User talk:Faeriesoph

Wikiproject Netley Invitation
Hello, as you inproved the Netley Abbey article. I thought that you might like to join my Wikiproject, so I invite you to my WikiProject about Netley and surrounding areas aiming for these goals:
 * Improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Netley, Hamble-le-Rice, Bursledon and Hound.
 * Create guidelines for articles about Netley, Hamble-le-Rice, Bursledon and Hound.
 * Articles to get to C or B class.
 * Create more articles related Netley, Hamble-le-Rice, Bursledon and Hound.

Go to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Council" and under "Directories" click on "Proposals" and then you should the Wikiproject called "Netley". Links are not working for me for some reason. I might be doing something wrong.

It would be nice if you join. Thank you, JoshCooler (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Catholicism rankings on England articles
You may be right. However, in almost all cases the articles were clearly (1) either Start or Stub status or (2) already rated independently by someone else. In the latter case, I followed the existing rating from whichever other project was involved (generally Architecture, once in a while someone else, even when I thought they were being too generous, for the sake of consistency). In the former case, any article marked as a stub, and some of these clearly could be nothing but stubs, is often fairly obvious, and it generally doesn't take too much information to prove it one way or another. Start articles tend to be a bit more complete, and generally have sources. The differences are generally kind of obvious, particularly after several thousand assessments, which I have unfortunately actually done. I think Plange used to go even faster with the Biography assessments, and I doubt she ever did as many. Also, I regret to say that the banners themselves contain no parameters for adding comments, at least, the Catholicism one doesn't. The Anglicanism project doesn't even have assessment parameters in the banner. I could say that I have also had a copy of the existing templates available to cut and paste, which I have, so that only the class has to actually be typed. And, I have been able to concentrate rather easily most of my life. However, if you have any concerns, I will be more than happy to provide justifications for any article's assessment at your request. There are times when the difference between a high stub and a low start are harder to determine, and I acknowledge that I may have been occasionally a bit hasty there. However, should you wish any further comments, please feel free to let me know which articles in particular. Thank you. Badbilltucker 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey
Sophia. Thanks for your message and for adding the references and bibliography to Vale Royal Abbey. I wonder if and when you have the time you could do some more work on the article, based on these references. Wikipedia prefers (and for Good Articles and Featured Articles insists on) inline citations. Would it be possible for you to link the text of the article with the references, giving page numbers, etc? A model you might like to follow is Halton Castle which has recently been assessed as a Good Article. Further advice on this is given at Citing sources. Good luck and I look forward to the future of the article. I do not have a photo but will ask the other members of WikiProject Cheshire if they can help. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
--Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC) thanks for cleaning it up. :)

Unspecified source for Image:Netleyabbotshouse.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Netleyabbotshouse.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 02:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs on Cleeve Abbey
Hi, Thanks for adding further refs to Cleeve Abbey. Would it be possible for you to use Cite web, cite book etc templates as described at Citing sources & listed at Citation templates? Also you obviously have an interest in medieval monasteries/abbeys etc I wondered if you would be kind enough to look at those listed at Category:Monasteries in Somerset & particularly Ards Peninsula abbeys which I've just come accross & I'm trying to tidy up (I also think it is wrongly titled).&mdash; Rod talk 18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For the refs I think the key thing is ISBN numbers but the citation templates recommended above seem to be "required" for GA & FA articles. I've started looking at Glastonbury Abbey but don't know when I will get more time.&mdash; Rod talk 21:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments re Netley Abbey
Are you wedded to the idea of putting the inline citations before the punctuation? Although it's allowed, it's also unusual, and likely to be a bone of contention at GA/FA. I notice as well that the ribbon of images down the right-hand side (nothing wrong with that per se) is causing a problem with the positioning of the edit buttons.

