Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that London 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 February 26. 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, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dudley. I have re-nominated Seattle Center Monorail at FAC and would like feedback, seeing as you left notes during the first try. I didn't have time to address your comments before the first one was closed, but should be able to this time. SounderBruce 06:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Gog. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you removed the introduction/lead from this article? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to remove the second sentence which was misleading and accidentally deleted the whole. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Dudley, someone pointed out that the Peru deaths/100,000 figure on the Covid-19 pandemic by country & territory page was way out. I've patched it, but can you check your population figures for Peru, which I presume was the culprit. Thanks. Chris55 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have copied this to the template talk as it should be discussed there. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Here's the link to the sources on the talk page: Viking Ethnicity. Have a nice weekend! Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all these! Not having a watchlist (as an ip) he probably doesn't realize his efforts are fruitless. I wonder if we should tell him? Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid many of his efforts are not fruitless as he is changing pages not on my watchlist and I do not know whether those will be reverted. See [1]. Should he be blocked? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been working off his contributions, not reverting all, but many. If he keeps it up a block might be in order. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod he now seems to be creating different usernames to avoid reverts. See [2] and [3]. Doug Weller an IP has taken against the term Anglo-Saxon is going round changing it in large numbers of article to English. Is this something you can look at? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Too soon. Let me know if the accounts edit again, or a new one shows up. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Right on cue - let's pay out the rope a bit. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

[4] Sources shows that Homo Naledi was discovered in September 2013. The two discoverers went back - and then under the direction of Lee Berger - to the cave in October 2013, perhaps a re-discovery in your eyes. See "Discovery" section, this [5] version. 89.8.158.26 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Ed Yong in the source you cite at [6], "The project became so all-encompassing that in 2013, Berger, an explorer at heart, realized that he had stopped exploring. To rectify that, he enlisted two cavers, Rick Hunter and Steve Tucker, to explore other South African caves that might yield important fossils. The Rising Star Cave was one of them." Does any reliable source deny that the cave was originally selected by Berger? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

... on the day I was named awesome Wikipedian by Rlevse --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dudlely! Would you care to do a FAC review for Manganese, Minnesota? I don't know if it's Wiki-appropriate to recruit reviewers, but you have reviewed articles I have written before, and the FAC coordinators are suggesting that this article will be likely archived if no other reviewers step up to the plate. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

OK I will take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

My phone suggests that I have just done something horrible to your recent comments on this. But I can’t see anything on its tiny screen. If I have, apologies and hopefully you can readily undo it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I think you reverted his comments. Can I restore them? Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, yes. Please do. iPhone fat fingers I'm afraid. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I see that you have promoted the article. Do you want to revert the promotion, I'll add Dudley's comments to the FAC, and then the article can be reassessed for promotion if Dudley supports it? Or would you like me to address Dudley's comments outside of the FAC process? Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, groan. I am clearly having a very bad night. I have reverted my jumping-the-gun promotion. Apologies for that. And reinstated my thumb-fingered deletion of Dudley's comments. Yes, you need to address them and sorry for all the confusion. If you spot anything else - I wouldn't be surprised! - please let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you are good. Sorry Dudley that this happened on your talk page, I hope the pings don't scare you when you see them. I'm addressing the comments now. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay fine. I generally look at both and then pick the simplest one which usually ends up being the Wiktionary link. Not that the Wiktionary article is much better here but are there any non BSc persons who can actually follow the allele article on Wikipedia. SlightSmile 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Links are normally to Wikipedia articles. It almost always provides fuller information and links to other relevant articles. I agree that there may be cases where a Wiktionary link may be helpful if there is no satisfactory Wikipedia article, but I have never linked to Wiktionary and very rarely seen anyone else do so. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't use the one ref per paragraph approach because it leaves it too ambiguous what is and isn't reffed. Uncalibrated C14 dates are important because without them (or at least knowing which curve was used) you have no way of working out what the C14 dates are by current standards.©Geni (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You have a fair point, but standard Wiki practice is not to ref each sentence. It clutters articles and does not prevent later editors adding statements which wrongly appear to be covered by refs. Ambiguity is only prevented by the alertness of editors and watchers. Ealdgyth I remember you once had a dispute with a reviewer who demanded that you ref each sentence. Is there a Wiki policy on this?

