User talk:Nev1/Archives/March–April 2010

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix
Looks like it was me who inadvertently changed 1974 to 1994 during a copyedit. Ah well, why couldn't it just have been fixed without all of the "needs to be written in a more scholarly manner", "poor quality sourcing", and written like an article in The Sun bollocks?

Yours, seriously pissed off. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to track down some footage I shot, only a week after the bomb, in the centre of Manchester. I don't know if I still have the rushes, and I'm not on speaking terms with the person who might, but if I can find them they're yours. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks PoD. the article's about finished as far as I'm concerned, but an extra image or two would certainly be good. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * These kinds of article bring out the worst in people. Ceoil, someone who's has helped write numerous FAs, forgot all about WP:V; assertions that s/he was familiar with the sources didn't stand up because *gasp* s/he didn't bother to provide any supporting his/her point. It was a comedy of errors right from the start, except without the funny bits. I didn't even get the page number right when I first added the info, although from the name I gave to the citation I had the right page in mind. That the quality of the sources is being questioned is crap and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the sources relevant to the incident. I think my sample survey of sources before Mr Stephen pointed us in the right direction demonstrates that there's not a lot out there, and that the article is using the best that's available. Criticising the sources marked a pretty sudden turn around by Ceoil who had previously been complimentary of the article, showing a remarkable amount of venom. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As you say, a comedy of errors, culminating in Ceoil fulminating at me for being a racist, and accusing me of having by some some mysterious means oversighted the comment he claimed proved my racism. I was not at all amused. Seems to be the pattern with all these republican-related articles though. You make some progress, some Irish twat comes along full of self-righteous indignation about some trivia or other, you have to leave the article alone for a while to let things cool down, and the cycle repeats until everyone is thoroughly pissed off with the pointlessness of it all. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is to stick to things about which nobody has ever heard :) Elizabeth Canning was possibly one of the most notorious criminal cases in 18th-century England, but the article gets about 20 views a day! Parrot of Doom 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Brougham Castle
Interesting- another Cumbria article (and, particularly, a rather academic but not recherché Cumbria article) is definitely a positive. I'll hopefully be doing some GAC reviewing myself in the near future, so I will certainly consider that one. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Richard I of England
Thanks for your !vote in the above discussion. I have since added a note to indicate some other features that I would like to add to the archving. Thanks again! —  Spike Toronto  18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft grammar question
Please take a look here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/GA1
This article was sitting in the queue for a GA review for months. I did the review - and then found the nominator has gone on a long term break for family reasons, departing just 2 days ago. My bad timing. Anyway, my main concerns with the article relate to historical information, and you appear active in this area. Would you be willing to take a look? I'll leave it on hold for longer than usual and see what happens. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checking - are you still hoping to make contributions to improve this article further? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd forgotten about this. I do still intend to help improve it; I'll go back to the library tomorrow for the VCH volume and see what can be done. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard I
I have posted this on the talk page but I have also repeated here for your convenience. You have won me over with you hard research and scholarly deductions! Summary: I think the best approach is as Nev 1 has suggested: i.e., to have a distinct chapter on it. I think this is probably the best model to follow. Nev1 has certainly done his "due diligence" on the subject, having read extensively the various sources. The other editors, Spike and the others have done so as well and are all to be commended. For what it is worth, I do think that Richard I, was at the very least, bixsexual, and, considering the treatment of his Queen, and the fact that we see no reports of his sexual exploits with woman as we do with his father or brother, he was probably homosexual. Taking all of this into consideration, and as it does seem to touch on his history, I do think it deserves mention in the way and manner Nev1 suggests. Mugginsx (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Do not call other users fools. You know better. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling them as I see them. In my books suggesting a user name should be blocked without understanding the relevant guideline is foolish. Take your prattle elsewhere. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nev on this one, in fact my words probably would have been stronger! Jeni  ( talk ) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a bit like saying you can't call editors editors? Or black black? What are you supposed to call someone who acts foolishly? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shut up Malleus... you... Malleus! *runs away* :-)  Jeni  ( talk ) 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Mayor. Nev1 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Boris is ace. Take it back. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't call them anything. Personal attacks aren't allowed here. — Mythdon (talk)  (contribs) 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A spade is still a spade, regardless of whether someone insists you call it a "two-handed implement for the rearrangement of earth and other materials". I see no point in beating around the bush. Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when has telling the truth and calling someone something they have personally proved they are, a personal attack? And this folks is why the 'pedia will be destined for the great cyber-pail closet in dev/null. Pretty soon no-one will be able to say anything lest they be indeffed for it... just in case. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because name-calling falls under the criteria of personal attacks. Insulting another editor in any way is a personal attack, which includes name-calling, because calling people names is insulting. If I called you a "jerk" (whether you were acting like one is irrelevant), would that not be a personal attack? — Mythdon (talk)  (contribs) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have we crossed paths on Wikipedia before? I don't recall having edited any articles with you. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether we have edited articles together or "crossed paths" is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not your comment(s) are incivil. Please don't engage in incivility, or make personal attacks. — Mythdon (talk)  (contribs) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think it's quite relevant. If for some reason you had my talk page on your watchlist and popped in out of curiosity that's fine, but if you came here and stuck your oar in, I would have to ask why. That could be construed as incivil. Fortunately my talk page is a "civility" free zone. Feel free to swear, scratch your arse, and steal someone else's chair when they go to the toilet. Otherwise, if wanted to lecture me, your posts are not welcome. Nev1 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)In which case you do not understand correct English. The correct adjective for someone being foolish is "fool". It's not name-calling, it's being accurate. A person always has the luxury of not being described as a fool, by the simple expedient of not being foolish. Name calling is when someone is called a name which isn't accurate. Calling someone a "jerk" is name-calling, unless of course they are stood in front of you jerking. This is why this emphasis on civility will always be a non-starter. No-one knows exactly what "civility" is. They only know what it means to them. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been called so many names on here I lost track ages ago. I think one of my favourites was Jennaveccia's "you are a dick of porn star proportions". I still look back on that fondly. What seems to have escaped the civility police's notice here though is that administrator Beeblebrox called me a troll more than once during his display of bad temper. Has he been warned for that? No, of course he hasn't. Words can't really do justice to the disgust I feel for those who come in from nowhere to issue their childish civility warnings while ignoring the incivility of their friends or more powerful editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you issued one of your civility warnings to Beeblebrox for calling me a troll Hipocrite? No? I thought not. Well named. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd block him for a week if I had buttons. However, his nonsense was already being covered up by the spinless admin corps, so what was me dumping a "you know better" on his page going to do? Trust me, I'm not on either side here. Hipocrite (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you not consider it somewhat hypocritical that you come to Nev's page, issuing commands? Nev1 does know better, but sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out.  I'd have used stronger words. Parrot of Doom 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it would be hypocritical if I were to commend someone for being incivil while condemning others. I chose who to condemn for incivility based on the likleyhood it will make a positive difference minutes the likleyhood it will make a negative difference. To be perfectly honest, I would have written Beeblebrox a much stronger note, informing him that his actions were entirely beyond the pale, that if I could, I would have blocked him for a week, and that I'd like to know his recall procedure. However, recall is spineless, I can't block him for a week and while I'm obviously going to make yet another vindicitive admin enemy now, I'd like to minimize the ever increasing number of pocket dictators that would like me to have to get a sockpuppet to continue editing. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have missed my point. "pocket dictators" - in essence, when you posted your comment at the top this is precisely what you were being.  Nev1 isn't daft, he called a spade a spade and was well aware of the possible ramifications.  You were aware that he knew this, so your instruction is both pointless and hypocritical.  It isn't the end of the world but I'm surprised you need this pointing out. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * His nonsense has been covered up by the "spineless admin corps", and Baseball Bugs is a fool. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it has - he's an admin. They watch their own, except for a few of em, and I decline to comment except to note that incivility will not carry the day for you. Hipocrite (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I recognised long ago that "civility" is used here as a weapon to drive away an unpopular editors, so it doesn't really matter what I say or do, I'll be gone soon enough anyway. I can't survive in a world where even a mild remark like "I hope you weren't holding your breath" is interpreted as a death threat. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As did I. However, your own incivility will be the gun that shoots you in the account. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it's not worth it. That's my sole point. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but my point is that it will be the self-evident hypocrisy in the way this place is run that will, in the end, drive away everyone over the age of 12. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should remind them Malleus that holding one's breath only results in a faint, at worst. It's impossible to kill oneself by not breathing. Parrot of Doom 22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you absolutely certain that wouldn't be uncivil? It was an administrator said it was a death threat remember, and they operate by different rules from us menials. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well they could bang their head on the floor as they fell, but wood tends to hold its shape quite well. Parrot of Doom 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo church v. Commissioners' church
Hi, Nev. I'm not sure if you're interested in 19th-century church history and architecture. If you are, the discussion on Talk:Waterloo church may be of interest. Perhaps, being a Northerner and situated in the north, I find the former title rather London-centric, and the latter more universal. If you are interested in joining the debate, I would welcome it; if not, don't worry. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Now for something completely different; what are your thoughts about Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy (a FA) being recognised as part of WikiProject Cheshire?  It's no big deal, but the connection is a bit distant - a computer game designed by a company that happens to be based in Knutsford.  I suppose I'm a bit prejudiced about computer games and episodes of soap operas being given such prominence in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia rather than a compendium of trivia, when my interest lies in matters more long-lasting.  I don't want to make a fuss, but would be interested in your thoughts.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My own preference would be to not include it, but I prefer to think that computer games shouldn't be considered a priority in a serious encyclopaedia. I suppose it's not doing any harm to include the article, but I don't think the fact that the game was developed in Knutsford to be particularly important: it could have been anywhere. If there was a Knutsford Wikiproject, it would be reasonable to include it, but I'm not convinced it should be included for Cheshire. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory
Since this article became a GA I've added quite a lot of material from the latest book on the findings of the excavations and I'm thinking of having a go at FAC with it. If you have the time and the inclination, would you like to have a look at it with your expert knowledge to make sure I haven't made any significant errors. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very fine article and looks ready for FAC to me, although I'm far from an expert on the subject. It does a good job of putting things in context; the section on the abbey really impresses on the reader that Norton Abbey was an important place, and information such as how the priory derived funds from farming its lands is important to understanding the structure. The details such as the abbot who was threatened with a knife illustrate the disputes which effected the priory, although I think the way it's phrased implies that it might have been that prior who threatened the abbot. When discussing the fate of the priory in the dissolution, it may be interesting to give figures for how many priories etc were closed across the country to put things in perspective; perhaps noting that while many were rendered uninhabitable, others were sold to secular people. In "It is likely that the move from Runcorn to Norton took a period of time", "took a period of time" is an odd phrase; I realise this means it probably took a long time, but 5 minutes is still a period of time. It might be useful to get a photo of the model in the museum; as a 3D work of art in permanent public display I think it is in the public domain under freedom of panorama, but I'd have to check. Aside from that, there's little I can suggest to improve the article, although perhaps when describing the statue of St Christopher the height would be more useful than "giant"; however, giant is more interesting, and the height is given alter in the article, so it's not important. The opening sentence of the article is a little repetitious, and could perhaps do with rephrasing, but overall the prose seems fine to me. Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments. I've received some advice from Faeriesoph (on my talk page, and I hope to do some work on the article during the week.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Following your advice, and help from Malleus and Faeriesoph, I've done some more work on it. I've rephrased the bits about the knife and the "period of time" and placed "giant" in quotes (it's what the source says).  I really don't have enough info to deal with a comparison with the dissolution of other abbeys and priories, so I think I will leave that.  I hope to visit the site in the next day or two and enquire about permission to take and use photos; I know you're not allowed to photograph St Christopher (which is a great shame) but I can also ask them if there is a copyright-free image anywhere. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Visited the site yesterday and they were quite happy about the copyright situation, (they see it as more publicity, which is very sensible), except for St Christopher, who is "owned" by Liverpool Museums. Took more photos and added some of them to the article, including the one you suggested.  Done a bit more work on the text, too.  How's it looking?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandal Castle
