User talk:Nev1/Archives/May–June 2011
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Protection request
Hello Nev, I was wondering if you could protect Hollywood Tonight and Hold My Hand (Michael Jackson song), the problem is the same as Jet (song), IP hopper adding WP:UNDUE information. Thank you so much. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I couldn't get round to this, but I've been away for the past couple of days. Even though neither article was protected, it's fortunate that they also weren't edited after your request. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
PBS and Guy Fawkes Night
I've had enough now, and to that end I've drafted an RFC on User:Philip Baird Shearer. I don't know exactly how these things work but I started a discussion on Iridescent's talk page, and as someone who's had dealings with PBS, I wondered if you wouldn't mind offering advice on how I should go about resolving this issue? Parrot of Doom 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've only started one RfC myself, and it wasn't an experience I particularly relished. I've read through your draft and it seems pretty solid. It can be difficult to keep the RfC on track, but I think what you've written keeps the matter in focus. The RfC I drafted quickly went off on a tangent on the talk page; I tried to avoid getting bogged down in what I thought was somewhat tangential discussion (or narrowly focussed on a single issue rather than the big picture) and hoped that the opening statement made the necessary points so that it was clear if matters were being addressed. The talk page is where most of the back and forth goes on, and I'd recommend thinking through each post there so that thinks don't spiral off course.
- Regarding this particular RfC, I think it's worth noting earlier on that PBS's problematic behaviour is not restricted to the Guy Fawkes Night article and related pages. With SlimVirgin's advice in mind, if it's mentioned early on the he exhibited the same behaviour at HD&Q it makes it clear that it's part of a pattern and may go beyond what you've experienced, leaving the door wide open for others.
- Under evidence of disputed behaviour, you describe the fifth diff (08:24, 24 March) you give as "First changes to References section", but the same change was made two days earlier as part of PBS's sweeping changes. For the second diff you say "Immediate reversion of my revert, citing "no discussion""; I'd add a bit to the end of that saying that a rationale was presented in the previous edit summary and the correct action per WP:BRD would have been for PBS to raise the matter on the talk page rather than reverting. PBS did use the talk page, but two minutes later made his first revert to the article.
- You might want to clarify "Multiple unnecessary "citation needed" tags across the article, when just about everything in there is already cited." RfC/U isn't for content disputes, so I think you need to make it explicit that this was disruptive behaviour as citations were in the following sentence or whatever. It might also be an idea to drop "just about", or change it to "the information highlighted by the tags", to be a bit more precise.
- Also, given that PBS seemed to follow you from HD&Q to GFN might WP:BATTLE not apply? I'm thinking of the applicable policies and guidelines section. Nev1 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Nev, based on your recommendations I've made some changes. I expect I'll be blocked for 3RR soon but it seems perfectly obvious to me that PBS is doing this to derail the FAC process, and I'm having none of it.
- I'm not sure I can say with any certainty that he followed me from one article to another, IIRC I think he had a prior involvement with both. What each article had in common was being a disaster zone, my involvement with both came about through my work on Gunpowder Plot related articles. Parrot of Doom 15:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your help in restoring the page on Netley Abbey, todays's main page featured article. The page is under major attack by vandals, is there anything that can be done to stop them? Best wishes, Soph (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, let's see if this sticks. The level of vandalism hasn't been exceptional for a TFA but there's only an hour left. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Nev1. Hm, you would appear to be another of those anonymous editors who edits without knowledge !... maybe there be 'protocols' for editors - all editors - but, to edit-out genuine good faith additions by those who know the subject in question only serves to diminish Wiki's credibility. Yes, some editors may try to 'pull a fast one', but, not all. Anoraker (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The addition of a list of "notable people" who simply live in a town, without providing any context for their addition, is nothing but trivia. It teaches people nothing about the town or area and has no place there. That said, the article is a mess. Parrot of Doom 10:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have again removed the list per our policy on providing sources for the information you add. I'm not saying you are trying to pull a fast one, but how are readers supposed to know whether the information on Wikipedia is correct unless a source is provided so they can check for themselves. And as Parrot of Doom says, what does the list really add to the article? Did these people leave indelible marks on the town? Are they commemorated? Nev1 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Could this be ROBERT TAGGART (talk · contribs)? The strange archaic language and the insistence on adding unsourced information to articles makes me think it could be. AD 11:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Robert Taggart ? Nope. Archaic lingo ? Nope. But, a good faith editor ? Yep. Regarding your taking umbridge at our inclusion of notable people, what about all those other places which include just such a paragraph ? Initiated by other no doubt longer-standing editors ?Anoraker (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Said Artisans Wiki page also includes a link to his own website - which in turn has an email link to the man himself. Try contacting him yourself directly and see what he has to say ! Anoraker (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you offer a review?