Wiki articles are for non-expert readers, most of whom do not understand the difference between calibrated and uncalibrated dates. The expert reader can go to the source cited for the uncalibrated date. It is also very confusing to give BC and BP dates in the same sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW I see you think they used INTCAL2009. I do not know whether INTCAL20 gives a significantly different calibrated date but if so you could add a note. Your edit is confusing for non-expert readers. Any expert would know that unless the source is very recent the date would be based on an old INTCAL. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you have time to take a look at The Trundle? I have reached a point where I think all the information is there, though I’ve just ordered a copy of Cunliffe’s book on the Iron Age as Historic England says he gives an opinion about the gate layouts, so that might change. Your comments on Whitehawk Camp and Knap Hill were very helpful. I haven’t done a MoS pass or looked at linking yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Will do. What is an MoS pass? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I just meant I haven't been through looking for compliance with MoS issues -- dashes, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Ditchling Common. I disagree that additional information provided is encyclopaedic, however, I will take a look on a case by case basis and make amendments to the tone. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The article before your edits was a very short but fully referenced stub. It obviously needed expansion, but your edits were mostly unreferenced and had personal views with unencyclopedic terms such as "brutal actions" and "excellent work", which have no place in Wikipedia. It would be helpful if you expand the article with impartial additional details. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think they are fair and I have made amendments accordingly. I should inform you as short as the stub was, it was also incorrect. There are no small pearl-bordered fritillary at Ditchling Common and havent't been for many years. I have also removed the Threats section that I had added for now, unless you agree it is informative and helpful. I have kept the images and re-entered the text about Jacob's post snd referenced it because visitors may be interested and it has historical value. If you have further comments please enter them into the Talk section of the Ditchling Commons page. If there is a specific area where you would like to see a reference please mark it as needing a citation. Thank you. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support ... it was promoted. If "Person honored" (AmEng) works for you, let's go with that. The reason I wasn't comfortable with "'Person genus is named after (mostly naturalists)" was because that would have become something like "Meaning or derivation or person genus is named after (mostly naturalists)" in the other five lists ... too much for column headings at FLC, the best I can tell. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Without knowing which other lists you are referring to I don't understand what the problem is, but if that works for you then fine. It does however raise the interesting question of whether a compliment has always been intended. Has there ever been a case of someone naming a parasitic plant after an enemy out of malice? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much, and: great question ... AFAIK that happened exactly once ... Carl Linnaeus named an invasive, pitiful-looking genus after one of his (many) detractors. (I can't think of which one at the moment but it will come to me.) But even if no honor was intended by the (famously cranky) Linnaeus, it seems to me it's still an honor in this century to have a genus named after you ... and nothing else works as well, that I can think of. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Edmund I, 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, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Gog. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to St Pancras and Islington Cemetery that introduced redlinks into the article, without providing a reason. I've reverted your revert; please read WP:REDLINK for the reasons why introducing redlinks is (within reason) a good thing. -- The Anome (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to select those people for redlinks as against others, but I deleted mainly because George Cuvier "The Boy" Spencer would be an odd and incorrect name for an article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The article states that they are notable; there's some reasonable presumption that they might also be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Spencer seems to have led an interesting life: see http://www.users.waitrose.com/~radavenport/cemeteries/balloon.html . I've now piped the link to Spencer to reaf [[George Cuvier Spencer|George Cuvier "The Boy" Spencer]], which might help make the article title better. -- The Anome (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What ho! I lighted on Hilda's article yesterday, and thought it could do with a thorough overhaul. Might you, as someone who unlike me actually knows about the period, be interested in joining me in such an undertaking? No obligation, as the notices of our youth used to say. Hope all is well with you, Tim riley talk 21:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. That's a good idea. I do not know so much about the earlier Anglo-Saxon period, but it would be good to learn more about it - and work on something a bit different. I am very occupied with another project at present but will hopefully get that out of the way soon. I am planning to nominate Edmund I for the WikiJournal of Humanities, and as it allows you to put forward your own ideas instead of just the received wisdom I am taking full advantage. This is taking much more work than I planned on. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Good! I'll assemble what I can for now, and await your leisure. Needless to say, if I can help at all with your Edmund I article (proof-reading or suchlike) don't hesitate to recruit me. Tim riley talk 21:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I am still working away on Edmund, but to get a bit more up to speed I have started reading Sarah Foot's Monastic Life in Anglo-Saxon England, c.600-900. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No hurry whatever! Let us compare notes when you're good and ready. I have to amble down to the BL before really rolling my sleeves up. Meanwhile, my offer in re Edmund stands. Tim riley talk 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you've cut too much and left a bit of a mess. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you specify what I should restore. I cut it because the early history is mythical. Historic England, which I cite, says that it was only probably built on the site of the abbey and Sarah Foot (Veiled Women, II, p. 221) dates its foundation to the 10th century. Farmer in the Dictionary of Saints says that Alburga, half-sister of King Ecgberht, founded the abbey c.800 but his sources are 17th and 19th century. Biographies of Ecgberht do not mention her. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The land, if not the immediate site of the house, is certainly that of the abbey, which was confiscated & handed over in the Dissolution. There's now a gap to the next section, where it is assumed this has been covered (as it was previously). You cut the 16th-century bit too. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The deletions I made were all uncited comments in the lead: fictional early history, unreferenced comments about later decline and transfer following dissolution of the monasteries. The last part I should not have deleted although the source given in the main text is not reliable, a 1908 guide. You say rightly say that the deletion is a problem as the details are assumed in the main text, but it is not correct to assume lead comments in the main text. I have expanded the main text to deal with this, although as it is cited to the 1908 guide I do not have access to I am not sure I should have done. I have also covered the dissolution to the lead. Are you happy with the amendments? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there Dudley. You may have come across this article before—it's been around for a few years, and a few months ago I brought it up to good article status. I'd like to put it in the mix for featured article contention at some point and, given your knowledge in the area—as expressed in relation to the Benty Grange helmet—I wonder if you have any thoughts on the current state of the article, and what (if anything) you might hope to see improved? Any thoughts you have would be appreciated, but I of course understand if you have other things on your plate. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. I will take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually believe that the population of the Achaemenid Empire is about 20,000,000 to say palpably; I also don't believe my reference to be 50,000,000 as that would have been the Sassanian Empire in 624 CE, the world population was about 150,000,000 from 600 BCE - 600 CE. But I fail to get a reliable source to prove so I use the source khan academy.

