Hello, Richard Nevell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, given the remark on your user page, you should have a look at WP:COI, to see how to avoid any problems because of your connection to this charity. Again, welcome and, as we say here: happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty, thanks for the welcome. As you've seen I've added the video in a couple of places, and proposing it in a few more places, if I think it might be contentious. My intention when adding text (which I haven't yet) will be to propose a draft first and then seek consensus. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Unfortunately, the video is contentious, but not as you expected, I guess: there's a copyright problem. You uploaded it on Commons with an explanation that other people than you are the authors and then added a template releasing it under a CC license. However, if you are not the author, you cannot do that. If you hold the copyright and want to release the file under CC, you will have to send proof of that through the OTRC system on Commons. As it is, the file will probably be deleted shortly and the person doing that (a Commons sysop, also called admin) can tell you much better than I can how you should proceed to get the file in Commons. We love to have things like that (I watched it and it's quite good), but we also (have to) take copyright issues very seriously, as I am sure you will understand. I won't be watching this page, but if you need assistance, just put a note on my talkpage. If I don't know the answer, I will know people who do :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a shame, but we should be able to straighten it out. Tracking down the paperwork might have to wait until tomorrow. Would it be possible to hold off on deletion? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The

Adventure

Hi Richard Nevell!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wressle Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wressle Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wressle Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wressle Castle, nice article and one that certainly deserves to be in other language Wikipedias. However, I don't feel confident enough in my abilities to do the job, much as I would like to. I know when I translate into English whether or not I have produced a finished product that uses good grammar etc; I'm not so confident the other way round! There is a procedure for requesting translations into English (see Wikipedia:Translation) and I'm sure there must be something similar in French Wikipedia. Perhaps try there. Good luck. Emeraude (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude: Thanks for the pointer, I'll look into it and see what turns up. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely by chance, I came across an editor called LouisAlain (User talk:LouisAlain) who has some experience - over 9000 articles - of translating English to French. I left a message on his talk page. I notice, below, that you already have a contact: perhaps they could share the work if both are willing. Emeraude (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the article in mind! I've replied on Louis' page.

Queenyzoe has translated some articles from English to Italian - I thought if I'm going for one language I might as well see how far it can go. Looking at who translated articles on castles seemed like a good route, and so far so promising. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not you sure to be the right person because I'm Queenyzoe and not Ilyesp, but I'will be very glad to translate the page. --Queenyzoe (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Queenyzoe[reply]

Hi! I've just started the translation, you can see it in this page it:Castello di Wressle, and I'll finish it in the next days. I know it's silly but I'm happy that you've choosen me because I love history so much! Have a nice evening! --Queenyzoe (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Queenyzoe[reply]

Here it:Castello di Wressle there is the complete translation. Let me know, please, if I could help with other translation, I'd be pleased to do it. --Queenyzoe (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Queenyzoe[reply]

@Queenyzoe: That's fantastic! Thank you. There may be more in the future - that depends how productive I am :) Richard Nevell (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

re. your wish to have a foreign language version of your article on Wressle Castle, I have started working on it. Here is the very rough version of it in French. I'm interested with this work and will return at it tomorrow. LouisAlain (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. This all demonstrates the spirit of co-operation that underlines Wikipedia and it is most satisfying to see progress being made by varied international contributors. Well done everyone. Emeraude (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Your article has now a fully translated version in French just waiting for the sysops to accept that I post again for a limited time. The request has been made Here (in French) LouisAlain (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fingers crossed. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would support your version of the Tibbers Castle over the current one. Your version seems to be properly sourced, where as the current one contains only one reference. Cheers.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll wait a while to see what others say and copy it over if there's consensus. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tibbers Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tibbers Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tibbers Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure Richard Siward (sheriff) and Richard Siward (d.1311) are different people, or do they need merging? You might have a better idea than me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small world, when I started drafting the (admittedly short) article that one didn't exist. There's no point in a history merge so I'll just copy over a couple of sentence to the older article and turn the one I created into a redirect. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes. C13 Scottish noblemen like busses, all arrive at the same time ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gleaston Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gleaston Castle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gleaston Castle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hchc2009: for the review, I will aim to respond to your points today or tomorrow. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gleaston Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gleaston Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pleshey Castle aerial photo.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, this may be of interest to you if you haven't come across the site already. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: I'm very pleased to say that Wikimedia UK have been supporting the Atlas' link up with Wikidata; here's how that looks. Links back to the atlas will be very useful to our readers. It makes me think of the Gatehouse Gazetteer and how important it is, at least in my own research. For Wikipedia specifically, the information could transform something like list of hillforts in Wales. Martin Poulter deserves most of the credit there, though I'm happy to have played a small part in the Wikimedia side of it. We should probably prepare a blog post about it actually to let Wikimedians know about the project. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here's a project page about the ongoing work. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it would definitely be worth a wider blog post, possibly focusing on how the work will help editors or readers interested in hillforts (in addition to the technical Wikidata dimension to it, which already seems well covered by the project page). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard Nevell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your expertise and edits! Really appreciated. Srsval (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Srsval: Thank you! Richard Nevell (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wanted to thank you for your review of this nomination, which helped improve the article. You mentioned that it's interesting to see an article deal with a small find. If you're interested in seeing similar approaches to similar small finds, there are a couple more related articles: the featured article Guilden Morden boar, and the good articles Tjele helmet fragment and Horncastle helmet fragment. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Usernameunique, I'll check those out. Do you have plans for what comes next? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Doubleday (restorer), which was a bit of a side project, is currently nominated. In terms of helmets, Benty Grange helmet will probably come next, and the logical ones after that—though they need some work—are Sutton Hoo helmet and Coppergate helmet. Anything you're (planning on) working on at the moment? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No particular plans just yet, but it would be nice to get Holt Castle to at least GA. There's enough history to justify an FA eventually. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Buckton Castle article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 12, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 12, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: That's great! Thanks for letting me know. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

