Jump to content

User talk:Nev1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MR.CRO95 (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 9 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is it ok...

Is it OK to copy large chunks from other Wikipedia articles, and replace the relevant parts as necessary? I'm referring to this section, which I have adapted and put here. The history and background of these villages are :::Good grief, and I thought mine was too long at 3,500! Nev1 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used AWB to generate a list from one of the root England categories, and ever since I've been removing articles I have no interest in! Throw in all the other articles I have (every road and bus related article) and its good fun! Jeni (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My watchlist has grown organically through articles I'm interested in and any articles I've edited, so there are probably large gaps and I know that Greater Manchester is pretty well covered! Using AWB to add a load of important articles is probably a good idea. I've got most of the major English towns and cities on my watchlist because they're high-profile but I use the individual project watchlists a fair bit (well, when I remember) to keep an eye on the low-traffic articles where vandalism can sometimes go missed for days. Nev1 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AfD all UK Motorway service Station

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

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

It's too late to prevent the AfD from becoming a time sink, but some well argued points by Iridescent and supporting arguments by Jeni should hopefully prevent this from getting too bad. The nominator probably could have saved us all some time and effort if they'd read the previous nomination properly, but perhaps something good can come out of this. Most of the articles certainly need expanding, and that would help stave off future nominations (despite a couple of GAs being lumped into the AfD). Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The world's going mad! GAs and FAs ought to be automatically exempt from this kind of nonsense anyway, as their notability has already been independently assessed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually like to see the article for those services on the M61 improved, as they are without doubt the biggest toilet on the planet. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a soft spot for sruffy old Knutsford, where I had many an early breakfast after a night out in Manchester. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you what, the next time I call in one of them I'll take the camera with me and get some snaps—but only if you promise to consider the vague notion that you may spend a few seconds quickly looking at a minuscule portion of the prose on this :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deal. Is it OK if I make changes in your sandbox? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm sick of it for today, I may start on The Division Bell later tonight though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GAs and FAs have been assessed for sourcing, isn't that somehow linked to notability? It seems ludicrous and self-defeating to nominate such articles for deletion based on their subjects not being notable enough. To be honest though, I'm surprised that the cricket articles weren't nominated for deletion earlier with people screaming "where will it all end". Maybe the AfD of the motorway services will lead to some articles being improved to prevent this farce from happening again. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on and off to improve these articles since I became a member, its a big job, especially since I seem to be doing it on my own. I would very much appreciate some help from others if you feel up to it! Strensham services was a result of my early attempts at cleanup. The sources are out there, often you need to dig very deep to find them, especially as a search for "<town> services" brings up loads of pages unrelated to the motorway service station itself. Jeni (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, just take a look at the GAN page to see how many entirely unremarkable roads appear on there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD has certainly motivated me to see what I can do with Knutsford services. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough line to draw I think, but certainly it's ludicrous to nominate GA/FAs for deletion. I wonder though how many of those Americans comparing the 1948 Australian cricketers to a team playing in the laughably named "World Series" know that a cricket tour consists of five five-day test matches? None? I do think though that cricket might be a special case, in that I wouldn't support a series of articles on the individual players in, say, England's 1966 World Cup squad; the difference for me is in the nature of the game, as well as its length, in that both teams never play together, it's just two representatives from on team against ... well, you know all that anyway. :-)
