User talk:Nev1/Archives/May–June 2009

Ælfheah of Canterbury

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your anti-vandalism efforts while poor Ælfheah of Canterbury was on the main page! May an obscure little Anglo-Saxon bishop and saint bless you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tesco

Discussion of this list moved to Talk:Tesco if you're interested. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

Not looking to tempt to fate, but I'm beginning to believe it's not impossible we might make it this time. Three or four supports, no opposes, and no outstanding issues, will hopefully see us over the line. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So far so good, I'm tentatively optimistic. If nothing else, it's gone better than any of the previous FACs. Fingers crossed. Nev1 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

At last! The job's done, Sale's just been promoted to FA. Full marks for perseverance. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We got it eventually! It's good to be finally able to say this one is done. Nev1 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

People from....

Please have a look at this. I'm sure this must have cropped up in the past and a consensus reached but I don't know have to find out. Have you any idea? The title of the category is ambiguous anyway; should we not have "People born in..." and "Residents of..."? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, "people from", never a particularly easy issue to deal with. Once you get past notability (ie: the people in such lists should satisfy wikipedia's notability criteria, whether or not the have their own article) you have to decide what "from" means. I don't remember there being any centralised discussion, but the subject has been raised a couple of times over at WT:GM; from the discussion, it emerged that "from" was used as it's deliberately ambiguous, it could mean born, raised, or lived somewhere. I don't like it myself as it's so uncertain, but the thinking is it casts the net wide for things like lists of notable people from xxx, and that from about 1948 most people were born in hospital so "born in" categories are a fallacy.

In the case of Williamson, I'd say he was from Liverpool. He spent most of his life there and had a massive impact on the area so the link is clearly there. It's not easy to say when living somewhere makes you from that place, for example footballers may own a house in Alderley Edge and live there for a couple of years, but I wouldn't really say they come from there. The way I see it, if asked where he comes from, Williamson would have said Liverpool. The conclusion of the discussion at WT:GM was that it comes down to individual judgement, which will never satisfy everyone, but it's the best we could come up with. Nev1 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry about the delay in replying; I've been away. It's very helpful and I have reinstated the cat, with which I agree. I guess we'll have to live with the ambiguity and deal with each case as it arises. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hume

Hi Nevi,

I'm not blocking this article, it is currently sitting at WP:GAN awaiting a reviewer. I've just removed my name as the reviewer from GAN page, but what I don't know how to do (can't do) is change the status of the talkpage from "reviewer has accepted" to 'no reviewer'.

I probably could complete the review to day. What concerns me is the abusive comments flying around at this stage before I've made any 'judgement'. I suspect that even a fairly innocent comment, like, 'web link is broken' will start world war three. Since you have asked, I will continue the review, but I'm not garanteeing to finish it.Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Well we might get it finished today, so that only leaves Swine fever as the major threat to worry about.Pyrotec (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Barnstar, they are quite rare, having reviewed 94 GANs I can still count the Barnstars on the figures of one (or two?) hand(s). Well you were right World War III did no start; and I hope the article goes well at FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

Yes, delete my userpage please. I'm not entirely sure what that user was up to with weird blanket pastings of the welcome notice. Very odd, but deletion would be appreciated! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

List of national capitals

I thought it was pretty obvious. That page is for political capital cities. Belfast, Cardiff, and Edinburgh do not fit that criterion. Or, rather, they fit that criterion less well than Mumbai, Murcia, and Munich, which are similarly not included. Please consider List of state capitals. Bastin 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Local history

Thought you might be interested in this Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That should be worth checking out, local societies are usually very friendly. I've met South Trafford Archaeological Group and they were very welcoming and enthusiastic about local history. Nev1 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your really helpful assistance with Cheadle Hulme. It is very much appreciated. You give the GM project a good name. Best wishes, Majorly talk 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The next step is FA, which I've never done before. I'd appreciate it if you could put some advice on the talk page as to what to do next with it. Thanks, Majorly talk 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over the next few days, it would be great to see Cheadle Hulme become a Featured Article. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nesletter delivery

Just FYI it's probably a good idea to give a proper timestamp'd sig on newsletter deliveries, this way bots will properly archive them. –xeno ^talk 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I hadn't realised that was the case so next time I'll remember to add a signature. It never occurred to me as I archive my talk page by hand so don't have to worry about Mizabot. Nev1 (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady Olive Baillie or Olive, Lady Baillie

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. While I regret the incorrect move (you were right to revert), I am a little surprised that you were unable to find any references for the lady using her maiden name or the name of her father. If you feel the explanation is satisfactory, please move the article to the correct title. I think I'm rather out of practice in moving articles. wikibiohistory (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused you any grief over this article. Having visited Leeds Castle I thought that its last occupant deserved an article. The title was mine; I (obviously) know nothing about the titles of the aristocracy - I just used the title of the only biography in existence. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mamucium

Hi Nev, The quote from Whitaker is long but it is a complete description of the fort as it was in the eighteenth century which I thought was interesting as most of it disappeared in the nineteenth century. I'm off to bed now as it's getting rather late but I'll have a look at shortening it tomorrow. If you want to have a go at it in the meantime feel free. Richerman (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote's a good find and I've not read it thoroughly, but I was thinking that parts of it could be moved to the "layout" section. I'll hopefully have time to take a closer look tomorrow. Nev1 (talk)

John Douglas (architect)

I have written a big expansion of this article and hope it is now worthy of being a GA. I am thinking of submitting it as a GAC in a couple of weeks after I take a break. Malleus F has done a little copyediting and I should be grateful for any comments you may like to make and suggestions for improvements. Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just returned from a family holiday in the Lakes and now trying to catch up with all the domestic jobs. I had hoped that my two nominations for DYK would succeed (they did), but was very surprised to receive any credit for Chichester Castle. This was started as a stub a long time ago when I was in my early days of learning how to do things on WP; I had forgotten about it and did not expect to be involved with it again!

