User talk:Nev1/Archives/November–December 2010

Re: Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cheshire

It was agreed by many parties that there is room for improvement. When the nominator gets back and fixes those problems listed, then he's welcome to nominate again. In addition, he has been informed about the situation. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion between me and OhanaUnited has revealed that there may have been an accidental misunderstanding about whether the changes suggested by one editor were ones that I thought prevented the portal reaching featured status or not. In addition, OU makes the fair point that an inactive nominator makes it more likely that the portal will soon fail the "well-maintained" criteria. Would you, or someone else from the Cheshire WikiProject, be interested in "adopting" the portal? I'm happy to help as an "honorary Cheshire" person (well, I take a train through Chester twice a week, and have spent more time there awaiting connections than I'd like to remember!) Bencherlite^Talk 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in. As far as maintenance goes, I think the only thing that would need to be done would be to refresh the In the news section and keep the Newest articles and Recommended articles sections up to date. This isn't onerous and I'd have no problem putting in the effort of maintaining it were it to become Featured. That was sort of why I was commenting on the nomination as I didn't want to see Espresso Addict's effort go to waste; without a response from Fetchcomms it was difficult to decide on a course of action regarding their suggestions. I feel fairly familiar with WP:CHES's articles but don't want to tread on Espresso Addict's toes so would argue for the status quo unless there's a reason within policy for a change. Although OhanaUnited and Cirt did agree to close the nomination as failed if Espresso Addict didn't return, I don't see which criterion that fits with. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are even ways of automating the "recommended articles" and "newest articles" sections e.g. Portal:University of Oxford/Newest articles and Portal:Law/Quality content, which would just leave the news section as one requiring manual updates. Ohana's explanation of the closure is that, with an absent nominator and no-one expressly offering to take over, the portal might be left unupdated and so soon fail the "well-maintained" criterion, and I can see that point. Perhaps we should wait a little while longer to see if EA comes back; if he's not back by the end of the month, shall we review the situation then? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have explicitly stated I was prepared to take over the nomination to prevent it from failing, but I thought that replying to Fetchcomms I was making it clear the nomination wasn't derelict. Those options for increasing automation are certainly worth considering; the output of the new article bot is pretty long so the portal would need rejigging, but it's easier to do that than regularly check. Maybe the format of the output could be altered so fewer articles are shown and maybe the dates aren't included to make it shorter. If we wait for Espresso Addict, which is fine by me, I'd rather wait before implementing any changes to the portal. There's no rush now the review's been closed. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The length of the new article bot output page varies depending on what it finds. I'm setting up a trial run at Portal:Cheshire/New articles bot page to see how it goes (also looking for problems with false positives) with rules at User:AlexNewArtBot/Cheshire. I don't think there's an option to turn off the dates / author, unfortunately. However, if layout is a problem, we could always have a link on the main portal page to a subpage with the full bot-driven details. Bencherlite^Talk 23:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

steven seagal

Hi, thanks for the protection, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Nev1, thank you for responding so promptly to put out the fire on this article, but I'm afraid that semi-protection might not be the best solution. A closer examination shows that, while the IP was edit-warring just as certainly as RomanHistorian, they were not vandalizing the article. I've reported the edit war and contacted the IP about how 3RR works. At this point, perhaps it would make sense to either escalate to full protecton or remove all protection. I would probably wait until the 3RR report is resolved before changing anything, though. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely it looks like a three-person edit war, although Civilizededucation (talk · contribs) hasn't broken 3RR. Full protection would force the discussion onto the talk page and would be the way to go for a content dispute. So you think I should wait until the edit warring report is resolved before changing the protection again? Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would, but it's your call. At this rate, it might take a while for that to resolve, as Roman and his buddy, JJB, are busy trying to throw me under the bus in retaliation. It's getting ugly. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the semi-protection in place for now as the IP has to use the talk page (and is) so hopefully progress can be made. Semi-protection is a bit one-sided though as reigstered editors could ignore the issues while the IP is left to get bored on the talk page, although judging from the talk page's history that doesn't look likely. If a previous period of full protection didn't work, have you (as in the people involved in the talk page discussion) considered starting a WP:RFC on the subject? Nev1 (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

