User talk:Nev1/Archives/September–October 2011

James Taylor GA Review

Hello, Nev1 I don't really know the process here but I am retiring from Wikipedia due to other commitments and I GA nominated James Taylor on 16 August and it is currently 35 on the list WP:GAN#SPORT. I was wondering if you could manage the GA review when it is made (if you have time or want to) or if another user from the Wikiproject could just so the review would go to waste. I spent hours improving the article so it would be a shame for nobody to address the review. I don't know if this is proper procedure or anything but I just don't want it to be abandoned is all. Thanks User:joesayers ^talk 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's clear you've put a great deal of work into the article so I'll respond to the concerns of the review when it happens. It would be a shame for it not to pass. I have some experience with this kind of article, having taken Shakib Al Hasan and Mashrafe Mortaza to GA and looked after the most recent Lancashire articles, so hopefully I'll be able to deal with anything that comes up. And I'm sure if I get stuck on something the folks at WP:CRIC will be able to help out. I think leaving a note on the article's talk page should be enough and I'll take care of that now. I hope retirement isn't permanent and wish you good luck. Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and i'm sure that it will pass. No, it is not permanent I just cannot commit to the work on Wikipedia due other things and should be back next year. I thank you again for your help. User:joesayers ^talk 01:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to supplement the review: Firstly, thanks to you Nev1 for stepping in on this. While the article covers the topic pretty well, I just think there was too much wrong with the language at the moment. There are commas where they aren't needed, missing commas where they are, and a few places where I can't really make sense of the article. I'd be happy to help in a peer review (or perhaps just with some copy-editing at some stage, though I'm a little busy.) The article also seems to go into more detail on how Leicestershire were performing than is probably necessary. The Ireland ODI information would probably be better placed in the International section below, which could be renamed "International career" with sections to show his development through.

Feel free to drop me a line with any question you might have. Harrias ^talk 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Harrias. I'll go over the article again and hopefully will be in a position to renominate it later this month. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 11, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Hedingham Castle

see Talk:Hedingham Castle -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Impact of the Edwardian Castles in Wales...

Nev,

Just to say that I've now got a copy of the Williams' "The Impact of the Edwardian Castles in Wales", which I recall you were interested in against the context of the Caernarvon Castle article. It is rather good. I'm just finishing some work on the Bastille, but I'm hoping to then use it to supplement the relevant articles, and very happy to start with Caernarvon if that's useful to you. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As Wales has some great castles it's a real disappointment that more of the articles aren't of a good enough standard. I'd like to get Caernarfon to FA as it's the best known. My main concern was that without Williams the article couldn't be considered comprehensive, so if you could help out with that I think it would be a significant way-point on the way to FAC. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I'm hoping to get Bastille out of user space tomorrow, and then I can crack on. The 19th century French has bene giving me headaches! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - see what you think. I've gone through and incorporated the more prominent bits from the volume that weren't already covered in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

List of centuries in women's Test cricket

Hi, I've incorporated most of your suggestions -- the rest have been left out due to "unsourcability". Let me know if you have any comments/suggestions etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

At FLC now: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's Test cricket/archive1. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry-A New User

But i am actually still not getting why do you removed that information about Yuvraj Singh. I agree that we are not supposed to fill any information without a source file, but some things are known to us....so, we should have right to write something like i did......rsgidwani (talk|contribs) 18:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consult WP:BLP. It is very important that biographies of living people are properly sourced. Don't take this the wrong way, but how is a reader supposed to know that you haven't just invented what you wrote? Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

fine....... thanks for your advice....i think this is why the wp has grown so much....because there are co-ordinators like you for new volunteers like me...rsgidwani (talk|contribs) 18:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

hi....can u help me about redirection...

actually i wanna know how to redirect a short-name to it's corressponding link..... as "wp:indiaedu" to "Wikipedia:India Education Program" i know its syntax as - #REDIRECT().......... but not able to use it rsgidwani (talk|contribs) 10:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

?

I had missed a point???