Thanks for your helpful input into John Douglas (architect). I have responded to your comments on Talk:John Douglas (architect) and will probably submit it as a GAC in the next few days when I have time to deal with the review. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mellor hill fort

On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mellor hill fort, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When you get a moment...

Could you look at this please? Thanks, Majorly talk 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chichester Castle

On May 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chichester Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cromford Canal

None whatsoever, sorry. What is it you need to know? Charles Hadfield is about the best canal author. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondered....

.... if you were thinking a certain somebody might be suitable for co-nominating for WP:RFA? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of a few people I'd like to see given admin tools, but unfortunately my head's full of Derbyshire-related topics (something I'm not used to) so I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out to me. Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a certain parrot was who I had in mind. His skill-set far outstrips mine, and he has a perfect temperament and been through enough processes to have proved himself experienced and competant. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for your suggestion at T:DYK the other day, and since you seem to be experienced with FA's (obviously(, could you try to review 1968 Illinois earthquake? ceranthor 02:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a close look at the article later today. First impression: it looks well laid out, but may be a little short. I've got no problems with short articles becoming FAs (I successfully nominated Nico Ditch which is shorter, and unsuccessfully Buckton Castle), but trends at FAC change and reviewers may not like it. As long as it's comprehensive though, I've got no problem with it being short. Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, all fine with me, if reviewers disagree that it is an FA, so be it. Could you name some of the "conflicting figures" so I can sort them out? ceranthor 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've looked through my sources and can find no sources for the building standards of the time, I'll check by Google, but I doubt there's anything reliable. There was no legislation after the earthquake-it just wasn't threatening enough to force concern. ceranthor 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The figures conflict is done. I'm still not sure about legislation. ceranthor 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I've struck off the comment about conflicting figures and don't consider the legislation to big an issue. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also finished the response concern (in the lead). ceranthor 12:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ex Terra Lucem

It is a general speaking point in St.Helens that they have 'got it wrong' with the 'Ex Terra Lucem' translation. Look in any Latin literature or go on any Latin / English translator and you will find that Ex Terra Lucem does NOT translate to 'Out of the Earth comes Light'. Why not show a translator as verification, rather than an article on what a local authority calls it's new statue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, what does it matter? Many people THINK it does, they are to be humoured by those who know different.

Regards, JemmyH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Slough Trading Estate and Trafford Park

Remember this one? I've finally got The History of Slough out of the shed. And it doesn't make the claims I thought it did. So just amended Slough and will go on to the History of Slough, Slough Trading Estate and Slough Estates (now renamed) as necessary.

Cheers Grblundell (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. It wasn't a big issue as there are probably a few places that claim to be the world's first trading estate using slightly different criteria. Nev1 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Farleigh Hungerford Castle

Thanks for the comments & ce. - I not ready for DYK yet - hopefully later today. Which image do you suggest?— Rod ^talk 12:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was nominating it as you typed - with the image you suggested. There is already a cat on Commons for Farleigh Hungerford Castle which I've added the new images to.— Rod ^talk 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at DYK - but can I ask a silly question, how do you get access to patent rolls?— Rod ^talk 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme railway station

Hi Nev; I'll take a look now and watch out for the GAN comments when it is reviewed. A quick look reveals no obvious problems or omissions, to my mind anyway, but I'll give it a proper going-over. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Derwent Valley Mills

On June 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Derwent Valley Mills, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Update?

I think I've resolved all the resolvable issues you raised... have I completed all of them? ceranthor 01:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there was one outstanding comment along the lines of why were buildings 30–50 years old the worst effective, but it's not major and I change to support. With four supports, one comment, and no opposes hopefully it'll make it as a Featured Article :-) Nev1 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Maiden Castle, Dorset

On June 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maiden Castle, Dorset, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

