User talk:Nev1/Archives/November–December 2009

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)

Thanks very much and please accept my apologies for not replying sooner. I had forgotten to watchlist your page so was unaware you had replied. I also see that the same sort of persecution from this editor(s) is now starting on me with their accusations of being a sockpuppet of WebHamster (who incidentally was the person who introduced me to wikipedia). I realise I should have disengaged from them sooner than I did, but I'm a bit of a neophyte at this sort of thing and got sucked into their trolling. I suppose I'm now paying the price.

I'm not sure if the 2 ip addresses are the same person, but they certainly seem to know each other. My guess though is that they are the same person editing from 2 different locations, possibly home and a cybercafe as there doesn't appear to be any overlap. I suspect the 149 one is the cybercafe and the other their home connection. They do both seem to share a similar dislike (and use of the name) of anything Kurt has edited. They also share a similar style of rhetoric and typing/spelling errors. Once again though, thanks for the help. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Alas the "Yiwentang" whack-a-mole game continues with 86.176.164.80 (talk · contribs). This time attempting to demonstrate they are a fan of the Goons whilst simultaneously attempting to have another 'dig' at WebHamster. I'm not going to get involved for obvious reasons as I have little desire to attract the same stalking that Kurt had to put up with. In a similar vein it looks like jackieupstairs (talk · contribs) is attempting to use the good hand/bad hand trolling technique. I don't expect you to be able to do anything about it but I thought you should be aware of it. I'm going to steer well clear. I spoke to Kurt last night and his advice is that I let them do their own thing and not get involved. He has little interest in what happens here now and as far as he is concerned if the project wants to pander to them then the project deserves all the damage it's going to get. To be honest after the stuff I've had to deal with over the last few days I wonder why people bother with the project at all. Thanks for your time anyway. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well your recent edits to certain Pink Floyd articles are most welcome Fred. Parrot of Doom 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly good advice not to engage Yiwentang and anyone you suspect may be a sock, WebHamster was the target of some pretty disgusting harassment. I'll keep an eye on the situation where possible, but my time on Wikipedia is limited. This place used to be (and can still be) fun, but then there are dicks like Yiwentang who cause trouble for no reason. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 5 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.24 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply because that's not what happened and there was an edit war on the article and persistent vandalism. Also, nothing was mentioned about sales, and no proof was given that the sites were spam. You are still allowed to discuss things on the talk page. Although your accusations that I am a sock of WebHamster in the same manner Yiwentang did whenever anyone disagreed with him is highly suggestive, and I am inclined to agree with Fred the Oyster's comment above. If you disagree with my actions, feel free to raise the issue at WP:ANI. As for Fred the Oyster being uncivil, don't be so daft, he showed more deference than most people would have in response to user: 86.179.116.37's trolling. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Castle..

I should be able to look at this Sunday or Monday. RL has really bit me in the ass this last week. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw your message. It's a huge task and one I'm not currently in a position to really get stuck into. I'll observe from the sidelines though. One thing you'll need to crack is ensuring a worldview, rather than Eurocentric or worse Englishcentric. You'll also have to fight POV pushers wanting "their" castle's image in it. At times, the article's had bloated galleries for that reason. Good luck though! --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I try to thank everyone ASAP, but I only realized you earned this 30 seconds ago, while checking my page history. Sorry for the delay!

		Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation
		Much like rabbits, vandals occur in large numbers and are considered by some to be a nuisance. However while rabbits are cute, vandals are not. For defending my user page from a vandal, and possibly also blocking said vandal, I give you "Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation". Take this random award featuring an image of an adorable mammal, and let it be a sign to others that you fight the good fight. From your completely insane friend,   Nezzadar ☎  .

