User talk:Nev1/Archives/July–August 2011

Richard I

I know I am late to this issue but have had operation and been in a wheelchair, physical therapy, etc., blah, blah blah. I can't believe the issue of Richard I's sexuality was again challenged after all of your good work. I am glad to see most was kept in. If it comes up again and you decide to request help in the discussion, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Keep up the great work. Mugginsx (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

List of centuries in women's Test cricket‎

Nev, you'd provided some feedback on an earlier women's cricket list that I created, could you provide some ideas on content for the lede? I'd like to take it to FLC soon and am stumped on what to add there. Just ideas on what content might fit would be helpful, I can source and add it myself. I'll do a ce after adding all the content. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You've explained what Test cricket is, which is a good start, and the brief explanation of what a century is was necessary. The third sentence is oddly phrased, but it might just need tweaking to say that Sri Lanka, Ireland, and the Netherlands have played the fewest matches. As for expanding the lead, I think you can draw on a few points from the table. For instance who score the fastest century in terms of balls faced? Who scored the slowest? (These two might be tricky as the table gives balls faced for the entire innings.) Is it worth noting how many centuries have been scored for each country? If possible, it might also be handy to include a smaller table showing how many Tests each country has played; this would give the reader an idea whether Australia's 30 centuries is in proportion to India's ten and I'd be interested to see who the ten are as Ireland is amongst them. In more general terms, the lead might provide an opportunity to expand a little on the history of women's Test cricket. It's already mentioned that the first match was played in 1934 between England and Australia, but perhaps more detail could be added such as when other teams played their first Tests. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of these. Balls faced and minutes lasted -- the stats are incomplete, CA has some better scorecards than CI but even theirs is incomplete as far as expanded details are concerned; I've added CA stats wherever they had something more than CI and referenced those lines separately. Given that, I'm not sure that I can legitimately make a claim based on one of CA/CI lists that x or y were fastest or slowest. Another table for countries seems reasonable: Country, No of Tests, No of centuries, No of Test players, No of Test centurions, Highest score/scorer? I was trying to add some context to the ten and that's why that sentence is quite muddled right now: Bangladesh and Zimbabwe on the men's side are replaced by Ireland and the Netherlands on the women's. I'll add some context on the history -- didn't think of that before, I think integration of women's cricket into the ICC and the respective national boards might be useful and a few bits on Eng/Aus/NZ/Ind as they are the major players in this area (30+ Tests). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As the figures are incomplete, leaving out fastest/slowest centuries is fair enough. And the table headings are pretty much what I had in mind for the countries. Cricinfo has a couple of lists related to Test centuries in women's cricket so they might be worth checking out for ideas. Nev1 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Urbis exhibitions

I was thinking the same thing. Lists are frowned upon anyway and converting text into prose is certainly a step in the right direction in my view too. My line of thinking is that certain exhibitions such as Ghosts of Winter Hill have appeared in the mainstream media, on the BBC for instance. The Guardian and MEN News have also done some articles on certain exhibitions. I think these would be worthy of prose whilst the other exhibitions which have not been noted in the mainstream media such be omitted. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Coverage from the BBC or a national newspaper such as The Guardian seems like a good place to start, but wouldn't the Evening News contain pieces on pretty much all of the Urbis' exhibits as part of its coverage of what's going on in Manchester? Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is extended coverage from the MEN, but not all the exhibits are reviewed and discussed. On the basis of the tester 2009 section I've done, if it was all transferred into prose it would be difficult to sift through and therefore it seems right that the exhibits which garnered the most attention in the media should be briefly explored. Finding sourced information on the architecture of Urbis (it is a striking building afterall) is proving tricky however. Regards. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Zaheer Khan. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Roh^G ??· 14:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Which one of my seven edits didn't use an edit summary? For your benefit they are listed below.

• diff 20:08, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (12,371 bytes) (ce) (undo)
• diff 19:59, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (12,577 bytes) (aaaand rm copyvio) (undo)
• diff 19:57, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (12,616 bytes) (rm nonsense and unsourced nickname) (undo)
• diff 19:51, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (12,726 bytes) (move summary style material to lead section) (undo)
• diff 19:39, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (13,031 bytes) (→Test career: delete transient information and add refs) (undo)
• diff 19:32, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (12,951 bytes) (→Career: cut transient information) (undo)
• diff 19:29, 15 July 2011 Nev1 (talk | contribs | block) (13,255 bytes) (→ODI career: ce) (undo)

I suggest you revert this edit in which you mistakenly characterise my actions as vandalism and pay more attention when using automated tools such as Twinkle. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

