User talk:Nev1/Archives/May–June 2010

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

You've complained about links I add to the CCEL. I don't really see what's wrong with this - I am new to Wikipedia editing, but I read the guidelines and my linking only violates the "Advertising and conflicts of interest" rules, but there are so many other sites that are linked doing the same thing. Project Gutenberg, for example. So I assumed it was appropriate because others were doing it. Call me a lemming, but I'd really like to know what the problem is. Abbyzwart (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tosses

He is removing material that is sourced and replacing it with material of his own doing. I was not aware I was in violation of 3RR, but now that I am, I will stop reverting him. However, I do wish to note that he has reverted me again. Also note the same user is engaged in a dispute on the article Jews.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for two articles to be protected as a result of you and Tosses edit warring to prevent this going any further. I understand that Tosses is an inexperienced user, but both of you should have attempted to resolve the issues on the relevant talk pages rather than edit war. You have not attempted to address Tosses concerns; hyperbole such as "the Chinese army was the best of its day" needs to be removed. I find it hard to believe that any credible scholar would state that something is categorically the best as it's subjective. A neutral encyclopaedia should not use such phrasing. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So Tosses will be able to edit what he wants despite 3RR, while I am not to edit? The subject of the dispute was not the removal of that phrase (which is stated by the source verbatim, by the way), but this addition [1], which is unsourced and frankly hard to prove. The economy article suffers from the same problem- he removed several important citations in the first paragraph without which the first few sentences would be unsourced. Please be aware that both articles would be left heavily unsourced if the articles were protected. Also, see Tosses' talk page; I had attempted to contact him on his talk page to work it out, but he was not responsive. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, claiming that one unsourced statement was the only issue seems to be contradicted by this edit. I've seen Tosses talk page, you didn't bother following up on the reply. The economy article too suffers from problems, but not solely because Tosses edited it. You need to explain to Tosses that while he/she may disagree with what the sources say Wikipedia operates on the principle of WP:V. The protection is to encourage you and Tosses to engage in discussion; if the version you don't like is protected, that's just tough and you should have tried harder to engage Tosses in discussion. Try to engage in discussion rather than edit wars. Nev1 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, if phrases such as "These powerful horsemen, combined with the superior firepower of the Chinese infantry, made Chinese armies the best of their day" as lifted verbatim from the source you need to put it in quotes, otherwise that's plagiarism. While making such bold statements should ring alarm bells as to the reliability of the source, one way to deal with it is to phrase it as "In the opinion of historian Ji, powerful horsemen, combined with... etc". The reason is that saying something is the best is not objective; there are many factors involved and I strongly doubt there is academic consensus on the matter. This way, we show that it is not fact but one person's opinion. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I will take your suggestions into account in my future editing. In the meanwhile, take note that User:Tosses has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Meanwhile, User:Gun Powder Ma has continued to attack me with epithets such as "wargamer" in addition to his earlier attack on my talk page which you are no doubt aware of. I hope this issue can be resolved soon.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tosses' use of sockpuppets is frustrating as he raised some valid points which will no doubt be lost now that he has been discredited; that is how it usually works. If you want a tip, User:TomasCantorFriedman is another of Tosses' sockpuppets. The edit patterns are similar and so is the writing style: an over use of exclamation marks and editing in the same subject areas. This user is probably using sockpouppets because they feel they're being ignored and if they give the impression more people agree with them they might get things to change. I suggest you file a report at WP:SPI. I am obviously aware of GunPowder Ma's earlier comment on your talk page as I warned him not to make such remarks myself and left a note on your page about it. I see that you have taken the issue to the Wiki-etiquette page; hopefully that will sort this all out so we can focus on content rather than editors, but if you're feeling attacked or harassed, responding with condescension isn't likely to help matters. It is often difficult to take what one feels is the high road, but preferable to the alternative. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunk

The nickname is quite well known and is imo not a problem, do you mind if I replace it, I do think it was fine, perhaps in another section? Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also you have removed this well cited pretty notable issue, and quoted BLP . again it has been there a long time and it well cited and neutrally written, I also can not see any reason to remove this. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In April 2009, Blears was named in an email from Neil Hill, a disabled 56 year old pensioner, who received a £3000 legal bill from Blears's dept. On receiving the legal bill, Mr Hill hanged himself, directly naming Blears's actions as a contributing factor. Both Blears and the local housing authority who had attempted to impose a rent rise denied any responsibility for his death.

