User talk:Nev1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.8.193.141 (talk) at 20:27, 25 January 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blackbeard

Hi. Semi-protection of Blackbeard seemed a bit pre-emptive as there have been minimal edits to it over the last few weeks. The only recently unhelpful ones that I can see were the vandalism of 14/12 and two attempts to add some unsourced trivia about the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I agree with your reversion of these additions, but I don't think these two insertions meet the definition of excessive vandalism.

I've lifted the semi-protection, but am happy to discuss if there's some key point that's evident at your end but which I've obviously missed at mine. Let me know (and belatedly, Merry Christmas). Euryalus (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a fairly long history of needing protection as it's a high-traffic article (about 100,000 visitors a month). Between when the last protection expired (23 November) and when I protected it again (29 December) there were 51 edits in which the article barely changed. 24 of these edits were by IPs; the only unconfirmed account that sticks out editing during this time is that of DundundunWOAH (talk · contribs) which was vandalising (3 edits). Most of these edits were vandalism. While vandalism may have declined since the 14th, the long track record of vandalism on this article indicates that this will be temporary. Semi-protection is there to prevent a good article from being vandalised or simply degraded by well-intentioned by overall unhelpful edits (the later are less common). It is pre-emptive in the sense that I am attempting to prevent vandalism, but not in the sense disallowed by WP:SILVERLOCK which means that an article without a history of vandalism should not be protected until it is demonstrated that it is under threat (ie: someone has vandalised it).
I know that semi-protection only affects IPs and unconfirmed accounts, so in no way was it meant to prevent CJS2.0 (talk · contribs) from edits such as this, which I have not characterised as vandalism. I reverted the edit as it was unsourced and even sourced it of debatable consequence, but it was not an attempt to prevent CJS2.0 from editing the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit to Stirling Castle article

I have looked and can't seem to find much else. The following page [[1]] goes into a little more detail but doesn't have any references itself. The IMDB movie locations page for the Colditz series does however mention that the castle was used for the exterior locations which was the main point in my edit.
D Dinneen. —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

New Manchester

Hi Nev, I left this message at User:TFOWR's talk page then I saw he wasn't editing so I thought I'd run it past you, hope that's ok

You deleted an article with this title in July 2010.[2] I have no idea what state the article was in but I would like to recreate it in connection with some colliery articles I am writing. (It was a pit village) I had made a start in my sandbox when I realised it had been deleted, [[3]]. I can provide refs and expand what I have started. What do you think?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article was uncontroversial so I've restored it; it was deleted on request from the previous author (the only significant editor) but if you're going to expand it WP:CSD#G7 no longer applies. I'm not sure why Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) wanted it deleted, but feel free to ditch the content as it stands now completely if you want, I just restored it to keep the history intact for the new article. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nev, much appreciated. That's what I call service, Happy New Year.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you

 The WikiChevrons 
I hereby award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of your creative contributions to the military history task force reform efforts. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another FLC

Just to let you know that List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England has been nominated at FLC. Happy New Year. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I'll take a look in the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Lancashire

Although i am aware of Greater Manchester,i know it is not a County.i know that as i am from and live in Bolton that it is in Lancashire,and i am not being told where i live by someone who is probably not even from here.i have made quite a few edits to Bolton and everytime i do they get taken off.please stop it it is not correct and not helpful.people need to know that towns such as Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire so please stop this unuseful editing.as the local government act said the old Boundaries would not be altered and they havent.they are still in Lancashire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.193.141 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Lancashire

i will continue making my edits and if they carry on being taken off i wil get blocked,i dont care.but just listen,all useful and correct sites not written by idiots know that Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire,this just goes to show what a useless,stupid unuseful site Wikipedia is.Bolton and Bury are in Lancashire.always have been always will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.193.141 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lancashire

it is clear you dont know what your talking about when it comes to counties.




