User talk:Dudley Miles/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Dudley Miles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Germanic Studies invite

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edward the Martyr

Please do check back at Edward the Martyr. User:Ealdgyth and others have redone a fair bit of the article. Much still needs done, especially the introduction, but I hope you'll find that it's looking better. If you have more criticisms or comments, please do leave a note there! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of ways to access the online Oxford DNB for free. So it's more likely that a random reader will be able to access that version than the printed ones. Adding references is a bit of a black art, explained in gruesome detail at Wikipedia:Citing sources. But the easiest way to do it is to copy them from another article. If you want to add a reference to the Æthelred article, it would look like this:

{{citation |last=Keynes |first=Simon |contribution= Æthelred II |title=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2004 |url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8915 |accessdate=Add the date you checked it here or today's date if you're not sure }}

If you go to the online index, find the article and click on it. The author and the title should always be the same as in the print version, so all you need to find is the last part of the URL parameter so the link is clickable. The number is the one that appears at the end of the http://dx.doi.org/ item. So 8915 for Æthelred, 39127 for Æthelstan Ætheling, and so on. Does this make sense? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed by chance that this article has been on GA review for several months without any action being taken. It seems to me that the article has undergone significant improvements since the review, and should now qualify to maintain its status. Lampman (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I closed the review. To close a review, you need to remove the GAR template at the top of the talk page, make a comment on the GAR subpage that the review is closed (and whether it was kept or not) and update the article history. I know it can be a bit complicated, but it should be sorted now. Lampman (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death

Hi -- I see you've been doing some cleanup on a lot of AS king articles. Can I ask why you're removing dates of death, e.g. at Egbert of Wessex? The relevant manual of style notes encourage dates of death (and birth); it's a common sense guideline, not a bible, but I don't see the dates as harmful. Any objection if I add them back in in some cases? Mike Christie (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not a fan of infoboxes myself, and wouldn't object if you removed them, but they have their supporters and you may find it necessary to debate it for some articles. They also tend to reappear some time later, as other editors readd them without discussion. I guess I'll leave the dates off for now and see what happens.

With regard to Edward the Elder, my own rather limited knowledge stops at around 900, so I would suggest soliciting an opinion from an editor with more background in the area. Good people to ask include User:Angusmclellan, User:Cavila and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. Mike Christie (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just delete and note the reason in the edit summary, or on the talk page if you prefer. Fine re the infoboxes -- I don't feel that strongly enough about it. Mike Christie (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but I think that it makes sense to have a standard and that Edward the Elder (or rather Ælfweard of Wessex, if indeed he was king) would reasonably be the last king of Wessex, and that Athelstan and his successors would be kings of the English/of England. Those successors, unlike Edward and Alfred, did rule Mercia and/or Northumbria for all or part of their reigns. A more detailed discussion of titles and styles belongs in the main body of the article, rather than the lead, or so I feel anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Al[l]od

Hello. Well, it seems to be more commonly spelled allod (which redirects to allodial title). There is a template {{redirect}} that says "Blah redirects here, for someothermeaning see somethingelse". Does this help at all? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

King George's Fields

{{helpme}} I have created a page on St George's Fields nature reserve between Chipping Barnet and Monken Hadley, and as I saw that the List of King George V Playing Fields in London showed one in Chipping Barnet, I named the page King George's Fields (Chipping Barnet). However, I now see that the situation is more complicated. The List also shows one in Monken Hadley. The final report of the St George's Fields Foundation at http://www.fieldsintrust.org/images/stories/content/pdfs/kgfffinalreport.pdf shows one at East Finchley (Hadley Manor) of 48 acres which is clearly the one my article is about as it is the same size and at the same place, and the ones Chipping Barnet and Monken Hadley in List of King George V Playing Fields in London must be different names for the same one. It looks to me as if I should delete the Chipping Barnet one in the list - which is easy enough - and rename my page St George's Fields (Monken Hadley), which I am not sure how to do. Should I just create a new page and make the existing one a redirection page? Thanks for any advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, please do not do a copy-paste thing, it plays havoc with the page history.

We have to keep the record of who-did-what-when.

You can just move it to the new name. Doing that will automatically leave a redirect behind.

Sounds like you know what should be done, so I advise you boldly just go ahread and do what you think best.

Talk to helpers live with this, and/or feel free to use a further helpme if it all goes wrong. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Thanks to Chzz I have dealt with that. I also have a problem with Scratchwood and Moat Mount Local Nature Reserve. I created this page lazily following websites which lazily put them in together, but on further research I have found that they are separate nature reserves which need separate pages. I think that it would be best to create two pages and make the existing one a disambiguation page for the two sites. How do I deal with this? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove the stuff about "Moat Mount" with an edit summary saying something like About to create a new article called Moat Mount Local Nature Reserve
• Create that new article, and in the edit summary make sure you say where it came from, e.g. split content from Scratchwood and Moat Mount Local Nature Reserve

Don't worry about the name changing later...that will all get sorted out automatically

• Move "Scratchwood and Moat Mount Local Nature Reserve" to just "Scratchwood Local Nature Reserve"
• That'll leave Scratchwood and Moat Mount Local Nature Reserve as a redirect, and you can edit it and make it into a disambig page.

Of course, you'll need to edit the two articles a bit, adding links to each other, and suchlike.

See Wikipedia:Split#Procedure, feel free to ask for help. Try the live help thing, pop in and say hello.  Chzz  ►  21:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikitable

I have been working on the column widths for my table Nature reserves in Barnet, but I am not sure whether the table is too wide for some monitors. Can you see whether it looks OK and advise on the maximum total width for a table. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. My screen is 1280x800. I would advise not putting a maximum total width on it, but rather let the reader's browser decide what's an appropriate length. You may also want to add class="wikitable" into the header (as shown on Help:Table) so it uses the standard style that other Wiki articles do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have put class="wikitable" and it looks better. However, I am not clear what not putting a maximum total means, and I may not have made myself clear. The column widths I have used total 950 (I am not sure of what), and I was not sure whether this is too high. Do I take it from your answer that this is OK? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear before. My recommendation is just to remove the widths altogether and let the browser pick what it wants as the widths. Oh, and if you add a class of sortable (e.g. class="wikitable sortable") it'll make it so each of the columns can be sorted in alphabetical/numerical order by the editor. In the future, you can just contact me directly rather than putting another helpme tag on here - and I'll keep an eye on your talk page if you have further questions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis

Hi, thanks for the message. I'm guessing that the anonymous is either Oxnard or one of his colleagues, since all his edits are about promoting his work and diminishing that of his antagonists. The best thing to do is ask on the relevant discussion board. There are usually editors who either work in universities or are students who can access papers from university computers. They can get the full article without paying upfront. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology might be a good place to start. Paul B (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry it wasn't as helpful as it might have been. Paul B (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://wildweb.london.gov.uk/wildweb/PublicSiteViewFull.do?pictureno=1&siteid=6030, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While not a word-for-word copy, the article remains largely a close paraphrase and needs verifiable permission from the copyright holder or rewritten in your own words. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Would the simplest solution just be to delete the final paragraph? I do not think the first three raise copyright problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Diotisalvi

Hmm... I removed the spec "worked in the 2nd half of the century", since in the article itself it is repeated that he worked at Santo Sepolcro in 1113. You want my opinion? I thinkt the 1113 and the 1152 Diotisalvi could be father and son, but since there are no sources we'll never know the truth. Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your dedicated work on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Buckinghamshire Thank you! – Ma®©usBritish [Talk][RFF] 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your dedicated work on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London Thank you! – Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 04:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your dedicated work on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Oxfordshire Thank you! – Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Alfonso VI

While I agree that the mention of 'Agatha' on Alfonso's page needed to be balanced, a bit more nuance is in order since the Iberian scholarly sources (Palencia, Canal, Salazar y Acha, Reilly) seem not to be in agreement with the English ones on the relative reliability of this episode. Even Hollister thought it was worth mentioning with the qualifier, "was said to have". Given how she is nearly universally accepted by the Iberian sources, I don't think it is due weight to simply brush her aside with one English reference. I will try to put something together, although I don't have access to all of the necessary material (such as Cordero Carrete's 1952 article suggesting that she is instead to be identified with the wife of Sancho II, as per William of Poitiers, or the relatively recent Minguez biography of Alfonso). Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Some history of how I came to make the amendment might be helpful. I noticed that the list of children in William the Conqueror showed Agatha as a definite daughter and Adeliza as doubtful, but the ODNB article on Adeliza had it the other way round. I amended the William article citing ODNB, and Ealdgyth expanded with additional references. As all the references appeared to say Agatha is dubious, I changed Agatha of Normandy to a redirect, and then looked for other references to her which might need amending, which is how I found Alfonso. As Spanish sources put her in a different light, perhaps you could look at the information on her in William the Conqueror to check whether it needs revising to be consistent with what you say in Alfonso, and whether the Agatha article should be restored in the light of Spanish info. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here .. but I would greatly appreciate both of you picking William apart as I'm hoping to take him to FAC soon. I have the article listed at Peer Review - Wikipedia:Peer review/William the Conqueror/archive1 and any additional sources that could be used would be greatly appreciated... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I will have a go over the weekend. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chingford Reservoirs

Hi Dudley Miles. Thanks for your contributions to the above article. I've just been checking my ordnance survey map for the area and feel the boundary between Enfield and Waltham Forest is formed by the River Lee Diversion which skirts the King George V reservoirs eastern bank. Any thoughts ? Cheers (Northmetpit (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Hello Northmetpit. I do not know the area. I altered the borough to make it consistent with the articles on the two separate reservoirs, which say that they are both in Enfield. I suggest you correct all three articles according to your knowledge. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dudley. Thanks for reply. (Northmetpit (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)).

Article creation

Hi Dudley, Not sure we've crossed paths before unless you've been to a London meetup? But I noticed you pitching in on the rescue of Sayers Croft this afternoon and read some of the articles on your userpage, nice work. I'm a little surprised that no-one had set your account as Autopatrolled, so I've taken the liberty of fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind words. I have not been to a meetup yet. I did think of going to the last one but it clashed with the Wimbledon mens final. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnet in Herts

Hi

I see that you edited Barnet saying it left herts in 1965. That's quite wrong. For ceremonial purposes it is still part of the County and I shall be editing it tomorrow. Please feel free to disagree!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKPolice (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure what it means to say for ceremonial purposes but I will look at your source. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems you were right! I've adjusted the entry to explain the Herts issue. UKPolice 16:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKPolice (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Dear Mr. Miles. Thanks very much for disputing the entry on "antipope" Clement III. I, too, found it hostile and biased. I have just added some new bibliography and attempted to smooth out the biased terms. Would you mind to have a look and see if it meets with your approval, to the extent that we can remove the "dispute" box at the top of the article. If you see other things that need changing, please inform! Yours cordially, in the 33°C heat of Rome, Lila Yawn Lila Yawn (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much Lila Yawn. I have removed the POV header. I am not an expert on the Investiture Controversy, but I have edited the intro to make it more comprehensible to non-expert readers. Please revise if it is not right.

PS I am glad to say it now cooler in London! Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Centralised discussion on Welsh SSSIs

Hi. You might like to join a centralised discussion at Talk:Site of Special Scientific Interest#Welsh SSSI lists. SP-KP (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and Join WikiProject Ethiopia

Thank you for you resent edits to Ethiopia-related articles. I would like to invite you to join the Ethiopia WikiProject. I am attempting to restart that project anew. Here is a link to the new not yet published main page of the project. Come join us. Your writing and editing skills would be very appreciated in this project.

Thanks አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Æthelstan

		The History Barnstar
		For your hard work and attention to detail, particularly with Æthelstan! Hel-hama (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I am trying to get Æthelstan up to GA - my first attempt at this - but I still have some way to go. I am now starting on law and administration, but this is a big subject in itself. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nature reserves in Barnet

Hello Dudley, this is a note to let you know that I have closed your featured list candidacy for Nature reserves in Barnet. Sadly, consensus was not achieved for promotion, but I encourage you to re-nominate the list whenever you want to so that a proper consensus can be achieved. I'd like to note that the fact that it's archived does not mean that the list is not ready, but that consensus was not achieved at the moment. Thanks for all the work you've done, and have a nice day :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Winchester and London

It's clear that most (if not all) Anglo-Saxon historians recognise the concept of an Anglo-Saxon capital city as an anachronism, e.g.:

• Stenton clearly didn't like the idea that the Anglo-Saxons had fixed capital cities - and I agree with him.
• Michael Dolley, Anglo-Saxon Coins, p. 45. refers to "Tamworth, the Mercian 'capital'", which I think works - the word is more readable than, say, adminstrative centre or royal headquarters.
• The historian Barbara Yorke sees the identification of Winchester as a capital as being "misleading in a ninth century context", in Robert Rouse, The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England in Middle English Romance, p.152;

I found references to the capitals of tribes, etc. during Roman times, and some authors also refer to capital cities in Frankish lands (such as Paris and Turnacum), but I didn't find any modern historians that referred to Winchester as being a capital - those authors who did were writing in Victorian times were 19th century or the beginning of the 20th century authors, or were people promoting historic Winchester in more recent publications.