At least three against at least three, actually. Nev1, thank you for a straightforward solution to a straightforward problem. However, this article was on two-week full protection without settling anything. The larger content disagreements will not be settled by more protection. I've invited the parties to mediation earlier today, and with parties required by semiprot to ID themselves, I think something voluntary will work; until the IP came along there was no 3RR violation. JJB 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nev1 - naturally semi-protection is not appropriate in a dispute between registered and non-registered editors per WP:SPP. The reasoning you placed in the notice was vandalism, while those edits don't seem to be vandalism per WP:VAND#NOT. Would you reconsider instead placing a block on the IP (and possibly a block on RomanHistorian for also violating 3RR, if appropriate). Also see the report at the bottom of AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've increased protection to full so it's now a level playing field. As well as one IP, multiple registered users are involved; I'll leave the 3RR report to someone else. As this appears to be a long dispute (going back before the IP got involved), I'd recommend RFC. Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't in any way blame you for not wanting to dive into that mud pit. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your attention, but this was a mistake that if unaddressed will haunt you at random moments when your mind wanders in the future. I hereby make a weak proforma appeal to return to semiprotection on the grounds that this has elements that contraindicate RFC, namely, the fact that Dylan's 2.5-month account has been mentioned at 8 admin noticeboard archives (link is in the 3RR report), has caused three full page protections in that time (the third being Tea Party movement), and is indistinguishable from a sophisticated disruption account. However, since the level of alleged sophistication makes this difficult to prove (another form of the disruption of such an account being the wasting of productive hours spent instead on tracking down the fact that it is more disruptive than constructive), you have every right to opt out and deny the appeal by silence or otherwise. Justice will prevail, shalom. JJB 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Declined You're not a saint yourself with ANI issues JJB, and frankly I would have blocked RH if I'd been the deciding admin. Besides, what does SPP have to do with Dylan? No offense, but can't you guys quit your bickering? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

List of glam rock artists

I noticed you listed the above article as needing semi-protection to prevent sock puppetry. There's not been much activity on the article this month, but from the edit summaries it seems those two IPs are linked and this is a long term case of sock puppetry. I just want to confirm that's the situation before protecting as if it is a short period (such as a few days or a week) would be ineffective. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can check the recent history of my talkpage, as well as this talkpage. Charlie has been disturbing many months. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John again

Hello, I request that you unprotect the Gospel of John article as a consensus has been reached. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

24.180 brought hits to RfUP. You seem be away, so I've been bold and unprotected it in your absence. I hope you don't mind. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sorry I wasn't around to fix this, but real life takes priority. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

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) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

schools

Hi Nev1. This is a generic message so please bear with me if you are already aware of the situation. In early September changes were made to an infobox template that affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you may find the discussions on this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school, do however leave a message here or here if you come across any that are still not displaying correctly.
If you are still actively interested in schools and would like to help out on school pages and school templates, you may wish to consider joining the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you can also stay abreast of developments by adding its talk page to your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blackbeard

I asked that the statements in the lead be cited, that's all. I can't see why you would find that "unhelpful", and besides it's recommended here: Wikipedia:LEADCITE#Citations. BillMasen (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You sure you've got the right talk page? I said "I think it may be useful to have references to bolster what may seem to many readers counter-intuitive" and made reference to WP:LEADCITE, so... ok. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint Wilfrids Church Northenden

Greetings. Good to see one has a 'supporter' of a kind ! Imagine a feature concerning London with no mention of Saint Pauls Cathedral ! Well, although it be smaller, Northenden, with no mention of Saint Wilfrids Church, be unthinkable - it being at the heart of the ancient settlement ! Although the 'centre of gravity' has moved - westwards - the spiritual centre remains in place. Glancing down the edits it would appear mention of said building was made before, alas, one certain 'editor' appears to have 'taken against it' - M F - whoever 'it' be ! So, friends, editors, wikipedians - let us hear it - for WILFS ! Northendener (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern was more the non-standard English used, rather than the content. In the words of Lord Blackadder, "Yes it is, not that it be". AD 22:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Non Standard Inglish ? Wot doth thou meen ? ! Be our writings not to yor likings ? ! Northendener (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

We are in need of some help from an admin, again. Some editors as soon as the protection is removed seem determined to only be satisfied with removing vast portions of sourced material on flimsy grounds, reducing it to a stub. It seems to be a big case of wp:I just don't like it. The argument seems to be that the very term "communist terrorism" is synthesis. The editors really want to delete the article but know that the nomination would fail. I'm obviously a partisan in this dispute, but the discussion seems fruitless - the only goal being to reduce the article to a stub, redirect or the like. Please forgive me if this is not the proper procedure to seek admin assistance, but since you had already been involved I thought I'd try here first. Mamalujo (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I obviously haven't edited in a couple of days and someone else has stepped in, but for future reference WP:AN or WP:ANI are the places to go for admin assistance as well as approaching individual admins directly. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FLC

