User talk:Nev1/Archives/January–February 2011

Re: Edit to Stirling Castle article
I have looked and can't seem to find much else. The following page [] goes into a little more detail but doesn't have any references itself. The IMDB movie locations page for the Colditz series does however mention that the castle was used for the exterior locations which was the main point in my edit. D Dinneen. —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

New Manchester
Hi Nev, I left this message at User:TFOWR's talk page then I saw he wasn't editing so I thought I'd run it past you, hope that's ok

You deleted an article with this title in July 2010. I have no idea what state the article was in but I would like to recreate it in connection with some colliery articles I am writing. (It was a pit village) I had made a start in my sandbox when I realised it had been deleted, []. I can provide refs and expand what I have started. What do you think?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The content of the article was uncontroversial so I've restored it; it was deleted on request from the previous author (the only significant editor) but if you're going to expand it WP:CSD no longer applies. I'm not sure why wanted it deleted, but feel free to ditch the content as it stands now completely if you want, I just restored it to keep the history intact for the new article. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nev, much appreciated. That's what I call service, Happy New Year.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another FLC
Just to let you know that List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England has been nominated at FLC. Happy New Year. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, I'll take a look in the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Peveril Castle
Well Done. FA! I got so bored yesterday I went to see Harry Potter pt 1 and one of the characters surnames is Peverell - I know JKRowling prob. got it from place names but if if hadnt been for William Peverell.... anyway. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ever since I started using Peveril as an example of a relatively cheap castle (the keep at least) in other articles I've been meaning to get round to improving it. This wasn't really good enough. I'd completely forgotten there were the Peverell brothers in Harry Potter; it's an interesting link. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you were lucky that no one noticed the link and you'd missed out lots of other trivia :-) see here Victuallers (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cookie
Not sure if this is pre-emptive or too late to worry about, but I thought I'd raise the question of protecting Alastair Cook's page again. It's not awash with edits, and he surely won't last much longer but I thought I'd remind you let you decide. Tony2Times (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps a bit late, but there's no harm in protecting the article for a couple of days. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Colly
Both Dweller and I are aware that we're behind on updating the article, but now he's retiring from Test cricket, a concerted effort to (at least) update and close down that section of his article should be easy to do. Were you offering to help us, because that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need to wait a week or so until the nonsense calms, then we can hit it hard. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

