Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi, many apologies, I've had a very difficult fortnight with two problems to deal with "in real life", and things went somewhat out of synch, including expressing my normally rather non-existent views on hatnotes (do they matter) considerably too strongly. Since you did almost all the work on the list (a lot of effort, visibly), you should really take it to FLC by yourself to get the credit. Of course if I can help with some of the history from Sands 2002 (or anything else), I'll be pleased to provide it, whether or not I'm in the FLC, but that's entirely up to you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I will merge the sites into the article but I have done no work on the lead and if you do not mind sorting it out then you should be the joint nominee. I have seen your name as an FAC nominee but not FLC, so excuse me if I explain what is required. The limit is four paragraphs, so the text in the two articles will need to be merged and trimmed accordingly. Editors like a paragraph about the sites, and your existing paragraph in the list article looks fine for that. I will hopefully be able to get photos of the one remaining site in the next month or two - providing the LWT officer remembers to put me on the list of people to be notified about the next visit and gets my email address right! What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll have a look at the merged paragraphs then, and see if I can think of any way to improve on them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On "four paragraphs", do you mean we have to rework all the text that is not list into a 4-para lead section? That will be quite a squeeze; or to summarize the rest of the article as usual in 4 paragraphs? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The rule is four in total. But if you think that is too restrictive I do not see any reason why we should not go for FAC instead. If you want to go that way we could ask the advice of an FAC coordinator. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested, I think this is available through EBSCO. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikki. I have applied. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I've taken the time to go through the entire article, I've looked at Gibbon, Downey, (Goldsworthy) How Rome Fell, and a couple others as well. I've managed to get citations and sourcing to about equal, 49 secondary to 44 primary citations. Of these 44 primary ones, more than half are supported by secondary sources and can be removed (if necessary, I'd leave them in for the reader to be aware).

A few are in a state of semi agreement, for example;

"Thus on the night of 15 May 218, Elagabalus was taken, by either Julia Maesa[28] or Gannys,[29] to the camp of the Legio III Gallica at Raphanaea and presented to the soldiers stationed there.[30] Some accounts claim that upon being presented to them, that Elagabalus was immediately hailed Antoninus, after Caracalla.[31] Enhanced by the monetary contributions of Julia Maesa the legion proclaimed Elagabalus emperor on 16 May 218.[26][32][33]" - ignore the numbers, I've left them in if you want to cross reference and confirm what I'm saying.

The first sentence is supported by Scott who also notes the disagreement between Dio and Herodian. The second has no specific support, but also no dissent. The last sentence is agreed upon unanimously by all sources.

This leaves only a single issue almost all of the secondary sources I have come across ignore Macrinus after the battle (aftermath), just saying he escaped and was later captured and killed. Dio and Herodian go into alot more detail here, is it an issue to leave that section as it is (primary source dependent with some secondary source input), or does it need a massive trim. I've taken a look at what would happen and the first paragraph would be reduced to this; "After escaping from the battle, Macrinus returned to Antioch. He was later captured and killed (on Elagabalus' orders (if I'm lucky)). The second paragraph, I'll look into but I'd be surprised if it had any issues. Since, Downey, Gibbon, Goldsworthy (How Rome Fell) are the only ones that even mention this, the other secondary sources just say killed after the battle. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am tied up sorting out a work problem at present, but I should be able to come back to you by Sunday. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay no problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I will copy this to the review page so other reviewers can comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I'm a bit snowed under at work so will not be able to anything about them at present.— Rod ^talk 18:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

