p.195 onwards) looks like a good one to add as well, if you can find a copy, as it puts it in a broader context (Webhamster's sources are all specifically about this garden, so may be slightly rose-tinted.) – iridescent 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points, thanks Iridescent. Ian Allen is by Piccadilly railway station isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

5 Piccadilly Station Approach apparently. My knowledge of Manchester geography is limited to "once went to Old Trafford" (no, the other one) but I assume from the name it's outside the station.

FWIW, even if "The money problems were caused by [...] the new Manchester & Birmingham Railway opening" is impeccably citeable and sourceable, I don't believe it for an instant. I find it impossible to believe that any tourist attraction would complain about someone building a cheap and convenient way for large numbers of people to reach it, even if it did cut off part of the land, any more than Disneyland Paris complains about having the Eurostar terminus on their land today. – iridescent 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I know where it is, on the approach to the station. I must have walked past it many times without noticing. I'll pop in and see what they've got. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I should warn you, those books aren't cheap. Parrot of Doom 00:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should take a camera then. I'm not about to spend a lot of money on this article, that's for sure. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ealdgyth would probably turn blue and choke at the prospect if you tried to take it to FA, but this could be profitably strip-mined dry. This is what the station apparently looks like today, BTW (note the surviving loco shed in the background). – iridescent 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got no aspirations for FA, GA is all I'm aiming for. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the expensive books, what I generally do is go in with a notepad and flip through books, jotting down pertinent facts and page numbers and then back-reference them from that. (My dedication to the Wikimedia Ideal certainly does not stretch to spending £15 on a book called Branch Lines to Tunbridge Wells from Oxted, Lewes and Polegate). The London shop, at any rate, don't mind this so long as you buy something, even if it's just a magazine. Besides, you need to experience the joy of referencing a Middleton Press book at least once in your life (MP obstinately refuse, for some arcane reason, to number their pages. – iridescent 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I went in the shop on Piccadilly looking for info for CH railway station, but there was nothing there the library didn't have already. It was surprisingly busy in there, all things considered... Majorly talk 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A good friend of mine has a big book about Belle Vue Zoo. I have to finish his daughter's wedding video off, so I'll kill two birds with one stone and get it the next time I'm there. Parrot of Doom 00:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A History of Mancehster and Manchester: A History aren't cited in the article, but looking at the indexes each has a couple of pages on Belle Vue so I'll see if they can add anything. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's got the Nicholls book I'd recommend checking what it says on the origins of Belle Vue. I made this edit based on Hylton, but Hylton sometimes gets the fine details slightly wrong and since he seems to be contradicting Nicholls it would be good to double check. Nev1 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The relevant section in Nicholls reads: "John Jennison was born in Bulwell, near Nottingham, in early 1793, one of three children (Ann, John and George Ives Jennison). The family moved to Macclesfield, where the silk industry was undergoing a period of expansion, and John Jennison senior established himself as a silk weaver with his own cottage loom. Family tradition maintains that from an early age John showed a passionate interest in botany, especially the growing of flowers. He became a gardener, but gave up this occupation rather suddenly in 1815 when there were press gangs in the area following Napoleon's escape from Elba. John fled to Stockport, where in the July of that year his father and younger brother bought 1,850 square yards of land from Ralph Jepson, yeoman. The land was located on a then unnamed road leading off Adswood Lane and was subject to an annual chief rent of £8-5s. (The road is now known as Stockholm Road and the site is occupied by a garage compound at the junction with Adswood Grove.) It is not known how long John junior stayed in Stockport, and he later returned to Macclesfield, where he probably adopted his father's trade of silk weaver. However. a house was erected on the plot of land in 1815 and it was here that John returned following the death of his father in December 1825, and his own marriage to Maria Barber of Woodford in February 1826.