No I did not!

You do realize in Greece, there are people there who worship God and who therefore do not worship "Hades of the Underworld". Here at wikipedia, wikipedia had strung in the word and the name "God" in to the other words and place called "of the underworld" and BUT because God is OF heaven, it's therefore that whomever that other one is that you were talking about is NOT a/the greek God because that one is a/the greek false God and THAT false God is named Appolyon in Greek: Revelation (9:11): They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon.

All angels being holy and whereas Satan being unholy and deceptive, it's Satan who's the one who has disguised Satan as an "angel" and even worst and further more, as "God". I'm sure you remember Satan had committed the similar disgusting evil thing at when Satan had tempted both woman and man in Eden. And yes, after all those years, Satan has continued to be up to Satan's ugly and evil tricks at when and because Satan has attempted to fool people in to believing Satan = angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The first line of the article is "Hades was the ancient Greek god of the underworld". That's "god" with a small g. What part of that statement do you struggle with? The ancient Greeks had a separate belief system from Christianity, and God has nothing to do with Hades. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you believe God has nothing to do with Hades. However, the VERY WORDS "GOD OF THE UNDERWORLD" STILL IMPLIES God was and/or is and/or will be "of the underworld"... therefore, it's better to have written "Hades, false god of the underworld"... yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. That would be imposing Christian values on an article about polytheism and somewhat condescending. I should have been clearer: Hades has nothing to do with the Christian God. You seem to be struggling to understand the difference between God and god. Nev1 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4: "One can not live on bread alone because one lives upon God's word". God nicely has emphasized to Jesus Christ and to the saints and to other people that it's largely important to use proper words as and because proper words pertain to life and therefore should not be used to direct towards believing in death and it's therefore that it would be better written if wikipedia would change it to: These are myths because their non-true/untrue: "God of the Underworld" and "Hades, God of the underworld".

Call it as it is and in other words: Hades is a false god/false God and so is Satan and so is Death, and it's therefore THE REASON why God should not be believed as "God of the underworld" because people will ask the question: God is of the underworld?

You see what I mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're still missing the point. Perhaps this link might help you understand the difference between God and god, which was not invented by Wikipedia. Calling Hades a false god in the first line of the article on Hades is a judgement which does not belong in Wikipedia; this encyclopedia is meant to have a neutral point of view rather than a Christian one. Christianity and the beliefs of the ancient Greeks are unrelated and I'm certain most people can handle the difference. I'm quite surprised you don't seem to have encountered polytheism before. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your being stubborn. I have studied saintly testimonies during the passed 8+ years now. Do you believe of the truth God is the Father and is in heaven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What you or I believe is immaterial as we should not be applying our own views on Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not originally of my view and nor of your view what it was that I had shared. The view I had shared had been from the saints who had that view given to them from Jesus Christ whereas Jesus Christ had that same view given to Jesus Christ from God. The fact still remains wikiepdia remains suggesting that those greek (and maybe other people) had acknowledged God as Hades and it's therefore that because those greeks (and maybe other people) had believed God = Hades, it's therefore that those greeks (and maybe other people) had followed a false God/false god and it's therefore that it would surely be nice to have it rather listed as: "Hades, false god/false God" rather than to continue to have "God of the Underworld" blurted out as one in all the main and large headings in the wikipedia's "Hades" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hades belonged to the pantheon of ancient Greek gods and that is the context in which he is explained. Shoving in the assertion that he is a false god is imposing a value-set and context on the subject which is inappropriate. The ancient Greeks did not believe that the Christian God was Hades as their beliefs pre-dated Christianity. I strongly suggest that you read up on the classics before you make such odd assertions. The article will not be changing. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you about 1800 years too late to this conversation, Reverend? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You some people at wikipedia have been raised to rely on pride and greed rather than humbleness and truth and has therefore been the reason why you've been rudely stubborn towards me and others. The United States american politicians have instilled such large quantities of pride and greed inside themselves and their own citizens with pyramids on their american dollars and fibbing to people about the "In God We Trust" words they had attempted to convince people about while and yet it should not be too difficult to see the U.S. education over the passed 200 years had been mostly the reason why and/or how the destruction of their own World Trade Center had happened: greed = self-piercing. "Love of money is of the root of all forms of evils and but because some people had been anxious about gaining money had therefore went versus the faith, had therefore struck themselves from many hurts." ~ Saint Timothy 1:6:10