Anon IP

What you talking about? Haven't made any changes to anything for years... This isn't a shared computer, so it's not anyone else. So please don't make threats on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.173.2 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution here would seem to cast doubt upon your assertion. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't care what your system or anything else tells you. I haven't made any adjustments on wikipedia for about 2 years. Never even seen those pages before. So wikipedia is wrong. Whatever it is... stop writing shit on my page. This isn't a shared computer, and i'm the only one with password. And I've never even heard of Dobcross!

Register an account then, and protect your password. The facts don't lie, and IPs are often dynamic, not static. Parrot of Doom 16:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont accuse me of lying mate. Here's my account name! There is a mistake, I have no edited ANY pages for ages, so stop accusing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any warnings on that account talk page from Nev1. I do however see a warning on the IP talk page that Nev1 edited. The IP that did, in fact, remove sourced content from an article, and then came here to complain. Since you've replied in the same thread, I would suggest that this IP, and the user account you're now posting under, are the same computer, or the same person.

You are therefore demonstrably incorrect. I suggest you go away and cool your head somewhere. Parrot of Doom 18:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What i'm telling you is that YOU are the one who is wrong. I have not edited any pages for years! And it is for the reason of people like you I stopped editing. People on their high horse thinking they can do what the hell they want on Wikipedia. I assure you I haven't edited any pages, and wikipedia is wrong. So get of you high horse, and pull your head out of your ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.194.225 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, my IP address has changed from before.. maybe that'll prove to you that I have no control of my IP address of anyone else's IP address!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you continue not editing on Wikipedia, since you're clearly incapable of holding a rational thought in your head. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but not having someone accuse me of something I haven't done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just so you know, the original warning came on 25 May 2009, I only got the "You have a new message" yesterday. I use wikipedia every day! Does this not prove that IP addresses are randomly designated, and I aquired a second-hand one? Norfolkdumpling (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll end this now, I don't think Nev1 will appreciate this discussion on his talk page. I suggest you re-read this thread before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself again. Oh, and don't make any more personal attacks. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

But I haven't done anything wrong! I'm not going to say "Oh forget it" and have people still believe I vandalised pages. And by the way, I've made several points proving my innocence, which you have chosen to ignore. I wonder why? Norfolkdumpling (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and saying things like "re-read this thread again before you open your moth an embarrass yourself again" sounds personal to me, don't be a hypocrite. Norfolkdumpling (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect your IP address shifts from time to time, mine shifts every time I reset my broadband modem. You have simply picked up a message intended for another anon user, that (s)he did not read, and you have been allocated to IP address that that user used when (s)he vandalised a page. The best thing you can do is forget about this, and carry on editing wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sale FC logo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sale FC logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Topory

Dropped him a question here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

a castle in construction

Hi Nev1

Nevermind our dispute on castles. Here is a website that documents the construction of a castle(that is accepted by the scientific community). They have images that could benefit the article. You just have to ask them to release some material under a commons licence and promise in return to provide a link to their homepage. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. As for the FAC, there's nothing wrong with disagreement and the article is still improving. Your stance made it clear to me that the article didn't explain well enough what castles are. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but from looking through a couple of pages of the website, it appears that the reconstructed castle is a tourist attraction or perhaps a museum? I'm wondering if it would be notable enough to merit its own article. It would be an interesting addition, and could probably be linked into experimental archaeology and medieval technology. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

turmhuegelburg

I'm in contact with the administrator of the website of a small reconstructed castle. They call it a motte and refer to the tapestry of Bayeux(but reconstruct it according to data from an excavation). It's a defensible tower with a trench and a bridge on a man-made hill. It's on [1], however, the page is difficult to navigate even for a native speaker of German. You can see a glimpse here. How many images do you want and what do you want to have documented? I'll check the necessary image resolution with someone else, but you may give suggestions. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At its current size, there isn’t really space for more images in the article, so one would have to be replaced to allow for a new one. For example, I think if the previous website you suggested could provide a picture of the construction it would be great to replace the sketch of the tower being built. I quite like the image from the Bayeux Tapestry in the article as it’s one of the earliest depictions of a castle, but if you think we can squeeze in another image, I’m for it. At the least, it could be used in the motte-and-bailey article which has a picture of the stone Chateau Gisors and a plan of Windsor Castle, but the other image is a bit rubbish and there's no representation of a timber castle in the article. (The article gets in excess of 10,000 visitors a month as well.) Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Castle: Later Use section

