User talk:Nev1

Bishop Auckland

Hi. I have spent a few days on the Bishop Auckland article addressing some of the issues you previously raised. I have also filled in a few gaps and strengthened some of the citations. If you have any spare time, I would be grateful if you could give any more advice you might have please. Thanks for your help so far. 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time I have at the moment, but I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, please consider listing yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:City of Leeds/draft

User:MRSC is leading and facilitating a (re-)splitting of the Leeds article. There are draft pages (serving as a "proof of concept") at Talk:City of Leeds/draft and Talk:Leeds/draft. I was wondering if you'd be able to pop across and have a look. I ask as you did some pretty amazing work on the City of Salford and City of Carlisle pages. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time I have at the moment, but I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You've probably already seen this

User talk:Basingwerk in case you haven't. Parrot of Doom 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I hadn't noticed as I wasn't around at the time, but I'm not really concerned. If Basingwerk wants to rant on his talk page that's fine, it doesn't affect me. If he wants to start the recall process, that's fine too, I even pointed him to the instructions on how to go about it. So far though, he considers everyone who disagrees with him crazy, or tyranical if they have power, and considering this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" telling someone to mind their own business is never going to wash. I can understand his frustration as he probably felt ganged up on, but he did himself no favours and was deliberately disruptive. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Peckforton Castle

You suggested that this article might be suitable as a GAC. I've had a go at improving it; it needed more re-writing than I had expected, not least because a lot of the recent history had been removed from the "official" website and I had to search elsewhere. What do you think of it now? Please improve it as necessary. I will ask Malleus to do some copyediting, if he agrees. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time I have at the moment, but I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It has today been accepted as a GA. Many thanks for suggesting it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great news. Sorry I didn't get round to taking another look at the article, but it seems it wasn't necessary and Malleus' suggestions got it right as usual. Nev1 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Beeston Castle

Hey mate Why not get off your computer and go and visit the castle? Or were you just happy to think it was a Motte and Bailey? Calling it an enclosure castle is just as bad. But unlike yourself, just to be sure, before I wrote this up I did a quick search on the internet for Stone Enclosure Castle this was the first hit on Google.

Stone Enclosure Castles Many of the earliest castles were surrounded by earthworks to help in defense. But, for discussion purposes, I will talk about stone enclosures. These began to appear as early as 1088, when William Rufus (William II) authorized the building of an enclosing wall around Eynsford Castle in Kent.
Enclosure castles were also built from the ground up, not just as additions to already existing castles. Some had great towers and some did not. Richmond Castle, built in 1071, is a good example. It had a triangular enclosure, as did Caerlaverock Castle in Scotland. The enclosing curtain wall generally followed the outline of the castle, but a common enclosure for a new castle was the square enclosure. Castles of Britain

An enclosure means something that goes all the way round. At Beeston the outer curtain wall, which towers and a tower gate house, only covers the southern flank. The rear of the Castle is a vertical cliff that makes attack nigh impossible. The castle is in no way "enclosed". Maybe if you did a bit more reading, you'd know that Ranulph was an ex-crusader who was well acquainted with the fortifications in the Outremer. Sic Krak des Chevaliers or Al Karak. Beeston is probably one of the finest examples of Linear castle in the UK. But if you have you never been to Beeston you would never know? The inner ward (which only has a defensive gatehouse and front wall with rock cut moat) is backed up against a near vertical cliff. This is not an enclosure castle (see informed definition above). Beeston's defences were designed to contain any assault along one small front, i.e. the front. Not the sides and certainly not the rear. It is a linear castle (based on crusader models) by design, use and location.

BTW I am just an IP address as I believe in the basic tenet of WP that anyone can edit in good faith! However I notice you use the term IP with disdain. I have been on WP since 2004 but have never had an username. WHY? Because the inherent nature of building up kudos, experience points and the rest of it, for a named editor (evenutally becoming an admin) actually defeats the object of WP. As personalities replace equality.

Every edit I make is as an unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.217.115 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If I offended you by saying "clearly the IP who insisted Beeston is a linear castle has not read any literature on Beeston Castle", then I apologise. It's not really a fair thing to say as it's presumptuous and could be better phrased, but the point is that I have never seen it refered to as a linear castle. That's not to say it isn't, but Pastscape and a journal article (Excavations at Beeston Castle by PR Hough) by both describe Beeston as an enclosure castle and it's usual for Wikipedia to go for verifiability over "truth". That means that if a reliable source states Beeston is an enclosure castle, then who are you or I to argue unless we can provide an equally reliable source. I'm not saying that the previous description of a motte and bailey is right either, although it's understandable why someone may describe it as such and I should have offered that understanding to you.