Peveril Castle

Well Done. FA! I got so bored yesterday I went to see Harry Potter pt 1 and one of the characters surnames is Peverell - I know JKRowling prob. got it from place names but if if hadnt been for William Peverell.... anyway. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I started using Peveril as an example of a relatively cheap castle (the keep at least) in other articles I've been meaning to get round to improving it. This wasn't really good enough. I'd completely forgotten there were the Peverell brothers in Harry Potter; it's an interesting link. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you were lucky that no one noticed the link and you'd missed out lots of other trivia :-) see here Victuallers (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie

Not sure if this is pre-emptive or too late to worry about, but I thought I'd raise the question of protecting Alastair Cook's page again. It's not awash with edits, and he surely won't last much longer but I thought I'd remind you let you decide. Tony2Times (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps a bit late, but there's no harm in protecting the article for a couple of days. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colly

Both Dweller and I are aware that we're behind on updating the article, but now he's retiring from Test cricket, a concerted effort to (at least) update and close down that section of his article should be easy to do. Were you offering to help us, because that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to wait a week or so until the nonsense calms, then we can hit it hard. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir

Hello Nev1. I saw you recently corrected an unjustified removal of images in İzmir page. It's that intervention of yours which prompts me to write to you to ask you if blocking that page to non-confirmed users would be a good idea. It's being edited by anonymous users since almost two months, often senselesssly like removing a link to Exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey and adding a nobody's name (Resul who?) as mayor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0zmir&action=history. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the last 50 edits stretch back to the end of last September, there probably isn't enough activity to warrant semi-protection. Judging by the edit summaries in that period, only three seem to be straightforward reverts of vandalism or unhelpful changes. Another problem is identifying what edits are actually vandalism. For instance the net effect of the latest 3 edits is to have changed the name of the leader, the population, and some temperatures in the climate box. I can't see any of these points referenced in the article, so I can't tell whether it's vandalism, an improvement, or a good faith attempt to improve the article that isn't correct. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Steve Hanley (rugby union)

–Grondemar 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham

Hi Nev1. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rcsprinter123 again

Looks like Key bus routes in Derbyshire needs protection as well. Can we think of any other wording variations? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the moment seems to have passed, but Rcsprinter has received enough warnings to realise that what they are doing is disruptive. Protection probably isn't the way to go. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard I of England

Sorry about this... it's William Longchamp on the main page which is spilling over to Dickie-boy. (tears hair out). I dropped a note on Wehwalt's page as I really don't want to have to file at the 3rr page... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At worst it reopened an old wound. Last time the issue was raised, with Twobells (talk · contribs) throwing about accusations of French bias and hoping something would stick, there was a clear consensus to keep the section. Don't worry, it's more of an annoyance than anything else. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are being discussed at AN/I

Here is a link: Link 72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism you perpetrated

Without any legal reason you have removed the images (of the particular saint), as well as link to Commons, from the article about Saint Josse (previously listed as Saint Judoc - the Oxford dictionary of Saints lists him namely as Judoc and not Josse). This is an act of vandalism to remove images from the article. Please restore the images to the article along with the link to the saint´s folder at Wikimedia Common´s (where he is sorted under his Breton name Saint Judoc). --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image and commons link, although I don't see why you couldn't have done it yourself. They were removed when I was cleaning up the article after you filled it with a copyright violation from the Oxford Dictionary of the Saints, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't characterise my good faith attempt to clean up your mess as "vandalism". Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Don't post links to someone calling me a cunt on my talk page. I can't believe I even have to write this, as very little common sense could have gone into seeing that your edit to my talk page was 100% inappropriate in every way.--Kleopatra (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I made a mistake there and I'm sorry. My intention was to point out to Sturmvogel what the situation was rather than prolong it. Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

