User talk:Nev1/Archives/September–October 2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Travel time by horse
Strange request. Do you have a reliable reference which would help me determine communication times in the 1800's? I would like to determine how long it would take a messenger on horseback to travel 24 miles in 1800 then a detatchment of 18 men from the dragoon of guards on horseback to return. Extrapolating from this site suggests that the messenger may gallop at 30 mph and the dragoons return at a canter/lope at 10 mph thus a three-hour journey. However, (a) that site is not RS and (b) I could be reading this all wrong --Senra (Talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ambrose Rookwood reportedly managed 15 miles an hour for two hours, in 1605. He was reputedly a rather fine horseman, however. I very much doubt that a horse can maintain 30mph for anything more than a few minutes. Parrot of Doom 23:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know where to start with that one. It sounds like a horsey question so it might be worth asking Ealdgyth. Depending on the route and who was sending the message, I suppose semaphore could have been used. It's not something I've come across in the areas I generally read in though. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably best off asking someone like Dana boomer, who's familiar with warhorses (a platoon of Dragoons would be on heavy horses, not racehorses, remember, and would presumably be loaded down with equipment). – iridescent 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dana boomer answered the post I made on Ealdgyth's page as suggested by Nev1 above. Would it be possible to refactor this to here or Ealdgyth's page? I know how refactoring can raise temperatures within the wiki so I feel I should ask rather than be bold --Senra (Talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've added more to the above thread on Ealdgyth's page, this has actually been hashed out, though partially in a sandbox and didn't wind up being used. We did a lot of looking into the question of weight, size of horse, and speed when putting together the original Horses in warfare article (we wound up not using a lot of the speed stuff, but kept info on breeds and weight.) Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Re. Derbyshire Watchlist
Hi Nev. Yes you are right :) I had quickly looked at them both and saw they both included the recent changes to Derby County F.C. and just assumed that they were both the same. I'll change the Useful tools section to link to Wavelength's addition :) Thanks, Schumi555 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Armero tradegy
Ouch, edit conflict oO ResMar 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I didn't check the article history before editing. I'll tack a step back and let you carry on. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks dear for your kind help and support. Kasuri929 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator?
The military history wikiproject will soon open the September 2010 coordinator elections to determine who among us will serve on the X Tranche, the coordinator tranche beginning 28 September of this month. The current coordinators have offered up the names of a limited number of editors who we believe would make good coordinators, and your name was included in the list. Therefore, I am leaving this message on behalf of the current milhist coordinators to encourage you to run for the position of coordinator. If you have any questions or comments about the position you are welcome to ask any members of the current coordinator tranche, we would be happy to answer your questions. Note that while this message is being left to encourage you to run for the position you are under no obligation to do so, and if you decide not to run this decision will not be held against you now or at any point in the future.
On belhalf of the Military history Coordinator IX Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- In other words, "You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do not say now and later rely on in your defence may be held against you". Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- More like "You the right to remain silent; anything you say will be misquoted and used against you." :) But seriously, while members will remember whether or not you ran the coordinators are not going to make a big deal out your decision. On more than one occasion those receiving this message decide not run, and we simply honor their wish and move on with the process. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying immediately, but I needed some time to think this over. I have reservations with regard to the necessity of the position, and whether considering the roles whether I am actually someone MILHIST would like on board.
So the role of co-ordinators involves:
- "performing the maintenance and housekeeping tasks required to keep the project and its internal processes running smoothly". What the project needs isn't housekeeping, but streamlining. I'm not a member of any task forces, but because of my interest in castles I keep an eye on the fortifications task force. Since the start of the year, there have been two edits by co-ordinators to the task force page: updating the co-ordinators and Ranger Steve adding himself. On the talk page since the start of the year Ranger Steve left a useful note about the English Heritage website effecting articles, and MBK004 left a load of notices about various reviews. The task force isn't even particularly inactive; the likes of Tower of London, Brougham Castle, and Bodiam Castle have inflated the statistics but there's some great working being done on castle articles that you wouldn't know from the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) has put together some fine articles on Goodrich Castle, Clun Castle, St Briavels Castle, and Restormel Castle, and Le Deluge (talk · contribs) has done an excellent job of Baynard's Castle and Montfichet's Tower. J3Mrs (talk · contribs) has also done a good job on Sandal Castle, and ROG5728 (talk · contribs) got Himeji Castle to GA. Even away from my particular area of interest things seem to be moving as Acra (fortress) recently became a Featured Article. My point is that even though there's significant activity on the articles within the task force's remit there wasn't much for co-ordinators to do.
