User talk:Nev1

Is it ok...

Is it OK to copy large chunks from other Wikipedia articles, and replace the relevant parts as necessary? I'm referring to this section, which I have adapted and put here. The history and background of these villages are similar, so I can't think why I should have to write the exact same things from scratch. Majorly talk 16:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope so, I've done it a few times. See the disclaimer below the edit window, which effectively signs all rights away. I presume the 'minimum credit' part to be the article history, with your name linked. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I had the same dilemma when writing some articles about Cheshire's hillforts. The problem was that they each really needed some explanation of the importance of hillforts and their purpose. At the time, I'd written what I thought was a good paragraph in the Maiden Castle, Dorset, article that had passed FAC. I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing it so included the paragraph in four or five different articles. My understanding is that it's fine as long as the references are intact. It feels a bit odd, almost like plagiarism, but there's no harm in copying from wikipedia as it's all under GDFL, so there's nothing stopping you from copying chunks of one article to another. The bottom line is that if you're happy with the phrasing somewhere else on wikipedia, there's no point in duplicating your efforts. Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

List of listed...

Many thanks for moving all these, and no doubt clearing up any consequences of so doing. As a matter of interest Listed buildings in Widnes is now at FLC with one support and a second one looking hopeful. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to moving the lists (about a week after I hoped to do it). I've done all the ones I could find, so hopefully that's all of them. The navigation template for Grade I listed buildings by county has been corrected so it avoids the new redirects, but I haven't got round to updating all the articles which now link to redirects. It's not a high priority as readers will end up at the right page, and I'll have to register (and then learn how to use) AWB to do it quickly.

I've been keeping an eye on the Widnes lists, things look good so far but FLC is running a bit low on reviewers and I'm not sure what counts as consensus at the moment with potentially very few reviews to go round. It's possible that two reviews would be enough, although I'm not sure what the outcome of this discussion was I haven't read through it all yet, but if not I'd be prepared to review the list myself. Nev1 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates (Nominations urgently needing reviews) that two supports do not make a consensus! Congrats on Audenshaw at DYK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Durham

Sorry, in my tiredness I didn't see that he/she had changed the image, I'll go along with whatever! Just out of interest, do you stalk my talk page? I don't mind, just wondering! I'm guessing we watch many of the same pages too, hence we always bump into each other! Jeni ^(talk) 00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, you can't tell what an image looks like from the raw text in an article and there were clear MOS problems with image size that had to be reverted. I was too busy comparing the new picture with the old one to notice the MOS violations and would have left it as it was, so between you, me, and the IP we made one decent change!

I've got a lot of UK settlements on my watchlist (mainly English places actually) so I tend to run into the same people. But as Kudpung tends to drop you a note when something interesting at WP:WORCS happens, I've got your page on my watchlist too. That's the reason I showed up at AN. Nev1 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have practically every English+Welsh place on mine! Makes for a big and active watchlist! About 28k last check. Jeni ^(talk) 00:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, and I thought mine was too long at 3,500! Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I used AWB to generate a list from one of the root England categories, and ever since I've been removing articles I have no interest in! Throw in all the other articles I have (every road and bus related article) and its good fun! Jeni ^(talk) 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My watchlist has grown organically through articles I'm interested in and any articles I've edited, so there are probably large gaps and I know that Greater Manchester is pretty well covered! Using AWB to add a load of important articles is probably a good idea. I've got most of the major English towns and cities on my watchlist because they're high-profile but I use the individual project watchlists a fair bit (well, when I remember) to keep an eye on the low-traffic articles where vandalism can sometimes go missed for days. Nev1 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ALT tags & Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset

I put the alt tags in last night as part of the preparation for getting Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset ready for FLC - they are still present on the version I'm looking at. Can you check & let me know if they are missing.— Rod ^talk 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD all UK Motorway service Station

Hi Nev. I'm a bit concerned that 54 UK M-way services stations have been listed today for AfD. The AfD does not appear to have followed the normal instructions, and I have serious doubts that this mission is worthy of so much admin time. Could you be so good as to take a look at what's going on, in case I've missed something? Here are some links that you would need to follow:

• User:Raeky
• User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)
• Hopwood_Park_services
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)

Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)(Kudpung)

It's too late to prevent the AfD from becoming a time sink, but some well argued points by Iridescent and supporting arguments by Jeni should hopefully prevent this from getting too bad. The nominator probably could have saved us all some time and effort if they'd read the previous nomination properly, but perhaps something good can come out of this. Most of the articles certainly need expanding, and that would help stave off future nominations (despite a couple of GAs being lumped into the AfD). Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The world's going mad! GAs and FAs ought to be automatically exempt from this kind of nonsense anyway, as their notability has already been independently assessed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see the article for those services on the M61 improved, as they are without doubt the biggest toilet on the planet. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got a soft spot for sruffy old Knutsford, where I had many an early breakfast after a night out in Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I tell you what, the next time I call in one of them I'll take the camera with me and get some snaps—but only if you promise to consider the vague notion that you may spend a few seconds quickly looking at a minuscule portion of the prose on this :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Deal. Is it OK if I make changes in your sandbox? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm sick of it for today, I may start on The Division Bell later tonight though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GAs and FAs have been assessed for sourcing, isn't that somehow linked to notability? It seems ludicrous and self-defeating to nominate such articles for deletion based on their subjects not being notable enough. To be honest though, I'm surprised that the cricket articles weren't nominated for deletion earlier with people screaming "where will it all end". Maybe the AfD of the motorway services will lead to some articles being improved to prevent this farce from happening again. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on and off to improve these articles since I became a member, its a big job, especially since I seem to be doing it on my own. I would very much appreciate some help from others if you feel up to it! Strensham services was a result of my early attempts at cleanup. The sources are out there, often you need to dig very deep to find them, especially as a search for "<town> services" brings up loads of pages unrelated to the motorway service station itself. Jeni ^(talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, just take a look at the GAN page to see how many entirely unremarkable roads appear on there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD has certainly motivated me to see what I can do with Knutsford services. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough line to draw I think, but certainly it's ludicrous to nominate GA/FAs for deletion. I wonder though how many of those Americans comparing the 1948 Australian cricketers to a team playing in the laughably named "World Series" know that a cricket tour consists of five five-day test matches? None? I do think though that cricket might be a special case, in that I wouldn't support a series of articles on the individual players in, say, England's 1966 World Cup squad; the difference for me is in the nature of the game, as well as its length, in that both teams never play together, it's just two representatives from on team against ... well, you know all that anyway. :-)

Just when I thought it was going to be a boring rational discussion, someone popped up to sensationalise things. "There's no line in the sand here" is a nice bit of hysteria, but a terrible argument. It is a difficult line to draw, but one of the mos famous cricket series and spin-off articles on Keith Miller is hardly opening the floodgates. Both are very well documented subjects. Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading out for the evening, I'm sure you have this under control :) Jeni ^(talk) 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this will get me taken to ANI, WQA, RFAR or whatever other bit of the alphabet soup is in vogue today, but I'm getting sorely tempted to just block him with "fuckwittery" as the reason, just to put a stop to this timesink. How much time has this idiocy wasted? – iridescent 17:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much. Is it so hard to see that there are sources on these articles and more information that could be included? The nomination was based on generalisations of notability which have been pretty easily refuted. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to sound like a hypocrite, but I'm remembering my recent AFDs of primary schools, where those exact same arguments could be applied... I can vaguely see his point, and I'm not sure labelling him as a fuckwit, hypothetically or otherwise is appropriate. Majorly talk 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't nominate every primary school in the country—simultaneously—based on the fact that they had a similar name to something else that wasn't notable. The "fuckwit" doesn't refer to the nomination—everyone who's been round here any length of time has made at least one good-faith-misunderstanding AFD nomination which has been WP:SNOW-kept—but to the pig-headed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetition of the same few arguments ("no sources exist!", "Rest area#United Kingdom says there's no difference in Britain between a rest area and a service station!", "these articles are all identical!") after they've been repeatedly demonstrated to be false. – iridescent 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I can understand Raeky's arguments though I may disagree with them and think they've been sufficiently refuted, but confronting virtually every comment that disagrees with him and then insinuating there has been canvassing when the discussion appears to be going against him is not a smart move. The discussion about schools was at the back of my mind, but I think it was more nuanced. There were sources available, but notability wasn't established. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that was finally closed, it was really starting to make my blood boil. If that would have closed the wrong way I would have lost serious faith in the WP system, and I'd start to question why I am even editing here. That said, the correct outcome has prevailed, and I'm already noticing more MSA edits than I've seen in my time on WP, I hope this continues. Is it worth putting together some kind of task force to collectively work on these, perhaps set a task of getting them all up to at least B class, and where possible take a few more up to GA. Sorry for hijacking your talk page for this, it seems to have turned into the location of a centralised discussion! Jeni ^(talk) 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you've come across an interesting thread that characterises this discussion as a deliberate attempt to de-rail the AfD. It's needless drama-mongering. I won't be posting a link here though as I don't want to be accused of trolling fishing. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I saw that it had been closed, my first thought was "pitty the poor admin that did that", but he definitely gets admin of the week award from me, common sense isn't something I see very often on Wikipedia, so its very refreshing to see it used. I'm concerned about Raeky though, he seemed to previously be a decent editor, but now he is coming across as someone who is going down the pan, which is a shame, whatever disagreements we may have people, seeing reactions like this is never good, and I always feel for the person involved.