By the way, idolatry was and is and will be some thing that's versus God's commandments in God's law. Liberty Statue = Idolatry. Lady Liberty always was and always is always will be a false god/false God/false goddess/false Goddess and has therefore been a form of false worship similar as Zeus and Caezar and Herod and Pharaoh.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Good faith only goes so far guys... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Christian God is just as much a "false god" as any other. Nonetheless, it is the convention in nominally Christian countries that the Christian God is capitalised and the other gods are not. And as Nev1 says, that won't be changing here on Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to be courteous in our discussion, but trying to educate you has been akin to headbutting a wall. Thanks for the sermon, but Wikipedia still adopts a neutral point of view. It does not, and never will, assert that Hades, Apollo, Jupiter, Allah, or any other deity is false just because it does not fit with Christian belief. If you find that intolerable perhaps Conservapedia is more your cup of tea. And for what it's worth, I'm not American. Nev1 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia supposedly "still adopts a neutral point of view", then it should be that not only should they not have any facts sections here, but they should also not have any mythological sections here either they being neutral and all. For Nev1 and others too: If you had been Nev1 from heaven (a heavenly person, a saint)... then I would not go around saying/showing to people "Nev1 of the underworld" AND I'm also not saying that you had believed Jesus Christ and/or God = Hades and/or Death. I said wikipedia putting God's name in a title heading whereas "of the underworld" had also been associated to his name would suggest God = Satan especially towards younger people such as young children and should therefore be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Dan Clark (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been touched by his noodly appendage. Begone, false preacher. Parrot of Doom 16:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong now

can i ask what is wrong with the bolton wanderers article rivalries please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.199.219 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you didn't provide a source. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on September 15, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 15, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle is a moated castle near Robertsbridge in East Sussex, England. It was built in 1385 by Sir Edward Dalyngrigge, ostensibly to defend the area against French invasion during the Hundred Years' War. Of quadrangular plan, Bodiam Castle has no keep, having its various chambers built around the outer defensive walls and inner courts. Its corners and entrance are marked by towers, and topped by crenellations. It was the home of the Dalyngrigge family and the centre of the manor of Bodiam. Possession of Bodiam Castle passed through several generations of Dalyngrigges, until their line became extinct, when the castle passed by marriage to the Lewknor family. Descendants of the Lewknors owned the castle until at least the 16th century. By the start of the English Civil War in 1641, Bodiam Castle was owned by John Tufton. He sold the castle to help pay fines levied against him by Parliament. The castle was subsequently dismantled, and was left as a picturesque ruin until its purchase by John Fuller in 1829. Under his auspices, the castle was partially restored before being sold to George Cubitt, 1st Baron Ashcombe, and later to Lord Curzon, both of whom undertook restoration projects at Bodiam. The castle is protected as a Grade I listed building and Scheduled Monument, and is open to the public. (more...)