Hope this helps! Hel-hama (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A Request

Would you be so kind as to review my draft at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vejlefjord/St._Augustine%27s_College_(Draft) as a posssible replacement for the present article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Augustine's_College,_Canterbury? I began thinking of editing, but it seems that a replacement might be a better way. I would appreciate your thinking about its possibilities and what needs to be done. I am a novice and you are knowledgeable and experienced in Wikipedia ways. My interest stems from the fact that I spent the 1956-57 academic year at St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury, when it served as the Central College of the Anglican Communion. Vejlefjord (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments at User talk:Vejlefjord/St. Augustine's College (Draft). Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to follow your suggestions and get back to you. Milton Vejlefjord (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, again, for giving specific and understandable suggestions. I have posted a report on what I have done on my talk page and also a further request. I’ll check back on both pages in a day or so. Milton, USA Vejlefjord (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You can also ask for feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you have given all you will to my project and that I should seek expert help from other editors. If so, I’ll sign off. You have been of immense help. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Scadbury Park

I wonder if you could throw any further light on this sentence: "in 1314 John de Scathebury built and moated manor house which is archaeologically significant"? Unfortunately your source www.capitalwoodlands.org/site/article/13 has since disappeared and I havent been able to track down the original text of that page - e.g. I've tried the internet Wayback machine etc. I'm a member of the archaeological society which has been excavating the moated manor house at Scadbury for more than 25 years (Orpington & District Archaeological Society), and this is potentially a very important piece of information for us. We would very much like to know its source. TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Archer (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I regret I cannot find this website either. Capital Woodlands seems to have been a project of the Forestry Commission - see [1]. You could try asking them whether they still have the details. London Gardens Online at [2] cites sources which you might consult, although they do not look likely. The most likely source I know of is the printed Victoria County History, Kent volume 1 (only vol 2 on ecclesiastical establishments seems to be available online) but you have probably already checked this. Sorry I cannot be more helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, Dudley. I've been in touch with the person named on the Capital Woodlands leaflet, who replied and was going to try to track down the source. So far I've heard nothing further, but have followed it up again today. Re. VCH, yes I and my colleagues consulted this many years ago, but it only has a short piece on Scadbury since the topographical volume for our area isn't published. There are several important sources for Scadbury history, both published and original documents (but not on-line), the main being the excellent History of Chislehurst by Webb & others (1899). I'd be very surprised but delighted if the Forestry Commission had discovered a new fact on the early history that has apparently eluded generations of Chislehurst historians, I hope we can get to the bottom of it.

Some further comments on the article: West Lodge and the entrance piers do not relate to Scadbury, but to Homewood House, a property that adjoined Scadbury Park to the north and has long since been pulled down. The photographer of the lodge is incorrect, see the paragraph about West Lodge in http://www.chislehurst-society.org.uk/Chislehurst%20Conservation%20document.pdf. And English Heritage seem to be mistaken about the entrance pillars, which are on the wrong side of Perry Street to belong to Scadbury. I'll email them. Steve Archer (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have marked the Capital Woodlands citation as a dead link. If they cannot find the source, no doubt it would be best to delete the statement. Can you correct the article about the entrance pillars? I would probably get it wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelwold of Wessex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Æthelwold of Wessex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelwold of Wessex

The article Æthelwold of Wessex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Æthelwold of Wessex for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Dudley Miles! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelstan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Æthelstan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sarastro1 -- Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know there is no rush at all for this. I'm still some way from finishing my review, and even when I do, I've no great desire to stick to the "one week" rule. So take your time. And if any of my comments are too fussy for GA, just let me know. I am simply aware that you are probably aiming at FA and have half-an-eye on that. But by all means tell me to get lost! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not think I could keep to the one week rule on such a large article, and I am very happy for you to apply FA standards which will - hopefully - save work later on. I have been recommended to go for A-Class first. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelstan

The article Æthelstan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Æthelstan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sarastro1 -- Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelstan

The article Æthelstan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Æthelstan for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sarastro1 -- Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello, it's great to meet you on here. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Æthelstan A-Class

If you click "show" next to the Milhist banner, it reveals itself, and it should be fine from there. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because I'm seeing the redlink. Did you click the "show" next to "additional information"? That is where it is for me. The only thing I know of that might work is to do that "purge cache" thing. That sometimes clears up these problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Map for article on Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

Hello, Dudley Miles. A reply to your request at the Map workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Map reply}} template.

► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sarastro1 -- Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

The article Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sarastro1 -- Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

The article Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sarastro1 -- Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN: 6th CPV National Congress

I've responded to you're comments at the 6th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Thanks for reviewing the article. --TIAYN (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Æthelstan to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that Æthelstan had passed at FAC, and wanted to add my congratulations for an impressive piece of work! Well done, and hopefully the first of many! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Myrna Close

Hello, just a quick note to say I found your newly created Myrna Close article very interesting. I've been living in the area for over 10 years and didn't know about this place. I'll definitely be visiting it soon. Keep up the good work :) JMHamo (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israel the Grammarian

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Israel the Grammarian you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israel the Grammarian

The article Israel the Grammarian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Israel the Grammarian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good article review of Jessie Stephen

Hi! This is just a quick thank you for your time spent recently in reviewing and suggesting improvements at Talk:Jessie Stephen/GA1. You seem to be doing a lot of work on article improvement, so all the best continuing with that. See you round somewhere sometime, I expect. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

Pleased (but not in the least surprised) to see this fine article promoted. I hope you will alert me to future PRs or FACs for your articles. Happy to add my two penn'orth. Tim riley talk 20:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have Israel the Grammarian at PR for comments before submission to FAC. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall be there shortly, after PR-ing the Royal baccarat scandal, which is huge fun. Tim riley talk 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I can't say that for Israel! Dudley Miles (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Æthelred in the Signpost

Can you check my summary here? I know a bit about the rise of Wessex, but not really enough to be sure I haven't misstated something. The article's a little unclear as to why Æthelred isn't considered King of Mercia before he accepted Alfred's rulership, for instance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. I have never seen it discussed by historians, presumably because nothing is known about his earlier career apart from his defeat by the Welsh. An important point is that unlike the previous ruler, King Ceolred, he never issued his own coinage, and I have edited the article to clarify this.

I would suggest: "In the early 9th century, England was divided into several kingdoms, but these were almost all destroyed by the Vikings, and by the end of the century, Wessex was dominant under Alfred the Great. Æthelred cooperated with Alfred in fighting the Vikings, and accepted his lordship, an important step towards the unification of England in the 10th century."