User:Jeni/MSA_Progress is worth a look, I haven't updated it in a while though, it dates back when I was trying to get each one up to an acceptable standard with infoboxes/navboxes etc and shows the progress that I made. Jeni ^(talk) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a big task you've undertaken there Jeni. Can I ask you what it is that motivates you? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I have nothing better to do! I have recently been sidetracked working on UK village and bus related articles, alongside helping to maintain an external roads wiki, but I do occasionally dig back into the MSA articles. I do find it very off putting that there are so many of them, and only one of me.. but its worth a go! I got Strensham services to GA to prove a point. It had just been nominated for speedy, so I took it on, and won :)

I know exactly what you mean. I'm confident that any of those MSA article could be similarly saved from AfD had they been nominated individually, but the bulk nomination was, in my opinion, ... well I'll save you the full colour of my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a line to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation that should adequately cover this and future AfDs. Jeni ^(talk) 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A idea I think. Although looking through that page, I am left wondering where the original discussions were. Without proof of where each point was discussed, they are weak assertions (anyone could add something and then refer to it in later discussions). Time WP:V was introduced into project space! Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I linked to the AfD debate in the edit summary, and I presume dodgy assertions would get noticed and removed (or am I showing too much faith in the system?) Jeni ^(talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to put too much faith in the system, but in this case it could equally be me failing to "assume good faith" :-) Nev1 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also possible to assume too much good faith ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom

I have come across a couple of issues relating to the World Heritage sites. First the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal. An editor added "England" to its Country column and I was about to revert this when I noticed that the description referred to 18km of canal, so the heritage site is more than the aqueduct. But it cannot be the whole of the Llangollen Canal because that is much longer than 18km. So I downloaded the 113mb document and found that the boundaries of the site stretch from the start of the canal at the Horseshoe Falls to just beyond the Chirk Aqueduct - and indeed that the boundary beyond Chirk does just extend over the Welsh-English border (pp.18–20), and this is confirmed on p.27. I wonder if the inclusion of 18km of canal ought to be made clearer in the description.

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City - I am very concerned about the way the description refers to slaves, suggesting that they actually passed through the port, which of course is wrong because they travelled directly from Africa to North America as part of the slave trade triangle - which included Liverpool, but only for the passage of raw materials in from N America and manufactured goods out to Africa. I guess this wording comes from the UNESCO Brief Description "the mass movement of people, e.g. slaves and emigrants from northern Europe to America". The Justification further down is more accurate - "It was a centre for the slave trade, until its abolition in 1807, and to emigration from northern Europe to America." I thought of just deleting "and slaves" from the WP description, but there should be a reference to the slave trade. What do you think would be the best wording? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've not replied to this before, it's been a busy few days. I think you're right that the inclusion of the canal ought to be better explained, otherwise readers will wonder why the site is listed as Wales/England. I'm just downloading the PDF to see exactly what it says, but it could take a while. You make a good point about Liverpool, unfortunately I had been going just from UNESCO's brief description. I've changed it to "Its global connections helped sustain the British Empire and it was a major port, involved in the slave trade until its abolition in 1807 and a departure point for emigrants to American." How does that sound? Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry; I've noticed that you've been involved in a multiplicity of things recently! The re-wording is much better (I've done a bit of copyediting on it). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm trying to do 10 things at once and warned you for something unjustified. Removed it. I'm trying to keep these topics on topic and not reverting to personal attacks, and I overstepped by warning you for something I missread. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. In fairness, it seems I did change the date of one of yours comments, although I don't recall doing so and it was a mistake. I'm not sure what you mean about "deleting your own comments" though as I haven't intentionally removed anything I've said. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That was me seeing something that wasn't there in the diff, thus a mistake. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Favour