Admittedly I don't feel too strongly about the nickname, but whether it's well known or not I just don't see what it adds to the article. She had a nickname, but so what? There's no reliable source saying it's affected her career, it's just a bit of (fairly uninteresting) trivia that I would not expect to find in an encyclopaedia article. As for the bit about Neil Hill, the source given did not state that "directly naming Blears's actions as a contributing factor" and the only bit about Hill being disabled is from the comments' section. That much should certainly be removed, but the implication of including the story at all is that it was Blears' fault in some way. The caveat that she denied responsibility doesn't really balance it out. Given that she said "I did not know anything about this at all until I was told of the event of his death earlier this week" I'd suggest that this isn't relevant to the article on Blears. She had minimal involvement and the incident has not (yet) been cited as having a long term impact on her career. As you know, BLPs are tricky and especially for MPs who are by their nature controversial figures who divide opinion; in this instance I think it best too err on the side of caution and leave out the incident with Neil Hill. Nev1 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing problematic about the content it has been there a long time if you really thing it has blp issues take it to the blp noticeboard. It is a well known story and is written fairly. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

She was named in his suicide note, she commented about how sorry she was about it. We don't just want to remove anything that is not positive about her do we? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was a lot worse before I discussed issues such as this and tidied and cleaned the article to the decent state it is or was in now, the content is well balanced, she is know as the chipmunk and there can be no reason to remove it, same goes for the suicide story, the content that is left is after I have trimmed and removed the weight from it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1) As I have demonstrated above, the source is missing information that is being included in the article 2) It's a tragic incident, but the relevance has not been established. Just because it's been there a long time doesn't give it legitimacy. This isn't about removing something because it's not positive about her, it's because it's clearly poorly sourced and the relevance has not been established. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget about it. I have removed it for you. 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Message from User:Pencerdd about Cumbric language

Hi nev1 thanks for your advice however I think I have already made my point quite forcefully and at some length in the discussion regarding the"Cumbric" language nonsense and unfortunately no one has had the courage to respond to my valid points regarding obvious personal agendas and bizarre supporting arguments. Perhaps you would like to read my serious contribution and comment yourself on my points in return if so I do look forward to a frank, honest and serious discussion? The real problem, with respect, has nothing to do with sources as there are no sources for "Cumbric" it is an unattested language (Koch),there are only arguments all the evidence that is given combined does not constitute a reasonable claim for a separate language from Cymraeg (Welsh)

The article is a mess and an embarrassment It makes a claim of fact and then immediately bring the conclusion into realistic doubt. This is an issue of internal consistency and logical coherence that does not require sources to illuminate, only ratiocination and a degree of objectivity that the article clearly lacks. It fails to make the case for the claim of fact that it states- do you think that encyclopedias do this? If there is serious debate then no claim of definite existence can nor is made . I would suggest as an issue of principle and integrity that an argument that fails within its own internal structure and based upon irrelevant references does not need a litany of counter references as IT HAS NOT MADE THE CASE to be accepted as valid IN THE FIRST PLACE .I would have thought that this should be self evident to anyone who wishes to be taken seriously at any level including, of course, the most basic and fundamental principles of evidence based argument. In a word, so that all including the most unresponsive, subjective, agenda driven and biased can finally understand, if one cannot reasonable demonstrate cumbric as separate to Welsh then as the burden of proof is on the positive claim (that is on the new claim that something exists that has not been demonstrated before) there is no justification for the continued tolerance of this page making the astonishing claim that cumbric existed at all.

If I may in turn suggest that if you and Wikipedia want to be taken seriously in return then I suggest you read my comments regarding the "cumbric" page as it is based upon a great deal of nonsense and irrelevant information that does not make the case for cumbric as anything other than the Welsh language and as I have said before my main issues are criticisms of the logic and rational of the given articles claims do not need sources as they are based upon a critique of the inconsistencies and contradictions of the article itself. Unless of course you are suggesting that an article is good regardless of its content but because it has references for its claims regardless of their pertinence or relevance to the actual claims being made. Irrelevant info that is sourced but provided as speculative argument should be removed from an argument for an "unattested language". It is of course perhaps my fault for overestimating the seriousness of some contributors to the principles and pursuit of knowledge and to the ability of others to actually be prepared to engage with the weaknesses of their arguments especially when they are pointed out by others; to the degree of subjectivity that some contributors bring to these pages as well as preexisting biases and agendas clearly borne of contemporary desires. if wiki wants to be taken seriously by others - and believe me it needs to be- then articles need to be coherent, mature and based upon the QUALITY OF ARGUMENT based upon more than just sources but their interpretation and judicious selection. Stop hiding behind the mantra of citing sources when creative critique is what is actually required at times to sort the wheat from the chaff. Pencerdd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.220.205 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article on Cumbric language is on my watchlist not because I know anything in particular about the subject, but because it falls within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, although the project hasn't really touched the article. What caught my attention was the article move rather than anything else.