- "This includes keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth": What does this actually involve? MBK004 (talk · contribs) regularly posts notices of FACs, A-class reviews, and peer reviews to WT:MILHIST and the talk pages of task forces, but does it actually generate any interest? There doesn't seem much point in posting to task forces talk pages when they're essentially inactive, so it seems like bureaucracy for the sake of it. Since the start of the year there have been 13 edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review, three of them by a bot, two of them by a co-ordinator, and one by a "co-ordinator emeritus". It doesn't seem like co-ordinators are integral to the review process. If you want reviewers who review articles for the project's A-class and peer review systems, you should know that the most involvement I've had was this.
- "They serve as the project's designated points of contact": This I understand to a point, but these people are points of contact for what exactly? A friendly talk? If you need a book? If you're facing a site ban and want someone to provide a character witness? The main page of WP:MILHIST says "If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them on our discussion page or our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist)". Nothing about contacting co-ordinators there. At the bottom of the page the reader is told that co-ordinators are "designated points-of-contact for procedural issues", but to be honest people with procedural questions regarding the project usually go to the main talk page.
- "In addition, they have highly informal roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive": I didn't notice any co-ordinators, head emeritus or otherwise, getting involved at Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911), formally or informally. Co-ordinators aren't meant to be omniscient of course, but the matter was raised at WT:MILHIST before it erupted into edit warring; I don't think the participation of a co-ordinator would have changed events much as it was basically one editor editing against about half a dozen others but it does make me wonder about the actual role of such a position. If you want to know if I have any dispute resolution credentials, you'll want to see this messy RfC/U (is there any other kind?) which I started. I try to be fair, but it doesn't always work.
So I'm not sure if co-ordinator is a ceremonial role or not. The structure of MILHIST is elaborate and IMO not really user friendly, you just need to look at the navigation bar to see that. Forty-seven task forces, the consensus on which seems to be that they're mostly inactive, would suggest that this isn't working. So why are fourteen co-ordinators needed?
It's interesting that by and large the editors I've met editing castle articles haven't been members of WP:MILHIST; the names I mentioned above are ones I've noticed this year, but going back further than that Peter I. Vardy (talk · contribs) who started a host of articles on individual castles and wrote the first GA on one (I think, Halton right?) isn't a member, neither is Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (Beeston Castle GA and along with Parrot of Doom has done invaluable copy editing on castle articles). Most of the members of WikiProject Scottish Castles aren't also members of fortifications task force. Regardless of why these people chose not to join, it should be the role of WP:MILHIST to encourage their good work, and I'm not sure that's being accomplished.
In a nutshell: are you sure you've asked the right person? Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- After seeing your !votes on the election page, I'm disappointed that you didn't run. :-) After the election, please bring any ideas you have to WT:MILHIST or WT:MHCOORD – we're always looking to improve.
- Essentially, coordinators are a designated group who brainstorm ideas to improve the project and do the (admittedly little) housekeeping, like closing A-class reviews. I participated in that China debate, by the way, though I dropped out after awhile. I'm with you on the number of coordinators, but most of the others think we need that many in case a few go inactive...
- Re the last paragraph, what can we do for all of those people? The A-class review process is open to them and any discussions are open to them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure being a co-ordinator was for me to be honest. I was flattered that someone brought my name up, but I'm not interested in the review system really, I don't think that many people are required to do the maintenance, and I don't need to be a co-ordinator to have an opinion on how the project is run. I have begun taking an interest at the think tank, but whether I'll come up with any good ideas remains to be seen. I assume your final question refers to the people who aren't members of MILHIST but sometimes edit articles within the project's remit. The project is sometimes inward looking. Being a member isn't the be all and end all; if I remember correctly the only reason I joined was because Roger Davies (talk · contribs) awarded me WikiChevrons and I thought it incongruous for a non-member to receive a MILHIST award. I'm not even a member of the fortifications task force even though I've worked on several of the articles within its scope. When I talked to Hchc2009 for example, my primary concern was to tell them they were doing a good job (it can sometimes be a lonely area to work in); suggesting they become a member of MILHIST didn't occur to me to be honest and I'm not convinced it would especially help them. There's a MILHIST banner on several article talk pages they've edited, so I'm sure they're aware of the project. The same goes for many of the names I mentioned. They're getting on with stuff without being members; it works for them, so there's no need to change. What we can do for them is the same we can do for project members, tell them when they're doing well and provide helpful pointers if we have any. That's pretty much what I said at the think tank regarding motivating people and editor retention. Just because they're not part of WP:MILHIST I don't think they need to be treated any differently. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- PS. Come to think of it, I do vaguely remember your name popping up on the talk page so I stand corrected. It was a sorry affair but had been flagged a month or two earlier. Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delayed reply, I had assumed by your initial reply that you would not be running and did not expect that follow up with a questionnaire section. In answer to your questions:
- The sign of a well oiled machine is that we do not need to baby sit it 24/7/365. The fact that little coordinator activity has occurred in the castle's task force and the other task forces of little note is a simple sign that members have tings well in hand. Usually our job is more to make sure that the community stays informed on matters of interest, though we do dump a disproportionately large amount of the notification work on to the shoulders of MBK004.