"ensure a good level of detail without putting the reader off"

Thank you for quality articles about excavated remnants of early English castles, such as Wressle Castle, Tibbers Castle, Gleaston Castle and Buckton Castle, new and expanded based on knowledge and charity work, and your plans for more, - Richard, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda! Apologies for not replying sooner, I put aside a bit of time to keep an eye on the article and see if anyone had questions but didn't have the mental capacity to do something as simple as say thank you. While I'm here, keep up the good work with the precious awards, it's lovely to get positive feedback for what we do as editors and it makes Wikipedia a kinder, better place to write. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Watching Hilmar Hoffmann today, DYK, the one who had "culture for all" as a motto, could be a motto for WP as well, instead of "... anybody can edit" which is just not true. The award continues a leagacy of people who can't. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1972 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for making Wikipedia a happier and better place! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I reverted back your change of the infobox image on Orford Castle just now. Please don't get mad - let me explain why I did it and we can discuss it first!

I felt the new image was rather similar to the one that appears last on the page just now. I also feel that it loses quite a lot of detail regarding the keep - which, ultimately, is what makes Orford really interesting in comparison to most other castles. On the whole I *think* I probably prefer the image that was there because it's a close up showing the actual building. The other image I *think* loses the castle as it is today in the surrounding mounds rather and makes it appear as a more "normal" sort of castle building because the close up is lost. I could easily be wrong about this though - I wonder what you think? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue Square Thing, no worries! In the edit summary I put it as a question because I wasn't entirely certain myself. The portrait picture makes the infobox rather long, but does really emphasise how unusual Orford is compared to other castles. My issue with the image – and it is a minor issue – is that it's very yellow which makes it look like the image is a touch old. Equally, the landscape image feels almost a bit too cold. Sadly I just don't have the photography chops to set it to right myself (this is the best I've managed so far). Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - the stone can be quite yellowish in this part of the world (I was at Ramsholt not so far away yesterday and the church there is pretty yellow - it's some sort of crag stone I think). so I don't know how much of it is that. It was clearly very dry in September 2009 though - you're right about the grass for example. I do have some photo editing skills so I'll take a look at that we have in the commons and see what I can sort. I visit the town fairly regularly so I can always take a shot if we can't find anything else. I will look at the colour of it properly next time I'm there though!!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Re your comment about the use of "dexter" for the then-proposed featured article Gevninge helmet fragment, you might be interested in Talk:Gevninge helmet fragment#dexter, which shows that the archaeological literature overwhelmingly uses "right/left", not "dexter/sinister". --Macrakis (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard Nevell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Buckton Castle I hereby present you with these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Buckton Castle I hereby present you with The Epic Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @TomStar81: that's very kind. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for pleading my cause at the polit buro. Unfortunately there was no chance that it would yied any result, someone was ready to crucify me and send me to the gallows.

Fram lost all credibility in my eyes when he deleted Opéra Royal de Wallonie under the pretence that for once I forgot the ((Translated page|fr||version=|small=no|Translation by [[User:LouisAlain]].)) template. Oh the sinner! Oh the criminal! Of the vandal!

Thanks again for your support and the time you spent gathering the numerous episode of this deplorable incident. LouisAlain (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is historically poor when it comes to recognising and dealing with behavioural issues which aren't black and white, so the outcome was expected to be honest. It was worth raising all the same as people using their authority to harangue others should be challenged, even unsuccessfully. Anyway, onward to more enjoyable things. Happy editing, Richard Nevell (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Everything flows (and certainly data does) Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?). Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making. Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness. There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it. Links Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day for 18th birthday celebrations WMUK video page, with "fake news", Jimmy Wales, Wikidata and more (health warning for those with tune allergy) Why Wikipedia’s Medical Content Is Superior, Stephen Harrison, 28 January 2019, Slate Olivia Colman reveals struggle with Wikipedia over age, Naomi Gordon, 28 January 2019, harpersbazaar.com Making Wikidata visible, Martin Poulter blogpost, 24 January 2019, Bodleian Digital Library Inventory, Magnus Manske blogpost, 24 January 2019, on Wikidata tech support for an image donation by Cleveland Museum of Art If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Any idea what/where the castle shown here is? In Britain, view as around 1750-70. Could it be Alnwick Castle, based on this and, from another side, this with the tower? Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: You're spot on with the identification as Alnwick. The packed core surrounded by a curtain wall, with the ground rising towards it from the viewer is quite distinctive, and the densely arranged windows on the curtain wall especially so. The layout of the main features is pretty much spot on if you were able to manipulate the 1866 isometric view like a 3D model (view from the bottom-right corner). Richard Nevell (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm Psantora. There is a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). - Paul^T+/_C 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. What is a systematic review? Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources. Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help? File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen. Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit. Links Evidence-Based Practice: Appraise, resources page from Duke University Medical Library & Archives. What should Cochrane do next?, Bad Science blogpost 5 November 2014, Ben Goldacre. Cambridge (UK) Science Festival event, How do scientific discoveries become clinical medicine?, ScienceSource workshop for ContentMine 23 March 2019, with systematic review process diagram. Also on Eventbrite for tickets, taking place in Makespace, 16 Mill Lane. PROSPERO database of PRISMA, for registration of systematic review protocols. Process wonkery thread, wikien-l mailing list, September 2006. Meta-Analysis, xkcd cartoon. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. When in the cloud, do as the APIs do Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook. File:Cloud-API-Logo.svg The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API. APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web. Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do. Links Wikidata as a semantic framework for the Gene Wiki initiative, 2016 paper by Andrawaag and others, commenting inter alia on the role of the API on Wikidata Working With Wikibase From Go, Digital Flapjack blogpost 26 November 2018, Michael Dales, developer for ScienceSource using golang, with a software engineer's view on Wikibase and the MediaWiki API Dealing with the Rust, Magnus Manske blogpost 12 March 2019, on the Rust language and the MediaWiki API mw:API:RecentChanges, mediawiki.org page on the API for access to "recent changes" on a wiki wikitech:Analytics/AQS/Pageviews, wikitech.wikimedia.org for the Pageview API, giving Wikimedia traffic information xkcd cartoon, API Guide If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your prior contributions to enwiki, it does not seem you patrol new pages or speedy deletions. In regards to this edit, some 4 days from your prior edit, 24 minutes from article creation, and 15 minutes from G4 speedy being placed - How did you come about to noticing this particular article and speedy request? Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jess' talk page is on my watchlist. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is? Odd, you've never made an edit there. How did you come around to edit Rebecca Lunn with this diff? This wasn't on Jesswade88's TP. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it odd? There's no requirement to have edited a page before watching it. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now on my watchlist. Odd behaviours tend to draw watchers. Icewhiz, please stop this thought police nonsense. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI diff1 diff2 --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If in the future Icewhiz could stick to commenting on content without insinuating malfeasance in those they disagree with, that would be grand. Jumping at so many shadows must be tiring and worsens Wikipedia's atmosphere. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Completely clouded? Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point. Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around. Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs. What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list. Links Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-03-31/In focus#The_Wikipedia_SourceWatch by Headbomb. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 d:Wikidata:ScienceSource project/Beall's list: Beall's list, final version, matched into Wikidata. SPARQL query for Quackwatch: query to find items on Wikidata for articles subject to the Quackwatch blacklist of "Nonrecommended Periodicals", under "Journals (Fundamentally Flawed)". SPARQL query to find retracted articles on Wikidata. d:Wikidata:ScienceSource project/NCBI2wikidata dashboard, metadata for biomedical articles being built up, sourced from PubMed and PubMed Central. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while. It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining). Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?" The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata. The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right. Links for participation http://sciencesource-review.wmflabs.org/, review tool link in the left-hand sidebar at http://sciencesource.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue. Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, just to let you know I've gone over the slighting article and given it a polish. Sorry about the delay in getting to it, I've been working through a bit of a backlog on WP. If there's ever any other copy editing or other input you need from me, just drop me a line

