User talk:Dudley Miles/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Editing problem

. When I am editing, the visible text on the edit page randomly shrinks to three lines. Can anyone advise what the problem is and how I can fix it? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you using the visual editor or the source editor? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just click 'edit'. I assume it is the source editor. I should also add that I have edited since 2006 and only had this problem for the last fortnight. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to raise at WP:VPT, then, as I am totally unhelpful with technical problems that don't have a glaringly obvious answer. Any chance your browser's zoom settings are on the blink? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have raised it there. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

FA peer review?

Hi. I'm working on getting Fleetwood Park Racetrack into shape for a WP:FA review. This would be my first FA. I see you are willing to mentor in the area of history; would this article be something you could help me with? RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ceol of Wessex versus Æthelbald, King of Wessex

Dear Dudley: On 3^rd March 2016, you undid my revision 708053201 “links added” by reason of “Already linked”; on 31^st August 2023, you undid my revision 1173151462 giving the exactly opposite explanation “Links in lead and main text are separate”; the (repeated) links in my revision 708053201 were also in the lead and main text; it seems to be a Wikipedia rule that links should not be duplicated, and although I think this is carried too far in long articles, I do not think duplication after a few lines is necessary;

moreover, by simply reverting my revision 1173151462:

·        you cancelled my “grammatical improvements” – I would strongly suggest that enwiki, especially history article, be written at least one level above the English spoken (or in this case: written) in “East London”;

·        you restored the redirect from “Surrey” to “Kingdom of Surrey” and back to “Surrey”; I am not questioning the existence or non-existence of the Kingdom of Surrey, I am just commenting on the redirect;

pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert; Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been advised that links in the lead and main text are separate, but looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Duplicate and repeat links, this appears to be wrong, so I reverted you incorrectly. The Surrey revert was correct (if I remember correctly what I did) because Kingdom of Surrey redirects to Surrey, so when you linked to the kingdom you introduced a double redirect (to the kingdom and back again to Surrey), which is strongly discouraged. Thanks for raising these points. It would be helpful if you point to the changes so that I can see exactly what I did. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; only one remark: you misunderstood my mention of the “Surrey” link – originally in the article, there was the double redirect from “Surrey” to “Kingdom of Surrey” and back to “Surrey”; with my revision 1173151462, I did fix it; with your revert of my revision 1173151462, you reintroduced the double revert; so, what now? will you revert your revert or should I do it myself? Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I got it the wrong way round. Reverted. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Æthelflæd

Note that in Wikipedia we use common names rather than official titles. While Æthelflæd had the title "Lady" she was still the ruler of a kingdom, hence a queen regnant. It is not helpful to remove her from a category with colleague queens regnant. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A ruler is not the same as a monarch. By your logic, Margaret Thatcher was a queen regnant and Queen Elizabeth was not a queen. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sahelanthropus

Good morning, You reverted changes to the Sahelanthropus page on the grounds that earlier text was better. This is not entirely the case since: - in the caption of a photograph Professor Brunet's 'assistant' is in reality a Chadian civil servant working at the National Research Support Center and who therefore has no relationship of subordination with Professor Brunet, a retired French civil servant; - the Franco-Chadian Paleoanthropological Mission is in no way a financing organization. It was the French Embassy in Chad, through its Cooperation and Cultural Action Service, which provided most of the funding during the first years and provided a high-level technical assistant, a geographer experienced in Saharan zone with a Phd. On the other hand, I thank you very much in advance for restoring the previous version by providing the necessary additions so that: the National Center for Research Support, the Franco-Chadian paleoanthropological mission and Jean-Pierre Watté, who have Wikipedia pages in French, benefit from the appropriate link without having the skills to achieve this. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:69D6:C90D:67FE:A0E4 (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because (no doubt accidentally) you removed the links to articles in French Mission paléoanthropologique franco-tchadienne and Jean-Pierre Watté, and because you gave no references for your amendments. As you obviously are an expert on the subject, can you please reinstate your edits with the links and references. I would be happy to give technical help if you need it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, it's really kind of you. French speaking, I spent yesterday evening trying to open the links to these three Wikipedia sites in French without succeeding while other links to sites also in French exist on this page.