By now John had resumed his trade as a jobbing gardener and he cultivated his own half acre "with the skill of the professional and the dedication of an amateur". One report states that he worked for a time at Lawton's Pleasure Gardens, where a small collection of animals was kept as one of the attractions. (The gardens were located around a mill reservoir at Portwood; the site later became part of Stockport Gasworks.) No doubt the experience gained there encouraged John Jennison to think of the potential of his own plot, for in 1826, with the aid of his wife, he opened his garden on summer Sunday afternoons; the strawberries he produced were said to have been delicious. At this time there was no anima1 collection and the place became known as the Strawberry Gardens or, later, Jennison's Gardens. In 1828 or 1829 he had a stroke of good fortune which was to transform his modest enterprise in to a full-time occupation. A thrush had nested in a bush and Jennison placed a net around it and the young birds. The parent continued to feed its chicks through the netting and the novel sight drew crowds to the gardens. Jennison was quick to seize the opportunity created and added cages containing British birds, pheasants and macaws. The establishment was now open daily in summer, including Sundays and bank holidays, and an admission charge was made. Soon after, a brewhouse was built, together with a four horse stable, and the original house became a pub called the Adam & Eve. There was to be a difference between Jennison's enterprise and those of his competitors: his was a public house attached to a pleasure garden, not a public house with a pleasure garden." --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you Nev1 for reverting certain "attacks" on my talk page. I do not always get a chance to delete them speedily myself. I'm greatful for your assistance. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Nev1 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Dear Nev1,

I just wanted to thank you for nominating me for the above award. I obviously don't check the project pages enough, because I had no idea I was nominated until I got a message this week telling me that I hadn't won! Anyway, I'm glad that my work is appreciated; it's not necessarily why I do it, but it is good to know.

Thanks again, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard 1

I had to take my dog to the vet so I did not get to answer until I got back. My reasons for taken out the sentence is detailed on the Richard I talk page. Thanks for your support. It is a great article and you and the rest of the editors all did a wonderful job to make it so. Mugginsx (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershierre, Warwickshierre, and Everyshierre

Hello Nev1/Archives/January–February 2010! A non-British user seems to be attempting to suggest that the Brits are not pronouncing their own British place names correctly, and appears to believe that it is a policy of Wikipedia to instruct the Brits, through the use of the IPA, how British English should be pronounced. He/she also seems to be of the opinion that it is Wikipedia policy to regard British English by default as a rhotic language, which it is not. Some British Wikipedians are trying to avoid an edit conflict and have requested my support. I have added my comments to the debate the non-British user has has started in defence of his/her multiple, WP:BOLD? changes to IPA pronunciations of British place names. As a professional linguist I accord every version of English its own particular merits and my position here strictly concerns the way in which the IPA is interpreted and applied in the Wikipedia, and how the current policy may need to be changed through a truly representative consensus. If you would like to help resolve this issue, please see User talk:Kudpung#IPA, RP, etc. and User talk:Lfh#Warwickshire to get the background. Maybe you could then chime in with your views on the subject at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names. Perhaps as an admin, you are also more familiar than we are with the policy as it actually stands. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins have no particular expertise in policy, or anything else for that matter. Besides, I think that Nev1 has thrown away his laurel leaf, at least for the time being. Anyone who considers English to be a rhotic language has obviously never been to Lancashire. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I know nothing of the relevant policy, and as the discussion is already quite advanced it would probably be a retrograde step for me to jump in. That said, given the regional variations in pronunciation any attempt at standardising it on Wikipedia seems futile and in many cases would go against local use, which is what should take precedent. Good luck, Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!

You are now the owner of this badge - wear it with pride :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This user helped promote Malvern, Worcestershire to good article status.

Congratulations to you and everyone involved for getting the article to GA! I hope the experience was useful. Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Express