Cadar (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cadar, that's wonderful! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit[1] on History of agriculture in Scotland. There are 3 main reasons for this.

Firstly the historians who work in this field do not apply the term "forced displacement" to the Highland clearances. You can find people who are not academic historians doing so if you look hard enough, but in an article that has "history" in its title, I don't think you need me to spell out any arguments on the sort of references to expect.

Secondly, I don't know how familiar you are with the reference you cited. It is a paper written by human rights lawyers. Looking at where they presented it, it appears to be a marketing piece - trying to raise their profile and therefore gain more work. (Nothing wrong with that - we all have to make a living.) It does not seem to have any claim to have serious academic credentials.

Thirdly, if you look at the mention of the Highland clearances in their paper, it is a very minor part of the paper - to the extent that it is reasonable to conclude that it is a reference in passing (as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable").

Sorry to come back so forcefully on this, but much of the editing around the Highland clearances has been done in the context of trying to get the accepted views of the historians working in the field into Wikipedia - rather than some of the stuff written by others. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThoughtIdRetired, nice to have you here! To your above points, I will say that lawyers may indeed have something to contribute (not least because the publisher is an academic publisher) and interdisciplinarity tends to build a stronger article. I have, however, added another source using the term to allay your concerns. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the extra reference is written by a junior academic who specialises in English literature rather than Scottish history. Reading the mention of the Highland clearances, I think it also meets the criteria for a reference in passing. I am a little puzzled as to exactly what you are trying to achieve - the facts of the Highland clearances speak for themselves - there is no need to use the language you want to insert. Much better to try and understand the out-of-phase abandonment of dùthchas - this is one of the 2 main reasons for discontent over the clearances - and it is something that particularly hit those less able to look after themselves.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this to the article talk page.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to an editathon. --Richard Nevell (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello there --William Reynolds (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

--GDK98 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

--Hail.Stone97 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Test message Kye tf (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. --Richard Nevell (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

hello

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyoijyt (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

-Ecr20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neil Christie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, when I replied to your list email re the recent event, the sending failed - something about the address used at WMUK. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unhelpful thing for an email address to do. I've just checked and I've had other messages (though not yours of course). Did the error give any insight? Richard Nevell (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Were you able to email me in the end? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - did you get one? Hope the event went well, best Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Not a sausage. I've sent you another email with my personal address copied in so we might be able to get to the bottom of the problem. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed the graph, which immediately leads me to wonder what exactly happened in 2007? Surely, given the huge outlier, it's got to be worth a note explaining it? Perhaps in the caption, perhaps as a footnote. If I knew why I'd do it myself... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: That's a very good question, I've seen sore thumbs which stick out less. I added the table as part of a vague plan to add a bit more about the castle's recent history. It's the kind of dip which really should be explained. I've not come across an explanation yet, but I suspect that it must have been closed for conservation works or something for at least part of the year. English Heritage try to keep such closures to a minimum but sometimes its unavoidable. My feeling is there must be something out there which was covered by the local newspapers, but it's a matter of finding it. Without some text to properly integrate the graph with the article, it's probably overkill and could be summarised by a sentence about average visitor numbers but I wanted to experiment a bit. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was assuming that it must have been closed for much of the year or something, but I don't remember noticing anything. If I'm down that way I might pop in and ask! Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad I noticed that! An error like that just slides down the page and can stay for years unnoticed if you don't pick it up immediately. Amandajm (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, just glad you spotted it before too long. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing, it'd be good to have a sentence of two on the postulated effects or otherwise of the disease in the mediaeval Netherlands and the historiography of that. Roosen and Curtis's article is probably worth citing, if it represents the current mainstream and is not too contested an idea. GPinkerton (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the intention given time. The historiography needs to go somewhere, and has me wondering when a separate article is needed for all the different trends in the study of the Black Death. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for marking references as open access! As the documentation of ((open access)) explains, it is preferable to use the access parameters of the citation templates when the citation is formatted using templates. In this case, it means adding |doi-access=free instead of ((open access)). This has the benefit of indicating precisely which link the reader should click to get free access to the full text.