- I have been taking note of the effort to return ratio in the project, that is one of the reasons why I suggested we strip the task forces down to help limit the amount of paper work filed for these things. Another issue here is a general sense of apathy - most editors no longer do it all, they do one or two things (typically article related) and leave the rest to "someone else". Finding a way to address this would go a long way to helping wikipedia as a whole, but in the short term its something of a necessity to have people lined up to look at the articles should the need arise. As the PR position - not everyone reviews, but we do what we can when we can. You need not worry about the absence of review work, some members simply do not have it in them to review, and they are under no obligation to do so; your purpose in the reviews in primarily to oversee their closure.
- Typically we serve as a contact point more for those who have an issue with an article or want to ask some sort of specific question.
- We do not usually intervene in edit wars or editorial disagreements for two reasons: most coordinators come from article development circles and have some stake in the articles being debated over, and coordinators do not need to be admins. That latter point means that even if editors get into it with each other the coordinator(s) watching the page will have to appeal to outside sources to handle the matter. In some cases coordinators are admins (myself included), but our ability to intervene is somewhat hindered by our personal involvement in the articles: we can be seen to be protecting our edits if we intervene to forcefully in articles that we have worked the hardest on. Ours is not so much to resolve conflicts as it is to broker a ceasefire between disagreeing parties so everyone can edit the articles in peace.
- I suggested we cut our coordinator tranche by 50%, this was overturned on grounds that we have a large article body and that we are about to implement a year long tranche and thus need all the help we can get. I was not exactly thrilled with this decision, but consensus on the matter sided with the other camp. As to whether or not ours is a ceremonial role; I leave that to interpretation, though I note that when this concept was implemented the role was constructive and at the time needed.
- Lastly, in answer to your question: you are exactly the kind of person we need, someone who can think, someone who sees what sort of issues we have and suggests ways in which we may address these issues. I am sorry I did not notice that you were waiting for a reply from me or anyone else, otherwise I'd have been here sooner, but I do encourage you to report those things that you think need to be worked on, dressed, discussed, or otherwise brought up to me or anyone else elected to the position of coordinator for the next tranche. "Coordinators be thou for the contributors," that's my motto, and I endeavor to live by it, so if you are unhappy with something then let me or someone else know. In the end, we exist only as long as the contributors of the project judge us to be useful; as a result, there may well come a day when we are disbanded. Until then, we will strive to do right by you and everyone else whose interests coincide with our own. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- The questions were not rhetorical; I really was wondering whether I had missed the point of the position. Rhetorical questions are usually much shorter and I wouldn't have spent so much time thinking about them.
- In any case, thanks for the late reply. The sign of a well oiled machine is that its parts move smoothly. It's difficult to judge that if the parts do not move at all. That seems to be the case with the handful of task forces I've looked at, and activity seems to be taking place away from the project talk pages. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but co-ordinators seem not to be necessary in that sphere. As far as being points of contact, at the moment that's not made clear enough on the project's front page. As I said, it's hidden away in the bottom corner and most people will go straight to the talk page in any case. So it's a shame that a reduction in the number of co-ordinators wasn't passed.
- It only occurred to me while reading the nominations that the co-ordinator duty in relation to the project's review system would mainly be closing. That and article alerts seem to be the main roles associated with the position.