If you dispute the sources, ask at the wiki reliable source noticeboard, they are reliable even if you don't like them. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to go to the noticeboard to know that tabloids exercise poor journalism and are not reliable sources. If you dispute it, you can take it to the noticeboard. Moreover, the source I removed bore no relation to the sentence it was meant to be supporting. Nev1 (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You can not say that tabloids are not reliable sources, you do them a disservce, I have taken the sun there before to have it rejected and it was approved. Your position as regards desire to keep this simple comment out is not correct and makes no difference at all to anything, he was on tv watched my millions of people saying what I wanted to include, later I will take the sun and the comment to the noticeboard to get a independent position, . Lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The source used here had no relation on the the sentence it was meant to source as it did not contain the quote. Either exercise some competence and read the sources you're adding or you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not my source, I added the Sun, which does contain the quote, if people hadn't been messing about with it my citaton should still be there, I note your warning that my editing appears disruptive to you. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Do not blindly revert again then. Nev1 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said I hear you, I did not mean I accept your position, which I don't, one revert does not make disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's ok, if you do it again we can see if anyone else agrees that you should actually read what you edit. Nev1 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if your suggesting I have done something that would warrant a report at ANI you are stretching the evidence a bit, but you are free to do whatever you like. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I said if you deliberately show incompetence again it will require further action. You are being disruptive now, but hopefully you will stop. Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is the first time I've ever seen The Sun called a reliable source for anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should use copies of The Sun to protect my head from the wall of mind-numbing obstinacy that its repeatedly being banged against. Parrot of Doom 15:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for review of FLC

Hi Nev1! Since you reviewed the List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), I thought you might be interested also in List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) which is currently a featured list candidate and in need of feedback. I'd appreciate if you have time to look over it and leave comments at the candidacy page. (The list is shorter than the painting list.) bamse (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll make an effort to read the list tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.bamse (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nev1! Are you still planning to give it a look? bamse (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, my editing's been down the past few days but I intend to review the article. It won't be posted until tomorrow though. Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problem. bamse (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FUR

I've had a run in with a FUR deletion bot handler over the use of a county crest that I uploaded. I wonder if you could check the image's page and tell me what licence I wrongly chose. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg
I wanted to use it on the header of the newsletter, but I'm told that the licence doesn't allow use in user space, i.e. newsletters. I've checked out the Wiki policy on this but it still seems a bit vague to me. Many thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationales allow us to use copyrighted images in articles, if a good reason is given. A fair use rationale has to be given for each time they appear; in practice this means article space as otherwise there's not a strong enough reason to use copyrighted material. If you were to use it in the newsletter, you'd need to provide a rationale for each person's talk page it appeared on; and that wouldn't wash really as you can use something instead. What can be done is create a free version. I think someone at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop should be able to redraw the coat of arms, but you can't be sure how long it will take, or even if someone will get round to it. Nev1 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

I am still a little foggy about your proposal to change the orientation of the article. For example, in the new article, how would you put a direct comparison made by say, Scheidel? I have added a section to the incubator version, areas in which the two empires are commonly compared. I hope you can enlighten by showing me how to expand on that section(not that I will be working on it recently as i am busy). Also, I believe that Hiberniantears' proposal is correct; the article should be moved out of userspace. If you agree, can you contact User:Spartaz? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied here. Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it becoz I is black?

Why do you think everyone on wikipedia hates me? Do you think if I changed my username to something a little more pink, like User:LilacButterfly1979 that everyone would change their minds about me? I blame the Devil; it was his idea to come up with a Malleus themed name. I was weak after 40 days of fasting in the desert, and I succumbed. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but someone with a username that soft and cuddly is obviously up to no good and eager to hide ;-) Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll try Pastor Malleus instead then, get the religious vote. After all, it's worked before. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think when you become ordained on Wikipedia it becomes compulsory to preach The Good Word. God help us all! Nev1 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That's a definite blocker then, as I think it's a childish obsession designed to eliminate dissent ... that was the Devil made me say that, I'm still weakened from my fast. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire

Hi Nev1, someone has been batch removiing the category Worcestershire from Worcestershire related articles. is there something I've missed? I don't want approach the editor or or risk starting start an edit war until I know the reason.--Kudpung (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some links so I know what to look for? Nev1 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Try these for starters. It looks as if the editor is scecialised in making hundreds of category changes a day using HotCat. The user is a sysop, so I assume the changes to be made in good faith. It is just possible however, that some of the changes may not actually be appropriate. Worcestershire in the English Civil War, Kidderminster Hospital Radio, Bewdley (UK Parliament constituency), Redditch local elections‎, Bromsgrove local elections. --Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Bewdley constituency and the Civil War, it was a case of over categorization. History of Worcestershire is a sub-category of Category:Worcestery, so an article doesn't need to be in both. As for the changes concerning "politics" to "government" I think it's just for consistency as most use "government". They're minor changes and won't really effect the article, but if in doubt go straight to the source. Nev1 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Thank You