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pintoch, thanks for letting me know I'll make sure to use |doi-access=free. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard,
Thank you for the thanks. Always pleasing to receive one.
I have made a few more edits there and hope they meet with your approval.
All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: All distinct improvements, paying careful attention to presenting information in the right order! Thanks for taking the time to improve the article, it's always nice to see someone engaging with pages like this. Richard Nevell (talk)

So far as I can see that was original research plus falsification of sources and I've threatened a block. Did I miss something in the sources? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You took the right course of action there. Loseby doesn't comment on 21st-century media (not surprising since they were writing in 2000) and mentions immigration once in passing. Similarly, the Google Books preview for Laurence 2012 doesn't give any relevant results for the recently added content. The removal of properly sourced text about Roman citizens from other parts of the empire settling in Britain stretches the limits of good faith. Thank you for dealing with it quickly. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for confirming that I'm right. I've blocked - it probably was about time anyway. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being awesome! Clara Stoten (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up your invitation, let me ask you to elaborate on this supposed rampant sexism and racism in the Wikipedia community. Where did it manifest itself recently? I will gladly do my part to fight it, as I believe I have done for the past 15 years. --bender235 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been written on the subject, eg. Can I also suggest that berating a woman for expressing an opinion you disagree with and accusing her of slander is somewhat hostile. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berating? I was merely asking the question whether her anger over the perceived racism and sexism addressed the right entity (the individuals who started the incident vs. the community that dealt with it in its usual professionalism). --bender235 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "was it really necessary to slander Wikipedia" was a genuine question. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was, and thanks for assuming good faith. Since I happen to be part of the Wikipedia community that was described as racist and sexist in its entirety, I took offense. But also, why is it relevant whether Jesswade88 is a woman? Am I supposed to treat her differently than a male editor, or any editor whose gender has not been revealed to me? Do you assume that I am male? --bender235 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are much more likely to get an answer if they aren't loaded and paired with an accusation of slander as your initial comment was. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thank you for improving references and marking them as open access when appropriate, as in this edit! Did you know the citation templates support access parameters to indicate which source a work is free to read from? For instance, in that edit, you can use |hdl-access=free to position the open access lock on the relevant identifier. That helps users who are not too familiar with bibliographic identifier schemes.

Keep up the good work! − Pintoch (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pintoch - I've seen it indicated with the DOI parameter, but hadn't realised you could do the same with handles. I thought it would be best to brush up on the template documentation. Looks like DOI and hdl will be the ones I'll mostly use in the future, though it's handy to know that s2cid is also an option. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that it's also the day that you were welcomed, 5 years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GS: I dunno if you have seen this, or if it is any use. I also hesitantly suggest this, only because the author wrote a thoroughly sound account of the Battle of Dunbar. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, Gog the Mild suggested that I contact you as a first port of call in my hunt for good sources to let me develop our content on tower houses. Specifically, I'd like to be able to write some general background about the development of tower houses in Scotland and in northern England, which would allow me to expand some articles I've written about specific buildings (Coxton Tower, Rusco Tower and Johnby Hall), perhaps add to Tower House, and/or create a separate article about them, depending on what sources I'm able to find. Gog tells me that you're very knowledgeable about buildings like this, so I wondered if you could point me at any sources you know about that would give a good over overview of this stuff. Thanks in advance for anything you're able to suggest. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, I hope that you are well, and dealing with Covid and Williamson with equal aplomb. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you Gog the Mild; the overall weirdness that is 2020 has me largely confused but coping well enough. Hope you're doing well.

@Girth Summit: The first thing that springs to mind is this paper. I know a couple of people who specialise in the subject (I know a bit, but there's certainly more I don't know!) see what they come up with. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GS: I dunno if you have seen this, or if it is any use. I also hesitantly suggest this, only because the author wrote a thoroughly sound account of the Battle of Dunbar. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I think that is the new normal. Good thanks, if bored to tears. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for those suggestions - I think that definitely gives me a good starting point. Richard, if your experts can suggest anything else, I'd be very grateful. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this, by the same author as the Castle Studies Group paper. A bit steep, but I've looked at a review and it seems to have been well-received - might be a good investment. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you haven't ordered yet, it might be worth checking if Wikimedia UK would cover the cost of the book. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell, wow - nice suggestion! No, I haven't ordered it yet - I came across a 2015 advert that says the author sells it direct for £55, which is cheaper than the second-hand ones on Amazon, so I've written to him to see if he's still doing that. I'll look into that Wikimedia link though, that would be very handy, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Richard, while you probably don't remember our conversation on this in Coventry, I am working up Third Punic War, with FAC possibly in mind, and was interested to discover that the first mention of the "salting the earth" myth was in an 1858-1863 American encyclopedia. Contrary to Ridley's 1986 conclusion of it first being mentioned in 1930; of course, he didn't have a Google book search facility. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That is a considerable amount earlier, good find! Coventry feels like a very long time ago, but I distantly remember. And bringing slighting up to GA is still on my to-do list.

