Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Popular pages on my watchlist and when I checked it this morning a change by User:Community Tech bot showed up, but it is no longer showing on today's changes. Can you advise why this is and how I can stop it happening in the future. Thanks Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helped. I believe going to the "Watchlist" tab of your user preferences and removing the for Hide bot edits from the watchlist would be the solution. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Happy editing, Sam Sailor 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Meurig ab Arthfael, 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 The nomination discussion has been archived.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) 00:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:Thank you for reverting my Roman Britain edit when I added a source as no 1. I went through the article, and was able to craft a brief paragraph based on the source and added it to the relevant section (instead of just citing it as a source). Thank you for your feedback. Reykcultura7193 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution Reykcultura7193, but I have had to revert again. Naming and summarising the book in the text is undue emphasis on one of many sources. You could write that Hingley states that the conquest was a long drawn out process and cite his book with page number(s), but a summary belongs in the article about the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the feedback and constructive criticism. I will stick to a sentence and cite his book per your suggestion.Reykcultura7193 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dudley Miles. I'm just posting to let you know that Suffolk Wildlife Trust – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley, I hope you're keeping well.

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. 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/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing 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! SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. I have made a minor amendment for clarity to the article and the blurb. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not display modern names for historical locations in the infobox. Please stop reverting. See WP:MODERNPLACENAME - "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts". GiantSnowman 09:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance you cite is about the title of articles about geographic locations, not locations in infoboxes about people. WP:MODERNPLACENAME also says "Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names" (my italics). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you have quoted is talking about infoboxes about the locations themselves, not infoboxes which mention the locations. Please self-revert. GiantSnowman 11:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason I should revert. You have cited irrelevant guidance for deleting details which are useful to readers, and then object to me quoting contrary guidance in the article you have cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Simpler and more informative to say;
  Down House, Downe, Kent
  (now in Greater London), England
  The hidden comment was wrong, it now reads – Letter no. 3368 footnote; "spelling of the village name was variable. ‘Down’ was the commonest form up to the 1870s, and ‘Downe’ thereafter", and it was in Kent until 1965.
  See Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 3368" . . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Infobox person birth and death places; "For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text." On that basis, I've commented out "(now in Greater London)" which could be in the article text if need be, but it's better covered in the Down House and Downe articles. . . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm contacting you because I noticed your username is listed at WP:FAM and I am interested in nominating a FAC but have never done so in the past. I'm contacting several people listed as FA mentors so if you are busy that is okay. The article is Neurocysticercosis, a parasitic brain disease. I have started a peer review for the article which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is way outside my area, but I will try to comment on the PR. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate any input I can get! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 22:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to get through to the editor at Adam de Port (d. c. 1133) that they aren't editing helpfully nor have the slightest clue how to edit well? @Agricolae: and @Paramandyr: who have also had some dealings with them. I don't have lots of time for wiki right now but it's so discouraging dealing with this sort of unhelpful editing. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Dudley or Agricolae, but I have tried to explain reliable sourcing and proper citations, all for naught I'm afraid. And, judging from Ealdgyth's exhaustive attempts to reach Pipera, I'm wondering if this is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? --Paramandyr (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the latest edits and it is now on my watchlist. Unless someone wants to try to get sanctions imposed I think the only thing is to keep reverting until the editor gives up. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ealdgyth. Happy holidays and good luck to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SchroCat. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]