User talk:Nev1/Archives/July–August 2010

Re: Lindow Man
I've restored the image so that you can attempt to provide a rationale for its use. (Sorry for the delay, I've been busy all weekend and only just turned on my computer.) Good luck with the article! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replacing the image at the portal selected biography -- I've just changed it for the other close-up one as I think it's clearer at the thumbnail size & also more of a portrait, like those in the more conventional biographies. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad luck missing (I suppose) the prize! Nice article anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations. What's that about the prize?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the fifth FA was promoted yesterday, before Lindow Man (GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize). It's a shame the FAC was closed a little too late for the prize, but fortunately that wasn't my main priority. Can't say it wouldn't have been nice, but I'm very pleased to have finally finished off that article. I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of reviews it got. I can't recall any other article I've been involved with have eight supports.
 * Asking for input from the British Museum's curators seems to have been a great success so far (Joy said the BM website will be updated with the most up to date range for Lindow Man). I know the feedback I got (and the reminder from Peter I. Vardy that I'd never got round to finishing off Lindow Man) provided the impetus I needed. I am surprised that only one of the first five FAs from this was in English; I would have expected most of the sources to be in English which might have hampered efforts in other languages. It would be good if this relationship could continue, with editors asking for feedback from curators, or if it could be expanded to include other museums and heritage organisations to provide mutual benefit by improving articles. Now Witty Lama's residency has ended it might be more difficult to get in touch and I suspect that things may lose some focus, but even so the results aren't something to be sneezed at. I recently got in touch with Historic Royal Palaces to ask if they had an expert available to comment on the Tower of London article, but so far I've had no response; that was a few weeks ago. As soon as I stop being lazy, I'll address the outstanding comments on the talk page and take it to FAC. Nev1 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A deserved promotion there Nev, well done. Parrot of Doom 10:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the loss of the lead image, that was surprisingly free from hassle. Congratulations! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry you did not get your share of the goodies. What are all these foreigners doing interfering with a British institution?! Still your "loss" is Cheshire's gain. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do wonder whether when the BM said any language, they expected 2 Catalan & one Latin -- I suspect that the FAC process on the smaller wikis runs more quickly; de didn't get even one. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam
--White Shadows There goes another day 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Troll
I attempted a sockpuppet investigation on that guy but the automatic thinymabob failed. Don't suppose you know why, do you? Parrot of Doom 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything seems to have worked, am I missing something? Nev1 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I probably am :) The investigation redlinked at first, but its irrelevant now as he's been blocked.  It puzzles me that some people have the time to produce such unfunny stuff. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Literary inquisition
This was mentioned in one of my sources as contributing to the Great Divergence. Basically, what happened was that many texts deemed "subservient" by the Qing government was burned.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The source specifically identifies the Qing as when the literary inquisition started (large-scale; previous emperors such as Qin Shi Huang had sproadic book burnings). In fact, it praises the Ming for allowing subjects to speak freely before criticizing the Qing's literary inquisitions as destructive to intellectual thought.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Xu, Suming, "The Great Divergence from a humanist perspective: Why was Jiangnan not England?" (2005). Tianjin Social Science, issue 6. This is also available online (in Chinese).Teeninvestor (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Xu confines his praise for the Ming to the late Ming, not Ming Taizu. But even considering the whole scope of the Ming, there is overwhelming scholarly consensus that literary inquistions were most prominent and systematic during the Qing (previous dynasties had only very isolated cases, except for maybe Qin Shi Huang's book burnings).Teeninvestor (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? I don't think anyone would believe that it was only confined to the Qing (and this is not Xu's view; his charge was that the Qing imposed a very destructive inquisition, not that it was the only one).Teeninvestor (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I took a look at the article and removed it because the first two sections were unsourced (I had not previously heard of persecutions by Ming Taizu referred to as Wenzhiyu; as far as the Cambridge history of China says, he persecuted them for pure political reasons, not because of their writings), and because the term used "Wenzhiyu" is usually used in Chinese to refer to the inquisitions during the Qing; however, I will retreat on this point as a good source has been presented.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Great Divergence
Email's out. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied via email. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dead link
Fair enough, thanks, although I'm unclear as to how it came about that your revision is shown as an undo of mine, with no further revisions noted, but the link now directs to the web archive page. I went back to the page to do that as you suggested, but somehow it had been corrected already! Is this a magic web site (or am I missing something)? Lordrosemount (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see! Thanks for clearing that up; from the edit summary I thought it was just a straight undo. Yes, I've often used the Internet Archive; these days it's just about the only way to find some of my own old web sites! Lordrosemount (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Request
Your Harvnb format seems to be a lot better than your previous format. Can you also change the bibliography of my article, Economic history of China (pre-1911) to this format? Even if you can't, can you at least structure the bibliography that way? It will be much appreciated, thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the same format I used last time. There is of course no definitively correct way of formatting references, but consistency is important and I think the separation of citations and bibliography is more organised. That way, the reader doesn't have to scan through all the references for when the book/article was first used, they can just look at the bibliography which is organised alphabetically. I'll get right onto setting it up for the economic history of China. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With * Bray, Francesca. (1984). Agriculture. Volume VI:2 of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, did Bray write a chapter in Needham's book? Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What are the page numbers so I can add them in? Nev1 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, as this source was added by another editor. I doubt it is used much in the article, except for the Song dynasty. If you can't find a citation using it, then just delete it. On a side note, do you know about the existence of this editor.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bray's cited three times, I just want to add the page range for the article itlsef (the individual citations are already numbered). I'll have a look online to see if I can find anything. Yep, he beat me to a snazzier name. Nothing to do with me though. I found out about the guy during my RfA. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent work on the Economic history of China (pre-1911)! By the way, would you care to also convert Chinese economic reform, a small new article I started, to this format, as well as adding pictures, reformat the bibliography, alt text, etc? I happen to have a collection of academic essays on this topic and I am planning to expand it until it is a GA or FA, which it should be cause of the importance of this topic (I am also planning to get Great Divergence up to that status once the problems listed on the talk page are solved, now that the Qing dispute is largely over). If you are interested, it would be very helpful for me. Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking to take the Tower of London to FAC (perhaps today if things seem ok after another read through), so I don't really have to time format the article on Chinese economic reform. I will of course finish the stuff for the economic history of China, but as there are over 200 references it will take a while. Alt text is no longer a Featured Article requirement, so you don't need to worry about that. This would be a good opportunity to get used to formatting articles, references, and bibliographies yourself. The templates are laid out in the Great Divergence article, just remember to use dashes instead of hyphens in date and page ranges. Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe I will get a copyeditor as I'm not exactly the most artful type.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. As you can see, as well as formatting the references I've also fixed some spelling mistakes. One I can't work out is what is "irrentist"? I've also removed some books from, the bibliography that weren't actually referenced I the article. I also noticed that Twitchett and Klaus-Peter (1995), does not have bibliographic information relating to it. There were also some corrections to editors of the Cambridge histories and the publishing dates of several books. There are some remaining inconsistencies, mostly where bibliographic information is missing from the inline citations. For instance, Twitchett et al could refer to a lot –of things and the specific author for the contribution should be given. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Irrentist=Irrendist I think. Means that they want to take the terroritory back. Also, for the main authors, it refers to the introduction.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean irredentism (the closest term I can find), it refers to annexing a territory because of the ethnicity of the inhabitants is the same as that of the belligerents (according to Wikipedia). Nothing about taking back territory there. Is it a term used by the source? Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BM Lindow star :-)
(I should also just mention briefly that, although I'm sorry to say, all 5 "feature article prizes" have already been allocated. Witty Lama 10:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar, at least WP:CHES got another Feature Article and I finally tied up one loose end. Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think someone made a serious mistake in not specifying that the articles should reach the English wikipedia's FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that as the English Wikipedia is the largest (and the language issue) the British Museum expected most if not all of the articles to be in English. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you're right. I hope that they're not too disappointed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm less than convinced that The Great Wave off Kanagawa falls into the British Museum remit, either. Yes, the BM have a print of it, but so does at least one gallery in most major cities—the original is in the MOA Museum of Art in Japan. Claiming it as "in the British Museum" is like claiming that a back issue of Razzle falls into the BM remit because it's archived at the British Library. – iride  scent  21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that someone has dropped the ball here, assuming they know what a ball is. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't in the en BM category for just that reason - the issue has been discussed, & indeed came up in the first BM Wikipedia day. But we can't really dictate to the Catalan WP how they organize things. The BM could I suppose; they are the contest "judges". I don't know what the Japanese "original" is supposed to be. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's all just a disappointing mess really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's always the glory.... On current form the BM is likely to end with at least 6 en FA articles instead of 2 (and both of those for prints with a more specific BM connection, but still not unique to the museum), and maybe more in the future, so I expect they'll be happy with the results. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the British Museum's intent behind the prize (better articles for them, encouraging the dissemination of accurate and high-quality information, improving Wikipedia, or whatever) the English language section of Wikipedia probably should have been the primary target. English is the first language of the best part of 400 million people and used by many others. According to Wikipedia less than 10 million people speak Catalan for example. As for Latin... Clearly one has the potential to reach many more people than the other and achieve their aims. However, if the British Museum had laid out an English only rule someone would have said it was unfairly discriminatory. As Johnbod says, the effects of the collaboration do go deeper than the five prizes. But now Witty Lama's residency is over, I wonder if the British Museum will be as interested in continuing communication links with Wikipedia, or whether there will be the interest from Wikipedians. I for one don't know how to go about contacting the British Museum about an article should the need arise, although perhaps I've not be paying attention. The importance of this project should be to ensure a long lasting relationship between Wikipedia and the British Museum with mutual benefits. We get better articles, the museum ensures poor information is reduced, and the public get better articles to read. The offer of prizes (cash rather than barnstars) was always going to gather attention; participation will drop off, but hopefully it wasn't just a flash in the pan. After working on Lindow Man, I was wondering about searching for another article related to the North West and the British Museum to see if I could get more feedback.
 * Personally I don't buy into the view that was expressed at WT:FAC that experts shouldn't be approached as they're "never neutral". It's a condescending attitude that makes two assumptions. First of all, it assumes that experts are close minded and cannot see that there are other valid points of view in their field, more than one side to an argument. Absolute bollocks. To take one example, I've read plenty of articles on the debate over the changing nature of castle studies and the emphasis towards examining social aspects. While there are reactionaries who insist revisionist historians are trying to whitewash the military side of castles, they are a minority and there's much discussion on the matter, each taking in the other's views even if they disagree. Many articles are written in opposition to an idea or hypothesis, but that does not mean the author is incapable of admitting the other side may have a point. Secondly, it assumes that the Wikipedian is without bias. While experts who may have spent a lifetime in their field should be treated with caution. I think it's smug and conceited to assume that someone who has read a handful of books about something as opposed to having invested their career in a subject is somehow better. Fostering links with institutions such as the British Museum is a good idea and I firmly believe it will lead to an improvement in article quality.
 * Will the British Museum be happy with the result of 6 FAs? Possibly. But Wikipedians shouldn't be if that's all. This has opened channel between Wikipedia and the academic world. If it's allowed to close because the prizes are gone, this has been a failure. Nev1 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Liam (Witty Lama) was talking about how to keep the project going; he will still be keeping an eye on it remotely, and the BM don't want it to be a flash in the pan. If you want to contact a curator, there is still the "lonely hearts" page on the project, or you could ask Liam direct, or just try the curator directly, if you know who they are. I agree cooperation should keep going. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only just come back online after a post-Wikimania Wikibreak and found this discussion. Sorry I did not chip in earlier. To address the issue raised higher up in the thread - I was the one who proposed the concept of the FA prizes and furthermore that it should be deliberately available for languages other than English. Certainly, it is of most direct benefit to the BM if an article is in English (for visibility and relevance to their geographic location) but it was also important that the BM-WP project had some accessibility for people who were NOT English-speakers or living in London. The fact that WP is available in many languages is one of our most important points of difference to other reference works. Furthermore, it is part of the self-identity of the BM that it is the world's museum and therefore deliberately encouraging non-English Wikipedias should be part of a well-rounded WP-BM relationship. Yes, Latin and Catalan are not some of the biggest language editions, nor are their FA criteria very stringent (compared to en.wp especially) but the stringency of the requirements are roughly equivalent to the size of the project - so that balances out. The fact that 2 prizes went to Catalan is a testament to that community's engagement with this project - something which the BM is pleased with in its own right above/beyond the potential for pageviews. As for the later issue of "what happens now", yes, you can still contact me personally if you want to get in touch with a BM curator or write/ring the museum's email/phone contacts directly. I do not want people to think of my role there as "gatekeeper" - you are certainly able to contact them yourself :-) I know that the BM is thinking through how they would make the relationship work into the future but that is the kind of planning that takes time - especially if the main way that organisations undertake projects (pay people to do them) is unavailable to them because anyone paid to do the role that I did would most likely be immediately banned from enwp. Moreover, if anyone has ideas for how a positive and sustainable relationship can be built in the future please do tell me as it might be something no one has thought of before :-) Witty Lama 11:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bon chance
Good luck with the Tower at FAC. I wish I could do important articles like that. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it will make it through. It could be a lot longer, although I think it's getting to the stage where to add much more information would start to bore the reader. I had hoped to put the general history first in case the architectural history is a bit dull for most people, but trying to wrap my head around the history without reference to the architecture was giving me a headache. As always, your earlier copy editing was essential. And thanks to PoD for helping tidy up my prose (will I ever eliminate those ridiculous typos?), your efforts don't go unnoticed. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto that, another good Castle article, with the usual selection of excellent images. I'll periodically read through it and look for more typos, although I'm just as guilty of that myself :) Parrot of Doom 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Elcobbola's pointed out a problem with File:Guy fawkes torture signatures.jpg that will probably effect your Guy Fawkes article. It's not a problem for the Tower of London as I can remove the image and keep the caption, but it would be a great loss for the article on Fawkes himself. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a derivative image and created from both. If he can't see the loose, tortured signature, he needs to look again. Parrot of Doom 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I get pissed off with these interminable image issues. I thought I'd jumped through all the hoops with this image of Worsley Man, sent to me by the Manchester Museum in response to my request for an image to use on wikipedia (originally they wanted £240 for it IIRC). But no, that's not good enough for the copyright guardians, who are now threatening to delete it because the museum didn't use the correct form of words in their email. The thing about copyright that everyone seems to forget is that it doesn't matter a damn unless it results in some demonstrable loss to the copyright holder.
 * PS. I just noticed that the German wiki has a whole article on Worsley Man. Incredible. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that while I was travelling between the different language Wikipedias replacing a copyrighted image. I'm not sure I like another Wikipedia doing a better job of Worsley Man than us. I'll have to knock something together. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that what I meant to do?
Thanks for mending my blunder so quickly! I saw what I had done as soon as I had made the edit, but by the time I tried to correct it you had already beaten me to the job. BabelStone (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC
I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially (a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing; and/or (b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have wanted to endorse and adopt your analytical strategy at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Criticism interpreted as attack.


 * This step-by-step approach helped me to clarify my understanding of the nested problem set. The sentences are demonstrably constructive, helpful, and plain.  The paragraphs illustrate effective writing.  I would like to see this section's text re-positioned on the main page at Requests for comment/Teeninvestor.  This will give others the opportunity to join me in endorsing the problem-solving approach and conclusions.


 * More broadly, I wonder if this needs to be highlighted as a kind of template for use in other difficult contexts? --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your outside view seems fine in my opinion. As the one who started the RfC, I understand it is an investment of time and effort to participate, and something I would rather was not necessary. I was the one who provided the diffs listed at the start and who explained the situation. I endorsed it and as far as I am aware that is effectively "view certified by Nev1". I've not seriously participated in a RfC/U before so am unsure whether I should make my own view explicit on the page, although the opening statement (I made an effort to keep it neutral although I am opent o suggestions for rewording) hits the nail on the head for me. I went in depth on the talk page because the instructions in starting the RfC suggested not overwhelming participants with evidence. The quotes I provided are from the links under Evidence of disputed behaviour.
 * While this break down and analysis has been effective in illustrating the point of criticism interpreted as personal attack, I'm not sure whether it will work in the other situations. The most important outstanding issue is that of undue weight interwoven with maintaining a neutral point of view. This will be harder to illustrate. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nev1 -- It seems to me that your perspective is shaped by specific objectives. It is evident that you want this specific RfC to be marked by a constructive outcome.


 * If an edited version of this section were added to the main page, and if your sentences were to generate endorsements, the question becomes this -- will it help or hinder Teeninvestor in the process of reexamining the strategy and tactics which have been highlighted in this RfC?


 * Sometimes redundant repetition is helpful as a learning device. Sometimes it is not.  Your good judgment has helped Teeninvestor to arrive at the threshold of a teachable moment. The critical first steps in a constructive direction have been encouraged.--Tenmei (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic sites/Listed buildings: notability
Hi Nev. I notice there  are one-line stubs for natonally  and locally  protected buildings and site in  the USA. Can you tell  me what  the ruling  is for the UK? I have bhen thinking  of writing a a paragraph  or two  about  some of the sites in  Worcestershire, but I  don't  want  to  waste  my  time if they  are going to  fail  WP:N. Thanks in advance.--Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Listed buildings are generally considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, so if you want to write an article on one of them I don't think there'll be a problem. The same goes for Scheduled Monuments. It's not official, but if it does end up at AfD (I've not noticed it happen often) it's easy to make a case for keeping SMs and Grade I and II* listed buildings. Here's the most recent deletion debate of a listed building I could find. Some Grade II listed buildings can be a bit borderline (I'm thinking of the cases where a phonebox or postbox is listed) and could probably be adequately covered in a sentence in the article on the settlement they're in. Even so, there are many which are considered notable. You can get some odd Grade II listed "buildings" (I've noticed a few walls are Grade II), but I think if you choose an actual building it's likely to survive deletion. If you're unsure, feel free to give specific names and I can give an opinion on whether they're "notable". Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing
This edit by Gun Powder Ma here at Requests for comment/Teeninvestor caused me to draft this explanation. The edit was quickly undone by Gun Powder Ma here; but it may be productive to seize this trivial edit as an opportunity to underscore what I mean in using this curious phrase.


 * I discovered these words on the userpage of Kraftlos; and I was surprised that it made sense to me. Conventionally, this form of word play escapes my grasp.  I don't know whether Kraftlos is the originator or whether it is copied from an unattributed source.


 * My guess is that this is a peculiarly American formulation which parodies the words of Yogi Berra? Berra is well known for his pithy comments and witticisms which are called "Yogiisms." Yogiisms very often take the form of either an apparently obvious tautology, or a paradoxical contradiction.


 * Teeninvestor has explained that he is an American, the son of emigrants who came to the United States when he was six years old. Arguably, Teeninvestor will find value in this semi-Yogiism.  Perhaps the point will be immediately accessible in ways that a carefully-composed, logical exposition fails to achieve?  Who can say?  In this RfC context, I interpret the phrase to mean that


 * the main thing
 * is to keep the main thing
 * the main thing


 * the primarly objective of a RfC
 * is to maintain a clear focus
 * on the purpose of the exercise

.




 * In other words, it is important to avert a possibility that the RfC may become side-tracked or distracted by tangential issues. I hoped that this phrase would resonate in some way for Teeninvestor.  More broadly, I hoped that it would contribute to prospects of a constructive outcome.


 * Does this help explain what I meant and what I intended? If not, please allow me to try to explain again using different words.

Do you think this phrase helps to focus attention, or is it counterproductive?

Does this phrase help or hinder the "desired outcome"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm particularly fond of tautology, but I understand what it means. A reminder to stay on topic at the RfC would be worthwhile, although I don't see the point of posting this to the talk pages of so many people. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a "real" question, not a rhetorical one. The subject was my writing, not Teeninvestor's. This diff was about (a) figuring out how to communicate more effectively and (b) how to contribute constructively in this RfC venue.


 * I posted the same diff on five talk pages because my goal was to invite individual responses which would help me decide whether to continue using this phrase in other situations. As it happens, Athenean's comment caused me to strike-out the sentence. I don't want to use words which draw attention to themselves rather the subject at hand. I'm not skillful enough to do that.  I had not considered my questions in that light. --Tenmei (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep!
- was moved, I guess, beacuse of this: Keep (word). I think  the author is very, very  young.--Kudpung (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed. The editor is obviously inexperienced, and as you point out possibly young. I've asked for an explanation before I move the article back, but if they don't reply I don't see there's much I can do. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You could always ask for your admin bit back, and block 'em. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saving that for a special occasion ;-) Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've WP:BOLDly got this moved back to where it should be - >500 incoming links would have needed to be updated if it had been moved. The admin who did the necessary deletion to allow the move also protected the page. The editor who did the move seems to have been doing quite complicated things for an apparently newly registered editor, but I'll WP:AGF and hope they are just confused/inexperienced. I tidied up Keep (disambiguation) en route. PamD (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting things out. I'd say that it's a user who seems to want to help but is trying to run before they can walk. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Castles
Hi Nev. Since you seem to have contributed to many "castle" articles, I thought I would ask you this question. If you had only one week in England, would be staying in London, and only had the choice of one castle to visit, which would you go to? I cannot go on a tour of castles, because of limited walking issues, but thought perhaps Warwick Castle might be a good one. Pembroke is, I think, too far away. I would also like to go on a walking tour in old London, the Temple Church is a must for me, and the Tower of London, each, of course, on seperate days. Would love any suggestions you have, especially on the castles. Mugginsx (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, a tricky question. Warwick Castle is well worth a visit, although because it's run by the Tussauds Group so it is expensive to get in. I didn't go into the dungeons as I was in a bit of a hurry when I visited, but there's plenty of entertainment in the castle, and I would expect the dungeons to be well put presented, although probably sensationalised. If you are going near Warwick, Kenilworth Castle is just a few miles away and well worth a visit. It doesn't look much from Wikipedia's article, but take a look at some of the photos on flickr and these [http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/v/kenilworth_castle/ aerial photos. The ruins are very impressive to walk around and there are guided tours every half hour (I think); walking round the keep, seemingly intact from one angle and with a massively hole in the side from another, and the ruined great hall is remarkable. When I visited in March the Elizabethan garden wasn't open, but they may have sorted it out by now. I hope one day they reflood the area so you can get an impression how the castle would have appeared in its pomp.
 * I've never been to the Tower myself, and according to Johnbod it's expensive, but having read about the Tower and from looking through the beautifully put together The Tower of London: The Official Illustrated History it looks well worth a visit. About 2.5 million people think the safe each year and take a look for themselves.
 * Leeds Castle in Kent is very pretty. There are some fine castles in the south, but East Sussex is particularly good in my opinion. There's Bodiam which survives well externally (it seems almost complete, although the interior is ruined) and conscientiously pretty. Herstmonceux is a picturesque brick castle in the same county . I don't know how you'll be getting around, but East Sussex also greedily has Hastings – with a castle and the nearby Battle Abbey – and Pevensey Castle, where William the Conqueror landed in England . Is Lincoln too far away? Lincoln Castle and Cathedral stand close together on top of a steep hill; the cathedral in particular is worth seeing. I wasn't too impressed with the museum bit, and the modern stuff does dominate somewhat, but if you're looking at the cathedral is only a short walk away.
 * Do I have to pick just one? :S If forced to choose, apart from the Tower, I think I'd go for Warwick. If I were to make a day of it, that would still be a good bet as I could fit in Kenilworth, but there are so many choices. How you intend to get about might effect things, so it would be worth checking train times first. I've had my head swimming northern castles recently, so I may be forgetting some obvious ones down south. Any TPSs got suggestions? Nev1 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This website is a useful prompt for tourist attractions that might slip the mind (although it's not comprehensive, it's just those that opt in). I'd completely forgotten about Dover Castle which is a vast castle in decent nick. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nev, you are absolutely wonderful!!!!! It will take time to digest all this. You went through alot of trouble and I really appreciate it!  I have to look to my bank account to make some hard choices.  As to mobility, I may be able to do 2 castles in one day.  I think about everything you say and check out all the links.  Thanks again, you're the best! Mugginsx (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As to getting around - it won't be by rental car. I wouldn't make it two streets driving on the opposite side of the road without having an accident! (Smile). Mugginsx (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised at how easy it is to drive on the correct side of the road :) Parrot of Doom 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Back on track—although it's not one of the fashionable ones, if I had to pick one castle it would be Dover Castle. Don't let the Wikipedia article put you off; it's a magnificent building, and has grown by addition rather than replacement, so the Iron Age &rarr; Roman &rarr; Saxon &rarr; Norman &rarr; mediaeval &rarr; Napoleonic wars &rarr; World War II progression is far more visible. Since the opening of HS1, it's only an hour out of London by train. – iride  scent  19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not trouble at all, Mugginsx. Any excuse to bore people about castles. The article on Dover Castle is pretty poor; I was sure there was a nice chunky English Heritage book on it, but I'm damned if I can find it. And I second what PoD said ;-) Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all of you really! I'll check out all I can find (if anything more) on Dover Castle.  The opulence of the castle would, to me,  be secondary to the history of it.  Also, at some of the sites you gave me, I see there are special discounts such as senior and disabled, etc. Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nev hasn't mentioned it, but if you're in London, than Windsor Castle (only about 30 minutes away) is a tourist-trap par excellence, but as a spectacle can't be beaten. (Prepare to come out of the Tower of London with a faint "was that it?" feeling, though.) If you want to see one "as it was then", Rochester Castle is probably the best-preserved one in easy reach of London. – iride  scent  16:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How did I forget Windsor? Tourists are spoilt for choice. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again to both of you. I will check Rochester Castle as well.  The distance is good to know since I only have a week. Incidentally, in looking at Warwick Castle, I see that the dungeons are "extra".  I guess in some respects, tourist policies are, at least, the same as in the U.S. (smile)  Incidentally, I looked at Richard I for the first time in awhile and the "new" images are great.  A great job on the article all around. Mugginsx (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks especially for adding those sources to the golden age talk page, I'll be making good use of the "Age of Keynes" source on various Keynes articles. Though Ive read dozens of books on the subject I hadnt picked up that term before :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  10:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Windsor Castle under construction for over a thousand years...
Hey, I think there's a typo in this edit of yours. I don't have access to the source, so I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I missed a 5 which completely changed the meaning of the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

....
I just added something to East Turkestan Independence Movement here

I notified you because my new edits are not appearing on the investigation for the copyright violation for checking, i though you might want to check any of my new edits to see if they are copyvio or not.

I didn't add anything else to other articles, it was mostly fixing on my other recent edits.Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked through the page of the book given as the first reference in this edit, and while I didn't find any copyright problems, I was unable to find mention of Mahmud Nadim Bay or Mustafa Ali Bay. This is a different problem: claiming there's information in the sources that isn't there. You may have gleaned that from somewhere else, but per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, that somewhere else needs to been explicitly mentioned. If you're not sure about copyright issues, I suggest you read the relevant policy pages starting with Copyright violations. It's a serious issue and needs to be sorted before you start adding information to articles again. If I were you, after I'd read the relevant policy pages I'd post a note on the talk page of Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане offering to help clean up; it will might result in some good advice and getting hands on experience with addressing copyright problems will leave a greater impression than a skim over policy pages. A considerable amount of effort will have to go into checking your previous edits and whether they breach copyright, so once you understand what you did wrong it would be a good idea to help out. It's a better idea to correct your mistakes yourself so you understand what went wrong before further editing elsewhere. Walk before you can run.
 * In short, if you're unsure about whether you're breaching copyright you need to stop adding new information to articles. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei

RFA
I don't envy you throwing yourself into the snakepit, especially when you could have the tools back within a few moments. Even though RFA is often completely unfair and a popularity content, hopefully things will be fine here. Good luck!  Aiken   &#9835;   16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Asking a 'crat would have been the easy (and sensible) way to go but once I realised I only had 6,000 edits when I first stood it didn't seem fair when there is so much more evidence for people to assess my suitability. I am intrigued by how this will pan out: just how much does being a solid content editor count when I've stated that I have no intention of closing AfDs and the like? Ideally, it might make a few people less wary of going through the process... or if it crashes and burns perhaps not. Should be interesting though. Plus despite the lovely weather there's a funny smell all over town today and what else are you going to do when trapped indoors. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Some have odd standards. I mean, I don't believe you ever once abused or misused your tools, but there will be some who claim that not being active "enough" is a good excuse to oppose somebody - despite the fact they are obviously competent. So, you don't sit all day long on Huggle, but you get on with writing. Both are worthwhile activities. Huggle would probably require the admin tools more, but that isn't to say that you never used them. I think the case is different for a former admin, as people have something to go on, whereas with new candidates, all we have is guesswork based on their time so far.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasting everyone's time with this... just kidding. Best of luck :)  Jmlk  1  7  17:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if this headed for an early close, but the utmost respect for you, Nev. – B.hotep •talk• 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wigan County Borough
Please do not remove SOURCED material. I have provided a REFERENCE, taken from Wigan Council's own recorded history, and you have reverted it saying you have 'reverted to sourced material'.

Do you know more about Wigan County Borough than Wigan Council do? Why not re-write the history books to suit yourself?

My information was 'sourced' and 'referenced', so I've reverted your revert!

JemmyH 92.239.71.235 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jemmy, the Vision of Britain website refers to "PEMBERTON Tn/CP" being abolished and incorporated into Wigan Borough. Pemberton was a civil parish for a time . Is there a problem with this? You've included a source, but the previous version was more detailed. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nev, you're right. Not Jemmy, once again. Jemmy uses a brief view of the area, that specifically does not go into any detail regarding parish boundaries, wards etc and believes this to be a "SOURCED" "REFERENCE" for what he is claiming? I think not.Koncorde (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Who'd have guessed
An administrator who really ought to have been desysopped some time ago doesn't think that you should be given your utility belt back, even though you could have got it back just by asking for it. No need to reply; you're in the middle of an RfA, so anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence against you. However, if you fail to mention anything that you later rely on in your RfA, that may harm your defence. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I should probably consult my lawyer before commenting. In fact I'm certain of it. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I've said all that I intend to say, and I've taken your RfA off my watchlist so that I won't be tempted to say more. I wish you luck. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I recall Nev pointing out that John was a bully, on my talk page. I guess he really does keep things watchlisted, just so he can have his petty little say. Parrot of Doom 07:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA
Still a little dumbfounded (I know that you explained it all but still....) that you even bothered to run again when you could have asked but I've supported anyways. Good luck :) (not that you need it)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm really glad you caught that! Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Harvnb conversion
Sorry to bother you again, but can you help convert Chinese economic reform to Harvnb format? I've asked other copyeditors to do it but they aren't available right now. You're the last person I know that's familiar with this format, as I'm still struggling with it and after today's events I'm liable to get blocked for anything found wrong. So can you help me do this? Thanks if you choose to, and if not, I wish you good luck with your editing.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the maschoist part of me won and I did it myself.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tower question
I don't suppose any of your sources have pics of Everard Digby or Ambrose Rookwood's carvings, while imprisoned, do they? Parrot of Doom 19:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, neither the Illustrated History or the English Heritage book contain pictures of either man's carvings. I'll try to find Allen Brown's book (I put it down somewhere), but I think of the sources I have the Illustrated History was probably the best bet. They take a more sober view and try to balance the sensational side of the Tower (the prisoners, the torturing, the executions) with the rest of its history, although this means that what would be very interesting detail isn't always included. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I forgot to reply to this. Thanks for your help. Parrot of Doom 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Economic history of China (pre-1911) GAR
Didn't you say you wanted to move this article's GAR to a community GAR?Teeninvestor (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a possibility. The review has been created under a different title to that the GAR bot looks for it's not been listed at Good article reassessment. I think all it would take is moving the page; then it should get listed and there would be a wider range of input into the review. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

End of RFC/U
Hello Nev1. Teeninvestor has been blocked again following another violation of the interaction ban. I would like to know how and when we should bring the RFC/U to a close (see here for discussion). We could do so as soon as Teen's blocks expires in three weeks, since it is apparent that ANI is not the right venue to settle the problem permanently. Frankly, I want to put an end to the cycle on ANI which puts my account too at a risk because of the it takes two to tango paradigm to which I, as many other users who have supported me, heavily disagree in this particular case but which is still the dominant paradigm on the WP noticeboards. I would like to fully concentrate on my contents work again, and so would certainly the many other users who have endorsed the case in the course of the last couple of weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Earlier I left a note at ANI that I think it's time for the RfC/U to be closed. It's recommended that an uninvolved editor does that so that rules out myself. I've made a more explicit request, and hopefully an uninvolved editor will step in soon. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Nev1, many thanks for the swift GA review of Potbelly sculpture. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

China's great economic transformation
OCLC list the chapter titles and chapter authors at the bottom of the page here. Before deleting them from Chinese economic reform, I cross-checked each "source" with the book's chapters. I have reverted my own work; and as you can see, the edit summary mentioned not wanting to invest the time. There may be a better reason for leaving the text as it was. In the context of a GA review process, the emphasis on the need for multiple sources will be construed as an aspect of ensuring academic credibility. In contrast, my edit may be perceived as a criticism of a Wikipedia contributor who only wanted to contribute constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Congratulations, your RfA has demonstrated consensus to receive the sysop maintenance toolkit. As you've had it before, you know what to do. Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back & congrats. Connormah 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations Nev, and I look forward to working with you. In spite of my oppose I am sure you will be a great admin, especially if you take the comments made into account. Best wishes, --John (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope that you don't take the oppose comments into account, but continue on as you did before. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If all they had to whinge about was civility, based on a "couldn't give a shit" and "bullshit", then I don't think Nev has anything to worry about. Other than the afore-mentioned civility warriors, that is. Parrot of Doom 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Congrats!Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me too! Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Me three. Congrats, and good luck with your new mop! ~ NS D  (✉ • ✐) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Nev - a popular win and well deserved. Richerman (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the RfA... I'd have expressed my support if I'd have noticed it sooner! Shit, some people just don't like swearing ;-) Jeni  ( talk ) 01:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding my congratulations -- pity it didn't turn out to be quite the joyous reconfirmation that it ought to have been, but the right result was attained. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages folks, I probably won't use the tools that often (plenty of articles to go round) but will of course use them sensibly. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me too: despite a few idiots making silly comments!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor
Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

List of streets in Manchester
Hi, got a problem here. There is a user falsely accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia, with no evidence whatsoever. The relevant diff is here. How, exactly, is a general page on the term of High Street at all appropriate for that list? And Exchange Square isn't a street is it? I don't want to edit war on it, but ever since I AFD'd it I've been insulted, slandered and attacked at every single edit I make on that article. The user also doesn't seem to understand that we reference lists like any other article. Could you please have a word, either on the talk page or the user's talk page? Thanks.  Aiken   &#9835;   21:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. At first glance, I'd have to agree with your stance on High Street and Exchange Square; dab pages aren't helpful for this article and Exchange Square isn't a street. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
... for your GA review of Seax of Beagnoth. Cordially— S Marshall T/C 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and thanks from me too. That was my first GAR, and you made it a far more painless experience than I was anticipating! BabelStone (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Samlesbury witches
I was wondering why this little historical backwater had started to receive some attention today, then I noticed that it was one of today's "on this day" entries. Being on the main page is certainly a mixed blessing. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It had me puzzled for a bit until I investigated some spillover to the Pendle witches article. At least it hasn't been vandalised. It's garnered a different kind of attention to that reserved the TFA; perhaps those with short attention spans who want to vandalise go straight for the large bit right at the top. People wanted to help, but so far the attention generated for these two articles at least has been mixed. Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I spoke too soon. Weirdly enough, Salmesbury witches got 34,100 views, easily more than the TFA. Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That really is strange. It's a very good article though. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Tower question
I've been working on the charming history of bloody execution, and wondered again, if any of the sources used in Tower of London made mention of the sentence? I've got plenty of examples together, I still seem to be lacking some kind of overall 'glue' though. Annoyingly the one book I ordered that should make light of it all still hasn't surfaced at the library. Parrot of Doom 15:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not replying sooner, I got side-tracked and forgot to come back to this. Fortunately, I wasn't holding out on much. There's Dafydd ap Gruffydd of course, whose head ended up at the Tower, but not much actually happened at the Tower in terms of people being hanged, drawn, and quartered. Nev1 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You do have the charming-named "Hung, Drawn and Quartered Bar" next door to the Tower, mind. (IIRC there were no, or almost no HD&Qs at the Tower; they tended to be done at Tyburn.) – iride scent 23:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you can't let a dull fact like that get in the way of a good pub name, or a good pint. Someone being hanged, drawn, and quartered would have been an interesting bit to add to the article on the Tower, but none of the sources I went through mentioned it happening there. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Plan of Caernarfon Castle.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plan of Caernarfon Castle.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Also, belated congrats on Tower of London! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

U-19 World Cup
Hey - sorry about that but it was to bring a group of articles under a naming convention but unfortunately for this article a page already existed with the required name. I'm currently going through trying to patch up redirects. Waterhogboy (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks a lot. There might be a couple more - quick question is there a way to delete a redirect page once there's nothing linking there anymore? Waterhogboy (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey. Just to let you know - there were a couple of other pages I moved incorrectly before you caught me!! They are: 2008 U/19 Cricket World Cup (now 2008 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup) and 2006 U/19 Cricket World Cup (now 2006 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup). Sorry about that - but thanks for fixing it. Waterhogboy (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also - there is one more page that needs to move to a page that already exists. It's the following page England U-19 cricket team which needs to go to England Under-19 cricket team. Thanks Waterhogboy (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lovely - thanks very much for that Waterhogboy (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Humbug
Thanks very much for the review! -- Beloved Freak  18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
For a userbox version go here. 

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for all your hard work and enjoy the cookies! To our newest admins, good luck with all the requests enjoy your shiny buttons and do us proud!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom at 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