Hi Nev, could you get rid of this for me? The Flickr user accidently gave me the wrong image to upload. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't help I'm afraid as I'm not an admin on commons. Better tag it as a copyright violation with {{copyvio}}. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bah, fat lot of good you are! ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, not for the first time and it won't be the last! Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal details

I just noticed that you deleted a posting made on WebHamster's user page. I've had someone posting what they claim are my personal details on my page as well, and claims that I'm a sockpuppet of WebHamster, or that we're both socketpuppets of someone called RickK. I'm not asking for any details, but do they mention anyone called Kurt who lives in Levenshulme? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

They didn't mention Levenshulme, but did address WebHamster as Kurt. The edit hasn't been deleted or oversighted, just rolled back. I blocked the IP for similarities in editing with User:Yiwentang. There are plenty of details here.

I saw the sock puppet accusation mentioned on your talk page, but I'm not sure if the same person was responsible. Especially since there weren't any legal threats towards him or unsavoury accusations. It just accused him of being harsh on vandals. It's interesting that someone picked him out though. I can send you an e-mail of the accusations of sockpuppetry of you want (there's nothing there to worry about, just someone complaining that WebHamster was nasty to vandals and you backed him up). Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I don't live in Levenshulme anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The accusation of sockpuppetry didn't mention anything about Levenshulme or Kurt, so that's another reason to wonder if it was Yiwentang. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Can you lock talk page editing as well please? Thanks, Majorly talk 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant the IP's talk page :-) Majorly talk 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, will do. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Worcesteshire meeting?

Worcestershire Project get-together
I'm in the UK on a rare trip to my home town in Worcestershire. If all or anyone from the project would like to meet up, please let me know. I'll be returning to Asia on 3 October.--Kudpung (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hidden Gem

Done. I had to use a bit of fill light on Photoshop, its amazingly tucked away down there, hardly any light hitting it. :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you'd uploaded a new picture, and it certainly does it justice. You can tell why it's called "hidden". Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Its an odd-looking thing to be sure, is that an extension on the right side? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the listed building description (by the way, the images of England picture looks rather sorry compared to yours!), I don't think it's part of the church, at least it doesn't appear to be part of the listed building. I'd guess that the church (the tower and the entrance on the left) is earlier as the brighter orange brick building looks like it butts up against it, although I can't be sure. Just an amateur opinion, for all I know it could be the priest's home :-) Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its certainly a different style of architecture. The colour difference might simply be cleaning. It almost looks to me as though the tower was built as an afterthought, and then the building on the right built up against it. There are a lot of hidden buildings around Manchester, if the weather stays good I'm going to cycle in each day and snap what I can find. I've already made some additions to Manchester, I'm sure there are more to be found. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That little thing today...

Have you seen this? I'm unsure exactly what procedure would best suit people who make comments like this. Can I leave it with you to deal with, or should I take it to WP:ANI? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've extended the block to a week for making personal attacks and prevented the user from editing his talk page. Honkey in this case is clearly used in a derogatory sense, I assume in the racist one. Also, his sock puppet account was blocked indefinitely by someone else earlier. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't that bothered by the honky comment really, but its out of order all the same. Its funny how apparently rational people can very quickly descend into..well, that kind of behaviour. No, what concerned me slightly was the 'I'll see to that later' comment. It isn't as though he can ever do permanent damage, but its still mildly irritating having to correct vandalism, especially on articles you've worked extremely hard on (like the PF one in my sandbox). Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