UK monastic house lists

Well done for all your work on the lists List of monastic houses in Somerset etc. The symbols next to each name are supposed to link to a key or something - do you know where the original of these are?— Rod ^talk 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh bugger! I'd forgotten about that. The key's in List of abbeys and priories in England. Nev1 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added relevant bits to Somerset list but it needs tidying - if you create a standard one please replace the "lede" & key on Somerset.— Rod ^talk 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll tag the list for their county projects where appropriate and then set about adding the key from list of abbeys and priories in England. Nev1 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes made by removing the templates and creating separate county lists has effectively destroyed the integrity and totally undermined any usefulness of the List of abbeys and priories in England page. As it is the page might as well be deleted. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit extreme, it has merit in serving as a directory. If you objected, you should have raised the issue when the debate about moving the templates was raised [1]. The information certainly didn't belong in template space. What do you suggest should be done? I think now it's been broken down into individual lists it's much more managable and now the individual county projects may take an interest in improving the lists. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit difficult because, although the page is on my watchlist, this is the first I have heard of these discussions. As it is, I am somewhat astonished at the effective destruction and I am not really inspired to make any further contribution to the articles or post any further photographs. --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to throw your toys out of the pram because you don't like what's happened. Everything can be undone on wikipedia. Do you have any constructive comments? If you want, the debate can be reopened, perhaps on WT:UKGEO or WT:ARCH where a wide range of opinions can be introduced Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so much throwing my toys, it is dispiritedness. I was working on a standard format for similar pages of the British Isles - but it appears standard format is something which Wikipedia doesn't do - everyone has their own format for the lists they do. It is fruitless. --JohnArmagh (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "standard format is something which Wikipedia doesn't do" just isn't true, take a look at any FA, they have to be consistent within the article and often follow a similar pattern to similar FAs. As I said, I'd be happy to reopen the debate, we only got a few people taking part in the discussion the first time round and it might be a good idea to get a wide range of opinions. No one in the debate was aware of the other lists. The biggest problem was that the English lists were in template space; they were up for deletion and a solution was provided, without it the list would be in an even worse state and possibly would have been deleted. My own opinion is that the England list was too long and difficult to navigate; splitting it up makes it easier for readers to find the information they want and they can always look at the other lists if they're interested. At the time, I had been thinking about creating list of monastic houses in Cheshire as there seemed to be a very obvious gap in the enclopedia, then the deletion debate came up.

So do you want the debate reopened? Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience such debates are only conducted by a limited number of contributors, so there is only a very limited input from the Wikipedia community - not by any means an objective measure of opinion. Anyone who had anything to say has said it. What I have to say would be unlikely to sway things at all.

If it were a question of the new page being a directory, it is really just a directory of counties with links - it is no longer what is described in the preamble at the top of the page.

I am basing my judgement on the lack of standardisation on a cursory glance of lists of heads of state etc. which, although I have tried to implement some kind of format, these have often been changed in a very ad hoc fashion, according to who contributed subsequently. The resulting variation of formats is nothing short of a mess, unbecoming of a work with the aspirations of Wikipedia.

If the former templates were not suitable then a return to the earlier list format without the templates would be a preferable option. The new county-oriented lists would still have their independent relevance - but this would mean duplication of data between the England list and the county lists. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's probably a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing (or perhaps that it even exists). The debate was lumped in with a load opened that day, and I wouldn't have known about it had it not been the Cheshire template that was proposed for deletion. I'm sure we could get more comments if taken to the talk page of a project such as UK Geography or Architecture. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicating the content would be frowned upon, and the county articles would be delted as a content fork or the England article stripped down to what it is now so that would be back to square one. If consensus is in favour, I would not be averse to integrating the lists back into the England article (leaving behind redirects to the appropriate section in the article). I can think of probably at least two people who've noticed the new lists and might want a say in their fate, and there are probably other people who would comment if the debate was put in a high traffic place. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I am just anxious for consistency and accessibility of information. Naturally those with an interest in counties, especially the particular county of interest to them, will have a different expectation from those interested in monastic establishments per se. If there were a way of having the county pages actually displaying within the 'England' article (which is what the templates were implemented to do - showing all the England-relevant information without it being contained in a single large page) then this would serve the purpose without duplication. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be done quite simply: instead of linking to the page thus [[list of monastic houses in Cheshire]] this {{list of monastic houses in Cheshire}} would transclude all the information onto the page while keeping it in the original article, essentially making it a template but without the inconvenience of being in template space where it might come under scrutiny. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an attractive solution however... each of the county articles need to include a lede saying what it is about & a key for the symbols to make sense - would these then appear multiple times in the 'England' article?— Rod ^talk 09:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok - this is sounding good - apart from the duplication of the key - even if the key was set as a template, that would still be repeated for each transclusion - and I'm not currently aware of any way round it - short of a nifty bit of programming to suppress repeated transclusions. --JohnArmagh (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have a solution (totally untested as yet) - I've been playing with List of monastic houses in Somerset (all changes can be reverted if you think this version is better). If you use notes grouped into a 2nd set of refs you can loose the key (if the same refname is used in all counties I'm hoping it will only show up once on the England one) and write the abbreviations in full (good practice anyway), I'm hoping that include or noinclude tags will enable just the table (without the lede etc) to be transcluded into the England article & still pick up the notes & references - more work & testing later, but any thoughts on this welcome.— Rod ^talk 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at List of abbeys and priories in England with Somerset transcluded in. Changes on one article show up on the other & I've got just the table to display with notes & refs after all entries so it works for one. Next test would be to do another county using the same noteref labels & see if these work. Perhaps we should transfer this to the talk page so that others can comment & we have used up enough of Nev1's talk page getting this far?— Rod ^talk 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - I've copied the discussion to the article's talk page, and added a response. --JohnArmagh (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Left a note for you

Hi there — I've left a reply for you on User talk:Dweller, which originally appeared on the talk page of the now-deleted article. This was information which I was initially unaware, though now I will make sure to note it in future. Bobo. 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire

Hi Nev1, thank's for pointing out the blunder with the banner - Wikipedia images don't load in my browser.
On a serious note, as a UK geog expert, do you have a quick answer to this question?
I'm currently reviewing all Worcestershire related articles for the Worcestershire project. One of the immediate tasks is to establish what exactly the current Wiki policy is for creating stubs for every place that has a name whether notable or not. Many will never be more than one line. Some editors keep creating more stubs, others mark them for deletion. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jenuk1985 and I have commented on the project talk page. As Jenuk points out, villages, towns, civil parishes etc are all notable, but for some villages there is very little to say and so they will probably be permanently stubs. In this case, it's safe to change the article to a redirect, say to the civil parish it's in and move the important information there. For areas of towns and housing estates, there doesn't seem to be a general policy (perhaps something UKGeo should address), but unless there is a significant amount of sources for areas of towns I'd redirect them to the main article on the town. I've seen articles on individual streets that have not notability whatsoever and were speedily deleted and 99 times out of 100 that would be the case, but some such as Wilmslow Road are covered in third party reliable sources and so there's a case for inclusion. It's not black and white unfortunately. Nev1 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nev1 for your input on the Worcs product talk page. Please don't consider it butting in - every ounce of help we can get is highly appreciated. There appears to be a (sort of) ruling on the size of settlements to make pages for at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. With your help and following links I found this:

Writing about the smallest of settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material, especially when compared with the country's major metropolises. Some of the UK's smallest settlements may form part of a civil parish or council ward. Country hamlets and villages may mention significant places that might not be considered part of the village, but which lie within the parish or ward. Hamlets that are within another parish or council ward could have their own articles, but if there is no more than a couple of paragraphs that could be said about the hamlet it may be best practice to merge the articles.

--Kudpung (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect)

This article has been nominated as a FA here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. I generally agree with the aims of the association but I'm not sure if this is the best way to achieve them. Perhaps the best way to champion the concerns of content editors is to change the system from within rather than attempt to change it from the outside and form camps. Then again, I prefer Fabianism to revolution. I hope some real reform is achieved though, whatever the outcome of your proposal. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What would work, in your view? If there is something wrong, then how would it be fixed?Peter Damian (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on Malleus' talk page, if it gets too long I'd be happy to move the conversation here. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Derwent Valley Mills

Hi, you've done some excellent work on this site. If I knew how to award Barnstars I would ...... Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) It's been a tough and challenging article to write, but interesting. I vaguely knew that some mill owners were paternalistic and cared for their workers, but I didn't realise it went to the extent of building communities for them. The Derwent Valley Mills was where it all started, but Saltaire in Yorkshire is an even better case. It's obviously a very important subject and deserved much better than stubby article I found at the start of May. I was lucky enough to get my hands on the WHS application document and thought I may as well have a go. Nev1 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:MERSEY

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

Cleanup listing

Thanks for the suggestion Nev. I've checked it out and it might come in handy later. At the moment however, the Worcs project is comprised mainly of stubs that neither have a project template on their talk page, nor tags on the articles. All this has to be done manually first - as I see it, which is not a bad idea as it enables me to isolate any really embarrassing stuff or vandalism. Anyway, I'm about halfway through already. Thanks for your continued support.--Kudpung (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cunard Building

Hey Nev, I've been working hard on the Cunard Building article over the last few days/weeks and I just wondered whether you thought its is good enough to go for GA. Its not the biggest article, but then it never was going to be. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few small changes (mostly cosmetic and a little copy editing) and only have got a few minor comments about what I think is a very good article:

• I think ship names after the "RMS" should be italicised, ie: RMS Queen Mary. After a very superficial search, I couldn't find the bit of MOS that states this should be done, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Featured articles has all the ship names in italics and is probably what should be aimed for.
• It would be worth mentioning in the history section when the building was listed. The information will be in the Images of England link that's already used in the article.
• An access date needs to be added after the template used for the Images of England website (I don't think it's one of the template's functions).
• When you say "Despite the strong Italian influence, the architects chose to introduce Greek style" I'm not sure if "despite" is the right word. Renaissance architecture was influenced by classical Greek and Roman designs, and the Romans were influenced by the Greeks (for example the front of the Pantheon, Rome, looks like a Greek temple such as the Parthenon). It seems to me like for the two to be used in the same building isn't a great leap, but I don't know enough about architecture. This shouldn't affect any Good Article nomination (I'd be surprised if it came up), but may be scrutinised if taken further to FAC.

I think if you nominated this over at WP:GAN now, you'd probably pass without too much trouble. If you wanted to take it further, you'd probably need to add pages numbers to the Quentin Hughes book (at FAC they like specific references; take a look at Sale, Greater Manchester#References for an example) and while the prose is generally good there are a couple of long sentences which could be split for readability. When attempting GA, I don't think either of these will be a problem, and if you decide to put it forwards at WP:GAN I wish you the best of luck. I've added the article to my watchlist in case I can help. Nev1 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't see this article's length as a problem, it clearly deals with the topic broadly enough and seems to say all the important things. There are shorter articles that are Featured Articles but they say pretty much everything it's possible to say about the subject so it's ok. Nev1 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice mate. I'll look into making those changes as soon as possible. I'll nom it for GA today anyway as I think there's plenty of time to work on it before its reviewed. From what I can see there seems to be a bit of a backlog of articles. --Daviessimo (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on featured topic