@Girth Summit: The Fortress series of book are usually good quality. As a quick update, the folks I've been in touch with are busy but will send me some suggestions that I'll pass over. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Sorry it's taken so long to get back on this. I've got some suggestions, via one of my contacts. A couple of them include things mentioned above, and I've include a couple of notes below. Richard Oram's works came especially recommended, and as they're recent they should help balance out some of the older sources.

• Oram, Richard (2015), "The incomplete exemplar: Doune Castle and the great tower in Later medieval Scottish castles", in Oram, Richard (ed.), A House that Thieves Might Knock at: Proceedings of the 2010 Stirling and 2011 Dundee Conferences. Tower Series, 1 & 2., Donington: Shaun Tyas, pp. 129–151
• Oram, Richard (2015), "Living on the Level: Horizontally Planned Lodgings in Fifteenth- and early Sixteenth-Century Scotland", Architectural Heritage, 26 (1): 37–53, doi:10.3366/arch.2015.006
• Reid, Stuart (2012), Castles and Tower Houses of the Scottish Clans 1450–1650 — Mentioned above. The person I contacted wasn't certain about the quality since it's a long time since she read it.
• Dixon, Philip (1979), "Towerhouses, Pelehouses and Border Society", Archaeological Journal, 136: 240–252, doi:10.1080/00665983.1979.11020505 — Mentioned above, and possibly a bit dated
• Tabraham, Christopher (1989), "The Scottish medieval towerhouse as lordly residence in the light of recent excavation", Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 118: 267–276 — Possibly a bit dated
• Jope, Edward Martyn (1951), "Scottish Influences in the North of Ireland: Castles with Scottish Features, 1580-1640", Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 14: 31–47, JSTOR 20566632

Also possibly of interest:

• Maxwell-Irving, A M T, The Border Towers of Scotland: their History and Architecture — Mentioned above
• Oram, Richard; Stell, Geoffrey, eds. (1991), Galloway: Land and Lordship, Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies
• Stringer, KJ; Winchester, AJL (eds.), Northern England and Southern Scotland in the Central Middle Ages, Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer

I might be able to help get hold of the three papers with DOIs, the rest could be a bit trickier. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard Nevell, that is extremely generous of you to dig those out - much appreciated. I entered into a bit of correspondence with Alastair Maxwell-Irving over the summer - a very friendly and helpful chap - and ended up buying his book. With your list above, I'm sure I'll have plenty to get cracking with - now I just need some time! Richard Oram's name rings a bell - not sure why, but it's familiar, I must have come across him before. My partner is an historian - of politics, rather than architecture - so she should be able to help me get hold of these one way or another when I've got a bit of writing time. Much appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For making Google Scholar table for the renowned scientist Atsuhiro Osuka Rahul Somantalk - contribs 14:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulsoman: Thank you very much! I'm glad I could help, and well done on the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Richard_Nevell 👍👍 Rahul Soman^{talk - contribs} 10:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand UK academic titles, but could you take a quick look and see whether this one meets WP:ACADEMIC: Andrew Morris, head of the Scottish COVID committee, who is also a member of SAGE.

In unrelated-to-that but maybe-interesting-to-you news, did you know that Dunluce Castle may have inspired Cair Paravel? Thanks for your sanity and civility--inspirational! HouseOfChange (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I think WP:ACADEMIC was written with US academia in mind, so not everything quite matches up with the UK. Morris' full professorship should be enough to indicate notability as it's a senior position. But I wouldn't take it for granted, so vice-principals tend to also be senior positions. The combination of the two should increase the notability. He was also given an award (the CBE) for his work which I think should count as evidence of having made a significant contribution to his field. So I think there's a good case for notability independent of the Scottish COVID committee, but heading that must put him over the top.

I had no idea Dunluce may have inspired Cair Paravel! Looking at the pictures it has an air of how I (dimly) remember Lewis describing Cair Paravel. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have time right now to draft that article but maybe in a few days I will. Also, this old image of Dunluce Castle is very "Cair Paravel" IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy @Richard Nevell:. Question for you - a former curatorial bod at the Yorkshire Museum was Barbara Pyrah. There is a video hidden behind the scenes of an interview she did at an exhibition opening in 1986 for YTV. I recall the discussion from the colloquium on the fair use of images but have never successfully been able to apply it to a biography. As this might be the only image I'm ever likely to get of the lady, is it legit or no to screen grab and upload the file? Copyright is a mire. Any wisdom greatly appreciated. Zakhx150 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Zakhx150, I completely missed your message! As it isn't likely to be replaceable with a free version (ie: no one can go and take a photo of Pyrah), it would be a small portion of the original work (just a frame), and low resolution it fits with Wikipedia's rules around fair use. If you have a go at uploading a screenshot to Wikipedia rather than Commons and filling in the details, I can check it over afterwards. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I get a notification when someone leaves a message on my talk page regardless of the ping template, I was just rubbish at noticing! Richard Nevell (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't expect and do not deserve an answer but does that mean your Ping skills Pong?SovalValtos (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm filing this under 'things that made me laugh unreasonably hard', clearly I need more caffeine. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Image is here. Zakhx150 (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakhx150: Looks good, With a clear rationale. The one thing that could have been changed was taken care of by a bot. The original screenshot was a but bigger than needed so DatBot came along and shrank it. For readers who will see the thumbnail of the image in the article nothing will change, while behind the scenes it means the image is a bit lower resolution. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

• You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
• New categorizations/icons:
  • Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
  • Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
  • Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
  • Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
• With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, and thanks for the thanks. That one was pretty damn turgid, and whoever wrote it really meant it. Amazing how long thsese things can hang aroud unnoticed. Best wishes! Haploidavey (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC) @Haploidavey: It's good to see, sometimes things can just stick around longer because they've always been there. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on the titled AfD inquiry.

