User talk:Dudley Miles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

LWT reserves[edit]

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)

Early Medieval Europe[edit]

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)

Request for Opinion[edit]

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)

SSSIs Bucks & Somerset[edit]

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)

My talk page..[edit]

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)

Archbishop Walter de Grey @[edit]

@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 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)

Sorry ...[edit]

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)


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)

English Benedictine Reform[edit]

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)

Wildlife Trust for Beds, Cambs and Northants[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

The West Country Challenge[edit]

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:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

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)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg 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

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
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)

Davis Cup FLC[edit]

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)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme[edit]

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)

TFL notification[edit]

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)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the 14th Parliament of Pakistan/archive1[edit]

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)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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)

Wilfrid reverts (Celtic vs. Irish)[edit]

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

Battle of Hastings[edit]

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)

Dispute resolution noticeboard: Battle of Hastings[edit]

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

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png 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 Patrickconfer 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)