I see Towns in Trafford is now a featured topic. I'm still trying to work out what the benefit of FTs is but I think Trafford sets a useful precedent which one day I might be able to emulate.— Rod ^talk 11:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done - one up on the Cheshire project! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a satisfying testament to a lot of work by a lot of people. Like Rodw, I'm not quite sure what the benefits of undergoing a FT review is (other content reviews are undoubtedly helpful regardless of the outcome) as it's the link between the articles rather than the actual articles themselves that are scrutinised. I had expected the reviewers to try to enforce some sort of consistency within a topic, such as FAC does within articles, but recognition that it's a good group of articles is very nice. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

An awesome achievement. I'm also going to try and push for something for the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham - so much so, that I think that will be my next project for GA/FA. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Made a start! Trafford and Tameside seem to flow so well. Was wondering if you could give Oldham a whirl over the weekend to give it the same sort of feel? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to do it today, but I'll have a go ASAP. Nev1 (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Tables and mathematics have never been my strong point on WP or real life. How you put them together is still a mystery....... another tiny, small, much appreciated favour would be doing something simillar (council makeup, wards, population change and demography comparison) for the City of Carlisle. I'm borrowing heavily again from City of Salford. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'll address the City of Carlisle first as it's most in need of attention. At the moment, it's in a poor shape, but if could be developed so that it's obviously very different from Carlisle, Cumbria, and be more like City of Salford I don't think we'd have to worry about the two being merged. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic

Congrats on the featured topic! I'm thinking of working on one myself. I was wondering, do you think "Towns in Cheadle and Gatley" would work? Cheadle and Gatley doesn't exist anymore, but the towns that it contained still do (namely Cheadle, Gatley, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and possibly Adswood as well, though I hope not as that would be hard to work on). All the best, Majorly talk 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be up to you, but as wikipedia's policy is to work with modern administrative borders I'd be more comfortable with "Towns in Stockport". Doing the whole borough would mean that the borough article and Stockport town would have to become at least Good Articles which would be a lot of work but certainly worthwhile. I don't know if someone would oppose a topic on "Towns in Cheadle and Gatley" per WP:PLACE, but presume all the towns in it would have to been improved to at least GA for a borough FT anyway so one option would be to use your suggestion as a springboard onto the wider topic I suggested. FTs can be added to and changed although they have to go through the review process again. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that is a good idea. I thought towns in Stockport would be fairly difficult you see, but I like the idea of a "springboard". Why would the borough article need to be a GA though? It's not a town in Stockport - or does the "link" article need to be good too? Majorly talk 13:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, its not stated explicitly but it's implicit. From the FT criteria all the articles in the topic need to be at least Good and (for Featured rather than Good Topics) at least one third of the articles have to be Featured. I used Trafford as the summary article for the FT as it fitted the bill best. If you want to made Cheadle & Gatley a FT, Cheadle and Gatley Urban District will have to be at least GA too. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Links to Salford

Thanks for the message. I haven't ignored you, I've been offline for a week or so. I see there's only half a dozen links left, so I guess the job's done? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Dorset

Pity the aerial shot is copyrighted. Are there no pre-1922 illustrations of the castle? They could be hosted on Wikipedia at the least (PD-US ignoring the copyrights in UK...). Jappalang (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent article which fully deserves to be a FA. Before I offer a "support", a couple of queries (which I feel are more appropriate here than on the FAC page).

• Mai-Dun by John Ireland: I presume that Mai-Dun is an alternative name for Maiden Castle, but I cannot find this in the article. Is it worth adding this somewhere? If you want confirmation (in an authoritative musical context) with a reference, there's one here.
• The meaning of Maiden Castle. The disambig page states (without any reference) it is "a fort or castle that has (or is reputed to have) never been taken in war". Is it? If not, the disambig page needs attention.

Incidentally, when you have time and reference material, it would be good to separate Maiden Castle (Cheshire) from Bickerton Hill.

Good luck with the FAC process. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Mai-Dun wasn't one of the alternative names listed by Mills in The Place-names of Dorset, so I assume Ireland just made it up. Damn inconvenient of him. I've also tweaked the meaning of Maiden Castle as Mills thinks it does mean both, although appearing to look impregnable is more applicable to the hill fort in Dorset. And I've added a source to the disambig page.