PS. The article is still not shown as FA, no doubt due to the continuing problems with the bot.

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I've updated it per your suggestions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for peer reviewing the Timeline of plesiosaur research! Abyssal (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 18:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And Israel the Grammarian has got there too - well done once again. Bencherlite^Talk 18:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Libellus responsionum review

Hey Dudley, thanks so much for the review! Great comments; I'll get to work addressing them just as soon as I can. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Dudley, thanks again for your excellent comments on the Libellus article. I've addressed each one, and even comments on a few of your comments (! don't know if that's allowed). Not sure how this process works though... Shall I wait to hear back from you after you've had time to review the changes? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Fryde v Pryde

Thanks for the correction on Byrhthelm. I got Pryde from this listing on Amazon.— Rod ^talk 10:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes we assume that it will be correct on Amazon. Luckily I have the book. I see Worldcat has it right but only lists the first author. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Denisovian edits:

The version you reverted to promotes two misconceptions about what the cited paper says: 1. The Tibetans interbred with Denisovians. Untrue. The Tibetans and Chinese separated ~3,000 years ago. The Denisovian gene was a rare variant in the ancestral population of Asian peoples. 2. The gene variant was an adaptation to high altitude. Probably untrue. We do not know what purpose it served in the Denisovians, only that it is useful at high altitude in the Tibetan gene background.

Why did you remove the details meant to allow better representation of the facts in the cited paper? Gaylinn (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As Drbogdan pointed out, this should be discussed on the article Talk page so I will transfer it there. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you these Wikistripes. During this period you undertook four reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bourley and Long Valley SSSI

Hi Dudley,

I just added Surrey to the Bourley and Long Valley description, and gave a ref, then saw that in the previous edit you had removed Surrey - note that the county border runs through the SSSI (and across the middle of Caesar's Camp Iron Age hillfort). If you check the Magic Map website you can highlight the SSSI area and compare it with the OS basemap. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I was going on the Natural England listing of Surrey SSSIs at [3], which does not show the site, but I see that Surrey CC is included in the planning authorities on the citation. I have revised the ref to go straight to the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

List of nearest exoplanets

Hey thanks for your very useful comments you left at the PR! I've put it up for FLC so let me know you notice any further possible improvements. Nergaal (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

OS Grid Ref & lat & long

Seeing your request at FLC talk it might be worth asking for comments, advice or help at WP:UKGEO where there may be people who have previously tackled this issue.— Rod ^talk 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will give it a day or two to see whether anyone on the Talk page can help and if not I will try UKGEO. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this what you were after ?...Jokulhlaup (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Used this site [4]