My source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.98.173.14 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC) 

So you have edited to give a figure which you accept is too high and is based on Khan Academy on youtube, which is not a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Good evening. Judging by my edit history you will see I'm not the most reliable editor, and I mostly fly by night. However, I believe I have an eye for style. Would you guide me bit in how the FAC process goes, and especially in how my favourite article can/must be improved in order to make it go through?

The article which caught my eye (this time) is Etymology_of_ham_radio. It's well researched, well sourced, succinct, and leaves you with a bit of a thrill. Of course it's of little general interest, but it might be a surprising and an elating little gem on the front page. It could highlight the variety and depth of content available on Wikipedia.

Or if not that one, maybe in time something else. Since I read Wikipedia more than I write, from time to time I bump into articles I hold to be particularly elegant, and would like them to be featured. Would you help me get into a position to actually push a recommendation through? Decoy (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The standard format is of a lead of up to four paragraphs which are not referenced but are an accurate summary of the main text. All the main text should be referenced to reliable sources. For a recently promoted article see Black-and-red broadbill. Once you have looked at these I suggest you work on your chosen article and then put it up for Wikipedia:Peer review. When you list it there it is a good idea to ping me and other editors asking for comments using {{u|username}}.. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to nominate the article Embanking of the tidal Thames for FA status and would welcome your mentorship, should you be willing to act.

It's a long article, so I know I'm asking a lot.Ttocserp 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have too much on at present to take on a mentorship on a long article, but I have some suggestions. 1. The lead is six paragraphs. The usual limit is four. 2. You need to check that all of the main text is referenced. Some comments are not. 3. The references show some errors. If you want to see errors highlighted see instructions on installing the script for it at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. 4. You should hopefully be able to get useful feedback by submitting your draft to Wikipedia:Peer review. I should say that in my experience the level of response varies. 5. I suggest submitting the article to Wikipedia:Good article nominations before trying for FA. 6. Do come back to me with any specific queries you have. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it.Ttocserp