I don't know if you're interested in this sort of list currently at FLC, and if you would like to make any comment about it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another excellent list, I hope it gets the recognition it deserves. Nev1 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cook

If you could that'd be grand. A bit late now he's out but hopefully that form will continue. It's really frustrating on a slow connection editing just because of one digit :) Tony2Times (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

page moves

Hi Nev. Maybe none of my business, but you may wish to check this user's good faith contribs because you guys at GM may have different ideas how you want your pages renamed.--Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba/archive1

Hey Nev, wondering if you could stop back over and take another look. Thanks, Grsz 11 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at the FLC. Nev1 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible FA

Hi Nev. Some members of the WP:WORCS project think that List of Old Malvernians could be a possible FL candidate. My reservation is that it may be expected to have photos of all the people. This isn't possible, and thelist is now as complete and as up to date as it ever will be. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a photo for each person certainly isn't necessary. I can't think of any featured list of people articles, so can't really offer a template to emulate, but a while ago the Greater Manchester project considered taking list of people from Bolton to FLC. In that the year of birth, and death where appropriate, is given and I think this might be worth applying to the Old Malvernians list so that readers can put these people in context. Also, I really do think it's necessary to provide a reference for each person. It's worth bearing in mind that the FL criteria say a list should "comprehensively cover the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set". Given the nature of what is considered notable there may be some borderline cases, but the list seems to cover the main points. I'd also ditch the x, y, z section at the bottom as it's empty. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be done along the lines of one of the various university alumni featured lists, such as List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford. I wouldn't expect to see images for everyone, but I would expect to see dates; I think it would also work better as a sortable table, rather than sub-headings for different surnames (then you can sort by the dates and see contemporaries). Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Another FLC

Thanks for your comments at FLC for List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England. Its sister List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands has now been nominated here. Thought I would let you know.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

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) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Shakib Al Hasan

I can see your point and that there are certain grammatical errors such as "superb" but Al Hasan captained the team and therefore the whole performance has to be mentioned because he is the leader and the captain of the team. Naturally if this is a more notable series for Shakib than it will have more details. It's not like a tour of South Africa by India in 2000 will have more coverage on Sachin Tendulkar's article if his best score is 50*. Naturally the series against South Africa in 2010 when Tendulkar registered a double-century the first to do so in an ODI will recieve more details. The same is here Shakib was a member on this notable tour, he led for the majority of it. Therefore the team performance has to be mentioned because that team's performance is the captains peformance. Thanks for telling me about the grammatical errors though (Wiki id2(talk) 06:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

I admit the mistakes but wait .....

Ok yes there are errors and I will root them out. I have admitted my mistakes twice know and what else do you want?? I am fixing it. The reason I have mentioned the rest of the information about Williamson and Nafees for example its because it's relevant to the match. The whole match is relevent to Shakib and his team. Remember the Shakib is captain therefore the team's whole performance has to be mentioned e.g. articles of Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh talk about the series wins' etc which they have been related into. The reason other performances have been mentioned is because I will say it again Shakib is the captain during this tour and the whole team's performance needs to be mentioned. I will iron out the other errors as well ok As for the quote "this became bangladesh's finest hour in international cricket" if you read the information above by beating a much more senior ranked teams it makes sense that you say it is bangladesh's finest hour. I am not saying anything as an opinion. It is bangladehs' finest hour in international cricket stats show that. Wiki id2(talk) 14:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SusanWynneThomson

Nev. I'm not sure what to do about this "newbie". She (I presume) has been adding uncited material to a number of articles. I tried to help by offering to assist her with citations, with no reply. Another editor left a message; he was obviously concerned that she was doing cut-and-paste. I made a further comment, so she has deleted everything from her talk page. She could do with one of the welcoming folk to look after her. I don't want to get involved. Any ideas?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take a look and see if I can help. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Castle is at FAR ...