RE: Kyle McCallan

I do understand what you are trying to say here, but mainly with Lupin's script, I'm usually only going to do what the part of the script I'm using is used for. In that case, I was using the Live spellcheck part of it. However, I will try to keep a better eye out, as you said. Though User:ClueBot NG is more likely to beat me to the vandalism. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 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 Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

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. BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Message to be neutral

Can you help in making the message/reword message to be neutral? I thought that it was ... --J. D. Redding 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at the noticeboard. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have rephrased. And deleted the other comments out. If I did this wrong, please revert it, and I am sorry. --J. D. Redding 16:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the opening sentence is supposed to convey that the rest can't, but it is an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Medieval II: Total War

Sorry, you could tell me that I am wrong. Because I understand my fault I must inform you that you have not revert my same edit in Balian of Ibelin, Gerard de Riderfort and Raymond III of Tripoli. Also I must tell that when we find "Spree Killers" we must tell them that they are wrong or they will continue until the fin themselves that they were wrong. I do this always.--46.246.177.230 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Impersonators?

Can you please either confirm that user:NevOne is your doppelganger, or block it as an impersonator? Thank you. DS (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not me. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Tutbury Castle

Nev, I got mixed up in an edit conflict. I was torn between removing the statement and cn'ing it. I went for the latter, you went for the former and I ended up reinstating your deletion. NtheP (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it happens. The line I take is that if stuff is has been recently added to an article the editor who contributed it can reasonably be expected to add a citation if they think what they wrote is important. For older material I'm slightly more circumspect as if every unsourced statement on Wikipedia was removed there wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia left. Nev1 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Chester city walls

I've expanded the article (hope you have not been toiling on it in a sandbox!). It's not particularly scholarly, but is the best I can do with my limited sources. I hope this makes a merger with the list less likely. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As I feared at the time, other commitments got in the way and this slipped my mind once I had free time again. Although more recently I've had a bit more time on my hands that's about to change again. It is still on my to do list. It's certainly an improvement, and hopefully enough to prevent the merger. Ward's a good source, and I'll see if www.british-history.ac.uk has the relevant volumes of the Victoria County History. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It has (and I've used it to the best of my ability).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeps...

Just to say that I've had a go at expanding the general article on keeps - it could no doubt do with further attention, but I've got to the point where I've seeing circular structures in front of my eyes, so I've moved it out of user-space and into the wild! Hope all's well, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've only had time for a quick skim, but it looks like another excellent piece of work. In the meantime I'm trying to clean up some copyright issues related to Rochdale Town Hall and sort out the muddle statistics in the Manchester article. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about Rochdale Town Hall. I think the immediate problem has now been solved, largely thanks to you, but on digging a bit deeper I'm finding other issues as well. Take citation #5 for instance, which is used five times including in the lead to source the claim that some of the stained glass was designed by William Morris, despite the article itself appearing to say that it was designed by Heaton, Butler and Bayne. But there's no link, and I can't find anything on Rochdale's web site, which is where it appears to have come from in the first place. And if you do a Google search for the phrase "widely recognised as being one of the finest municipal buildings in the country", quoted right at the start, all that comes up is mirror sites. I'm not sure what to do for the best here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks set to be a tricky one. The mention of Heaton, Butler and Bayne originates with me and I appear to have used some sloppy wording which hasn't helped matters. I don't have the 2004 edition to hand, but in the 1969 version Pevsner (p.377) says "Stone carving is by G. Law of Rochdale, wood carving by Earp of London, stained glass and wall painting by Heaton, Butler & Bayne." Carvings obviously count as decoration, so I'm not sure how I got that wrong. The Images of England record, which also mentions HB&B, says that William Morris is the man responsible for the four seasons stained glass and some wall paintings. Reference five is a book, so quotes from it may not show up on line. When the harvnb template didn't work when I clicked on it I was stumped for a moment but it can only relate to Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (N.D.), Metropolitan Rochdale Official Guide, Ed. J. Burrow & Co. After finding an example of my own imprecise interpretation of the sources I'm still a bit uneasy about the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that goes some way to explaining what's happening; I was a bit stumped with ref #5. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Burrough Hill

You will be pleased that your nomination has now been transferred to the prep area. I would just mention that I posted a comment at the talk page about some prose that seemed unclear. Your attention would be appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of that. Nev1 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No need

Hmmm. Yes, you’ve made yourself quite clear. And no, you don't know what my differences are with that editor. Or have you been tracking the banter between us over the past few weeks? It’s very obvious that you don't care. But that doesn’t stop you diving into my Talk Page threatening to block me. So my “changing someone else's comments” and thus “putting words in their mouth” - was a devious bit a vandalism, expected to go un-noticed on that very editor’s Talk Page. yes? My intentions, in a frivolous change of ‘’’two letters’’’, were malicious and not ironic, yes?