Hey Nev1, I remembered your name from reading your excellent article on castles. I was wondering if you could offer a review for Edinburgh Castle, seeing as only one person has commented in two weeks. If you can, thank you very much; if not, such is life. :-) The review page is located here. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed it was at review otherwise I'd have dropped by earlier. When I get a moment I'll be more than happy to take a look, Jonathan Oldenbuck's done some excellent work. It would definitely be worthwhile checking if Hchc2009's got time to take a look too. Nev1 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Having actually taken a look at the review now I see Hchc2009's already done their part. Nev1 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! You two are the only castle editors I know of offhand. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Good call
You be at it again ! - editing out without knowing the subject in question !! A click on the Manchester Camerata and Gabor Takacs-Nagy wiki pages will confirm / cite the changes entered !!! and those were by other editors !!!! Anoraker (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- So instead of whinging about Nev's entirely correct edit, why didn't you insert a citation to support your changes? Don't you know how to do that? Parrot of Doom 11:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- One inserted a cite of sufficient quality for all but him and you ! Should you wish to deny Wiki viewers information methinks you should be denied editing rights !! Anoraker (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are wrong. I suggest you stop what you're doing. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Anoraker, you really need to read WP:V. Your word is not a sufficient reference, so I have undone your edit on the Robert Priseman article. If there is no other source available for Priseman's birthplace apart from his emails to you, you need to contact the Volunteer Response Team. Regarding the Manchester Camerata article, if an adequate reference is contained within another article copy it over rather than insisting a reader goes and finds it for themselves. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- One inserted a cite of sufficient quality for all but him and you ! Should you wish to deny Wiki viewers information methinks you should be denied editing rights !! Anoraker (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories and defaultsort
I should be grateful for your advice. Vegaswikian seems to have been spending much time in amending categories of architecture articles, sometimes enhancing them but often introducing errors. I have been following the articles on my watch list, and having to correct the errors, etc. The latest ploy is to delete defaultsort, and to then modify some, but not all, of the categories. A recent example is here. I do not understand the logic or sense in this. I did send a message some time ago, but just got a stuffy response about the large numbers of errors he was finding. Who is the more correct? If he is, so be it. If I am more correct, can an admin do anything to help? Maybe it's a relatively minor matter, but I am finding it most irritating, and wasting much of my time.
Incidentally, you may be interested to know that List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England, the last in the series of five lists, is now at FLC. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, I don't see what the reasoning is behind removing the default sort. In the diff you gave Vegaswikian changed some so that they sorted by location, but I don't know why. I gave up trying to understand categories long ago when I realised that they're not really aimed at readers and seem to exist to satisfy a desire to file and group things. If I were you I wouldn't waste any time on categories. There are far more interesting things to do like writing articles. On a happier note, it's good to see that your series of Conservation Trust articles is complete (bar the final bronze star, which I'm sure won't be a problem). Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your wisdom! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Cricket World Cup edits
If you are not convinced with 2011 world cup being second most followed event. At least leave the viewership details of final and semi final. Please don't delete the whole thing. Edit only please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricfreaky7 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about we examine what you added? "Cricket World Cup is the second most followed sporting event in the world next to FIFA World Cup and has more viewership than Summer Olympics with an average of 5 billion spectators around the world" referenced to this webpage. Leaving aside the problem with quantifying how popular a sport is and why this source should be taken as gospel, it states "cricket is the second most popular sport in the world" which is very different from saying the World Cup itself is the second most popular sporting event in the world. What it does say is "The ICC World Cup is the world’s second largest single sporting event, drawing a cumulative television audience of five billion". Now what does largest mean? Most games or most followers? Importantly the five billion figure is cumulative; you claimed that it received an average of 5,000,000 viewers which is a laughably ridiculous claim. 5,000,000 watching every match? Not even slightly likely. A bunch of nonsense so I removed it. Then you mentioned the 67.6 million figure for the final which is already mentioned in the article; as it was unnecessary I removed that too. Then you round it off with the claim that "Considering the number of countries where the World Cup was televised, the global viewership number will exceed every other sporting event thus putting the tournament as second most watched in the World". That's unsourced speculation,so that went too. Edit only with good sourcing please. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The source doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS in any case, so we can't use it. It may be "Europe's largest network of fan journalists" but fan journalists aren't reliable sources and it appears any fan can edit. I can't find a good source estimating the tv audience. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sock Puppets
I am not sure how to report Sock Puppets but now that PyramidEditor has been identified as a Sock Puppet of Sarumio a new user with the same editing habits has appeared as AL1983 the following day - 07:49, 9 June 2011.