More later. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages "ae", as in "mediaeval" in favour of "medieval". I know, I know, but don't shoot the messenger. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from my talk page). Good to hear from you again. Thanks for the citations you've added to Vale Royal Abbey (maybe too many (!); you don't need one for every sentence - if the same reference does for successive sentences, I suggest you just use the last one, if you see what I mean).  I've only had time for a glance at Netley Abbey and it looks very promising.  At the moment I am between a holiday away and a week of grandparent duties, so I will have a more detailed look after that.  First impressions are as follows.  You need a longer lead, probably three paras for an article of this length.  The lead should be a summary of the whole article; enough for someone who comes across it to get a good idea of the contents, and then to read more if they want.  For the references I suggest you use  rather than ; it seems to be the preferred option and looks better.  Also if you are using a book for a number of references, it is a good idea to put the book into a "Bibliography" section and in the notes section just put the page numbers (see Norton Priory for the way it works).  I see that you have also asked Malleus Fatuorum; he is a good source for advice (I use him a lot).  Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I had noted that Netley Abbey is a GAC and had been following its progress at a distance.  It has come on well and with a few tweaks will, in my opinion, be better than a GA.  I agree with what you say about assessors not reading an article fully (or maybe with insufficient comprehension or concentration).  I too have had to show assessors that the omissions they found were actually there all the time!


 * I have not been through the current version with a fine toothcomb but would just like to make a few comments. Someone once said that an article cannot be over-referenced.  I do not agree entirely but there is some truth in it (despite my comments in my previous message).  Tactically, it looks better if there is a citation at the end of each paragraph.  In this case it would just mean moving a citation from, say, the middle of a sentence to its end - the citation will then apply to all that precedes it after the previous citation; for example the first and second paragraphs in the section Netley in literature and art.  I do think a citation is needed at the end of this section (about St Andrew's, Singapore).


 * I suggest you don't assume (much) previous knowledge; aim maybe for the level of an intelligent 12-year-old, ie. a bright person without much life experience. In your response to the assessor you suggest some things which you expect to be within everyone's knowledge; but they may not be - some of them were not known by me, for example.  It's worth putting a citation to such facts, maybe just a general rather than a specialised publication, so that the interested person who really wants to know more, will know where to go.


 * As you say, you learn a lot by submitting yourself to criticism of this kind (and also learn that assessors have much to learn) and it can lead to writing future articles better. I agree with your remark about the tone of the comments.  When I had a go at getting an article to FA (and failed) I was upset more than anything by the aggressive nature of some of the comments; points of criticism can always be made in a friendly manner.  I think this says more about the assessor than the editor, but it can hurt at the time.  If your skin is thick enough, and you can cope with such things, I personally believe that Netley Abbey would be a suitable candidate for FA, provided that the "rules" can be learnt and followed.  On the other hand you might not want to bother with the potential aggro which might happen.  Good luck and best wishes, Peter Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you've done it, despite my comments above. Congratulations.  FAC next? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer Vale Royal Abbey next, but that's just my selfish wish as a member of the Cheshire WikiProject. Unfortunately I don't have much info except the rather limited entry in the Cheshire Pevsner.  I watch with interest..... Peter Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey
Hi Soph, I promised a reply on the Netley Abbey GA review so here is my reply. Sorry for the delay in providing it. Netley Abbey was my first GA review and I did another GA review (Blackdown Hills) the following day, i.e. Sunday and Monday - I get three-day weekends. Each of them took quite a few hours to read, but with hindsight it would have been better to have used printed copies rather than using computer copies, two copies of the same article in different window tabs; so a GA review is far from being a trivial task.

I considered the Netley Abbey article (and the other one) to be basically GA material, but it needed some very minor changes/improvements, and you seemed to know what you were doing, so I did not consider it necessary to list every "fault". Providing long lists of relatively minor "faults", I think, is rather a negative approach; and I did some minor changes myself to avoid having to list them. A GA review is a lower level of assessment than a FA review, but it does require a consideration of WP:VERIFY.

In some respects the GA review does come across as "negative", especially if the article is put on-hold, but that is just the process. The "bad points" get listed and what is not listed is taken to be at GA level. I used this version of the article, but it has been improved by other editors since. Just to give a few illustrations, of why I made statements about under-referencing: If we consider the Cloister and east range section, in the version I've indicated above. The first para was unreferenced, the third para has only one verifiable sentence, e.g. the guard room; and one verifiable part-sentence, e.g. views about common life changed in the C14; the second part of that sentence, e.g. about dividing the room up, is not covered by ref 10 so it is unreferenced. The second para in contrast was well referenced, but I did not like the first sentence due to lack of definitive dates. Looking at Reredorter and infirmary, this is well referenced and I suspect that you have used ref 8 for most of the citations (plus 1, in the case of Southampton). But, the second para was unreferenced; and the statement in the first para about the excavations is unreferenced, possibly you used ref 8 for this and adding ref 8 at the end would have provided verifiability.