Thank you for the notice. I'll be happy to. C.Kent87 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA pass - I had my worries there for a while! Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Copertino

Hi! The original of the picture can be found on the italian wikipedia here. It was originally uploaded by it:utente:Galiano.M. I wanted to use the image on the Hungarian wikipedia so I uploaded there too, and then, when we moved all pictures to commons the original description got lost. Anyway, I have changed the description in commons. Thanks for the notice--Istvánka (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

Malleus alerted me to this. I didn't realise that Castle was at FAC else I'd have had a read through it! Parrot of Doom 20:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Another nice job. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks. After a week at FAC I didn't think the article would make it and was tempted to pull the plug. I'm very pleased I didn't. That was the most exhausting FAC I've been involved with, but also the most satisfying. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It did look at bit nip and tuck at one point, but you got there. It's a nice feeling, being able to take your books back to the library. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes the article even better are the high quality photographs used. They're the first things that grabbed my attention, and I was shocked to see an article that contained nothing but excellent photography. Parrot of Doom 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Having concentrated almost solely on one article for about the past two months I'm a bit lost. Perhaps I'll start on something less high-profile like Richard the Lionheart! There are some really good pictures in there, and with so many available I was spoilt for choice (although there was a UK bias as there are more images of British casltes on commons that anywhere else in the same way that there are more articles on the English Wikipedia than other languages). In a way I was disappointed the article wasn't longer so I could include more, but I think having to deal with that would have pushed poor Awadewit's patience beyond breaking (as it was it took 2 weeks for me to finally get the licensing sorted). Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the Gunpowder Plot is now a Featured Article too; it's great to see the subject given proper treatment. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Many congratulations. That was really hard work with a fantastic result. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for putting together such a wonderful article on castles. Readers who come to Wikipedia will learn much from your clear description of this amorphous concept. Thanks for your thorough research and careful attention to detail. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa

Thanks for your comments. But currently it is still an FAC, did I miss something? CTJF83 chat 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, it got archived about two hours ago but Gimmebot hasn't run yet. I was going to comment on the FAC but it was archived before I found time so I pasted my comments on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh! This process is a pain, especially when doing it all alone. CTJF83 chat 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that sometimes FAC just doesn't go the way you want. I'd recommend trying to go through all the points raised in the FAC, then going back to the editors who made them to ask if they've been addressed. If they think so, you've taken steps towards improving the article and next time round it will stand a better chance. They also might keep an eye on the article if they know you're going to nominate it again. If you feel your FAC needs more input (there was a period of about 10 days where no one commented) feel free to approach someone for an impartial review (someone who's familiar with FAC, perhaps someone who comments on WT:FAC a lot); they might oppose, but it will at least give you something to work with, and opposes can be change to supports if the reviewer thinks you've addressed their concerns. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. CTJF83 chat 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you must have been reading an old version (some of the things were already fixed). "The third paragraph of the geography section, where it talks about German settlers, should be merged with the first paragraph as it too mentions German settlers." did you mean neighborhood section? That whole section was rewritten :) CTJF83 chat 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the first and third paragraphs of the neighborhood section rather than geography. I saved a copy of the page a couple of days ago to read in my own time as my connection is sometimes intermittent; the downside is that I might mention a couple of things that have already been dealt with, but in this case I think I just used the wrong section title. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok... when merging the two race sentences, is it best to source the 84 runners in the middle of the sentence and the 12-18,000 at the end, or just source both at the end? CTJF83 chat 20:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters to be honest as the sentence is so short (it's not as if it's the whole paragraph that's being referenced). At the end of the sentence is good enough, but if there's a useful comma after the first bit you can put the reference after that's fine too. Nev1 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For the demographics section, should I do something like Davenport has #% white, #% black, this is above/below the average for Iowa and above/below the average for the US, etc for that section, or is that too boring also? CTJF83 chat 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If the figures are similar you can say something like "these figures were broadly inline with national trends", or if there's perhaps one or two exceptions try "these figures were similar to national trends, although there was a greater proportion of xyz than in the US as a whole (xx%)". The trick is judging what's "similar"; if the average for a particular group across the US is 80% a couple of % either way isn't going to matter, but if one group is usually say 4% and in Davenport it is 8% that's worth mentioning. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, got it. CTJF83 chat 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Woodhouses hill fort