Hello Nev, A little castle question, do you think it would be best to change the infobox on Sandal to the one you used for Bodiam? I'm never sure about these things. Any help would be gratefully received. I have the Walker's History of Wakefield which wanders about all over the place and a library copy of Butler which also meanders through the archaeology etc. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether to use an infobox can be a tricky question. Some people don't like them because they force the dimensions of the lead picture (usually to a small size) and over simplify some information, for example a building may have had several periods of construction and an infobox may not be the best way to convey that. I think that an infobox works in the case of Bodiam Castle as it was built in one period, so it's possible to be fairly precise in the fields. I think Sandal's history may be too complex, but I don't really like the current infobox; it's too long and information such as whether refreshments are available is more appropriate of a tourist flyer than an encyclopaedia. I think the biggest benefit of an infobox is having a location map, which the current one doesn't have. One option, which I'd favour in this case, would be to use a stripped down version of the box used for Bodiam (see right). Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nev, I think I prefer this version and the map.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also been scribbling a bit about Wakefield's other castle, . What do you think? I tried the infobox but am completely hopeless with coordinates and such complicated stuff. --J3Mrs (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good article. As all that remains of the castle are earthworks, there doesn't appear to be much written about the site (I've found that website to be pretty much comprehensive for sources on castles in England and Wales). Is it certain that the motte was originally a burial mound? If so, it might be possible to add in a sentence or two about how common that practice was; if I remember right it provided a ready-made motte, but there may have been other reasons. Oliver Creighton's Castles and Landscapse may have something on the subject, although not directly related to Lowe Hill (unfortunately I no longer have the book). If not, it's not important, it would just flesh the article out a bit more. I've corrected the co-ordinates and the infobox map is now working.. Nev1 (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Nev, I tidied it up a bit and cited it so it's now an article, Wakefield Castle. I must get a picture, might be a good time if I can get there before the leaves come out on the trees. Now I am trying to sort Sandal. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who would have believed that Wakefield had even one castle, never mind two? Great work J3mrs. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, who'd a thowt it? Thanks for the compliments, both of you :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Got any more smutty bridges you'd like me to take a look at before I get back to my chef d'oeuvre? I really hope this doesn't come across as condescending, but as your confidence has grown you've become a great asset to wikipedia. I hope it can keep you motivated. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None at the minute, but as soon as I come across one, or something similar, I'll think of you. My confidence ebbs and flows, I wouldn't dare do anything new without being pushed. --J3Mrs (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Goltho
Hi Nev1, can you take another look at this edit as it removes the references, co-ordinates & categories. I cannot work out from the comment what you intended. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I found that the sources section from the article was copied directly from here (the website claims as much). The giveaway was the following extract: "Stocker, D., 1989, 'Review of G. Beresford, 'Goltho: The Development of of an Early Medieval Manor c. 850-1150 The Archaeological Journal Vol146 p627-9". It looked fine on the original website, but on Wikipedia the  causes unusual italics. It could be that the author has double checked, but copy and pasting the bibliography suggest probably not. There are also some other phrases that have been lifted from The Gatehouse, eg: "medieval village settlement consisting of a moat, and crofts with buildings, seen as cropmarks and earthworks. Excavation in 1973 revealed an early medieval ringwork and medieval motte and tower. This is a site that has undergone a rare extensive and detailed excavation and was found to have had a complex history. This started as a Saxon defended manorial site and had the earthworks modified on several occasions (and timber buildings rebuilt) including use as a Norman castle". It could be that The Gatehouse'' copied from Wikipedia (the wayback machine doesn't have a copy of the relevant page), but my experience with the site is that it's generally reliable, and while it does sometimes link to Wikipedia when the author of the site thinks it worthwhile, I've not seen direct phrases lifted from Wikipedia without quotes before. I intend to go through the article and properly source it, but in the meantime, all the sources previously listed in the article are linked to so anyone researching the subject can still do so easily. Not easy to explain all that in an edit summary. Nev1 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How's this? It's a lot shorter, but it's more focussed on the settlement rather than the hall and is now properly sourced (bar the etymology). If you're ok with the changes, I can leave a copy of this conversation on the article's talk page. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the effort to improve the article. I was thinking that may be you had meant to cut the text instead of what you had done, so did not want to just revert it out. Keith D (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wife Selling?