- Given that co-ordinators are "not ... endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct" (rightly so) I suggest that in the description of the role the phrase "helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive" needs reconsideration. As demonstrated by Nick-D's question, it's clearly a consideration in choosing people for the job and candidates feel that they will have to get involved in disputes. Given its inclusion, it was one of the criteria I used to decide my votes. Any editor can get involved in resolving disputes and that should be sufficient, I don't think there needs to be a caveat explaining the co-ordinators' role in this. The implication of the sentence is that it encourages co-ordinators to get involved in such cases as they have more gravitas due to their position, and that seems to be the thinking of some of the candidates. This position needs to be considered. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks
Hi Nev1. Armero tragedy's FAC was promoted today, thanks to your exceptional input and copyediting skills. Thank you for being so helpful. :) ceranthor 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations, I was going to check up on that later and I'm glad it passed. I didn't do much to be fair as aside from the stuff Brian Boulton mentioned in the FAC the prose was generally fine and easy to understand. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
Jimi Hendrix
Your trimming in my opinion is a good compromise. It trims it down and states the important details. If everyone else is good with that I can live with it too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's a start anyway, the stuff about the doctor was pretty much irrelevant. But as it stands there are two good reasons to merge the information into the death section: it's only a couple of sentences long and the table of contents in the article is very long. I like Steveozone's suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ireland Cricket Team
Quite right. I misread it as a comma, not a full stop. My mistake. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nev :-) Since you showed an interest in my article on Alboin, I was wondering if you may be interested in peer reviewing Thurisind, a medium length article I've written on the Gepid king that was father of Cunimund and that initiated Alboin by donating him his dead son's weapons. I hope to make this article a GA, and if it results promising a FA. If you've got some interest and some free time to lose, the review is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Thurisind. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to take a look; I hope to get round to it tomorrow. By the way, congratulations on getting Alboin through FAC, it was well deserved. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I appreciate it :-) As for the article, I'm happy all went well; I was a bit afraid at a point it would have been declined for lack of votes (apparently, non-British medieval history isn't very popular around wikipedia), but ultimately all went well, and much thanks to your help, as without you mentioning me of Malleus I doubt I would have such a good copy-editor. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Much much later than I had anticipated, I have finally got round to this and have left some comments. Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Wigan Article (population figure)
Nev, according to Wigan council's 'official' figures, the electorate (residents eligible to vote) of the Wigan 'Constituency', for the 2010 elections, stood at 76,467 (see List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies). Taking into account that Wigan constituency consists of Wigan, Aspull, Standish, Shevington, Ince in Makerfield and a large part of Pemberton, the claim that 'the TOWN of Wigan had a total population of 81,203 in 2001' just doesn't make sense. Taking that the town of Wigan contains two whole electoral wards (Wigan central and Wigan west) plus sections of another two (douglas and Aspull/new springs/whelley), and that each ward has an average number of 9500 voters (from official figures), it follows that the town of Wigan has an electorate of approximately 26,916. This figure is approximate, but can be taken as residents who are UK nationals, over the age of 18. So, unless 66% of the population of Wigan are under the age of 18, foreigners, in jail or mentally ill, it seems that Wigan council's 'rough estimate' of a population figure of around 28,000 isn't far out. And 81,203 for the population of Wigan 'town' is clearly wrong!
92.239.71.235 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- 166,840 = Wigan Urban Area (Wigan, Standish, Skelmersdale, Orrell, Ince in Makerfield, Abram)
- 81,203 = Urban Subdivision (the Town of Wigan, consisting of the town centre and residential areas of Beech Hill · Bull Hey · Pemberton · Platt Bridge · Poolstock · Scholes · Springfield · Swinley · Wallgate · Whelley · Whitley · Worsley Mesnes)
- The origin of the figures are quite clear Jemmy. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nearly a quarter (23.12%) of the borough's population is under 18. So the actual population of the Wigan constituency is probably closer to 100,000 than 76,000. That's plenty of room for Wigan's 80,000 and the small towns and villages. Anyway the figure is sourced; unless you care to provide another source explicitly stating another figure for Wigan the article is not going to change any time soon. Amusingly I've just noticed that Wigan Council refers visitors to its website to Wikipedia for more information on its settlement.