True. One option is revert, block, and ignore when he crops up. I could semi-protect your sandbox for the time being, but that's only one article. The alternative is going to WP:SPI and asking them to block the most common IP. Since there are only two accounts, I don't know how effective it will be, and if the IPs of the two accounts are too different, there might not be much that can be done. I can fill out a request at SPI if you think it worthwhile? Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll leave that up to you, but I'll keep my eyes open. Presumably he'll pop up whenever I try to do anything that requires a consensus (FAC for instance). At least now I know what it feels like to be Malleus :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the club mate :) --WebHamster 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

When do I get my lacquered membership card :D BTW Hamster I know its a big ask but what do you think of this so far? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've got my own set (pack?) of socks messing about with my edits, do we get a badge or something? I'm not sure a check user is worth it right now, but at the first sign that you think this guy's returned let me know and I'll file a request at SPI. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, while I don't disagree with the Dreaded Civility Block in this case, given the context of a discussion on speeding, I suspect he's using "honky" in the sense of "what you do with your car horn while shouting at cyclists and pedestrians to get out of the way", not in any racial sense. – iridescent 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like I miss the blindingly obvious. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

...which would be ironic to say the least, considering I've been riding road bikes and mountain bikes for 20 years... My mountain bike is more valuable than my car! Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you know problem

Hello! Your submission of Audenshaw at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

6jan2009

Can I recommend another block of some sorts? He obviously isn't here to make constructive edits, and he has been blocked in the past. Jeni ^(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was moving towards the block button when I saw your message. Nev1 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One less vandal to show up on my watchlist :) Jeni ^(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cricket

There is a good set of images on Flickr of the 2009 Ashes victory,[1] I'm tempted to use this one of Flintoff taking out Siddle[2] for the England article, but one of the main contributors whose helped impoved the article, Hayden120 is an Aussie and it might stick in the throat ;). What do you think? - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the pictures, but I'm not sure they'd look good at 180px but I think the photo of Flintoff getting rid of Siddle is a good choice and worth a try. I used the image of Lords as it's less effected by "recentism", but I certainly wouldn't object to an picture of an English victory! Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Borsdane Wood

Hello Nev1, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Borsdane Wood has been removed. It was removed by CJPargeter with the following edit summary '(Location appears on OS maps and is a protected area, so clearly notable. Object to deletion, remove some less-than-relevant external links.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with CJPargeter before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Dead links

At this page, it shows some deadlinks which is affecting Chadderton's FAC. I can't for the life of me remember how to find and use archived versions of these websites (e.g. visitoldham.co.uk is being revamped completely, thankfully....). You wouldn't be able to assist would you? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The link's here. It doesn't cover everything, for instance the Trafford.gov website isn't archived. Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you. It looks like I can recover visitoldham. How would I go about referencing it though? I only ask as I remember seeing a diff or a FAC where you did it. Is there an example out there I could copy? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All I usually do (so all I do for the FAC) was copy the new url into the citation like this and change the accessdate when I remember (to the date I look at the link, although the date archive.org copied the site would probably be ok too). Maybe I could have changed the publisher to archive.com but since they weren't the original publisher I'd be hesitant. Either way, no one has objected to what I've been doing. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! And thanks! I think I managed to correct most of the deadlinks, though one is giving me some grief. I was at Werneth Low today so have some photos to upload at Wikimedia Commons.... think I'll do that and try the last one tomorrow. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Audenshaw

On September 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Audenshaw, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashton-under-Lyne

Hi Nev. Have slightly expanded the Stamford Park section and added an image, but haven't yet got my head round alt text. Do you fancy doing the honours, as this is a featured article? Skinsmoke (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text can be quite a challenge, and something like that picture is a bit tricky. I've had a go, although I'm not sure if it's very good. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WHS Europe list

