User talk:Nev1/Archives/November–December 2011

Thanks

Many thanks for that. Last year Guy Fawkes got 326,000 views on the fifth, so it was only going to get worse. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm keeping an eye on the related articles in anticipation that vandalism will escalate there too. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a link to the style page. I've been looking for it without success for months. Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a maze, so no matter how long you spend looking there's always more to find. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Blocking this user

Hi, Thanks a lot for blocking this user 119.155.114.124 . He did some annoying edits in Salman Butt Page. Abdul raja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

YGM

Hello, Nev1/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— --Senra (Talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied. And thanks for the reminder I have a Wikipedia email account, it was getting very backlogged! Nev1 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your help --Senra (Talk) 23:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary sources

Hi. I hope you don't mind me disturbing you. I have posted a discussion on the Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands talk page regarding primary vs secondary sources. I would welcome your view on my post, as such a distinction between source material is outside my comfort zone (although I have read the related articles, guidelines and policy documents today) --Senra (Talk) 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's talk page. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Agnew

Hi. We're coming close to being ready for FAC. Would you care to run an eye over the article? I'm particular keen for you to spot uncited claims, narrative that doesn't quite work, important omissions etc. I'll ask an editor unfamiliar with cricket to do a copyedit afterwards. Also, if you'd like to help with filling any of the citation gaps, you're more than welcome! Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look later. Nev1 (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff... although Cricinfo are mad re Bumble. No wickets in Test cricket, in fact less than 3 balls bowled per Test and roughly 1 wicket every 2 matches in first-class cricket don't make him an all-rounder, more a batsman who could bowl a bit. --Dweller (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It did leave me a bit puzzled, but then Collingwood has 132 wickets from 204 first-class matches. Feel free to revert, though I'd be tempted to swap "specialist batsman" for "opening batsman" as that was his role in the match. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. --Dweller (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Tower of London by Ainsworth

I've been working on finding 1st edition title pages for Ainsworth's novels. I saw that you've placed some images in the Tower of London article, and rather than move them I wanted to show you this title page and let you decide whether or not to use it in the article and where.--INeverCry 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be a fine addition to the article. If you need to either of the images I added to fit in the title page, go right ahead. They were added to give the reader some idea abot where the story took place, but they're included on the Tower of London article so a curious reader could still go there. Nev1 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the title page in the article with a small infobox. I moved Lady Jane to the characters section. It's a really nice article btw.--INeverCry 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima wrote the article, I just chipped in with a couple of sentences about how it impacted the public's view of the Tower. Ottava put together quite a few of the articles on Ainsworth and his work, as you can see from his user page. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. I've added images to some of Ottava's other articles, and will do more. I can't understand banning one of the best editors indefinitely. Wikipedia gets a FAIL vote from me on this one.--INeverCry 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sachin - Master Blaster issue

Hi Nev1! Sorry for disturbing you for this silly thing, Yet we need your contribution. I've started a Discussion for Master Blaster Nick name issue for Sachin Tendulkar. Please contribute. Thanks. Abdul raja (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll comment there. Nev1 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob Shaw

For lending a hand at Bob Shaw. --John (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, are you then happy that the references are consistent? Nev1 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, it might be nice to consolidate the book references as Harvnb like we have on Margaret Thatcher. It might be a fair bit of work though. I won't have time for a few days to look into it. What do you think? --John (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the style of referencing used in the Thatcher article as in my opinion it makes the references easier to read. The ones in the Shaw article wouldn't take me too long to convert, so if that's what you want I'd be happy to sort that out. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Me too. If you did that I would be very grateful. --John (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made the changes, how does it look at to you? Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks fantastic, and you did it far faster than I could have. I really appreciate the help. --John (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the use of abbreviations in lists of monasteries, abbeys and priories etc

Are you still watching List of abbeys and priories in England? Would you be willing to contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of abbeys and priories in England#Use of abbreviations?— Rod ^talk 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Warkworth...

I've been rushed off my feet with real-life work, but will put in some thoughts at the FA discussion. Looks good, BTW. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. There was an odd problem with who Henry II gave Warkworth too (explained on the talk page), but I think it all worked out. Now I'm testing the waters at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done with the map, it makes the discussion about its position much clearer. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I only recently found out that OS maps are under Crown Copyright so could use the 1940s map. The problem was I wasn't sure how to use those at Vision of Britina as you could only save little square of the image. Fortunately I found out how to stitch them together. I think there's a lot of potential in adding OS maps to this kind of article. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hi Nev. I've enabled e-mail. If you could send me a copy of that garbage by Daft, I'd like to see it in case there's a need to take matters further. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've sent you an email with the text of the article. Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nev. I've received it. Have you ever seen anyone so childish and petulant in your life? Is he mental or what? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Childish and petty are my adjectives of choice in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Plateosaurus ref fiddling