I have visited Beeston Castle, and it's a beautiful place. The inner ward is in fact completely enclosed, even on the north side where there is a sheer cliff face. The wall to the north is much thinner than the other walls as it was not defensive but it is still there. You're right that the inner ward is not completely enclosed as there is a gap in the west between the inner ward an the outer ward, but if we're talking from personal experience here, I'd be very surprised if the wall had not originally continued all the way round. It would be unusual to have a wall on top of one insurmountable point but not the other, also it lacks something in aesthetics. In it's current state, it tapers away through decay and may have extended further; the excavations in the 70s and 80s may have revealed that it was originally entirely enclosed, but I'm not aware of whether they have or not.

Finally, if you feel that I used the term "IP" in a derogatory manner, I apologise as that was not my intention. Wikipedia is built on the edits of anonymous IP editors and if you choose not to register that is entirely up to you. The reason I have a username is not so that I can get eperience points, or gain kudos, or climb the ladder but because it was easier for me to keep track of my edits as my own IP addressed changed periodically. Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for restoring my user page immediately — less than a minute! — after it was blanked! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, user page vandalism can sometimes go unoticed. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn review

Hi Nev1, really appreciate the time and trouble you've taken to look over and comment on the article again. The work you've done is exactly what I was hoping for - an academic review rather than a peer review. I'll go over the points you've made over the next few days - commenting under each point, on my talk page (unless you would prefer me to use a different method). I have a couple of (relevant) journals and books on order at the library, so may be adding/amending text over the next few weeks, although I don't want it to be much longer (if at all). I also intend to create a short article on Julian Thomas. The points you've highlighted all seem relevant and constructive. Once again, many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're User:81.132.217.115

I'm not, and I'm not. But cheers anyway.

123.123.123.123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.75.222 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Castle

Well done! When it comes to the balance, I think you have to be pragmatic. Everybody works with what they've got. It means the balance is always lopsided, and this is English Wikipedia, after all.

I haven't read all your changes, just briefly scanned through them. The only problem that I have is that the section "Architecture" is really a series of definitions, and those definitions need to be further up the page, in order that the uninformed reader understands the "History" better, because the history talks about "motte and bailey" and so on. I would reverese the two sections, and call the "architecture" something like "types of castles and features". I think that their is already a short section called features. It coud be the intro to the new section. Maybe. Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the change that I suggested above, in order to see if it worked, and I think it does. It has the effect of putting all the info that you average, or young reader might want, and leaves the more lengthy history for those who require it. On the grounds that understanding a history requires prior knowledge. I hope you like it. I notice Malleus Factuorum is hard at work on tweaks so this article is going to do you proud. I've just discovered a neat way of enlarging pics so that they can also be viewed very small on notebook screens. Amandajm (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nev! I think that it's pretty interesting already. It's going really well. With the alt descriptions that I've added, they are specifically for people who are blind and are listening to the read article. The alt description is generally read before the caption itself so it needs to be pretty explanatory. However, in some cases the caption itself is almost enough.

As for Bodiam Castle, I find your comments interesting. I've only been there once and we arrived to find that a festival was taking place with lots of people in medieval dress. It's very rewarding when you travel ten thousand miles to see something and there is a bonus entertainment going on. My youngest son, who must have been six at the time, was very impressed. On top of that, on a subsequent trip to the UK, we went to Leeds Castle, which is one of his favourite places on earth, with a collection of birds of prey that included Warren the Kookaburra.... anyway, there were the Roundheads battling it out with the Royalists. I got some fantastic photos. Actually, Leeds Castle is one of those places where you can hardly miss taking beautiful shots, provided you can hold a camera reasonably straight and push a button.