OK no problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can get through to this editor... or a TPS can. I seem to be doing nothing but making them more upset. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I hope this is not going to become a battle, but I saw you just reverted my edits to Walter de Grey in their entirety citing that they were "unsourced"!! This is slightly preposterous insofar as I just posted quite a lengthy explanation of affairs on another page to which you have contributed. Anyway please see https://yorkminster.org/worship-and-choir/worship/sermons/and-the-word-was-made-flesh-and-lived-among-us.html wherein you will see that there absolutely nothing unsourced about my edits & in fact they are great deal more credible than the tosh that existed previously. If you don't mind, I should like a satisfactory explanation as to how to continue contributing on a topic I know much about when people just keep reverting & then citing "Edit War" (que?). Much, much, much easier just to let Wiki stew in its present state (unless you can think of a better plan)? L'honorable (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You do not understand the way Wikipedia works. You have to cite your source when you make the edit, not cite them on a Talk page. The sources cited by Ealdgyth, particularly the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Handbook of British Chronology are authoritative, and they use Gray, but you have now cited a reliable source, the York Minster site, for a variant spelling, so I will add this to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall be away for a few days now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I realize I never responded to your note on my talk page; I had just started reading the article today when you closed the PR. I'll plan on commenting at FAC, as I assume that's where it's going next. It's not an area of ASE that I know much about, but I do have some references that cover it so I will try to come up with some helpful comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English Benedictine Reform/archive1. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dudley, I've been crazy busy for the last few days, but I'm hoping things'll settle down by the end of the week and that I'll soon have a chance to look at English Benedictine Reform for the peer review. It's not forgotten. Nortonius (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Still not forgotten & still preoccupied IRL, not sure how long for now – I've add the PR page to my watchlist, I hope someone drops by there soon. :o/ Nortonius (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nortonius. I have closed the PR and nominated it for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English Benedictine Reform/archive1. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the list of Bedfordshire nature reserves are great. On 5 September the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire will no longer be managing Eye Green nature reserve so would like this reserve to be removed from the list of reserves on Wikipedia. Wildlife Trust BCN comms team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildlifebcn (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article to make the position clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Further to my obiter dicta at the current FAC, if you do any of your drafting in Word, as I think a lot of us do, the autoformat as you type facility, if activated, will automatically turn parenthetic hyphens into en-dashes. If you type rhubarb - parenthesis - crumble (the dashes being hyphens at this point) Word will convert them automatically into spaced en-dashes, giving you rhubarb – parenthesis – crumble. For unspaced em-dashes, type duplicate hyphens: prunes--parenthesis--custard to get prunes—parenthesis—custard. If drafting in Word, you need to be sure the smart quotes bit of autoformat is firmly switched off or you'll get curly inverted commas that play merry hell with WP formatting. Ignore any or all of this if it doesn't seem useful. Happy editing, and enjoy the prunes. Tim riley talk 12:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim for the helpful advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 16:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for reviewing a total of 2 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi Dudley, just a gentle reminder that I've addressed your comments at the List of Davis Cup champions FLC. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

OK I will have a try and see how it goes. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that Herts and Middlesex 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 September 23. 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) 02:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Giants. I have looked at the blurb and it looks fine. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you but I would greatly appreciate it if you kindly give me some feedback on this list. This list is ready in my opinion. --Saqib (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have my own theories about why some reviewers always object to "However" at the start of a sentence. I don't have a blanket condemnation, but I think that it usually raises a question that isn't immediately answered. To deal with it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 6, 2016, I need to ask a question: did historians in the 19th century have views similar to those in the 20th century? - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. The only nineteenth-century source I have access to is the original Dictionary of National Biography article, published in 1889. This describes him as extremely religious, and his religion as not more enlightened than that of his people. (The author of the article is the Reverend William Hunt.) Æthelwulf is also described as lacking the energy to preserve the unity of his kingdom, although one historian is mentioned as disagreeing with this view of his character. There is no criticism of his pilgrimage to Rome. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've got an idea what to do then. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dudley. Can we discuss your reverts over on the Wilfrid talk page? Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask you as a third party to look at the talk page please? I seem to be having some difficulty in making myself understood. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope my comment is helpful. I do not know enough to comment on Senlac. Doesn't it make life difficult when people keep riding their hobbyhouse at excessive length? I am fascinated by the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, the theory that early humans went through a semi-aquatic phase, but I have given up on the article because the arguments on the talk page go on at such length that it would take too much time to keep up. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of Hastings#Dispute30Sep2016. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well done you and all the editors, gives one hope for this enterprise! Edmund Patrick – confer 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What a fascinating article. Thank you for all your work on it. – The Bounder (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dudley, I just thought I'd draw your attention to a series of edits that have been made to the article by a single editor introducing commas to constructions such as "In 844 Æthelwulf ..."[1][2][3][4] I have reverted all but the last two edits mainly on the basis that the article achieved FA status without those commas, but also because I think they are unnecessary. I don't want to get involved in this any further, as the editor has been persistent and is clearly convinced that the commas are needed. Hence I have left the last two additions of commas alone, and wondered if you have an opinion either way, since you took the article through the FA process. Beyond that I'm now inclined to leave it alone. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nortonius. I almost never revert addition or removal of commas, as it takes me too long to find where the change has been made. Do you have a method of easily tracing such minor edits? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I wish! It seems to me that WP diffs are highly unsatisfactory in this regard. I only find such edits by going through the highlighted "before and after" paragraphs line by line until I spot the changed item, in this instance in an "after" paragraph and highlighted in blue. For all the bells and whistles that the WMF keeps adding to WP, I do wish spotting such minor changes might be made easier. If you want me to continue reverting these commas I'll be happy to do so, but if so It's probably time to raise an objection directly with the editor in question. So far I've only communicated with them via edit summaries, which of course can be missed. Nortonius (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will try to look at this, but I am going on holiday for a week on Tuesday (again, but I do not know when my next one will be!) and I may not have time until I get back. I should be most grateful if you would keep an eye on the article. PS I am going to Crete and reading a fascinating history of the Mediterranean by Cyprian Broodbank (what a great name) in preparation. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, then I'll keep reverting those commas, assuming that's what you mean. But I would rather any communication on the issue with the other editor came from you if you have the time before you head off – otherwise I fear being seen as a lone, cranky, comma-hating obsessive! If that fails I'll hold the fort while you're away. I've never been to Crete – neither have I been to the southern Pelopponese, about which I'm currently reading a fascinating book by Patrick Leigh Fermor, who was also very familiar with Crete, including as a member of the British armed forces during the Second World War. I'll add both places to my fantasy itinerary! Nortonius (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I will try to go comma hunting tomorrow so I know what I am talking about. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Two disputed commas have just been re-instated, with rather a pointed edit summary, so I have left a note on the talk page: at this point I again feel inclined to leave it alone, at least until you have expressed a view there. Sorry to bring this to your door. Nortonius (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You liked my review, I liked your list. Double bonus! But would you be amenable to reviewing a couple of the other lists at FLC? We have a large backlog, and (ahem) at least one of them (by me) has no reviews at all. You don't need to be an expert in the subject, just take a look at it from the "what makes a featured list" perspective. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh no not golf! I would rather have reviewed your football list, but I see that already has 3 supports. OK I will take a look in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, just find a list that needs a review, ignoring mine, and go for it. We need all the help we can get at the moment! And thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A very nice job on the FL nom, and article, for Essex Wildlife Trust. If you had a minute to look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States military premier ensembles/archive2 it would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 20, 2017. 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) 23:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