Many thanks! Would you mind giving your opinion on the FAC [1], too? HMallison (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As it happens I'm already reading through and hope to comment soon(ish). Nev1 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! HMallison (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

What is your reasoning for removing the {{unsourced}} tag from List of castles in Italy? There's a ton of unsourced redlinks there. Either sources should be added, or the redlinks should be removed. --Elonka 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then do it, adding a tag stating the obvious helps no one. Nev1 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Sure, I could go in and just delete all the redlinks, but in my opinion, it's better to add a cleanup tag first, and give others watching the page an opportunity to address the problems. If sources aren't added within a reasonable amount of time, then the unsourced information can be removed. I'm kind of surprised that I even have to explain this, considering that you're an administrator. Is there some other problem in the topic area, of which I am unaware? --Elonka 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixing it could have taken the form of adding sources. I'm disappointed you didn't think of that. Nev1 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's going on. You've got a castle-related FAC going on, so you're prickly about castle articles. Okay, I'll give you some leeway, but c'mon Nev1, you know you're in the wrong on this. The List of castles in Italy article doesn't have a single source, so it was completely appropriate for me to put an {{unsourced}} tag on it. That you reverted the tag the way you did, especially with a snarky edit summary,[2] was poor form. I do wish you luck with the FAC though. Tell you what, I'll meet you halfway? Point me at a couple online sources that you think would be good for the list article, and I'll see about getting the cites formatted and added. I've actually got another project where I may be doing some research on castles in northern Italy, so I'd rather we found a way to work together, rather than against each other. --Elonka 03:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would go as far as to say that all (or nearly all) tags are unnecessary. They usually state the obvious, and look untidy to those consulting WP for information. And I've never understood the "orphan" tag. Maybe some tags, used as a temporary measure, on important issues like copyright, "in use", etc. may be acceptable. So how about a campaign to banish tags? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think tags can be useful in some instances, declaring to a casual reader that an article may not be all that trustworthy for instance, but does a list of buildings with no detail really need citations? Parrot of Doom 10:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. Regardless of what's going on at FAC, whether the article had been about castles or cars, I would still view tagging in this manner as lazy. It didn't solve the problem of sourcing and that's the bottom line. What you did was strictly speaking permissible, but the revert was a challenge to think about what it achieved. Do tags really encourage editors to work? We've both seen articles with tags years old so it's no use pretending they're some kind of miracle cure. Sadly, it's easier to tag an article than to take responsibility and improve it. The question is will you improve the list or leave it to someone else?

Moving onto a more cheerful subject, what is this research on north Italian castles about? Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I trust not including sources in this edit was an oversight that will be rectified forthwith. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am planning a trip to northern Italy next year, to do some research on castles in South Tyrol, specifically castles which have the swallowtail merlons, such as Castle Runkelstein. This is related to research I am doing on the Voynich manuscript, since there is a small image in the manuscript of a castle with swallowtail merlons. So right now I'm trying to compile data on castles (pre-16th century) with that architectural element. Like where is the oldest example of its use, which parts of Europe were most likely to use it, etc. Is this something you've run across, in your own research? --Elonka 07:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much information to offer specifically related to merlons, but the crenelation of castles emerged in the 12th century. Though it relates to castles in England and Wales I would recommend reading The Dating of Medieval Military Architecture by Paul Remfry as illutrative of issues regarding dating. It's not much use on Wikipedia where verifiability is king over truth, but the caution advised is certainly applicable to other situations. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dabbler

You're a dabbler, apparently. Parrot of Doom 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd notice that over at WT:FAC, certainly an interesting study by TCO. It covers the period of January to September this year so dabbler is about right. After Peveril Castle I didn't have much enthusiasm for putting articles together. Nothing to do with my experience of FAC or the article itself I hasten to add, I just ran out of steam. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a "star collector" ... gees, and here I thought the concept of increasing the coverage of underrepresented articles was a goal too. Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think my stats there are very heavily influenced by Gunpowder Plot stuff, but it does raise an interesting point - most important topics are woeful. That's the great thing about WP:GM I guess; that project has done a pretty good job on its most important articles, although some, like Stockport, are badly lacking. Maybe we should have a big push and sort something out, like you guys did with the Peterloo Massacre. Parrot of Doom 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:GM still has some unfinished business. Six of the ten borough articles are still below B-class, but most of the major settlements are in decent shape. If I remember right, Mr Stephen did some good work on Stockport's history section so we should probably try to get him on board. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that important of course, but I reckon Flixton, Greater Manchester only needs a couple of days fiddling before it could go to GAC. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's important, who's to say what's important in a volunteer project? I think decent information on settlements is vital as libraries close. Why don't you nominate it? That'll spur you on it won't be reviewed for a while. I keep thinking the same thing about Horwich.