This was indeed a matter between that editor and me. But we do not have any fundamental disagreements, as far as I can see. Most of the edits made by that editor are indeed of a very high quality and add a great deal of value. Why else would I have nominated that editor for a DYK?

As you can see, I have been here since 2007. But I have never seen, in all that time, an editor as un-cooperative or as defensive as that editor..

I had thought that Wikipedia was meant to be a collaborative venture. I had thought that edit summaries were meant to simply summarize edits, instead of being a succession of scolds that often make another editors’s contribution appear to be tiresome and worthless, and which give a very strong sense of WP:OWN.

It is becoming clear to me that the amount of effort being expended in improving articles is becoming far out-weighed by the amount expended in petty disputes and authoritarian muscle-flexing. Whatever good natured humour there might have once have been in this project is fast being destroyed by the stamping down of overzealous administrators.

So no need to block me. Thanks. Bye. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No amount of wriggling will make edits such as this acceptable from an experienced editor. If you feel I have spoken to you harshly it is precisely because you are experienced and should know damn well better. You are of course welcome back when you decide to grow up. Goodbye. Nev1 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"wriggling"? no, just the truth; "edits such as this" - how many others exactly?; am not sure that length of time on wiki is any good indication of maturity or experience; "decide to grow up" - if that means adopting the tone of that other editor or the attitude you display here, then no thanks. But at least everyone can now see whose fault it was, can't they?

DYK for Burrough Hill

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting the vandalism on my talkpage. I've been away and only just figured it out:-( The editor seemed to be on some sort of one-upmanship crusade since I mentioned something trivial he added to an article. Oh well I expect he'll return, they usually do!--J3Mrs (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have rage-quit over the issue, but such decisions are not always permanent. Let's hope when he returns he is not as childish. Hope you're keeping well, Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And hope you're ok too. I get a bit fed up with trivia (some of it with references) and reading appalling prose but otherwise am fine, but busy in real life this week. Thanks again.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nev, sorry to trouble you yet again but PamD, Harkey Lodger and I have been editing Swarcliffe and User:Andreasegde has been somewhat contemptuous of our edits. However when I looked at User:Andreasegde's sandbox I was surprised to see this. How could a sandbox with my name be on this page?--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise. The link is a url (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload) which adapts to whatever user who clicks on it, so when I follow that link I end up at User:Nev1/sandbox. Probably not a big issue when it's your user page and your sandbox, but a bit confusing for everyone else. Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yet another example of my ignorance about how this thing works.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I did it again...

See here. I copyeditted a piece of vandalism, but after checking the edits changes again, realized it was vandalism and reverted to the version before said vandalism. Well, at least I did the right thing! :D LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh Aggers, do stop it

Hi I see you've made a number of edits to the article. Just to let you know, TRM are going to try to push it for FA. Join in if you like. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"All talk" you are?

How can one tell whether or not an editor is also an Administrator? Thank you. DireCriticMark (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This link tells you whether a user is an administrator or not. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Very useful. But isn't there a requirement for administrators to identify themsleves as such? Most do on their User page, which you do not have. I wondered why that was. DireCriticMark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

So, is there a requirement or not? I'm not sure how anyone trying to access your Userpage and being automatically re-directed to your Talkpage instead, would know that you were an administrator. I see this at WP:ADM: "Under this, individual accounts can be flagged as per the roles they could perform, which in turn determined functions/tools they could access." But what does this mean? DireCriticMark (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any requirement to identify myself as an admin, although until I decided I didn't need a user page any more I did state there that I was. I could add {{administrator}} to this page to put a little symbol of a mop in the top right corner which is widely recognised as signiffying an admin, but I'm not a massive fan of displaying badges and whatnot like they're medals. Do you think it's worth it? Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Worth it 100% I'd say. I'm sure a mop is the best medal one could ever hope for, haha. But something far less ambiguous and obvious to new editors would be so much better! Thanks you your explanation. DireCriticMark (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I talked with Demiurge1000 on irc about this, and no, you do not need a admin topicon/UBX if you are admin. From what I know, it is one of three situations for each user.

1. You are admin and you do have the UBX/topicon on your userpage/user talkpage/

2. You are admin and you don't have the UBX/topicon on your userpage/user talkpage.

3. You aren't admin and you do not have the UBX/topicon on your userpage/user talkpage.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but this is me using common sense. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(No, that's not common sense, that's "wiki sense"). DireCriticMark (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of WikiSense, someone should create the article WP:WikiSense. :P LikeLakers2 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So you know...