'	'	'	'	'	'
Site	Grid reference
Abney Park Cemetery	TQ 334 868	533400	186800	51.564306	-0.076822168
Ackroyd Drive Greenlink	TQ 368 818	536800	181800	51.518562	-0.029742613
Adelaide	TQ 276 843	527600	184300	51.543181	-0.16135795
Ainslie Wood	TQ 378 921	537800	192100	51.610875	-0.011304726
Alexandra Palace and Park	TQ 296 900	529600	190000	51.593949	-0.13043341
Anton Crescent Wetland	TQ 252 652	525200	165200	51.372064	-0.20270346
Barnes Common	TQ 225 760	522500	176000	51.469716	-0.23774371
Barnsbury Wood	TQ 308 842	530800	184200	51.54155	-0.11527652
Battersea Park Nature Areas	TQ 285 773	528500	177300	51.480069	-0.15093584
Beam Valley	TQ 508 844	550800	184400	51.538363	0.17299788
Beam Valley (Environment Agency)	TQ 508 844	550800	184400	51.538363	0.17299788
Beckenham Place Park	TQ 383 707	538300	170700	51.418452	-0.012477106
Bedfont Lakes Country Park	TQ 079 727	507900	172700	51.443024	-0.44885891
Bedfords Park	TQ 519 922	551900	192200	51.608149	0.1922161
Belmont Pastures	TQ 255 623	525500	162300	51.345935	-0.1994181
Belsize Wood	TQ 274 854	527400	185400	51.553111	-0.16384247
Bennett's Hole	TQ 274 674	527400	167400	51.391347	-0.17032603
Bentley Priory	TQ 156 927	515600	192700	51.621259	-0.33155641
Big Wood and Little Wood	TQ 255 887	525500	188700	51.583193	-0.19005486
Blondin Park, Northfields	TQ 167 787	516700	178700	51.495207	-0.32031617
Bonesgate Open Space	TQ 191 638	519100	163800	51.360792	-0.29076461
Bramley Bank	TQ 353 634	535300	163400	51.353574	-0.05837236
Brent Reservoir/Welsh Harp	TQ 217 873	521700	187300	51.571444	-0.24535674
Brookmill Road	TQ 376 762	537600	176200	51.468046	-0.02040122
Burnt Ash Pond	TQ 405 733	540500	173300	51.441275	0.020170798
Camley Street Natural Park	TQ 299 834	529900	183400	51.534568	-0.12854184
Cannon Hill Common	TQ 238 683	523800	168300	51.400232	-0.22172641
Castle Hill	TQ 191 635	519100	163500	51.358096	-0.29086497
Chase - Barking, TheThe Chase - Barking	TQ 515 857	551500	185700	51.549856	0.18364254
Chase - Havering, TheThe Chase - Havering	TQ 515 866	551500	186600	51.557942	0.18402989
Cherry Wood	TQ 243 680	524300	168000	51.397426	-0.21464749
Chiswick Eyot	TQ 219 779	521900	177900	51.486921	-0.24572258
Coldfall Wood	TQ 274 903	527400	190300	51.597146	-0.162067
Coombe Hill Wood	TQ 217 703	521700	170300	51.41866	-0.25121365
Coppett's Wood and Glebelands	TQ 276 916	527600	191600	51.608783	-0.15870858
Covert Way	TQ 265 973	526500	197300	51.660256	-0.1725273
Crane Park Island	TQ 128 727	512800	172700	51.44207	-0.3783844
Cranebank, Hatton	TQ 101 764	510100	176400	51.475857	-0.41606605
Cranham Brickfields	TQ 580 875	558000	187500	51.564246	0.27812001
Cranham Marsh	TQ 570 855	557000	185500	51.546557	0.26281273
Cranmer Green	TQ 279 681	527900	168100	51.397525	-0.16289173
Crossness	TQ 492 802	549200	180200	51.50105	0.14816826
Cuddington Meadows	TQ 245 610	524500	161000	51.334471	-0.21422302
Dacres Wood	TQ 355 721	535500	172100	51.431708	-0.05218415
Dagenham Village Churchyard	TQ 500 845	550000	184500	51.539474	0.16151408
Danson Park Bog Garden, Welling	TQ 470 749	547000	174900	51.454004	0.11429214
Denham Country Park	TQ 051 872	505100	187200	51.573881	-0.48481468
Derwent Floodwash	TQ 235 674	523500	167400	51.392208	-0.22634966
Devonshire Avenue Nature Area	TQ 262 632	526200	163200	51.353869	-0.18905378
Downham Woodland Walk	TQ 393 720	539300	172000	51.429889	0.00240524
Duke's Hollow	TQ 212 763	521200	176300	51.472692	-0.25634781
Dulwich Upper Wood	TQ 337 712	533700	171200	51.424048	-0.078401249
Eastbrookend Country Park	TQ 510 860	551000	186000	51.552685	0.17656548
Edith Gardens	TQ 195 669	519500	166900	51.38857	-0.28398075
Elmbridge Open Space[f]	TQ 202 673	520200	167300	51.392017	-0.27379022
Fishpond Wood and Beverley Meads	TQ 219 707	521900	170700	51.422212	-0.24820144
Foots Cray Meadows	TQ 478 717	547800	171700	51.425042	0.12446279
Fox Wood	TQ 181 822	518100	182200	51.526373	-0.29898732
Foxley Wood	TQ 315 605	531500	160500	51.328404	-0.11398123
Frays Valley	TQ 055 865	505500	186500	51.567514	-0.47925487
Fryent Country Park	TQ 195 875	519500	187500	51.573711	-0.27701751
Gillespie Park	TQ 313 862	531300	186200	51.559407	-0.10732499
Grove Farm	TQ 151 852	515100	185200	51.553955	-0.34123241
Gunnersbury Triangle	TQ 201 786	520100	178600	51.493597	-0.27139644
Hainault Lodge	TQ 476 919	547600	191900	51.606596	0.1300398
Ham Common	TQ 184 718	518400	171800	51.43284	-0.29814761
Ham Lands	TQ 165 720	516500	172000	51.435031	-0.32540166
High Elms	TQ 444 628	544400	162800	51.345945	0.071978689
Hogsmill River Park[f]	TQ 200 680	520000	168000	51.398351	-0.27642693
Hounslow Heath	TQ 123 743	512300	174300	51.45655	-0.3850682
Hutchinson's Bank	TQ 381 616	538100	161600	51.336726	-0.018885425
Ingrebourne Valley	TQ 532 841	553200	184100	51.535022	0.20744573
Isleworth Ait	TQ 168 757	516800	175700	51.468224	-0.31986749
Islip Manor Meadows	TQ 119 845	511900	184500	51.548306	-0.38759058
Jubilee Country Park	TQ 436 680	543600	168000	51.392874	0.062598781
Jubilee Wood	TQ 166 618	516600	161800	51.343335	-0.32731001
Kempton	TQ 118 707	511800	170700	51.424292	-0.39339734
Lavender Pond	TQ 363 803	536300	180300	51.505204	-0.037523766
Lesnes Abbey Woods	TQ 481 785	548100	178500	51.486064	0.13161938
Litten	TQ 145 827	514500	182700	51.531607	-0.35069528
Long Wood	TQ 155 789	515500	178900	51.497251	-0.33752904
Lonsdale Road Reservoir (Leg of Mutton Reservoir)	TQ 218 774	521800	177400	51.482449	-0.24733441
Lower Wandle	TQ 258 720	525800	172000	51.433044	-0.1916793
Manor, TheThe Manor	TQ 550 930	555000	193000	51.614493	0.23730076
Maryon Wilson Park and Gilbert's Pit (including Maryon Park)	TQ 419 784	541900	178400	51.486754	0.042346021
Mayesbrook Park South	TQ 463 844	546300	184400	51.539546	0.10816017
Merton Park Green Walks	TQ 253 697	525300	169700	51.412485	-0.19968075
Morden Park	TQ 245 675	524500	167500	51.392889	-0.21194932
Mudchute Park and Farm	TQ 381 789	538100	178900	51.492187	-0.012152765
Myrna Close	TQ 271 701	527100	170100	51.415679	-0.17366904
Northolt Manor	TQ 132 841	513200	184100	51.544452	-0.36897888
Nunhead Cemetery	TQ 354 755	535400	175500	51.462286	-0.052322059
Oak Avenue, Hampton	TQ 122 711	512200	171100	51.427809	-0.38752014
Oak Hill Wood	TQ 280 951	528000	195100	51.640146	-0.15165755
Oakleigh Way	TQ 288 698	528800	169800	51.4126	-0.14934523
One Tree Hill	TQ 355 743	535500	174300	51.451478	-0.051342792
Oxleas/Shooters Hill Woodlands	TQ 430 764	543000	176400	51.468506	0.057369099
Parkland Walk	TQ 303 878	530300	187800	51.574017	-0.12114947
Parsloes Park Squatts	TQ 478 851	547800	185100	51.545445	0.13006695
Perivale Wood	TQ 160 837	516000	183700	51.540289	-0.3287511
Pevensey Road	TQ 120 733	512000	173300	51.447622	-0.3897005
Pyl Brook	TQ 252 669	525200	166900	51.387342	-0.20210491
Queen's Wood	TQ 288 885	528800	188500	51.580652	-0.14252588
Raeburn Open Space	TQ 198 674	519800	167400	51.393001	-0.2795028
Railway Fields	TQ 317 881	531700	188100	51.576388	-0.1008468
Rainham Marshes	TQ 545 792	554500	179200	51.490643	0.22402839
Ravensbury Park	TQ 267 680	526700	168000	51.396896	-0.18016739
Ripple Nature Reserve	TQ 468 824	546800	182400	51.521446	0.11453163
Rose Walk	TQ 199 680	519900	168000	51.398372	-0.2778637
Roundshaw Downs	TQ 307 630	530700	163000	51.351055	-0.12454011
Rowley Green Common	TQ 216 961	521600	196100	51.650552	-0.24374928
Ruffett and Big Woods	TQ 282 602	528200	160200	51.32646	-0.16142708
Ruislip Local Nature Reserve	TQ 090 899	509000	189900	51.597408	-0.42772311
Scadbury Park	TQ 457 701	545700	170100	51.411209	0.093622589
Scratchwood and Moat Mount Open Space	TQ 205 945	520500	194500	51.636409	-0.26019162
Scrattons Ecopark and extension	TQ 481 833	548100	183300	51.529193	0.13363351
Selsdon Wood	TQ 364 617	536400	161700	51.338034	-0.043236212
Sir Joseph Hood Memorial Wood	TQ 226 671	522600	167100	51.389707	-0.23938207
South Norwood Country Park	TQ 353 683	535300	168300	51.397608	-0.056508287
Southwood Open Space[f]	TQ 205 665	520500	166500	51.384764	-0.26975175
Spencer Road Wetlands	TQ 279 667	527900	166700	51.384944	-0.16339563
Spinney, Carshalton, TheThe Spinney, Carshalton	TQ 280 656	528000	165600	51.375035	-0.16235534
Springfield Park	TQ 346 875	534600	187500	51.570312	-0.059252451
St. John's Wood Church Grounds	TQ 271 830	527100	183000	51.53161	-0.16903306
Stanmore Common	TQ 158 939	515800	193900	51.632003	-0.32827237
Stanmore Country Park	TQ 173 928	517300	192800	51.621806	-0.30697795
Streatham Common	TQ 309 709	530900	170900	51.422005	-0.11876039
Sue Godfrey Nature Park	TQ 374 774	537400	177400	51.478878	-0.022812505
Sutcliffe Park	TQ 411 748	541100	174800	51.454605	0.029395584
Sutton Ecology Centre Grounds	TQ 278 646	527800	164600	51.366093	-0.16558646
Sydenham Hill Wood and Fern Bank	TQ 340 724	534000	172400	51.434761	-0.073635488
Ten Acre Wood	TQ 097 838	509700	183800	51.542446	-0.4195235
Totteridge Fields	TQ 223 940	522300	194000	51.631527	-0.23436962
Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park	TQ 368 823	536800	182300	51.523055	-0.029548676
Wandle Meadow Nature Park	TQ 264 710	526400	171000	51.423924	-0.18340905
Wandle Valley Wetland	TQ 278 666	527800	166600	51.384067	-0.16486784
Westbere Copse	TQ 244 853	524400	185300	51.552881	-0.20712518
Wilderness Island	TQ 282 653	528200	165300	51.372294	-0.15959157
Wood and Richard Jefferies Bird Sanctuary, TheThe Wood and Richard Jefferies Bird Sanctuary	TQ 182 670	518200	167000	51.389741	-0.30262173
Wormwood Scrubs	TQ 223 817	522300	181700	51.520986	-0.23864817
Yeading Brook Meadows	TQ 103 823	510300	182300	51.528847	-0.41134453
Yeading Woods (Gutteridge Wood and Meadows)	TQ 092 841	509200	184100	51.545239	-0.42663756