Jean-Pierre Watté : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Watt%C3%A9

Mission paléoanthropologique franco-tchadienne : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_pal%C3%A9oanthropologique_franco-tchadienne

Centre national d’appui à la recherche : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_national_d%27appui_%C3%A0_la_recherche

It is the National Research Support Center (CNAR today CNRD, National Research Center for Development) of the Ministry of Higher Education of the Republic of Chad which is at work in paleontological research in Chad since 1993. His name deserves to be cited on this page. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely. 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:69D6:C90D:67FE:A0E4 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for your help but in fact it appears that it is not easy to refer to Wikipedia in French since if the sites do exist the links do not work. Good continuation. Sincerely. 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:3DE9:271B:CA67:67B0 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If you click on the red link you go to a page to create a new article in English. You have to click on [fr] at the end of the red link to go to the article in French. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo reversion

Thank you for pointing out the typo I made on the Miyake Events page. I fixed the typo and re-added the other edits which were part of that reverted edit. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Younger Dryas talk page

Talk:Younger Dryas#Spaghetti code source. I'm not dropping this. The article source is a cluttered mess. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comments at peer review

I have Edward the Martyr up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward the Martyr/archive1. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Recently in your wonderful country. Enjoyed your Underground and the goodwill of those that stood so my wife and I could sit. Do we look that old? ―Buster7 ☎

Many thanks Buster. People sometimes stand for me on the underground. I regard it as one of the benefits of old age. A merry Christmas and happy new year to you and your wife. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon history citations at Reflib

 Courtesy links: Template:Reflib, Template:Reflib/Anglo-Saxon history

Hi, Dudley. I'm Mathglot, and I'm working on a project to provide a centralized repository of quality citations (a "reference library") for various article domains of interest to editors for their article development. Goals include availability, vetting of quality citations, and providing shareability of citations across multiple articles from a single source. This project is still in its infancy, but there are five article domains now, including a first version of Anglo-Saxon history as of today. Mike Christie mentioned that you would be a good person to talk to about the Anglo-Saxon history domain. I'm looking for feedback and collaborators to advance the project, either on that topic, or on any other topic that might be a good fit for the project.

A couple of things would help. First, is any thoughts you have about the project generally (see the template doc page linked above), and in particular, thoughts about the appropriateness of "Anglo-Saxon history" as a choice for an article domain–is it too narrow? too broad? correctly named? (This question will make more sense after you've had a chance to have a read-through.) Second, is any thoughts you might have about creating new article domains (topic areas likely to have shared citations in common among articles in the domain) that might benefit from being included in Reflib and having a library of citations devoted to it. Mike mentioned you were someone involved with pre-Roman UK archaeology articles, and might comment on that topic, but I'm open to anything.

I tend to prattle on too long, so at the risk of leaving you mystified with insufficient explanation, maybe I better just stop and give you a chance to have a look at the documentation at Template:Reflib, to see if youre interested in this at all or would like to commment. The proximate backstory for this is at User talk:Mike Christie#Importing your Sci-fi library citations, and Mike's original citation list For A-S history is here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot, but I think I will pass on this one. Sorry to be thick, but I find the explanation of Reflib incomprehensible. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I Understand, no worries. Apart from the template issue, Mike mentioned you might have sources for pre-Roman UK archaeology. Do you maintain a list of top sources for that topic, or can you point me to one? I'd like to compile a list of several dozen quality sources in that topic area but I'm not knowledgeable about it and your advice would be helpful. Thanks Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

My field is history rather than archaeology. My library is at User:Dudley Miles/Library. It is mainly Anglo-Saxon. If you want to use it, I can point out which books I would not recommend as RSs. There are also sections on science, particularly evolution. I have a Word document with books and articles formatted for sources sections which I am happy to send to you if it would help. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is really helpful, thanks. I recognized a few names, and I have Ladurie's Mind and Method of the Historian borrowed from the library right now. As far as indicating which are not RS, yes, that would be helpful. Do you want to just put an asterisk or some other indicator (* † ‡ ⁇ ⁑ ) next to those ones? You can get the N mark from template {{nay}}, and other marks can be found here. I'd love to have the Word document; you can email me via the 'Email this user' link in the left sidebar under the desktop layout (not sure where it is on the new layout), or this link should work: email Mathglot. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have used asterisks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Gillham Wood