It'd be quickfailed if nominated now. I'm busy writing about a 17th-century priest at the moment, that's giving me enough of a headache :) Parrot of Doom 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you were busy PoD, Priests :-( I was abused for using the word "recusant" to describe a priest as it is outdated and not neutral.J3Mrs (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Giving myself a deadline helps when I need some urgency with an article, but you don't want it to be quickfailed. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

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 remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Stretford End

In its current form? No. The article has no references at all and if it doesn't get any soon it I'd certainly see as it as a prime candidate for deletion. The text has strange claims such as: It was once measured that the roar of the crowd from the Stretford End was louder than a Jumbo Jet taking off. (?) The listed banners are simply trivial and not really encyclopaedic in my mind. If it was improved with citations then it would be worth its own article. As it stands, it is not worthy of article status in my view, particularly when its covered in the Old Trafford article. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire

Hi Nev. I wonder if you could cast a critical eye over this please. I'm thinking of putting it up for FA. It's had an excellent PR done by Tim Riley a few months ago, but I've never tried for a FA before and as most of it is my own work I'm still a bit queasy about the whole thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look, I'll try to post some comments on the talk page later today. A couple of things stand out already. I prefer my images large so often force to something like 300px where I can justify it, but since the default thumbnail size is 220px I don't think forcing to 230px will have much effect. And I notice some references, footnote 14 for example, are followed by a colon and a number, are these page numbers? Nev1 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that. I noticed it a few days ago. I provided the original refs, but I didn't dd those odd things, and I've been unable to locate where it is or who added it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Having looked closer at reference 14 I'm fairly sure they refer to the page numbers, but as it wasn't immediately clear I imagine it' not particularly helpful to readers. It's not done consistently either: only one of the many references to Hembry (1997) includes a page number. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are page numbers absolutely essential for FA? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed page numbers, used through the {{Rp}} but I've never seen this used anywhere before, and as I don't know who put them into the Malvern article, I'm going to remove them, because if someone from FA review sees them they will insist that all refs should have one, which is of course impossible. As far as I can see, it's not a 'must' for FA. Do let me know if anything else crosses you mind. Thanks for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Sorry my replies haven't had more substance to them, I've been under the weather for the past couple of days and my head is still a bit fuzzy. Even though it may be using {{Rp}}, from the readers' point of view I don't think it's immediately obvious what it means and so there are better ways to present that information. From what I've seen of FACs it's common practice to include page numbers, but for the life of me I can't remember whether it's mandated. Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Krak des Chevaliers GA Review

Sorry for the late start, but I have been working on the GA review for Krak des Chevaliers. There are more details on the review page (here's the link), but I think it should pass without too much trouble. DCItalk 02:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It passed. DCItalk 00:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest

You were a little harsh to the IP editor; they replaced an informational note with 2 refs to Tacitus' Annals. I've combined their 2 refs and added a bit more info about the edition, leaving the info about the years in the note rather than putting it in article text the way they had. But they were not removing refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so much harsh as plain wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, and I've restored the IP's edits. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but - look again at my intervening edit. I had added bibliographic info and I see no need for it to appear in 2 separate places . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll combine them. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the recovered eagle is now covered in the footnote as you intended with no repetition. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cricket discussions

Please contribute to these discussions.

1. Lasith Malinga
2. Indian Cricket Team

Thanks Solar Police►Talk 14:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

You probably saved me from one of those "bright-line" 3RR blocks.[3] :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That particular IP wasn't vandalising as such, but adding poorly-written unsourced information with no regard to whether it's worth including isn't much help either. There's are enough IPs being reverted in the recent history that it would be silly for it to remain unprotected. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could debate what "vandalising" means, especially as the Vandals didn't really vandalise Rome at all, but protecting the article was a good move. I'd have done it myself if I hadn't been such a gob-shite that I'm persona non grata here, and never likely to be able to. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not at all impressed by "poorly-written". ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I pass that off as satire? Probably not. Instead I'll blame my failures on dealing with this article. It's a bit of a mess and I'll pretend bad writing is contagious. I found some bizarre links; someone seems to have thought that readers might need a link to find out what a lake is, but that it's obvious what a fosse is. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering recently whether I've become too critical at FAC and even at GAN. Any thoughts? Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you said elsewhere you feel you've taken on Tony1's mantle of being prepared to oppose on the quality of prose (it was difficult not to when it was posted at WT:FAC). I don't think that's a bad thing. Tony1 was demanding, but an oppose from him forced you to do better, and you'd work harder next time to avoid that 1a oppose. I think sometimes articles were promoted even with his oppose still standing, but it couldn't be ignored. Since the delegates can assess whether an oppose is actionable, or whether it has reasonably been dealt with I think it is a good thing to keep high standards. The drama surrounding the oppose boils down to the character of the nominator, whether it can be a learning experience or whether frustration takes over. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel I've taken it on, I feel it's been forced on me, and I feel rather lonely. "OK, the prose is crap, but only Malleus complaining, so we'll probably get away with it." Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible some people will think like that, but you don't find the attitude of treating FAC like a game among people who are genuinely interested in the making the article as good as possible. Furthermore they'd be underestimating the importance of the oppose and what can be learned from it. They ignore prose problems at their own peril. Your comments carry a lot of weight. From the reviewer side some people will see that you've commented on the prose and may feel they have nothing to add in the same way that some editors look to Ealdgyth as a source guru at FAC, for example. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. My feeling right now though is that many would prefer I just fucked off. I'm not about to do that imminently, not until I decide, but it's pretty obvious which way the wind's blowing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, I hope you have a have a good holiday and a healthy supply of festive spirits (or failing spirits mulled wine). Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ben Hilfenhaus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mitchell Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes

You removed ".. who is widely considered to be one of the most promising prospects for the Australia cricket team" from the Phillip Hughes article with an edit summary of "POV statement". But, I should mention that this was there in the article for nearly 3 years (from early 2009 to 2011) as can be verified from the history. In fact, the person to remove this first was me! Here's the diff: [4].

I later regreted removing it and added it back in. But then other people removed it. I think it should be there because Phil Hughes has one of the best first class records in the country of a young batsmen. Besides, it's not POV as there're three references for it (Alan Border, Bill Lawry, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.12.253 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Greetings from Downunder

Rejoice!
window by John Hardman of Birmingham, 1850s, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney

from Amandajm (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Amandajm, I hope you enjoy the holiday. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup

Hey Nev, any chance that the 2015 Cricket World Cup article can be semi-protected. There's been a persistent IP editor who keeps adding Scotland and Ireland as competing nations, reverting their edits is getting a tad tiresome! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So far I can only see three editors asserting Ireland and Scotland have qualified Azay65 (talk · contribs) since 15 November, and in the past week 222.153.67.113 (talk · contribs) and 222.153.64.36 (talk · contribs) (though 122.172.242.186 (talk · contribs) made some similar changes regarding other Associate teams). It's fairly low-level at the moment, and semi-protecting wouldn't prevent Azay65 from editing so I'm going to leave it unprotected for now. If Azay65 resumes asserting Ireland and Scotland have qualified that can be dealt with specifically. Nev1 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ho ho ho

		Ho! Ho! Ho!
		Ho! Ho! Ho! Nev1. We're all hoping that Santa brings you a new computer this year - so you don't have to keep time-sharing with your very close friend User:J3Mrs ! What’s that you two are having for Christmas dinner? Hey, looks like a duck. Ho ho ho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.16.160 (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Season's Greetings from another anon. You are obviously a very hard-working and dedicated editor of many years standing. I cannot pretend to know anything of your personal circumstances. But there must be many husband and wife teams on Wikipedia. I know of one from personal experience! I can't see anything in the rules which forbids this. And it's hardly surprising if your areas of interest didn't overlap a bit. I'm sure as an Administrator, however, you are very careful not to show unfair support to any one particular editor, simply because you might know them or even be related to them. Or indeed, to argue the same point on any Talk Page discussion. Although again, I don't think that's actually against any rules, is it? 109.154.158.71 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've spent far more time editing similar subjects to Malleus and Parrot of Doom and agreeing with their positions than I have J3Mrs, and yet no one has suggested I'm married to either of them. I demand some kind of consistency! Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. No, MF is far to rude to be married to anyone, isn't he. But as for PoD, now you mention it.. mmm, yes I could see you two as quite an item. Bless. 109.154.158.71 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I recall reading somewhere once that research has shown that anonymous and/or pseudonym editing on Internet fora brings out the alter ego in some people. Some of the most unpleasant people on Wikipedia might actually be quite nice in RL. Who knows? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Caernarfonshire

Hello, you undid my revision on the Caernarfon page saying: ", Wikipedia uses modern administrative counties".

One of the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia states that Wikipedia has no firm rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraint1976 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that is one of Wikiedia's "Five Pillars" the rule itself should not be taken too literally as it says "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording". It is now long-established that articles use current administrative counties. It's not going to please everyone, but that's the approach Wikipedia takes. We don't as that you agree with it, but we do ask that you respect the decision. Nev1 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ben Hilfenhaus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bailey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Friends

Ceoil and Banaticus are friends of Nev1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

92, I've never interacted with nor spoken with Nev, but I am aware of him, sure. I dont know who in the living fuck Banaticus is, and seemingly nor do you, which is why your edits to Galleio were reverted as unilleigible. Two times. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That about sums up any thoughts I had on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick placement of the protection template on Kent, Ohio! --JonRidinger (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It looked like fairly low-level stuff, but it's been going on since mid-November and there's no point in letting it continue. Hopefully a month of semi-protection will do the trick. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)