This is to let you know that the English Benedictine Reform article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 January. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, "the most important religious movement in later Anglo-Saxon England, ... also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language", thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the five FAC reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Here they are trying to link to the OLD DNB, not the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which is what the reference is to. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. I did not think to check. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for delay, I have addressed your comments now. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/archive1 another minor Civil War figure just like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Kealoha/archive1. Thanks in advance.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As you have two supports already I will probably concentrate on articles short of reviews, but ping me again if do not get enough reviews. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been holding off on Æthelflæd until the other reviewers were done. Once Hchc2009 is done it looks like you'll probably have three supports, since Ian is commenting too. If I get time I'll take a look but I may skip it if it looks like it will clearly get promoted. Let me know if there are any sections you'd like me to look at, but to be honest with the thorough review you got from Nortonius I think you're in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That is very similar to what I have said to Kavebear above! Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I see congratulations are in order, well done Dudley![5] Nortonius (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Titodutta. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Oswald of Northumbria have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Tito Dutta (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Hi, was it a mistake? Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tito Dutta. I reverted vandalism but I seem to have done it twice so I reinstated it. Thsnks for sorting it. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I felt something like that happened. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of two Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 15. 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) 21:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. Blurb looks fine to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to read! I've addressed your comments, I think. auntieruth (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ooops, it was Battle of Leuthen!! sorry! the other could use a look through too, though! Cheers, Ruth

For all of your excellent work on Suffolk articles. Thanks. Uncle Roy (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. I am working my way through getting photos for all sites in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk, List of Local Nature Reserves in Suffolk and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. If you can add photos for any sites missing them that would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I left you a message on the FA review page a few days ago. Are you still around? I created that new legacy section that we've been discussing, so I'd like to receive some sort of input about it if you can offer it, especially since you were the only one advocating for it. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've pinged you on the FAC (here) for this article, but pings seem a little temperamental at the moment. If you have chance, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the article, as you commented at the last FAC and I'd like to know if your concerns there have been addressed. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am working on an off-wiki project at present, but I should be able to get to this in the next week or so. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 2 Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Two years ago ...