File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg

As a rule, plans, maps, charts, diagrams and such are always replaceable, unless it's that particular plan, map, chart or diagram which is the subject of discussion. While tracing a non-free plan would obviously be a copyright violation, you could create your own from the data in the diagram, or even from the data in a photograph. I'm not personally a map-maker (and with the amount of GMing I do, I wish I was) so I can't really point you in the direction of the best way of going about it. Another go at a request at the graphic lab may be the best way forward, but leaving this non-free image in the article is not really a viable solution. (Also, just so you're clear, in addition to the rationale, an image copyright tag would be needed.) J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can usually manage copyright, but this situation is tricky and I'm happy defer to people who know more than me in this subject. But the advice I had on this matter was conflicting. Some of it supported your point, but others did not. To my mind "creat[ing] your own from the data in the diagram" is just tracing by another name. Doing it from a photograph strikes me as impractical due to the parallax and the difficulty in getting an image from above the site. I took the safe option and put a fair-use template on the image. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really the safe option, as it seems pretty clearly to fail NFCC#1. As an aside, are there definitely no out-of-copyright alternatives? If you're looking for wider input, try asking on the non-free content talk page. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course the first thing I did was check for out of copyright versions as I loathe these situations. We're now trying to rid the article of a vital plan even though a fair-use rationale is being used. Curzon's Bodiam Castle, A Historical and Descriptive Survey was the best bet, but as I recall the bit of the actual castle was too small and lacked detail. Not adequate for explaining the layout of the castle and therefore a non-free plan was justifiable. There may well be other unpublished sources which are now out copyright, but I assumed tracking down unpublished materials fell beyond the remit of "reasonably can be replaced". Assertions that it falls under NFCC1 are disputable at best; as I said, using the data from the plan is tantamount to tracing, so how one can be allowed but not the other is beyond me. In any case, my time here is limited and I will not be able to deal with this situation further. Nev1 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but, to reiterate, it's pretty standardly assumed that non-free maps, diagrams and charts are replaceable, just as it is assumed that non-free photographs of living people are replaceable. I don't see why this one should be different- There is a real difference between copying a map and creating your own map based on another. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What difference? Anyway, I have discovered a free use plan on page 178 of this source; I can't redraw it so could you please take care of the matter. Nev1 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle ground plan, Archaeological Journal (1905) v62 page 179

I took the image you suggested and have cleaned it up a little. At the moment it is under a naming error on Commons. When that is fixed it will be there to use. Would you like me to do any more to the image (eg rotate it so that it is orientated to the north) or add in the room information from the current image or add in any other information? -- PBS (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great, if the labelling from the previous image could be added I think we'd be ready to move on from this. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding the outworks to the image. I would have thought it would be better to orientate it to the north (ie rotate it through 180%). As for the words there are three options:

• Just copy what is in the current text (this a more valid option as I have found another source clearly not a facsimile and has has similar wording)[1]
• Add letters (or numbers) to the diagram and then add the rooms as a list on the diagram.
• Add letters (or numbers) to the diagram and then add the list into the article.

Which option do you prefer? -- PBS (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why Thackray and this journal article chose to have south at the top; because of that I'm not especially fussed with the orientation, but north at the top feels more standardised. As for the labelling, the previous image had words although I think having numbers would allow them to be larger and clearer in a thumbnail so I'd go for the third option. That way we're not asking a reader to leave the article to read the diagram. Nev1 (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rochester...

Three thoughts, but it's looking really good. I'll have a really detailed read through later, but:

• Creighton and Higham note the fine Romanesque detail in the interior, which could come out more in the architecture bit.
• Thompson notes that in the 1630s, travellers still described the castle as in active use; at the moment we note that it was in disrepair, but this might clarify it slightly.
• There is a good article on the conservation dilemmas surrounding the keep here, which would be worth a sentence at the end of the history section I think.