Can you explain the reversions you've made of my edits? Alssa1 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I did explain one reversion in the edit summary, and I should have done for all of them. William the Conqueror is one of 16,777,216 24th generation ancestors of Elizabeth II. It is true that many of these are duplicates as he is her ancestor by many different routes, but the number is still in the millions. It would be absurd to include someone in a category that in principle has millions of people in it. We are all probably descendants of everyone in Europe that far back who has any descendants at all. An interesting fact, which I only learned recently, is that because the number of sections of DNA inherited goes up by arithmetical progression in each generation (whereas the number of ancestors increases by geometrical progression), she has only inherited DNA from 1751 of those millions of ancestors, and thus almost certainly not from any of the recorded ancestors that far back. See David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here, p. 12. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, these comments apply even more to the ancestors you edited who are even further back than William. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying this, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia guided by notability. There is no suggestion of listing all 16million ancestors of Elizabeth II, just prominent ones that provide some encyclopedic value. The argument that because a notable individual/family has loads of ancestors there therefore is no value in providing a category that shows prominent ones, has very little merit. It also goes against common practice in Wikipedia, we have numerous and large categories for people who claim descent from Muhammad (see Category:Hashemite people among others), do those exist on bad justification because there's tens of millions of people who claim descent from Muhammad? Alssa1 (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories such as Ancestors of the British Royal Family do not add value. They just support the idea that only people who can trace their ancestry back have famous ancestors. Also, they assume that every single person over 24 or more generations really had the parents they officially had. DNA testing has shown that that is an unsafe presumption. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Every single thing you've said in response is untrue. You say such a category doesn't add value, yet we have large and long-standing categories that cover similar topics. You say it supports an idea that it doesn't. And you say that it makes presumptions that it doesn't. All it does is categorise the dynastic claims of prominent Royal Family and Monarchical system; it is not a commentary on whether the claims are correct or an endorsement of the Monarchical system of government. Alssa1 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It says "ancestors", not "purported ancestors", so it is saying that the claims are true. These large and long-standing categories are all grossly misleading. When it was proposed that the society of the descendants to Confucius should use DNA testing to settle disputed claims the society turned it down for fear that undisputed branches would be disproved. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's like saying the Hashemite category is saying that all the claims are true... Your objection makes really no sense from encyclopedic perspective, and I really don't see how a discussion of the descendants Confucius (a man who died in ~479bc) has any relevance to your issue. Your problem would lead you to taking issue with vast swathes of the Imperial House of Japan page, after all how can they truly claim that their family was founded by Jimmu? Or similarly, how can Clan Donald claim they're descended from Somerled? Alssa1 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

		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) 14:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And a very merry Christmas to you and yours Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you do not consider this to be a reliable academic source? I took it from an academic article from a journal called Foundations, which concerns Medieval Genealogy. Furthermore, I believe I made it clearly it is an speculation by the author, as nothing about Wiglaf's wife ancestry is known for sure,besides Ford Mommaerts-Browne is scholar who specializes in the High middle ages, so if you could give me a reason to why you do not consider him to be a reliable source?

Frid-arlon (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A note states that Mommaerts-Browne's claim is based on the fact that two women shared the same name, but this is very weak as many unrelated people have the same name and not worth covering.

Agricolae if I remember correctly you commented some years ago why Foundations should not be used as a source. Am I right and if so could you reply on this point? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That isn't my view - you may be remembering my view of MedLands, the self-published and utterly untrustworthy website hosted by the same organization, but Foundations shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. I think Foundations meets the criteria of a WP:RS. Its articles are scholarly in nature and peer reviewed. If you will pardon an 'otherstuff' argument, it is of better quality than other private-society genealogical publications that are routinely cited, such as Mayflower Quarterly and NEHGS Nexus (glorified newsletters). Foundations is much more obscure, but that is a difference of degree, not of kind. Though it is not academic, that isn't really a requirement of WP:RS and the abandonment of genealogy as a 'proper' pursuit among academics makes it almost impossible for an 'outsider' to get such material published in an academic vehicle. That said, I still don't think it should be included. As an inherently-speculative work of primary scholarship, I would consider it WP:UNDUE. Though Mommaerts-Browne is well-known to the Descent from antiquity crowd, he is not enough of an 'expert in the field' for his speculation on a particular historical relationship to be noteworthy unless someone else has made secondary reference to it. This has nothing to do with it appearing in Foundations - I would treat similar speculation in English Historical Review or Principe de Viana the same way (though I must admit to occasionally violating my own rules on this). Agricolae (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and Merry Christmas Agricolae. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I wrote Dark Ages (Europe) article in an attempt to displace Dark Ages (historiography) with a conventional history article. Now it is up for deletion. I noticed that you posted at Dark Ages (historiography). ThuDauMot (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Hi. Beginning of paragraph: You put facts more precisely according to source. This way the contradiction to info given later in the same paragraph remains, though: A mandible first described in the text as being late Neanderthal a few lines down "turns out" NOT to be late Neanderthal.