Went for walk near Frodsham today and had a look at this hill fort. There were notices around saying that there had been some archaeological work carried out during this summer. I guess this was/will be published somewhere sometime, which could be useful when the time comes for an article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The reports of a huge amount of investigations are never published properly and languish as grey literature. Hopefully there'll be something in the Chester Archaeological Journal or the Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society. The Forde-Johnston article on Cheshire and Lancashire's hillforts is nearly 40 years old and needs updating; Beeston and Mellor have been identified since the article was written; also it lacked some significant image about the dating of the sites. That reminds me that I've still got to finish the articles on Woodhouses and Helsby, it's a shame to have two missing links. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarumio

I didn't want to comment on the closed checkuser, but I was wondering, if there is an IP block on the above, how's he doing this? - Dudesleeper talk 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an IP block, but not a range block, so all he had to do was change his IP address. Given protestations of innocence at the checkuser (ie: not realising he was logged out) I would have been tempted to hold off on a block, but it’s almost certain now that he knows what he’s doing and is being deliberately disrupted. If Sarumio turns up again while I’m not around, I suggest going to WP:ANI so that someone can implement WP:RBI. Nev1 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

I would try and engage with the IP user, but they keep changing their IP address every day: it was 93.142.140.189 on Saturday, 93.143.43.119 yesterday and 93.143.28.5 today. I don't know if this a routine thing for some internet users (although my IP address seems to be the same all the time), but I'm inclined to think it's unhelpful behaviour at best.

I will however try and go to the talk page with this (now I actually have time to write something properly).

Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well some people have ADSL and seems like in MFBT's village they still haven't see that technology. I put at least 10 relevant sources which say most modern historians (what is my profession actually) claim 50-100,000 Persian troops at Thermopylae, while his uneducated low life and 300-fan constantly force "200,000". I feel sorry for his mother, because she didn't provide any proper education to her poor son. So sad... :( --93.143.28.5 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're acting more like a spoilt brat who's angry at not getting his way than a professional. Go and discuss the issue with MFBT and try to reach a compromise rather than throwing about insults. MFBT has left a message for you here. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, I see that you are also an uneducated low life [2]. It must be spreading! I never realized that professional historians were so polite - I imagined their debates to be much more heated. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Uneducated low life? Ah, my secret is finally out! In my experience, most professionals avoid editing Wikipedia at all costs. Claiming to have qualifications is very convenient on Wikipedia as there's no way to prove it (usually). And even if 93.143.28.5 is a qualified historian, there's a hell of a lot of history; no one is an expert on all of it. I'd like to see if the discussion on the talk page continues, if not at least you have backed up your point and demonstrated an attempt to resolve it. Nev1 (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And a qualified professional would probably write "which is my profession" not "what". Britmax (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