I'll finish the alt cptions, but I must do the rounds of my watched pages which can be quite time consuming. I get so sick of vandals. Some articles about well-known artists, Giotto, Fra Angelico and so on, get vandalised really regularly. Why do they bother? Amandajm (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I think you've done (and are doing) a fantastic job with this. It's difficult to image a better overview article on the subject than this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. It's a bit tiring, but also very satisfying considering the state the article was in not so long ago. This is the most complicated article I've worked on as there are so many angles to cover, but the subject deserves a decent overview. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On a much more mundane level, I've decided that as it doesn't looks like WebHamster will be coming back it's about time that Belle Vue Zoo was sorted out. Seems to be mostly written, just needs sourcing. It'll make a nice break from serial murderers and witches anyway. I'm still trying to pluck up the courage to go back and finish off Manchester Martyrs. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah Belle Vue, I'd forgotten about that article. It's certainly a change of pace and it would be nice to finish it off once and for all. As for the Manchester Martyrs, it's just another headache waiting to happen and it seems like every edit is a fight. Working on an article about another serial killer would probably seem like light relief from the arguments on that page. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. I wasn't around much in September and hadn't realised he'd been blocked indefinitely. The ANI link on his user page made for depressing reading. An indef block is ridiculous and the pretence that it's not a ban may as well be dropped. At least WebHamster won't have to deal with the Yiwentang's sock puppets and sickening harrassment. Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that what some administrators don't realise is that to a principled editor an indefinite block is effectively a ban, as they won't be apologising for whatever it is that they've done "wrong" because they don't agree that they've done anything wrong. The whole unblocking appeal mess is a corrupt shambles, not dissimalar to a witch trial. My solution would be to indefinitely block every administrator who indefinitely blocks another editor pending a renunciation of their sinful ways and a solemn promise to renounce their heretical ideas. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi I have noticed you frequently write newsletters for WP: Greater Manchester.

Anyway I am thinking about writing a newsletter for WP: Lancs and Cumb and I was wondering if you could just show me a link to where I can get started on one for our WP. Thanks. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you just hit edit on this page you can copy and paste the code and start experimenting in your sandbox. As far as I know, there's no standard template although this one is pretty widespread amongst the UK geography wikiprojects because Jza84's design was pretty good. I used to write the newsletters, but for various reasons I found that I just didn't have time to write them and unfortunately no one has picked up the baton, perhaps because I haven't mentioned that I'm not doing them anymore. I never bothered to get a bot to deliver it, but doing it by hand is a bit laborious so it would be worth asking Keith D (talk · contribs) how to go about making a request for a bot to do it. I'd recommend doing it bi-monthly to begin with, or just whenever there's enough news to warrant a newsletter. WP:GM is very lucky and usually has a lot going on, even when I didn't find time to report it. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Just wanted to let you know that I got a nice laugh from this edit. Keep up the good work. :) GlassCobra 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Shakib Al Hasan

You've done great work so far. Do you want to go for GA? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, it had been at the back of my mind. Cricinfo is my main source with articles on Bangladeshi players, backed uop with a bit of the Bangladesh Cricket Board. The article's light on stuff before he really came ot the fore (even the stuff before he was made vice-captain is pretty thin), but since his international career only goes back as far as 2006 it shouldn't actually be too hard to do. He's Bangladesh's best and hightest profile player so deserves a decent article, although at the moment I'm pretty busy and concentrating most of my efforts on castle. Shakib would make a nice change of pace though. Thanks for updating the article, once I noticed he was still in charge I made a mental note that it needed more attention. Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good :) A lot bigger than Shakib. Thanks for ce, as I only very roughly started. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another suspected Yiwentang sockpuppet?

Although you and I have never interacted, at least I don't think so. I've been keeping an eye on some of the pages that have been edited by a friend of mine, WebHamster. One of those pages has been Affinity (band). The reason I bring this up is that I'm aware that you have had some dealings with Yiwentang and his socks. I strongly suspect that an IP editor currently causing problems on the above page is Yiwentang as he is showing all the hallmarks. I don't know the correct procedure for dealing with this, but as you are an admin that has had dealings with this character I thought I'd report it to you. Hopefully you can either deal with this editor or give me advice on how to do it myself. Thanks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'm sorry I wasn't around yesterday to deal with the situation. I've blocked 86.179.116.37 (talk · contribs) as the IP is clearly a sock of Yiwentang. I haven't blocked 149.254.51.24 (talk · contribs) as I'm not sure if the IP's a sock or not, but I will keep an eye on its contributions. To be extra careful, I've semi-protected the Affinity article to stop the edit warring in case Yiwentang comes back in another guise. If the problem persists, don't hesitate to bring it here and I'll try to help. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain why you have proetcted an article which the discussion pages have proved was based on non verified facts, false references and links to spam sites selling copires of an album worked on by kurt adkins a,k,a, webhamster who happens to be that articles author. Also from what I have read the incivility of fred the oyster is in some places verbatim the incivilty of webhamster - now there's a suprise.

GAC for Merseyside?

I noticed that for some time one of your aims was to prepare an article as a GAC for WikiProject Merseyside. I'm not sure if you achieved this, but I've been working on Liverpool Town Hall and wonder if it's getting near to being fit for submission. If you have time, would you please have a look at it and advise? I'll ask Malleus to do some copyediting if he thinks it's worthwhile. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)