earlier version The morphology of a late Neanderthal mandible from the Mezzena rockshelter (Monti Lessini, Italy) shows evidence [...] However, a more recent aDNA analysis of this jaw has shown that it does not belong to a Neanderthal, but to a fully modern human of the Holocene

my revsion introduced presumed to resolve the contradiction: an earlier presumption LATER turned out to be wrong.

your version reinstates the contradiction: The morphology of a late Neanderthal mandible from the Mezzena rockshelter shows evidence [...] However, a more recent aDNA analysis of this jaw has shown that it does not belong to a Neanderthal, but to a fully modern human of the Holocene.

The text does not cite the scientific re-attribution as a possibility, but as a fact to be accepted. This does not leave the option to stick to late Neanderthal mandible in the beginning of the paragraph. Happy 2022! MistaPPPP (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in covering a disproved finding so I have deleted the paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Saw that. Agree. MistaPPPP (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley Miles. I'm just posting to let you know that List of local nature reserves in Berkshire – 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 24. 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) 00:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see here. The primary topic of that redirect has now been changed. Thanks for the well-intentioned removal of my link. A loose necktie (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dudley. I was wondering whether to merge Stodmarsh SSSI and Stodmarsh NNR. They're not the same, but they overlap so much. I think people know the NNR best, so that would be the logical one to keep. Any thoughts? E Wusk (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fine to merge them, but I would keep the SSSI as the NNR is really just one part of the SSSI. The NNR article wrongly shows is as 604 hectares but the details page at [7] shows it is 250, compared with 632 for the SSSI. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at that. You have done a good job on the designations and facts. Anyone looking for the NNR will presumably get a redirect, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E Wusk (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello , it looks like something went wrong when you rearranged a note's link in Rare_Earth_hypothesis , so it now reads "[3] calculate this zone to be a ring 7 to 9 kiloparsecs in radius" ; I'm not sure how I would fix that but I suppose you would know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.7.240.252 (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - hopefully now OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, Æthelwulf, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

OK I should get round to it in a few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It is considered good practice to include a reason when undoing an edit. All the best.--~TPW 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(stalking) Better before seems a pretty plain, if succint, summary. SN54129 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I figured that was a good reason, and I agree with Dudley's edit. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

ah, the terse comment got lost in the exceedingly lengthy boilerplate from undoing. Thank you for pointing it out. I do think that "they" is in this case too vague, but that's why we collaborate.~TPW 18:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dudley,

Would you elaborate, please, on your reversion? I note that the first picture on the page was taken by a Dudley Miles and is not original research. The photo added by RAClarke is OR? Wiki used to love monuments.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I was not querying the photo but the text. The source cited for the first sentence is the Old Bailey record, which is original research. If you want to add this you should give the context and link to the Popgun Plot and find reliable secondary sources. The poem is unreferenced. I am not sure whether it is valid to cite the gravestone as the reference as this is arguably also OR, but I would not object. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dudley,

Thank you for your response. In addition to popgun, would Google Books suffice?

Regards RAClarke (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The google books ref is very dated, but seems adequate for the poem. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dudley,

Thank you for your suggestions.

I am not sure whether it is valid to cite the gravestone as the reference ...

No. Clearly self-published material.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you reverted my change on Sweyn Forkbeard. I understand why, for a long time I thought Sweyn was the son of Harold too and that is what Adam of Bremen says. However, they found a chronicle called gesta wulinensis ecclesiae pontificum. It had been stashed in a German church and was recently discovered in 2019. The information in the chronicle matches the available evidence and provides new information. It is this same chronicle that revealed Sweyn was born 17 April 963 which is also on the wiki page. The chronicle states Knut Danast and Harald were away in Ireland on a campaign and Knut's wife Tove was pregnant. Knut was killed but Harald survived and raised Sweyn. This explains why later on Sweyn revolted against Harald. Since his father was the older brother he felt he should be king instead of Harald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TannerBlairTolman (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is based on one author's interpretation of a manuscript. We have to follow the academic consensus, which states that Harald was his father. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The manuscript was written in 990 AD by a missionary who personally met Gorm. This is the new academic consensus the only reason this knowledge is not widespread is because the chronicle was only recently discovered in 2019 and was just recently published and translated in May 2021. The author is a PhD at Lund University not just some guy. Wikipedia is supposed to be where we update the world with the best and newest information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TannerBlairTolman (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, even if Sven Rosborn is wrong and Harald really was Sweyn's father, the information that Sweyn's mother was an unnamed women not of noble birth is not supported by any consensus and needs to be removed at the very least. There are two runestones that identify her as Tove and Adam of Bremen claimed she was Gunhild. But there is nothing that says she was an unnamed woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TannerBlairTolman (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