Different GA reviewers tend to focus on different priorities, you can see examples of that on talk:Blackdown Hills. I've recently completed two MSc dissertations (2005 & 2007), so my thing is citations, whereas Malleus Fatuorum likes the grammar and the grammatical construction of the sentences to be correct - not my strong points.

Elsewhere it has been stated that each sentence does not require a citation; that may be true if a number of consecutive are expansions of the same statement, but what if the sources may be different? The following example contradicts the statement, that each sentence does not need a reference, e.g. "The south range was heavily altered during the Tudor rebuilding of the abbey and only the north wall remains, making the tracing of the medieval arrangements difficult.[12][4] Going east to west, first came the day stair, then the warming house where the communal fire burned constantly to allow the monks to warm themselves after long hours of study in the unheated cloister. The room was probably vaulted and had its great fireplace on the west wall to allow heat to go to the refectory or dining hall next door as well. It is likely that,[12] as at Netley's great sister house of Fountains Abbey,[13] the chamber above the warming house was the muniment room, where the abbey's charters, records and title deeds, as well as those of local lords, were kept. This would have been the driest place in the abbey and such a plan was common."

My view is that if each sentence is making a separate claim, then that claim need to be verifiable.

I hope this is of use. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may correct you Pyrotec, I like the article to comply with all of the GA criteria, one of which is "well-written". I also think you may be a little unclear on the verifiable criteria, which simply demands citations for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", not for every claim made. The general assumption is that within a paragraph a citation supports all of the information preceding it. FA's criteria do in effect now almost mandate a citation per sentence, but GA is (thankfully) not FA. If you believe that I disregard the need for citations, then just take a quick look through the GA Sweeps Running Totals to see how many articles I've delisted because of inadequate referencing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm was not intending to say that you disregard citations, but I can accept that that inference could be taken. I was making a contrast, your ability to do what I call above grammar and the grammatical construction of the sentences greatly exceeds my ability; and you have done far more GAR's than I have - this was my first. 18:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please forgive my intrusion, but both of the above contain good advice. Regarding citations, in my opinion it is worthwhile referencing EVERY statement (not necessarily every sentence) at the outset.  If this is not done, and another editor comes along later and wants to improve the article, s/he has to either find citations for these statements, or (probably more likely) will have to more or less rewrite the whole thing - which seems a waste of time and effort. Cite from the start - then you can't go wrong (IMO). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good policy which I try to follow in my own writing. I do allow some leeway in a GA review though, as per the criteria. The problem of course is that increasingly reviewers want to see everything cited, not just "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" no matter what the criteria say, so the only safe option, as you suggest, is to cite everything. Otherwise you wind up potentially having to argue the toss with a reviewer, rarely a productive exercise. Paradoxically though, I have seen FACs opposed because they were considered to be overcited. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My view is that it's necessary to cite things that are useful, important, disputable, published work, stats, quotes, or something that that a reader is likely to wish to follow up, which matches the policy that Malleus has cited above. I do not believe that every statement needs to be cited because that is not the common practice in peer-reviewed journals or academic books in the Arts, which the article on Netley comes under (though there is, of course, debate about the classification of archaeology, which I'm not going to get into at the moment).


 * For example, in the Netley Abbey article I don't cite for the statement that the large, aisled, cruciform building at the north of the abbey complex is a church: I merely cite for the special detail of the building. One could cite why this is a church with original documents, hundreds of parallel examples and historical, architectural and archaeological studies of mediaeval monasteries and 13th century gothic churches, but that is not, to my mind, useful to the reader, whether academic or general - they want to have cites for the valuable detail, for instance that there was no triforium, which suggests very interesting things for a building of otherwise luxury quality built under royal patronage in the period, from which a student could draw their own inferences, and from which a general reader could imagine what the church looked like inside.


 * If FA does now demand a cite for every statement (which is not my reading of the criteria, nor those of the GA either, for that matter) I don't think I will bother taking anything I've worked on up to FA (Netley Abbey I had planned to at some point) Footnotes and cites should be useful to the reader and a mass of them does not equal academic rigour.