Hi, Dudley Miles. I understand the revert on the PROD for Gillham Wood – nobody wants their article PRODed. However, an ostensibly experienced editor like yourself should be familiar enough with notability guidelines (please see WP:GNG and WP:NGEO, which both apply here) to understand how flimsy the stated reasoning behind the challenge was. "The article is notable and useful to readers who wish to know about [specific thing]" could be said to bypass notability guidelines for literally any subject. We draw the line at notability guidelines for very good reasons (the GNG sets the bar just trivially low enough that Wikipedia doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information), and that's not negated (or influenced whatsoever) by the presence of a hypothetical readerbase who would like to have an article specifically about every character from their favorite TV show, their favorite small local business, or a forest which otherwise does not appear to be covered significantly in any reliable, independent sources. Bulbapedia shows that an article about every single Pokémon, move, ability, town, and character would be widely useful to plenty of people. KnowYourMeme's article on 'Are Ya Winning, Son?' has 1 million views, so we'll need an article about that too. You see where I'm going here. Perhaps newspaper articles from newspaper sources could be dug up here to establish notability? That's often how it goes for this sort of thing. Preferably they would be regional or national, but either way, they need substantial coverage about the subject itself; not just a mention that WP:ITEXISTS.

Right now, the sourcing on the article is entirely primary, and I was unable to find a way to fix that. Please find reliable, independent sources which give the subject WP:SIGCOV, otherwise it objectively does not belong on Wikipedia. A mention on Wikivoyage, perhaps(?), but not an article here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the notablility guidelines artificially exclude articles which are reliably referenced and notable. Characters in game shows are trivia, unlike a nature reserve. However, I have found two other sources which should satisfy the requirements. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

They really don't, however. They establish verifiability (WP:ITEXISTS), but they definitely don't rise to the standard of WP:SIGCOV (the longest of the two comes to 47 words). Disagreeing with the guidelines is one thing, but I think you may fundamentally misunderstand significant coverage as it pertains to notability criteria (these new sources are ostensibly both reliable and independent, however). When I looked into this before PRODing, the best sources I was able to find were from hyper-local newspapers via the Britsh Newspaper Archive (seen here), and even in those hyper-local human interest stories, the references to Gillham Wood amount to the briefest mention. This doesn't even rise to the level of significant coverage that some fan-made Pokémon receive. I think it's pretty cut-and-dry that Gillham Wood doesn't warrant its own article, most especially because it's largely a repeat of your (quite excellent) work at Sussex Wildlife Trust. Nonetheless, I could be wrong, and perhaps it has some prevalence in print-only books or digitized books which I was unable to find. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be adopting an excessively strict interpretation of the requirements for notability. SIGGOV rules out passing mentions but does not specify a minimum length. I have seen much worse referenced articles survive nominations for deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The same to you SchroCat and the pictures are brilliant. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Harry the house"

Hi,

I noticed you'd reverted a couple of edits by DuncanHill at "Wicken Fen" and "One Tree Hill and Bitchet Common" where he had reverted the changes made by an IP editor. The IP editor is a blocked user known as "Harry the house" (see the SPI archive here) and is very prolific. I'd like to try to coordinate a response to his activity. Would you mind joining the discussion here?

Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jean. I don't think I have anything to add to what has already been said by other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		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)

Merry Christmas Johnbod. I didn't know that sculptors were producing that level of realism that early. Is there anything equivalent in Italian painting in the thirteenth century? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really - the sculptors were ahead of the game for a while, until Giotto really. In Italy they had lots of Roman models lying around, while painters just had mostly 2nd-rate Byzantine stuff to follow. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Ealdgyth. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have no excuses not to be productive as I am retired! Dudley Miles (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Edward the Martyr

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Edward the Martyr, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Customising watch list

I wish to use the delete bot edits option in my watch list, and I have implemented it many times, but each time bots are shown the next time I open the watch list. I cannot find how to save the change. Please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Click here: Special:Preferences
• Go to the Watchlist tab
• Scroll down to the heading called Changes shown
• Check the box beside Hide bot edits from the watchlist
• Scroll to the bottom and click the <Save> button.