İzmir
Hello Nev1. I saw you recently corrected an unjustified removal of images in İzmir page. It's that intervention of yours which prompts me to write to you to ask you if blocking that page to non-confirmed users would be a good idea. It's being edited by anonymous users since almost two months, often senselesssly like removing a link to Exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey and adding a nobody's name (Resul who?) as mayor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0zmir&action=history. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As the last 50 edits stretch back to the end of last September, there probably isn't enough activity to warrant semi-protection. Judging by the edit summaries in that period, only three seem to be straightforward reverts of vandalism or unhelpful changes. Another problem is identifying what edits are actually vandalism. For instance the net effect of the latest 3 edits is to have changed the name of the leader, the population, and some temperatures in the climate box. I can't see any of these points referenced in the article, so I can't tell whether it's vandalism, an improvement, or a good faith attempt to improve the article that isn't correct. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Hanley (rugby union)
–Grondemar 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Evesham
Hi. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you  have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 again
Looks like Key bus routes in Derbyshire needs protection as well. Can we think of any other wording variations? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the moment seems to have passed, but Rcsprinter has received enough warnings to realise that what they are doing is disruptive. Protection probably isn't the way to go. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just once it looked like he might have started making useful edits and given up on this, it's happened again. Still no sources except company pages. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard I of England
Sorry about this... it's William Longchamp on the main page which is spilling over to Dickie-boy. (tears hair out). I dropped a note on Wehwalt's page as I really don't want to have to file at the 3rr page... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * At worst it reopened an old wound. Last time the issue was raised, with throwing about accusations of French bias and hoping something would stick, there was a clear consensus to keep the section. Don't worry, it's more of an annoyance than anything else. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your actions are being discussed at AN/I
Here is a link: Link 72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism you perpetrated
Without any legal reason you have removed the images (of the particular saint), as well as link to Commons, from the article about Saint Josse (previously listed as Saint Judoc - the Oxford dictionary of Saints lists him namely as Judoc and not Josse). This is an act of vandalism to remove images from the article. Please restore the images to the article along with the link to the saint´s folder at Wikimedia Common´s (where he is sorted under his Breton name Saint Judoc). --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the image and commons link, although I don't see why you couldn't have done it yourself. They were removed when I was cleaning up the article after you filled it with a copyright violation from the Oxford Dictionary of the Saints, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't characterise my good faith attempt to clean up your mess as "vandalism". Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Links
Don't post links to someone calling me a cunt on my talk page. I can't believe I even have to write this, as very little common sense could have gone into seeing that your edit to my talk page was 100% inappropriate in every way.--Kleopatra (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I made a mistake there and I'm sorry. My intention was to point out to Sturmvogel what the situation was rather than prolong it. Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...
Just a quick note to say thanks for all your and Malleus' encouragement over the Windsor Castle article; I don't suspect that I'd have taken the step of putting it up for FA status without it, and the review process has definitely improved the article's quality. Very much appreciated - cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's great to see it's passed, I think it was well-deserved. Something as famous as Windsor was a tricky one for your first FA, but it went well. Hopefully you didn't find it too difficult, and after dealing with a subject like Windsor other articles won't seem quite so complex. Nev1 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A smoother process than I'd expected actually. Have just finished off (finally...) doing some work on King John, so will try and get the list of castles in Gloucestershire article I started over Christmas finished off properly next! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ravenous
Hi Nev. I think that was a good call about the raven pic at the Tower of London - it's a perfectly nice photo of the birdies but, as you say, has nothing in it to place it in context at the Tower, so it doesn't really need to be there. I must respectfully disagree slightly with the next thing you say - they are perhaps a little minor (a little minor - did I really write that?) compared to the actual stone and, er, stone of the building, but I do think they make an interesting and colourful (or indeed black) part of the story. If a suitable photo could be found or created that was not only a decent picture of the said corvids, but placed it nicely in context at the Tower, would that not be a good addition to the article? I am not saying I know of such an image, merely that if it existed then I think I'd be part of a consensus to welcome it if it were found or made. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This photo provides the ravens with a backdrop that shows they're at the Tower, but whether such an image should be included in the article is an interesting issue. Historian R. Allen Brown says of the birds that "Nor does the presence of those morbid ravens contribute to our understanding of the Tower of London"; I wouldn't quite go that far, they're an interesting part of how the gruesome side of the Tower's history was emphasised in the 19th century, but he has a point. In a serious article about the Tower, you need to mention the ravens and the context in which they have gained notoriety, but include an image? I don't really see the point. The article is already well-laden with illustrations, and one extra caused bunching on my screen. The caption didn't really add much; for it to be worthwhile, you'd have to explain the raven's role in the Tower's history, and that's something done better in the main body of the article, otherwise you're bludgeoning the reader with the point. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and thanks. I certainly would join with you in not wishing to use the photo you've found - looks like a film prop! - but I'm still not sure about the whole principle. As I have no photo to promote, though, I think I will shut up about it for the foreseeable future. If I felt I could perfectly answer your points above with just the right photo used in just the right way then I'd give it a go, but that's not the case at the moment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS very good pic swap here by the way! The new is so much better than the old. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Parrot of Doom
Thanks for your fine work there. Is it ok if I copy the conversation over to article talk as I think it offers an excellent solution to the problem? --John (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, fine by me. Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Inflation
I saw this (Template:Inflation) and thought of you - as you've used historic costs in some of your articles. Had you seen it before? Would it be useful? Daicaregos (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've used it before, although I think the further from the present you're trying to convert from the less accurate it is. I've found it useful, and so have others, but you have to be careful how it's used. For pounds, the template uses figures from http://measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/; the site gives you three choices – retail price index, average nominal earnings, and average real earnings – which aren't options in the template. Choosing different ones can give very different answers. It can also cause problems at FAC (example). No one's cropped up on articles I've written and complained about the template's use (in fact your message prompted me to notice this dubious claim that £200 in about 1175 equates to about £2 million today), but Malleus and have first-hand experience of that. It is tricky and at the moment I'm a bit ambivalent about using the template for medieval figures for reasons explained here. That said, I think that used judiciously they provide some guidance to the reader. For example, I have no idea how much £100 was in 1650, but the template can give a rough idea. It's not meant to be exact of course, and it helps to add a footnote explaining where the figure is from. Nev1 (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a full response. I see the same editor who argued against the template at Gunpowder Plot has since commented at the the template's Talkpage. I also note (now) that the documentation advises not to use this template for things other than consumer goods, thereby rendering it pretty useless. Who would want to know the cost of clothing etc at current prices (how much did a shepherd's crook cost in 1782? Outrageous!)? I can't see a pre-WWI inflation index being useful for anything other than for capital amounts. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Daicaregos (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire
Although i am aware of Greater Manchester,i know it is not a County.i know that as i am from and live in Bolton that it is in Lancashire,and i am not being told where i live by someone who is probably not even from here.i have made quite a few edits to Bolton and everytime i do they get taken off.please stop it it is not correct and not helpful.people need to know that towns such as Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire so please stop this unuseful editing.as the local government act said the old Boundaries would not be altered and they havent.they are still in Lancashire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.193.141 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire
i will continue making my edits and if they carry on being taken off i wil get blocked,i dont care.but just listen,all useful and correct sites not written by idiots know that Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire,this just goes to show what a useless,stupid unuseful site Wikipedia is.Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire.always have been always will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.193.141 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