I'd just like to thank you for helping me with Bolton's GAN yesterday, I really am the world's worst panicker, you helped keep me sane! and Bolton's a GA. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great news, I'm glad it turned out ok. I've had worse reviews, and the way that review read the person was already leaning towards promoting it. A review can be a sudden shock, but it's usually open for at least a week so there's plenty of time to sort out any problem barring a major rewrite. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rochdale Town Hall

On January 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rochdale Town Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarumio

Regarding this, from your most recent archive page, I give you this. Are you able to do anything, or should I proceed with trying to obtain a WP:RBI (something I'm not familiar with)? - Dudesleeper talk 17:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Best to take it to WP:ANI and that somebody blocks the IP. I'm afraid I no longer have the tools to do it myself. Sarumio is being deliberately disruptive and needs to be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Llanfair-yn-neubwll/Llanfair-yn-Neubwll

Hi Nev. Can I ask your help on one of these bloody Welsh names again? Canolfan Bedwyr, the Welsh Place Names Board, have now changed their mind and corrected their spelling, as a result of the Wikipedia discussion at User talk:Skinsmoke! Can you help move it back to Llanfair-yn-Neubwll, as an administrator is required. Many thanks. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed you have given up your admin tools! Can you nod it on to someone else for me? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Jza84 if he can perform the move, if he's not replied in a couple of hours I'll make a request at WP:RM. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Didn't realise Jza was an admin still. Genuinely sorry to see you've given up the role! We need more admins like you, not fewer. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg

I'm wondering what the copyright claim in this image can be. If it is a copy of an original published in 1991, then it is a derivative work and the copyright is still partially held by the original author. However, I'm not sure that anyone can claim copyright in such a plan, as there is no real artistic effort added to the plan. In my opinion, it is ok, but you might ask Elcobbola. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's tricky, and there are a few conflicting opinions on the FAC. I'll leave Elcobbola a note, but I'll search for an old plan just in case (although the 1991 plan is pretty much ideal). Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What would I need to do to make it so that it can truly be free copyright. After all the original draftsman only worked from the existing castle, it's not as if it's his design, for that he does not hold the copyright, no-one does. I suppose I could, if I get the time, run it through some CAD software and redo it so it looks like a modern day plan. This is definitely a grey area though, as I suspect that whoever did the plan only has copyright on their own drawing, so if it is changed enough from the original... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure with plans, it makes no sense to me to copyright layouts. Whoever drew the plan used in the 1991 books was probably working from plans from around 1920 (although I can't prove it). Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance?

Tell me honestly. Do you really believe that there's any chance of getting this any further without one or more of us being blocked?

I'm still in two minds. One half wants to walk away, but it was such an important event that the other half wants to stay and fight. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I note that your recent edit has now been reverted as well.[9] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be done, but it will be a test of patience. Iridescent is right that there will be a lot of people spoiling for a fight, and some looking for an excuse to see you gone. But, I believe that if everything is scrupulously sourced the article can be turned into a GA. I intend to look for A farewell to arms? : beyond the Good Friday Agreement tomorrow to see if it has anything to say on Manchester 1996. The actual events seem to be well covered in the article, but the reaction could do with some beefing up. There was some gnashing of teeth on the talk page last time I had a stab at the article, but it was about what is relevant rather than poor sourcing. Nev1 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It may be a case of softlee, softlee catchee monkey then, just do a little bit at a time, leave it for a while, and then come baxk later. I can't believe that IP editors are exempt from this 1RR ruling though, as they appear to be. Obviously it's only targetted at regular editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It worked for Manchester martyrs. As soon as things escalate it's time to disengage. Mr Stephen has provided another source, so the IP has no business to revert again. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It did, and at one point I was equally despairing about that. I hadn't read the restriction properly, but I see that reverting an anonymous IP doesn't fall into the remit of the restriction, so presumamably the usual 3RR rule applies with them. It's kinda wearing though; I think I may retreat to Lady Godiva for a while. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Godiva? I 'ardly know her! Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah but I got to edit the 1RR template... heheheheh --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines)/archive1