James Treedwell

My apologies, re-reading your original ce, I see that your intention wasn't what I originally thought. The way you'd re-worded it made it sound like the 8/66 were match figures rather than innings figures, hence factually inaccurate, as the reference showed. However, it looks like that wasn't what you were trying to say. I included in the second-innings specifically to show that they were innings' figures rather than match figures, something it doesn't specify any more. Harrias (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally (I thought) the article stated in the next sentence that 8/66 was the best figures in an innings in the 2nd division that season. That may be a better way of phrasing it as mentioning the 2nd innings seems a little odd, but it's better than implying they're match figures. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally it also claimed these figures were in an August match against Northants. Harrias (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Thank you very much for the nomination. Have written a full report of my 2009 contributions to the MILHIST project, at User:Durova/2009 MILHIST project work. There's a bit more than the nomination mentioned. With best regards and gratitude, Durova³⁸¹ 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"A bit more"? That's "a bit" of an understatement; the 8 or 9 figure was just what stood out from a quick skim of your collection, obviously I should have looked a bit harder. I've updated the nomination to include a link to the report. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Durova³⁸¹ 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Malik Rik"

Hi Nev, awhile ago Choess and I were trying to figure out where the "malik Rik" story comes from. I see the name is currently sourced to Maalouf in the Richard I article, but does he say anything more? (I lost my copy of Maalouf in a flood, unfortunately.) It's simple enough that Arabic chroniclers call him that, of course, but we were specifically wondering about the story that Richard was kind of a bogeyman for Muslim children. Jean de Joinville mentions it but we were trying to figure out how the "malik Rik" part got in there, since Joinville obviously doesn't call him that. (We also found that Alison Weir thinks it means "evil Richard"...sigh.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I only have access to two books on Richard, the volumes by Flori and Gillingham that I've been expanding the article with. Gillingham's Richard I has a chapter entitled "Through Muslim Eyes" in which he remarks that because of the widespread propaganda both for and against Richard in Europe, that contemporary Muslim chroniclers may be more reliable. Ali ibn al-Athir even described Richard as "the most remarkable man of the age", though of course since he defeated Saladin it is perhaps not surprising that he was portrayed as a great warrior. Nothing about Richard being used to frighten children is mentioned (although perfectly plausible), but Gillingham does make it clear that Richard was feared as a bold soldier who would take risks. As the article lead said Malek al-Inkitar means King of England, I assumed that Melek-Ric meant King Richard, although thinking about it now I have no idea, and sadly haven't found anything on it yet.

I take it Maalouf would be worth pursuing? I don't have access to a copy of any of Maalouf's work at the moment (and I intend to work from the two books I have to hand now before introducing more) but may be able to track down a copy in English. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Melek-Ric" does simply mean King Richard (and al-Inkitar is the Arabic pronunciation of "Angleterre"). Maalouf isn't very good so he's probably not worth pursuing in general, but I do wonder if he is the one who combined "malik Rik" and the Joinville story. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

On wikilinking England

Fair enough. The edit was a knee jerk reaction to the idea that "everyone knows what England is" but you're right. Think before acting, is the lesson here I feel. Britmax (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my poorly-worded edit summary, but I think you see what I was trying to say now. Jimtaip seems to be wikilinking England across a lot of article and I think the user need to be informed. I hope you don't mind if I pinch your arguement Nev. Jolly Ω Janner 18:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead if you think it will help. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mat Hopkins

The origional source says that the fact he used the Demonologie indicates that he may have actualy bleived in what he was doing. I was trying to paraphrase this. But it migvht need re-wording.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 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) 19:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It pleases me to inform you

Afflicted with dyslexia, I am delighted to inform you that I enjoy very much reading everything you write, so clear, informative, and forthright your style of English composition, as I find it. Please do continue, precisely as you do it, to educate my feeble attempts at learning nearly whatever interests you yourself, as I do consider it most entertaining, factual, I trust, and indeed, enthralling. It is not that our interests coincide, nor any hint of obsession, fandom, or subservience on my part, but the simple, self-evident fact that the clarity of your letters I find clear, and your interests quite interesting. You do me, like a great many, no doubt, an invaluable service in your endeavors. Thank you very much. My only regret, though very trivial indeed, is that I haven't the pleasure of knowing your gender, of interest to me only in the promotion of courteous communication. Elsewise, please do take my gratitude for granted, and do carry on in the maintenance of your quite evidently purposive, usual momentum, accomplishing much. Unfree (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Isabella Banks