I did not realize that suggesting self-promotion implied outing the user/username. I definitely see how this is the case. Thank you for showing me this. Augu❤Maugu 💕 00:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain what the benefit is of having the ISNI link at François Debon? It takes its information from BNF and the like, which we already have in the authority control template, and doesn't seem to add anything useful for readers. If there is something I miss here, I'll readd ISNI to the ACArt template, but as far as I can see nothing is lost by removing this link (the link, just like many others not included in template:authority control, remains available at Wikidata, which is the actual repository of these links; the templates authority control and acart are only selections of these anyway). I'll not edit war over this, no worries, I just wonder why it should be included. Fram (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram. Part of the point of authority control is to link to other databases to help with identifying individuals. As such, there will often be some overlap in content between databases. That overlap does not diminish the value of such links, quite the contrary. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but how does isni help me or anyone at enwiki in identifying this individual? Why aren´t the other authority ids and links not more than sufficient for this? For simple identification, it adds nothing further, it´s just more of the same (but without the additional info some of the other links have). And for the few people who need as many links as possible, we have Wikidata which is much more complete. Fram (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the ISNI entry you see a list of names Debon can be found under, amongst other pieces of information. Some or all of that information will be duplicated in records on other databases. By your reasoning we could drop the authority control template altogether and direct readers towards Wikidata since it is more complete. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISNI looks like a badly compiled version of some of the other, really informative links. The different forms of his own name are listed everywhere, the related names are listed with more information (and links!) at WorldCat[2], the single "titles" "La Normandie" is explained at BNF[3]. And no, my reasoning (dropping ISNI because it is more of the same, in a worse format) doesn't mean that we can drop authority control altogether; removing duplication and links which add no extra value, doesn't mean dropping the links which don't have these issues. WorldCat, Getty, RKD, ... are truly useful, informative sites, both immediately on the linked page, and on pages you can access from there. ISNI doesn't have these characteristics. Dropping some doesn't mean dropping all, just like showing some shouldn't mean showing all. Fram (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard,

I've just seen your User Page....I'm impressed.

Over the coming weeks (maybe months) I want to create articles on:

1. Caer Cynwrig aka Twmpath Castle or Motte (there may have been two with the same name in the Cardiff area???),
2. Treoda Castle Mound
3. Rumney Castle

When I (eventually) create them, I'd be really be pleased if you would also help in editing [or even reverting :-) my edits]. SethWhales ^talk 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to take a look! It would be great to see those sites get some coverage. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, and thanks for the thanks! Glad to know you, even in this form. I see you have studied castellology, so if you don't mind, I'd like to ask for your opinion in two related matters.

I have read somewhere, but I cannot recall where, that it is at least controversial to talk about "Middle Ages" when referring to the Middle East, apart from the Crusader states and period. It had to do with the definition, which is based on European history - it was in the "middle" between Classical antiquity and Renaissance, whence in the Middle East there was no clear end of the classical era (some consider the Umayyads part of it, for instance), nor did they ever have a Renaissance. Second, the feudal system didn't develop as it did in Europe. I don't know how much this approach has been discarded, is just fringe, has been accepted, is growing, or approaching consensus. It seems to me that Professor Denys Pringle does use the term 'medieval' for both Frankish and Muslim fortifications. Anyway, I can't figure it out.

Second, I came across an editor, Bermicourt, who was tremendously active in creating castle-related articles based on German terminology, sometimes by translating word for word the entire German Wiki articles, photos, bibliography and all. It seems to me that there are (here too, as in many other fields) a lot more precise German terms built by ways of compound words, I do sometimes miss them as a tool when writing in English, but I've had a heated debate on whether one can simply translate them and name WP articles like that, which does create the impression that these were established English terms. WP is not the Oxford Dictionary for... Anything, but does have a large impact. Concrete case: water castle (Wasserburg; Wasserschloss), only partially translated by "moated castle"; island castle (Inselburg); bridge castle (Brückenburg); lowland castle (Niederungsburg, Tieflandburg, Flachlandburg); or where does material about "Torburg" best fit in: gatehouse or fortified gateway? There were many more, but I can't find the list right now. What is your opinion?

Sorry for overrunning you like this with matters which might not interest you at all. If so, absolutely no problem, please just ignore, I mean it. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of the Middle Ages is a tricky one because as you say it was developed within a specifically European framework. The Wikipedia article on the Middle Ages makes it explicit that it applies to Europe. Then again, we also have an article on medieval India so within Wikipedia there are different approaches. There is a growing trend to look at a global Middle Ages, essentially looking at what was going on beyond Europe in the same timeframe. I'd still be cautious of viewing everything through a European lens, but 'medieval' seems to be a slightly squishy term so there's probably not a 'right' answer.

German castle studies does seem to have a more tightly defined typology when it comes to classifying castles. Bermicourt's articles make very interesting reading. Terms such as water castle can be found in English-language literature, but you'd be more likely to find it as a descriptor rather than a hard classification. There is some overlap in terms, but it's not always 100%; some moated castles would have had dry moats, for example. From what I've seen the articles go beyond just being dictionary definition, so I don't think there's a problem with whether these should be articles but I do see your point about titles.