Just a thought (I want emphasises that I'm really not familiar with the subject), but perhaps a change of direction is what the article needs? If the "Cumbric language" is part of Welsh it may still merit its own article if there's been sufficient research into the subject to demonstrate this if it's received significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia's inertia is an object to many things, but perhaps what might help is if you drafted an article in user space? If you created your own fully-referenced version of what you would put into an article on Cumbric at User:Pencerdd/Cumbric language it might be easier for your position to get traction, especially as the current article seems to be inadequately sourced (Rochdale is Old English, not "Cumbric" or Brythonic) and doesn't stay focussed (for example, why Norse is relevant is not explained). Perhaps if Wikipedia can't make a decent effort regarding such articles it's best if it's highlighted so that it isn't taken seriously? Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Nottinghamshire

Hi Nev, you wrote on the project wall back in 2009 suggesting ways we could work with WikiProject England. One of the suggestions you made was creating a bot to tag articles. This would be really useful, as it is tedious going through all the categories doing it myself. Do you have any advice on how to create one. I'm a pretty basic editor myself and can't really handle the technical stuff, so any ideas would be greatly appreciated. KlickingKarl (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about bots either, but the folks over at Wikipedia:Bot requests will be able to help. If you say that you want a bot to add a project banner to talk pages, a bot will tag the articles in a given category, ie Category:Nottinghamshire. I've not made a request before myself, but I understand that you have to check the categories carefully. For example, Category:Sport in Nottinghamshire is in Category:Nottinghamshire, but since it includes Category:Nottinghamshire cricketers you may want to specify that the Notts cricketers aren't tagged as they might not be all that relevant. Hope that helps, but the people at Bot requests will be able to give better advice. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this something you might be interested in?

I came across a book published by the South Trafford Archaeological Group on excavations they carried out at Timperley Hall, and I was surprised to see we didn't have an article on the Hall. Well we do now, at least the beginnings of one anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. I was looking to see what info wikipedia had on the de Mascy family and I came across this abortion. I think I might go back to witches; you know where you are with a witch; the Padiham witch is just crying out for an article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember creating that stub of an article, but as is often the way around here I got distracted rather easily. I don't remember that massive chunk of what looked like a copyvio, I'm glad that's gone now, but it's still pretty woeful. I'd meant to do something on Timperley Old Hall, even if it was just a section in the Timperley article, but it must have slipped my mind. Well it's good to see there's now something; unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the book myself. It's slightly confusing that the "new" hall is now called Timperley Old Hall, but that's more than compensated by the fact the pub there pours a good pint and does decent food. The issue of information boards over at WT:FAC is an interesting one as STAG are spending part of their £38,000 grant on some, which in the absence of another publication are probably the most up to date sources of info for the site. Despite getting "Towns in Trafford" to a Featured Topic there's still a lot to do for the area. Hale, Bowdon, and Timperley are all in need of TLC. The problem is of course that in my experience settlement articles take a lot of energy, and the similarity between them – especially when they're close together – can be wearing. It's been a while since I've written one though, so it might be good to return to the subject. At the moment though I've got my eye on a rewrite of the Tower of London. It's dreadful, there's more on the ravens than anyone could reasonably want to know, a dreaded in fiction section, and there are basic facts missing such as when the castle was founded! It may sound strange complaining about the homogeneity of settlement articles to then move onto castle articles, but each one produces a different challenge. For example Bodiam Castle's architecture was almost more important than its history, which was pretty uneventful, and Brougham Castle seemed to be a long list of people who were renovating and repairing. Of course, the Tower of London is not quite like anything else. It's got a very colourful history and the article isn't doing it justice at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about whatever signs STAG erect on-site; they'll almost certainly be the most up-to-date information on the Old Hall. I struggled quite a bit with that "Old Hall" vs "New Hall" stuff initially. I originally intended just to write about the 17th-century moated Hall, but as nobody is sure when it was built, how it was built, when or why it was demolished, or even when the present Hall was built, that just got harder and harder, so it seemed to make more sense to have one article on all three, even though there's pretty much nothing been found of the original medieval structure. I've been quite surprised how few of these moated manor houses have articles. Davenportgreen Hall in Hale, for instance, doesn't have one.

