User talk:Nev1/Archives/January–February 2012

Castles

Nev1, if you'd like to help with sourcing the List of castles in Italy, please do. But simply removing the tag because you don't like tags, is not helpful. --Elonka 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before Elonka, you know tags aren't helpful. You are of course welcome to add references but pointing out the bleeding obvious doesn't help anyone. Few people appreciate being told their on fire, but they might thank you if you pour a bucket of water over them. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tags are helpful, and many editors on Wikipedia use them routinely. If you keep removing them, this could be perceived as disruptive behavior, so I recommend that you reconsider your actions here, and tone. I'd rather not have to launch escalation procedures here such as an RfC on tags (or on your behavior). So please, either add sources to the article, or leave the tags alone. Thanks. --Elonka 15:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tags don't improve articles, editors do. There are tens of thousands of articles with such tags, is it any wonder there are that many when some editors such as yourself seem more concerned with pointing out the obvious than improving the list. If you can't edit constructively then don't bother. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tag bombing the article isn't particularly constructive either and amusingly petty. Nev1 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Butting in - but I have to agree with Nev here. You offer to help with the sourcing but then tag-bomb the article rather than just digging in and helping. That action looks a bit pointy to me - since you offered to help source, why not just go ahead and ... source? I'm sure you mean well, but actually sourcing things would be more helpful than tags. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, just because Nev1 is accusing me of tag-bombing, doesn't mean that I am. Please check the article history. In fact, you're pretty good with sourcing, why don't you help? This is rather an odd situation. I notice an article that needs sources, I add a {{unsourced}} tag to it, get reverted, and then multiple editors start heaping incivility on me rather than actually helping with the article. What exactly is going on here? --Elonka 16:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What's going on is that demanding other people fix articles doesn't work. From where I stand, there is nothing "civil" about that. If you see something that needs fixing, roll up your sleeves and fix it instead of waiting for someone else. There's no shame in asking for help, but the message implicit in such tags is that it's somebody else's problem. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Probably a bit of overwork - some of us are stretched a bit thin and have plenty of people slapping tags on articles on our watchlists without doing anything else about the tags. Granted, I'd probably not remove the tag as Nev has done, but I must admit it looks a little odd to have the two of you slow-motion edit-warring about tags when one of you has offered to help with the sourcing. All I can say is from my perspective - I get tired of folks slapping tags on things and then going off to do other things while expecting me to jump to their demands and drop what I was working on to resolve a drive-by tag. Unfortunately, I'm not conversant with Italian sources - I have nothing on Italian castles - so I can't be much help with that. I know some folks really think that tagging things with the big banner tags helps improve articles (I'm leaving the {{cn}} tag issue alone, as I do think those help in specific cases) but clearly Nev isn't one who thinks that. And I find myself on his side - generally banner tags appear on an article and half the time there is no discussion on the talk page (even though most of the banner tags say that specific issues should be placed on the talk page so that the banner tag can be discussed) and then the tag languishes there - with the tagger moving on to other articles without ever offering to help or even checking back. Things like {{unsourced}} are plain silly to my mind - they don't serve to alert the readers to anything but the obvious - and generally just sit there for years without any more input from the tagger. That's my perspective on it, and I would guess that it's Nev's also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Nev1, you're wrong. Just because you don't like fixing other people's tags, doesn't mean that they don't work. Speaking from my own experience, lots of people work on tagged articles. Heck, I do it almost daily. It's a nice "potato chip" kind of thing to do: Look for a tagged article, fix it, remove the tag, and move on. But as you may or may not know, fixing any one thing can require changes to a dozen different parts of the project. So it may not be possible for one person to fix everything that needs to be fixed. We're volunteers, our time is limited. That's why we have tags. We see something that needs fixing, we tag it as needing a fix, and then we go on with the other stuff that we were doing. But then I do something very routinely at List of castles in Italy, and it's like grabbing the third rail. I routinely tagged an article as needing sources, but I got reverted. What's even more bewildering, is that it's an admin doing the reverting. I go through WP:DR, I enter into discussion at the user's talkpage and at the article talkpage, and I get the admin, and presumably some friend of the admin (or some sock/meatpuppet, not sure), pouring out incivility at me about how rude it is to add a tag, and I should fix the article myself. And they're not going to help unless I show that I'm willing to do the work too. So I *do* work on the article. I've spent dozens of hours over the last several weeks working on that damn list, working in good faith, setting up redirects, linking to Italian sources, researching the intricacies of the {{ill}} template, picking through the pages on the Italian Wikipedia (and remember, Italian is not one of my languages). Trying to figure out if something is "Castel" or "Castello di" or some other bizarre term. Weeks go by, and still, I'm the only person working on the list. So again, I add a tag requesting help. Again, I am reverted. WTF? From my side, it seems that some editors are more interested in spewing abuse, than in actually helping with the article. And now I'm being accused of tag-bombing? For just requesting sources? What the hell? All of this could have been avoided by just leaving the {{unsourced}} or {{refimprove}} tags alone, or working in a cooperative way and helping with the sourcing. But no, it appears that some people would rather fight than help. So please, stop with the name-calling, and either help with the list, or just stay out of it. --Elonka 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are a very good example of the type of editor who drives me to distraction. I will say no more. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So I am thinly accused of sock puppetry? If you honestly believe that such a smear has any merit ask for a Check User. Do so or retract the accusation. Nev1 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the tag discussions (again). Tags should have a boomerang function built into them. After a set period of time (days, weeks, months, years), the tag gets removed by a bot and placed on the tagging editor's talk page with a polite note asking them to do something about it. Or at least to review the issue and confirm that the tag can be removed. Ditto for assessments. Editors filling in an assessment on an article talk page should get a polite note a year later asking them to update the assessment and/or do some work on the article. Calling the bot "ChivvyBot" might be a bit point-y though. Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nag-Bot? Nanny-Bot? (tongue firmly in cheek). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whats worse than editors loosing their cool and speaking man to man, is when arbs give creedence to convoluted bullshit from admins who are clearly only looking to pick a fight and aggrovate/bate. The reason Elonks is here comes from Sandys talk a week or two ago, or deeper than, from spite and a lond held grudge. The Castle article, and o what an irony, is just an other extension and battleground. Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bizarre assertion. In actuality, this started when I was reading about Italian castles a couple months ago (related to research I'm doing on the Voynich manuscript). I noticed that List of castles in Italy didn't have sources, I tagged it as {{unsourced}}, then Nev1 reverted me, and Polequant started up with some unhelpful sniping on the talkpage. I'm not aware of anyone else being involved. --Elonka 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To all, whatever else is going on, here and elsewhere, Elonka's not here to start fights. Both she and Nev just want a better article; it's just that they have differing approaches & don't see eye to eye on the tag thing. I'm no fan of tags, but this whole thing is silly. My view is that the issue of sourcing has been raised, all are aware of it, they will be added, and further back-and-forths waste time and cause ill feeling. Can't we just lose the stupid for five minutes, accept that citations have been requested, and move on? Kafka Liz (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No becase there is more to this than meets the eye. Ceoil (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but you do realise that most people reading this thread will come away with an impression of you as someone who sees shadows around every corner? I know (from some other discussions) that you've had reason to become very cynical and jaded recently, but most people won't know that. This is critical to understanding how misunderstandings develop on Wikipedia. We, each and every one of us, only see small parts of the whole, and claiming to 'know' what is really going on shows a lack of understanding of that. Me personally, I'm always very wary when someone claims they 'know' what is really happening. Most times they are just projecting what they think is happening. To convince other people that there is 'more to this than meets the eye' you need to be able to demonstrate that. If you can't, it is just assertions and possibly casting of aspersions. And it doesn't help. Even if you suspect there is something else going on here, you have to take a deep breath sometimes and accept that there is not a lot that can be done to prove your suspicions. Where is the line crossed between interaction and wiki-friendship and 'grudges'? I actually try not to get too close to others on Wikipedia, precisely because that ends up (in the end) getting in the way of the editing. Really - think about that and think about what would happen if everyone kept an arm's length distance with others, rather than chatting on user talk pages and bonding with some editors and not others, and rushing to defend 'friends', and being drawn into denouncing the 'enemies of my friends'. The Wikipedia editing environment would be a lot less friendly and a lot less interesting, but it would also be a lot less fraught with tensions between groups of like-minded editors who naturally draw in towards each other. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth with all due respect to you, and you already know I think you are a good guy and did a great review recently for me recwently, so this is not at you, but I dont give one fuck what people who lack context think. I live in the trenches and if i see bad behaviour I call it. I see gaming and revenge tagging here, Elonka is well known to be embittered towards these people, and it goes back years. Think about the timing and look at her form and MO. Yeah there is more to this, and its systemic with a lot political class, and its boring old and tiresome. I've had a friend who recently took a lot of it, and I got blocked for speaking up, but you know, the alternative is to stoop to their level and get bogged down in months of arb evidence gathering fuck wankery. I live in the here and now, Im not interest in larger pictures, or gathering diffs for the uninformed peanut gallery that have to have a voice, no matter how clueless in every hight profile case. That would be stooping, and no thanks to that thanks; prefer to be misunderstood. Ceoil (talk)