 * I must say that in the Netley Abbey article (as both Peter and Pyrotec have mentioned) I've been inconsistent in where I've placed the cites. I tried to do it following the flow of thought in the text, but this is not good enough and I'm going to go through and move some and also add others, especially for the use of the general reader. As I said in my response to the original GA review, and as Peter noted, this is my field and many things that seem obvious to me are actually not. If Peter, who has been among the lead editors on former monasteries like Norton Priory (Augustinian canons, now ruined house) and Chester Cathedral (ex-Benedictine abbey, now Cathedral) and has written about lots of mediaeval parish churches in his special area of Cheshire was learning new things while reading about Netley then more cites and explanation may be needed to give context for the reader.


 * This whole discussion has been incredibly useful to me because I want to get it right in my future work on wiki. Soph (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey at FAC
Don't be discouraged by the initial reactions in Netley Abbey's FAC. The number and layout of images was always going to be a problem for FAC reviewers, who tend to have a very fixed idea about what's "right", and often make mountains out of molehills. The skill in negotiating FAC is in yielding where you can without damaging the article, and resisting where you feel the comments are misguided. The most important thing is a good article, not a bronze star.

Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi I just read your page on this article as I was browsing through FAC. I do not have time right now to give you a thorough review but I did have one comment that really struck me as I was reading the article. I think there is too much information on the structural details and that the section is too prominently placed in the article. It is really boring compared to the rest of the information offered. My suggestion would be to put all other information in the article first and leave structural details to the end or, if you prefer the present structure, to do a better job of summarizing the structural details - three paragraphs should be more than enough information. Please feel free to ignore my comments here. I just wanted to offer you my honest impression and I did not want to say anything at FAC that might hinder its chances of making FA.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats on going for FA. So far the prospects look promising.  The article certainly looks good and I hope it makes it. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the FAC is on the cusp right now, and just needs a little bit of a push with the prose. You've pretty much addressed all the content and layout concerns, so all that remains is to address one weak oppose based largely on the prose quality. Addressing that objection would be enough to get Netley Abbey FA status IMO. I'll try and help. Come on, you can do it! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC
Hi -- I saw your note at Malleus' talk page, and thought I'd just drop a note here; I hope you don't mind the uninvited comment. I'm sorry to hear you're finding FAC unrewarding. I haven't commented at the FAC yet but will try to, but what I really wanted to say is that navigating an article through FAC is something that definitely gets easier with practice. If you do feel like having another go after this, I'd be glad to do a review from an FA-reviewer point of view prior to the nomination, if you think that would help. Mike Christie (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Let me be the first to congratulate you on Netley Abbey's promotion to FA. The process can sometimes be a little harrowing, but hopefully you now feel that all the effort's been worthwhile. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And let me be the second! Fantastic work! Well done! Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GA and FA
Thanks for your note on my page. Yes, I'd be glad to review your articles when you get ready to go to GA and FA. I have done some work on medieval articles myself, though my own interest is in the period before the Vikings, and I know little about architecture. Still, I do have experience at navigating FA, so perhaps I can be helpful there. I'm not always quick to respond though -- sometimes work and/or real life obtrudes.

As for Vale Royal Abbey, well, if there are limited sources the article may be short, but it is possible to take limited sources and build an article out of what little is known. I think the most challenging article I ever wrote in that regard was Ælle of Sussex -- Ælle is mentioned so little in the historical record that he may not even have existed. Anyway, I will be glad to help where I can. Congratulations on your FA; the first of many, I hope. Mike Christie (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton
It's saved; thanks for your support! Incidentally, did you know that there should be a new book about Norton Priory available soon (delayed by the printers going bust)? I presume you have seen Patrick Greene's book. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The new book on Norton Priory is out - Norton Priory: Monastery to Museum. Excavations 1970–87 by Fraser Brown and Christine Howard-Davis, published by Oxford Archaeology North, ISBN 978-0-904220-52-0. It's pricey at £45 but very detailed. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Norton Priory
Hi, not been in touch for a while. One of the things I've been involved with is this article, and I've added quite a bit of stuff from the latest book. So I think I'll have a go at FAC with it. If you have the time and the inclination, would you like to have a look at the current version to see whether I've made any major blunders (I'm not asking for a full review). Best wishes.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I really do appreciate the trouble you've taken over this. Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to leave this fallow over the weekend, and then will look at it seriously.  For tomorrow it's the dentist for me in the morning, with my wife to a medical specialist in the afternoon, with friends in the evening to a bawdy play in Liverpool (well it is the Canterbury Tales by a splendid company called the Northern Broadsides); Saturday, the experience of a life time for me - singing Verdi's Requiem in a choir of 300+ in Liverpool's Philharmonic Hall; Sunday to a Golden Wedding celebration for a couple who are amongst our best friends! So, next week I will take a serious look.  Incidentally, I've asked Malleus Fatuorum to look over the article (from the FA tactics point of view) (have you come across him? - he can be bawdy too!).  He's somewhat irascible (but a softy at heart) and I know he will give some good advice.  Best wishes, Peter.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, seriously impressed that you're singing in the Philharmonic Hall; I have an image of Inspector Morse in my mind. My bark is far worse than my bite, but I'll own up to being irascible. I think I must take take after my mother, whose favourite saying is "life's too short to bugger about". Environment or genetics? Who can say. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tickets for good seats are still available - a snip at £16. Come and be even more impressed!  It starts at 7.30 and I shall be available for signing programmes.  Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address the points made by yourself, Mal and Nev1, and added some more images. Is it now to your satisfaction, or do you have any more suggestions/advice etc.?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Just to let you know that I have nominated Norton Priory as a FAC here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Norton Priory has been accepted as a FA. Thanks for your support - another monastery at this standard!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory TFA
Just to let you know that Norton Priory will be Today's Featured Article on the main page on Sunday.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey
Hi Sophie,