Have been plugging along slowly with another editor, at Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites/Tables of WHS Sites EUR region, a draft intended for replacing the mainspace page. Comments on emerging table format would be welcomed. Or other help? Thanks also for your helpful words at my Talk page a while back. doncram (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's shaping up very well. Are you intending to split the table? It's currently very long and clicking on any of the sort buttons crashes Firefox for me (my laptop's not great, but it's an indication the table is a bit long). I don't have a strong opinion on how (if it were to be done) it should be split, but by state as listed by UNESCO would allow for "see also" links at the start of the section in case there are more than Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and the UK. It looks like the important thing at the moment is to add more co-ordinates to the table; that shouldn't be too hard as UNESCO provides them, and I'll add a few when I have some spare time on-wiki. It's certainly worthwhile as the current list is not something to be proud of. Is the final column going to be filled in for each site or just where the nature of the actual site isn't clear? I've not dealt with a list of this size before, but I think descriptions should probably be kept as brief as possible to avoid overloading the reader. Although it's currently a European list, I notice the note at the top about a possible American-European list. I'd a joint list per the UNESCO website. This has the benefit of being verifiable and avoids the problem an individual European list would have (recently on the Europe article there was a lot of debate about what countries are actually in Europe).

PS. I just found this. I don't think it's useful as such, but there are a couple of maps showing the distribution of WHS which are interesting if nothing else (I'm surprised that the Middle East doesn't have more, but that may be due to the dangerous nature of the area currently). Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on this?

I don't know if you've seen my musings on Parrot of Doom's talk page, but I'm seriously wondering whether, after all the expansion that's gone into Moors murders, we really still need separate articles on Myra Hindley and Ian Brady? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on Parrot of Doom's page. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Award from WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria

Award from WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria

Thank you for your contribtion relating to WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. Your recent contribution has helped our WikiProject move closer to our goals. I am looking foward to seeing your futher contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk)

Thanks!

Hi Nev1, thank you for your contributions to the Capel St Mary article. I was dreading the thought of having to dredge up all the facts and figures for the demographical and economic sections from the ONS website, but I checked the article this morning and found you'd done it brilliantly :) would you mind if I crunched down some of the information a little so it scanned more easily? Thank you again! Brammers (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, go right ahead. I'm the first to admit that the stats can be fairly dry. It's not too strenuous writing the sections when using the Excel spreadsheets that ONS produces, but it can still be a bit dull once you've done it a few times. Having used the same structure for a few articles I've started to notice a few trends, and it may sound strange to say it from a handful of stats, but Capel St Mary sounds like a nice place and similar to somewhere near me. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wat

Mate, do you know what I need to do for this image, identified in the FAC for The Dark Side of the Moon? I'm not sure what they want done with it exactly, and nobody is helping. My brain struggles to comprehend such matters, being full of mainly useless stuff. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My reflex was that the image would be allowed under freedom of panorama, however section 62 of CDPA88 says that "works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". While I think the album could be considered a work of artistic craftsmanship, but I don't think that it could be argued that it's permanently in a public place. This is backed up by the fact that Wikipedia considers cover art to be non-free. I think the suggestion of uploading to Wikipedia at a lower resolution with a fair use rationale is the best bet. Sorry it's not better news, but that's the way I think Wikipedis sees it. I always find it difficult to deal with fair use and stuff, so you have my sympathy. Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I may as well just delete it then. It isn't really that important an image. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think!

You said an interesting thing in this diff, about me and WP:GM. I never set out to be that way! My love for WP:GM only came out of frustration. I hope things only get done out of collaboration and not fear! lol. You may be interested to know, I never thought of myself that way. I may tone it down a bit. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, if you tone it down nothing will get done ;-) It takes someone with enthusiasm, experience, and good people skills to motivate people, which I think contributes to the success of WP:GM. I don't think it's a coincidence that when you were on a break in March and April that the amount of edits on WT:GM hit a 17-month low (48 edits in March 2009, the last time it was that low was lower was in September 2007 when there were 9 edits). There were other factors of course (no I in team) as it suddenly seemed like everyone was branching out beyond WP:GM, and there was still a lot of discussion between project members on talk pages. I didn't think you imagined yourself as Mr Motivator or whatever because you've never struck me as that kind of person. Just don't let it go to your head ;-) I'm proud of WP:GM, but I don't doubt that without any of one of us it would still be successful; it seems that on Wikipedia built-up and urbanised areas receive the best coverage because they produce more people interested in Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I used to have a job in middle-management with Royal Mail and was quite successful at it too (even if I say so myself); sometimes that management element of my character comes out on Wikipedia, coupled with a constant sense of urgency and impending doom that the whole project is going to be undermined and ruined (I believe my years at RM did that to me!). I know myself that my worse attribute is not assuming good faith-I don't do it in real life, and have trouble doing it here too. But, that said, I don't even see myself as an equal to the likes of you, Malleus, Parrot, Richerman etc... I feel, more often than not, that I come to you guys for insight and support, as you all seem so talented and level headed.