FYI, I have brought up some of the comments in this thread, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. --Elonka 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

you fool, how exactly do you think you are going to block my rotating IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.63.90 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Linear castle

Hi Nev. I only just noticed the attempts to circumvent the past no consensus AfD on this by gradually removing all the content. Thanks for your watchfulness. --Dweller (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got the wrong person, it's Colonel Warden who restored the text. As it happens, I removed one of the sources on the basis it is not reliable, although was reverted. Sure, Alan Tichmarsh only wrote the foreword, but how reliable are Jane Eastoe and Anny Kilbourne who wrote the book? I'd suggest not very and below are a few samples of errors in the book.

• The siege of Rochester Castle started on 11 October and ended on 30 November that year. The keep was undermined on 25 November. However, Britain's Best: The Nation's Favourite Historic Places says "Incredibly the castle held out for a further two months [after the keep was undermined] until its defenders were starved into submission". Incredible and incorrect.
• For the entry on Kenilworth it asserts that there was some form of fortification at Kenilworth since before the Normans. That's not a claim I've encountered before, and in particular the English Heritage guidebooks are usually very good at providing information on what was going on before the castle.
• Segontium, the Roman fort at Caernarfon, is just outside the settlement, a short distance from the castle. It could be sloppy writing, but Britain's Best says "To consolidate his position, Edward took over the site of an earlier Norman castle – which had in turn been a Roman fort". It also asserts the banding emulated the walls of Rome. That's not a claim I've seen anywhere else (though the link with Constantinople is often repeated) and am I the only one not seeing bands in the Servian or Aurelian walls?

It shouldn't be used as a source IMHO as it simply is not of good enough quality. And on a totally subjective level, how can a book on Britain's favourite historic sites overlook Corfe Castle? Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, good stuff, cheers. --Dweller (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Plea for help!

Morning, Nev1. I'm trying to promote Agriculture in the United Kingdom to GA, and the reviewer's asked me to get a third party copyedit to improve my (admittedly crappy) prose. So I thought to myself, who do I know who does GAs and is interested in UK topics, and your name came top of my list! I don't suppose you have time to take a butchers?—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look later today. Nev1 (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a gentleman.  :)—S Marshall T/C 13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for your efforts there. IOU one thorough read-through and copyedit! All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'll keep at it. It's an interesting article you've got there. If there are any changes you disagree with for whatever reason, don't hesitate to undo them. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were still working. I'm glad you find it interesting.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's me done for now. There are a couple of points you might want to address. There are two quote boxes and I think it might help to add the year the quotes were made in. The arable section starts of by explaining that "Arable farming is the roduction of crops" which seems like a reasonable thing to say as I suppose you can't assume everyone will know that, but the term has already been introduced in the overview section. Overall an impressive piece of work. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Having quickly looked at agriculture in England I think the readers there would be better served by being forwarded to your article. There's a hat note, but I wonder if turning the page into a redirect might be worthwhile. Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been very helpful indeed: prompt and thoughtful. If I can supply similar help to you in the future, please do let me know, it'll be a pleasure to reciprocate. (Incidentally I've got an excellent bookshelf full of 9th-11th century history, and I see you're active in that area.) All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you need a fresh pair of eyes again feel free to ask; I stink at reading my own writing. I hope to have an interesting article when I call in the favour ;-) Almost certainly something medieval, I just have to decide what. Nev1 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Motte and bailey page move

The move cropped up on my watchlist and I found the reason, specifically "precision - article is about a type of castle, not only mottes and baileys", is a bit puzzling. Could you elaborate on that? Nev1 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article does not only deal with mottes (the mounds) and baileys (castle yards) but the entirety of the castles of that type including other structures within. If this was controversial, you or I initiate a move discussion. —  AjaxSmack  22:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversial is too strong a word, either title gets the point across fine so I wouldn't bother with a page move to be honest. While the terms motte and bailey refer to distinct features, I had taken it for granted that a motte and bailey was a type of castle drawing on two prominent features that did not rule out the presence of other structures. The new name fits with other articles on types of castle such as concentric castle or hill castle. Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tool to count the number of words in an article...