Just a quick note to say thanks for all your and Malleus' encouragement over the Windsor Castle article; I don't suspect that I'd have taken the step of putting it up for FA status without it, and the review process has definitely improved the article's quality. Very much appreciated - cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see it's passed, I think it was well-deserved. Something as famous as Windsor was a tricky one for your first FA, but it went well. Hopefully you didn't find it too difficult, and after dealing with a subject like Windsor other articles won't seem quite so complex. Nev1 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A smoother process than I'd expected actually. Have just finished off (finally...) doing some work on King John, so will try and get the list of castles in Gloucestershire article I started over Christmas finished off properly next! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenous

Hi Nev. I think that was a good call about the raven pic at the Tower of London - it's a perfectly nice photo of the birdies but, as you say, has nothing in it to place it in context at the Tower, so it doesn't really need to be there. I must respectfully disagree slightly with the next thing you say - they are perhaps a little minor (a little minor - did I really write that?) compared to the actual stone and, er, stone of the building, but I do think they make an interesting and colourful (or indeed black) part of the story. If a suitable photo could be found or created that was not only a decent picture of the said corvids, but placed it nicely in context at the Tower, would that not be a good addition to the article? I am not saying I know of such an image, merely that if it existed then I think I'd be part of a consensus to welcome it if it were found or made. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo provides the ravens with a backdrop that shows they're at the Tower, but whether such an image should be included in the article is an interesting issue. Historian R. Allen Brown says of the birds that "Nor does the presence of those morbid ravens contribute to our understanding of the Tower of London"; I wouldn't quite go that far, they're an interesting part of how the gruesome side of the Tower's history was emphasised in the 19th century, but he has a point. In a serious article about the Tower, you need to mention the ravens and the context in which they have gained notoriety, but include an image? I don't really see the point. The article is already well-laden with illustrations, and one extra caused bunching on my screen. The caption didn't really add much; for it to be worthwhile, you'd have to explain the raven's role in the Tower's history, and that's something done better in the main body of the article, otherwise you're bludgeoning the reader with the point. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and thanks. I certainly would join with you in not wishing to use the photo you've found - looks like a film prop! - but I'm still not sure about the whole principle. As I have no photo to promote, though, I think I will shut up about it for the foreseeable future. If I felt I could perfectly answer your points above with just the right photo used in just the right way then I'd give it a go, but that's not the case at the moment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS very good pic swap here by the way! The new is so much better than the old. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Parrot of Doom#WP:RSN

Thanks for your fine work there. Is it ok if I copy the conversation over to article talk as I think it offers an excellent solution to the problem? --John (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, fine by me. Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation

I saw this (Template:Inflation) and thought of you - as you've used historic costs in some of your articles. Had you seen it before? Would it be useful? Daicaregos (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it before, although I think the further from the present you're trying to convert from the less accurate it is. I've found it useful, and so have others, but you have to be careful how it's used. For pounds, the template uses figures from http://measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/; the site gives you three choices – retail price index, average nominal earnings, and average real earnings – which aren't options in the template. Choosing different ones can give very different answers. It can also cause problems at FAC (example). No one's cropped up on articles I've written and complained about the template's use (in fact your message prompted me to notice this dubious claim that £200 in about 1175 equates to about £2 million today), but Malleus and iridescent (talk · contribs) have first-hand experience of that. It is tricky and at the moment I'm a bit ambivalent about using the template for medieval figures for reasons explained here. That said, I think that used judiciously they provide some guidance to the reader. For example, I have no idea how much £100 was in 1650, but the template can give a rough idea. It's not meant to be exact of course, and it helps to add a footnote explaining where the figure is from. Nev1 (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a full response. I see the same editor who argued against the template at Gunpowder Plot has since commented at the the template's Talkpage. I also note (now) that the documentation advises not to use this template for things other than consumer goods, thereby rendering it pretty useless. Who would want to know the cost of clothing etc at current prices (how much did a shepherd's crook cost in 1782? Outrageous!)? I can't see a pre-WWI inflation index being useful for anything other than for capital amounts. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Daicaregos (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nev1&oldid=410032346"