(Finnish Gas (talk 10:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC))
- You might want to file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations where you present the evidence of a link. In what ways do the two accounts share editing habits (there are quite a few contributions to sift through)? Nev1 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Infobox image File:Worcester.jpg
Hi Nev. There is something wrong here and I don't now how to sort it out - I don't know much about images. Someone has uploaded a different image under the same file name, which of course will have consequences for any articles using the original image. Perhaps you can give me some advice. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Exok's reverted to the previous image, does that solve the problems? Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue is now resolved. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Lancashire
it is time you realised that Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire ask anyone local,on your post you put Bolton,Lancashire and Bury,Lancashire the locals know they are,the councils know they are,the queen knows they are,the government knows they are and its about time you knew they were so shut up.they always have been in Lancashire and they always will be.As i am from the Bolton/Bury area i know where they are and i guess you are from nowhere near around here so just shut up and moan about where you are not 2 Boroughs which are still in Lancashire and which are miles away from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.225.91 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Chester city walls
I have recently written List of sections of Chester city walls and associated structures (and it achieved 10k+ hits on DYK). There has been a suggestion that it should be merged with Chester city walls. I am not in favour; I think the list is sufficient to stand alone (and it includes structures additional to the walls themselves). IMO the problem is the original article, which is inadequate for such an important subject. I think that, sooner or later, the article should be expanded (at least to GA level). If that were to be combined with the list, it would result in a much-too-large article. Also I had thought of submitting the list as a FLC; but that is not really "on" with a merge tag attached. Have you any thoughts about this? The discussion is here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent work with the list. I think part of the problem is the list does a better job of covering the history of the walls than the article specifically on them. I'll try to step into the breach and sort this out in the next week or two. Nev1 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment on the article's talk page, which exactly echoes my own thoughts. I had the idea of rewriting the article myself (IMO it needs to be completely rewritten) but I have only limited source material; just Ward's brief History, and the online section on the walls in the Victoria County History, so your offer to improve matters sounds good. Do you think a consensus has been reached that the article and list should not be merged? If so, how does one go about getting rid of the tags, or whatever they are called, at the heads of the article and list? I have an interest in getting rid of them because I might submit the list at FLC, and cannot do it until they are removed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Has been vandalised again, by one of the accounts that turned up to do a number on Altrincham Grammar School for Boys. I think perhaps Wagwarnfam1 (talk · contribs) & Dutchuncle25 (talk · contribs) may need to lose their editing privileges at some point.
Best, 88.104.35.41 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Those two accounts have been used solely for vandalism so I've blocked them along with Yesfam (talk · contribs). Hellohello44's block expires soon and if the account starts vandalising again I'll re-block that account too. I've also semi-protected the Altrincham Grammar School for Girls article so that the people responsible for this can't just make new accounts. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and helping deal with the situation. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Re: Re-instigation of Park Description Sentence; Pitcairngreen
My Dear Nev1,
It is from the bottom of my hart that I must thank you for your comments. No expression of gratitude could quite describe how much appreciate them. The tone you employed is most eloquent and really warmed my sole. Reading your thoughtful words has lit up what was an intolerably dull day. It was as if Phoebus Apollo- god of the sun- had ridden his chariot of lustrous gold across the overcast sky. His unstoppable charge vanquishing the atmosphere of all stratus, currulus, cirrus, and numbus. Oh give me more of your wondrous verbal playfulness. I'm now overcome with the joy brought forth by your impressive lexicon and literary style.