Hi, this edit of yours removed sourced information from an article but the edit summary ("journalist v ournalist (1chr)") doesn't seem to explain why. May I ask what was the thinking behind the removal? Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea why the change occurred. It makes no sense to me what so ever. Nobody had access to my computer that evening, there doesn't appear to be a "rollback". It is the most bizarre edit I have ever made. I have changed my password, but since no other edits were made it seems unlikely that my account was hacked. Amazing. EhsanQ ^(talk) 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well nothing was lost, so no harm done. Very strange though. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Château-Gaillard

Hello !

Good job you did, just a little correction : Petit-Andely without S, because there are 2 Andelys : Andely (today Grand-Andely) already existed a long time ago before the building of the castle (Celtic foundation, remains of a gallo-roman theater). Petit-Andely was known before the building of the castle as la Couture d'Andely, so the place were the inhabitants of Andely grew their vegetable near the Gambon stream mouth and also the place were the fishers lived.

Then, Petit Andely developped when they built the castle, it was surrounded by remparts and an artificial lake between Petit and Grand-andely was dug out with a defence tower on the bank. Nowadays, there is only one commune les andelys, but we still use the expression Petit-Andely and Grand-Andely, that are in fact two separated areas of the same commune.

Good luck Nortmannus (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I've corrected the article. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires AFD

The second AFD of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, resulted in the article being stubbified and the contents moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. You are welcome to make suggestions at the article in the incubator. If your concerns are meet, and you believe the article is ready for mainspace, please sign here [3], or contact User:Spartaz, the closing admin. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article has taken in all your suggestions?Teeninvestor (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you thought so, but (until I remember where I put my book on Bodiam Castle) I'm going to work on my proposal in Word to better explain my suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, as to the petition, the petition was meant to gauge consensus. I don't think it should be archived. When editors are happy with the article's current status, they can sign it.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Petitions do not gain consensus as they seek only one side. They have their uses, but gauging consensus is not one of them. Moreover, your solicited support from those who supported you in the AfD. If you were trying to construct consensus, this is a blatant breach of WP:Canvas. If you do it again, you risk being blocked. The petitions will not be unarchived. Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Hey Nev1, just a quick note to thank you for your interest in FLCs and your recent detailed and valuable reviews. We're struggling at the moment for folks who are prepared to say what they think and then come back to finish the job off, so your recent input is incredibly useful to us. Hope to see you about FLC again, (and thanks for your comments on my own FLC!), and happy Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to help out where I can, but I feel that my comments are most useful for subjects I'm familiar with (hence I was drawn straight to the cricket list!); time is often at a premium, but I hope to do a couple more reviews. Nev1 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

What does "(ec)" mean? You put it at the start of your paragraphs at talk pages. Thanks. Simanos (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It means edit conflict. It happens when I start writing a post and someone else writes something before I hit "save page". It means that sometimes I might not have seen new comments. Nev1 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. Simanos (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

On French sources for Castles

Greetings, I glanced over your link to the Norman castle, and honestly, given the amount of text you've covered your French is clearly as good as mine or better. I'm just a Spanish and Portuguese speaker who figured out that he can read French 90% without a dictionary, and 97% with a dictionary. So my offer was mainly directed towards those using gTranslate who hit sentences the computer just can't render into proper English. Sorry I can't be of more use, but I do hope at least a few folks with less/no French background take a stab. I've been doing some Indonesian articles which I really can't read at all, but they're military unit articles where the clauses are so simple that a basic gTranslate makes it clear what unit it is, who it falls under, when and from whom it was formed, etc. Enough to make a stub, certainly. Thanks for giving me a shout though. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am going on my wikibreak, but before I go I would like to apologize for some of my behaviour, which I regret. When I return, I will not edit the article incubator.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Things get heated when people care, I can understand how you felt. Hopefully a break from the article will help; in the meantime, I'll keep working on the article and hopefully it will soon be back in the main space. Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Albania

There must be a mistake because it is not Gjirokaster Berat. Gjirokastra is the medieval town and Berat town tradition and castle. Ohrid Lake is part of UNESCO World hertiage Centres yes or no.