It's difficult because I like the German vocabulary and having more articles which aren't written from a UK viewpoint is a good thing, but I can see that there can be issues. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blast furnace, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Chidgk1, I'll take a look but probably won't contribute many comments. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, I don't mind having it moved - I was thinking of Irish towerhouses and they usually don't have a prison, because they're just too small. But "security" makes sense, too. A.-K. D. (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I used an edit summary to give my reasons for reverting that edit at Phyllida Barlow by ZuJani--B, who's been relentlessly promoting her prize here for a while now. That wasn't very polite of me; happy to discuss if you think it's worth it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, you're welcome to replace the source on the 2020 study directly to Nature. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard--I saw that you thanked me for an edit of Kate Norgate and saw that you are associated with the Women's Classical Committee. In my work on the Crusades I have encountered a number of female historians that may be of interest. I have not been able to find a list and in checking the ones that have Wikipedia pages, they do not seem to be listed anywhere. There are also quite a few with no Wikipedia articles. Let me know if you or anyone else might be interested in them. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Grampinator, it's always good to see someone around Wikipedia's pages on history. The Women's Classical Committee has a list of people to write about] (as well as an automatically generated list based on info in Wikidata). MedievalWiki has a similar list, so that would be an especially good fit for historians related to the crusades. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jodie Lewis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dr. Jodie Lewis led a team of students from the University of Worcester and volunteer archaeologists in excavating the first timber circle discovered in Somerset? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jodie Lewis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jodie Lewis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Richard, thankyou for your message and for the courtesy of your question. I can only acknowledge with gratitude the good faith in which it is presented, though you'll see below that, since you do ask, I hope you will understand why my response is not one that is favourable to your suggestion. If you trouble to look at the edit histories of the articles I have worked on over the past few years, you'll see that a good deal of my time is spent in this work, freely given, and I hope given with great care.

I believe that, if you had spent the amount of time which I have spent, carefully searching out the details of these sources, and presenting them in a full and regularized format, in order to support the article texts so painstakingly assembled and written, you would hesitate further before attempting to impose a wholesale change of format on one part of the scholarly mechanism for somewhat arbitrary purposes. I have often collaborated, but what you propose is submission to an order which has no better validity than the order I myself, as author, have adopted. There is no rule in the matter of reference format, but I have aimed for consistency according to an accepted and recognized academic format.

The honest and direct answer is, that I really very much hope you won't go through all the articles I have worked at length on, replacing the journal references with your template. Since I started editing here in 2006 it took me a while to get up to speed with adequate referencing - things were looser in the earlier times - but over the past 6 or 7 years I have been, I hope, VERY consistent and thorough. The journal references follow a pattern which is related to all the other kinds of book references, so if you change just the journals it will make a hotchpotch of everything I have been doing. I would find it extremely disheartening, and actually a great deterrent to making any further contributions, if this were to happen. If it is done merely to add the names of some journals to a list, the better procedure would be for you to go through my references visually with a notebook and write the journal names down (as I do when I am working on articles), and to add them manually to your list, rather than disrupting the whole system of referencing in an article just to simplify a task of secondary importance to the article itself.

The formats of the references are therefore as I have intended them to be, and you will find that in almost every case the references are directly linked to the page in the source text. To change them all would be unnecessary in relation to your first reason for wanting to do it, would almost certainly involve a certain amount of loss of data (because many of the "journal" or "series" references are more complicated than allowed for in a simple template, and there is the problem of page-number ref and linkage), and (though the proces of alteration) would open the gates to a general possibility of confusion of data which I am not in a position to monitor. It would, above all, entirely disrupt my attempts to establish a consistent formula of referencing, without bringing any particular benefit. I really do not have the inclination to spend precious time correcting or checking for correction the corrections of another editor to what I have already, with great care, written correctly and consistently.

You have asked my opinion, and that is it. I don't see what more I can say. At any rate, thankyou for giving me the chance to say it. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. I'm sorry that my reply comes across as so crabby and starchy, it wasn't meant to be, but you frightened me! I will leave it as it is but hope you'll receive it in good will. I don't talk to people very much... Perhaps we might confer on one or two Kentish and South Saxon questions, sometime? Good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your kind response. Even more (much more) drastic things have occurred to some of my work, which has made me prone to nervous reactions. Your question was fine. Still, I'll be glad if my system lives to fight another day... Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, hey - I appreciate that you are providing oversight to this page. I had a couple of outstanding questions, if I may, having re-consulted WP:BLP. I can see why the article information was moved to "Career" but it is unclear as to why the subject's parents, who in any case lack a citation, are the second line of the entry (they were already listed in the sidebar). This is not what the subject is known for and it has no bearing on their work. This information was added in February by an otherwise inactive user who created an account for this sole purpose. As per WP:BLP, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

WP:BLP goes on, as you will know: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." + "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects… [inclusion is] subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." The burden of proof seems to be on those wanting to include this information - it does not appear to have been met.

Recent anonymous deletions have also removed a reference to the following, which seems to meet the WP:BLP standard for inclusion in "Career": In 2019, Lambert's profile of Dominic Cummings for the New Statesman was listed by BBC Media Editor Amol Rajan as one of his top five pieces of the year [as part of an ongoing annual series]. ^[1] This seems equivalent to a film making a critic's "top ten of the year", as listed on other pages. It has been deleted by anonymous users, having been upheld by established editors from April 2020 until this week. As WP:BLP says, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects."

The link for the UCL course is here ^[2]. Links for this course date back to 2019. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:7EA3:E900:744A:BE32:535F:8722 (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bec Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hachette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added this about Azeem Rafiq because I believe we should be impartial and explain all the evident that we have and not have the article one sided 'A leaked report also states that if Rafiq was still at the club, he would face disciplinary action for using the phrase 'Zimbo from Zimbabwe' when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage.' Feel free to contact my talk page further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateJournalist (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Azeem Rafiq. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I enjoyed "unsauced" - thanks.

