Hi, thanks for correcting my error on the project for Tongue End‎. I had made a mental note of problem and was going to return and correct error today, but after 2 power-cuts you beat me to it. Keith D (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - I have been reading the work you wrote on 17:22, 16 April 2005 in the article for the A151 about Bourne The reality, or otherwise, of the castle in Bourne is regularly discussed in the town, and the chap who writes the otherwise excellent web site has a bee in his bonnet that it never existed. You have described it in far greater detail than I have ever seen before. What sources did you use for the article? Do you still have access to them? I'd like to be in a position to pass them on to the rest of the town. The description at http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=348162 refers to the mounds on the well-head park, whereas you describe structures and gates associated with the built up part of the town. What do you know? --Brunnian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Brunnian,

Thank you for your note on my talk page. It has been remiss of me. I should have written my analysis of the castle material up but there is always something else to be done. Still, if I had publicised it when I first thought of doing so, I should have missed insights which arose later, leaving me to modify what I had said.

I gave up contributing to Wikipedia on such topics, partly because of the need to quote ‘authorities’. The snag is that such ‘authorities’ as there are tend to say in effect, that they don’t know much about it. Those you quoted are obvious examples. I therefore put my effort in this connection, into my own web site but there is still more to add than is already there.

The principal source of castle information is the site itself but others have written about it so their contributions are useful where the relevant information in the site has subsequently become lost or hidden. Also, they often confirm what is visible on the surface of the site and their view of the place, as it was in their time is informative. Since, it seems, most people are not capable of reading the site itself, they do rather tend to dismiss it and your web site keeper is a notorious case in point.

Provided you are capable of reading the site, a look at an Ordnance Survey map tells a good deal of the nature of the castle and its relationship to the town. Viewing the site when it is saturated and desiccated gives more detail. Paul Cope-Faulkner’s report of his observation of the 2001 pipe trench gives a good deal of detail about dimensions, layout and building materials in the inner bailey and by inference the East bailey as well. Some of this information is corroborated by Peak’s description in Marrat. Also, though the keep is now entirely destroyed, he gives information about its nature, therefore its approximate date. Moore gives information about Peak, thereby dating his description. Leland gives a description of the castle’s state in around 1540; while Marrat himself is informative about its state in around 1816. This in conjunction with the Bourne Abbots and Exeter estate maps of 1825-7, gives approximate dates for the demolition of the inner bailey gatehouse and for the removal of the inner bailey curtain wall material into the moat (though not explicitly.)

Trollope gives some detail about the inner bailey gatehouse sufficient to date it to the late 13th century and to make its parch mark, when it appears, recognizable for what it is. See his drawings.

Swift was capable of reading the site but he was working without access to the work of Cope-Faulkner and Hibbit, so several of the more subtle points eluded him.

Foster (superscript 25) discusses the 1645 reference to the castle in the Parish Register. Here again, a study of the site in the light of his evidence of events elsewhere makes a coherent story possible. (See chronology around 11 October 1645). Inspection of the existing 17th century earthworks makes it clear that they were intended for a defence of the town rather than a Cromwellian attack upon it but were never completed.

Study of the hydraulic arrangement of the river dates the initial building, which is broadly confirmed by Moore’s quotation of Peak. The 2001 trial trenching on the workhouse site tended to confirm the absence of much building on the site before the castle was begun. Moore’s description of the inner and outer baileys, with areas corroborates the dimensions of the inner bailey and its moat, shown by Cope-Faulkner. (The information lies in his report but don’t expect it to be openly stated. It needs careful analysis.)

Peak and Leland (quoted by Marrat) give an indication of the site’s state in their respective times (c.1380 and c.1547).

Hibbit’s resistance survey partially overlaps Cope-Faulkner’s section forming a useful correlation between them. Hibbit showed a heavy wall around the site of the keep which Swift seems to have seen. Swift’s interpretation is probably a little awry in that the wall will have been a revetment for a cylindrical motte of late 13th century type, like that at Farnham, Surrey. This would be consistent with the late 13th century style of the inner bailey gatehouse and the embrasures or loops now in the Shippon Barn.

My web site e mail address is rjp@boar.org.uk. If you want to be talked through it, we can make arrangements there.

(RJPe (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hhi, I noticed you've been creating some watermill articles. Would you mind tagging them with {{WikiProject Mills|class=|importance=mid}} when you add wikiprojects to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done 2 of them. If I ever get enough to add the other Slea mills I will do as you ask.