Nev, is there a tool to easily count the number of words in an article? I remember you producing a stat for the Windsor Castle article a while back; I'm trying to count how many real words (vice general formatting) there is in my draft here, as I think it may still be a little on the long side... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The tool most common used on Wikipedia to count the number of words in an article is User:Dr pda/prosesize.js and there are instructions on how to install it here. The script says you're draft is 13,613 words long, which is slightly longer than John's article which is 12,662. The prose is about 82kB long which would put it right up there with the longest FAs. Elvis Presley is the longest FA at about 15,600 words which SandyGeorgia thinks is far too long. There is some discussion at WP:TFA/R about whether it's inappropriately long and Sandy has stated she feels each of the top ten longest FAs need scrutiny as they may be too long and she's concerned they've expanded considerably since they were promoted. It might not hurt to lose a couple of hundred words from the draft if you think it can be done, but I understand choosing where may be difficult. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! There's a few bits I can trim still... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Nev1, this comment was not helpful.[1] Remember, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." Also, it would seem that you are following my edits, trying to look for places where you can nit-pick. Please try to break this habit, thanks. --Elonka 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Beaufort is on my watchlist as are many Crusader castles. Asking that you format your edits properly is not incivil, but if you're going to talk about civility perhaps you'd like to retract your accusation that I've used sockpuppets or take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as this could be construed as a personal attack.[2] Please stop. --Elonka 17:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me make it clear for you, editing within my area of interest means your will sometimes appear on my watchlist. Interpreting that as following your edits just to nitpick is paranoid. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nev1, you have reverted me multiple times when I've tried to add a {{unsourced}} tag, complained when I added a paragraph that didn't have a source, and complained when I added a source citation that wasn't fully expanded. You're now to the point of uncivil comments and personal attacks. Please, stop. --Elonka 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you going to do about your accusation of socking, or is civility just something that applies to other people? Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nev1, is this your idea of how administrators should act? --Elonka 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, I believe people in positions of responsibility should think before bandying about accusations of collusion and deception of one form or another. Are you going to strike it or not? Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that admins were generally required to answer questions honestly. I don't see you answering anything in this thread Elonka, and reminding Nev of policies he's very well aware of is rather patronising. Parrot of Doom 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka seems to specialise in patronising. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nev I know you have thicker skin than to be bothered by the rubbish above; but my advice is ignore and carry on as before. Wiki needs content people far more than it needs players. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good advice, and it's probably best if I leave it at that. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. To ask about happier matters, do you have many articles in development at the moment. Your interest are close enough to mine that your work here makes feel fleetingly proud to be wasting my time like this. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some I'd like to sort out properly. Most recently the spectacular ruin of Corfe Castle has caught my interest. I'd need to expand it to justify the number of photos I want to crowbar in. It's a shame I can barely tell one end of a camera from another because they're integral to articles of buildings. I came across a book the other day on Cowdray House with some great illustrations and the cover drew me straight in. Unfortunately the images freely available aren't as inspiring. I've noticed that Ealdgyth has started rewriting the article on William the Conqueror. Watching it start is kind of exciting and reminds me I never finished the article on Richard the Lionheart. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear you re crowbaring in images; very often I only add text to justify the no of images ;) Corfe Castle looks beautiful and interesting, would be nice to see work there. Re Richard and William, you have a real ability with large articles; Castle is so impressive, it was amazing to see at FAC. Go for William as a long project. Well I hope anyway and take care. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Connected with Ludlow Castle...