Many thanks. That's very helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well done for adding all of these - I've added the kml template to make them work on google/bing maps but unfortunately (and I should have said this before) they need a |name= parameter otherwise they are just labelled 1,2,3 etc. I've done the first one to show you what I mean. It does take a little while (hours) for Google to catch up and display these, which makes it hard to check yur progress as you go along.— Rod ^talk 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. I have added the name parameter and will check tomorrow whether I have got it right. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how to resolve the multiple coords for the same site issue. I'd ask at Template talk:GeoGroup.— Rod ^talk 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Have done. 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

List of LNRs in London

Hi Dudley - just noticed your expanded intro to the list (good) which included "Perivale Wood is the second oldest nature reserve in Britain and was declared an LNR in 1974."

I'm guessing it was declared a nature reserve (but not an LNR) much earlier (late 1940s/early 50s?). Would be good to include the date if you know it. The sentence as it is edges close to implying the second oldest nature reserve was declared in 1974 which I'm guessing is a bit late...

If you know the date/name of the first LNR to be declared in London, then it would be good to add it. Was it Perivale Wood? Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have revised Perivale Wood to make it clearer. It probably was the first in London but I am dubious about saying so as I am not sure the information is reliable. LNRs are declared under the Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but the earliest date given in the London NE list is Perivale in 1974, and the next 1982. Can these long time intervals be correct? Also some sites have no declaration dates. Thanks very much. Any further advice appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting - I didn't realise that the legislation enabling LNRs went back to 1949. I was aware of SSSIs and AONBs and national parks etc, but only fairly recently become aware of LNRs. I suspect that the long time intervals (74 to 82) are correct, and reflect the beginnings of more general awareness of conservation and pressure on councils to get their act together. All these thoughts are completely unverifiable! - just my musings...

Also, I hadn't released that Perivale's history went back so far - I'd just assumed that it became a reserve under the 1949 act. The only reliable source I can find online is the Selbourne Society's page on the London Garden Trust's site which you have as the ref.

Unfortunately, this page is a bit vague on the specific chronology, so I can half-understand Crisco's comment. I took the web page to mean that 1902 was when the Selbourne Society started paying(?) the (leasing) farmer to start protecting the birds, and then they took over the lease in 1914 and bought it later (1923). Its turning into quite a convoluted story that was intended to be a bit of background info in the lead section of the article. I'd also be wary about saying Perivale is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain. Someone will demand a citation...

I wonder if it would be best to replace

"Perivale Wood is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain. It has been managed by the Selborne Society since 1902, and was designated an LNR in 1974."

with something like

"Perivale Wood was designated an LNR in 1974, and had previously been managed privately as a bird sanctuary by the Selborne Society who bought the wood in 1923, having previously leased the wood since 1914. It is thought to be one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain." (and supported by the existing ref)

It doesn't quite tell the whole story - but it is all verifiable (with no assumptions/guesses), puts the emphasis back onto the LNR date, and hopefully deflects the question of establishment date.

Feel free to use or ignore as you think fit! Robevans123 (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am away for the weekend and will check this out when I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking again at this, the source does say that it is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain, and that the Selborne Society has managed it since 1902. I think it is pretty clear that this was the start of its life as a nature reserve, when the Society started paying the farmer to protect the site from vandalism, but the source does not quite say so. I think mentioning 1914 and 1923 is going into too much detail in the lead, but I will revise my comments at FLC and see what others say. Crisco may have been misled as the article on the wood itself was not clear, so I have clarified that. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Æthelstan A

Dudley, it was a pleasure to read through your Æthelstan A article. Very well organized and written. I found no problems with it at all, stylistic or factual. I'm sure it will have no trouble achieving GA status. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations on the FA status of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Thank you for your contributions. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military History A-Class Medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History WikiProject, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal for your outstanding work on Æthelstan, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians and Æthelwold ætheling. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelstan A

Good afternoon. I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Æthelstan A you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one quick question on the review page, if you'd look in again there, and then it's chocks away. Tim riley talk 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Æthelstan A