Hi there; can you revisit this FLC when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Just wanted to let you know, that I implemented your suggestion concerning the ken ( I would suggest though that for the notes it be made clearer, as they come before the usage section) after the nomination discussion was archived: I added "ken" as a unit to the notes, e.g. "2×2" -> "2 ken×2 ken". Should be clear now. BTW, you might be interested to review List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) which is currently at FLC; though judging by the very quick responses, it might not be a problem to get sufficient reviews. bamse (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hanley Castle High School

Hi Nev, if you get time could you possibly do a quick peer review of Hanley Castle High School? As a school article in Worcs I think it's close to GA. I wrote it myself a while ago and unfortunately nobody has bothered to edit or comment on it, but it is complete.--Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks in as good a shape as any other article I've seen on a British school, but it's not an area I'm very familiar with (it might be worth dropping WP:SCHOOLS a note if you haven't already). It is of course difficult to write about most schools because only the oldest have books about them, but you're lucky enough to have picked an interesting example. It seems genera The lead needs a little work, for example it mentions that "The school reverted to being an 11–18 school in the 1990s", but that's the first mention of an age range. Also, there's "In 1972, the school opened its doors to girls. In 1974 it became a mixed gender, voluntary controlled comprehensive": if the school began admitting girls in 1972, it was already a mixed-gender school, so the next sentence just needs to read "In 1974, it became a voluntary controlled comprehensive" (although there's still the issue of having two adjacent sentences starting with "In 197x"). For somewhere so old, the architecture section is a good idea, although it perhaps shuold be after the history section so that the reader has some reference to the school's history first. It could do with a little beefing up; to that end Images of England has some info (it would be good to specify which Grade(s) of listed building) and I'm sure the Pevsner guide to Worcestershire will have something useful. With regard to the history section, it seems to cover the subject well although I wonder if there are any quotes from former students that could lend a little colour (perhaps about how children were taught in the 19th century as it's not something people will know much about). Perhaps the sport section could be merged with the facilities section? Just a suggestion, I don't think it's important. Each person in the alumni section needs to be sourced. I think you'd stand a decent chance at GAC, although more may be expected that I'm not aware of. I like what you've done, and the most complete school article I've helped write is Audenshaw School, but I don't think much can be learned from that. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in completely uninvited (so please excuse me for that) in addition to Nev1's comments above I'd add that for GA you need to take a close look at two obvious things. The punctuation used in this article and the citations. Quite a few sentences don't end with full stops for instance, and all of the citations need to give full details including publisher and last access date. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrington St Clement mound

Hi Nev

Sorry but fogort to post that the solution was found...

It was built as a fresh water reservoir and was part of a barrage system proposed for the river estuary in the 70s

"It was a trial earth bank structure to test the feasibility of building a barrage/etc across the Wash" kindly provided by Graeme Leggett (here)

1972: a feasibility study commissioned by the Government to build a barrage across half of The Wash to capture the freshwater from the four main rivers, to improve navigation through sea locks, to provide recreational facilities and an area of land for a power station, etc. was undertaken. This led to the circular trial bank/bund being built to the east of Sutton Bridge and the Nene. The purpose of which was to act as reservoirs but the report concluded it would be too costly.