On the subject of The Tower, perhaps the way to go is as we did with the Gunpowder Plot/Guy Fawkes – spin off a Tower of London in popular culture article? It worked pretty well for Guido, and has put an end to all that time-wasting bickering about the V for Vendetta mask. Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. I think you're right about settlement articles as well. I also started to find them a bit too much like hard work, but I'm slowly regaining an appetite for them. I'd like to do something with Wythenshawe soon, for instance. Unloved today, it began with the very best of intentions. Maybe Bowdon as well. I used to live there, and I've whiled away many pleasant hours in The Griffin. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the different halls was one of the things that deterred me from writing the article. I wasn't quite sure how to handle it, but your approach of rolling them all together seems right. I will have to get round to the likes of Timperley and Hale at some point.

The approach used for Guy Fawkes is almost certainly what will have to be done for the Tower. There are just too many instances of it appearing in some film or other for the section to go quietly into the night. The Ainsworth poem will stay thogh as one source gives it as an example of how literature has affected perception of the Tower. As my time on Wikipedia is limited at the moment I'm rewriting the article in Word. It's probably the best approach, because if I started pruning from the article the material I think doesn't belong I'm sure whoever put in so much effort into researching the ravens would turn up. It would only distract from actually writing the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd be right to keep Ainsworth. We kept him in the Guy Fawkes for pretty much the same reason; he almost single-handedly transformed Fawkes into an acceptable action hero in the public mind. Amazing for an author almost completely forgotten today. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for your comment. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Just to let you know that I have nominated Norton Priory as a FAC here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, I'll watchlist the candidate page so I can join in and later give my opinion on the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FLC review urgent

Hi! Since you are familiar with reviewing Lists of National Treasures of Japan, I thought you could help out with the following... List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials) is presently a featured list candidate and marked as Nominations urgently needing reviews which means that it is in danger of failing the nomination due to a lack of reviews. I'd be happy, if you could have a look at the list and leave comments, questions or suggestions at the nomination page. The criteria to be checked against are found here. Thanks. bamse (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope to take a look and review the list later today. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. bamse (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

British Museum prize

Fancy winning £100? Have a look at this. Lindow Man promoted to FA should be a good candidate, don't you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been meaning to sort out Lindow Man for a good while; it's ok as it is but it'd be great to see it become a Featured Article. Nev1 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Puerile Heckling"

We probably should move this conversation away form Mk5384's talk page. Can you give me a diff of an edit from John that you would consider "heckling" on the AFD?—Kww(talk) 19:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I came here to ask you the same thing. Any chance of in future accompanying such statements with a diff or a link, to make requests like this unnecessary? Thanks. --John (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is your memory really that short, John? No diffs are necessary as the AfD is pretty short; it's plain to see in the AfD. Several of your replies amounted to "I didn't hear that". Fortunately your disruption stopped once you noticed the consensus to keep the article was emerging. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are absolutely necessary. I read over the AFD, and could find no comments from John that appeared to be heckling. He certainly took a minority position, but didn't misbehave in any way that I could see.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, any chance of not doing this sort of thing again? This is the second time you have made some sort of insulting comment about me which you have then been unable to substantiate. Maybe just check before posting such comments in future, would be my suggestion. --John (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a target number of fights that you try and start each month, or a minimum number of other editors you have to try and needle? This comment of yours is clearly "puerile heckling". You could have tried to make whatever dumb-assed point you were attempting to make in a rather less patronising tone, but of course that's not your style. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think you've mistaken my comment as admittance that I was wrong. What it actually is is an expression of my feeling that admins cover each other on Wikipedia. The AfD is that way for anyone who wants to read it. If you can't see that you were being disruptive then I can't force you to. Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I read the AfD after reading Nev1's remark on Mk5384's talk page, expecting to find some definite misbehavior on John's part, and saw absolutely nothing amiss -- and I'm not an admin. On the other hand, I didn't find anything in Mk5384's behavior that was remotely bad enough to support the comment by BWiklins "be happy you were not blocked for disruption" in regard to that Mk's participation there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is being discussed at WP:ANI#Allegation_of_.22puerile_heckling.22.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not FA quality

Curiously, I received a rather similar reaction after this article's main page appearance from one editor. Not the same one though. It's just one of the perks of putting yourself through the FAC wringer. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It does make you wonder where they were when the article was at FAC. FAC is tough enough but TFA is more a test of an editor's patience than an article's quality. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat

I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review.[2] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rivington and Blackrod High School

Thanks for the edit summary at Rivington and Blackrod High School. I share your concerns. I was cleaning up per my comments on the other editor's talk page (User_talk:Rovington#Barons) and hadn't noticed that this article wasn't like the many others where he simply erased the entire content and asked for speedy deletion. It appears this article wasn't the only one, so I'll look through them all more carefully.