One scholar's view is not authoritative. Scholars frequently come up with theories that do not meet with general acceptance. Peter Sawyer says in his ODNB article that Sweyn's mother is unknown, which should be in the article and is different from unnamed. I agree that the statement that she was not of noble birth should be removed. This presumably rests on Adam of Bremen's account and according to Sawyer he is hostile to Sweyn and unreliable. In my opinion, which other editors may disagree with, Rosbern's theory could be included as one view and attributed to him, but not as a revelation of truth, which is how your edit reads. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The new manuscript Gesta Wuiliness was written in 990 which makes it 80 years older than Adam's account and makes the author contemporary with Sweyn Forkbeard whereas when Adam of Bremen wrote, he had been dead for 65 years. Besides the runestones all the other sources (Snorre Sturlasson, Saxo Grammaticus), etc are even younger than Adam of Bremen's account.

If a chronicle written in 990 translated by a Swedish professor and historian is not good enough for you, what will be? If you are going to debate this, you cannot use any article published before 17 May 2021 (when the chronicle was first published) and you would have to discredit the chronicle Gesta Wuileness. If you have a good source to dispute Gesta Wuiliness I would be willing to read it, but Adam, Saxo, and Sturlasson shouldn't count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TannerBlairTolman (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In 1066, Edith of Mercia, widow and queen consort of Harold Godwinson, surrendered Winchester to the Normans.

After Hastings. read refs. provide proof, not ODNB on Ealdgyth. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You provide three refs. The first is not a reliable source, the second does not say that Harold's widow Ealdgyth surrendered Winchester. I do not have access to the third, but it is very unlikely that it confirms your edit. Ealdgyth was Mercian and would not have been able to surrender a leading West Saxon town. Edward the Confessor's widow Edith died in Winchester and it is possible that you are confusing the two queens, but this needs confirmation by a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Despite Schaff being an old source, he was a kind of an expert on Church history, who spend his life learning and teaching about church history. He should be a reliable source. Despite him having a Protestant side of view, atleast such can be said as "according to Philip Schaff Aelfric had a similar Eucharist view as Berengar of Tours and John Calvin". --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait anyways, it seems as if Schaff talked about another Aelfric, well nevermind about that article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

ValtteriLahti12. Thanks for clarifying. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But no one since before 1885 has identified Ælfric Puttoc as the homilist. Hunt, in 1885 in the old DNB is quite clear that the writer of the homilies was the abbot of Eynsham. This hasn't been a dispute for over 130 years - so we should not be treating it as if it was still a dispute. Schaff is simply NOT a good source to use. If further proof is needed - current ODNB article on Ælfric Puttoc, current ODNB article on Ælfric of Eynsham. Please don't intrude this source into articles without discussion. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Why the removal? Because the new editor is adding the same website everywhere, making it a clear case of link spam. The Banner talk 15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reason to remove the link where is is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Link spamming can be excused? Oh goodie, Wikipedia is in trouble. The Banner talk 15:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not heard of the term link spamming before, but I see that it means adding links multiple times where is is not relevant. I do not see how Wikipedia can be in trouble because it allows the addition of relevant links, even if they are also added where the link is not relevant. In the latter case they should of course be deleted. If the editor is causing a major problem that is a reason for warnings etc, not for deleting valid edits. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Spamming. The Banner talk 16:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