Greater London
... you were recipient no. 935 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Very kind. Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Æthelwulf, "one of the most successful and important Anglo-Saxon kings"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My desktop died Friday morning and I'm still trying to get it back up and running. Can you try to deal with the person on this article for me? I don't know how to get across to him that its an analogy and not a claim that Wrotham's office turned into a lord of admiralty. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth have you seen navops47's latest post? His last source Lloyd seems to be an RS which supports his argument that some historians think the office was later known as the Clerk of the Acts. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw. I still don't see that it's a good idea to link to an office that some folks think the title evolved into. It's just opening a minefield that's really not very relevant - early administrative offices are a tangle that it's very easy to theorize that one office evolved into a later one without really having much bearing on the time period involved. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the logic of linking to a later office which equates to it, and not linking a later different title for it, but I suggest that you give your view on William's talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		For undertaking two Milhist A-Class Reviews and one Featured Article Candidate review during the period July to September 2017, you are hereby awarded this Wikistripe. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hello,
As per the suggestions you've mentioned for the Mangalore article in this link: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mangalore,
I have made all the changes to that article, except the following:

• The schematic map has not been changed (Point number 7)
• Responsibility of the civic government at city and state levels (Point number 5)

I request you to please retain Mangalore as a Featured Article.
D7G1FV49C (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, your 2014 edit to Minster in Thanet Priory added information that seems to relate to Minster-in-Sheppey rather than Minster-in-Thanet. I've made some changes you might want to review. Thanks, jnestorius^(talk) 16:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me that you are right. Thanks for correcting the errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I see you are signed up for the FA mentoring scheme. I am thinking about nominating Brothers Poem soon; it would be my first FA credit if it were to pass, and wondered if you might be interested in having a look at it. Even if you don't have time to commit to formal mentoring, I have opened a peer review, and would be grateful if you could give any comments on the article there.

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto I apologise for not replying sooner. I have been on holiday and very busy since. I should catch up in a couple of weeks so please ask again if you still need help. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As to the revisions of the regions of Cnut the Great's reign, citing Chronica Jutensis or other medieval texts is NOT original research.

The book that was used as ref ("Scriptores minores historiæ Danicæ medii ævi ex codicibus denuo" by Gertz, Martin Clarentius, Selskabet for Udgivelse af Kilder til dansk Historie, Copenhagen, 1917) IS the original research - edited by professor Dr.phil. Cl. Gertz [[6]] under supervision of the Director General of the national archives Dr. phil. Kr. Erslev [[7]] and Dr.Phil Ellen Jørgensen [[8]].

Considering that 1) the book was supervised by the Danish DG of national archives, 2) that the Danish national archives (national museum) have the two oldest existing copies of the Chronica Jutensis, 3) the Chronica Jutensis and other classical texts are republished in the original Latin in this book and 4) Dr Gertz was a nationally renowned and celebrated editor/translator of ancient/classical texts in Denmark, I find it reasonable to believe that the republished parts of the texts are accurate compared to the oldest known versions.

Furthermore, in the same collection of books ("Scriptores minores historiæ Danicæ medii ævi ex codicibus denuo") in the part of SVENONIS AGGONIS FILII LEX CASTRENSIS pp. 66 the text reads "... Angliam, Noruegiam, Sclauiam cum Semlandia proprio..." as Cnut's realms.

"The lasse Sclauia stretcheth fro wandalia and bohemia vnto Saxone" (according to Prolicionycion: De Europa et eius partibus Cap.21 pp. xxv [[9]]) and referring to "Semlandia proprio" Gertz writes "Finlandiam" in the footnote.

The SVENONIS AGGONIS FILII LEX CASTRENSIS pp. 67 repeats the countries "... Angliam, Noruagiam, Sclauiam, Finlandiam omnesque circumiacentes regiones...". [[10]]

It is a question of debate what "Semlandia proprio" and "Finlandiam" may mean in this context, but that would be original research and not allowed.

Mentioning exactly these regions makes sense though, as this way the realm's furthest compass points are mentioned -W-N-S(E)-(N)E- and as Cnut was compared to Alexander the Great after all. Now, that last sentence can be considered my own research (sic), but of course that was not written in the article in the first place. The rest is not my original research - it is citing some known texts from credible sources and some original research done by Gertz and his colleagues.

Later in the Chronica Jutensis pp.441 of Gertz book, the text talks about king Waldemar I, brother of Cnut IV. The regions mentioned on pp. 441 "Anno suo octauo misit exercitum in Pruciam et Fynland et subiugauit sibi terras illas." [[11]]

If these would be the same regions about 150yrs later, it would make sense to at least try to reconquer them, if they were lost. But of course, saying that Sclauia which reaches "fro wandalia and bohemia vnto Saxone" is "Pruscia" and Finlandiam is "Fynland" is just my speculation.

