User talk:Nev1/Archives/March–April 2012

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Château d'Angers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatelet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection on Lincoln Cathedral
Excuse me if I've done something wrong or come to an invalid conclusion, but I'm a newbie here. I see you have locked/blocked/protected the Lincoln Cathedral article. Following various links it seems that was done because some users there don't want content added and keep reverting it. Wiki is supposed to be open to all to edit - I want to edit that article, but can't now. The rules about protecting/locking say that rather than locking an article, users who indulge in persistent edit warring should be blocked. Perhaps you should consider unlocking the article and blocking "Arthur Holland", "Myrvin", "Keith D" and "GrahamSmith" who seem to be causing all the trouble there. Cobulator (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been completely locked until 3 March (see the edit history). This is something that is very rarely done, but it isn't for malicious reasons - its simply so that all parties can calm down a little and continue to discuss whatever the problem might be.  If the article is now, in your opinion, incorrect, then that's unfortunate, but I wouldn't worry too much.  If anything, the article's locked status might now draw more people to the discussion, which is often a good thing. Parrot of Doom 12:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected so no one can edit it to focus effort on discussing your proposed change. So far you have not engaged in the talk page discussion where the editors you refer to are discussing how to deal with the content you want to add. The fact that you've not taken part in that discussion means that if the article hadn't been protected, you'd probably be the one who'd be blocked. With four reverts to your name in under 24 hours you breached one of Wikipedia's rules regarding edit warring. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Four reverts? Not me. I've only edited the article 4 times since the beginning of November. Twice yesterday adding content and reverting nothing. Then someone reverted my additions and with a spurious edit summary, so I set it back again. Then when I came back later someone else had undone my work and mentioned about a discussion which I wasn't involved in. I did of course put my content back. If you are counting recent "reverts", it seems I have at most 2, "Arthur Holland" has 2 on my content and 1 on someone else's = 3. "Myrvin" has 1 on mine and 3 on other people's = 4. "Keith D" has 1. "GrahamSmith" has 2. You appear to be preventing editors from working on the article because a couple of awkward characters don't want new content added. What is there to discuss over a couple of relevent historical facts? Open it please an, if they do it agian, block those doing the deleting of incontrovertible facts. Cobulator (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue wasn't whether or not you were correct, you obviously were, but whether that information needed to be presented in the manner it was. The best way to work through this disagreement is to discuss it rather than revert. Hopefully, protecting the page will allow that. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You admit my content was correct. Do you also admit that I didn't make "four reverts"? Is it normal to lock an article to stop a newbie from adding content? Do established editors always have a veto over what gets added? Cobulator (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes you made two reverts not four, but the talk page should be have been the first place to go after you found your edits undone. The article is protected so that no one can edit, not simply you. Nev1 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I've discovered the talk page, I've said my piece there. Will you unlock the article now please, or do I have to go elsewhere to get that sorted? I don't see other articles being locked to prevent new content being re-added after it has been bad-mindedly removed, what's special about this one? Shouldn't some action be taken against those doing the removal? Cobulator (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Woodseats44 (who is likely User:86.25.36.77) have been reverting without discussing things on the talk page. I think three days shuold be enough for people to talk to each other without being so long that the article will suffer from no one editing it. If you disagree you can ask an admin to unprotect the page at WP:RFPP. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "ask an admin"? don't you mean "ask another admin", Nev1?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.208.111 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Another new editor given a "warm Wikipedia welcome" then. Looking through some of the existing articles, Wiki could do with some new blood. New editors should be welcomed, not banned for daring to add inconvenient truths or treading on the toes of established editors. The article lock should be lifted, but I can't be bothered figuring out the hoops, I can wait 3 days. Cobulator (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An inconvenient truth for whom exactly? Nev1 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For those who collaborated to have it suppressed perhaps? Cobulator (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagreeing with someone's edits isn't the same as supressing them. Nev1 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd also point out that the concensus of the discussion on the talk page between the "collaborating established editors" has been that this information should be included, in an expanded wording, but in the main body of the article. Nothing is being "suppressed" – our concerns were for tone, wording and positioning within the article. There really is nothing sinister going on. Arthur Holland (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Cathedral again