Giving Maiden Castle, Cheshire, its own article is on my (notional) to do list and I do hope to get round to it sooner rather than later, but I've stretched my self rather thin at the moment and have a few things to do such as help out at WP:MERSEY before I take on any more tasks. I do have the Forde-Johnston article I used for Kelsborrow Castle and as it covers all the hill forts in Cheshire it's the best (and apart from the website you gave me a link to, for some of the sites the only) source available. I also want to get Lindow Man and Deva Victrix up to FA eventually, but not today.... Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers on all your activities; I guess, like you, the more you do on WP, the more there seems to be to do. In respect of Mai-Dun, I don't think Ireland made it up; how about this, this, this, and this (for a start). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never trusted TheModernAntiquarian.com because of this awful entry on Buckton Castle, and I'm not sure about abdn.ac.uk, but Victorianweb.org looks interesting. With the name broken down into two parts I was reminded of Bowdon, Greater Manchester, where the similar sounding -don derives from the Celtic for hill.^{[citation needed]} After looking for something other than Victorianweb which although interesting doesn't explain it, I found this which claims that Maiden is derived from the Celtic mai-dun meaning a great hill. It sounds plausible, but it's a tertiary source and some of the sources I've come across have had some terrible inaccuracies (I found one book on the Celts which referenced Sharples and flat out stated that Vespasian had besieged the site even though Sharples himself was non-committal). I'll keep looking, but unless there's someone as authoritative as Mills who was looking explicitly at names and their derivation I'm not sure if it's worth adding. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this source might be what I'm looking for. The Proceedings - Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, although it's from 1922 which is a concern as it may be considered out of date. I can't actually see that but in google's "snippet view", but a google search of the book produced "But the approved derivation of the Dorchester specimen is from British mai dun, great hill, the hill of the citadel or burgh. See Hutchins, History of ..." I just wish I knew what book Hutchins wrote so I could tell if it was a good source for the society to be using. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. I'll add the alternative derivation to the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar may be an American, many of whom appear to struggle with metric measurements, unlike us Brits who quite happily live with both metric and imperial side by side. :-) To be serious though, I never had much idea of how big an acre is, although I can visualise a hectare. What about giving the areas in square metres instead of hectares? I think that's all Xandar's asking for. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the comment about whether John Ireland's work is based on this Maiden Castle. The reference I gave above says it does - and you don't get much more authoritative on musical matters than Michael Kennedy. Cheers - they're giving you a lot of work to do! You're doing it well. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. Malleus, I've scrapped hectares/acres and gone for the more user friendly square metres/square feet so hopefully that will be enough. Peter, you've got perfect timing as I was just about to start looking for a reference for Ireland :-) The FAC's not been too tough, I've seen worse, but it has still been testing and as always with this process I'm happy that regardless of the outcome the article will be the better for it. Nev1 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re elevations: I don't know if you are familiar with Earthtools. This can give you the elevation of any spot above sea level. So it would be possible by moving the map around under the central cross to calculate the difference in height between the village and the hill fort, etc. But how that can be cited, I'm not so sure. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was able to find something in the second Sharples book. Nev1 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I've added more Flickr and Geograph images into Commons, if any of these are of any use. Seth Whales (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, there are a few good ones there that I think can replace some of the current pics in the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the image in the section First hill fort the same as in the Developed hill fort section? Seth Whales (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Woops, thanks for pointing that out; I really should have noticed as the shots are almost exactly the same angle! This makes me realise that an image for the first hill fort will be very difficulty as it's been built over. I'll just have to wait until 2010 when some images from the excavations in the 1930s before free to use. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

City of Lancaster

Just a nudge that I've made a start on this page. Could be up to C class in the next few days if we apply a bit of the Carlisle spirit to it. :) Some fantastic images at Flickr (I have a panorama that shows Lancaster, Morcambe Bay and some farmland - so the entire city's landuse!) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff, I'll get started on the stats. Keep your eyes peeled for something worth taking to DYK as expanding this five fold could be done without breaking a sweat. You might be interested to know that I've got half an eye towards taking Ashton-under-Lyne to FAC. I'm expanding the transport section, then I'll see what I can add to the education and maybe public services. I might move the notable people section to list of people form Tameside. WP:GM did a good job getting it to GA standard (closer to A-class IMO as it's well developed) and I think those are the main content issues and the rest should be copy editing. Nev1 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've been contemplating taking Chadderton through FAC too. But I really wanted to get Oldham (borough) through GA also - decisions, decisions. Carlisle and Lancaster have taken off, whilst I also want to sort out the structure of the rest of England's dual- settlement/cities on WP. So much to do. But Ashton is a certain A-class for me, and worth taking to FAC very soon (it's certainly as good as something like Shaw and Crompton or Stretford for me). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I've been copied too!

From Pendle witch trials:

The Pendle witch trials of 1612 are among the most famous witch trials in English history, and some of the best recorded of the 17th century. The twelve accused lived in the area around Pendle Hill in Lancashire, and were charged with the murders of ten people by the use of witchcraft. All but two were tried at Lancaster Assizes 17–19 August 1612 along with the Samlesbury witches and others, in what became known as the Lancashire witch trials. One was tried at York Assizes on 27 July 1612, and another died in prison. Of the eleven individuals who went to trial – nine women and two men – ten were found guilty and executed by hanging and one was found not guilty.

From Amazon.com:[2]

The Pendle witch trials of 1612 are among the most famous witch trials in English history, and some of the best recorded of the 17th century. The twelve accused lived in the area around Pendle Hill in Lancashire, and were charged with the murders of ten people by the use of witchcraft. All but two were tried at Lancaster Assizes 17–19 August 1612 along with the Samlesbury witches and others, in what became known as the Lancashire witch trials. One was tried at York Assizes on 27 July 1612, and another died in prison. Of the eleven Pendle witches who went to trial – nine were women and two were men.