re: your unexplained revert at fixed deadlink to Aethelred the Unready as "successor to himself" Seriously. A line of succession existed, and there should be a clear link to it, and that would be Cnut, the famous King Canute who ordered the waters to recede in a pleasing display of Christian humility? "There are things even a Great King cannot accomplish!" There was chaos for a couple of years, and then Cnut along with the Danes and Normans prevailed. "Such is life." COI: I'm a perplexed relative of the Norman side of affairs here? Or so it appears: huh! Beat that! - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox does not show Æthelred as successor to himself. It correctly shows him as predecessor to Sweyn and returning to the throne after Sweyn's death. Cnut only took the throne two years later after the deaths of Æthelred and Edmund Ironside. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You are listed as an FA mentor. Would you be so kind as to assist in reviewing the article Texas A&M University? Buffs (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I will take a look in the next few days. One quick comment is that the notes need referencing as well as the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the review, they are literally next to the prose which they reference...but I also added them anyway. Buffs (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Buffs I see that you now have two reviews. Please advise if you still want me to review once you have dealt with hurricanehink's comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks! Buffs (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe all concerns in those two reviews have been addressed. Your input requested at your convenience. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Buffs I see you now have four peer reviews, which seems enough. Ping me if you want me to review at FAC. Dudley Miles (talk)

Appreciated. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 May 2022. 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 22, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Gog. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dudley!

Glen Rock (boulder) was recently promoted to GA, and I am looking to eventually make the article on the boulder a featured article. I was looking on the FA mentors page and your name stood out as someone who might be able to help, given your interest in geography, history, and science. At your leisure, would you please let me know if you would be willing to serve as a mentor for getting this article to FA-level?

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• OK. You could put it up for peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines) and then get advice from me and maybe other people as well. You can ping me to comment in the PR blurb with {{u|Dudley Miles}}. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much. I've created a peer review. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Fine. I will comment in the next day or two. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! You were kind enough to contribute to the discussion at my last trip to FAC (Arnold Bennett) and if you have time and inclination I'd be glad of your comments at my current one, Georges Feydeau, which has got rather becalmed. Tim riley talk 17:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course Tim. Did you see my ping on Herman the Archdeacon at FAC? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear me! I missed your ping and will go in search of it. Meanwhile, thank you v. much for volunteering to give Feydeau the once-over. Tim riley talk 19:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Now attended to. In passing, I'm blest if I can find the old boy in the ODNB, but that's neither here nor there. Tim riley talk 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim. I must not swear on a Wikipedia talk page, but I did swear when I found that I had somehow deleted my review of Feydeau without saving it. I will have another go tomorrow. ODNB makes it very difficult to find people who are listed slightly differently from the name you have. Herman is at [8] as Hermann (fl. 1070–1100)

• Profound and comradely sympathies on losing unsaved work: I lost three or four hours' this very afternoon on the various ways of cooking Dover Sole. Pressed the wrong button and aaarrrgh! Nobody to blame but me. The ODNB's search engine is shockingly bad, first in its cretinous insistence on listing pictures of its subjects before the actual articles, but that's the least of it, and I take your point about Hermann. Try looking H. G. Wells up! If you don't happen to know he was "Herbert George" the ODNB will deny all knowledge of him. Infandum! Tim riley talk 22:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have accidentally put the WP:PROD on the talk page. It goes on the article itself. I fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen your note on the AfD page[9] and I was wondering if it was addressed to me. If it was, you may have missed the last sentence of my !vote, which makes the same point. Happy editing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes my comment was a reply to yours. My point was that you are here making an argument for a Tamworth note but below you have voted 'Weak keep'. Of course, if you are now arguing for a Tamworth note instead of keeping the article that will be very helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. I have said what needs to be said and I trust in the ability of our administrators to read the rationales proposed. I make the clear point that we need to retain something and have left the scale of "something" dependent on the quality of sourcing that is uncovered during the discussion. There is no need for you to gain unanimity for the article to be deleted. My read of the discussion so far is that no one is supporting the retention of the article as written. Unless there is a major discovery of a new reliable source, I fully expect the closing admin to summarise the discussion as delete with perhaps a suggestion to add a brief note on another article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Eadred, 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, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

May songs

Congratulations, and thank you today for Edmund I, introduced: "This is the latest of my FAC submissions about later Anglo-Saxon kings. Edmund I (939 to 946) was the first king to inherit the throne of all England, but he had to fight hard to keep his inheritance against Viking kings from Dublin who crossed the Irish Sea to become kings of York. He was successful in recovering northern England, but he died young trying to rescue a servant from an attack by a violent thief."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Herman the Archdeacon, 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, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Edward the Elder article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 25, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 25, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)