- Also, what Koncorde said.Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Heritage Sites
Care to take a second look at List of World Heritage Sites in Spain before I proceed? Grsz11 02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The list looks in excellent condition. I've adapted the key for the UK list, and will probably follow your example regarding the tentative list. I think it might be useful to explain what UNESCO's purpose briefly (the UK list uses "Its purpose was to provide for the "conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science".[1]"). The descriptions are concise but explain the sites adequately. I made a couple of copy edits that you'll want to check over to make sure I didn't change the meaning of anything, but they are mostly cosmetic. Below are a couple of suggestions or questions about the prose that I didn't think I should change without asking:
- "El Escorial is one of several Spanish royal sites as a historic residence of the royal family": is there a word missing between "royal sites" and "as a historic residence"?
- "The origins of the Alcázar were the Almohad dynasty that ruled southern Spain until the Reconquista": it might be simpler just to say "The Alcázar was built during the Almohad dynasty that ruled southern Spain until the Reconquista".
- When talking Salamanca University, I think it would be handy to mention which century it was founded in, or perhaps the year if there is an official date.
- "The Virgin and monastery served as important symbols during the Reconquista": do you mean the shrine and monastery?
- "The park is composed of the right bank of the Guadalquivir River where it reaches the Atlantic Ocean": this implies the site is all of the right bank, when the source actually says that it lies on the right bank. Also "right" varies depending on whether you're looking up or downstream; I know the UNESCO site uses it, but it would be better to use points of the compass.
- If those were sorted and this list was at FLC right now I'd support. It's a long list and a good effort. Peter I. Vardy (talk · contribs) does similar lists and I asked him for advice when putting together the UK one so it might be an idea to ask what he thinks. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ramsbottom
Thanks Nev1! I have looked, and there are reliable sources, so I will go through the article to improve it shortly but I am off to the Battle of Wakefield. I will of course be on the side oif the red rose.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ramsbottom a split community - This happened to many areas after 1974 with the creation of new larger boroughs.
I submit that it must be emphasised that the Ramsbottom district spans two borough's Bury Metropolitan Borough and Rossendale Borough. My evidence is as follows the Ramsbottom villages of Stubbins,Edenfield and Irwell Vale are ALL in ROSSENDALE and Lancashire however they ALL have a Ramsbottom Telephone number and are part of the Ramsbottom District and telephone exchange. These ROSSENDALE villages are all served by RAMSBOTTOM Rotary Club and formerly before it folded by RAMSBOTTOM sports council. Ramsbottom Sports Council used to send representatives to Rossendale Brough Sports Council . Ramsbottom are the current holders of the"Carter Trophy"a sporting competition between the historic Rossendale towns of Bacup,Haslingden,Ramsbottom and Rawtenstall.(Ref.Rossendale Free Press/Bury Times if it still in their archives. Between 1918 and 1983 Ramsbottom was in the Rossendale Constituency. The following organisations serve Ramsbottom - Lancashire telegraph - Rossendale News Page (Full comprehensive Ramsbottom news on this page). Rossendale Free Press - Full Ramsbottom coverage. Rossendale online - Full Ramsbottom Coverage. Rossendale Radio - Full compehensive news for Ramsbottom. Every OFFICIAL footpath in the Ramsbottom North (Eden Ward of ROSSENDALE) carries a RAMSBOTTOM Number. Need I say more - Ramsbottoms cultural links with Rossendale span centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Thompson02 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nev1 Its Mark Thompson again.One of your administrators Tong22 has unfortunatly confused the listing of several villages in the Ramsbottom area.Untill 2004 the Ward and district areas were the same However then an extra ward was created in the Bury borough cutting through the established districts creating 17 wards. Therefore Summerseat is no longer in Ramsbottom Ward however it is STILL in the Ramsbottom DISTRICT and clearly signposted as such with Bury council signs. This CAN be verified in the yearly Bury Metropolitan Council guide. I have lived in Ramsbottom District ALL my life and am staggered thar certain administrators are confusing the issue. Please Refer to the following official link also - Districts in the borough of Bury - Manchester uk - Papillion. Please let me reiterate the BURY council OFFICIAL guide says that Summerseat and Holcombe ARE in the Ramsbottom District not ward. I love my town and have studied its history i would like it reported properly.Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Thompson02 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Re your comment at WT:MHCOORD
Nev1, this speculation on Kirill's motives was completely unjustified and uncalled for. As one editor to another, it might be helpful to productive, collegial dialogue if you could dial back the sometimes confrontational tone of your posts a little. Thanks and all the best, EyeSerenetalk 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sandal Castle
Do you think either of these might be useful in the article? [1]--J3Mrs (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- They look promising. As they're 3D works of art, and I'm guessing they're in a public place such as a museum, they come under freedom of panorama. I can't think of a better way to include a reconstruction in an article, and have a similar photo of Kenilworth Castle buried somewhere. Where was it displayed though? Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you could use your ninja powers to protect this article for a few days, until the silly vandalism goes away? Parrot of Doom 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that took so long, but at least there was no more vandalism in the meantime. Is a week long enough? Nev1 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Caernarfon Castle
The article Caernarfon Castle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Caernarfon Castle for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nev1. Ramsbottom Controversy.