I'm happy to add those in if you like.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also found [this http://www.visitmedway.org/xsdbimgs/Consul%20P1.pdf] and [this http://www.visitmedway.org/xsdbimgs/Consul%20P2.pdf], which may also have relevant material, but I haven't ploughed through them all yet. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, those PDFs were invaluable for the later period. Brown rather grumpily noted that after the 14th century "in military terms the rest is anti-climax" and spends barely a page on the rest of the castle's history. They probably have some detail on the internal decoration of the keep. Thanks for the pointers, particularly the bit about conservation etc. Nev1 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd missed them in the bibliography/references! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have access to Coulson's Castles in Medieval Society would you? Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I couldn't afford it! (It's on my Christmas list). His related article, though, is here] if that's useful. Have you read Hulme's article on the Great Towers in the Castle Studies Journal, btw? It discusses Coulson and Rochester I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to double check what Coulson said on page 160 about the slighting as it isn't mentioned in other sources and it's months since I added it. More out of personal curiosity to be honest. I keep meaning to buy a subscription to the Castle Studies Group but never seem to get round to it. Interesting that Hulme's article isn't included in the Gatehouse bibliography; is there anything particularly interesting in it? Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He mounts a defence of the great keeps as military structures, arguing against Coulson's analysis; he's got an interesting point about the earlier keeps being built before crossbows and decent trebuchets, arguing that their design therefore made more sense than is sometimes given credit for. There's a .pdf version on the Studies website I think. Rochester definitely wasn't slighted, although I wonder if its presence down in a strategically sensitive area like Kent might not also have played a role perhaps, alongside the pro-Parliamentary argument (being a good defence against the French, Dutch etc., rather like Chepstow) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you removed the hyphens from the ISBNs? WP:ISBN prefers hyphens left in. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It was done for consistency. As I wasn't sure of where all the dashes went in each one it was simpler to remove them and didn't seem to cause problems with the links. Nev1 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/September_2011#Abolishing the lead coordinator position

Hi Nev. In the coord election, you originally didn't vote for me, then gave me your vote yesteday. Kirill and I have been arguing this morning, and I've decided the best way to get it behind us is for me to flip-flop on my position of not assuming the lead coord role ... I will now take the position if offered, then ask for consensus on what the role should be and attempt to follow the consensus. Since I only got your vote after I made a pledge, and I'm now flip-flopping on the pledge, it wouldn't bother me even a little if you want to withdraw your vote. Thanks for voting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I appreciate the transparency. As it happens my vote wasn't related to your pledge. This year I haven't had a chance to properly consider the candidates (maybe I will before the election is over, but I've recently found a fresh wind with article writing and don't want to get distracted), so my votes have been based on personal experience. I am not active in Milhist's review process and by and large my areas of interest don't overlap with most of the candidates but I have seen you and Hchc2009 at work so felt comfortable supporting. Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Travis Turnbull

Can't be a G4. Different nationalities and different sports. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Still an A7 so no point in messing about with it. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's one of those where some admins would keep and some would speedy and the former would know it'll be toast at AfD and be happy with someone coming along and just doing the latter... or maybe that's just the way my mind works, lol --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon edit war.

Hi Nev, could you please take a butcher's at the above article? There's an IP reverting continuously. I templated them (apparently so according to the message left on my talk page) at revert #4 yet they chose to ignore the advice and continued on for a 5th time. There are 3 of us involved in the tete-a-tete so I'll leave it up to you as to who the LART is best applied to. Cheers. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a silly think to get blocked over, but they were warned about the three revert rule. And since they claim to be an experienced editor they should know to use the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP left a really strange message on my webpage after I warned them. They referred to themselves as "Us" indicating more then one person. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pink Oboe got the same message. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, perhaps there are multiple people involved as a very similar IP made similar edits on the 20th, or maybe the IP wished to appear to have wider support. If another IP appears it can be dealt with then. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah just figured I would make sure you knew. I have a feeling this maybe someone with a history of causing problems. No clue who just seems like the type. Ridernyc (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He is back and has already started a minor edit war. [[2]] Ridernyc (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

BFI

Fæ and myself have replied to your question on the Wikimedia UK wiki. Just letting you know in case you're not watching the page. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Devoted is hardly accurate as I can remember only one review and then it was because the subject was of particular interest. I have hardly inconvenienced myself. Handing out praise so easily may devalue it. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree its a bit overrated. I think only the CRM and Chevrons should have the "devoted" part. Buggie111 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Art Gallery and Museum