Anyway in answer to you excellent and well placed queries. To start with I must point out that the article does not mention park benches. There are in fact no park benches on the green. The fact someone as wise as yourself can make such an erroneous statement only stands to emphasizes the importance of including information about park facilities in on Wikipedia pages, particularly this one. As you have properly guessed I am retentively new to Wikipedia hence the problematic referencing of myself. In my defence I must point out that it was perfectly expectable encouraged and indeed required to reference my own observations in my Masters Dissertation at the University of Manchester - incidentally this was a piece of work I achieved distinction in. Nevertheless, I have changed the reference to Google street view to hopefully negate some of you concerns. Finally, regarding you charge of the content having a striking resemblance to this page. I would retort by drawing you attention to this statement, found near the top of the paraphrasing page you most kindly highlighted to me, that reads and I quote "close paraphrasing is not a problem as long as the source is properly acknowledged". I would therefore assert that the article does not breach the rules as the source is referenced and is paraphrased not plagiarised. However, if you are sill uncomfortable with it I would be happy to rewrite it in the fullness of time when my busy seclude permits.
Thankyou once again for your helpful and not at all sarcastic feedback.
I look forward to hearing your reply.
Yours in awe, gratefulness and humility.
EditMonkey --EditMonkey (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your personal observations are not suitable for Wikipedia because who is to say you are reliable. Am I supposed to be impressed that you have a Masters? Judging by your grammar, spelling, and comprehension skills I am somewhat sceptical. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to decode some parts of your message. Could you tell me if a "seclude" is similar to a "schedule"? Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Nev1,
I happen to be Dyslexic and take great offence to you comments on my spelling ect. It is just another example of the bigoted hatred and intolerance exhibited by lexical community against the dyslexic. The creation pedantic rules are just another way of intolerant individuals such as yourself stopping dyslexic people from expressing themselves and creating barriers to entry to the on-line community. As I have mentioned I have replaced the reference. However, I would point out that there is no difference between referencing a observation of a visual source or and referencing an observation text based source. the primacy of text over the visual is just another example of anti-dyslexic bias. Nevertheless who anyone on Wikipedia can be said to be any more or less reliable that anyone else. Furthermore, I think that it is your comprehension skills that are lacking if you can't tell from the context that seclude is schedule - the refusal of the Lexicals to read using context and phonetics and insistence on the adherence to illogical grammatical and spelling rules is just another form of anti-dyslexicism.
Best
Editmonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditMonkey (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dyslexia wouldn't stop you from understanding that whether a park has a bench, a picnic table, one swing set or two, or none of the above is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Or that copying and pasting as you did here is an infringement of copyright. And if you take a closer look at WP:Close paraphrasing you'll see that immediately before it says "close paraphrasing is not a problem as long as the source is properly acknowledged" it states quite clearly that "If the other source is public domain or compatibly licensed with Wikipedia". The source your article mirrored is not in the public domain. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nev1,
I never said Dyslexia had anything to do my understanding in me it effects the physicalities of reading and writhing. Again your comments are offensive and tantamount to a personal attack.
I do not see why the information is inappropriately for inclusion in this encyclopaedia considering some of the other information on here. Who are you , I or anyone else to decide what trivia is. When I look up these pages that is the type of information I want. Maybe you don't want that information but some of us do and now that you have got it removed you have damaged it's usefulness to others. In regards to the sourcing of the articles the article is now completely in my own words to an extent that would be expectable to for academic submission and the original source is referenced. Therefore, I really do not see what the problem is. However, you have decided to unjustly report me for nothing and have the article blacked for not supposedly adhering to Wikipedia's rules. Rules that are inherently anti-dyslexic.
Kindest regards
EditMonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditMonkey (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I removed a blatant copyright violation from the Stanley, Perthshire article. I would expect someone who claims to produce work of an academic standard to understand why plagiarism and copyright violations are not accepted here or anywhere else. Asking that you not do that is not anti-dyslexic and whinging that the rules aren't fair doesn't change the fact you copied and pasted from a copyrighted source. One definition of trivia is given as "unimportant matters"; you can't seriously believe that the number of swings a park has is important. There are indeed other articles full of trivial rubbish, but those need to be pruned rather than used as justification for the proliferation of more junk. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'm confused, since when did Dyslexia preclude the use of a spellchecker? Parrot of Doom 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Parrot of Doom (Nice name by the way) I do use a spell check, however, they only pick up words that are spelt incorrectly. They do not pick up misspelling that are the same as correct words if you see what I mean. As part of my disability means I read what I meant to right rather that what is actually there this can produce errors. also I have tendency to pick to wrong word from the spell-check suggestions as well.