Meanwhile, what do you think of my approach to the article? I've removed anything from the content he disputed that was unsourced, poorly sourced, or sourced from his website.

I've never seen an editor try to claim copyright to his contributions to Wikipedia. Worse, I'm not sure the editor understands what he's claiming. If you want to look at the wider problems discussed on his talk page, I'd like to hear your opinion. I'm close to taking it all to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nev1. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Message added 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joan of Arc

Hi, I added two more links which include articles from people(Mr. Williamson and Mrs. Frohlick) who have very good knowledge about Joan's life and are educated in her story. In their article, they prove that she was not raped. One of the reasons is Joan's own sayings and another is mistranslation of Isambart's words mentioned by Pernoud in his book. I hope you will accept my edit. Many articles have written, proving that she was not raped: http://www.stjoan-center.com/FAQ/question5.html#rape http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_rape_refutation.html http://maidjoan.tripod.com/whatsup.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan2011 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That first source includes the phrase "If I must be the lone voice, "crying in the wilderness," of modern thought - then so be it. I am not afraid to go against the 'popular' belief because I will be in good company. I WILL STAND WITH SAINT JOAN!", which doesn't bode well for its neutrality on the topic. – iridescent 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent points out a problem with the first link, and "JoanNet" doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source; in the words of the person who runs that site "Why am I an unofficial Saint Joan nut? ... I went to the public library and checked a book out by Regine Pernoud. I couldn't put the book down until I got to the end of the narrative on Joan's life. And now I am an unofficial Joan of Arc nut". As well intentioned and enthusiastic as he seems, he should not be used as a source while there are scholarly books on the subject out there. archive.joan-of-arc.org seems a more promising source as it's written by Allen Williamson who claims to have founded the Historical Association for Joan of Arc Studies. However, despite a relatively good impression compared to the other websites, Mkdw (talk · contribs) has pointed out that Williamson appears to be an unqualified historian and archive.joan-of-arc.org is his personal website. I agree with Mkdw, as does Begoon (talk · contribs). I'm afraid he is therefore not on the same level as the sources currently used in the article.

When it comes down to it, there's no way to be certain whether Joan of Arc was raped. However, it is worth mentioning that she may have been raped and that Friar Martin Ladvenu and Friar Isambart de la Pierre testify as much. It's unlikely in this case to come to a firm and neutral conclusion on either side, so that Joan may have been raped should not be excluded from the article, but nor should it be reported as fact. I think the current phrasing in the article ("Joan agreed to wear women's clothes when she abjured. A few days later she may have been raped in prison.") is sufficient. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Can I add the reasons that prove her virginity? (without removing that sentence)?--Joan2011 (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This question was left on my talk page too. I moved the posts from my talk page to Talk:Joan_of_Arc#Was_she_raped, to try to keep the discussion "centralised". - Begoon (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: St.Helens Merseyside

My recent edits were neither 'unconstructive' or 'vandalism'.

The Sankey Canal was not constructed for the sake of St.Helens, nor was it constructed IN St.Helens Regardless what anyone may 'think', in 1755 St.Helens was in it's infancy. The canal was constructed to access the several coal mines in Haydock and provide coal to the Liverpool area. Many years later, as St.Helens industry grew, the canal was extended into St.Helens to gain coal supplies from the coal mines to feed St.Helens industry, not the other way around.

The Rainhill Trials did not take place in St.Helens. If they had, they'd probably be known as 'the St.Helens Trials'. But they're not. The claim to these trials would be acceptable as a 'historic event within the modern borough', therefore it should be in the 'Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens' article.

There has never been any copper mined in St.Helens. There is nothing written to say there has, because copper ore doesn't exist in the area.

Read and inwardly digest - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tiJLWHtgR0IJ:www.amlwchhistory.co.uk/parys/manuf.htm+copper+mines+south+lancashire&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

I would ask you to revert my edits.