I've attempted to make some changes to the Vale Royal Abbey page. I'm confident about the content but please feel free to make any changes of style you think necessary. I've cited the 'Edith Pretty' book and edited in some links to other Wiki pages that seemed to be relevant.

Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethBAllen (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 19:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 

Netley Abbey is a ruined medieval monastery in the village of Netley near Southampton in Hampshire, England. The abbey was founded in 1239 as a house for monks of the austere Cistercian order. Despite being a royal abbey, Netley was never rich, produced no influential scholars or churchmen, and its nearly 300-year history was quiet. The monks were best known to their neighbours for the generous hospitality they offered to travellers on land and sea. In 1536, Netley was closed by Henry VIII of England during the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the building was converted into a mansion by William Paulet, a wealthy Tudor politician. The abbey was used as a country house until the beginning of the eighteenth century, after which it was abandoned and partially demolished for building materials. Subsequently the ruins became a tourist attraction, and provided inspiration to poets and artists of the romantic movement. In the early twentieth century the site was given to the nation, and it is now a Scheduled Ancient Monument, cared for by English Heritage. The extensive remains consist of the church, cloister buildings, abbot's house, and fragments of the post-Dissolution mansion. Netley Abbey is one of the best preserved medieval Cistercian monasteries in southern England. (more...)


 * Here's fame! But watch out for vandals. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Netley Abbey
Hey Soph! Well, i'm coming from an archaeological perspective here (and it may differ amongst historians), and I focus mostly on Late Prehistoric and Early Mediaeval Britain, rather than the latter period so I admit my terminology regarding that latter period might be a little out. However, amongst archaeologists in contemporary Britain, "Early Medi(a)eval" refers to pretty much pre-1066, with anything beyond that being "Late Medieval". That's my reasoning behind it, and I hope that's an accurate reflection. Nice work on getting the article up to FA btw! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC))
 * re vandalism, it seems you've had a bad day, and it's a bit late now. May I suggest that vandals should ALWAYS get a message on their talk page on every occasion.  The only way to block them is for them to have enough (escalating) warnings.  From my brief glance at the history page "they" seem to have "got away with it" without any comments or warnings.  I try to make a rule for myself (if I'm not too busy, etc) to place a message on the vandal's talk page if an article I am watching is damaged.  It may not do much on a single occasion, but if it mounts up I (or someone else) can ask for help from an admin, or report to the vandal watching people.  Sleep well! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Netley Abbey and misericords
Dear Faerie. Thank you indeed. I suspected as much and was really trying to provoke an addition to the Misericord article. It seems my fiendish plan has worked (so far anyway)! Thanks again. Kindest regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Titchfieldsouthrange.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Titchfieldsouthrange.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I've added to it and I think it's potentially featured material. I hope you see this and it'll be a co-nom. I have a nasty feeling you won't and it won't though :(  I hope you are well in real life.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2021
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I've moved some (or all) of your files uploaded here to Wikimedia Commons. What files are those exactly? See here. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)