Hello Nev1. Can you do anything to stop my edits being reverted for no apparent reason in the "Lincoln Cathedral" article please? I have had nothing to do with any "edit war" there, and an editor has, in one discourteous go, undone two unrelated edits I made today! This looks like bullying or intimidation to me. Cobulator (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a good idea to restore your edit while talks were ungoing, it make it seem as if you're not really interested in the discussion, but there really should not be an edit war over a single word in the first place. I'll leave a comment on the article's talk page. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC) The word 'not' was added to the previous post as it's accidental omission changed the meaning of what I was saying. Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your consideration. One point you seemed to miss is that I made two unrelated edits. The second was not connected with the first and was not connected with the denomination, just with the physical location. Both were undone in one slick move and without explanation. Cobulator (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, adding "located". It's probably an unnecessary word as I think "Lincoln Cathedral ... is a historic, now Anglican, cathedral in Lincoln" is clear without "located". Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing my trend lately...
Walter de Lacy (died 1085) - I seem stuck on Ludlow connections. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps you can't escape the Lacy family, they do seem to get everywhere. Poor Walter, falling off scaffolding must have been an embarrassing way to go. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've turned Walter de Lacy into a disambiguation page as I don't think there's a clear primary topic out of the first Walter and the Lord of Meath, do you agree with that? Nev1 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm good with that. I did try to fix as many links earlier as I could but that'll fix any others. And yeah, that scaffolding will be the DYK, of course! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * His fall does stick in the mind. Changing the redirect into a dab page has resulted in a few articles not going straight to the right article so I'll sort that out. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Shirt numbers
Shirt numbers ARE important in sports. Any sports fan would know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.103.4 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Castles in Poitou...
Just to say that Baudry's "Les Fortifications des Platagenets en Poitou" has finally arrived (I ordered it in December, so it's proceeded from Paris at a fairly slow rate...) Still, it looks excellent; will have a proper read through this weekend and see what it can add to the French castle articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds promising. As it happens I was recently putting something together on Château de Chinon (just outisde . Can't remember why I got started on it, maybe I just fancied something different to English castles. Unfortunately my mastery of French never passed beyond GCSE level, so I have to rely primarily on English sources and the castle's link with the Plantagenets meant there's a decent amount of information available. The downside is the description of Chinon itself rather than the history surrounding the structure is a bit patchy. Despite the link, en.wikipedia's articles on the Plantagenet's castles aren't generally in great shape. Château d'Angers, though not in Poitou, gets a couple of thousand views per month but is pretty poor; when that's the kind of treatment the head of the house of Anjou gets it's hardly surprising that Château de Mirebeau doesn't have an article yet. Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits
Nev. I wonder if you, as an administrator and participant in the Cheshire WikiProject, would have a look at the editing history of Bonis Hall and Nether Alderley Mill. This articles have been interfered with by probably the same editor functioning under two user names. I do not have power to do much more than revert, but should be grateful if you would consider either blocking, or at least making final warnings and acting on them if necessary. I did not have the mill article on my watchlist (I do now) and only discovered the February edits when I looked into the editing history of the hall. Many thanks and best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While I was writing the above, s/he has done it again to Bonis Hall under a third user name! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been beaten to it by User:RHaworth! Sorry to have troubled you. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. When you recently edited Château de Lavardin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Châtelet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Altrincham
This is a note to let the main editors of Altrincham know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 23, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 23, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Altrincham is a market town within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, in Greater Manchester, England. It lies on flat ground south of the River Mersey about 8 mi southwest of Manchester city centre, 3 mi south-southwest of Sale and 10 mi east of Warrington. As of the 2001 UK census, it had a population of 41,000. Historically a part of Cheshire, Altrincham was established as a market town in 1290, a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade, and there is still a market in the town today. Further socioeconomic development came with the extension of the Bridgewater Canal to Altrincham in 1765 and the arrival of the railway in 1849, stimulating industrial activity in the town. Outlying villages were absorbed by Altrincham's subsequent growth, along with the grounds of Dunham Massey Hall, formerly the home of the Earl of Stamford, and now a tourist attraction with three Grade I listed buildings and a deer park. Altrincham today is an affluent commuter town, partly because of its transport links. It is also a centre for sport, home to Altrincham F.C. and an English Premier League ice hockey club, Manchester Phoenix. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seemed to get off fairly lightly, although there was some collateral damage at Stretford. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should pat ourselves on the back for lifting it up before it appeared on the main page. As it was, it certainly wouldn't have passed a modern FAC. Parrot of Doom 00:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I must admit I was initially a bit puzzled by the flurry of activity yesterday evening; I'd completely forgotten about the imminent main page appearance. Malleus Fatuorum