Do you have anything to add to Josce de Dinan... even just bibliographical leads would be helpful... I get the feeling there is a GREAT story waiting to be told here... but... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidebooks I have on Ludlow are pretty disappointing and spend barely a sentence on Josce (the text of one of them can be found here for what it's worth). G. T. Clark's article in Archaeologia Cambrensis (1877) goes into much greater detail from page 188 onwards. It seems Stephen and Prince Henry of Scotland were present at the siege in April 1139. I'll read it more closely and see what I can add. As it's over a century old I'll treat it with caution; already I notice that Clark asserts that after de Dinan captured de Mortimer he was imprisoned, hence one of the castle's towers is called Mortimer's Tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Josce doesn't have an ODNB entry so ... we're flying in the dark. I suspect there are works devoted to the romance that will discuss him also - that's my next step. If you think of a good DYK for it too, that'd be great... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pettifer's useful, but he says Stephen laid siege to Ludlow in 1138 which I think may be a mistake. Renn's Norman Castles in Britain (1968) is has a similar role to Pettifer's book but only runs up to the mid 13th century so is a bit more detailed but doesn't seem to mention Josce de Dinan. I turned to Castellarium Anglicanum which includes references to primary sources. It notes that the siege was in 1139 and that Henry of Huntingdon gives details of the affair which I assume is where the story about Prince Henry being caught on a grappling iron comes from. So...

In April 1139 Stephen personally laid siege to the castle and erected two siege castles. With Stephen was Prince Henry of Scotland and while the two were walking close to the castle walls Henry was caught in a grappling iron thrown by one of the garrison; the king helped him free. Despite the attendance of the king, the siege was unsuccessful.<ref>Clark Ludlow Castle p. 188</ref>

It's only a couple of sentences, but the above is what I've got regarding Stephen's siege; I think the bit about Henry could be ditched to be honest as it doesn't directly involve de Dinan but thought I'd leave it to you whether to include it. Nev1 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No - Stephen laid seige to the area in 1138, then came back in 1139 and laid seige to Ludlow, when he captured it and married Sybil (Pain fitzJohn's widow) to Josce. At the time, josce apparantly was siding with Stephen, but then switched sides... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Accoring to Clark after Josce turned against Stephen there was an unsuccessful siege in April, when the incident with Henry happened. That's not the impression I'm getting from Henry of Huntingdon, but Castellarium Anglicanum also gave John of Worcester as a source. Are the sources certain that Ludlow was retaken by Walter de Lacy and Josce never retook it? Paul Remfry seems to think otherwise (while the site looks unprofessional Remfry is knows his stuff). Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Josce lost it eventually, that's for sure. He got compensated by Henry II for the loss - but it's possible he took it back temporarily at some point. We're definitely in the early stages of getting this article under way... I'm ordering the newest edition of Fouke le Fitz Warin right this evening from ILL ... so... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shoesmith, R. and Johnson, A. (eds), 2006 rev edn, Ludlow Castle: Its History and Buildings might clear things up but I don't have a copy at the moment so I'll see what the library has in the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't get a hold of that, let me know and I'll see if I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got my hands on a copy of the book so I'll see what it says later this evening. Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've got most of Ludlow Castle into the article. I ordered a copy of this the other day which might have some interesting bits on the whole area. Thanks to User:Ning-ning I got a hold of the early parts of this which helped a bit. Have a few more sources to hunt down, but should manage to get enough together to at least make Josce a GA... and I'll probably end up working up the romance article too ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Christi Viljoen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi divisions

What the hell were you thinking when you reverted my edit on the Divisions of Shahid Afridi's page? His page had such big paragraphs which make it difficult to retain the information. Don't you see that? Go and add the divisions back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkamal (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking "wow, that's a lot of one-paragraph sections, perhaps that's not a great way of organising things" and I still think that. You edits even had one section that was just 73 words long. What is the point of having such a short section? It could easily be merged elsewhere. Sections are there to aid navigation; too few won't help the reader much, and I'm not convinced there were too few, but too many is just as bad. Add to that the titles appear in the table of content so they give the first impression of the course of a player's career; your sections placed emphasis on two controversies and the T20 Cup. In fairness Afridi's article is far from complete, and in particular the period before he assumed the captaincy needs expansion, at which point it could then be divided. But dividing articles by particular incidents is problematic because there'll be far too many in a career of consequence. Even dividing by series would lead to too many subdivision because of the amount of cricket played. I'd recommend taking a look at Donald Bradman's article or Harbhajan Singh's to see how they treat sectioning. Nev1 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For repairing vandalism to my user page; even though this was arguably a valid criticism I prefer not to have it on my user page. --John (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and see here for another amusing addition. I'd block him myself but I am likely involved as I reverted one of his edits. --John (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I can't see the last but I do find the first incident rather ironic in the circumstances. For something that's far worse than anything I've ever done or would do, yet another limp-wristed warning instead of the undoubted block I'd have got for it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, Nev. Malleus, it's more important sometimes to be seen to do the right thing than to do the right thing. --John (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've only blocked for 24 hours as it wasn't a vandalism only account, but as the guy went on a bit of a spree with user pages an extension might be in order. Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my own take is that it's more important to do the right thing and bugger the consequences. Whatever anyone does here there's always someone just around the corner to tell them what an arse they've been anyway. BTW, I'm not suggesting that you should have made the block John, and in your position I wouldn't have done either; that would be expecting way too much in the current circumstances. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding; I neglected the more obvious factor that he vandalised my user page so I would definitely have been regarded as involved. --John (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Main page appearance: Warkworth Castle