Enjoy! —Scottyoak2 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Scotty. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Scottyoak2, I have checked hide bot edits but it is erratic whether it works. Today, it worked when I first logged in but since then bot edits have shown. Can you advise what the problem is? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing how you are using your watchlist in your workflow, I'm not able to replicate any unexpected behaviors.

The watchlist options that you set in your Preferences section are activated when you log in. When you then go to your watchlist page, it will be displayed using your Preference settings. Whilst viewing your watchlist page, there is also a —Watchlist options— box at the top, with various checkboxes. You can toggle things on and off, and then click the <Show> button. Doing so does not change your Preferences settings. So, if you then log out and log back in; your Preference settings will be reactivated (as expected).

If you need more help, post another {{help me}} on this page, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, to ask someone for assistance. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

William Marshal page

Hello Dudley Miles. I have started a talk page discussion on the whole four/five kings debate, and I would appreciate it if you could chime in. Best to you and yours. Vyselink (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

FA review

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Nicholas of Worcester

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Nicholas of Worcester, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

FAC mentoring

Hi there, I recently took Edict of Expulsion to GA, and I am hoping to bring Eleanor of Castile to that standard also in the not too distant future. I was wondering if you still do FAC mentoring and would be interested in helping with me taking the Edict of Expulsion page through the process? Next year is the 750th anniversary of the related expulsions by Eleanor of Provence from her dower towns (Cambridge, Worcester, Gloucester and Marlborough) so it would be great to get some of the related pages to a good state, starting with the 1290 Edict. Jim Killock (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at Edict of Expulsion and I have some comments, but I do not think it needs mentoring. I suggest that you take it to peer review and I can comment there. You may also get comments from other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I've listed it for review. Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick note to say thank you for the feedback on Peer review, that I have pushed this to FAR, if you have any further thoughts, or advice how I can get more feedback / support. Jim Killock (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting

You referred to the cited article as "vague and speculative". As in contrary to the other sections of the article? It's called "Possible causes". Could you point out the part in the paper that disqualifies it as a source in the Wikipedia article, in contrast to the other sources? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb Hipporoo (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It is vague and speculative because no mechanism is suggested in the source how a change in orbital eccentricity caused by a passing star led to global warming, or why the change was not permanent and was reversed at the end of the warming. Thanks for your edit, but you need to use the original source at [1] in Astrophysical Journal Letters, which may provide the basis for a good edit and should be cited rather than a journalistic summary. The edit also uses the word "revealed", which implies some sort of revelation and is not a good word for science. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Bristol West (UK Parliament constituency)

Maybe you know something I don't, but I thought Bristol West was being replaced by Bristol Central (UK Parliament constituency) for the next election. Tammbeck^talk 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert on Henry III

Hello, I noticed that you reverted changes I made to the article regarding Henry III of England. In your summary you stated that it was "too colloquial", and I had some thoughts on that. First, I'm wondering if you read through the entire list of changes? For example, there is one point in the article where the way the sheriffs treated the lower classes during the reign of Henry III is described as "robust" when I assume they meant "heavy-handed", using "robust" (strong and healthy; vigorous / able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions) there doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why this part would warrant being reverted.

Also, how is making an article more colloquial a bad thing? I understand that some things can be lost in translation or over-simplified but I don't believe the edits I made reach that level and this website is to provide knowledge to as many people as possible, right? This can't happen if the language used is too complex or scientific, especially if the terms used are too archaic - but, again, I don't believe my changes really touched on anything like this to begin with.

I would like you to describe more thoroughly what the issues with my changes were so we can discuss it properly.

Sincerely, MeadeIndeed (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Cooloqualism is fine in many contexts but not in an encyclopedia. Most of your changes made the article worse in my view, and as it is an FA the current wording is likely to have passed review by FAC reviewers. "As time passed" is a vague colloqualism. "reduction in royal authority" reads better than "reduction of royal authority". "his own faction" is fine as it is. The Cambridge Dictionary prefers percent to per cent. "the major barons" has a specific meaning which is lost in "the powerful barons". "gave them a poor reputation" is a personal opinion whereas "generated much unpopularity" is neutral and more encylcopedic, Ditto replacing "was slow" with "often dragged his feet". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, excuse the slow reply.