Thank you for your continuing contributions to this article. However, you may not have realised that you reverted a considerable number of copy-editing changes I recently made, and also removed an 'incomplete' tag and a 'copy-edit' tag which I feel still apply to the relevant sections. Your comments are valid, but if you wish to re-expand an introduction section, remove subheadings you feel are unnecessary, or re-introduce a fact you think I removed without explanation, these things can all be done without reverting wholesale. However, I see that you are subsequently re-applying some of the reverted changes. I will leave the article for a while to allow you to complete that work. If there are further issues for which you disagree with my editing, I do invite you to discuss them, here, or on my talk page, or on the discussion page of the article. mooncow 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"ignorant buffoon"

Nev1 with the comment "you ignorant buffoon." in this edit, I think you are out of order. Instead of making reverts of reverts and adding such comments why not take it to the talk page and discuss it? -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, Phil, have you read the Wikipedia article on the Tower of London? Nev1 (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My method for fixing articles is different from yours (and Parrot of Dooms) I prefer to make incremental changes, and then seek consensus for further changes. For example as I pointed out to you on the talk page. I could not find a source for the Richard moat. But rather than delete it there and then I fixed the Henry section and I do not call other editors names such as "ignorant buffoon".

Now to a practical problem. Your merge of your own page into the White Tower (Tower of London) has caused a serious problem because you made some edits to User:Nev1/White Tower the before the last edit to the White Tower article at 07:02, 3 October 2011 Philip Baird Shearer. This has introduced a false history into the article which rightly belongs you user sub page. It makes it look as if I reverted you edit

• 00:07, 1 October 2011 Nev1 (→History: adapted WHS content from Tower of London article)

when in fact I reverted your edit of

• 22:45, 30 September 2011 Nev1 (40 bytes) (The White Tower section of the Tower of London article does a better job of informing the reader than this article so I'm turning this into a redirect for now.)

which looks very odd in a sea of edits that should not be there. I am not too fussed about the history after that point (but as you did not make the to the article it looks just as odd and is a false article history), so I suggest you revert out the merge page you made between an article and the user space page User:Nev1/White Tower, so that the history of you page is restored and instead copy across the text from you user page to the article as would be done by a user who did not have access to administrative tools. -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked you a question, and I would appreciate a straightforward answer. Nev1 (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I had to have read the article to have made an edit to it. Further I have been trying to discuss changes on the talk page of the article, to which instead of replying you chose to continue to make more changes. -- PBS (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would sincerely hope so, but I wonder why you missed the fact the article does not give a firm date for when the White Tower was completed. Perhaps Sutcliffe is the absolute authority on stone use in London, but he is not an expert on the Tower of London. Asserting the White Tower was finished in 1097 is fine for his book when that's not the crucial point and he is at least in the right area, but in an article explicitly about the White Tower it is not sufficient. You need to work on recognising the appropriateness of the sources you use. Frankly, I stand by my inital remark if you cannot recognise that Brown and Curnow are better sources for this information. Nev1 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Further there was nothing to discuss regarding the other issues. The article was in a pretty dire state before you arrived, and your edits reminded me. I was in the process of rewriting the article so there was no point in discussing other changes when they would not be included in the final article. Nev1 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI I have taken the issued of merging a user space sub-page into existing article to ANI -- see WP:ANI#Merging the history of a sub-page in user space into a pre-existing article -- PBS (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong now

why did you removed my pics ? The latest ones that i added few hours ago were not copy rights you ``ass hole``. they were from my cam. you have gone out of your mind. you donot know even abc of copy righting ? user- Neelendra Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelendra Kumar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediacity page