Dear Nev1. Thankyou for your previous help in updating the Ramsbottom Page. As we all know Ramsbottom is one of six towns in Bury Metropolitan Borough.However I found a source that touched upon Ramsbottoms geographical links with Rossendale.I thought it would be helpful and uploaded it onto Ramsbottoms page.It was taken from the "Bury Official Guide -Millennium edition".It was taken from the Ramsbottom Page of the Guide on page 30.It said that,"Ramsbottom is the most northernly of the six towns that make up the Metropolitan Borough.Lying at the opening of the Rossendale valley,it is four miles north of Bury Centre".I inserted"Lying at the opening of the Rossendale Valley"into Ramsbottom's Wikipedia section.However it was promptly removed by J3Mrs who stated "not what ref says".I must in the strongest terms challenge J3Mrs for I have the Official Guide in my hand.I was seething when this was removed for it was alleged that I was a liar. J3Mrs.Full apology please.Do not abuse your position. Nev1 you are an asset to Wikipedia you listen to people attentively thank you for your tireless work in making this a great encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Thompson02 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you ought to take a few deep breaths and calm down before you post anything else. This is what J3Mrs reverted, and as she quite rightly says the citation you provided says absolutely nothing about Ramsbottoms's location relative to the Rossendale Valley. Nobody alleged that you were a liar, simply that the citation you provided did not support what it appeared to be intended to support; that's a fact, not an accusation, and it's strange that you refuse to see the distinction.
- BTW, let me also say that I find your deferential fawning to be no less offensive than your bullying accusations and demands for apologies. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Tower of London
You reverted my edits to Tower of London citing an emphasis on recent information. While I believe your rationale is incorrect, I believe it was made in good faith. I'm looking for reliable citations to improve the article.
The house itself is of note: It's a wood-framed structure that pre-dates the Fire of London, it housed Anne Boyeln and Guy Fawkes before their executions. This may not be significant enough to warrant its own article, but I think it ought to be included. I'm having some difficulty finding information on the history of the Resident Governor. --Bhickey (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- It does slightly unbalance things as it's mentioned without reference to what happened before; why include information on the present and not the past? I'm not sure that even if done properly it would be worth including; it's not really important and the article is already well developed. Stuff such as the Jewel House is interesting, but that a building is used by the Resident Governor isn't. As the article previously mentions the Constable and his role in taking care of the castle, I think it's worth including the Resident Governor and have done so, but not what room he uses. In earlier phases of the Tower's history knowing what rooms where used for which purpose is informative as it impacted on their design and condition, however today preservation and maintenance of the monument is a paramount concern so things are just shoved where they are going to have least impact. As for Anne Boleyn and Guy Fawkes being held there, so what? Most of the mural towers were used as prisons at various times, and to make sure the article is balanced you'd have to mention which ones housed which famous prisoners. That would make a tedious and clunky addition. Please do not use this as a source; it is quite obviously not of high quality. In any case, here's an official source that explicitly says Anne Boleyn was imprisoned in the Lieutenant's Lodgings rather than the Queen's House. It wasn't built until after she had been executed. Nev1 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations on a brilliant TFA.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well looking at Caernarfon Castle again, I think if I can tidy up a bit of the information about the Glydwr uprising it might be close to FAC. Wales doesn't have any castle FAs so it would be nice to get the most famous one up to a high standard. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't get around to running completely through the Tower article (I only got as far as Expansion, I think). The last 3 weeks have been amazingly busy with work. Not a great deal needs doing to it though, its a pretty damn good article, and certainly exhaustive. Peveril Castle might be a nice little article for you to improve. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Tower of London: You say that the British Broadcasting Corporation is less reliable than Wikipedia? You can find a lot more corroborating elsewhere if you care to look. I consider this vandalism and obscuring fact with opinion. Thankfully for you I don't have the time to engage in partisan historic revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynercook (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- h2g2 may be hosted by the BBC, but it is no more reliable than Wikipedia; it's written by the general public. As I demonstrated on your talk page, I did look at other sources and they didn't mention animal bone amongst the remains. So before you throw about accusations of revisionism and vandalism check your facts in case you expose yourself as an idiot. Nev1 (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Eight balls overs
Sometimes I wonder if I even read what I'm writing! I must have read over that ten times and not noticed, thanks! Harrias talk 15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's always tougher to copy edit your own stuff; when I do it I'm sure I read what is meant to be there than what I actually wrote. Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nev. Evesham is close to being a GAC; If you have time, could you see Talk:Evesham, and just give the article a quick once over? It's not long. I'll be filling in most of the missing items. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to get round to it either later today or before tomorrow evening. Nev1 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Stroud demography