(http://www.washestuary.org.uk/details.cfm?id=117)

sorry - I did write found on the others but missed that one in mil his.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, it did look to neat to be natural. Thanks for the explanation, it is a curious little site. It's fair enough to forget about that task force, I think it's pretty much inactive anyway. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn

I sourced a copy of Whittle & Wysocki's 1998 report on the cromlech through my county library. They very kindly photocopied (almost) the entire report for me. It is written for a knowledgeable audience and is rather technical (Roald Dahl it ain't), but I think I've managed to understand a fair bit of it, and have incorporated many of the points not raised elsewhere into the article. It has taken rather longer than I expected, but I reckon the article is as ready now as it will ever be. So, if you are still prepared to give your opinion on it, I would love to hear it. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article looks good, and I see that Malleus has had a go at the prose so that's good news. I can't guaranttee being able to have a proper read through before next week, but I'll make an effort. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush Nev, it's taken months to get to this stage. Another couple of weeks shouldn't make much difference. Your help thus far has been invaluable. Malleus has been fantastic, BTW. Thanks for recommending him to me. The way he sees things is inspired. I am in awe. Glad you're still interested, though. Thank you. Saw you hung up your admin boots. Hope everything's alright. All the best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenilworth

Hi, I know Kenilworth Castle well as I used to live in the area, and would be happy to look over the article and give my opinion on its structure. However I'm in the final stages of a major project at work for the last two weeks with at least another week or so to go, so any review work I do will have to wait until after that is completed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about this, and I think that a similar approach as used at Chateau Gaillard makes sense, with a history section followed by an overall layout section. However, I do think that there shoudl be one significant alteration, with a sort of "mini-layout" at the start of each historical period under discussion, that explains that changes that took place during that period. If you don't have that, then the history can become highly confusing (i.e. features never before discussed suddenly coming to prominence). If you need any more input then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Posted on the Richard I page too, but wanted to make it more personal as well. Thanks especially for the links ... hope this was the right spot to put this. QuantumOfHistory (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chateau-Gaillard

Hello there,

Just to let you know, in case you hadn't seen, that I have completed the GA review of Chateau-Gaillard (Talk:Château-Gaillard/GA1). There are only a few relatively minor issues that need fixing, but otherwise it looks good to me.

Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Castle

FAC later this week I see - well done again on a superb article, and I hope you're wearing a steel helmet to avoid pulling your hair out on the day! Parrot of Doom 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wednesday! Good grief. Thanks for the heads up, I would probably have missed that. I'll have to retreat to my fortress walled town fortified residence to withstand the onslaught. I suppose this is what I've been building up to, so it should be interesting. I wanted more of the associated pages to be of better quality, but at least Bodiam Castle (one of the two lead images) is an FA. If anyone watching this page is willing to help, a watchful eye would be greatly appreciated! Nev1 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem mate. I just thought it was a good example of a Gatehouse and I also thought it would be fair to give Wales some representation as it is famous for its castles. But I aint too fussed in all fairness. Regards IJA (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but you need to find a Gropecunt Castle :) Parrot of Doom 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with 85,000 although nothing can quite compare to Gropecunt Lane. Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed making my minor contributions leading up to your FA, and dealing with with the avalanche of front-page-day edits. It was a relatively quiet day at work. I light-heartedly hope my edits were, in the main, helpful. :) Congratulations again on your excellent work. And for whatever it is worth: thank you for doing it. - Sinneed 03:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help, a fresh pair of eyes was very helpful. Not just in keeping the prose fresh, but adeptly dealing with questions on the day which I got tired of long ago. I'm sure it was clear that I was getting tired of the same old questions. It may have been a standard day for you, but I'll be happy not to repeat the inquisition any time soon! Looking back at the mess the article was at the start of 2009, I am am proud of how far it's come. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When I saw that it was going to be on the front page, I knew you were at risk of being buried in the onslaught... and was hopeful I could spend some time on it... I knew the workload was going to be great, from helping with front-page-day on a few other articles (usually on weekends, haha). The vandalism rate was actually rather low, and there were some useful changes too.- Sinneed 15:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that the vandalism wasn't too bad, although the view count was decent; it felt like there was more when Warwick Castle was on the main page ages ago. Vandalism's easy to deal with, it was treading over the same ground about what is a castle etc that was tiring. That article was easily the most controversial I've heavily edited, and 24 hours on the front page of one of the most viewed websites in the world was always going to be a test. I wonder what it is about castles that seems to bring out the nationalist in people. Anyway, the article weathered the storm with no lasting ill effects and with a bit of copy editing it has improved. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for the nice welcome! --91.55.107.25 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)