The article Æthelstan A you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Æthelstan A for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And congrats from a human being, too. I see that the peer review came and went with no contributors. I hope you won't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page if ever you are in lack of a reviewer in future. Your mention just now of King Æthelstan and St Cuthbert prompts me to say that I have an article up for peer review in which St Cuthbert is mentioned: Keswick, Cumbria. If you have time and inclination to look in I should be very pleased. – Tim riley talk 16:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly I will look at it. I did not ask you to help with the peer review because you did make a copy edit so I knew you had looked over it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

More FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Æthelwold ætheling to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 14:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bencherlite. I am planning to nominate Æthelstan at some stage, but I am not sure how long I should leave it after Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians was TFA on 3 August. Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready - TFA is currently accepting bribes bids for dates from 9th October onwards, and no-one's going to complain about a gap of over 2 months between people with the letter Æ. Bencherlite^Talk 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite thanks for the edit. I am assuming that it will not be a problem that I will be on holiday and off wiki from 16 to 24 October? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Bencherlite^Talk 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

MilHist coordinator election

Hi Dudley, really enjoyed your work over the past year or so -- I wondered if you've given any consideration to standing in the coordinator's election this month. No pressure of course, but I think you'd do well in the role. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I would be willing to take it on if needed, but there are already first rate editors putting themselves forward, and I think the shortage is of reviewers - especially GANs, where I fear I am not doing my share. I reckon this should probably be my priority when I am not working on my own projects. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I think most of the coordinators spend far more time on reviewing than coord stuff anyway but, as I said, no pressure! The time we used to spend promoting or archiving A-Class Reviews has gone down dramatically with the introduction of Hawkeye's bot that automates all the legwork, so we may be able to get along with fewer coords anyway. On the odd occasion when we've been low on numbers we've co-opted editors to help out -- doesn't happen much these days but perhaps given your inital response you wouldn't be averse if we got desperate...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I will help out if needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style

I'm contemplating trying my hand at turning the redlink at hermeneutic style blue. You mentioned in the Æthelstan A FAC that it was formerly known as Hibernian style, and I am failing dramatically at finding a source for that, probably because this is well outside of my normal topic range. Any suggestions where I might look? Thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the comment on Hibernian is in Stevenson (see sources for Æthelstan A), which I do not have access to at present, but I see that Lapidge in his essay on the hermeneutic style (in Anglo-Latin Literature) says it was known as Hisperic, so I may have it wrong. Good luck with the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can't track down that Stevenson source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

July to September 2014 MilHist reviews

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you these Wikistripes. During this period you undertook five reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Æthelstan, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 27 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date.Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Checked and looks OK. I will now be on holiday and off wiki until 24 October. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To welcome you back, congratulations on the elevation of Æthelstan A. Tim riley talk 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And thanks once again for all your help Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Æthelwulf of Wessex

Switching the conversation to here since there's no need to clog up the FAC with it. Yes, Æthelwulf sounds like a good choice. I have a few on-wiki obligations so it will be a week or two before I can look at it. Ping me when you get back from vacation; I'll start going through my sources before then if I have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Simon Keynes has sent me an excellent bibliography of Anglo-Saxon history - although he has not found time to update it since 2007 - and I can send it to you if you email me. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I have a few things to catch up on after my holiday, on and off wiki, but I should be able to start in a few days. I see you show your library and mine is at User:Dudley Miles/Library. I can generally get other sources at the London Library. I have never done a collaborative article before so would appreciate some guidance.

One further point. King Æthelwulf is much the most prominent person of that name, so I think there is a case for moving the article to his name only (without "of Wessex") and a hatnote to a disambig page. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious

Greater London
Thank you, Dudley, for quality articles on are Anglo-Saxon history such as Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians and Israel the Grammarian, for both science and nature in Greater London, for reviewing and clarification, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And for Æthelstan, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Your kind words are much appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayscoghe Boucherett

Hi, I'm just posting to say thank you for taking the time to review this article for GA. Best wishes, --Noswall59 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC).

Creswellian

I've written to someone who seems to know quite a bit about this asking if there's been any comment on Paul Pettitt's belief that there was just one group responsible for the Creswellian. As an aside, I'm going to try to organise some Wikipedia training at least within the East Midlands group of the Council for British Archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Is Pettit arguing that the 35 British sites, the Dutch ones and the presumably countless other ones lost under Doggerland and elsewhere are all of one group?

I am very puzzled about the dating. The 'Becoming Creswellian' page dates the sites to between 13,000 and 12,000 years BP, but Stringer in Homo Britannicus p. 223 says that the Creswellian ended with the onset of the Younger Dryas soon after 13,000 years ago. Is there a major disagreement over dating of this period? Did the recent adjustments to C14 dating for the extinction of the Neanderthals also affect dating of later periods. Are some people using uncalibrated C14 dates? Can you ask your contact about this.

With regard to the training it sounds very interesting but I am not sure how relevant I would find it. I have been discouraged from working on prehistory by the difficulty of getting access to sources, and currently concentrate on Anglo-Saxon history. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane at FLC

Hi, Thanks for your support of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset at FLC - it has now passed. If you have a minute to take a look at List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane which uses the same format I've just nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 10:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiil do. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the excellent work at Hermeneutic style (and boy am I glad someone ELSE tackled that one...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind words Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

background etc enhanced

Hi Ive enhanced the background and "preliminaries" of Battle of Schliengen. Would you see if this is sufficient? auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dick the Bad

Good afternoon, Dudley! I wonder if you might be interested in looking in at the PR of Richard III of England? I rather leaned on the nominator to take it there (I reluctantly failed it for GAN) and am now hoping some editors with a taste for Eng Hist will look in and put their money where my mouth is. Rather late for you, I know, but if you can find time and inclination to look in it will be esteemed a favour. I am now off to read your above-mentioned article on hermeneutic style, where I hope to learn much. – Tim riley talk 16:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look. Any comments on hermeneutic welcome though I still have a few sources to check and copy editing to do before it is ready for PR. I have taken time off from it to read a history of Strathclyde and I fear my info for you for the Keswick article was not quite right. It seems to have been later than 1018 when Scotland conquered Strathclyde but I will post you when I get to that point in the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If our friend Hermann Ütich is going to PR I'll wait till then to comment. Thank you so much for putting Richard III on your list meanwhile. Tim riley talk 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am confused Tim. Who is Hermann Ütich? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Bad pun on "hermeneutic". I should know better at my age. Tim riley talk 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Stupid not to get it! Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Eadric Streona

Hello regarding wikipedia's page on Eadric Streona, firstly thanks for at least looking at the page, I do agree with you that the lead is to short Ive been meaning to expand it for some time now, Im quite new to the citations and Sources aspect though have recently been trying to do this and intend to improve on that, I did question myelf wether I should get rid of those external links which were put there a long time ago by others and thanks for pointing out Simon Keynes's DNB article on Eadric which I was thinking to add as a external link which I have seen, but finally thanks for the input and I shall get to work. Excuse my spelling. User:JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some good news for a change