... or did I copy the whole thing from Amazon? Confused I am. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite unnerving when you unexpectedly come across such familiar text. I suppose it's just easier to copy from the world's biggest free encyclopedia than to paraphrase. Still lazy though. I hope people only copy from GAs or FAs, but I'd be deluded if I believed that. I notice that the Ainsworth article doesn't mention his novel about the trials. More importantly, I'm jealous; I'll swap your Amazon for my Daily Mail any day ;-) Nev1 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth, and especially his Lancashire Witches' novel, has been on my to-do list for ages, but I can hear the Samlesbury witches calling. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for City of Carlisle

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article City of Carlisle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Cemetery, Manchester

I'm beginning to get a bit concerned about the recent changes being made to this article, and I'm probably getting close to a 3RR violation anyway. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, some of the information added to the article sounds plausible, but I have removed it per WP:V. Also, the information about the murdered family probably wasn't apropriate. From what little I know about cemeteries (all learnt on a dull trip round a cemetery one a grey, rainy day with someone far too interested in gravestones when I would have given anything to be anywhere else) cemeteries are divided into separate areas for different denominations, so different nationalities wouldn't be too much of a leap from there. However, I think that without a source it doesn't belong in the article. Stuff like the plot numbers also seems like original research. I've reverted the changes and left a note on the IP's talk page asking for references. Nev1 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Cemetery, Manchester

i tried to add some references for the details of grave numbers etc..... i got this information from the Manchester City Council website for grave searches / burial records..... it isn't possible to cite a reference for each individual grave record due to the nature of the website..... the website used was http://www.burialrecords.manchester.gov.uk/

all of the other information i gave was from my personal experience of using the cemetery as a funeral director in Manchester...... i don't believe this information is recorded anywhere in the public domain, but is based on my day-to-day use of the facility and can be observed by anyone going into the cemetery as a visitor or client —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asclepius87 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

and some of the changes i made were just intended to make things a bit neater and clearer..... i.e. the notable burials section..... it was a bit of a jumbled mess before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asclepius87 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be possible to reference it: when you click on this link does it take you to a record or the search engine? It might be possible to use the website as a source in the article. As for the other information, I'd be content to take your word for it, however Wikipedia has strict rules on sourcing. While they are not always enforced, this is because we have 3,000,000 articles rather than it not being important. There is also a policy that original research is not allowed because it cannot be guaranteed where the information came from. That is why third party published sources are encouraged as they should have undergone some editorial oversight or peer review process. While it will probably be impossible to find a published source for something such as there being over 40 burial per week in busy periods, it may be possible to find a source for different areas being used for different denominations etc. Bereavement and commemoration: an archaeology of mortality by Sarah Tarlow may give some background on the use of space in cemeteries. While it's doubtful it would mention Southern Cemetery, it could be used to construct a background section for the article. I'll attempt to get my hands on the book in the next few days, but I can't guarantee anything. Nev1 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that so far I've been unable to get my hands on a copy to make a background section for the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever feel overwhelmed?

Do you ever feel overwhelmed by the scale of the task facing us here? I'm beginning to.

I'm just pootling along trying to add a bit of interesting trivia here and there, but almost every link I add to any article is really just a link to an embarrassment. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling only too well, writing list of castles in Cheshire I was disappointed at the number of redlinks. And I want to sort out the articles on Cheshire's hill forts. And that's just the ones of the top of my head. Samlesbury Hall isn't even the worst, at least it's not a stub. I had noticed it ages ago and thought about having a go at it. But hey, I can only concentrate properly on one article at a time. Eventually I'll get round to tackling Roman Britain, the British Iron Age, castle, Hale, Maiden Castle, Cheshire, Liverpool, Richard Arkwright, Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City,Stone Henge, Avebury... Hmm, yeah, just a bit overwhelming :S Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I share these sentiments! I have so many targets at the moment I feel lost. I stumbled upon this juicy and terminal project the other day which has prompted me to tackle some long-standing bad practice in this area. But I don't want WP:GM, the jewel in the crown, to be overlooked (our rate of GAs and FAs slowed a little lately). However, some issues, like English people (which I'm drafting a revamp at User:Jza84/Sandbox5) to me just seem too important - like nationally important!

Is it me or are we not seeing much new (legitimate) recruitment to WP:GM or Wikipedia as a whole? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's an endless number of interesting articles out there, and working on one interesting subject throws up a whole new set of articles that need improving. For instance, I had no idea so many of the UK's World Heritage Sites have poor articles.

While you were away, Jza, there was a dip in the number of GAs and FAs WP:GM produced but it has picked up recently. With articles like Gropecunt Land, Parrot of Doom has broadened his horizons, and wikipedia's gain is GM's loss; although I don't think he'll abandon us completely! I too have been working on "foreign" subjects, even southern ones! For a while my GM sources have been mostly drained, but I've got my hands on the Tameside books again so it should be possible to develop articles such as Dukinfield.

I have noticed that fewer people have been joining WP:GM, but I'm not sure if this is a wikipedia-wide trend. There have been mutterings on WT:RfA that the number of editors on wikipedia is dropping, but I've not seen any stats to back this up. What is concerning is that enthusiastic editors such as Sitush (talk · contribs) and Chaosdruid (talk · contribs) don't appear to be sticking around. Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I'd like to think that WP:GM is a victim of its own success: with many of our most prominent articles of a good standard, perhaps improving GM related articles doesn't seem so important to some people? Which reminds me, I really must get round to finishing off the Wigan article... Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that User:J3Mrs is enthusiastic enough about their subject to stick around. If they do, then, well, that opens up the possibility of a handful of articles being promoted during the summer: Tyldesley, Chadderton, Ashton-under-Lyne, Salford, Greater Manchester and Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. If User:Majorly is willing and able, we could also have Cheadle Hulme railway station and Stockport upto GA/FA by the end of the season. But I do feel that I see the same signatures on the same old talk pages, with little or few new (legitimate) usernames. I still think the loss of User:Joshii and User:DDStretch was a shame for us locally.