Best
EditMonkey
Hi Nev1,
I not arguing about the original Stanley, Perthshire it did present significant copyright issues. It was in fact a work in progress and I had every intention of rewriting it when I got time. (I am now aware that I should of completely written it before I added it to the page, but it was one of my first edits). However, as soon as I was made aware that it was problematic I rewrote the article to negate these issues. Therefore the argument I am trying to make is that rewritten article I made does not breach copyright as it is in my own words and fully referenced. Nevertheless you have got you friend to remove it which I feel was the wrong decision.
Now on to trivia. Firstly Thank you for the definition. It in fact adds weigh to my original assertion that you dubbing of the information as trivia is highly subjective. What may seem unimportant to you can be of the up most importance some one else one man's trivia another's important fact in the same way as one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. In addition I notice that you are involved it the greater Manchester project well to me the population and details of Fallowfeild seem like trivia but I posses the empathy skills to to realise that they are not trivia to people interesting the subject and I would not delete any of them out of hand especially with the crude edit summery utter trivia. The inclusion information about park facilities in Perthshire is important and not trivia to me and others in my field of research, yet, you just deleted because you decided it was trivia.
best
EditMonkey --EditMonkey (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article history quite clearly shows that no one has edited the Stanley, Perthshire article since you rewrote it. If you insist on filling articles with useless crap such as whether parks have swings you are likely to find that a lot of people find that kind of information trivial. Nev1 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nav1,
OK I admit there has been some confusion here regarding Stanley-sorry. This arose because shortly before I posted the last message here I was sent a 2nd warning (well after I had corrected Stanley) from mathsci about copyright ect. Therefore I thought it had been deleted again. Anyway just to clarify does the new Stanley Perthshire article meet criteria set out before or do you need me to edit it again?
I would also like to point out that I'm not insisting filling articles with quantitative data pertaining to allocation public recreational activity resources in Parks in Perthshire villages. In fact I have not re-instigated the data in the Pitcairngreen article after the second deletion, even though I feel it inclusion is right, proper and indeed would be and important addition to the sum of human knowledge. Furthermore, I have also refrained from adding addition useful information such the fact that Pitcairngreen also has a canine waste disposal receptacle. I have also not added the fact that nearby Luncarty park is fitted with gravity assisted vertical motioning inducing equipment as well as a metal and wood based human-made structure featuring primate inspired elevation apparatus.
It is a dreadful shame that the miss use of power by a few can deny the many access to knowledge. Final although I am not insisting on adding said information, I am strongly of the opinion that your accusations of triviality are fundamental wrong and I do not accept them.
Thank you for reading this and I look forward to you reply.
Yours sincerely
EditMonkey EditMonkey (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC) --EditMonkey (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Ghmyrtle
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Frank E. Dodman at Altrincham Grammar
Would this source be suitable for verifying Dodman's time at Altrincham? The site has some serious academic involvement (namely Manchester & Liverpool). --88.104.35.41 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I reformatted your post slightly. I added a "delete" in front of it, and added a bullet point. I hope you don't mind. I did it so that it's a bit easier to read and a passing admin can see at first glance. If I've over stepped the mark then please revert, I won't mind. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks ! — Fly by Night (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
SPI
Following on from our discussion earlier I just did this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MJC59 --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 23:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Chetham's again
Hi Nev, I asked you about this article a while ago and it passed GAN. I'm now interested in the next stage and hope to take it to FAC at some point. My last encounter with FAC was pretty poor and left me feeling extremely worthless after some of the comments left there (Dancing mania), but I feel I'm ready to return. What are your (and others watching) opinions on how I can improve it so it's FA quality? Thanks, AD 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The Dark Side of the Moon
Due to your recent activity editing The Dark Side of the Moon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking just a minute to add your opinion to the discussion at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned?. Thank you, Dismas|(talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Tiny Robots
Are you the Nev1 from the Vídeo Brinquedo's film Tiny Robots (Robozinhos). Wow this is so cool. That is like my most favourite film ever. Can I have your autograph? GlovePuppet2 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)