... but of course you already know that. ;-) What you may not know, or perhaps have forgotten, is that FAR works on a two-stage process. In this initial stage arguments are presented without any voting; it isn't until the second, FARC stage, that votes are collected. The idea, I think. is that the delegates weigh up the arguments presented at the end of the first stage and decide whether or not there is a case to be voted on or not. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

...BTW, don't you just love the way that wikipedia forces you to have the same discussion over and over again until the result works out the "right" way? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my lack of experience of FAR is showing through; I've made the change. I don't mind the article being at FAR too much if it finally puts this to rest, but I'll refrain from explaining my thoughts on Boneyard not having the courtesy or competence to bother informing me. It was quite surprising to end up on the article and see "Currently undergoing review of its featured status" below the title. I wonder how many ways I can say "that source just isn't good enough" before my point that books specifically about castles are more reliable than general architecture books is understood. I'd much rather be working on an article than defending what is actually quite stable and well developed. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be worse. You could be doomed forever to keeping this mask out of this article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly I feel much better! I wonder, do we choose the articles or do they choose us. Surely no one in their right mind would choose to get involved in articles which require so much maintenance. Nev1 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I removed Pink Floyd from my watchlist. The albums remain, but the main article has been warped so far away from the sources I used, I can't be bothered to fix it. Parrot of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Greyfriars, London

Hi, While working on the above page you restored, I found a more complete in-progress version at User:Quisquiliae/sandbox. Given Greyfriars, London was created by a banned sock, could User:Quisquiliae also be a sock? Or maybe the sock just stole it from User:Quisquiliae's userspace? I guess the attribution hisotry of the mainspace article needs to be changed to reflect User:Quisquiliae's contributions. Either way I find the subject interesting and would like to improve the article, but I'll hold off until any releveant admin stuff is done. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 14 with respect to this article.  Sandstein  14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the above? It appears the article was written by a different user than the creator. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Quisquiliae account was created yesterday and all of its edits are to user space so it would be unlikely for someone to stumble across, I'd be surprised if they weren't connected. The top section contains information on William of Ockham (sandboxes are often a collection of jottings to be copied over into mainspace) so a direct merge might not be practical but copying the relevant material over with a not in the edit summary that the relevant history is at User:Quisquiliae/sandbox might suffice. Nev1 (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FL

Congratulations on List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom achieving FL. It seemed like a long, hard struggle. Hope it was worth it! Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My congrats too. It's a nice piece of work. Hope to see you back at FLC with another nomination and some reviews (wink, nudge!) soon!! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think dealing with the reviews was particularly difficult, just getting myself organised (I started on that article well over a year ago). It's nice to cross that off the mental to do list. I notice bamse has another nomination up and their lists are always high quality so I intend to drop by at some point, and not forgetting that Peter I. Vardy asked me a couple of sections above to take a look at his list. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add my congratulations too. I'm well pleased for you Nev, well done. Daicaregos (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Chetham's School of Music

Hi Nev, I saw your name in the history of this article and wondered if you had the time to have a look over at it? I'm thinking of submitting it to GAN - what are your thoughts? Thanks. AD 19:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an article in decent condition to me. It's heavily referenced and covers all the main points I'd expect of an article on a school so should stand a good chance at GAN.

The buildings weren't originally used to house a school, so you'll need to tweak "The oldest parts of the school date back to the 1420s, when the school was built as a resident for priests of the local church". It's uncertain whether the three ditches in the area of Chetham actually belonged to the castle, and I'm don't think it's that relevant to the article so I think "There are remains of several ditches in the vicinity,[3] which were used as defence by the occupants of the castle" could be removed. It's pretty obvious that "In 1916 no boys were admitted" must have been related to the war, but a bit more information would be interesting. Where it says "...where they shared a primary school" I assume you mean "...where they shared buildings with a primary school"? At the start of the second paragraph of the Later history: 1952 to present it feels like "music" crops up too many times, although considering it's explaining the change to become a music school this may be a bit tricky to rephrase.

I'd consider rephrasing "the school regularly obtains good exam results" as good is subjective; good for a music school, good for Manchester? It would be preferable to quantify it, something along the lines of saying what proportion of pupils get A*–C grades at GCSE compared to the national average, or if stats aren't available then say who describes their results as "good". I think it would also be worth milking the Ofsted report to see if there's anything not already covered in the article [1].