I know Malleus and MrsJ3 have good page building abilities, it's just a shame their manners and courtesy let them down. I've asked them to state what they think should happen to improve the page, but they seem intent on mass mini-editing as to avoid reaching a consensus. It is uncivil and summarises, for me anyway, what is wrong with Wikipedia at the moment - too many haughty editors. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this on the article's talk page shall we? Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why I should. It's like talking to a brick wall with them two. They have a horrible attitude. God only knows what they're like in person. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Because (I think) they both watch this talk page and if this is going to be a discussion related to the article we may as well keep it in one place. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, well I can't be bothered. If this sort of behaviour flourishes on Wikipedia, then good luck. Makes you wonder why Wikipedia has lost editors in the last year or so. Stevo1000 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help that some people seem unwilling to let some things go. It tends to create bad blood. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always found it remarkable how often people complain about the behaviour of others but are completely blind to the same or worse behaviour in themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially when false accusations are made. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You see what I mean? Can't reason with both of them. They're just an awful piece of work (not only to me either) a lot of the time. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to convince me they're the spawn of the devil and I'm not going to persuade you they're angels. Your behaviour hasn't been faultless either, so let's leave it at that and concentrate on improving the article. There's a long way to go. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

With these two? You're on your own there. Good luck. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just like every other human being, neither the spawn of the Devil nor an angel. Neither am I a cloth-brained Californian who believes that what laughably passes for civility here on Wikipedia ought to be an end in itself. For God's sake, in which universe could any rational person consider Stevo1000's own remarks such as "they're just an awful piece of work" to be civil? The lack of consistency and self-awareness that editors like Stevo1000 are encouraged in is one of Wikipedia's fundamental problems. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

La Sagrada Familia

Thank you for your timely support! I have indeed become rather frustrated over this matter. Anyway, I have posted an apology to this editor. Amandajm (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Nev. Just popping in to say 'hello'. Nice to see you around on RfA :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I hope you're doing well. Don't expect me to appear too often at RfA, I just happened to have a passing knowledge of Redrose so thought it was worth my time chipping in. Nev1 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Krak...

Nev,

Ref the fast improving Krak article, would it be useful to you if I improved the image quality of the castle plan?

Hope all's well, Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, as you can see the current one is a bit faint. I don't think it will end up FAC as I can't read French and the impression I've been getting is that Deschamps is indispensable for a genuinely comprehensive article, but it should make a decent GA when I'm done. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given it a once over - contrast altered, and the worst of the patching and folding corrected. Not perfect, but as you say, a little less faint. Good to see Krak improving!Hchc2009 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement. On a related note, have you checked flickr for photos of Dunster Castle? There are a handful with commons compatible licences which might be of itnerest. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a look, but the article's pretty full already (a pity, as its a nice looking castle, particularly from the outside). Incidentally, I've got a full plan layout of Warkworth (including the baileys etc.) if that's any use; it needs cleaning up, but I could probably do that over the weekend if you'd like. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So far I've just been looking at the English Heritage guidebooks on Warkworth (Summerson and Goodall) so haven't yet come across any free to use plans so help in that regard would be great. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do then. Its 1950s, so out of Crown Copyright, but still quite accurate. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Done and added in. If you need it labelled at some point, give us a shout. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. Nev1 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nev, I've been watching the article, and I will go over it more thoroughly when I get a chance. It looks good from what I've glanced at so far. (I probably won't get to it this week though, as I'm off to a conference today.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic content

My edits in the section Top Performers in England cricket team artcle is encyclopedic and is trustworthy. I have taken cricinfo.com as the source for the information. Deepak Shimoga (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

'Top performers' lists players in accordance to their respective averages. Its purely based on the list of players in Current Squad. It has got nothing to do with ICC rankings or what pundits say. As for Liam Plunkett, he has played atleast one ODI in the last 1 year and that is why he is the ODI bowlers list. Yes, he hasn't played any Test match in the recent past, but that doesn't count since I have not added him in the Test bowlers list. If you say Plunkett should be removed from the Top performers list then, tell me, why keep him in the Current squad list? Deepak Shimoga (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Mate, you seriously need to tell me why the section top performers was removed. If you think the English was bad or the presentation was not up to the mark, you could have just corrected it. It is encyclopedic and as far as the source is concerned, its cricinfo.com - the most reliable cricket stats website at present. Can you please summarize what was wrong or missing? Deepak Shimoga (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay no problems. I don't think I can change your mind. And thanks for making my hard work look like a waste. I'm sure you will also undo my edits of Current Squads of India, South Africa, West Indies etc. I've put in a lot of hard work to update those squads correct to one year limit. Go on.... Deepak Shimoga (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind and yes if I start editing again maybe you will start 'undo'ing again. That's why I use Wikilove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak Shimoga (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