Hi Nev1,
Many moons ago, you wrote a demography section for the Malvern page, and I said it looked like a lot of work. How I underestimated! I've just written my first demography section for Stroud. It was lots of work, but I think it's finally there. Could you have a quick look at it? I'd welcome any comments. Thx. GyroMagician (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a decent effort, I know this kind of work can be tedious. The level of detail that goes into such sections is a matter of personal discretion; this much is way above what you'd find in most of Wikipedia's articles and is about what should be aimed for, but I think at something like FAC you'd need to include comparative figures for the district Stroud is in and the country, otherwise readers might not know whether 24.5% of people having no qualifications is high, low, or average. It gets easier to do demography sections if you do several; a standard way of approaching them takes a lot of the effort out of it, and getting used to the layout and figures the first time is the most difficult step. Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - my main problem was knowing how much detail to include (in case you didn't recognise it, I took your Malvern section as a starting point). I find it slightly addictive once I start looking at the number - there is so much information hidden in there. I'll try to add so comparisons to the figures. I can see what you mean about forming a template (in the general, not the WP sense). Maybe I'll try another one after all! GyroMagician (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you recognise?
Hi, do you recognise this style of writing from a particular user? [2]. Aiken (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I've only seen one person use that barely comprehensible style. Nev1 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocks
Hey I just blocked a school IP at virtually the same time you did - though you did months and i did hours. I'm quite happy to lift mine to leave yours. It's this character User:204.108.96.90 .Fainites barleyscribs 21:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I went for a month as the previous block was two weeks. 12 hours will probably be enough to get rid of the vandal currently using the school's IP but as there's a record of vandalism from it a month-long block would probably prevent some vandalism. It's your call, but I'd stick with the 1 month block. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nev1,
Thanks for your assistance with the article. I just discovered that Wolf747 reverted again. I wonder if Wolf747 could be identical with Mipesom. This back 'n' forth reverting is now going on for months. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- As explaining the situation didn't help I've fully protected the article for two days. In the meantime I'd recommend opening a sock puppet investigation on Mipesom as I'd bet Wolf747 is a sock. It's suspicious that Wolf's only two edits have been to get involved in this edit war but I'd like proof before blocking anyone. Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
unblocking
I can only see the edits but I don't see any consensus for your unblocking, was there any anywhere or was it just your personal opinion and decision? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock Giano. Although I would be interested to hear what you read into the comment. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Two bad blocks in a week then. Parrot of Doom 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- bit late, but I was not disturbed by the comment, and was surprised at the block but I think Giano could have said what I anyway understood from his comment better .. I thank you for you comment Off2 but I would like a reply from GWH about this. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Castle type category
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Types of castle
A tag has been placed on Category:Types of castle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Sorry, I hope you agree the change. I had already created the new category in line with Wiki conventions when I discovered there was a similar one. Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
References
- ^ UNESCO Constitution, UNESCO, retrieved 2009-08-17
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Proposed renaming of major British cities
Hi Nev. You may have missed this recent ongoing policy discussion and the sudden resulting discussions at Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge. I think it would be helpful if experienced editors, particularly those knowledgeable on policies regarding settlements, and/or geographical nomenclature, were to offer some comments.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- After several proposed moves cropped up on my watchlist all at once it was difficult to miss. The two main protagonists are Floydian and Purplebackpack. I've encountered the latter before. It seems that anyone who has disagreed with him in the past is a POV pusher and part of a CABAL (sic). One user has already been threatened by Purplebackpack for disagreeing with him. He seems pretty clueless (didn't even seem aware of what the warning he dished out said) and is harassing people on their talk pages rather than maintaining a centralised discussion. Given my past interactions with Purplebackpack, I think my participation would lead to accusations of a pro-British bias and POV pushing on my part which would detract from the main point of the discussion. There are plenty of other sensible users who've stepped in. Nev1 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cabal is clear. Purpleback has also uttered some misplaced comments about British editors and they have already let the cat out of the bag about planning this campaign off Wiki. I'll do my best and I hope that I'm one of the 'sensible users', particularly as I'm considering throwing my hat in the promotion ring soon, and don't want to blot my copybook! Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protection; probably saved me from getting a 3RR block, much to the disappointment of the peanut gallery. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well given the massive spike in views it seemed a bit silly to leave the article unprotected with pretty much just you to defend it. In a sane world no one would get blocked for just reverting vandalism, but on Wikipedia... Anyway, 3 days should be long enough for the fuss to die down. Nev1 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article, I just stumbled across it and expanded it a bit, but I think it's a poster child for what's wrong with wikipedia. If the first edit of an IP is vandalism then it should result in an immediate block. The number of active editors on wikipedia is slowly but surely shrinking, but very few seem to understand why that is. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Recently I've been lurking around WP:RPP occasionally (I reckon protecting is one of the easiest admin tasks); I don't know if it's representative but after looking through the histories of a few pages many seem derelict aside from the back and forth of vandalism, whether frequently or infrequently. In those cases it doesn't make much sense to keep them open on the off chance an IP might make a useful edit. When the vandalism is frequent enough an article can be protected, but when it's once or twice a month – a constant dripping of changes that will erode an article if unchecked – policy doesn't allow it ("semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred") because this is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". By no means are all IP edits bad – it was an IP who undid this piece of two-week old vandalism – but given a shrinking number of editors it makes sense to play it safe and remove the main source of vandalism. A lesser load would mean more time available to spend actually writing articles and less of a feeling of Cnut trying to hold back the sea. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Malvern
Hi Nev1. In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershire page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. --Kudpung (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
New page patrol
I've been trying to drum up some support for patrolling from the bottom of the backlog. These are the difficult ones that the less experienced editors pass on when patrolling from the recent end of the list. When left unpatrolled for 30 days, they become more or less patrolled by default. They all need serious attention, many of them are BLP, and some of them are still deletion candidates. At the moment they are dropping of the cliff at the rate of 200 - 300 per day. If you know of anyone who may be able to help out here, please let them know. --Kudpung (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Bangladesh national cricket team
Hi, I respect your opinion, you said "rm POV and emphasis on recent events; the lead should summarize the whole article and put things in proportion". That is what I was trying to do in the first place. The previous version was only concentrating on the events from at least four to five years old. Recently Bangladesh cricket team has shown significant improvement. I firmly believe that the readers have the rights to know that. Otherwise they have to wait five years to know what is going on now. I have also tried to add credible references as well. If you carefully see the references you will see there is a chart showing ODI performance of the test playing countries from the last two years. In the last two years Bangladesh's winning record is better than Pakistan, west Indies, New Zealand and very close to England. Two years can not be considered as recent. Please if you have any disagreement use the talk page reach me, it will help us to converse before removing a whole section from the article. thanks for your opinion. I will be waiting for your answer. regards, Bulletproof shak
Hi Nev. I thought it was a good idea to merge these two articles into one, I've asked the question on John Wright's talk page but its a pretty obscure article so I doubt it'll get many more responses than it already has. I've pretty much finished John Wright's article now, his brother is fully integrated into it, and therefore the old Christopher Wright article is now spurious. Whats the best way to sort this out? John Wright needs renaming to "John and Christopher Wright" or something, and Christopher Wright needs redirecting to that, I presume? Parrot of Doom 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you're merging the articles I think that's the sensible way to deal with things. There'd be no point in merging the article histories as they started off as two different entities. If you copied and pasted stuff you'll need note in the edit summary where the information came from and where to find the article history for Christopher Wright; if you added the stuff on Christopher on your own then I don't think that's necessary. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Did You Know: ... that the Wright Brothers flew to the West Midlands, where they were shot, stripped of their clothing and left to die?" Go on, you know you want to. – iridescent 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on getting the big day! I feel a bit guilty about not supporting, though you weren't short of support of course, but I was only watching the page because I had another horse in the race. It's a bit of a drawn-out palaver there, but I suppose they get the right result in the end. Johnbod (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)