it is clear you dont know what your talking about when it comes to counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.193.141 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

why do you keep saying the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.193.141 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Signpost
Hi Nev. By my own admission, I've not looked at Shakib al-Hasans page since August, but you've done a good job sorting that out. Sachin being Sachin will constantly get fan edits, so good luck keeping that one in order!!!! On a note of tidy ups (something I'm not great at!!!!), Shane Warnes article is looking rather sad. Wonder if a FA drive could be put together? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Manchester article, revision 410022699
Hi, if you are going to 'clarify' things, then please ensure that you do actually clarify things.

I fail to see how the Beetham Tower, built in 2007, which is shorter than the Malmö Turning Torso, completed in 2005, could ever have been the tallest residential building in Europe. You do realise Sweden is in Europe?

109.225.92.73 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrase the BBC article uses is "highest residential development in Europe". Maybe this means Malmö Torso is closer to sea level despite being taller, or maybe the actual bit used as a residence goes higher in the Beetham Tower and the top floors of Malmö Torso are used for something else. Until an alternative source is provided, the article will stick to what the BBC says, although I suppose it wouldn't be terrible if it was removed from the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair the BBC article is getting on a bit now. Perhaps it might be better to say "as of xx-xx-2006"? Parrot of Doom 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why the article says "at the time", meaning 2006. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, that'll teach me to comment on things I haven't read! Parrot of Doom 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Paine
Thanks that's awesome dude.  Aaroncrick  TALK 06:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stokeleigh Camp & List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset
Hi, I've recently been working on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset and have been looking (enviously) at Danebury and Maiden Castle, Dorset for inspiration! Any help, advice edits or sources you could offer would be great. In particular today I've done an initial article for Stokeleigh Camp (the Bain and Haldane reference are the most comprehensive) and I wondered if you could take a look?&mdash; Rod talk 17:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd been watching the list of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset grow with interest; I don't think Wikipedia has anything comparable and it is certainly a fine effort. Including free use plans as you have is an excellent idea, and will be extremely useful to anyone who comes across this list. What are your plans for the list? If this went to FLC, I'm not sure what the verdict would be on http://www.fortifiedengland.com as a reliable source. I've not come across it before and don't know how good the information is, but it doesn't seem to include every hillfort as a search for Eddisbury turned up nothing. The site reminds me a bit of http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/home.html which I use almost whenever I do something with castles, so it could be very useful and I'll leave it to your judgement on how to use it. If I remember, I think provides a list of hill forts by county. Inevitably it's a little out of date, for example Mellor was discovered in the 1990s, but should be a valuable source if you can find it in the library.


 * When writing about individual hillforts, it sometimes helps to include an explanation of what a hillfort is. It may be overkill as arguably someone looking at an article on Danebury for example may already have some idea of what one is, but given the poor state of the main article on hill fort and the level of traffic to that page (about 7,000 a month ) an option I go for is to offer some explanation in the article so the reader doesn't have to leave. So when you look at the articles in Category:Hill forts in Cheshire you'll find an identical background section used in each article. This was derived from the Maiden Castle, Dorset article. If you want background, Barry Cunliffe is a good place to start. Regarding Stokeleigh Camp it looks to be a decent article from what you're working with. I understand that the amount of information available on individual hillforts varies greatly, but is there any speculation on Stokeleigh's relation to the landscape, how it interacted with other hillforts in the area and settlements? Where the term vallum is used, perhaps a parenthesis could be added explaining briefly what it is (ie: a ditch and rampart with a palisade, but that may be just as jargony).


 * has also been writing some articles on this subject, particularly Hillforts in Britain, and I think would be well-worth talking to. I've noticed edits list of hill forts in England sometimes and wrote the article on Helsby hill fort, so may be worth talking to also. I don't know enough nearly as much about hillforts as I'd like, but at some point I'll like to get the main article in shape. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the very helpful comments - many of which I will act on. I think Fortified England is fairly new & I seem to have added myself to their newsletter, but I became unsure about its quality when trying to improve Duncorn Hill, which the Fortified England page says is Bronze/Iron age even though a survey in 1966 says its a natural geological feature (Pastscape page). According to what I've read Stokeleigh Camp along with 2 partners camps ( wp doesn't have articles on (yet)) was an important defensive position above the Avon Gorge. I've tried to put this into the situation section - but perhaps I need to strengthen that. I will steal/borrow your background paragraph & add it to Somerset hillforts & would be interested in a collaboration to improve the hill fort at some stage.&mdash; Rod talk 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote in WP:CRIC
There has been a issue in WT:CRIC that needs your vote. Thanks -- ashwinikalantri talk 06:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bolton etc
Hi Nev, While I am trying to AGF, the edits to Wallsuches, Horwich and Metropolitan Borough of Bolton are almost the same as by last night's IP and who is remarkably similar to one you blocked a couple of weeks ago. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well both you and Mr Stephen have asked the IP to stop, and given the similarities between 90.203.155.219's edits and those of 86.8.126.14 (changing the Bury article to emphasise it's no longer in Lancashire while insisting Bolton still is) I'm sure they know what they're doing. In which case, if they persist, I'll block them myself. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I see the IP persisted. I managed to distract myself with coal pits.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire
what county are Bolton and Bury in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.155.219 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cholmondeley
Will you please look over my recent edits to George Cholmondeley, 5th Marquess of Cholmondeley? I am a bit uncertain about infobox image caption which identifies the marquess as Earl Rocksavage. I wasn't sure what to do; and those to whom I used to turn have retired from our project. I suppose we could say that my questions are arguably addressed to you because Cholmondeley Castle is in Malpas? Can we construe this as part of WikiProject Cheshire?--Tenmei (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive my intrusion. I don't know much abut the gentry but I do know that the title Rocksavage comes from the now-ruined house of Rocksavage in Runcorn, northwest Cheshire.  This title was given, I think, to the Savage family, and it passed by marriages through the Barry family to the Cholmondeley family, one branch of which now lives in Cholmondeley Castle in south Cheshire, and the other in Houghton Hall, Norfolk.  The title Earl of Rocksavage seems to still be extant, according to this (which you probably know). The branch of the family who are now the marquesses have currently very little connection with Cheshire. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, yes. Earl of Rocksavage is the title used by the eldest son of the Marquis of Cholmondeley. The image available for the 5th marquis is from a time before he had inherited the title.  In other words, his father died in 1923 and the photo is from 1913.  In the infobox, should the caption have been earl or marquis.  Since the article is about the marquis, my guess is that the infobox should mirror the article title.  But I was unsure.  The correct usage of British titles can be a bit tricky.  For example, the painting in the upper right corner of the article about the wife of the marquis is somewhat well known.  It identifies the Marchioness of Cholmondeley by the name she was known when John Singer Sargent painted her portrait -- see File:Sibyl Sasson, Countess of Rocksavage.jpg.  You see my point? According to my research, the 7th Marquis inherited both Houghton Hall and Cholmondeley Castle -- hence the connection to Cheshire ... but I am also reaching out to Nev1 for other reasons. This was a convenient opportunity to work together on a very small question.  It was also an opportunity to re-establish a very tenuous connection. --Tenmei (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123
I think I've worked out where the problem is... look at his userpage, particularly the age box. AD 13:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's not surprising; do you think this should be mentioned at ANI? The thread isn't attracting any attention from uninvolved parties and I'd rather not see this issue deferred. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be worth it. AD 14:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Favour
The cluebot archive of Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered seems to be all messed up. I copied the contents of all archive pages back to talk, would you be able to delete all those archive pages so that cluebot can begin again? Parrot of Doom 21:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So you want all three archives deleted? Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, as if the page had never been archived before. That'll sort things out, I think. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And done. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the index page (click index in the cluebot archive box) needs deleting as well, does it not?  Parrot of Doom 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It probably does, but I don't think I've got a bot to index properly for me. In any case, it's now gone too. Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, that'll probably sort it. It'll take a few weeks though for untouched conversations to disappear. Parrot of Doom 21:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered there is a problem that needs sorting out. The first archive was created by moving, so either we need to merge the histories or we need to restore the archive. I am not sure about archive 2. But I think we need to discuss this on the talk page of the article so that we can agree on what to do. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see from this ANI archive that you initiated a review of User:Malleus Fatuorum last block. As you have recently been involved with FM at an ANI and with the HDQ talk page, please could you have a look at his comments on that talk page and if you think (s)he has overstepped the mark comment on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. -- PBS (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for intruding onto your talk page, Nev1. I took a look and while there is some emphatic language which is regrettable, I think the best way forward is to join the discussion at WP:RSN, to abide by the consensus there when one becomes apparent, and to avoid further personalizing the dispute. --John (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with John's above post and will chip in at RSN. Nev1 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking
Hello Nev,

im writing you this message to ask you if you could unblock my IP address. I found out that my brother was unconstructivly editing under the user name ShaunMcD and as i believe you have blocked his account and quite rightly so, you have also blocked my IP address so i can not edit within my household, i have to travel away to edit, so please could you unblock the IP or the user and i ensure that the account ShaunMcD will never be opened again and that my brother never touches Wikipedia again, if you could unblock i would be greatfull, thank you very much, Liam  Taylor  15:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this tool your account isn't autoblocked. As such, the instructions at Autoblock don't really seem helpful. I have changed the block settings for ShaunMcD so autoblock is disabled, however I don't think this will unblock the IP, just prevent more IPs from becoming involved. I'll ask at WP:AN for how best to proceed. Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving Wife selling
Why is moving Wife selling controversial? The issue was discussed on the talk page and it was agreed that if another article on wife selling in China were created, the older article should be moved to something more specific. This is just basic Wikipedia article naming policy. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert the Monk
Hi Nev, I think the best place to look would be Carol Sweetenham's introduction to her edition of Robert's chronicle. I don't have it with me and I can't see much of it on Google Books, but she summarizes all the possibilities, and I believe she concludes that he was writing around 1106-1107. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)