Seriously? ''' seriously? ''' Forgive me for saying this, but that's terribly unoriginal, They ran a story back in 1984 (on April Fools) on the New York Times about "wife-selling" But i'm sure you're too young to remember that.... 64.222.113.237 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of brougham Castle
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any questions or concerns don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  07:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, especially the copy edit. The use of the word "picturesque" has been restored to the section title, but I think that's the only significant change after your edits and it's explained on the talk page. I'll read through the article next week and see if I think it's up to scratch for FAC. Nev1 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nev1, I'm a new coord for MILHIST; there's a lot I don't know still, but I'm pretty handy at FAC, and I will jump in and start making suggestions and edits on this article (and hopefully support it at the end) unless you holler. I understand that having people paw over your article when it's at FAC can be unsettling :) - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means go ahead. I've had a few articles at FAC so know what to expect, and a good review is valuable regardless of the outcome of the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My sandbox
I refuse to blank it. They insulted me and remain unwarned and unblocked. The way I see it, Wikipedia's policies are working very much against me for arbitrary reasons. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop leaving messages on my talk page. I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Also, stop restoring information on my talk page. WP:REMOVED allows me to remove anything I like. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should demand satisfaction? What would be your choice of weapon? Wet kippers or handbags? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a friendly warning MD, you are of course free to remove them, however an intervening edit conflict complicated things and I thought I may have accidentally removed the post myself as I did not notice your edit. Calm down and please take my advice. Nev1 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Alderley Edge
Took me a while to notice your 'original research' tag on the legend of the iron gates section. I have now added the citation for it.. should have done that in the first place but you know how things go when you get busy. Thanks for the pointer. Phil aka Geotek (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Civility
No one is trying to tell you that you can't use particular words in any context; you just shouldn't swear at people. By all means swear, but swearing at someone is pointless and usually elicits a reaction opposite to that which is desired. – PeeJay 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Often a lighter touch is more effective than harsh words, but sometimes, for whatever reason, people get agitated and swear. No, it almost certainly won't do any good, but the sanctimonious stuff Bjmullan was coming out with in response was a little too sickly sweet to be genuine. There is more than one way to be incivil, beyond the use of swearing. "Civility as well. Being nice costs nothing. Try it sometime. I hope you also have a nice day" is dripping with sarcasm. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To a degree, I agree with you, but Bjmullan's overall message is a fair one. Malleus was wrong to engage in his incivility towards me in the first place, and Bjmullan was right to object to his conduct. I understand that you and Malleus have worked well together in the past, so it makes sense that you would want to defend him, but his conduct in this specific incident is indefensible, and your attitude wasn't necessary. – PeeJay 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it probably exacerbated things and I should have kept my mouth shut. I still think what he said was bullshit, or rather the way he said it. "Nobody wants to see the language you used"? Bjmullen's tone was condescending, which is just as incivil as swearing. The point may have been "it might be easy to work together if you set aside heated language", however it just came across badly. Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see Bjmullan's comments as condescending, but I'm a pretty unassuming guy. Still, if you can see that that was his point, regardless of his perceived tone, why did you respond that way? – PeeJay 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reflex, the comments came across as condescending and insincere and I expressed that opinion. Perhaps eloquence should not have been sacrificed for the sake of brevity in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Well, I consider this matter to be closed now. I just hope your opinion of me has not decreased in the same way that Malleus's opinion of me has. – PeeJay 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes things get heated, but in the end we're here to build an encyclopaedia; it'll be forgotten by tomorrow. I don't know the ins and outs of the situation, but I still think you're a good editor with plenty to offer Wikipedia. People can't agree on everything all the time. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Best wishes. – PeeJay 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Have I offended thee?