Just when I thought it was going to be a boring rational discussion, someone popped up to sensationalise things. "There's no line in the sand here" is a nice bit of hysteria, but a terrible argument. It is a difficult line to draw, but one of the mos famous cricket series and spin-off articles on Keith Miller is hardly opening the floodgates. Both are very well documented subjects. Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm sure this will get me taken to ANI, WQA, RFAR or whatever other bit of the alphabet soup is in vogue today, but I'm getting sorely tempted to just block him with "fuckwittery" as the reason, just to put a stop to this timesink. How much time has this idiocy wasted? – iridescent 17:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too much. Is it so hard to see that there are sources on these articles and more information that could be included? The nomination was based on generalisations of notability which have been pretty easily refuted. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to sound like a hypocrite, but I'm remembering my recent AFDs of primary schools, where those exact same arguments could be applied... I can vaguely see his point, and I'm not sure labelling him as a fuckwit, hypothetically or otherwise is appropriate. Majorly talk 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't nominate every primary school in the country—simultaneously—based on the fact that they had a similar name to something else that wasn't notable. The "fuckwit" doesn't refer to the nomination—everyone who's been round here any length of time has made at least one good-faith-misunderstanding AFD nomination which has been WP:SNOW-kept—but to the pig-headed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetition of the same few arguments ("no sources exist!", "Rest area#United Kingdom says there's no difference in Britain between a rest area and a service station!", "these articles are all identical!") after they've been repeatedly demonstrated to be false. – iridescent 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I can understand Raeky's arguments though I may disagree with them and think they've been sufficiently refuted, but confronting virtually every comment that disagrees with him and then insinuating there has been canvassing when the discussion appears to be going against him is not a smart move. The discussion about schools was at the back of my mind, but I think it was more nuanced. There were sources available, but notability wasn't established. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see you've come across an interesting thread that characterises this discussion as a deliberate attempt to de-rail the AfD. It's needless drama-mongering. I won't be posting a link here though as I don't want to be accused of trolling fishing. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I saw that it had been closed, my first thought was "pitty the poor admin that did that", but he definitely gets admin of the week award from me, common sense isn't something I see very often on Wikipedia, so its very refreshing to see it used. I'm concerned about Raeky though, he seemed to previously be a decent editor, but now he is coming across as someone who is going down the pan, which is a shame, whatever disagreements we may have people, seeing reactions like this is never good, and I always feel for the person involved.
User:Jeni/MSA_Progress is worth a look, I haven't updated it in a while though, it dates back when I was trying to get each one up to an acceptable standard with infoboxes/navboxes etc and shows the progress that I made. Jeni (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big task you've undertaken there Jeni. Can I ask you what it is that motivates you? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I have nothing better to do! I have recently been sidetracked working on UK village and bus related articles, alongside helping to maintain an external roads wiki, but I do occasionally dig back into the MSA articles. I do find it very off putting that there are so many of them, and only one of me.. but its worth a go! I got Strensham services to GA to prove a point. It had just been nominated for speedy, so I took it on, and won :)
I know exactly what you mean. I'm confident that any of those MSA article could be similarly saved from AfD had they been nominated individually, but the bulk nomination was, in my opinion, ... well I'll save you the full colour of my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A idea I think. Although looking through that page, I am left wondering where the original discussions were. Without proof of where each point was discussed, they are weak assertions (anyone could add something and then refer to it in later discussions). Time WP:V was introduced into project space! Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the AfD debate in the edit summary, and I presume dodgy assertions would get noticed and removed (or am I showing too much faith in the system?) Jeni (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to put too much faith in the system, but in this case it could equally be me failing to "assume good faith" :-) Nev1 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible to assume too much good faith ;-) Jeni (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom

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

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

Sorry I've not replied to this before, it's been a busy few days. I think you're right that the inclusion of the canal ought to be better explained, otherwise readers will wonder why the site is listed as Wales/England. I'm just downloading the PDF to see exactly what it says, but it could take a while. You make a good point about Liverpool, unfortunately I had been going just from UNESCO's brief description. I've changed it to "Its global connections helped sustain the British Empire and it was a major port, involved in the slave trade until its abolition in 1807 and a departure point for emigrants to American." How does that sound? Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry; I've noticed that you've been involved in a multiplicity of things recently! The re-wording is much better (I've done a bit of copyediting on it). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

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

Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. In fairness, it seems I did change the date of one of yours comments, although I don't recall doing so and it was a mistake. I'm not sure what you mean about "deleting your own comments" though as I haven't intentionally removed anything I've said. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was me seeing something that wasn't there in the diff, thus a mistake. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favour

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

I can't help I'm afraid as I'm not an admin on commons. Better tag it as a copyright violation with {{copyvio}}. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, fat lot of good you are! ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, not for the first time and it won't be the last! Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal details

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

They didn't mention Levenshulme, but did address WebHamster as Kurt. The edit hasn't been deleted or oversighted, just rolled back. I blocked the IP for similarities in editing with User:Yiwentang. There are plenty of details here.
I saw the sock puppet accusation mentioned on your talk page, but I'm not sure if the same person was responsible. Especially since there weren't any legal threats towards him or unsavoury accusations. It just accused him of being harsh on vandals. It's interesting that someone picked him out though. I can send you an e-mail of the accusations of sockpuppetry of you want (there's nothing there to worry about, just someone complaining that WebHamster was nasty to vandals and you backed him up). Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I don't live in Levenshulme anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The accusation of sockpuppetry didn't mention anything about Levenshulme or Kurt, so that's another reason to wonder if it was Yiwentang. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

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

I meant the IP's talk page :-) Majorly talk 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, will do. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcesteshire meeting?

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

Hidden Gem

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

I noticed you'd uploaded a new picture, and it certainly does it justice. You can tell why it's called "hidden". Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its an odd-looking thing to be sure, is that an extension on the right side? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the listed building description (by the way, the images of England picture looks rather sorry compared to yours!), I don't think it's part of the church, at least it doesn't appear to be part of the listed building. I'd guess that the church (the tower and the entrance on the left) is earlier as the brighter orange brick building looks like it butts up against it, although I can't be sure. Just an amateur opinion, for all I know it could be the priest's home :-) Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its certainly a different style of architecture. The colour difference might simply be cleaning. It almost looks to me as though the tower was built as an afterthought, and then the building on the right built up against it. There are a lot of hidden buildings around Manchester, if the weather stays good I'm going to cycle in each day and snap what I can find. I've already made some additions to Manchester, I'm sure there are more to be found. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That little thing today...

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

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've extended the block to a week for making personal attacks and prevented the user from editing his talk page. Honkey in this case is clearly used in a derogatory sense, I assume in the racist one. Also, his sock puppet account was blocked indefinitely by someone else earlier. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't that bothered by the honky comment really, but its out of order all the same. Its funny how apparently rational people can very quickly descend into..well, that kind of behaviour. No, what concerned me slightly was the 'I'll see to that later' comment. It isn't as though he can ever do permanent damage, but its still mildly irritating having to correct vandalism, especially on articles you've worked extremely hard on (like the PF one in my sandbox). Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. One option is revert, block, and ignore when he crops up. I could semi-protect your sandbox for the time being, but that's only one article. The alternative is going to WP:SPI and asking them to block the most common IP. Since there are only two accounts, I don't know how effective it will be, and if the IPs of the two accounts are too different, there might not be much that can be done. I can fill out a request at SPI if you think it worthwhile? Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll leave that up to you, but I'll keep my eyes open. Presumably he'll pop up whenever I try to do anything that requires a consensus (FAC for instance). At least now I know what it feels like to be Malleus :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the club mate :) --WebHamster 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When do I get my lacquered membership card :D BTW Hamster I know its a big ask but what do you think of this so far? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've got my own set (pack?) of socks messing about with my edits, do we get a badge or something? I'm not sure a check user is worth it right now, but at the first sign that you think this guy's returned let me know and I'll file a request at SPI. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while I don't disagree with the Dreaded Civility Block in this case, given the context of a discussion on speeding, I suspect he's using "honky" in the sense of "what you do with your car horn while shouting at cyclists and pedestrians to get out of the way", not in any racial sense. – iridescent 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel like I miss the blindingly obvious. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which would be ironic to say the least, considering I've been riding road bikes and mountain bikes for 20 years... My mountain bike is more valuable than my car! Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

Did you know problem

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

6jan2009

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

Agreed, I was moving towards the block button when I saw your message. Nev1 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One less vandal to show up on my watchlist :) Jeni (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

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

I like the pictures, but I'm not sure they'd look good at 180px but I think the photo of Flintoff getting rid of Siddle is a good choice and worth a try. I used the image of Lords as it's less effected by "recentism", but I certainly wouldn't object to an picture of an English victory! Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nev1&oldid=312846265"