I understand you don't want talkback notices here, but the user you reverted used Twinkle to add that. Twinkle does not show the edit notice when the user clicks the tb tab, to add a talkback. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah talk back templates. They do have a use to highlight unnoticed responses but when I'm in the middle of a conversation they aren't necessary. I wonder why Twinkle doesn't show edit notices; they're usually there for a reason. Nev1 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It just doesn't. If I find a way to have the TB button disabled for this page, I'll let you know. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Response for deletion of Files from Hamid Hassan Profile

I just got a notification that you have deleted files that have been uploaded and added to Hamid Hassan profile and the reason given that i have given copyright information with out the permission of the holder. I personally asked Afghanistan cricket board whether to provide and upload or not, and then so i got the permission then i uploaded. By the way it makes no difference for me, because my aim is to provide best what i can. Best regards. --Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you got permission then you need to confirm it with the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team before you can upload the images. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 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 Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

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. BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting my talkpage

Hi, thanks for zapping the vandalism to my talkpage. However, could I ask why the IP responsible wasn't blocked? Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I opted for semi-protection rather than blocking as the IP hadn't yet broken WP:3RR. Things were moving quite quickly and as a result at that time the IP had only received a single warning which hadn't mentioned blocking. The fourth revert was done just before protection was applied so I reverted that. That the first edits of a fresh IP were to remove the talk page statement was also suspicious and suggested to me that sock-puppetry may have been around the corner. I'm no longer so sure that's the case as 94.4.123.182 doesn't seem to be hiding the link with 94.2.177.166. Nev1 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevi, that ip was removing a message that clearly violates WP:CIVIL, WP:UP#POLEMIC and Soapbox. I'm not so sure protecting the page was the right thing to do. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus at ANI for the removal of the statement. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be consensus for any material that violates civil, soapbox or polemic. Sorry, , I follow, ME saying it's polemic doesn't necessarily make it so. Got it! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on Stone circle

Hi Nev, any chance of you protecting the above article? There's an edit war broken out with a new user User talk:Nosdda who seems to be now using a sockpuppet ip. You can see the history of the problem on the article talkpage. Perhaps semi-protection and a warning about sockpuppetry will sort it out. Richerman (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Vsmith (talk · contribs) semi-protected while I was looking into the matter. What I was going to say was that Favonian has warned the IP that "It's painfully obvious that you are Nosdda (talk · contribs) logged out" so Nosdda is now aware that they cannot avoid scrutiny by logging out. Semi-protection would force the IP to stop, by Nosdda is auto-confirmed so it wouldn't necessarily prevent edit warring. And as the article currently has the eyes of a few experienced editors I'd be reluctant to fully protect the article just to stop Nosdda in case someone wants to make improvements. Instead of semi-protecting the article, I would have been inclined to wait to see it Nosdda persists but I can't say I fault Vsmith in choosing to protect. Taking the IP's warnings into account, they've had enough notifications and one more revert will result in a block. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed, thanks for your time anyway - seems to be a Welshman with a large chip on his shoulder. Richerman (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fresh eyes please

Hi Nev, would you mind taking a look at User:WFCforLife's involvement on List of national anthems. In particular, the edits removing content without discussion here, having disengaged from a similar discussion (Talk:List of national anthems#Using "national" in the Anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories section), here (ignoring BRD and using edit summaries for comment instead of engaging on the talk page), here (comments on editor motivation), here (closing an ongoing discussion prematurely), here (commenting on editors' race/nationality). I don't think this is serious enough for AN/I, but a friendy word from an uninvolved party may help calm things down. I am aware of WP:PETARD, so if I have acted inappropriately, please let me know. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed

Hello mate!You have notified me on misuse of anti-vandalism tool.And I want you to know that it was all happen in a sudden with my brother.Now,with the help of Quadell i have been saved from account sharing and I have successfully changed my pass-code.I should not blame my brother because it was my fault to share my pass-code.I'm entirely responsible for that incident.I assure you that further it will not be repeated.I hope that when ever a dispute/conflict occur you I'll be with me to guide me.Thank you Roh^G ??· 13:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello Nev!I want you to assist me with the article which is a GAN.Regards Roh^G ??· 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. As one of the top ten contributors of Great Divergence, the main article on the subject, you are notified per WP:Canvass (users who are known for expertise in the field) of a AfD on whether the Canadian scholar R. Duchesne is notable in his field of "wolrd history" or not, that is whether the bio should be kept or not. See here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Nev1/Rochester

Hi, I came across this as the categories are "live". Is the page serving a purpose? I note it has not been edited since December 2010. If you don't have a need for it, the you can mark it for deletion by adding {{db-author}}. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of how to delete it. I intend to return to the draft at some point. If the categories bother you, you are welcome to edit them out. Nev1 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)