This is a note to let the main editors of Warkworth Castle know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 25, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 25, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Warkworth Castle is a ruined medieval building in the town of the same name in the English county of Northumberland. When the castle was founded is uncertain, but traditionally it has been ascribed to Prince Henry of Scotland in the mid 12th century, although it may have been built by King Henry II of England when he took control of England's northern counties. Warkworth Castle was first documented in a charter of 1157–1164 when Henry II granted it to Roger fitz Richard. The timber castle was considered "feeble", and was left undefended when the Scots invaded in 1173. Roger's son Robert inherited and improved the castle. With the outbreak of the Anglo-Scottish Wars, Edward II invested in castles including Warkworth where he funded the strengthening of the garrison in 1319. Twice in 1327 the Scots besieged the castle without success. In the late 19th century, the dukes refurbished Warkworth Castle and Anthony Salvin was commissioned to restore the keep. Alan Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland, gave custody of the castle to the Office of Works in 1922. English Heritage has cared for the site since 1984, and the castle is a Grade I listed building and a Scheduled Ancient Monument. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My sympathies. Need an extra set of eyes? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Extra pairs of eyes are always welcome, and at least I'm around on Wednesday before I disappear for a couple of days. Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey Talbot...

Anything DYK worthy in there? And do we have the correct Woebley Castle link, seeing as you removed the pic in Pain fitzJohn? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I sorted out the link in the text to the much less impressive castle in Weobley, Herefordshire. There are only two castles in England and Wales and I think the confusion was because we only had one article. It was much easier than working out the difference between Wark on Tweed Castle and Wark in Tyndale Castle, both in the same county and both referred to as just "Wark Castle". Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While expanding the article on Hereford Castle I found something interesting about Talbot: he besieged Stephen's men in the castle again in 1140. He annoyed the town's clergy by setting up siege works in a neighbouring church yard and there's a sensational quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about bodies from the graveyard being dug up and used to make a rampart. The source is Shoesmith, Ron (1980), Hereford City Excavations – volume 1: Excavations at Castle Green, CBA Research Report No 36, Council for British Archaeology (I assume the PDFs will work in the US; the relevant pages are 5, 57–59 if you want to see for yourself).

I'd add something to Talbot's article myself, but it doesn't seem to fit with the statement sourced to Crouch that "In October 1139, Talbot was once more in charge of Hereford and withstood an attack by Miles of Gloucester, a supporter of King Stephen". How Talbot regained and lost the castle before 1140 bothers me. Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally satisfied with the chronology myself - I suspect that the castle changed hands quite a few times in that period, honestly. Crouch is only going to mention the more important sieges - the ones where Stephen took part - if Talbot was engaged in more "private warfare" my sources on Stephen's reign won't necessarily mention it. It usually takes a while to dig down deep enough to find out all the fiddly details - I have yet to do a complex Google search on the guy .. I'm waiting until I do his father's article so I can properly sort the two out. I learned my lesson on William de Chesney and William de Chesney (sheriff) - where many sources get the two men confused...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to stand aside. --Langus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking your name in vain...

Just so you're aware, I've quoted you in a conversation with PBS at Talk:Kenilworth_Castle#Thomas_Chaloner. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

PBS seemed to be missing the point so I've chipped in with my own thoughts, hope that ok. Nev1 (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I've noticed Talk:Carousel (musical) where much the same thing seems to be happening... I wonder why so many folks seem to think that WP:CITE doesn't require that the main referencing system be respected. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NB: Nev1, the email never arrived through the system... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've had another go at sending the email. Nev1 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out for it, cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrived that time, Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Quick work at reverting vandalism in the article Hagia Sophia. Pinetalk 09:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected Bullocks Coaches

I've lifted the semi per a request from User:Rcsprinter at WP:RFPP. Feel free to restore the protection if you believe this was premature. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the socking had been going on for months, so Rcsprinter should have done his research and three months of protection was IMO justified, but removing the semi-protection a little over a week before it expires should be fine. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely (sorta) different...