What does 'nowiki' do? The other templates don't seem to need it? Or perhaps they have it inside the transcluded section?--Brunnian (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"nowiki" prevents the wikitext from working, so that you can see what to type to add the wikitext to an article or talk page. It also makes it easy to copy & paste. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently added a request for additional references for the article on Coalhouse Fort. Was this a general request, or were there some specific statements that you felt needed references? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that both the Coalhouse and Tilbury articles are very good, but contain a lot of facts that are not referenced in any way. Less so in the case of the Coalhouse one, where I have probably overstated the problem and should have used a citation flag instead (done that) . There is a clear reference to one source. I was just hoping that there was an available cross-reference to the radar installation. I grew up round there, and had many family picnics at both Tilbury and Coalhouse - My Grandfather, a Tilbury councillor, said that the ruins in the river were associated with the pits at Tilbury where floating harbour elements and parts of the offshore forts were built. The Radar tower surprised me: I thought they were all at Southend and Manston. I'd also suggest that the external links for the project could perhaps be a reference.

The comments were meant in a friendly way - I've had some of my contributions threatened with deletion because of lack of use of the <ref> tags, and would not like to see such a well written article threatened. --Brunnian (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references to the Tilbury Fort article and removed the improve tag. If you think it still needs more refs, let me know. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good effort (which is Lincolnshire slang for 'top hole'). I guess you've seen http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=413465 . I'd forgotten the Zeppelin story - my grandfather used to tell it all the time. He used it as evidence that the royal navy was a medieval relic and should be shut down. Brunnian (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added File:Scoop-Wheel-at-Streatham-old-engine-by-Chris-Allen.jpg to some articles. That's fine, but you also added "by Chris Allen". I don't think we attribute photos in this way; if anyone wants to know who took it they can click on the image to find out. In this we differ from books and mags etc. Regards, William M. Connolley (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's done in this way in a number of places, and the geograph web page implies that something like this should be done.--Brunnian (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is attributed on the image page. It doesn't need to be attributed on the article page, and I don't think it should be. Where else do you see this being done? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who knows now? I copied the idea from various geographic and church pages I had seen. I don't much care one way or the other.--Brunnian (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the caption should be a brief description of the subject. No credits are generally necessary there. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pinchbeck Engine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pmlineditor ∞ 08:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pinchbeck Engine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are (more) sensitive about dates in year articles. I did actually change some by chance, and they look better for it by and large. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, in my opinion, the links to Day Month should almost always go, but some links to other "Years in Engineering" or whatever might be relevant. Similarly in year articles linking to the birth/death years of people in the death/birth sections may be OK (but those sections are a little odd really anyway). Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Brunnian, I'm trying to rescue Wikipedia definition of RBF Morph WP:Articles_for_deletion/RBF_Morph. A CFD expert that is using the software in Formula 1 is open to help me to improve the article. Considering your support in the delete discussion I will appreciate your help if a debate for undelete will be open by the administrator Jayjg ((talk)) that has deleted it! Thanks! MEB71 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your opinion in the deletion review... 93.145.117.132 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a work page here Talk:Rotary direct lift devices/workpage but I havent done much lately Please BE Bold my writing skills are not that good the Intro still needs to be written and the rest could use help.J8079s (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brunnian. I spotted a slight confusion in this article, and was going to add a paragraph, but then I thought you might have your eye on this article for a future DYK, so I'm letting you know about it instead, out of courtesy. It is indeed this Hanby which has been identified as a lost settlement, but the evidence is now ploughed out, although the farmer retains loads of Saxon pottery etc. that he has found. The evidence for the same parish is in the citation link already on the page: just click on the plus sign next to "detail" and "more information".

Meanwhile, I think there may be two separate sites, which would have caused the above confusion. This may be the second site, at Welton le Marsh which doesn't have its own page yet.