Reference with of Ohrid Lake http://www.alsat.tv/lajme-nga-vendi/liqeni-i-ohrit-xhuveli-shume-shpejt-pjese-e-trashegimise-boterore.html

http://www.sot.com.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12597:unesco-liqeni-i-ohrit-mund-te-jete-pjese-e-trashegimise-boterore&catid=35:sociale&Itemid=64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a mistake, there's nothing that can be come on Wikipedia. According to UNESCO, there are only two World Heritage sites in Albania, not four. As far as UNESCO are concerned, the Ohrid Lake is in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I'm sorry, but Wikpedia's polices on verification mean that we must go with the UNESCO source. This means that there is no room for quibbling over state boundaries on the article. However, you may wish to get in touch with UNESCO who may be able to provide you with an explanation. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll follow your guidance.

I will contact the UNESCO office. Although I gave are essential evidence and the facts prove that given spike. Thank you for your response. Amicably--Irvi Hyka (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Obscure abbreviations

I suggest in future you steer away from obscure Wikipedian abbreviations, and use words and phrases commonly understood by English speakers. They're not actually helpful in any way, shape or form. Nor are they decided on by large numbers of people. I don't have the time to waste learning them - they'll be changed next week/month/year anyway, by more self-appointed bureaucrats.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is you point? Are you too lazy to click on the links provided to read the explanations of the abbreviations? Nev1 (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not "too lazy". I just don't have the time to waste on them. They are tinkered with regularly too. I'd rather spend it doing worthwhile things with my life. Wikipedia is not a full time occupation for most of us. And the time I do spend on Wikipedia, I'd prefer to use constructively by hunting down decent references, finding quotes etc. Not dealing with the abbreviation of the month.

They reek of obscurantism, and are not helpful.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have repeatedly avoided providing links to previous discussions and dodged issues you cannot provide answers to (such as requests for sources right at the start of the thread), instead latching onto minor use of abbreviations which you are too lazy to take the time to understand (which is a shame, as they are widely used). You say you don't wish to waste your time, well take your dishonesty and hypocrisy elsewhere because it's doing no good here. Nev1 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on all of the links you provided me with. But it is a waste of time. I latched onto abbreviations, because people like yourself are too fond of them. Plain English is a hundred times better. Using plain English will help you in your professional and social life.

The reason I objected to the use of "consensus" etc is because some people seem to have decided what the consensus is to be beforehand. I loathe the bureaucratic/obscurantist element of Wikipedia - it is the polar opposite of what this encyclopedia purports to be. No one has provided a proper explanation for why the images in question are so poor.

I don't wish to waste my time, because I actually do have a life to lead off Wikipedia. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of wisdom, I shall ponder them and attempt to use plain English from now on. Now would you care to address the concerns regarding sourcing to back up your changes to the article? (<plain English>I don't give a crap about the image</plain English>) Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nev1. You have new messages at S Marshall's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zaphiro

Should someone go and see if he's actually connected to the other account, the one on the German Wikipedia? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post a notice on WP:AN. I don't think he is though, as I'll explain there. Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think he was either. I'd have asked myself, but I'd have had to use an online translator and look like an idiot. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How did castles work?