Am probably going to the local university library tomorrow and do you need anything from JSTOR/etc on any castles you're working on? I am chasing down something on Ludlow - this which in theory may have a bit on the de Lacy's - if there is something you need, drop a note on my talk page and I'll try to find it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I should be ok as I recently regained access to JSTOR and I've emailed you the article, it looks interesting. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL... you should never have let me know that... although I do have to go to the library for some other only in print sources also. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't use JSTOR nearly as much as I should do, which is a shame because the other day I found another very interesting article on castles, so if someone else can get some benefit out of it I'm more than happy to help. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you another begging letter ... feel free to tell me it's too much bother. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, no bother at all. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chris Tremlett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Finn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Aggers weddings

Hi Nev1, I wondered if, throughout your sourcing career, you know of a way we could find out when Aggers was married both times? It's been brought up at the FAC as a curiosity, nothing major, but it would be nice to have complete information there. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says 1983 for the first marriage which I think is probably accurate enough. Amazon lets you take a peek inside Over to You Aggers. The index notes that Emma is only mentioned on pages 45 and 46 and while a search shows a couple more instances, there didn't seem to be any mention of when they were married. I'd say if you can't find it in his autobiography it's going to be difficult to find anywhere else. Nev1 (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

HMallison

The only evidence I have to go by is in HMallison's interactions with me, and the thread that we both we both participated in -- where he didn't show the slightest concern for facts, evidence, truth, or article improvement, but instead unleashed a puerile juvenile flame war for the sole purpose of preventing a significant problem in the article from being fixed, discussed, or even acknowledged. Anyway, as I've said all along, I'm really not too greatly impressed with an alleged so-called "featured article"[sic] which has a significant problem which is glaringly obvious to people in my area of expertise, but none of the authors of this alleged so-called "featured article"[sic] are willing to work together to fix the problem, and most of those who participate in the article talk page "discussion" are a whole lot more interested in beating up on me for raising the issue. It's interesting that you have no concern for HMallison's pattern of lunching a flood of immature childish insults and taunts, or with HMallison's pattern of following me around on Wikipedia for the purpose of stalking and harassing me, but instead your only concern is with me accurately describing HMallison's behaviors. Congratulations on having fully drunk the HMallison kool-aide 100%... AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So either you didn't know HMallison wrote the article, or you refuse to see that as evidence that he's interested in building an encyclopedia. The latter is implausible while the former is interesting. A tendency to jump the gun would certainly explain your difficulty in interacting with others. You might want to tone done the aggression and take a more circumspect and conciliatory approach in general, not just in this situation.

I get it: you don't like HMallison. It's clear he doesn't care much for you either. I strongly advise you to move on as you're not helping anyone. HMallison has also been advised to drop the matter. Nev1 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's nice if he does constructive things in other contexts, but in every aspect and phase in which I've encountered him, his role was purely negativistic and unconstructive, so I can only judge by personal experience. My goal was pretty much to move on and have nothing more to do with the Talk:Plateosaurus gang as soon as a person with an actual interest in fixing the problem (as opposed to beating up on me for raising the issue) happened along, and it then seemed like the issue was finally receiving some smidgeon of substantive discussion (instead of merely shooting the messenger) -- yet it's hard for me to fully move on as long as HMallison is following me around Wikipedia for the purpose of stalking and harassing me, and your pattern of tacitly encouraging HMallison by overlooking every instance of his misbehavior while complaining about my responses to his misbehavior really isn't helping to resolve anything. Since HMallison is the one doing the Wikistalking, you really need to tell him to "let it drop", if you actually want to help things... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I did, and since someone else has reiterated I don't see the need to repeat myself. Nev1 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nev1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of India Twenty20 International cricketers/archive1.
Message added 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added the "List of captains" as the idea looked good. Thanks :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I fixed the reference to Gounter's book in the Arundel article. I'm not very good at references, so it's really bare-bones, but at least the reader can jump to the book and page forward to the right place. Poihths (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being a part of the review process and help the article to attaining FL status. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Château de Chinon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annuity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)