If you have no interest in the article, then I'll add the info if you like - up to you.--Storye book (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I linked to the reference it said that the site at Hanby was one of two candidates for the DMV found in documentation. If more is now known, then by all means update it. I'm not very interested in DYKs, I've just been tidying up stubs near where I live. Thanks. --Brunnian (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do. Glad to be of help.--Storye book (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All done. See what you think, and re-edit if you want. I'll have a look on Geograph to see if there are any more images - the more the merrier.--Storye book (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final update: all finished - 7 more images uploaded, and Commons category link added to article. Please check the images if you wish - I live in a village too, and am aware that it's important to differentiate between villages. I may have included an image or two which you may feel belong to the neighbouring village.--Storye book (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been working on Twenty, Lincolnshire and have moved the section Twenty Foot Drain; I did resolve this a few weeks ago: please see Talk:Twenty, Lincolnshire#Origin of name, which directs the reader to Twenty railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snag is, not everyone agrees with that theory. The other two stations between Bourne and Spalding were Counter Drain and North Drove: both named after existing landscape features, something done for nearly every railway station in the UK. It would be truly astonishing if they had chosen to invent a name from thin air for this one. Mr Penhey has done a lot of work on this, and there is no doubt that there was a '20 foot drain' along the alignment of twenty drove : it can be followed on the modern OS map up to a small curve on dowsby fen. This is the only drain in the whole fen on that alignment, and it aligns perfectly with twenty drove. You also have to ask why there is a bend in the road at that point unless there was some historic bridge over some historic feature.

A J Wrottesley's history of the M&GN came up with the '20 drainage ditches' before the end of the 19th century, but I have walked the line and found 23. A look at a map of 1910 in the library in Lincoln it looks like 16. The book was a history of a railway company that succeeded the builders, not the builders themselves. But There is a real lack of reference to the name 'twenty' before the railway. Have a look at [1] - a strip map of the turnpike. This mentions no bridge over any 20 foot river, nor a turnpike gate at twenty. But it also omits the turnpike gate at Friar Bar, nearer to Bourne, so it cannot be regarded as reliable anyway.

we don;t even know when Guthram Cote became Guthram Gowt - or even that Guthram Cote was in the same place as Guthram Gowt. One act of parliament for the repair of rivers in the 14th century implies it was up near Pinchbeck, about 3 miles north of where it is now.