Not sure where you came from but if I have offended thee then let me know otherwise can you keep your foul language to yourself? Bjmullan (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think calling what you said bullshit is foul, you don't want to know what I really think about it, so how about you get off my talk page. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Please don't swear on Wikipedia, it makes life shit, mmmkay? Every time you swear some cute little bunny gets shot. Jeni ( talk ) 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's alright, I like rabbit pie ;-) Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, couldn't resist! How's life? I was in Manchester on Sat... surprised I didn't get shot! Jeni  ( talk ) 23:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been sunny here recently, I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse. It took me by surprise so much that I managed to catch the sun. Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Was this a joke? --John (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Nev1 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Where do you see "threats and intimidation" in what I said? --John (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt you'll understand or agree with the explanation, but what you essentially said was "I look forward to seeing your trial by fire so that you realise you must watch you ps and qs around people like me". Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your evidence for putting this interpretation on my words? It is very different from what I actually said. --John (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The context is sufficient. 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. --John (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A clue
Do not ever accuse me of vandalism again as you did here. I have NEVER vandalized Wikipedia in my life and your hasty accusations are totally without merit and a violation of WP:AGF. Those are subpages of an indefinitely blocked abusive sockpuppeteer and standard procedure is to redirect subpages to the main page. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when is allowing an editor, banned or otherwise, to say which articles they have been involved in against the rules? What you did was deliberate defacement, it was not at all hasty of me. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was also rather insulting, calling the contents of another editor's talk page "crap". Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Methinks someone missed their dose of Bromide. Parrot of Doom 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying anything I have done is "deliberate defacement" is a lie. So, I guess instead of being hasty you just like to assume bad faith. Oh, and since when do blocked puppetmasters get to determine the content of the talk page of their blocked accounts? Oh, that's right, only when it's a friend of yours. Great job guys, enjoy! &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other rational comments to make, or are you fresh out? When the WebHamster account was blocked, the pages were not turned into redirects despite the attention of a large amount of admins at ANI. That says to me it was at all important, and that there were no loose ends, so what you did was unnecessary and done to erase the work of WebHamster. You throw around the word abuse rather happily, but I wonder how familiar you are with the case. WebHamster may occasionally have thrown around swear words, but his contributions to the encyclopaedia – in between being harrassed on-wiki and in real life by and his sock puppets – were valuable. As for Fred the Oyster, his work at the graphics lab was invaluable, especially as there's often a long backlog there. He made the mistake of falling foul of an abusive admin. Essentially,  blocked him for incivliity where there was none, and used Fred's response to a piss poor block as his justification. What a fuck wit. It was wrong, yet no one bothered to call him on it as someone later decided Fred was a sockpuppet account. Convenient. Nev1 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
ALI nom nom 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You may well already have seen this ...