You mentioning the Cambridge Dictionary made me interested in trying to find out if there is a preference at all on Wikipedia when it comes to which form of written English should be used, what I found was this bit under the "Controversies" title and "English varieties" sub-title at English Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language" - and it continues with - "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". So, technically, you're correct that it should be "per cent" as it's the preferred spelling of the word in British-English and the article is about an English king. However, there doesn't seem to be any set guidelines as to what style is preferred. I tend to go with "percent" since it reads as it sounds and also because most of my interactions with English both online and in books has written it as such. Though I will try to keep it "thematic" to the article being edited going forward.

When it came to why I switched out some instances of "major" to "powerful" barons was due to the word being used several times in close succession, I do however agree that perhaps changing from "major" to "powerful" makes it lose some of its meaning. I didn't change from "major barons" to "powerful barons" throughout the article but I see your point.

I thank you for pointing these things out, I still think some of the changes were valid - such as the one I mentioned previously regarding the sheriffs and their "robust" attempts to collect taxes - but I'll try to keep it in mind. I do admit that some of the changes were a bit more "flowery" than intended. MeadeIndeed (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Byfield Pool

The article Byfield Pool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG.

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. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas of Worcester scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. The blurb looks fine to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

Does your interest in history extend to this? I am hoping you would be willing to give this, especially the Middle Ages sections, a look over with a view toward achieving FA quality. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have done some reading on this, but it only goes up to around 1000 AD. it is of course an enormous subject, and congratulations for taking it on. The article is nearly 13,000 words and WP:Size recommends that if it is over 10,000 then aspects should be split off into separate articles. I suggest that you hive off to get it down below 10,000 words, put it up for Wikipedia:Peer review and then ping me again. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tiger FAC

Hello. Could you review tiger for FAC? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Kensington and Bayswater

Re your revert here. If you look at the bottom of the Statement of Persons Nominated, it says

Dated Friday 7 June 2024 Maxine Holdsworth Acting Returning Officer Printed and published by the Acting Returning Officer, The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London, W8 7N

Therefore, Maxine Holdsworth, as the Acting Returning Officer, is both author and publisher. Why are you expunging that important information? The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea website hosts the document, but is not named on the doc and is not the publisher of the doc either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see that it is useful information and so far as I know it has not been given for any other constituency. However, if given it should be correct as author and publisher, not "via", so I have edited accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Edmund Ætheling

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Edmund Ætheling, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thank you today for Nicholas of Worcester, introduced: "Nicholas was Prior of Worcester in the early twelfth century. He was the leading follower of Saint Wulfstan of Worcester and fought for the rights of monks in the church in a period when they were despised by the Norman bishops. He was a source of information for historians such as William of Malmesbury and Eadmer, who held him in great respect. He was of unknown but "exalted" descent, and may have been a son of King Harold Godwinson."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today's story is about the TFA, by sadly missed Vami_IV. You supported it in 2018, thank you! For more related thoughts and music, look on my talk for 1 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

History of Anglo-Saxon England

Hi. I have been looking at your update for The History of Anglo-Saxon England article, which I think you are doing a pretty good job on. IMO the section that has caused the most controversy is the discussion between the migration model, namely the conventional versus the more recent coexistance model. Heinrich Härke in his paper about "Early Anglo-Saxon social structure" argues the case for coexistance, so I would recommend that you keep it in. I remembered I put it in myself, some time ago, after demands for "quotes" etc.. Best wishes. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I must admit that very little of the draft is my work as so far I have mainly concentrated on getting rid of the text based on unreliable sources. I have not yet looked at Harke, but I do have a copy. I think that all this earlier discussion will probably need to be revised in the light of the latest genetic results in the Gretzinger paper at [2]. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I see you have an interest in subjects that are Medieval-related, so perhaps you can check this narwhal FAC? The Medieval-related part of this article is in the Relationship with humans section. Thanks for your time, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 09:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Arberiunumk

Hello, hope you're doing well. Could you please explain why you reverted my last edit on Constantine the Great? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arberiunumk (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I explained it in my edit summary. You referenced the lead, which should be an unreferenced summary of the referenced main text. You should have referenced the main text. Also, your refs are primary sources. Wikipedia policy is that reliable secondary sources are preferred, as Wikipedia editors are not experts on judging the reliability of primary sources, which frequently contradict each other. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

- Alright, Thanks, i appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arberiunumk (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider a mentorship?