Our discussion on Parrot of Doom's talk page has made me wonder even more about how castles actually worked. One of Beeston's features, for instance is its rather deep well, although I've never seen any mention of the sanitory arrangements put in place for its garrison. By comparison, with Roman forts you sometimes see accounts of shit being found in one corner—or did I just make that up? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The garderobe at Peveril Castle (the castle is also known as Peak's Arse). The keep was built in the late 12th century.

It's a difficult question, and depends on which way you want to look at castles. Were they first and foremost defences or were they important as homes? For the most part, castle studies are focussed on the fortifications; how the towers work, the field of fire of approaches etc, and as a result subjects such as how waste was dealt with can be overlooked. However that has been changing in the past 10 or 20 years, and people are looking at how castles interacted with their landscape. The popular image of a place like Beeston Castle, which is perched on high ground and looks very imposing, is actually pretty uncommon and many were in urban centres or at important crossroads.

As you said, sticking your arse over the battlements is asking for trouble. One way to deal with shit is exemplified by Peveril Castle. The garderobe in the keep projects beyond the rest of the building, offering protection from anyone who wants to interrupt your trip to the toilet and immediately disposing of the waste by dropping it outside the castle (presumably, although I can't remember which way it's pointing). As well as dwindling supplies, disease and sanitation would have been a concern during sieges, so I assume that such arrangements must have been fairly common. In keeps later than that at Peveril, you get toilet towers attatched to keeps, but I think these would have required regular emptying; that's perhaps one indication of compromise between comfort and defence. It's easy to forget that castles spent most of their lives as homes, and most were rarely besieged. Beeston wasn't pressed into action until the Civil War. You could argue that not being besieged meant the castle succeeded as a deterrent.

Builders often invested in making their castles more elaborate, or tried to make them look more impressive. For instance, Caernarfon Castle has bands of different coloured stone; no one's really sure why (although it's clearly aesthetic), although one suggestion is that it's meant to look like the Walls of Constantinople. Anyway, castles were high-status residences, and that can sometimes be overlooked. Comfort would have been important, so you can expect that there was some compromise between what would have been ideal for defence and making the place comfortable for whoever owned it.

Beeston's a funny old place. It was never finished and so important features are missing, such as residential buildings; until there was accommodation for the earl, there probably wasn't a need for anything as fancy as a garderobe and a cesspit would have sufficed. Had it been completed and had it not been snatched by the king, it would probably have been become the seat of the Earls of Chester and Beeston would probably have become a thriving village. Beeston has undergone excavation, but because it's such a large site there are still questions about it that might be answered by further digging.

It sounds entirely likely that Roman forts had an area designated to shit, especially the larger ones. They dealt with much larger garrisons than castles, and only the commander's headquarters would have been given any consideration for comfort. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a complex subject, I agree. I had a fascination with two castles as a kid: Beeston and Dunure, both of which just took my breath away each time I saw them. Dunure especially, because it's so close to the Electric Brae. But never when I visited them did I wonder "so where did the soldiers garrisoning this castle shit?" --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to poke my nose into this conversation, but I once saw a picture of a castle that I thought was really interesting, but I have not been able to find it since. Perhaps one of you will know it. The castle is on a rocky island a short way off of land. I just remember this huge castle and rocks and waves crashing all around. Any ideas? I'd really like to read more about it. Tex (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit like this?

Ooh, tricky question. It sounds a bit like St Michael's Mount in Cornwall which is very impressive. There are a few castles on the islands around the UK, but unfortunately I don't have the book with the list. Lindisfarne Castle's quite a sight too, although the island of Lindisfarne is much bigger than St Michael's Mount. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be Mont Saint-Michel, just across the water, a very impressive sight. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think any of those are the ones that I had in mind, but they are all very impressive. I'll keep looking and let you know if I find the one I was thinking of. Thank you for those links. They look interesting. Tex (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Nev, it was an interesting read. Just what is it about poo that gets everyone so fascinated :) Parrot of Doom 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, at the bottom of this page are a few interesting links that you may find, er, interesting. Parrot of Doom 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)