I'm afraid your resolution is just as speculative as any of the others. There is no documentary evidence of the origin of the name. Not even the Parish records can help - there was never a church or chapel at Twenty. The origin of the name can never be anything but an opinion. Some people find one theory convincing and others another, I'm afraid. I'm in the '20 foot river' camp, because North Drove and counter drain are pre-existing names. --Brunnian (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the stubs from Stamford Museum, but this article is still classed as developing, needing headings and most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. If you can find some references that will be fine. I will create a reference area on the article. --BSTemple (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brunnian. Respect for your hard work in adding lost settlements of Lincolnshire and Rutland to the above list. I am struggling to keep up with your additions, in order to keep the Template:Lost settlements in the United Kingdom navbox up to date. If you have time, it would help a great deal if you could add each new lost settlement to the navbox as well as the list. If you don't have time to edit the navbox as well, it would help me if you could kindly let me know if you have spotted any incorrect links in the Lincolnshire and Rutland sections of the navbox. Also, the exam season is approaching, when I won't have time to edit the navbox regularly, so you may wish to keep an eye on the Lincolnshire section of it - up to you.--Storye book (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.--Brunnian (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it's very much appreciated.--Storye book (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another five today, including in the nav box. I've not added the nav box to Temple Bruer, 'cos I think the DMV of Bruer is rather an over-statemenment.--Brunnian (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your hard work!--Storye book (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bourne Westfield Primary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable UK primary (elementary ) school.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Bourne Westfield Primary School, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary School until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, had enough. I've put hundreds of hours into this site over the last few years, researching content and buying reference books in order to make something worthwhile. It's obviously not good enough for the self-appointed so I really can't be bothered any more.--Brunnian (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quit. Nobody's on their own on Wikipedia. I am attempting to keep your article about Bourne primary school on Wiki. You need to contact a reliable administrator asap, and get practical advice. There are standard tactics to help administrators in other countries appreciate the notability of your article. For example, at the top of every new article you start, you should say "blah is a blah, notable for blah". Basically, you need to give these guys some help. I suggest that you find a fairly tough administrator to help you, because if you can keep to their guidelines, there is little chance of deletion. Materialscientist has been very helpful to me, for example, giving no-nonsense advice. Excirial is extremely helpful and supportive. It helps that they are not in the UK. Hang on in there - your work is a valuable asset to Wiki and it has not gone unnoticed.--Storye book (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry to see that you might quit. You know, anybody can edit the encyclopedia, and anybody can propose articles for deletion if they feel that they don't meet the criteria. An AfD debate is all about finding out whether they do or not. Most of us who have been reasonably active on article an content creation for a long time have suffered at least one AfD. If the article ultimately get deleted, fine, there are plenty of other articles waiting to be written. But as you can see, others are often prepared to jump in and attempt to save an article. BTW: I would just like to draw your attention to this piece of policy WP:CANVAS, in particular this section: WP:CANVAS#Inappropriate notification. --Kudpung (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something very odd going on here. Firstly, I am not aware of Brunnian canvassing. Maybe he/she has canvassed - if so, please could you kindly post the link for that, Kudpung? If, on the other hand, you are referring to my well-meant advice above, to assist Brunnian basically to learn how to create articles more exactly according to Wiki rules, and thereby to make them fairly deletion-free, then you are way off the mark. Asking advice of administrators on general terms about the creation of articles and about notability is not canvassing. We all have to learn. Hard-line administrators such as Materialscientist would not accept canvassing anyway, as you well know; he would immediately draw attention to it. But perhaps, Kudpung, you could give us all the benefit of your advice on another topic. I feel intimidated by the tone of the discussion about the above school article. What does CRGreathouse mean in his post of yesterday, which says "we're coming after you"? In the UK it recalls those anonymous threatening messages said to be sent by stalkers and bullies. Surely that is not the normal tone of Wikipedia discussions? As you know, I don't disagree with the Wiki policy, nor with your interpretation of it. I personally don't even mind if the article is deleted, provided I get a chance to research and re-edit it to see whether it can be improved, as per Wiki policy. But I don't think I can continue to take part in that discussion if I feel threatened. If that kind of talk is the reason why Brunnian quit, then I can understand his/her decision. The loss of Brunnian to Wikipedia is a serious and regrettable one. He/she has contributed some very valuable work in adding many archaeological sites of abandoned villages in the UK to our lists, giving local people a sense of their history, and giving developers and councils important information about research which might be done into the viability or protection of building sites. --Storye book (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely sure that Brunnian has done some very good work for this encyclopedia - I checked that out first before making any comment. However, in spite of being an excellent content provider, it's quite possible that he might not be aware of all our different policies and guidelines. I don't know them all either, it's just that school and education related matters are one of my special areas of activity. However, in my early days some of my edits got reverted and some of my articles went up for deletion too. The comment made by CRGreathouse refers entirely to the other primary school articles that have slipped through the new page patrollers' nets. When we come across them, we first try to see if we can save them, and if we can't, we zap them. We're all volunteers here, whatever tasks we do, and a bit of very light humour can occasionally make it worthwhile; there was definitely no malice aforethought directed personally at any of the editors concerned with this issue. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kudpung, for your reassurance that no malice was intended by CRGreathouse. However, as we all know, something which is understood to be light humour in one country may be understood otherwise in another. You may not know that in certain circumstances, the phrase that I quoted may be considered an illegal offence in the UK. Now of course I'm not suggesting that an offence has been committed here, but it is worth making the point that to readers in the UK, that phrase normally appears to be intimidating, and it is quite difficult here to present it as light humour in writing, especially in a serious debate where it is being suggested that somebody's work is to be deleted, and especially when that somebody has doing some fairly serious academic research for Wikipedia. I think that perhaps CRGreathouse has been naive as to the effect that his little transatlantic joke might have on a UK reader, bearing in mind that that reader's response may have included his decision to quit. Since we would like Brunnian to come back and resume his/her valuable work here, I think it might be very reassuring to all if CRGreathouse were to write on this page that his phrase did not imply any intention to persecute. I'm not asking for an apology; just facts. Thank you, Kudpung, for your kind cooperation in this matter. We are all trying to do our best for Wikipedia here. --Storye book (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storye book, I just want to reassure you all again that I have no personal interest in the school that is the subject of the AfD. I am only interested in upholding Wikipedia policy and guidelines that have been reached by a consensus of the community. That's one of the reasons why an AfD is a fair process and Bourne school hasn't even been decided by an admin yet. If we bend the rules because one editor makes an emotional threat to walk away from a project because of it, there is the risk of setting a new precedent and opening the floodgates. There is very little I or anyone else can do, but express most sincerely that Brunnian will come back and perhaps continue their excellent work in less contentious areas. I did not realise that Brunnian was feeling stalked or harrassed by editors from another place; However, I am British and I did not find the CRGreathouse expression particularly offensive. Perhaps if you were to leave a note on his talk page asking for his comments?--Kudpung (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have userfied the article to you as creator, so that the research is not lost should there be further deletions following the merge to Bourne, Lincolnshire. I have left further comments on the talkpages of both articles. --Storye book (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brunnian. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Education in Stamford, Lincolnshire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lincolnshire preceptories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]