Hello, I'm the main contributor of Charles the Bold and was hoping to ask you for a mentorship for FAC. The article has undergone copyediting but two other users told me it is still lacking in prose. So that's where my main concern lies. Thanks in advance. Amir Ghandi (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to help but I think it would be best if you nominate it for peer review and then ping me. That way, other editors can comment. Two initial comments. The article is nearly 11,500 words. This is too long. The usual limit is 10,000 and the article should preferably be well below that. You should cut it down before nominating it for PR. Also, I am not sure what lacking in prose means. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DM, just for context, it has had a PR already—and I'm not saying it shouldn't have another, especially one that hopefully draws more eyes to it—but I think what Amir means it that he feels the prose could still be polished up further. I've commented on the sourcing—not a spot check—which is all HQ RS—but length is definitely an issue, I agree. SerialNumber54129 12:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Serial Number. I was not aware that the article has already had a PR. Amir Ghandi, In view of SN's comments, I suggest you close the second PR and cut down the length of the article. Once you have done that, you can submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. So far as I can see, it has not had a formal copy edit? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It had one actually which ended three days ago. Amir Ghandi (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I think you just need to cut down the length and then I will review it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for complicating things, Dudley Miles! That's the best advice, a heart trim first. SerialNumber54129 19:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, reduced the size to 9781 words. Amir Ghandi (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Dawkins mention at History of Earth

I'm confused by your reversion of my edit to History of Earth. This article as a whole is a high-level summary of the history of our planet. The section attempts to summarize all of human history in a few paragraphs. It seems bizarre to me that the name of any particular scientist would merit mention in such a high-level overview. This kind of article isn't the place to describe proposals of various theorists, but to state widely-accepted shared understandings as fact.

Further, the mention of Dawkins in this particular way makes it seem like the notion of a meme is merely the tentative proposal of one thinker. However, I regard memetics as developed by Dawkins and others as widely accepted and appropriate for this article, and therefore it seems to minimize it to describe it as a single person's proposal in this way. Daask (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not understand your reasons for deleting Dawkins, particularly as you linked mimetics, not memetics. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, please forgive the typo. Now that you have read my longer explanation, would you kindly revert your reversion? Daask (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is common to mention originators of theories. Other scientists mentioned by name in the article include J. A. Jacobs, Urey and Miller. There is no implication that it was Dawkins' pet theory, but I do not think it matters much whether he is mentioned - Wegener is not and he is more significant to this article - so I will not revert if you delete again. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking for FAC Mentorship

Hi Dudley Miles, I’m the primary contributor of Machu Picchu, which has gone through a peer review and is now waiting for a review in GAN. Given your interest geography and your experience with FAC, I would greatly appreciate your guidance as I prepare it for a future nomination. Thanks in advance for considering this! Best regards, JustEMV (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am currently helping another editor and I do not want to take on two at the same time. If you do not find anyone else, you could ask me again in a month or so. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know! I’ll reach out again if I still need help in a month. JustEMV (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Cyfeilliog

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Cyfeilliog, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talking of congratulations being earned, I must've missed this on the first read. Nice work! SerialNumber54129 14:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Serial Number 54129. That is a shortened version due to the journal's size limitations. The full article is in instalments in the June to August issues of the Hendon and District Archaeological Society newsletter. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Æthelbald, King of Wessex: Unpiping/piping versus redirects

Dear Dudley: By reverting my today’s edit 1242491692, you restored the several redirects, which is, according to me, wrong; pls distinguish between piping and redirects; pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was incorrect on two counts. 1. Pipes should not be used to avoid redirects. See WP:NOPIPE. 2. The article title is Æthelwulf, King of Wessex, but you piped to Æthelwulf of Wessex, so you were introducing a double pipe. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your explanation: ok, you are partially right; nevertheless, the redirect remained: Æthelwulf instead of correct Æthelwulf, King of Wessex; on the next line in the infobox, it is also incorrect: Æthelberht is redirected to Æthelberht of Wessex, and then finally to Æthelberht, King of Wessex; probably, there will be more similar double-redirects in the article– I will check it and fix it as soon as I have more time Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error with Æthelberht. I have corrected it. Æthelwulf is correct in accordance with WP:NOPIPE, as I pointed out. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)