 * There's nothing like an imminent deadline to get my arse in gear. Reading through the article was interesting. PoD's right on the money when he says it wouldn't have passed a modern FAC as it stood, but it improved measurably in just a few days. I don't know what's more shocking, the standard of my writing back then or the fact the article is five years old. Despite Richerman's best efforts to give me a heart attack, thankfully I didn't notice anyone cropping up saying "this article is appalling". Nev1 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ludlow Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd


 * Naqaash Tahir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to West Midlands

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

FAC
Hi! Knowing of your sort-of-related interests, I wonder if you would also be interested in this FAC. It's about the architect who built some 40 churches in the northwest, founded the Lancaster architectural firm of Paley and Austin, etc., built railways, including the Conwy Valley line, and transformed the sanitation of Lancaster, among other things. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to take a look in the next day or so. Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nalapani
Hi Nev1, Thank you for the detailed comments on Battle of Nalapani. I am quite new to Wikipedia and am still learning its culture. I will try to fix the issues that you mention. But I am not sure if seven days will be enough, since I will be traveling abroad for a week, and right now I am too busy making travel preparations. It is quite impossible to do the job in the stated time frame. Can you consider extending the deadline? (Manoguru (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

Trafford Town Hall
Interesting snippet you added about the nuclear bunker, what a waste of money! I've always wondered who on Earth would want to live in a world in which the only survivors were politicians, policemen, and senior military officers.

I was rather surprised last night to discover that we didn't have an article on the town hall, or on lots of GM's other listed buildings. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was meaning to put together an article on the hall when that I first saw the story in the Evening News if only for the sake of that one fact; seeing the new article reminded me. I'd love to know how much they spent on it, but the details are conspicuous by their absence. The closest the article gets is a bit of speculation, "Although exact details are still under wraps, it is thought the council received funding from the Thatcher government for the bunker." Certainly not the council's best investment.