Low-hanging fruit at GAN
For whatever reason I'm not feeling very motivated to write much at the moment, and so I was looking through the articles listed at GAN for some low-hanging fruit that once picked might help the backlog down below its present 300+, and your Caernarfon Castle jumped out at me. I wanted to check with you first though, in case you might feel that others may accuse you or I of colluding in some way to get articles through GA. I've seen a couple by Iridescent and Ealdgyth that I feel similarly about; ironically, Iridescent's Serpentine (lake) was my first ever GA review. Don't be afraid of saying that you'd prefer someone else to do the review, that would be quite understandable. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough I'm not quite in the mood to put articles together either. Nothing is really jumping out at me, although I keep meaning to revisit the article on Richard the Lionheart. Frustratingly I don't have the books right now. Rather than Caernarfon, could I put in a request for Goodrich Castle? Although my name is all over the article history because of a couple of copy edits, it is who launched an extensive rewrite. As the one who recommended taking the article to GAN, I didn't want to be the same person to do the GA review (plus I said all I could think of on the talk page and a review from me wouldn't be too helpful). One of the benefits of GA reviews is that you can get pointers which help with future articles, or even just a thumbs up saying "keep up the good work". I more or less know what I'm doing (or at least I've mastered the art of pretending) and Caernarfon isn't at all urgent, and I think a GA review might provide Hchc2009 with some encouragement. Plus it's buried in the war and military section. Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodrich Castle it is then, and may God preserve Hchc2009. Just warn him that my bark is far worse than my bite, but I mean well. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've finished the GA review. If you want to add anything then please feel free. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Treat Eilley as very low priority if you're looking for something to review. She's languished for over a year and another few weeks won't do any harm; besides, I haven't done a GA review for ages so am surely in some kind of moral deficit by now. If you're plucking low-hanging fruit, go for one by a keen new editor who'll be encouraged by seeing a Wikipedia process working quickly. – iride scent 13:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Goodrich review seems spot on to me; the content is fine as far as I can see (not familiar with the castle, but its history follows a familiar pattern) and it was mainly the prose that needed tidying. Nev1 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Caernarfon Castle
Hiya Nev1, saw you've nominated Caernarfon Castle at GAN. I had a quick look and its been improved immensely since I last saw the article. Should pass GA with flying colours. One thing struck me as rather odd though: the castle's location isn't noted as being in Caernarfon, and the town isn't Wikilinked anywhere (other than the infobox). Is there a reason for that? Just curious. Daicaregos (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I tried to avoid repetition and went to far the other way. In articles like this you could have the opening sentence "Caernarfon Castle is a castle in Caernarfon", after which I wouldn't be surprised if the reader lost the will to live, never mind reading. I can't believe I forgot to include a link to Caernarfon. Do you think this takes care of it, or should I make it more detailed? Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see where you were coming from with that. Sometimes you just have to be boringly obvious. I'm easy on it though, whatever you think best. It was the lack of a link that suggested to me you may have been deliberately trying to avoid it. btw is concious an alternative spelling for conscious, or does it mean something else? Daicaregos (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't show up in firefox as a mistake so I missed fixing the typo, but I swapped it for "deliberate" as it amounts to the same in the context of the article and a mistake is obvious. Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Spat
I (who am, as you know, peaceful and unemotional!!) am having a bit of a spat with the deletionist RadioFan. I suppose I am basically an inclusionist (apart of course from episodes of sitcoms), but this guy seems to spend his time trying to destroy articles (and more to the point, their editors) by, without proper thought and consideration, sending them to AfD. He has been interfering with articles on English churches (not mine, by the way) and without understanding their listed status, nominating them for AfD. He has withdrawn his latest attempt here, but does not really seem to get the "message", see our discussion here. Do you have any thoughts on the matter. I think we should be encouraging IGF editors rather than threatening them. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed the AfD on your talk page after it had closed, but was glad to see it was withdrawn. I was getting ready to find my favourite link to the English Heritage website which explains that listed buildings are important. RadioFan says that essentially it's not enough that a church is old for it to be considered notable, but I'd be surprised if there were many that survive from the 19th century or earlier that aren't notable in some way. As Johnbod said on your talk page, Pevsner should cover anything of note, and many old churches (and some not so old) are listed. Perhaps I'm taking it for granted as I put together a couple of lists on Grade I listed buildings and Scheduled Monuments, but this seems automatically notable because the building dates from around 1200. That's obviously a rarity. Maybe my view is skewed, but I find it concerning that someone would PROD the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Call that a spat? Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha ha Malleus --Senra (Talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To Nev1. Hassocks5489 brought this to my attention.  While it does not precisely answer your point, it does say (page 5) that "before 1700, all buildings that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are listed" ... and "from 1700 to 1840, most buildings are listed".
 * To Malleus. My language may not be your language — but the feelings may be as strong!!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I'd rather be writing articles than all this carp.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a great link, thanks for mentioning it and to Hassocks. That is pretty much what I was getting at, but was based more on first-hand experience rather than a source.
 * While I can see that it may not be obvious that a 19th century building is notable, surely common sense dictates that a surviving medieval building or one from say the 17th century is notable? Just walking out of the front door is enough to show that such buildings are exceptional. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the foul-mouthed troll that wikipedia administrators are so fond of painting me. To continue the Crocodile Dundeed theme though, my general view on life is that if you come after me waving a little pen-knife then you better be prepared for when when I get out my bloody great big axe. (I was going to say chopper, but thought better of it ... Oh bugger, I've said it now!) Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC help
Hi Nev1. I remember your stellar input and help on the 1968 Illinois earthquake FAC (can you believe that was a year and one day ago?) and was wondering if you could help me again. Brianboulton mentioned on the Armero tragedy FAC that the prose could benefit from further attention. I got some help before the FAC (from Malleus), but I feel like I've asked too much of him without giving back. That said, I'd be willing to review anything in return if you want. Thanks,  ceran  thor 13:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll take a look later and see if I can help. As for reviewing, I notice Ambrose Rookwood's had no input for a nearly a week and is nearing the bottom of the pile if you're interested in the Gunpowder Plot. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I hadn't notice that old Ambose was being ignored, apologies to PoD. I had nothing to do with it, so I'll very likely be adding my support once I've read through it again. I've got to get PoD's decks cleared for our Trafford Park challenge. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That has mystified me a little, its a short article, fairly concise, easy to read, no technical expertise required. It even has a grisly ending.
 * I guess people would rather see articles about Hurricanes. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they're definitely amongst my favourites. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently reviewed another plot member for GA, but I've never commented on a FAC afaicr. I don't know how much my comments would be worth but I can comment if I need to. P.S. I don't find the hurricane articles in the slightest bit interesting, but each to their own :-)  Aiken   &#9835;   20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you say. SandyG and Karanacs aren't fools, and they won't be persuaded unless you can persuade them that it's not just a fan support. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I have a pretty collection of bronze stars (although the earlier ones are showing their age and my poor writing at the time) but for me the aim has always been to produce the best article (and in doing so, learn something about the topic). Any criticism would be most welcome. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have always enjoyed history, particularly of that period, so I'll be glad to. I note that you're the author of the Gunpowder Plot FA - I don't know if you've already considered, but it would be perfect for today's featured article on 5 November.  Aiken   &#9835;   21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Raul's probably got 5 November sorted for a few years already. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both by Parrot of Doom! Wow, which to choose? I hope to write a FA some day, hopefully on an important, well-known topic like the plot or Fawkes. But, time is precious... I've started at GA at least.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think that I'm invisible ... hello ... hello... can anybody hear me? Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Malleus and me both worked equally hard on Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes, we're co-noms on those articles. Parrot of Doom 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies Malleus, I only read the opening statements - I didn't notice the names above.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Malleus only gets offended by sycophants... :) Parrot of Doom 22:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just reviewed the article. A wonderful read.  ceran  thor 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As have I, and left some comments.  Aiken   &#9835;   12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help with Armero tragedy so far.  ceran  thor 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)