As there are no photos of the interior, I'd recommend this one of the library and this of some other part of Chesthams (although I've no idea where the second one is and you'd have to ask Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs)). In fact, the commons category might be worth browsing for external images too. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments and copyedits. I'll see if I can add some specific information about exam results and some more images. AD 22:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(interfering) I just wonder if this article is sufficiently comprehensive without a section on its architecture. It is after all a Grade I listed building, with a separate Grade II building designed by Waterhouse. It also commands some six pages in the latest edition of the Buildings of England series. Otherwise I think it is a pretty good article. Good luck at GAN.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed so I too will interfere, it needs a bit of copyediting, which I am working my way through. It's very interesting and poor old Humphrey's article is well dire.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the building angle as opposed to the school, but considering how old parts are it would be right to explain it some more; especially since, as Peter points out, the library is Grade I listed. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Shakib

Hey Nev1, just spotted this at GAN, and remembered that I probably had a few photos of him from the ODI in Bristol this year. Have uploaded the images to the Commons, and should you want to use them in the article, they are:

• File:Shakib_al_hasan_1.jpg
• File:Shakib_al_hasan_2.jpg
• File:Shakib_al_hasan_3.jpg
• File:Shakib_al_hasan_4.jpg

Kind regards, Harrias ^talk 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah good stuff, the Bangladesh articles are sadly lacking in pictures. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at some point I'll stick some up of the other players too. Not much time at the moment though, so not too active around here. Harrias ^talk 17:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring question

Recalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? --Tenmei (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cornwall. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dusti^*poke* 00:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

?! Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In order for me to warn the IP of 3RR, which is what they'll probably get blocked for, I also had to send you the same notice. This is just an FYI, because you can be blocked for editing even if it is a wheel war with an IP. Dusti^*poke* 00:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that's necessary. There's no limit on reverting vandalism, and the IP was clearly vandalising by changing the name of the English Channel to British Sea, changing the region from South East England to South East Britain (a term which is less specific and a red link) and... well need I go on. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unless it's clear vandalism, it is possible. It looks more like a content dispute, but in any sense, the IP has been blocked for 31 hours. Dusti^*poke* 00:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. The IP knew exactly what they were doing. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that the IP was probably a vandal, but if you ceased to assume good faith, why not issue a block? Dusti^*poke* 01:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You've just completely lied Nev1, I didn't change the region from 'South East England to South East Britain'!!! Do you even know where Cornwall is??? And I ask again, give me proof that validates your reversion of my edits. Tried to 'talk' on a 'talk' page (to Dusti in fact) and someone else butts in and blocks me, so here's my I.P. so you can all bar me again, if it makes you happy! 86.170.187.134 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear god what rubbish. Dusti if you put as much thought into evaluation and your warnings as you do you sig, we'd all be a bit happier. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks for your input. Happy Holiday's to you as well. Dusti^*poke* 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured on Main Page

Congratulations - Mike Peel says his pic was seen 3.8 million times. Happy New Year Victuallers (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And the article itself got just shy of 50,000 views. Not bad for Boxing Day and hopefully the readers found it interesting. Nev1 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Important bus routes in Derbyshire

I only withdrew the AFD because Rcsprinter123 userfied it, so I thought the issue was over. Now I see he has not only recreated it, but requested it to be full protected to save it from being deleted... this disruption really has to stop. We have already explained that "important" is completely subjective, and the list is redundant to the main list. AD 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcsprinter123 (talk • contribs)

Blackbeard

Hi. Semi-protection of Blackbeard seemed a bit pre-emptive as there have been minimal edits to it over the last few weeks. The only recently unhelpful ones that I can see were the vandalism of 14/12 and two attempts to add some unsourced trivia about the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I agree with your reversion of these additions, but I don't think these two insertions meet the definition of excessive vandalism.

I've lifted the semi-protection, but am happy to discuss if there's some key point that's evident at your end but which I've obviously missed at mine. Let me know (and belatedly, Merry Christmas). Euryalus (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has a fairly long history of needing protection as it's a high-traffic article (about 100,000 visitors a month). Between when the last protection expired (23 November) and when I protected it again (29 December) there were 51 edits in which the article barely changed. 24 of these edits were by IPs; the only unconfirmed account that sticks out editing during this time is that of DundundunWOAH (talk · contribs) which was vandalising (3 edits). Most of these edits were vandalism. While vandalism may have declined since the 14th, the long track record of vandalism on this article indicates that this will be temporary. Semi-protection is there to prevent a good article from being vandalised or simply degraded by well-intentioned by overall unhelpful edits (the later are less common). It is pre-emptive in the sense that I am attempting to prevent vandalism, but not in the sense disallowed by WP:SILVERLOCK which means that an article without a history of vandalism should not be protected until it is demonstrated that it is under threat (ie: someone has vandalised it).

I know that semi-protection only affects IPs and unconfirmed accounts, so in no way was it meant to prevent CJS2.0 (talk · contribs) from edits such as this, which I have not characterised as vandalism. I reverted the edit as it was unsourced and even sourced it of debatable consequence, but it was not an attempt to prevent CJS2.0 from editing the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)