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

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

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

Hi Richard,

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

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

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

Thanks Richard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[ Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]] regarding Massive removal of Content. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[ Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Priyamvada_Gopal|Priyamvada_Gopal]]".The discussion is about the topic Priyamvada Gopal.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Samuelshraga (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! FAC is a valuable process to take part in. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Richard. I hope that things are going well for you. I was wondering if you had anything to do with writing the English Heritage historic description of the battle of Winwick? here. Or know who did? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historic England maintain the National Heritage List for England and have regional teams. As the battlefield was designated in 2018, the write-up was probably done by someone in the relevant regional team, possibly the Inspector of Ancient Monuments for the North West. The current inspector is Pete Owen; I've not been in touch with him, but could probably work out his email address if that would be helpful. He wouldn't have been the author as he joined HE in 2022, a few years after the listing was made, but may be able to help. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no. I just wanted to say how impressive it is, and how it includes a surprisingly large amount of information I couldn't find in any other secondary source, including obscure journal articles. Even primary sources which on one else seems aware of. Someone was well on their game when they put it together. (Do you think they could be persuaded to submit articles to Wikipedia?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little more seriously, I am amazed they haven't worked it up for a journal article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an impressive piece of work and the style isn't far off from a Wikipedia article. I occasionally see articles from Historic England projects pop up in journals, like a recent paper on Pevensey Castle in the 2022 volume of Sussex Archaeological Collections. That was based on fieldwork carried out in 2018, so there may be something in the works for Winwick with a bit of luck. Equally, my impression is that much of the research sits in (often unpublished) reports. I think it's largely a capacity thing, because the results are very good. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson. An entire eye witness primary source only mentioned in the EH write up! I so want to read it. And/or a proper historian's interpretation of it. It's the last battle of the English Civil Wars for goodness sake. Ey well. As you say, perhaps something is in the works. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Updown early medieval cemetery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sonia Chadwick Hawkes led a rescue excavation at the Updown early medieval cemetery in 1976 because the site was threatened by a planned pipeline? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Updown early medieval cemetery. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Updown early medieval cemetery), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sonia Chadwick Hawkes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sonia Chadwick Hawkes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sonia Chadwick Hawkes for comments about the article, and Talk:Sonia Chadwick Hawkes/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see from your userpage that you've been writing articles on castles - if you have the time and goodwill to spare, would you be able to help with Draft:Scottish Castles Restoration Projects? It's by a newish (as in, not extended confirmed) editor who is getting very frustrated that it's stuck in AfC hell. They haven't resubmitted since I declined it a month ago, but I think a third reviewer would also decline, which I think might make them quit entirely. I think help from a knowledgeable editor who isn't reviewing it for AfC would go a long way. -- asilvering (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to take a look and lend the editor a hand. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard I've added a lengthy note to my talk page in reponse to you contacting me. Thanks. ArchaicW (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard Have added a note after you on my Talk page. Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard Added another note on my 'talk' page on some of your specific points. ArchaicW (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard I see you have been busy! Have read through the draft again and I am quite happy with the changes you have incorporated, thanks. You might note that we have got a new reviewer on board, 'Deb', who has made a couple of changes and suggests that she would help further. Ross ArchaicW (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard Just to let you know that Deb has carried out several edits to the draft, just in case you might change anything that he/she has already altered! Ross ArchaicW (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard

Sorry to bother you again. Could I ask if you had it in mind to do any further edits to the draft? Things have got a wee bit complicated with Deb also making some edits, so I'd like to go back to her, but it would be best to know if you had any further thoughts first? Just 'yes' or 'no' would do! Many thanks Ross ArchaicW (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard I'm really apologetic about contacting you again, but I hope you got my last message above. If it's 'YES', you want to do some more edits that's absolutely fine by me and I'll just leave it until I hear from you, but if it's 'NO', I don't have any further suggested changes, can you let me know so that I can go back to Deb? Many thanks Ross ArchaicW (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, I hope you're well. I was just wondering if you'd mind casting your eye over Criccieth Castle before I request a GA review — I think it's in reasonable shape, but I'm at the point where I can't see the wood for the trees! In particular, there's been some debate about the building history and the inspiration for the gatehouse over the decades and I'd like some reassurance that I've covered both topics properly.

There's no rush, and feel free to say no, but you were the first name that popped to mind for help. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criccieth is a magnificent site, and with gatehouses you've landed on another fascination. I'll aim to take a look sooner rather than later, but don't feel that you have to wait on me if you want to crack on. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no rush at all, quite happy to wait for your expertise! The gatehouses are interesting — it's fascinating to see advancements in castle building spreading into Wales, if you consider, for example, how simple Dolwyddelan is in comparison. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I've noticed your edits to the article over the past few weeks. I've now made the GA nomination, but feel free to keep editing the article if you'd like to. Any assistance is much appreciated! A.D.Hope (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard - just in case you've not seen it, I thought this might be of interest, Wikipedia:GLAM/National Trust. There are some interesting links between the issues around the Dunham Massey Hall sundial, Lydney Park, Penrhyn Castle, and many other historic houses where the slavery history hasn't yet been explored. And I think there are some similarities between how the Trust researches/interprets/displays the houses in its collection, and how we write about them. Perhaps the basis for an interesting collaboration? All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @KJP1, I thought I'd replied to this ages ago. The project is very much of interest because of the collaboration with historic sites. I'm supporting Lajmmoore in my role at Wikimedia UK. For phase 1 of the project my interest was as a Wikipedia editor, and that has shifted slightly for the second pilot. So I'll think carefully about if and how I engage with discussions around content since I don't want to muddy the waters with my role as chapter staff. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shadows at the Door: The Podcast has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject does not pass WP:N.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shadows at the Door: The Podcast is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadows at the Door: The Podcast until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Updown Girl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that archaeologists found that Updown Girl, who was buried in England in the 7th century, had a mixture of West African and European DNA? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Updown Girl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Updown Girl), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 26,925 views (1,121.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Updown early medieval cemetery you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Updown early medieval cemetery you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Updown early medieval cemetery and Talk:Updown early medieval cemetery/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks again for your GA review of Illieston House! I wanted to check if you wanted to fully close the review on the talk page? Similar to what was done at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muckrach_Castle/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1210475291 to make turn it into a green box. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that just now, and I think the rest of the review steps were followed. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]