Jemmy Hanson 92.239.71.235 (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced information is unconstructive, and since you know this and did so anyway it constitutes vandalism. If you disagree with the source, you need to find one of equal reliability which contradicts it. Parys Underground group hardly seems on a par with a book published by Routledge, does it? The book may not be infallible, but so far you've not provided a reliable source contradicting it. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He's right on the "copper mining", I think at some point someone has cross linked "mining" and "copper" in the opening.Koncorde (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then go ahead an fix it. As it stood Jemmy was in violation of policy and knew full well. Nev1 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like at some point someone some time ago edited the opening to branch in "copper mining" as an inline link to "copper smelting" but got it wrong. I've fixed it to an inline link again as I believe originally intended.Koncorde (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, for admitting to have been wrong about retaining the copper mining wrong information by removing it yourself after threatening me with the 'you will be blocked' routine!

You tell me I'll be blocked for removing 'sourced information', then you tell Koncorde to - "Then go ahead an fix it. As it stood Jemmy was in violation of policy and knew full well".

What I don't understand is this .... What's the difference between ME removing it, and Koncorde removing it, after 'I' point out it's wrong??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, please do the same with the rest of the 'wrong information'. ie: .............

....... The Sankey Canal was NOT the first fully man made canal. It wasn't 'the first', it was merely the first in the industrial revolution period. On opening, it wasn't 'fully' man made either, as the last section, connecting it to the River Mersey, was 'canalised river'.

Like I've said before, students could use Wikipedia for research (although they are advised not to), so try to keep the contents FACTUAL.

Jemmy Hanson 92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The status of the Sankey as being the first man-made canal in this country is debatable, even among authors of reliable publications. I would add that there isn't really any such thing as a natural canal, and that a canalised river is not a canal, but a river. For instance, the Manchester Ship Canal is joined near Irlam by the River Mersey, which upstream is canalised - but nobody would ever suggest that the Mersey is therefore part of the canal. If you want to lend support to your arguments, you should cite some reliable sources. Parrot of Doom 11:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• No-one has suggested the Sankey was a 'natural' canal. When first cut, it was connected to the River Mersey by a canalised river section, so was not 'fully' man made. Later, it was extended and connected to the Mersey by a purely 'cut' section. This made the Sankey Canal 'fully man-made, over it's whole length'.

However, this was only done after the Bridgewater was 'fully man-made, over it's whole length'. So it goes, the Sankey was the 'first man made canal cut, and operational, in the time period known as the industrial revolution'. The Bridgewater was the 'first fully man made over it's whole length canal cut, and operational, in the time period known as the industrial revolution'. Neither was the 'first man made canal'. All these claims, by local people, for their town, is rather childish. Call me 'padantic' if you wish, but what's wrong will not do.

Jemmy Hanson92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And is this your opinion, or the opinion of a reliable source? Parrot of Doom 12:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jemmy, your track record with sources is pretty poor, especially regarding geography and local history. You have been told repeatedly that if you want to change something that you need to provide reliable sources. As per usual, you decided you were above such rules. I assumed that the person who read the source had got it right, but everyone is fallible. As for students using Wikipedia, if they're so intellectually and physically lazy that they accept what they read on this website without checking for themselves they'll soon learn the hard way not to do it. That at least would be a valuable lesson. Nev1 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing difficult about amending the text to say "first man made canal of the industrial revolution" or otherwise raising it as an issue on the Talk Page Jemmy? Also the reason for Nev to overturn your original changes was because it was sourced (and your removal caused a link to break elsewhere in the article). If you delete sources then you need to explain why Jemmy and ensure that it isn't detrimental elsewhere.

Your assertion that the claims are being made for "childish" reasons isn't remotely true. People believe what they think is true, or misread sources, or attribute to sources something that on review is not supported. It's not hard in most cases to make your point.Koncorde (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa FAC

Hi, I per your suggestions about the demographics section, is this what you had in mind? I'm tired of Davenport only being an A class and not an FA, so I'm going to get in gear and fix it up. CTJF83 chat 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the kind of stuff I was thinking of. Good luck with the article when you next take it to FAC. Regardless of whether it does get through, it is still a good article. You might be tired of having to take it through, but just remember that it could be worse. It took five attempts to get this promoted. Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a LOT of work...especially if you gotta do it by yourself. CTJF83 chat 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)