... but just in case, an independent academic expert has rated Maiden Castle, Dorset as one of the best of the FAs, at $8/10$. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hadn't seen it at all. It's a small sample (22) but that's still quite satisfying, although most of the credit goes to Niall Sharples. What is concerning is that an independent authority thought 45% of the articles didn't meet the FA criteria. An in depth analysis of what they thought of those articles would be well worth pursuing, especially for those towards the lower end of the scale. Nev1 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an ongoing discussion about this at WT:FAC, and you can request any of the 22 reviews to be emailed to you if you want to see them. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. There are two issues that need to be dealt with here. 1) Improving the articles used in the study; this is an all too rare opportunity we have and need to make the most of this expert input as possible. Idealy, the reviews should be posted on each article's talk page. 2) How can the FAC process be improved. I'd advocate sending off an e-mail to the relevant expert at the start of a nomination; the feedback should obviously be given a lot of weight. 22 responses out of 160 experts approached is disappointing, but even that 14% would be invaluable and a step towards professionalising Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's potentially some useful feed back on those 22 articles now available, I agree. More generally, it's not always easy to identify an expert, and there may even not be one in some cases. Take wife selling for instance. There have really only been two substantial studies published, the most rigorous by E. P. Thompson, now dead of course, in which he was rather critical of the other study by Samuel Pyeatt Menefee. Conceivably, some subjects may not even warrant particularly expert input – I'm thinking of an article on a well-established statistical test, for instance. Experts often disagree amongst themselves in any event, that's how they make their names in academia, so choice of expert may not be so obvious in some cases. And as we saw in the Donner Party, inviting expert input can also invite original research and an over-reliance on primary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheshire SSSI list
I seem to recall it was you who suggested that I should have a go at improving this... and well over a year later I actually got off my backside & bothered to do so -- as a list newbie, any comments you have on its current state would be very helpful. I'm now trying to assemble the set of 63 SSSI articles needed to give the list a chance at FL review -- all assistance gratefully received :) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a vast improvement, and at ta glance looks like a good candidate for FLC. I'll take a closer look later today. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! No hurry -- I suspect it might take a while to get all the subarticles marshalled... Espresso Addict (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a very good article. The lead, very important in a Featured List, does everything I'd expect it to: explain what SSSIs are and have details specifically relevant to Cheshire. The table is functional and uncluttered. I only have two suggestions: it would be useful to state how being an SSSI effects a site, a sentence saying something along the lines of "If a site is an SSSI it is protected under law from authorised change" (disclaimer: this is just an example, I've no idea if it's true)) would be enough; also, maybe the raw external links in the citation column should be converted to citation or cite web templates. Nev1 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I agree a note regarding what being designated an SSSI means in practical terms would be useful -- I'll try to find a simple statement suitable for referencing. I'm in two minds on turning the citations into references -- I did it that way to reduce the length of the reference list (having not liked the solution used in other SSSI tabulated lists where the citation pdfs are all listed under the same reference), but looking at it now I do see your point. I probably ought to buckle down and change all the references to a suitable citation template; I dislike the things for a number of reasons but suspect they're a requirement for FLs. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchester martyrs
Thanks for the common-sense backup. I recommend you put the page on your watchlist, as I am pretty sure I know what's going to happen (having been on Wikipedia since 2006). If your edit is rv, bear in mind that there is a WP:1RR rule on this article as it is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. The current restrictions include:


 * All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
 * All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of theme park fake castles to the topic of "Castle"
Um, how is the construction of a mock or fake castle at a theme park not relevant to the topic of castles? A castle is a castle. Since faux castles and structures inspired by castles were included in the topic, Disney's version should be included, as it's the same category of structure - a mock castle or folly inspired by a castle. So why exclude a structure just because it's in a theme park? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Brougham Castle
Nothing significant, but I've posted a long list of minor quibbles at the Brougham Castle FAC. The answer may well be "we don't know" to all of them; if so, I'm happy to change to support. – iride  scent  17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another thing: Wordsworth's Prelude may well have been inspired by a visit to Brougham Castle—but I suspect Song at the Feast of Brougham Castle (currently unmentioned) is probably more deserving if you're only to list one Wordsworth poem… – iride  scent  17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably worth mentioning both. The Song at the Feast is a good find, it wasn't mentioned at all in the Summerson, Trueman & Harrison book which is what has formed the basis for the article as it is the most comprehensive account of the castle's history and fabric. I've replied to your points, and for some of them there wasn't much that could be done I'm afraid. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Walworth Castle
Thanks for putting the milhist project tag on Walworth Castle. Just one query - it's always been a manor house, and as far as I know has never had military connections. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to remove the tag or not, though; perhaps the milhist project also covers renaissance make-believe castles? As far as I know, it was definitely built as a manor house in the late 16th century, completed in 1600. There was a previous manor house on the site, and one of the towers (the west tower) was kept and re-used in the 1600 castle. But before that, there was some sort of high-status building that probably goes back to the Normans, and the only evidence for that will be in the cellar. I forget when the harrying of the north was, but I've recently come across two bastle houses (defensive house) in villages in Durham well to the north and south of this hamlet, so who knows but there may have once been a bastle house here - we may never know. It's true that the official listing description mentions gunloops and cross windows in the west tower, but that tower is said to have been built in the early 16th century. Sorry, that's the best I can do.--Storye book (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Manor houses and mock castles don't really fall within the project's scope, but I thought there might be a Norman castle involved. I tagged the article based on "The present castle stands on the site of a previous one which was built around 1150 by the Hansard family". If you don't feel it's appropriate as the article is primarily about the manor house feel free to remove it; there's not a lot the project has to add to the article realistically. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll remove the tag until such time as we get proper evidence of a bastle house or other type of defensive building.--Storye book (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Good work with the article by the way. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I impose on you ...
... to move Cottingley fairies to Cottingley Fairies, which is what they're called in the literature? Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Fraid I don't have the tools any more, but WP:RM should get things moving. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I miss something, or have I forgotten something? I'll do as you suggest anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I quit being an admin in January so can't delete the Cottingley Fairies to make way for the page move. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'd forgotten. I can be such an insensitive dickhead sometimes. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just a humble an editor now. Turns out that is a useful template which gets the redirect nuked pretty quickly. The page has been moved, so you can close the request on the article's talk page (no point in waiting 7 days for what should be an obvious move). Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually 'twas me still watching your talk page. I haven't deleted a page in so long I've almost forgotten what it felt like... Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was remarkably quick, I must barely have had time to place the speedy tag. Thanks for clearing the way. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So quick, we edit conflicted trying to perform the move... Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole long s business
Quite honestly, I'm past caring now. It never was a huge issue for me, but it became something of one when people started inventing things to support their opinions, and resorting to personal attacks. That just gets my back up, and the idiot postings on my talk page I feel are designed to push me into a corner. I have no doubt that someone is hoping I'll lash out and earn myself a block. I also have no doubt that one of them is a sockpuppet.

I just don't want you to think I've lost my senses. If I had, I'd have typed out exactly what I think of them a few days ago. I despise bullies. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is surprising how much heat has been generated over what is a relatively small issue. The discussion does feel a bit... claustrophobic. At least one editor seems more interested in discussing the editors invovled rather than the long s itslef. Hopefully now Hans Adler has taken the issue to WT:MOS it will die down at wife selling. Once everything listed at WP:VA has reached at least GA standard, then we can worry about matters such as whether to use a long s. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and User:BarkingPumpkin1981, after posting two 3RR warnings on my talk page, has only gone and broken it himself. Whoops. Parrot of Doom 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was who posted the warnings,  just happened to turn up after GS ran out of reverts. Nev1 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have my suspicions, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Is investigating sockpuppets a particularly difficult procedure? Parrot of Doom 23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, from what I remember you just follow the links at WP:SPI and submit your evidence (it should guide you through the process). If the evidence isn't strong enough the request may be turned down as "fishing". Nev1 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle
Hi, am just in the middle of working on this, And, regretably, am stil a wiki editing novice as I can't really focus on the rules/techniques as opposed to the content. But will take your comments on borad, as far as I'm able, when I've finished the content revision.

Thanks and best regards

KJP1 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Am really grateful for your advice and hope my earlier response didn't come across as curt. I'm not great at wiki conventions and techniques and really just focus on content. But shall try to learn and take your comments on board.

Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all curt. Good luck with what should be an interesting article. Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Château Gaillard
Thank you for having removed the "-" I missed. Have a nice day. BIRDIE  ✉ 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)