I am not going to enter in an editing war, thus no more edits from me to the artcile. You may do whatever you wish with this info. Prefixcaz (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Calling in a favour, any chance you could have a look at this list? It's somewhat stalled.... Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I will get to it in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, no rush, of course. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm pushing my luck, but I've got Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Laureus Lifetime Achievement Award/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Laureus World Sports Award for Comeback of the Year/archive1 going as well, they just need that last little push over the line? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. And I have just nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Suffolk Wildlife Trust/archive1! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, some time ago you posted on Talk:Walthamstow_Wetlands#Merger_proposal regarding a merger between two very similar articles. I agree with your proposal and so have started an official merge proposal. If you are interested in the/any ongoing conversation, please participate in the merger discussion! Thank you. Grunners (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, if you think a certain category is inappropriate you should nominate it at WP:CFD for merger or deletion. But while the category exists it is allowed to populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I said that it is irrelevant, not inappropriate, but I misled you by messing it up. I meant to delete the category. I do not think that Y-chromosomal Adam is an article about the Hebrew Bible in popular culture just because Adam is in the name? The article is about a scientific subject; the bible is not mentioned and there is nothing in it about religion. You could add [[Category:Adam and Eve]]. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not an article about the Hebrew Bible as a whole in popular culture, obviously, but it is an occurrence of a Hebrew Bible topic being used in popular culture. For people interested in the Hebrew Bible this is a relevant category. I'll re-add the category to the article and may find out later whether or not you have nominated the entire category at WP:CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not popular culture. It is a name for a scientific concept. I do not know why you persist in claiming that I want to delete the category when I have merely pointed out that it is irrelevant to this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article and monitor it, regarding vandalism.
No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore 223.186.38.187 (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Ealdgyth. A festive Christmas and a merry New Year to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that Essex 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 January 26, 2018. 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) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I've decided to postpone the Main Page appearance for a week due to a date request on WP:TFLS. My intention is to run it on February 2; hopefully this is okay for you. The blurb will be here when I get around to creating the page either tonight or tomorrow. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you could look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heahmund&curid=13112753&action=history Heahmund's history] it'd be appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you've done a lot of editing relating to English SSSIs and LNRs. A while back I created List of Local Nature Reserves in Lincolnshire as a draft and I recently remembered I'd never finished it. I've moved it into article space and added the cites for each LNR. The refs need tidying, the details need adding, the lead needs expanding and the whole thing needs a good fact-check, but if you're ever interested in working it up to FL like you have a number of similar lists, then (a) I'd be happy to collaborate and (b) thought you'd want to know that the article existed. In the meantime, I probably won't do much more to it on my own, at least not in the foreseeable future. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC).

That's great. I hope to get to Lincolnshire eventually, but I don't know when. I will contact you if I do. I have added a photo of Snipe Dales, and if you are can photograph any sites you are passing and upload the photos to Commons at [12] and insert them in the list that would be very useful. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your outstanding work including wonderful edits, contributions and new articles  Techybot  ►

Techybot (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Techybot. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Æthelflæd has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 February 2018. Please check that 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/February 22, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the "daughter of Alfred the Great, Lady of the Mercians and the foremost female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Bravo. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Drmies. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here, I just mention that I have Sir Osbert up for FAC, and if by any chance the topic interests you it would be good to see you at the FAC page. Quite understand if not, natch. Tim riley talk 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If they didn't arrive, please ping me on WP or email me and I'll send them by WeTransfer, an excellent free service I use to send large files that (as here?) baffle the normal email channels. Tim riley talk 21:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tim. They did arrive and I thought I sent you an email thanking you, but it is in my drafts not my sent folder. My apologies and thanks very much for your help.

PS. They are for an off wiki article I am working on but I trust that is OK! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• The Riley Rummaging Service, my dear Dudley, is at your disposal whether you are writing for Wikipedia, Vogue, The Lancet, Playboy or The Church Times. Or anything else. Don't be shy: I'm always happy to nip down and dig at the BL. Tim riley talk 23:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Æthelwulf, Æthelflæd, and Edward the Elder. MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, I'm a little surprised that the ICS have gone for a boundary with that precision, the next isn't until the start of the Messinian, but that's up to them I suppose. Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was surprised, particularly as the end of the Permian is thought to have been drawn out, not a discrete event. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Æthelstan A article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 10, 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/April 10, 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? 07:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the "anonymous scribe in tenth-century England. His elaborate charters are a key source for the history of King Æthelstan's reign"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)