To be truthful, I thought WP:GM would have more members than it does by now. I always planned to leave Wikipedia, and just wanted to do some groundwork that others, more dedicated and, um, more clever, could pick up and improve upon. I never wished to become an administrator, and only went for it through getting sick of filling in a section of a notice board or battling silly ips and not getting the support.

WP:GM seems at a cross-roads though. The long term editors are branching out and developing new areas of interest and building up experience and reputations outside of our shared remit. I just don't see as many new users these days, and it would be nice to try get a new generation to take the project to hights we never thought of. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For myself, I was always mostly interested in two things within the GM project's remit: Trafford, and Manchester's industrial, radical, and literary history. I really struggle to find the enthusiasm to write about settlements I have no particular interest in, just because they happen to be in the same county that I happen to live in. One of the slight dissonances I've had with the GM project is in its apparent emphasis on geography, whereas my own interest really lies in the region's history. Our joint efforts on the Peterloo Massacre were inspirational, but other historical subjects I think are worthy of equally serious attention, like the Moors murders for instance, play second-fiddle to any article on any settlement. I'm not complaining, I'm just making an observation. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Greater Manchester's less well known history is pretty well covered: listed buildings, castles, scheduled monuments, Roman sites etc. But where is does fall down is the stuff Manchester is best known for. Manchester was the industrial city (this should not be a red link) and the closest we have to an article on that is Murrays' Mills. Individual settlement articles do a decent job with the history sections but the overall articles like history of Manchester just aren't up to scratch. The project's done a lot, but a lot more remains to be done. Getting interested in somebody else's town is difficult, the reason I let Wigan languish for so long is because I have no local knowledge of the place. Nev1 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand

I understand what you were trying to say on my talkpage and I do understand that Wikipedia is a comminty thing and it is deveoping into a little hobbie of mine. But you have to undersatnd that I have only been an active user on Wikipedia for about a month so forgive me if I get things wrong or say things I shoudn't. I hope you undersatnd. And I must thank you on giving me tips this last couple of weeks on both the Wikiproject on on Banks, Lancashire. I have learned alot from you.

On another note I would like you to help me during the setting up process of the WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. So please could you (just for a few days) keep an eye on the WikiProject to see if I am doing things right. I am looking forward to working with you on the WikiProject and I hope it will acheive it's full potention. Thanks. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I will remain part of the project as I believe it has the potential to do a lot of good. It's still very much in its early stages so it's important to be patient. Projects like WP:LONDON and WP:YORKS didn't become over night successes. It's also important to remember that there are some very experienced editors interested in the area who are very good writers and that you could learn a lot from them. Featured Articles are the best on Wikipedia and Malleus is regularly approached by other editors – often very prolific editors – for help. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Times Archive

You know you can get on this through The 24-hour library, don't you? Plus loads of other cool stuff. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the link, I'll sign up now. I vaguely remember the 24-hour library but didn't bother about it when I first heard. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Free access to the OED is worth its weight in gold. You also get Newsbank, which is like Google News but free, and a million times better. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What PoD said. It's a great free resource. How else would I have found out that William Calcraft was just about the most incompetent hangman that there's ever been? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful hint to the TPSs - you don't have to live in the area covered by a UK library to be a member, you only need to be able to prove permanent UK residence for the past 12 months. If your local council doesn't subscribe to the various free archives, then providing you can make a one-off visit there to prove your identity, there's nothing to stop you joining someone else's library. City of Westminster has a particularly good selection, and given Westminster's unusual definition of "financial and social responsibility", it's hard to feel much guilt about free-riding on their services. – iridescent 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

COMMENT

MY ACCOUNT, DO WHAT I LIKE WITH IT JOBSWORTH