27 Club

Hello Nev1. Thanks for protecting the article. Discussion on the talk page is proceeding, though not necessarily progressing, haha. Will you consider undoing G's last edit, made a split second before you protected the article? They have removed the information plenty enough (I think they must be at 6R or more) against at least four other editors (none of which were me or my socks, of course), so it seems to me there is a clear consensus on keeping poor Amy on the list--and the sources seem to bear that out as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I hadn't noticed that last edit as I had started filling in the protection form before it happened (I semi-protected instead of full by mistake in any case). I have restored the previous version of the article, although I'm sure G90025 will not be happy about the Wrong Version being in place. Hopefully this won't cool discussion on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope so as well. But, you know how drama goes; the second act is currently playing out on ANI. I have said my peace and will let other editors have their say. Thanks, and don't be thinking about joining the 27 Club. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My 2c: I think it may have been a less than optimal decision to protect that page. It was one editor reverting 10+ times, and against a host of other editors (one of whom also broke 3RR). May I ask you to reconsider the protection and go with a block instead? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My call was that protecting the page would divert attention towards a discussion. I do not condone edit warring as G90025 obviously engaged in, and was close to blocking, but felt the issue could be chewed over on the talk page and consensus established. If you want G90025 blocked I recommend you raise the issue at WP:AN and I'll be happy to abide the decision. Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, although a request as well. If I had happened to catch it before you did, I would have blocked both users. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of UK listed buildings

Hi. You may or may not remember me. If I recall correctly you helped me through the process to my first ever FA. I had considered posting on the always busy mike-foxtrot page but there seems to be a deep discussion going on about the value of whiskey-mike-foxtrot's. Still, I am digressing. I also recall somewhere that UK Grade I/II* listed buildings were automatically notable? I have searched WP:N/N and could only find this (and the useless this). Do you know of anywhere (else) where this is discussed please? The issue is on the mention of the extant buildings (four of them including e.g. [3]) in the context of (parts) of the same buildings once being a 12th century hospital (St John the Baptist) --Senra (Talk) 14:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's not enshrined in policy that listed buildings are automatically notable, but it seems to be more of an unwritten understanding. I don't see listed buildings go to AfD oftenm but the ones I have seen have been closed as keep and usually quickly. The key in the arguement is English Heritage's description of listed buildings:

• Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important; only 2.5% of listed buildings are Grade I
• Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest; 5.5% of listed buildings are Grade II*
• Grade II buildings are nationally important and of special interest; 92% of all listed buildings are in this class and it is the most likely grade of listing for a home owner.

If a building is listed, there will be sources on it, and a good place to start is heritage gateway. This means that listed buildings are usually considered notable enough to have their own articles. I think that some of the Grade II structures (which can include telephone boxes for example) may not warrant an article, but as a rule of thumb I and II* should be automatically notable. If there are several buildings which are listed individually but are obviously closely linked, it makes sense to cover them in a single article. When writing about settlements I think it's worth mentioning the listed buildings, and when there are too many to go into detail just give numbers for how many there are and highlight the most important (ie: graded highest). Nev1 (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! A beautifully detailed and considered response. Thank you. For the record, I am attempting to collaboratively improve Ely, Cambridgeshire and specifically, in the context of this post, the Notable buildings section. Thank you again for your clarification --Senra (Talk) 16:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oval Books

You appear to have added, albeit awhile ago, copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The line in question is '' best-selling humorous series that contains facts, jargon and inside information – all you need to know for instant expertise.'' which perhaps should be in quotation marks as it is from The Bluffer's Guide website. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

Turnabout is fair play. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes and sorry about my error with UNESCO - I read and liked The Bluffer's Guide to Psychology a while ago. Nice to see this noted series here! (Msrasnw (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC))