User talk:Nev1/Archives/July–August 2009

Runcorn FL(s)
Thanks for your reply to Doncram. The titles are a problem; the trouble is that they have evolved over time. It started with listed buildings in Runcorn, then in Daresbury, in Preston Brook..., etc. Having got Runcorn to FL, I combined the others, which is where the "around" came from. Looking de novo, it doesn't make sense. How about the idea that transpired from the discussion, ie. List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)? That might solve part of the problem. What do you think?

If we have Listed buildings in the Borough of Halton, this would total (around) 122 items. OK in USA they go up to 200, but "our" lists include descriptions + photos. The existing FL is 49kb; the combined one with a photo and a description for every item would be over 100kb - I don't think WP likes articles (even lists) of that size (I personally think that is stupidly big). It would be easy-peasy to make just a combined list, with no descriptions and a few photos, but I think that what I have done (an image and a description for EVERY item) adds much more value to the list (and I have had some support in this). But this leads to problems with size. So what's wrong with four lists for Halton; the two I have presented, plus one for Widnes and one for Hale - this makes geographical sense (and IMO it's not excessive splitting). And geography lasts for longer than political expediency, which is the current situation with the nonsense of "Halton" (it cannot last but I can give no citations, just a personal opinion).

And thanks for all the support you give. It's awful lonely in the Cheshire Project at present. I've e-mailed DDStretch and Espresso Addict. The former replied some time ago, but not recently; the latter not at all. So I press on. I'm working hard on the John Douglas lists and may present them sometime for FLs but if it causes too much aggro they will still be on WP, which is the important thing. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I really like the format of the Runcorn lists with a description, and I think it's superior to the format used in list of Grade I listed buildings of Greater Manchester (I think that might be considered treason by WP:GM...). Although that lists covering the same subject using different formats shows that there's more than one way to skin a cat and the GM format works as most of the buildings in the list have their own article. The format used in the GM list doesn't really work so well for the county's Grade II* listed buildings as there are about 240; at some point it will probably have to be divided... or maybe we could set a new record for size of a Featured List.
 * The title does seem to be posing some problems, perhaps because "around" is a vague term. I think adding "rural area" to the title might go someway to addressing that problem, but might throw up a different problem: it might appear that the rural area is in the town, if you see what I mean. The current division between articles does make sense to me, and I hope that despite my misreading of the situation regarding the future of the borough I hope I have made it clear on the nomination page.
 * Things are lonely at the moment for WP:CHES, but I hope that Ddstretch and Espresso Addict may eventually return. Ddstretch left because admins are essentially unaccountable, and that is slowly changing, and Espresso Addict has returned from a long break before. It was a real blow to lose two such prolific editors at the same time, but things are moving along as demonstrated by your massive output. I'll be watching the John Douglas lists in case you do decide to take them to FLC. Having been through FLC and FAC a few times each, I find FAC much more productive and less arbitrary, so FLC isn't always the best thing for a list. Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been looking into the history of witchcraft in Cheshire, which seems to be quite different from the experience in Lancashire. For instance, during the 17th century the Quakers were widely considered to be witches, not just in Cheshire but elsewhere as well, because they originated in the north. Lots of fascinating stories yet to tell, so stick with it Peter. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Having worked hard to get "in" Runcorn to FL I assumed (idiot) that getting "around" would be fairly straightforward. The format was agreed and there was maybe some work to do on the text.  But all the stuff that's cropped up!!!  So where to go?  Tomorrow (after the wine's worked off) I shall probably change the titles as suggested above. Then... maybe go into my shell, produce what I believe is "good enough" for those who consult WP, and to **** with all those "clever" people out there!  My WP philosophy is to write material for the benefit of those who consult it (and gosh, how often a WP article arrives near the top when you do a Google search!) so the schoolkids in USA who make a fuss about commas can go..... Sorry, I tried to agree with MF that editors should work towards GAs and FAs; for me "good enough" is "good enough".  Some people like stress; I've had enough in my "real life".  Now is the time to enjoy what you do with the time you've got left without silly people out there making ignorant comments about what I write.  Power to the Greater Manchester Wikiproject etc., etc., I've had enough.  (But keep up the good work.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I do understand how you feel. My view is not quite as you describe it though, or rather it is, but you implicitly extrapolate it to include FL/FT/goodness knows what else. I have never taken any of those peripheral processes seriously, but I do take GA/FA seriously, because more often than not an independent review results in improvements. The same can hardly be said for lists and topics though, which just seem to be endless arguments about what the list/topic ought to be called, or the colours used in the column/rows. Waste of time and effort IMO.


 * Yes, I know you're going to remind me of Runcorn's FACs, and they were unfortunate I agree, but I don't think typical. Chin up Peter, we all have bad days. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though FTC and FLC have been around for years, I don't think they're the finished product as they don't get much attention compared to FAC. If I'm honest FTC seems a bit pointless as there's no actual need to scrutinise the articles, just the link between them. FLC is usually about formatting rather than content, with a few (unusual) comments about commas thrown in. Recently there has been a concern at FLC about content forking, where a list could easily be integrated within another article; however, this usually applied to discography articles with only one of two entries. FAC is the least frustrating and most productive in my view (although there are some exceptions), but sometimes it is best just to avoid the stress.
 * I'm an advocate of pursuing FA and GA status as it's a recognition that the article is good, and can be held up as a template for others. That said, "good enough" is certainly good enough as the majority of articles on wikipedia are stubs. Peter, you've done some fine work on wikipedia, so I hope this just means that you won't be taking part in stressful areas such as FLC rather than abandon wikipedia all together. I too understand how frustrating wikipedia can be sometimes, maybe not banging my head against a wall, but at least that I'm massage it with my forehead. When that happens, I just edit selfishly for a while: reading and writing about stuff I'm interested in, usually areas without many other editors. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry that my comments have probably been a source of irritation for you, as this was far from my intent and only wanted to convey the problem that the vagueness of around could generate. Personally, I've never held in great repute FA, and only attempted it once, as I've always had a feeling that FA partly distracted from the main goal, that was perfecting the main body of wikipedia rather than a tiny selection. Your Runcorn list always fascinated me for its completeness: I even attempted to propose it as the main standard for the future Grade I lists of listed buildings (i. e. title / image / date / location / description / refs) on wp:hs, but wasn't successful. I also understand completely your feeling of loneliness: I also animated for quite a long time a wikiproject (on Chad), only to find myself pretty much the only active editor n the topic. But at least one thing I can tell you: your articles on Cheshire will always find at least one sure reader :-) Heavens, you've been able to convince that Runcorn wasn't one of those uninteresting industrial wastelands! ;-)--Aldux (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Industrial wastelands in northern England?? Whatever gave you that idea ;-) You don't really get them in Cheshire. Was it at WikiProject Historic sites you proposed the Runcorn list a template, and if so why was it rejected? Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but then I've never, to my shame, ever been in that part of England except to pass through it. I'm not sure I completely get what you mean concerning the template; I was just speaking concerning a proposal to proceed with the Grade I lists of listed buildings all with the same structure and using the same columns. As for the template, I vaguely remember a template concerning Runcorn, but I've never honestly cared much of templates so I doubt I partecipated on a debate concerning it, nor do I remember seeing it discussed at WP:HS.--Aldux (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by "template", ie: using the structure etc as a guide for other articles. Sorry I didn't make myself clear, I forgot that the onwiki meaning could also include, er, templates. Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. WP:HS redirects to Wikiproject High Schools, but I assume you meant historic sites. Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ughh... That was really dumb, I meant WP:Hs (and yes, this one sends to WikiProject Historic sites). The discussion in question is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Historic sites; using the successful model of the WikiProject on the NRHP tried to convince to insert images and description columns and remove the architect, but there wasn't enough consensus.--Aldux (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've changed the titles. It shouldn't be a problem because Runcorn is a town and an area (in the old days we had the Runcorn Urban District Council and the Runcorn Rural District Council). I really appreciate the support given by yourself and MF, when you are so much involved in other projects. I am also very "chuffed" by the comments from Aldux - it is not s/he who has caused the problems with the FLC, but rather rst, who in my opinion has led the discussion into a blind alley and everyone else has followed.

I have more or less decided to abandon going for the stars and, as argued by Aldux, work on the main body of WP to make it as good as is reasonable. It's nice to have the stars, partly for personal vanity, but also (and as/more important) to give more credit to the Cheshire Project. Having got a FA for John Douglas (architect) I have been working on four lists of his works (yes four - do they really want one list for someone who produced about 500 works?). The first two are on his new churches (40) and his church restoration, additions and furnishings (more than 40). I have been writing an article (or at least a stub) on every church included. Yesterday I wrote the last stub - so it's blue links throughout the two lists! But I think I will stick with the pride of achieving that rather than submit them to the silliness of FLC. And a FA plus 4 FLs would make a splendid FT for Cheshire - but dream on! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I respect your decision. Turning all of those links blue must have been a mammoth task. I'm surprised that something as notable as the two churches in Warburton weren't covered before you wrote the article. Nev1 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should have said - writing an article on all those which did not previously have one. I started the Warburton article way back in December 2007. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting dates in references
I notice that in Kelsborrow Castle you have changed the format of the dates in references to (say) 2009-07-03 from 3 July 2009. I have usually used the latter; is that wrong/against consensus, etc? If so, do I have to go and change them all? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not worth the trouble of going back and changing them en mass, but Malleus pointed out a while the documentation for Template:Citation it says that ISO 8601 date format (ie: 2009-07-03) is preferred for accessdates. The relevant section is here, but earlier in the same section it prescribes that the |date= field should use dates in the 3 July 2009 format. That kind of inconsistency would probably cause a headache at FAC, so I just go for consistency within the article. I must admit that I think 3 July 2009 is more widely understood that 2009-07-03 as it could mean 7 March 2009, and before wikipedia I'd never seen dates in that format before. In this case, I'd recommend common sense over any perceived "consensus"; what you do works so there's no need to change it. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll continue with what I think is the better option. I seem to remember that not long ago accessdate changed 0000-00-00 to one's own preference but it no longer does so.  Or is my ageing memory misleading me? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got no idea whether it changed. It's possible it changed for cite web but not citation, but there are far too many threads to keep track of on wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII
Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Worcs project
Hi Nev. You've been so helpful on  many  occasions, I'm wondering  if you would like to  put your name on the WikiProject Worcestershire list. It wouldn't commit you to  anything of course, (except  maybe for some consensus when needed) and I  wouldn't want it to  interfere with  your excellent work on GM and other stuff.--Kudpung (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems only right to join if I'm going to keep poking my nose in :-) Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Poke it in as often as you  like - PLEASE :---Kudpung (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastgate and Eastgate Clock
I have written some material on Eastgate (Chester) and virtually re-written Eastgate Clock (with "proper" references). Images of England combines the two together as a Grade I listed building. My text is here. I'm not sure whether it should go into mainspace as a combined article, or if it is better for them to be two separate articles. What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's not easy to decide but I think it would be best dealt with in one article mainly to avoid duplication. The Eastgate article should have something on the clock, and the the Eastgate Clock article should explain why Eastgate is notable. I'd feel comfortable doing it this way as English Heritage treat the site as a whole. It looks good, I gave it a light copyedit but it didn't need much at all. Does Ward refer to Roman Chester as a city? I think the status of the town was closer to that of a town, although Roman settlements didn't always have an easy modern equivalent. Also, are there any theories what the ditches were used for (apart from the last one)? If I can find Mason's book on Roman Chester, do you think it would be worth adding some information on the Roman gateway? I'm thinking of explaining that it was one of four main entrances and that the civilian settlement grew up along the roadside outside the east gate (if I remember correctly). Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. No Ward does not say it was a city at that stage - my carelessness.  The Eastgate bit is just a first run through using Ward's index.  It needs, as you say, some background material about its history - when built, when timber -> stone, where the road goes etc.  That's in the book and will be added before it goes into the mainspace. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the ditches were defensive, to add to the difficulties of surmounting the palisade or wall. The Roman one was, so far as I can determine, defensive and it seems sensible to conclude that this was also the purpose of the Saxon ditch.  I've expanded the start which adds some context. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Henjenner.jpg
Do you think this could be relicenced as something that could be held at Wikimedia Commons? I'm thinking it might be compatible with Template:PD-UK-known. It's a picture of Henry Jenner.... I'm looking for about 6 additional notable Cornish people for the mammoth revamp I'm attempting. --Jza84 | Talk  17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we know the author do we? As Jenner died in 1934, the photo is over 70 years old and my understanding is that since we don't know the author Template:PD-UK-unknown is appropriate. My reading of this PDF linked from commons makes me think we can use the photo. Of course, that's dependant on publication of the photo being before 1939, it probably was. Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty confident it was too. Just wanted to get a second opinion. I think I'll move it to commons. --Jza84 | Talk  18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kelsborrow Castle
Interesting to see your edit today because I walked round it yesterday. I had hoped to take a photo but there was nothing really suitable; the best I could do was a field with a not-very-prominent smooth ridge. I don't think it will add anything to the article other than a swathe of grass. Do you think it's worth uploading it to Commons for you to have a look? (But the views of the Cheshire plain and the Welsh hills on the ascent from the Willington side were superb.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the problem with hill forts, the best view is usually 60ft above the thing! I think any picture would be worthwhile, even if it is just a swathe of green. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - may take a day or two. I'll let you know when it's there. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Eddisbury hill fort is now a Good Article candidate. Eddisbury and Maiden Castle are the two best investigated hill forts in Cheshire, and so their articles will be the most informative. While the other articles might be of a decent length I doubt I'll take them to WP:GAN! (At least not all at once, I don't think the reviewers would appreciate me dumping 7 very similar articles on the page.) Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added to Commons the field - File:Kelsbarrow ridge.jpg. I've also added two more of Eddisbury; one shows the earthworks from the east - File:Eddisbury from east.jpg, the other the natural sandstone outcrop which formed part of the southern defences - File:Eddisbury from south.jpg.  None of them particularly good; use them if you wish. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they're about as good as you're going to get without going hang-gliding. Cheers for the pics, I'll get round to adding them to the articles soon. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE
I'm not the best editor or administrator when it comes to WP:BITE.... what do you think about Liverpool firsts? seems like a keen new user who on one hand is passionate about adding material about Merseyside (which is good), but perhaps hasn't read through some of the fundamentals (which is bad).... --Jza84 | Talk  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a new guy as such (nearly 3,000 edits and a member since February 2006) but I'll take a look. I'd noticed his edits peripherally, I think the biggest issue is sourcing, although an article such as Liverpool firsts probably isn't encyclopedic. Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on RobCrosby's talk page about the importance of citing sources and that the Liverpool firsts article might be a problem as it looks like synth I don't think there's any harm in letting it exist for a while, but you might like to look at these edits. Nev1 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've nominated Liverpool firsts for deletion. On a simillar note, would you be so kind as to take a look at the edit history of English people and the last bit of the talk page? For me, it's a breach of Arbcom and WP:POINT - blockable - but I have a stake in the article so want a second opinion. --Jza84 | Talk  17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a book (maybe books) on Liverpool's firsts. Maybe an idea for a list sometime, but the present "article" is unreferenced and unacceptable as it stands. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought there might be, there are probably a few such books on big cities so it's not necessarily synthesis as such but the list at the moment does have problems. I've left a comment on the English people talk page after a quick look at the arguments and the edits and I'll take closer look now. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow
Not bad. How many views do you reckon a bit of rabbit-shoving might get then? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you secure the April fools' day spot I would expect it to be another big one, although not quite as high-traffic as Gropecunt Lane. I'd expect 100,000 comfortably and since wikipedia has a reputation for being silly on 1st April there'll probably be more traffic from people looking for a laugh so I wouldn't be too surprised if it pushed 200,000. Either way, it's another article I'd love to see on the front page ;-) The important thing is it's interesting, which is why I wasn't too surprised when Trafford only got 17,000 views while it was on the mainpage as most people didn't care about it unless they've heard of it. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the article? There is about 10% of what I could add, but I tried to condense the 'study-rabbit-study-rabbit-study-wimmins stuff-rabbit' as much as I could.  I have a bumper bag full of original documentation on the case, that I discovered literally minutes after a reviewer started the GAR, so I can add that once done.
 * Maybe I could get an artist to create a .gif file, showing exactly how you'd get a rabbit up there... Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My only substantial comment is that while the article seems completely comprehensive about the hoax, as a biography of Mary Tofts it is missing some important information. I'm thinking of stuff like place of birth, upbringing, occupation (ie: what was her "work" when she first got the idea to put things where no rabbit had been put before), and death. The problem is, I doubt that stuff is available. Perhaps the article could be renamed? Then again, I'm not really keen on that though and this is all she's notable for. A couple of other points:
 * "Howard's behaviour was similarly suspicious, refusing to allow Ahlers to deliver Tofts (although Ahlers was not a man-midwife, and in an earlier attempt to deliver one of the rabbits he apparently put Tofts through considerable pain)". It might be better to mention that Ahlers unsuccessfully attempted to deliver one of the rabbits earlier and then Howard refused to allow him to try again.
 * Who's Mr D'Anteny?
 * I'm sure you've noticed that I've made a few edits; they're mostly just copyedits and adding non-breaking spaces to dates, but I've also changed the letter quoted. I remember that you asking on Malleus' talk page how to format a quote like a letter; all I did was start a new line. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, so you should take a look. As an aside, considering St. Andre put some of one of the rabbit's lung in water to see if it floated I'm surprised he didn't twig it was a hoax at that point. And how about a gif of the rabbits coming out? Great article, I enjoyed reading it. Nev1 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, much of that information isn't really available, her birth date is entirely conjectural (she was about 25 at the time of all this), upbringing from what I've read is no schooling, no education, just typical peasant work in the fields. I have some details on her family tree but not a great deal.  Her death is reported in a newspaper, in a 'oh by the way' fashion.
 * I can certainly add a bit about Ahlers (I'll read his account and see what that says, to bolster the story). D'Anteny can probably be replaced by 'a colleague' or such, he doesn't appear that important.  I do have a couple more images which I can use, I'm going to wait until the reviewer has finished though before I make big changes.
 * I have a mental image of a line drawing of a womb, with a 2D hand slowly pushing a struggling rabbit vertically up. The rabbit should have 'sponged' eyes like this :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at it now - the GA reviewer made some similar observations. I'm very happy with the way the article ends, no pun intended it seems quite poetic.  I can't wait to start adding all the juicy old documents I have. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Chester Rows
I've written the article, but it is somewhat short and based on only a few references. Have you anything to add, or to correct? Even though short, if it proves to be comprehensive, I might offer it as a GAC. What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article's great, it seems pretty comprehensive to me and is certainly interesting as their origin is disputed. I think it would pass WP:GAN without breaking a sweat. The only suggestion I have is that Pevsner might have something to say on the rows. If you don't have a copy I've got a copy that covers Chester I could look through. Nev1 (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I do have a copy (and the new expanded Cheshire "Pevsner" comes out later this year.  I'll have a look tomorrow. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment at Talk:Chester Rows/GA1. Because of this and the comments by Pyrotec I have expanded the sections on Origins and Today (and swapped the positions of Origins and Medieval period).  The new version is here.  What do you think of it?  There's no rush; Pyrotec is away until next weekend and I do not intend to upload the revised version until sometime during the week.


 * I am beginning to come round to your argument that submitting one's work to such criticism does improve the quality of the article - provided of course that the reviewer/assessor is competent, positive and kind. What I could not cope with was stuff from teenage American kids or from aggressive reviewers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pyrotec is a very good reviewer as I know from personal experience. When you get reviews like that it really does restore faith in wikipedia. There are others like him, but sometimes it is a case of pot luck. A review of the prose is useful, and in the articles I write the reviews always help polish the prose a bit, but getting someone who can review the content isn't always easy at GAC or FAC; I think that making sure nothing important is missing is the most difficult part for a reviewer, especially if they're not familiar with the general subject eg: heritage/historic buildings).
 * Fortunately, since GAC is less demanding that FAC I think it's less of a gauntlet to run. Good luck with the expansion, I must admit I'm kicking myself for not suggesting VCH as it has loads on on Chester. The extra information looks good to me. I think the summary of their current use should hit the spot; it's relevant, but without going into excessive detail and picking a few notable examples gives a nice balance. I've made a couple of copy edits, but they were very minor. I think the problem with some of the less experienced reviewers is that there's not enough compromise: they think they're right and that's final (unless one of their friends points out they might not be). Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just the less experienced reviewers who're convinced they're always right Nev1, I am as well. Utterly, utterly convinced of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must confess that I "invited" Pyrotec here to do the review because I had been impressed by his GA review of John Douglas (architect). (to MF - we all KNOW you're always right!) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mashrafe Mortaza
I'm not really great either. Would you mind if I did some minor work on the article? I know it must be very difficult to find as much info on Bangladeshi players. You haven't received much help from other editors either and I know how hard it is to check your own work. Cheers  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they might beat a dreadful West Indian team tomorrow. Shakib Al Hasan is there only class player. Mortaza even racks up the wickets against minnows. Tamim finally kept his head and scored a century.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, I don't really know much about the Bangladeshis and it well referenced. Shakib will need to talk 5-for, if Bangladesh are to win.  Aaroncrick   ( talk ) 22:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have started going through the article and I should finish sometime today.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 22:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or even Paul Collingwood. I'm trying to work on AFL footballer Joel Selwoods article, hoping to bring it to FA, but his career has only just started so hopefully editors will be around to keep updating the art.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 23:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Merseyrail
I though it would fail. I just wanted to know what the faults where. I intend to improve the references first.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ALT text question
A question has been raised at Template talk:Infobox UK place. I think you may be able to help better than I. --Jza84 | Talk  22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield
It isn't going anywhere, to answer your Q at WP Yorkshire.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was afraid of that. WP:YORKS is a successful project and if, as seems likely, the article is demoted I'm sure it will be at FAC eventually. Ironically that might be the best thing for the article as you've stated before that FAC has higher standards than FAR. Some spark has been missing. The problem is that it was promoted back in 2005 and I'm not sure how many of the people involved back then are still around. For example, the nominator hasn't edited regularly in at least a year. Anyone wanting to salvage FA status has to start from the ground up as they aren't familiar with the article. I've left and  messages as  they are the two highest contributors to the article. WP:YORKS has a core of experienced editors and if they can get motivated I'm sure they'll do a good job. Nev1 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Malvern
Hi Nev! I've done all I can to the Malvern, Worcestershire article. I think there's a fair chance that  together the regular contributors could get it nominated for GA. . If  you  have time, please see Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire, check out  the article if you  can, and leave any  comments and suggestions there. If you  see any  obvious blunders, do  go  ahead and fix them. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield
Hi, thanks for the message. I missed this as I have not been editing that much in recent months. WP:Sheffield has only ever really been an informal forum for editors working on Sheffield articles, but I'll see if we can rally some troops. Unfortunately for me, the areas of the article that I think need most work are also the subject areas that I know least about as my up-to-date local knowledge has been diminished by living abroad for the last 8 years. —Jeremy (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been through the Sheffield article. I think that the 'Sport' and 'Culture and attractions' sections could probably do with a complete rewrite. I am also aware that FA standards are higher now than they were in 2005. So, although I will be sad to see the article lose FA status, in the long run preparing it for a new FAC might result in a better article than trying a quick fix to avoid being delisted. —Jeremy (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE
I am comming to the party late, so much for voting pacts no one told me, and came across your post here did I miss something not sure what your post means. BigDunc 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was concerned by Melodia's comment which seemed to imply that the members of the group should be banned. I picked a few names of members at random and yours just happened to be there; I don't know if you or anyone else I mentioned has previously interacted with Medlodia. I was trying to point out that it was an "I don't like it" delete vote. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No I have no interaction with that editor, thought I missed something, thanks for swift reply. BigDunc  18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Malvern
Hi Nev. I've seen your change to Malvern (parish). I don't dispute this change for a moment - I'm certainly not an expert on the structure of UK local government., and I'm not  going  to  revert  it. However, the parish is listed with the title Malvern Town Council in  both the town  council  and the district  websites, and it  administers that  parish. However, this effectively leaves the CP without  another official  name. More confusing is that Jenuk has removed the cat Towns in  Worcestershire from  the Malvern article, leaving  Malvern as an orphan without  a category  as to  what  kind of place it  is. I certainly  don't want  things like this to  escalate into  an edit war, because facts will  demonstrate this, as I  have (maybe not very  well) described when one reads the article as a whole. I have good connections in the council, and have already  had an exchange of email  with them, and am waiting  for a response from  Richard Chapman, the town clerk. If it proves too  difficult to resolve by  email, I  will  go  and see him  in  Malvern when I  am  there next  month. Part of the problem arises because they  are using  old OS maps on  their websites that  show the names of different  parts of Malvern in different  font size hierarchies,  that  do  not correspond accurately  to  todays situation, and the District  and the ONS have different  boundaries for reporting  the population stats. The bottom line of course is that  our encyclopedia must  be accurate, even if the local  administration  can' t get  its ducks in  a row.--Kudpung (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, after having a brief look at the article I started going through properly when I got distracted. I haven't forgotten about it and I will add comments to the talk page later! If I misunderstood what was said, it's because I hadn't read the rest of article in detail, which i should have done but it seemed like a glaring mistake. If I make a mistake and you have a source, don't hesitate to revert me, I won't take offence! Per WP:BRD if you disagree with anything I write in an article you're allowed to revert me and we can start discussing it.
 * I've never seen a civil parish with "town council" in the name. The reason the website says "Malvern town council" is because the website is about and belongs to the town council which runs the civil parish. For example, Trafford's official name is "Metropolitan Borough of Trafford", but the website (the council's wesite) very prominently at the top of the page says Trafford Council. I think in Malvern's case, the official name of the civil parish is Malvern rather than Malvern Town Council. I've not touched the categories, so I have no conflict with Jenuk and even if I did we could always discuss it on the talk page; however since the council asserts it's right to being a town council I'd say that the ciivl parish is a town. Parishes can also be towns as demonstrated by Shaw and Crompton and Partington, Greater Manchester. There is a category for civil parishes which can be added aswell. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All your edits and comments are most welcome. I have recently  added a message to  the project  talk  page about  Town Council vs Parish etc, with  a very  acute reference to the Wikpedia article on  Civil Parishes and the Acts of Parliament  that  govern their creation  and naming. It's time for the  the project  members to engage in  more discussion and  get  some consensus on  some issues like these  (such  as navoboxes message below), as it  would be a shame for hard work  by  some members to  be unilaterally  reverted by  others. I may  have the time at  the moment  to  contribute a lot to  this project, but  I  don't under any  circumstances want  to  be considered its owner or its leader :)--Kudpung (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only just saw your reply. Most of the successful county wikiprojects I've seen are essentially heterarchies with no appointed leader, but there are usually one or two senior editors who've been with the project a long time, are familiar with the area, and are familiar with wikipedia's various content related processes such as WP:GAN. These editors don't necessarily have authority over project members but serve to motivate other members and provide some organisation (and the local knowledge they provide is invaluable). A particularly good example is for WP:GM; when he was away for a few months at the start of this year activity at WP:GM perceptibly dropped off, although it was still very active, and upon his return things picked up again. With your talk page messages and efforts to tag articles for WP:WORCS you're doing an excellent job of keeping WP:WORCS running. The talk page messages about discussions at the project talk page are a particularly good idea in my opinion. This might have been useful for WP:CHES while it still had more than a couple of active editors, but would now probably be a bit unnecessary as there are few active editors and the project talk page is usually bypassed because we talk to each other directly (it might be useful for WP:MERSEY though...). Hopefully, in time, someone such as Jenuk1985 (who has demonstrated her competence and familiarity with wikipedia's various processes) could help out in that role. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with DYK nom for Eddisbury hill fort
Hi, Nev1. There's a problem regarding references in your DYK nomination of Eddisbury hill fort. Please respond there when it's fixed. ≈ Chamal  talk 05:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I am taking a break next week and have a number of matters pending like some DYKs and a FLC. I may be able to deal with any matters arising while I am away but perhaps you could also keep an eye on them to make sure nothing goes too far awry. One of my recent articles which I titled "The Falcon, Chester" was moved before I could blink to The Falcon (public house) which will possibly cause problems with redirects, etc. I objected on the talk page of RadioFan, but the perpetrator was immediately awarded a barnstar!!! Did I do anything wrong? (Always willing to learn, but over-assiduousness is irritating.) Cheers and thanks in anticipation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion's now been moved to the article's talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and for taking action so promptly. And List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) has been accepted as a FL.  Two good reasons to make my day! Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great news about the list. I'll keep an eye on the DYK for you and look after WP:CHES until you get back ;-) As for the page move, you didn't do anything wrong and I obviously think the title was correct first time. We all make mistakes though and once it became clear that consensus was against him RadioFan did then tag the redirect for deletion so I think the situation was handled fine. Enjoy your break. Nev1 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki project Worcestershire
Hi ! Since the recent creation  of the Worcestershire project, several  editors are making  a concentrated effort  to  improve the articles and the overall  coverage of the county. Many of us are learning  as we go and since some of these issues regard Wikipedia and/or parent  project  policy and how we should interpret them,  it  may  be a good idea to  discuss them with  a view to  obtaining  a consensus before we do  things that  may  be wasting  our time, or undoing  the work  of others. Please refer to these discussion items in particular: and join in the debate on  the Worcestershire project  talk  page. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire
 * Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates (users Brian Kenedig, Pavel Vozenilek)

Ashton-under-Lyne
I have uploaded a few images onto commons see commons:Portland Basin and commons:Ashton-under-Lyne. May be of use.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

0oh! truth hurts
Aye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.234.207 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Cheshire
I've done a first cut at the review for this article if you want to check it out. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for responding on those points and I've passed it for GA. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither here nor there
As it says in WP:NOR, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Also, about the recent claims on the Request for comment, no such accusations were made and therefore WP:NPOV didn't apply except for one copyedit of the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC):Without context, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nev1 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Need help!
I was trying to move Madame Blavatsky to Helena Blavatsky, and stupidly spelled her name wrong and created an article called Helena Blatavsky instead. But I now find that Helena Blavatsky is a redirect, and I can't move over it, so I'm stuck. Can you sort out my mess please? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * pounced on it before I saw your massage. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Freudian slip there Nev1? I wasn't offering you a massage. ;-) This is one of those rare occasions when I wish I had a couple of your buttons, so I could fix my cock ups myself. Jeez, what's so hard about moving a few pages? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, what you and Nishkid get up to should be kept off wiki where it doesn't offend the children ;-) There really should be software which allows users to correct their own mistakes, such as if you're the only person who's edited a page you can delete it yourself (that would solve the problem with some of the redirects and make CSD A7 obsolete). In fact, I like that idea, any suggestions where I can ask if it can be done? Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've seen a similar suggestion somewhere else recently, can't remember where. Autoconfirmed users can delete pages they've created themselves (in my case by accident) so long as nobody else has edited the page, or some such. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the feature is already implemented in the software but has been disabled, because the forces of reaction that run wikipedia are convinced that we peons can't be trusted. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of mills in Tameside.
I had been meaning to make contact with you about Cotton in general, but more of that later. I am about to take a summer break, then will be pretty busy until late September so I am trying to ease back a little. I would like each of these lists to be become featured- so what is holding me back. Ability, and format. If you look at List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited you will see my first attempt at a list. It was modelled on List of mills in Shaw and Crompton. Between them we can see certain problems. Extending this to Tameside So I have reached two conclusions:- separate the data from the formating, by inputting the data as a twelve field table data row--shout for help and other opinions. The data would be collected in the following 12 fields forming a row. Then wrap this data row in a template, which will handle the formatting. Would be the order of data items. Is this the most convenient ordering ? The template could be used on all mill list pages. The template (or more than one) could format the data like List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited or like List of mills in Fall River, Massachusetts and be tweaked to the assessors preferences. So that said, can I turn the question:- If you were to attempt to get FL status for such a list, how would you see the page looking? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Variable quantity of information on each mill.
 * Difference emphasis of available data- some major on the engine, some on the Architect, some on the ownership
 * Too many fields needed, to allow for sensible formatting.
 * Photos deleted because of spat with Fair Use gestapo
 * How do you order them- by date, location or alphabetically (Farnie uses date bands, but in his article in Gurr and Hunt, he is far more specific about the hot dates for construction
 * Not all mills are detailed in Farnie- though of major importance they are not extant- e.g. Aqueduct Mill aka Dukinfield Mill, Dukinfield.
 * Thanks for the input. Real life here has been a bit manic the last few days. The idea seems sound. With templates we can switch from one format to another with the minimum of fuss. I want to try out three format ideas that will all be easy for the user- and almost interchangeable. It is now just time that is holding me back. Watch this space.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

City of Carlisle
Hi Nev. I've removed all reference of sports in Aspatria as it isn't even in the city. The village is located in Allerdale, some distance from the Carlisle border. This means that there is now no section on Sport on the article, which may seem strange to many readers. I understand that sport is covered on the article at Carlisle, but I suspect many other readers will not comprehend the difference between Carlisle and City of Carlisle, and may seek to add a section in the future. I am coming round to the idea that the splitting of the settlement and city is not going to be sustainable in the future, no matter how hard we try improve the individual articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting that Skinsmoke, I was thrown because the name of the athletics club was Carlisle Aspatria AC. As for the other stuff, I wasn't able to find a reference and decided to leave it until I had more time to check for sources. Thanks again for clearing it up.
 * As for whether having separate articles for the city and the settlement proper is sustainable I suppose depends on the readership. I'm an advocate of having them separate, and it's been proven that is can be done properly (just look at Salford, Greater Manchester, and City of Salford) but if it's confusing to the readers that is problematic. It's due in part to it being a confusing issue in the first place and perhaps one that hasn't been adequately explained in the necessary articles. Regarding sport, the sport in the City of Carlisle article would cover the sport in the whole borough, including Carlisle proper so there would be some overlap. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pershore College
Hi ! An article within the scope of the WikiProject  Worcestershire has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at  Talk:Pershore College,  and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've condensed and integrated the Pershore College article contents into the Warwickshire College article, restructuring  and editing Warks to  accommodate it. However, I'm  not  too  sure about  WP:MAD. Conserving  the talk  and history  seems quite complicated and apparently  must  be done by  an admin. Could I prevail upon  you  to  do  the necessary, delete, and redirect?--Kudpung (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not merged article histories before but I'll give it a try. I'll practice by merging my sandboxes first to get the hang of it. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed you've made Pershore College a redirect, do you still want me to merge the page histories? Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall  having  once merged and redirected a wine article a very  long  time ago. I must  have done it  right  because there were no  complaints. I  simply did  the same thing  for  Pershore. The edit history  doesn't  need to  be merged because it, and the articl's talk  page are still accessible from  the redirect  page - so  nothing is lost. Blanking  the very  last  version of the article leaves the previous edit before the redirect  intact, and clears any  links and categories that  would try  to  refer to  it. I've been through  all  the articles that  linked back to  it  and changed them. There might  be bots  that  can  do  this stuff but  it would take me longer to  find out how to  use them--Kudpung (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Fair enough. Most of the time people don't bother with merging the article histories because it's complicated and, as you noticed, turning the page into a redirect leaves the article history intact. I think merging article histories is usaully done when they're fragmented because of cut and paste moves. I've not come across a bot that will update the links for you I'm afraid, but AWB is apparently a useful tool for helping with this, making the process quicker, although I've not used it myself. Nev1 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal
Do you remember a few weeks/months ago an editor was arguing quite vehemently that the motivation for the ship canal wasn't the high transport costs imposed by Liverpool and the train companies? Unfortunately that editor wasn't able to come up with any sources to support that view, but I've just come across Harford's book on the ship canal, in which he says "it can properly claim the distinction of puncturing beyond repair a 100 year myth that the Canal was built simply because transport costs were too high for a city in decline. Undoubtedly there were many in Lancashire who believed that these costs were excessive, but the evidence does not support the view that this was a critical factor."

Looks like there's a bit more work to do there. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting and a good point. But surely if there was a belief in Lancashire that the prices were too high that would drive people to support the canal? The motivation behind building the canal wouldn't have to be based in fact, they could easily have used propaganda. I remember seeing recently on the news people complaining how most council houses are given to immigrants, and for that reason they had decided not to support Labour, however the facts didn't back up their assertions. I wonder what Harford suggests as an alternative to prohibitive costs for the construction of the canal. Nev1 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, that it was a politically motivated solution to the depression and unemployment of the early 1880s. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, and if only one author says as such, it should be included as a contrary view. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty well-argued case, and I've added a sentence to the article. Harford isn't claiming there wasn't a perception that Liverpool and the railways were overcharging, but that it almost certainly wasn't the only reason for building the canal, or perhaps even the main reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what you've done is the right way of handling it, there's not usually a single reason for something but a multitude, it's just that some people prefer to give province to over over the others. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing how much there's still left to do on that article; it's always a bugger trying to find sources after the event for something someone else has written. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of works of John Douglas (new churches)
I'm thinking of taking this to FLC. Any comments, suggestions, etc would be welcome. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Evesham Technology
Hi ! It is suggested that a pre PROD, pre AfD, or pre Speedy discussion should take place before opening a deletion  process for  Evesham Technology. Please visit the article if you can, and leave your comments and suggestions at Talk:Evesham Technology--Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

JP Travel and general notability of smaller bus operators
Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:JP Travel which you may be interested in regarding notability of smaller bus operators. (This is a copy and paste message, I have included you in this as you have made edits to the article previously) Jeni  ( talk ) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. IIRC, my edits to the article were trivial and transport isn't my strong suit, I don't really know what's notable and what isn't. It might be worth contacting a wikiproject such as WP:Buses. In the meantime, I'll watch the discussion and see what I can learn about transport notability. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nev1. Best of luck finding sources!  The best I could come up with was the company's Facebook page!  My instinct tells me there should be a place in Wikipedia for this sort of bus operator.  We have articles on the smallest of civil parishes, yet there are probably fewer people living there than travel on JP Travel's buses in a day.  We have articles on singers who have had one record get to number 75 for one week on the British charts, yet there are probably more people travel on JP Travel's buses in a year than buy most records that get to number one.  I've no particular axe to grind on JP, but whilst working on Criccieth and Porthmadog over the last month I was astonished to see that there was nothing on Wikipedia about Express Motors, which is a similar sized operator that provides most of the bus services in that area. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very quick search turned up very little and half of the results were in Japanese! I like the analogy with civil parishes. The way I look at it, the company has about 30 buses so it must have hundreds of passengers per day to warrant that (probably thousands) so it clearly has an impact on the area. Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've only just seen your reply here, no worries! I will also have a dig to see what info I can find about this operator, while transport isn't your area, Manchester isn't mine! Jeni  ( talk ) 19:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't feel pressurised into doing anything, I think I totally misjudged your involvement! Jeni  ( talk ) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not pressurised at all, I'll try writing about anything on wikipedia apart from computer games and pokemon :-) Nev1 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

G Assessment Ffestiniog Railway
Please do not get involved in other peoples discussions. Especially where comments are not welcome --Keith 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Having taken GCE, when they were still GCE, I was referring to the changes in the educational rating system, and the fact that the GA rating system has changed since it was used to rate the FR file originally. This fact cme from a post by Malleus. My problem isn't with the individuals derating the article, it is with the "system" that rated it and then subsequently derated it. The fact the comment was placed where it was is the stupid way Malleus has his signature set up --Keith 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The link used is per the std 2 hypen - four tilde - not a load of split coding! --Keith 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Manstaruk
I think it might be a good idea to either protect several userpages, or block this person for a bit, as he seems a bit out of control. Thanks,  Majorly  talk  00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As the has stated that he well continue to edit Malleus' user page until he gets a response I've protected it and as he's started on yours and mine I've protected them too. All are protected for one day. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be perfectly happy to give Manstaruk "a response", but it would only get me another block for telling the truth, aka NPA. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus' and Majorly's userpages
I think it's probably safe to unprotect these now that Manstaruk is blocked. Thoughts? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed and done, I was just in the process as you suggested it. I thought I'd protected my user page, but apparently not. Oops. Nev1 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Brigade
Well, well... Looks like the machine burped, or somewhat...the file was supposed to be available on Commons, but apparently it didn't make it. Let me try again to send it over. Give me a few minutes to do this. Thanks for giving me the 'Heads Up'.--Lyricmac (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be okay now. On Commons, see:  File:Irish Brigade Chaplains, c. 1862.jpg--Lyricmac (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Admin type thing
I put The Dark Side of the Moon up for FAC, and a reviewer has questioned two of the images - one, the 20th anniversary cover (2nd down), the other, the pic of Parsons at the mixing desk. I'm presuming because their file history contains larger versions. Can you delete these, or must they be reuploaded? I must admit, I don't understand his point about google links. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the previous versions of the files. I must admit that I've never seen someone say that previous versions of images are problematic, but it was simple enough to delete everything and restore the latest version. I also don't understand how you can shorten the google links as they're to specific pages of the books. Oh well, best to ask them to show you how once so you know what they mean. Nev1 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He's referring to one of the links, which goes to a specific page. Normally I don't do this, but this book was poorly scanned and the page numbers aren't visible - its just easier to link directly to the relevant material, its nearly all on one page.  Thanks for deleting the previous versions, I'll mention it on the review - I'm presuming that was the problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, what do you think of the lead - too short, or ok? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Leads are usually my blind spot, but this one does look a little on the lean side. That said, it does seem to cover the main points. How about adding something on the critical reception and the album's influence. And perhaps a sentence about reissues and remastering. Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

CanOfWorms
Thank you for your message. I was aware that it was possible that the user might respond as he did. I have reported this behaviour and await the response. --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in England in 1997
That's a much easier template! I'm going to use that one tomorrow. Cheers SGGH ping! 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit easier to use because the code's shorter. It wasn't so much fun remembering McGrath ripping through England's batting though! Glad I could help. Nev1 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eddisbury hill fort
Congrats on yet another GA. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I only just noticed the article was promoted (and your note)! It's good to have another GA for WP:CHES. By the time I get round to finishing the last two articles on Cheshire's hill forts it will be the best covered coounty in England. I'm not sure if any of the others are complete, and they certainly won't have two GAs.
 * Actually, as Mellor hill fort is the only hill fort in Greater Manchester I suppose the county is complete (and 100% of Graeter Manchester's hill forts are GAs!) but one article seems like cheating. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony's comments at Ashton-under-Lyne's FAC
I've dealt with most of the comments Tony's made, and I'll go through the rest of the article again looking for similar things that might provoke comment. What I haven't addressed are his questions about the change in the Assheton's name, what exactly we mean by "centred on", the fresh water supply, and secondary industry. It's encouraging though that they were only comments, not an oppose, so it can't be all that bad. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just logged on and read Tony's comments and was about to ask for your help when you left a note here. Thanks for your help, I'll take a look at the unresolved issues. I'm almost happy about getting a "pretty good overall, but..." type comment as Tony's the most demanding reviewer around when it comes to 1a; it certainly beats "I started copy-editing the lead but gave up"! Even reading the Ashton-under-Lyne article before the FAC I saw a lot of redundancies and awkward phrasing, and it was mostly written this time last year so hopefully I'm getting better at addressing 1a. I think the finish line is in sight, and a copy edit might be enough to get the article there (touch wood). Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done Nev, you've done it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A good day all in all, Maiden Castle on the front page and Ashton promoted :-) Nev1 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alex Cusack
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:Webhamster
"I thought, as you melodramatically pointed out earlier, that you'd taken this page off your watchlist?" I have. I'm not here for kids' play, but I had an email suggesting I look at it. I find nothing to interest me, but if these people need an admin to help out, it won't be me. Malleus put great work into Peterloo Massacre and elsewhere, and Webhamster has done good work all over- but if they think that gives them a free ride, they are mistaken. I have better things to do than give good-faith advice on what I perceive to be the reality here, and when I offer an olive branch, I do NOT expect to be hit over the head with it. Rodhull andemu  00:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Then try offering it without beating the recipient over the head with it. Your "closing time in the north west" comment was simply outrageous, and does you no credit. But of course you're an administrator, so you're excused "civility". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time, but I'm not interested. Your problem isn't with me as I've not "beaten you round the head". Your comment ("I see the pubs are shut in the North-West of England") was perhaps poorly thought out as demonstrated by Malleus reaction and then your follow up branding people on WebHamester's talk page as a claque was always going to go down like a lead zeppelin. And in future, if you don't want to be beaten round the head, don't paint a target on it when there's someone who decries admin abuse around. Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Get real. There are about 1200 admins, of whom about 400 are active, and 50 or so highly active. Editors rely on us for fixing the shit when it all goes tits up, and our talk pages and emails are always open to reasonable requests, and as far as I can see, we take it all on. If there *is* admin abuse, take it to the proper forum, but do not decry me when I tell it as I see it. As for goodwill, I am no longer interested in this situation and am prepared to let the prima donnas have their cries into the wind. JFDI is my principal philosophy, and I have articles to write. Rodhull  andemu  01:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your point about the number of admins? It has no relevance. Just because you're one of the few very active admins doesn't mean you should be held to a lower standard of civility. If someone in Malleus' position had said something like that there'd have been a storm in teacup, but it's ok that one of the 50 or so elite makes a dim comment. Feel free to remove my talk page from your watchlist, I won't mind, but if you do please keep it to yourself as I don't care and neither does anyone else. Nev1 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The day I have to rely on administrators like Rodhullandemu will be a sad day indeed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference for lulz
OK, Wiktionary isn't a great reference for the meaning of lulz - but what is? AprilHare (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although wiktionary itself isn't a good source, the wiktionary article does provide some sources and this article from the New York Times provides what you're looking for. Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Avebury
Hi Nev, by coincidence I've just been reading your work on Maiden Castle (nice to see an ancient monument make the front page), and I'm also a big fan of the work you did on Danebury. Nice work. I'd be delighted to help you with Avebury. I've always meant to move onto it alongside the Stonehenge editing I've done, but never got around to it. I started going through the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites articles a while ago and wanted to try and drag them up to a useable quality. That said, most of the ones I did are in desperate need of some re-referencing (they were early contributions and I thought at the time that a simple bibliography was acceptable, now pretty much everything seems to need to be referenced with full footnotes). I'm much better at doing that now, but never got around to going back to articles like Durrington Walls!

My library is rather Stonehenge centric, but I do have a few useful texts on Avebury. It's a little bit old, but I've hopefully got Richard Colt Hoare's Ancient History of Wiltshire winging its way to me in the post soon as well! I'd better also point out that I'm not quite as active as usual at the moment - real life and all, so it'll be sporadic contributions for the next couple of weeks. I'll re-aquaint myself with the Avebury article soon and start doing some digging.

As for Vespasian's Camp, I do know what you mean about it's period in history. However, it is in the WHS boundary, and being a scheduled monument falls under the same governance as everything else. WHS designations mean that anything within its boundaries get treated the same - technically the house I grew up in is part of the WHS, and so planning consent and/or archaeological excavation would go through similar procedures in the garden and amongst the barrows nearby. The 2 most recent WHS management plans refer to the camp quite a bit, as do any texts on Stonehenge WHS (including the EH Stonehenge brochure), as does the official WHS interactive map. So I went with including the WHS infobox and mentioning its slightly different nature in the text. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick glance at my bookshelf reveals Aubery Burl, and I know there are others behind it somewhere. Parker Pearson's and Pollard's general prehistory texts which help give some alternate theories and figures are somewhere in the stack as well.  Have some stuff on Silbury in recent journals too.  I just recently found an amusing copy of the Office of Work's 1959 guide to Stonehenge and Avebury by Atkinson - predates Carbon dating so it supposes that Windmill Hill dates from 2400BC, and Avebury from 1600BC!


 * At one stage I wanted to get the whole series of WHS articles up to GA class, but then I gave up and spent some time on my other interests (Military History, effect of Salisbury Plain). It would be sweet to see Avebury on the front page. I've always regarded it as Stonehenge's better, but overlooked, sibling - infinitely more interesting and complicated too.  Stonehenge WHS is a fairly obvious site in my (extremely prejudiced) view, but I can't figure out what Avebury was for love nor money.  I've always found this interpretation amusing though! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true- it isn't. A henge has a ditch inside the bank, Stonehenge has it's ditch outside.  That's why Avebury is a henge, along with Durrington Walls.  The name seems to have come from Stonehenge, but typically of the English Language, someone went an assigned a different meaning to the word and Stonehenge passed outside of the definition. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maiden Castle on the main page - and so soon after writing it.  Hearty congrats.  I've been out all day and just spotted it.  What a triumph!!!!!!!!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm really pleased it made it :-) I'd have liked a few more dramatic pictures, but I set out to get (what I think is) an interesting subject onto the mainpage. I only realised when someone move-protected the page, and it was already on the mainpage by then! Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  02:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Zoroastrianism
Could you peer review the article Zoroastrianism. The archive can be found here. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  04:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think my input is necessary as hits the nail on the head when he says that sourcing is a problem; there are great swathes of text that are unrefernced. With some much work to do, tracking down the references and adding them, and the changes in content derived from that (possibly finding inaccuracies or poorly covered aspects) I'd expect the fully referenced article to be significantly different to this one. If you still think it worthwhile, I will make an effort to read the article properly over the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  09:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Llanfihangel-y-Pennant
Hi Nev. Could you have a look at this one for me please. At some stage, someone moved Llanfihangel-y-Pennant to Llanfihangel-y-pennant, Abergynolwyn to distinguish it from Llanfihangel-y-pennant in Dolbenmaen. The one in Dolbenmaen is a small village within the community of Dolbenmaen. This one is a community in its own right, which includes Abergynolwyn. The disambiguator which had been used, Llanfihangel-y-pennant, Abergynolwyn was therefore confusing and technically incorrect.

This is clearly the prime use, not only as a community (rather than a village within a community), but also because it was the home of Mary Jones, famed in nonconformist circles for her trek to Bala to buy a bible.

I have deleted the redirect from Llanfihangel-y-Pennant but am unable to move Llanfihangel-y-pennant, Abergynolwyn to there because the page already exists. Incidentally, although the Ordnance Surevey shows the village as Llanfihangel-y-pennant, the community is officially named Llanfihangel-y-Pennant (see Office for National Statistics : Census 2001 : Parish Headcounts : Gwynedd, Ordnance Survey : Election Maps : Local Authority : Gwynedd and Cyngor Gwynedd : Meirionnydd Community Clerks). Don't think this should be controversial, and the failed move page recommends contacting an administrator for non-controversial moves. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick. Thanks! Skinsmoke (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. As Abergynolwyn is in Llanfihangel-y-Pennant rather than the other way round the title was incorrect so I've completed the move. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Need your help again, sorry. I moved Llannerch-y-medd to Llannerch-y-Medd, as that appeared to be the correct spelling.  Turns out it wasn't (see Talk:Llannerch-y-Medd).  Have done the reverse editing but need an administrator to move it back.  Can you undo my damage for me, please (you'll notice that Enaidmawr and I have got over our "handbags at dawn" spat from a few weeks ago and are on really good terms now!).
 * No need, unless I'm missing something it turns out no admin action was needed as was able to move the article back. Llannerch-y-Medd now redirects to Llannerch-y-medd. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Titles of lists
Thanks for your comment here. You might be interested in my rant here. I await a response with interest. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is. So what? It's about time people used their eyes and brains before their keyboard (and this is not the first (or second) time people have caused "trouble" before reading the content properly). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd noticed as I've got doncram's page on my watchlist. I sympathise with you; after the debacle of Runcorn (rural area), there's the problem of what is meant by "new". And now "list of". While I'm all for consistency, having "list of" at the start of lists isn't something I think is necessary all the time (for example with listed buildings, the repetition sounds clumsy and if Malleus found it in the body of an article I'm sure he'd change it immediately) but it's pretty much just something I go with as it doesn't affect the content of the article. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right Nev, I would have very little sympathy for the phrase "list of listed ...", and I don't have much sympathy for the arbitrary and inconsistent way that the FL criteria are applied either. The relevant criterion says "preferred", not "mandated" anyway; clearly in this case it's preferable not to humiliate the English language with "list of listed". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nev for your comment. I don't really care; I'll go with the consensus.  But to be "criticised" for doing so is a bit much.  If the Americans have made some sort of unilateral decision, shouldn't they let us know so that we can follow if we wish?  If we get rid of "List of..." from all the lists of listed buildings it's going to be an awful lot of changes, redirects and consequential hiccoughs.  Oh joy! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a tentative suggestion at FLC that maybe "list of" could be dropped from articles on listed buildings, just testing the water though, I don't think it's too important. It's ok, I volunteered to sort out the page moves if it gains consensus! I agree that the current consensus isn't well enough known (ironically meaning it isn't really consensus). Nev1 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think we now have a consensus here? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much I think. I'd like to hear from Mjroots though to see if his opinion has changed now the sitution has been made clearer. I'm surprised doncram expected there to be more discussion (or controversy) because there was over the NRHP lists, as while some naming issues may inspire strong feelings, I don't thing it's possible to get worked up over whether a title starts with "list of" or not. Even for wikipiedia, it's pretty trivial. Assuming there's no radical turnabout, I could do the moves this weekend. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mjroots seems happy enough. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll get started over the weekend. Nev1 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:212.56.97.238
Hi Nev. This IP: User talk:212.56.97.238 (you  rv'd an  edit  on  Worcestershire, and they  posted it  again) has a history strange edits and has been blocked once before. It looks as if its the Internet  facility  in  public library. Any suggestions? --Kudpung (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's low level disruption but repeated warning has not stopped it. If it continues, I'll block the IP as the editor has had sufficient warning. People using the IP can still view Wikipedia, blocking only effects their ability to edit, so I'm not too worried if it's a public IP. I would only block it for about 24 hours though. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He/she's at it again today with  another dozen or so  of these additional  pronunciation  hints. It  may  even be a library  employee. Evidently  the user thinks he/she is editing  in  good faith because disruptive as it  is, it's not the gratuitous kind of vandalism. Nevertheless, it  needs to  be stopped. The user obviously  doesn't know about  user talk  pages.--Kudpung (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the warnings had no effect because the editor doesn't consider their edits disruptive. Although I said I would block, I'll leave an explanation on their page asking them to change their edits. Some of their changes are useful, for example I wouldn't have known how to pronounce Beaminster without this (is it correct though? This was a pronunciation I've never heard and strikes me as incorrect). However, edits such as this are less helpful and hopefully they can be persuaded not to change existing pronunciations. Although there is a link to IPA, the symbols are not universally understood and an alternative pronunciation guide might be useful in some cases. Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Beaminster is correct. Certainly the second Cirencester is (don't know about the original one though).  Have they got to Wymondham, Uttoxeter or Milngavie yet? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I wasn't sure. I've left a more tailored warning which will hopefully be more effective. If it isn't, I'll block the IP. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Unesco sites
Noticing that you left a request for input on the Wikiproject Ireland talk page (as regards the Giant's causeway), I thought you might like to add a request on the WikiProject Northern Ireland page too. Many editors frequent both pages, but it could help to increase exposure for your drive to improve the article. Fribbler (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer, I'm not familiar with the Ireland and Northern Ireland projects so wasn't sure where best to post. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sonya1985
Wondering whether you have any comment on this user's current unblock request. For what it's worth, I don't see any obvious attempt at harassing anyone -- if I'm missing something that would color their actions a different shade, please do point it out. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When taking Sonya1985's edits on their own, I agree that they don't seem to be direct harassment. However, Sonya1985's edits seemed like an extension of recent events at User talk:WebHamster (I'd recommend e-mailing and  for more details as some of the edits were oversighted and I don't wish to go into too much detail; I am prepared to e-mail you details myself, although I wasn't directly invovled when the incident started, unlike Rodhullandemu). The account seems like a sock of someone who's been harassing WebHamster, and I believe this is demonstrated by inconsistencies in his/her story. In my opinion, Sonya1985 is just attentions seeking, but I'd strongly recommend a check user before unblocking. Nev1 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Something about your swift response got me thinking you might be concerned about socks, but I didn't spot explicit mention of it, so... anyway, thanks for the prompt reply. If I had more time right about now, I'd be doing (more) checkuser poking-around, but as is I've got to head out. I'll try to check back, sometime, but don't worry about handling this as needed. Take care. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A link to the suspected sock puppeteer would have been helpful and I'll make sure to include it if I have to deal with any more socks. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaaand I'm back. Can't conclusively confirm a link to Yiwentang, but it's definitely somebody's sockpuppet; I've posted at User talk:Sonya1985 with a little more detail, but it seems safe to call this matter closed by now. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tullamore
Hi. I'm not sure whether you wished to restore the transport map or not - it appears we were both trying to remove the vandalism at the same time and got an edit conflict. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my intention to reinstate the map. I started off trying to remove the vandalism by hand as the specific edit couldn't be undone due to intervening edits, but there were too many occurrences so I went back and tried to emulate your changes. I guess I missed one and we both got a bit tangled up there. No harm done though as everything has been sorted. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

FLs and other things
I guess you have been following the discussion here. The situation about combined v. separate lists has become polarised between doncram and myself. I am just checking out with you that I am not being too obtuse (and wrong). I like smallish easy-to-use lists; doncram (and others seem to prefer big ones). My next intention is to say to the potential reviewers - take it or leave it. The title has been changed - fine; the format has been changed - fine; other changes will no doubt be suggested - fine; but I am not prepared to combine the list with another. Am I being too awkward? (Please reply here, not on the talk page of the FLC.)

When the time comes, as looks likely, to change the titles from "List of listed..", it might be an idea to change the Runcorn titles to "Listed buildings in the urban area of Runcorn" and "Listed buildings in the rural district of Runcorn". It gets rid of the parentheses and I think looks tidier. What do you think? And congratulations on the splendid improvements you are making to the World Heritage Sites list; it is looking really good. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In reverse order: thanks about the WHS list, it's not been easy with criticism for reliance on one source, but I think it's going well. I agree that your suggested titles for the Runcorn lists would be good, avoiding the parenthesis is preferable.
 * As for combining the list, my reflex when I saw doncram's comment was to step straight in with my opposition to the suggestion, however I have been quite involved in the discussion and I don't want to seem like I'm being confrontational for the sake of it. I do think that a combined list would be simply too long. Although doncram says 200 is an unwritten upper limit, I think that number is far too high, especially for lists with descriptions of each building. The buildings divide into four nicely sized, discrete lists, and while they are of course related and there will be some overlap of the lead, I do not see this as a problem. Readers can simply skim over the duplicated information. If reviewers add pressure, I too would say take it or leave it. The idea as you've stated before is not to get the little bronze star but to handle the subject in a way you think is best for the reader (anything else is incidental). Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, seem's you're a kindred spirit! I shall sleep on it and probably tomorrow add a note to say to the potential reviewers - take it or leave it (suggestions for further improvements of course welcomed).  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help (again)
I'd like to move the Pendle witch trials to the Pendle witches—currently a redirect. It would then be consistent with my latest masterpiece, the Samlesbury witches, and my upcoming Padiham witch extravaganza.

Can you help? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of it; Pendle witch trials now redirects to Pendle witches. The Padiham article doesn't mention the witches, the more time you spend on one article, the more pop up needing attention. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. The other articles linked in Template:Witch Hunt are mostly xyz witch trials rather than xyz witches. I don't have a preference for either title, but one style should probably be settled on (I'd be prepared to make the necessary moves myself). Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great service, thanks. It's depressing, isn't it, to follow the links from almost any article and to find such a lot of rubbish so quickly. Wikipedia's problem isn't that the number of new articles being added is decreasing, it's that most of what's already here is crap. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My own view re the general title is that "xyz witch trial" doesn't really work for the Lancashire witch trials, because Potts is very careful to distinguish between the various groups of witches. I'm sure though that for others, like the North Berwick witch trials the same distinction doesn't need to be made, so the rediriect could reasonably go the other way. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit depressing sometimes. And trying to address all of the articles within a given area is very tiring (God only know how Ottava manages to write so much). I like to think that creating a handful of good articles in a subject area act as a beacon; readers may stumble across them and decide that the rubbish articles need improving and the good ones can act as a template. That's my excuse for not being able to stick to one subject anyway :-) I've seen people around complaining about the numbers of new articles decreasing, but looking at the increase in FAs and GAs, I'm optimistic that Wikipedia is still growing perhaps there's even a shift from quantity to quality, but I won't say that out loud in case I end up looking foolish... Nev1 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there may be room for variation within the witch articles, it's not list a list of listed buildings where the subject is the same. Some could treat the trials specifically and while others include background on the subject of witches etc. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's horses for courses. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that's interesting about those stats is that the percentage of FAs is at best stable, and at worst decreasing over the last year, whereas GA appears to be trucking on. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't think me rude to butt in. I feel generally optimistic about Wikipedia and thought the recent publicity on a downturn in new articles a misleading and frankly silly bit of ooh-ahh-yeah-didn't-you-know-it-so-the-end-is-nigh piece of journalism. Anyway, reading your conversations here is heartening. By the way Nev1, I'm in the Manchester area (not a native, but love the place) and find the Manchester articles pretty damn good. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, everyone's welcome to comment. I agree with you that it's sensationalism, and I don't think Wikipedia's going to end anytime soon. It would take a spectacular scandle to bring it to an end, and since the project has survived its fair share, I don't think that's going to happen. There are attempts to reform Wikipedia and I think progress is slowly being made which should make the community less insular. A website that is consistently amongst the most popular websites on the internet (I think 4th place is the most recent figure I've heard) isn't waning. Greater Manchester is very lucky to have a lot of active and interested editors looking after its pages; if you're interested, please feel free to join the Greater Manchester WikiProject, we're always happy to help and get new members! Nev1 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

keep an eye on it Talk:Castle
Should I come up w/ anything that could be construed as an attack, let me know right away, I would appreciate that. Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Greeley
No, that's not the only problem — the big problem is removal itself. This type of section is standard for communities nationwide; the inclusion of individuals depends on their articles — if the article says nothing about the community in which they're listed, they're removed, but if the article does note that, we add them. This user has been removing many such sections, labelling them as original research, even though it's hardly original research to add someone to a list of residents of a community if we have a source saying that they lived in that community. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard format does not require references at the community page, and this user is well aware that s/he is violating norms for this kind of page. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is verifiable and verified. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick thank you! -T20i status
Hi Nev1,

Thanks for clarifying issues in this discussion. Very much appreciated!

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My apology
I am very sorry for my error. You were right to call me on it. I hope you'll accept my apology. I am particularly chagrined because I have not the slimmest basis of excuse except for being asleep at the switch. I have made a public statement of error, and will do whatever else you feel is necessary to rectify the mistake. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, everyone makes mistakes. If you still think Shoemaker's Holiday's edits were because of an agenda, I suggest you look at the way the sources were misused to support information they didn't include. I don't want the article to be anti-parapsychology, but when much of the pro-parapsychology information is poorly sourced something needs to be done. As for Mattisse's edits, I'd only noticed her tag references as having failed verification (ie: the information the article claimed to be in them was absent) and rewording a few sentences so they were closer to the source, rather than removing information en masse  . This edit introduces a quote dismissing parapsychology, but also a source about a society of professional magicians, so I don't think it's biased, although I can understand how it could be misconstrued as such.
 * The subject is obviously one that attracts polar opposite views, but in this case I don't think Mattisse and Shoemaker's Holiday are two of those people. From watching Mattisse's interactions at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, I am certain her motives when editing articles is always to improve them and I don't think there will be an exception here. I am less familiar with Shoemaker's Holiday, but they have been heavily involved with Featured content (both at the production end and reviewing) and I don't think there's an agenda.  Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: block Ingrid4hubby
yeah, thanks for letting me know. As you might have noticed, I decided to stuff the entirety of the rants into the archive. Maybe that helps to cool things down.... Seb az86556 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

talk page reply
Are you saying that he added that info or that he removed that info.--Dcheagle (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear from this edit that Mr Stephen removed the copyrighted text rather than added it (it was who added it). Nev1 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok that clears that up I will make the changes to fix things.--Dcheagle (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, no harm done. But in future, when people remove content with an edit summary indicating that there's a copyright violation I'd recommend looking into it before deleting it. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yea I know i wasnt reading everthing right but its all been fixed have a nice day.--Dcheagle (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester
Hi Nev. We talked some time ago about List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester. At the time, I was trying to get all the sub-pages to List of civil parishes in England up to a common standard, which I finally managed to complete after months of work. Still working on List of communities in Wales mind you! At the time there was some discussion about the list format, not just in Greater Manchester, but in some of the Yorkshire counties also. Nobody could actually come up with something that would work better across the board, but I did say to a few people that I would have a look at it once a minimum standard had been reached.

I've had a go at Greater Manchester on a trial basis here, and would appreciate your comments. I haven't done Wigan yet, but you'll get the idea. Was in two minds how to include the unparished areas; in the end decided to add them to the table with the civil parishes as, with a sortable table, a reader can isolate them or not as they prefer. The population figures for the unparished areas are a bit of a bugger too; I've generally gone with the figures shown in Table KS01 Usual resident population for Urban areas, although they don't always match the unparished area, as in Marple. I really need to go back and cross check some of those populations against wards and super output areas.

Anyway, let me know what you think. I'll ask a few others who've commented over the last few months also and, if there is general agreement, will start rolling out the new format, initially for the metropolitan counties. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the "status" column I'd change the entries with "town" to something like "civil parish/town" with a note in the lead that civil parishes can also be towns if the parish council declares itself a town council. Otherwise, it might not be clear to the reader that Blackrod, for example, is a civil parish as well as a town.
 * The naming might cause an issue. For the GM list the civil parishes for a minority of the table, but using the same format for somewhere like Cheshire the table would be dominated by civil parishes. The situation for metropolitan counties might be similar to that of GM. Perhaps a more inclusive title could be used, such as "list of parished and unparished areas in ..."? I'm not keen on naming issues though and I'd be happy to use "list of civil parishes...".
 * Otherwise, I think the table is really good and would be a great improvement on the current lists, which are already a damn sight better than before you got them consistent. Is there much more that could be included? Not that I know of, I struggled just to get three columns in the current GM table. I'd go with the KS01 data too; I'm not sure why stats.gov sometimes gives figures that conflict with what's it's said elsewhere but if they're taken from one source at least they'll be consistent. Might it be useful to add this file to the list since former local authorities are mentioned? All the metropolitan counties have a similar image courtesy of Jza84. Nev1 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments. I've taken most of them on board (well, all of them in one form or another).  I'd forgotten about Jza84's map; have now inserted it.  I've also greatly expanded the lead, taking relevant material from civil parish.  I don't normally like doing this, but in the case of these lists it is becoming obvious that people arrive at them from the most unexpected places, often without any knowledge of what a civil parish is.  Unfortunately, I'm going to have to try and find citations for most of the added material, as the original is more or less completely unverified.
 * I think the introduction now explains the status point more fully, and that the column entries can be left as "Town".
 * As to the title, I'm wondering, in view of the much longer intoduction, whether to just call it Civil parishes and unparished areas in Greater Manchester, and have that as the format throughout the lists as they are upgraded.
 * Am just about to make a plea at the Greater Manchester Project for someone to upload or take photographs of Offerton Park, Shevington and Worthington, so that I can complete the images column. I'm not fussy what they are.  I selected an Eccles Cake for Eccles and a rugby stand for Orrell, so my standards aren't all that high!  Mind you, I rather like some of the more off-the-wall choices, and it certainly makes a change from an endless list of parish churches and town halls!  If only there was a decent picture of Barton Swing Bridge out there somewhere, instead of everything showing a derelict tower blocking the view! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the expanded lead is good and the article does need to explain what civil parishes are. It could perhaps be trimmed as the most relevant information is the post-1974 info. It would be shame to lose the interesting stuff such the Highways Act 1555 though.
 * I can't help much with images, but there is this one of Barton swing aqueduct. The off the wall images do make a refreshing change! Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that one. Thought it gave the impression Eccles was a bit of a dump (well, it is, but we don't want southerners to realise that, do we?), so went instead with the image that gave the impression the good people of Eccles are all fat through stuffing themselves with sugary pastries. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, maybe we should a picture of pie instead of this one for Wigan ;-) The aqueduct doesn't look too bad at low resolution but it's not great. Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A tart for Manchester? No, let's not go there! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

yoru comment @ User talk:CJ DUB
here's the gist: in essence, I even agree with the user, but the behavior is completely off the planet. If someone had come up with the same issues in a civil manner, I would've been all for it. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I initially stayed out of the discussion because I could see the user's point and thought that some of the pictures had some merit, but wasn't too bothered as the way they're used they're really they're just decoration at the moment. However, the user degenerated to using insults and attacks to make their point, and eventually forgot what their point was and started plainly attacking CJ DUB. Even when I asked them to specifically address their concerns they ignored my appeal. I'm not too fussed about images while the text of the article needs work, but the user's behaviour as seen here and here can't be tolerated. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

NCU
It stands for Northern Cricket Union, one of the four provincial unions in Ireland. It covers most of Northern Ireland. The other three are the NWCU (North West Cricket Union), which covers the Derry area and the part of Ulster that isn't in Northern Ireland, the LCU (Leinster Cricket Union) and the MCU (Munster Cricket Union). Andrew nixon (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the explanation. I looked at the cricket in Ireland article but drew a blank, so it needs changing. When I've got time, I'll see if google turns up anything. Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus
If others have been able to work with him, then I applaud their tolerance at being told they are unfair, ignorant, and biased. I for one am simply not that thick-skinned. I chided him to assume good faith, and he called me a scoundrel. A cursory glance at his userpage made his disdain for Wikipedia and its processes brutally evident. I'll never deal with him again if I can at all help it, and yeah, I'm truly shocked if anyone ever has been able to. Nosleep break my slumber 22:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't have looked very hard at his talk page, as there are many users who not only get on with Malleus but value his opinion. I may not agree with Malleus' assertion that your comment was poorly judged, but he was commenting on your review, not you. To retaliate with insults does you no favours. Malleus has a good point that stating your first impressions might not be a good idea. A simple note saying "I will be reviewing this article" is sufficient and a considered review will be enough later. Now I suggest you step away from the argument and do nothing to escalate it further. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And please think very carefully before posting your reply to this comment. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "You weren't objectively reviewing the article in the first place, so no big loss" isn't a comment on me? I've put this behind me, and I'm even gonna go step away from the computer for a day or two as soon as I can. The reply on my talk page was meant for Ealdgyth, who I have no problem with at this time. Nosleep  break my slumber 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "You weren't objectively reviewing the article in the first place, so no big loss", that reads to me that one more non-objective review (of which there have been several of late) is no great loss to Wikipedia. It's only your dented ego that reads "you" into the comment. The fact that your initial response was to perceive it as a personal insult just goes to show that there was no good faith shown here at all. -- Web H amster  23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take an affront to my fairness and objectivity personally; those are qualities that I think are among my best. And I doubt I'm the only person in the world or on this silly little website who thinks so. Nosleep  break my slumber 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that you take "affront" at what was actually an objective and impartial look at your comments just goes to show that you either don't know what 'objective' means, or you don't know what 'good faith' means. If this is the case then no amount of explaining things to you will give you the result you so obviously desire. Alas I feel that your own claim of having a thin-skin is vastly understated. -- Web H amster  23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just don't get it, the review wasn't even completed, so how can it be claimed that it wasn't objective. Hell, I said it looked short, does that make me incapable of reviewing the article? It may appear as such, but doesn't mean it's not broad enough. Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion is another very good example of the sickness that's at the heart of wikipedia. Any criticism of the actions of another editor is taken personally, labelled a "personal attack", and the perpetrator must be dealt with with according to the IRC judge and jury. Yet you, Nosleep, feel quite at liberty to make insulting personal remarks about me, without apparently recognising any discrepancy in your position. Had I made the comments abot you that you have about me, no doubt I'd have been hauled up in front of one of wikipedia's kangaroo courts. Again. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I barely even know what IRC is. This only got beyond you, me, and Ealdgyth when I asked at WT:GAN what to do with Talk:Miss Meyers, and you followed me there to continue badgering me. Please, let's both just stop. Nosleep  break my slumber 22:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Not all of Malleus' comments were helpful, but it wasn't a personla attack. I wish he had let the issue drop though. Honestly, I think Malleus got the wrong end of the stick here and his comments were a reflex reaction to what he perceived as someone trying to impose their vision of what is "broad" on an article. But I think that you can't judge something properly until it's finished. I can't comment on whether you were objective or reviewing review against you own "preferences and prejudices" because it wasn't a proper review.
 * I hope you return afresh as WP:GAN needs all the reviewers it can get and anyone with a bit of practice can do it. The important bit is finding people to do what is often a thankless task. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [I have done everything I can do]. If I do go back to WP:GAN, I'm going to have to carefully check to see if Malleus has any connection to an article I plan to review. Nosleep  break my slumber 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By "done everything I can do" does that mean your attempt at Wikidrama has now been considered a failure? -- Web H amster  23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) It hasn't really failed, because it's made me spitting mad, which I suspect was the intention. I've reviewed over 300 GAs, but I won't be reviewing any more in the current climate. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your stake in this? You're not entirely wrong, I was a little out of line in what I did, and guess what, that's why I apologized. But that's not good enough for some people. Okey-doke. Nosleep  break my slumber 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Does one need a "stake" in something to discuss it on Wikipedia? As it happens my own bugbear is when people are accused of something they quite obviously haven't done. -- Web H amster  23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks here, socks there, socks every bloody where!
Re that geezer. Have a look at their contrib list and weigh it up against this edit from my talk page. I spy an agenda! Although I don't think this person is Yiwentang so I'll remove the name from the SPI. Thanks for the help though. -- Web H amster  18:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. It's suspicious, but perhaps not Yiwentang (I'm annoyed at myself for misreading 14 as 24). You're like a magnet for these people, so I'll lend a hand where I can. Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Quiriguá FA nom
Hi Nev1. I believe I have dealt with all the points you raised at the FA nom for Quiriguá. I would appreciate it if you could return and respond to my replies. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll return to the review this evening. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming back to spend yet more time on this and for supporting the nom, it was a little gruelling at times but hopefully the end result will be worthwhile. And thank you also for the barnstar! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An FAC
Hey, Nev, I didn't really want to ask reviewers for an FAC, but I figured you could give me some fresh comments - Featured article candidates/1968 Illinois earthquake/archive2. Don't feel obligated to review it if you don't have time, I have all the time in the world (until next Thurs).  ceran  thor 12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Time permitting, I hope to take a look at the article before Sunday. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, would you mind paying special attention to the prose when you get around to a review? Sandy has noted on the FAC that the prose could use a little more tuning before she will promote it.  ceran  thor 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I've finally left a review for the article, before the end of Sunday although I had hoped I would find time earlier and I'm sorry I didn't. I've also made some copy edits, although I strongly advise you to double check that I've not introduced any inaccuracies as earthquakes is not a subject I'm familiar with. I'm happy to say that I support the article, which certainly seems comprehensive to me and is interesting, and the few comments I've left aren't very important. Fingers crossed it passed FAC. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your excellent review! I just have one query, would you mind replying to it? I am stuck on a simpler sentence for the "jargon-y" part.  ceran  thor 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  ceran  thor 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I replied there before I saw your message here. I don't have any suggestion I'm afraid as I'm not sure what's being said, but since the article will mostly be looked at by people interested in or familiar with earthquakes, I'm not too worried about a handful of technical terms as the article does a good job of avoiding them where possible. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

List of listed buildings in Widnes
Help! It's been moved back again. Can you do anything I can't? Please!!!!!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the page back and left an explanation on the user who performed the move. To (hopefully) prevent this happening again, I think something should be added to WP:List. I'll raise it on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's quick work. I had after all given an explanation when I moved it.  (Some people act before they read - it's not the first time.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Something completely different...
Hi Nev1,

Just wondered if you fancied helping a limping side-project along to fruition. I've been playing with User:Jza84/Sandbox5 on and off for a while now, but I'm struggling getting some of the points explained, referenced and ticked off to the point where I can move it all to article space. Did know if you had a couple of spare hours to help with this one, even for a once-over, or else finding some references? Once I have this one nailed I'm hoping to kick start English people towards something more befitting (been building up alot of source material and ideas in the last few weeks I've been quiet). --Jza84 | Talk  23:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't replied to this before, I've had a busy few days and wasn't sure when I'd be able to get round to this. Hopefully I'll have time to take a proper look tomorrow. I'm not sure what sources (if any) I can add, but I'll see if there's any way I can help. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

heh
Thanks for that :) Amazing how quickly things can go sour... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New socks of Ingrid4hubby
FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tngaf CJ DUB (talk)