 * There are only two redlinks in Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester (Fairbottom Farm Barn and Church of the Holy Trinity, Bolton) but Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester looks to have a 50:50 split between red and blue. As there are only 52 pages in Category:Grade II listed buildings in Greater Manchester it seems to get worse the lower down the scale you go. I don't know how many Grade II listed buildings there are in the county, but since there are over 200 II* there must be upwards of 1,000. Starting even just a one line stub for each of those would be a draining task. But as the bit about the bunker shows, these buildings do have their points of interest. I wonder if GM has any listed postboxes or something similar that will really confuse the new page patrollers. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the postbox at the centre of the 1996 Manchester bombing might not be listed now? But you're right about the scale of the task; probably the only way to tackle it is like Peter does with his churches and country houses, category by category. For instance, do we have an article on every town hall? Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite a postbox but there's a listed phone box in Tyldesley. (It's only an interesting place to a few who were born there)J3Mrs (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it have an article? It's got to be worth an article. If we can do one on an underpass we can do one on a phone box. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from Manchester, Rochdale, and now Trafford, I can't think of any other articles on GM's town halls. Wigan, Leigh, and Sale's town halls don't have articles and the first two at least are Grade II. Listed or not, they should probably have articles. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They should. I've got a book on Wigan out on loan from the library, so I may see what I can do with Wigan Town Hall at least. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find some stuff on Leigh Town Hall 1907 by J.C Prestwich, an architect with no article. Bolton has a rather impressive town hall, I'll do a bit of research. J3Mrs (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Between us we ought to be able at least to fill in the gaps in the coverage of town halls. I'm constantly amazed by those who claim that there's nothing left to write about, as an excuse for dwindling editor numbers. The reality, I think, is rather fractal; the more closely you look at any subject the more you see what's missing. I became interested for a while last year in music hall and music hall artists, the stars of their day, and I found that even the basics weren't there. I created a few articles such as lion comique to try and plug a few of the gaps, but there's so much more that really needs doing. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make a start on Leigh, I have access to the souvenir booklet issued at its opening. I've already created an article today. This is a bit like work. J3Mrs (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I make it nearly 2,000 Grade II listed buildings in GM (well, only 1961). Good luck, folks. BTW don't bother about the telephone kiosks; there's loads of them listed around the country. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While you're here Peter, the discussion about polecats on my talk page yesterday reminded of Stapeley Grange, near Nantwich, and I'm wondering if there's enough on that to justify an article? Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There's an Edward VIII postbox in Ringley near Whitefield, that might be listed? It's certainly rare.  I could knock up an article for St Michael's Church in Flixton, Greater Manchester, that's Grade II* and right on my doorstep.  How typical of a socialist council to waste money on extravagances.  Trafford Park would have been a prime target so how they expected to survive is beyond me.  And I will, I promise, WILL, sort out the article for Bury this year. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Malleus, do you mean Stapeley House (done) or Stapeley Old Hall, also listed Grade II? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean this. I don't know anything about the grange other than that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IIRC you were born there weren't you PoD? Don't feel bad, I've been promising to sort out where I was born for at least as long as you have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to try and clear the air
I feel a certain stiffness between us over the User:Hghyux affair. Maybe we'll never agree about this supposed Harvard graduate, but I hope we can at least put that minor spat behind us. I do understand as well that as an administrator you have to take a somewhat different position from those of us who are only in the trenches, without the benefit of your officers' periscopes. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope there's no stiffness because as far as I'm concerned it's water under the bridge. You're always welcome on my talk page. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the stiffness was on my side then ... anyway, water under the bridge, as you say. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you ....
Try to talk some sense into the random addition of home pages of various peerage books on Lawrence Booth, not to mention the insanely overdone capitalization? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've left a note on their talk page. I don't expect a response as Mabelina hasn't made any user talk edits, but hopefully the message will be noticed. Nev1 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was getting .. frustrated. When frustrated, call for help! By the by ... feel free to look over Middle Ages - I think I've greatly smoothed out the whole blooming thing, but I know I missed things or made typoes or mispellings. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been frankly intimidating (and exciting) to see the article change so radically. And that's one hell of a lead picture to open with. I'll happily read through it after I get review Peter I. Vardy's Edmund Sharpe article. Nev1 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For a photographer, I really suck at picking pictures. If you run across something else that would be a great lead pic, let me know. I've always liked that helmet ... it and the Nefertiti bust are some of the most inspiring pieces of art I've ever seen in person. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why intimidating??? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a combination of the scope of the task and the speed at which it's progressed. In the space of about two weeks the article has been transformed. I wouldn't know where to start. It's hardley left my watchlist and is a reminder of the half finished job I did of Richard I of England. Nev1 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Middle Ages
Apparantly, I took out someone's pet writing, so it had to be returned. I've started discussion on the talk page but I'm about to start spouting steam out my ears... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyclawdd Castle?
You may even be interested in this, which is being discussed with regard to Pen-y-clawdd, but which may be in a totally different location. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right to question the location, because what's happened here is two castles with the same name have been confused: Upper Pen y Clawdd ringwork at SO457073 and Pen y Clawdd Castle, Crucorney at SO30992009. Castlewales.com which the Wikipedia articles references is about the latter site, whereas the former is the one near the village in Monmouthsire. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lightning speed, yet again, Nev1. Many thanks. I think the same conclusion has been reached elsewhere, but I will pass it on. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's easy when you know where the cheat sheet is. It's still of local interest that there may have been a castle there (I'd be interested if it was my local area at least) so I've changed the reference to the correct site. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much information about the site. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this also means that the identification of Pen-Y-Clawdd Court (SO3105920142) is incorrect. It's near the castle the article used to refer to, and the nearest settlement for both is Llanvihangel Crucorney. Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. I see that User:Ghmyrtle has now moved some information over to there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thanks for the message, I was unaware it was a recently created article. They should really make the deletion history visible to non-admins when a page has been re-created. Would help us new page patrollers :). Thanks again GimliDotNet (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking at the article history it's pretty clear cut, but for anyone without admin tools I don't see how it would have been possible to know. I only checked the page history on the off chance so can't really blame Malik Shabazz for not spotting it. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. When you recently edited Kemar Roach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dyson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Template vandal
Thanks for the revert on my talkpage and blocking the IP/editor. - 220  of  Borg 17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, seems proxy IPs have been used to vandalise user pages. Thanks for helping clean it up. Nev1 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln cathedral, yet again
Hello Nev I was reviewing these contributions and I noticed your comment (above) that “there really should be an edit war” on the subject. Did you really mean that? If not, can I suggest correcting it, for the benefit of anyone else tracing back through the edit histories? On the issue involved, I've made some comments there. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow the word 'not' hot omitted from that sentence. I've added a note about it per your suggestion, I hope taken in the context of having warned people not to edit war it was obvious I wasn't saying it was a good route to go down. I'm editing from my phone at the moment so my involvement in further discussion on the article's talk page wilt be difficult. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; and yes, that’s pretty much what I thought you meant, but given the context of that discussion, and the legalism it seems to have thrown up, it seemed best to address it (belts and braces!) Anyway; regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks AssociateAffiliate. I'm wary that updating piecemeal can lead to choppy prose and repetition, but hopefully it's not too bad. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited Bangladesh national cricket team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazimuddin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy
As an experienced editor, you should be aware that disputed edits should be discussed first on the Talk page. This will give you an opportunity to gauge opinion. Unilateral action can be viewed negatively. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Nev1 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comments at Talk:Chorlton-cum-Hardy. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Breast vandal
I saw you just deleted that vandal's page with the breast photos. Is it possible you could answer my request at WT:Offensive images? I believe that IP is a sock of someone who has been trying to joe-job User:WebTV3, and will likely IP hop or use an account to post the images again. Thanks. Calabe1992 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, ✅ by another admin. Calabe1992 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad it got sorted. Though I have the ability to edit MediaWiki I've never done it before so was checking it wouldn't effect anything else. Nev1 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm surprised no one had put those on the bad image list already. Apparently the IP is a proxy, so the block is now extended. Calabe1992 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. When you recently edited Siege of Antioch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Jerusalem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)