User talk:Richard Nevell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Barkhale Camp

Richard, since you were kind enough to review The Trundle when it was at FAC, I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at Barkhale Camp? I've just completed a pass through, and I think it's fairly close to ready for a FAC nomination, but I would appreciate an expert eye if you have the time. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mike Christie, happy to do so. I've only had a quick look, but the structure is sound and the content looks good. I like the adapted site plan, that's a very useful resource. I wonder if @Rouven Meidlinger might have some LIDAR that could be turned into a useful illustration? I'll try to take a closer look to leave some more helpful comments. In the meantime, I just found Marking Place: New perspectives on early Neolithic enclosures on Google Books. It mentions Barkhale Camp a couple of times so might be worth checking. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for sending those chapters. I'm surprised to see (p. 158) mention of radiocarbon dating as establishing a West Sussex group of enclosures; as far as I know nothing from Barkhale has ever been radiocarbon dated. Certainly Gathering Time couldn't find any samples. The discussion of territories is possibly worth including; I have or can access Drewett (1988) and Drewett et al. (1994), and have just ordered a copy of Russell (2002) Monuments of the British Neolithic, which sounds like it refutes at least part of Drewett's theories. I think I want to read Russell before including that information; Patton makes it sounds as if Drewett's theories may no longer be much regarded. The other chapter mentions groupings and intervisibility; I think something can be added from that. I'll get to that this weekend and let you know when I'm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just been through Durkin's article (chapter 11) and I'm now inclined not to use it. He cites K.D. Thomas's mollusca analysis, in Leach (1983), to say that the site was cleared in woodland; Thomas makes a point of saying that's not definitely proven by the assemblage, though he does give it as a possible interpretation. In The Creation of Monuments p. 104-5 they say most enclosures were "probably at first located in fairly small clearings in woodland", but exempt "certain sites, including Whitehawk Camp and the Trundle". The other specific comment he makes about Barkhale is its position as the most easterly of the western Sussex enclosures; he divides the Sussex enclosures into two groups. In The Creation of Monuments, p. 108-9, the point is made that territorial groupings suggested by Palmer in his 1976 aerial survey are "no longer convincing" as more enclosures have been found, filling in the map, and they go on to talk about the instability and uncertainty of regional groupinngs and conclusions about regionalism. I don't think this means Durkin's paper can't be cited, but it seems to me to be a contribution to the general discussion of Neolithic cultural regions and not something that is particularly relevant to Barkhale. If I ever get to working on the overall causewayed enclosure article, it would be relevant to that.

I'll have another read through Patton (chapter 10) when the copy of Russell's Monuments of the British Neolithic that I've ordered arrives, and I'll leave a note when I've looked at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Richard, if you do have time, I think Combe Hill is closer to ready for FAC than Barkhale Camp, though of course I'd appreciate comments on either one. I've read through those of Drewett's comments I have access to, and the replies, and I think there's no need for detail in articles about the individual causewayed enclosures -- that sort of discussion belongs in the overall causewayed enclosure article, which I'd like to get to one day. I did include some material from Patton's paper in Marking Place in Combe Hill. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated Combe Hill at FAC; the nomination is here, if you're interested. I've now had a look at Russell's book, and he essentially says Drewett's hypothesis about a division of types of causewayed enclosures has fallen apart with additional evidence, so I don't think this needs to be covered in the individual articles, though it will probably deserve a mention in the parent article about the enclosures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lauren Shippen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lauren Shippen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CUPIDICAE💕 15:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Combe Hill caption

Richard, I saw you changed the caption on the picture of Combe Hill to say "from the east"; are you sure that's correct? I couldn't tell for sure, so I didn't put anything in, but I had thought it was probably from the west, since it appears there's a steep slope down to the left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I had been confident based on a Google maps view, and since there's a fence on the right which I assumed would be for the steeper part and maybe the angle made it look less steep. On reflection, I'm not sure enough one way or another so have undone that edit. Might involve being there in person to be sure! Richard Nevell (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The fence is certainly an indicator; hadn't thought of that. But I think it's wiser to leave it without till we can be sure. I know a local user; if they're still active I might ask them if they wouldn't mind taking a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There are shadows from the fence poles and a bush top right which might indicate something. I could not decide what without knowing the time of day of the photo.SovalValtos (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The path runs east/west, so shadows falling from right to left ought to mean that south is to the right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Worcesters

I enjoyed "unsauced" - thanks.

MrDemeanour (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Cleopatra

Hello. Thanks for cleaning up the edit by "Eritha", and am glad to see that you at least speedily resolved the issue with competence, but you should have given the original editor a chance to fix the issues that I raised in the revert. This would have been a chance for her to become more familiar with Wiki style guidelines (practice makes perfect, after all). I simply do not have patience for edits that introduce several stylistic mistakes or errors into an article that has achieved Featured status, after a lot of hard work went into said project. Also, not everyone enjoys the headache of fixing others' mistakes, per your comment: "goodness knows why there was a wholesale revert". Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This place is meant to be collaborative and undoing a change because of minor stylistic issues is obstructive. If you do not have the patience to deal with such situations, please try to avoid them in future. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Richard,

I should have thanked you previously for the "Thank You", but I was always busy (my poor excuse). I saw your User Page and was very impressed, a PhD in archaeology, wow. I am an enthusiast at best, or better still a part-time enthusiast. I love both Time Team and River Hunters (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9303684/) like most people who know about 1% of the subject, okay more likely 0.1%, or even 0.01% LoL.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is lucky to have you. Best wishes. SethWhales ^talk 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for those very kind words, and more importantly for creating an article on Ruperra Motte. I'm also very much an enthusiast - Time Team has a lot to answer for! - and feel lucky to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks Richard

ArchaeoGeo (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Richard Nevell (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Penrhyn Castle

I have got around to dropping my footnote, (b), into the article. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Gopal article

Hi, I'd really appreciate your input on reorganising the Priyamvada Gopal article so that non-work related subjects don't appear in the "Work" section. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)