Not to worry, I'm confident that once I've worked on the leads of English people and Cornish people, and that I have City of Carlisle nailed (which I must propose as a standard for others to follow soon), I'll push for Chadderton and Oldham (borough) for FA and GA respectively. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope that J3Mrs does stick around. I was quite motivated to get the major Trafford articles done, but I'd have to admit that Salford is the only other borough I can muster much enthusiasm for. Perhaps I'll try tackling Irlam and Cadishead one day ... In general though I'm finding myself drawn more towards Manchester's social, political, and engineering history ... Jerome Caminada's been on my to-do list for ages, and when I look back on what I've helped to do here I'm still excessively proud of the job we did on the Peterloo Massacre ... and it's a disgrace really that Manchester Ship Canal isn't at least a GA ... so much to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here; I don't know how you keep so many balls in the air at the same time, particularly with the hard time they're giving you at FAC. Your principal critic also caused a problem with Chester Cathedral. No sooner was this accepted as a GA, but s/he virtually re-wrote it, not necessarily for the better. Hope you're coping OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do occasionally drop them, but I try to discretely pick them up and hope no one noticed ;-) As I've explained on the talk page, I don't think many of the suggestions are helpful. During the FAC I have wandered if I am being too defensive, but I feel that I have taken on-board the constructive criticism – and there have been some very good suggestions at the FAC – and the article has improved. It's not been a smooth ride, but I've seen worse. At the very least, things aren't boring at the moment on-wiki. Nev1 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there's any chance that we could get an article like this one through GAN? It was an important event in its day, the first killing of a Manchester police officer, and reported on by The Times. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject does deserve to be a GA so I think it's worth a try. From what I remember it's mostly referenced but may suffer from POV problems. What I think might help is a bit of information on the Fenians, their aims etc, in the background section. Apart from Kidd, who only touches on the subject very briefly, I don't think I have any sources but the Times online archive should be a good resource. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I fought pretty hard with some Irish pov-pushers to get it even where it is today, so I think I may give it a go. Good idea about adding some background on the Fenians. I'll take a look through the Times archive as well as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith

Good faith only extends so far. To suggest that all of Peter's motives are pure is ludicrous. A neutral evaluation of his contributions over the past weeks reveals troubling behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To suggest that they are all bad is even more ludicrous. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I never suggested applying "good faith" to everything. Some of the other things you mentioned do indeed go beyond the bounds of good faith, hence the ban presumably (I am not aware of the events that precipitated the action), but to lump everything in together is dishonest. The Established Editors Association received support from many quarters, and while it was Peter Damian's brain child, he was happy to other people mould it. He saw it as a step towards improving wikipedia and so did others who ended up supporting the scheme. In fact, I believe it managed to achieve the 20+ endorsements Peter Damian had hoped for before moving it from user space. And guess what, when it proved to be generating too much conflict he decided to mothball the idea, even though it had met his criteria for taking it further. That you decided to brand it as trolling represents a failure to be neutral. Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Peter's having mixed feelings with regard to Wikipedia (God knows I do from time to time). Personally, I didn't see the Established Editor's Association as an attempt to improve Wikipedia's content. It seemed to be more an attempt to rabble-rouse and create an "us versus them" scenario. The divide between content creators / writers and people who do more maintenance-y tasks is already self-evident. There's no good reason to go putting salt in wounds or trying to make the divide even greater. My personal opinion, obviously. Others' mileage seems to vary.

Back on point, though, he's now soliciting ideas regarding "How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed." (If we assume the "Peter Damian" there is the same "Peter Damian" here.) The previous ban was a drama-filled mess, as I recall. Peter returned under the pretense that he would be a productive (and drama-free) contributor. I find all of this recent behavior (on-wiki and elsewhere) pretty troubling. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the discussion at WT:RfA to see how it progresses, and I do find Peter's declaration of intent to destroy wikipedia concerning and is certainly not something I condone. However, Pastor Theo sums it up perfectly for me when he says that "Mr. Damian's plans to destroy Wikipedia in the same category as Pinky and the Brain's plans to take over the world: you could probably get a season or two of amusing comedy from the premise, but ultimately both Wikipedia and the world will remain intact". A single vote at RfA will not bring wikipedia to a shuddering (or even gradual) halt. There is nothing that can be done about his other suggestions. Vandalism? We need proof that he's vandalising or using sock puppets. Going to journalists? How on earth will a block prevent that. Paying people to edit? A waste of his money.

So far Peter's actions on-wiki have not merited a straight up block, although discussion is certainly warranted. Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well said. Really. :-) My original comment at AN/I was intended to start such a discussion. Apparently I chose the wrong forum or section or something. Bother. Thanks for the quick responses. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)