Gotland says thanks you! Yesterday morning Radio Gotland had a 18 minutes spot about the List of church ruins on Gotland becoming a FL and Wikipedia in general. :) The National Swedish Radio will follow suit with a short spot too, date unknown. This was because of a tweet. This info shamelessly nicked from User talk:Yakikaki#Radio. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for letting me know. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Neanderthal

Hello Dudley Miles. You deleted my addition to the Neanderthal page claiming to to be unreferenced, the addition was supported with added references though, so I am uncertain as to why this change was made. Thank you Page for talks and edits

I assume this refers to your edit of 17 November. No citation was given for the paragraph added by Meakin.2. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another FLC

Thanks for your comments and support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1. The FLC director has given me permission to open another FLC, using the same format etc at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at that one and let me have any comments?— Rod ^talk 14:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiil do. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

kml

When I asked bout this google change I was told not to worry about it an it would be sorted automatically.— Rod ^talk 06:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ira Roe Foster

Dudley Miles, thank you for reviewing Ira Roe Foster, for Good Article status. Your thoughtful comments, which resulted in a number of subsequent corrections and additions, have greatly improved the article. This, I believe, highlights some of the best aspects of the Wikipedia model. Kindest regards, Gulbenk (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes and Happy New Year to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		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 15:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

England

I tried... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Ealdgyth. Glad to see another editor taking it up. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Somerset Scheduled Monuments lists

Thanks for your helpful comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 which has now been promoted. I've now nominated List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset/archive1 and would be grateful for any comments you might have. As you may know there is a discussion about the column widths etc on these lists at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Column widths in table layout. Thanks for any input.— Rod ^talk 21:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William of Wrotham/archive1 Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

waes hael..a beer for you!

In gratitude for your peer review recommendations on the Berkhamsted article. -- BOD -- 22:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 6 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions to Featured Biography Articles in 2014 you are hereby awarded this Biography Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Much appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Gorton GA Review

Hello, and thank you for doing the GA review on Samuel Gorton. This has never happened before, but I never got a single notification that any action was being taken on the article, after you first advised me that you were picking it up for review. I got busy with real life, all the while thinking that you had gotten busy with real life, and had not begun your review. Don't know why this happened, but it seems to me I've always been aware that a review was taking place. I checked to make sure I had the Samuel Gorton article on my watch list, which it is. I honestly didn't have a clue that any action was being taken. I appreciate your comments and your efforts, and will be more watchful in the future.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I did make a small edit on 14 January but after that all my comments were on the GA review page, which is the one you (also) need to have on your watch list. I pinged you to say that I had done the review so it should have been in your notifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions

Thank you for your comments on List of Narcissus horticultural divisions. I too was unaware of your input at the time. However I believe I have responded to all the comments you contributed. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As I replied to Sarnold, nominators normally put the review page on their watchlist so that they pick up responses. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Horace Greeley

Hi, I've responded to your comments at the FAC and have made changes in response to some of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I will take another look. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita FAC

Thanks for your excellent observations. We've finished your latest round. Please review. Would you be interested in also doing the source and close parphrase checks? Ian Rose says that's still needed. If not, that's okay too. HalfGig talk 12:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am about reviewed out at the moment but I will have a go if no one else does it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style

Dipping, more meo, into GANs I find your article there. Though I was the sole peer reviewer I am quite comfortable about reviewing it for GA. Are you OK with that, or would you prefer to wait for a reviewer who comes new to the page? Tim riley talk 16:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Very happy you that you do it. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hermeneutic style

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hermeneutic style you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hermeneutic style

The article Hermeneutic style you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hermeneutic style for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf

I don't know if you're still interested in working on Æthelwulf of Wessex, but I've made a start by transcribing Keynes' bibliography here. Please feel free to update or annotate it. I've put my name against the three sources I have in hand; I am probably going to buy a couple of the others and will add those when I get them. I think the first thing I'll do after reading the sources is add a section on the background to Æthelwulf's reign, which seems to be a fairly standard way of starting an article like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Great. I have access to all the sources in my own books or the London Library. I will think what to work on - maybe early life. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I ordered a couple; I was going to order the New Cambridge Medieval History volume, but it's not yet in print on this side of the pond, apparently, and won't be till May. Do you have access to the ODNB article? If not Ealdgyth may be able to get a copy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ODNB is available to anyone who has a British public library card. If you email me I can send you a copy. Strange about the Cambridge history - it was published in 1995! Do you know that it is a history of the whole of Europe? It only has a few remarks about Æthelwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did realize that -- I use new articles as excuses to buy references that will probably be useful for other articles too, and this (and the two adjacent volumes) are ones I would like to have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What referencing format do you use? I usually use sfn, but I am quite happy if you prefer a different one. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never used sfn but have been meaning to try it, so let's do that. Please let me know if I screw them up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Great. The documentation is at Template:Sfn and there is a tool at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js which will tell you if you have screwed up! Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A problem with the Ucucha script is that it gives a false error message when the citation format is used. An editor has pointed out a solution at Template talk:Sfn#User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. 12:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC

As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor/archive1?— Rod ^talk 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I have a couple of articles at GAN, Ancestry of the Godwins and Hermeneutic style. Any chance you can take on one of them? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I have no experience of doing GA reviews and, although they look interesting, I don't feel I have expertise in either of those topics (but on a related topic have you looked at Magna Carta?.— Rod ^talk 21:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I plan to look at it when it goes to FAC. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of a hold up on that as one or two sections still need work as discussed on the talk page (particularly the 18th and 19th century sections) and it has been suggested we wait for the latest books (Carpenter particularly) before nominating at FAC.— Rod ^talk 21:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just nominated another of these lists and would appreciate any comments you might like to offer. See: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1.— Rod ^talk 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the detailed review of radiocarbon dating; I really appreciate your thoroughness and patience. It's made the article a lot better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The graph has been updated with new colours; can you refresh the radiocarbon dating page and see if it's easier to distinguish the lines now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I can distinguish them easily now but it might be helpful to make the lines in the key thicker for the benefit of people with more severe colour blindness. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Alfred the Great

Back in December 2013 you made an edit to the article Alfred the Great in which you included a short citation to "Keynes & Lapidge, p. 322, n. 79; Nelson, pp. 60-62". I can march the Nelson short citation to the long citation starting "Nelson, Janet (1999)" I assume that the second is "Keynes, Simon; Lapidge, Michael (1983)..." but please could you confirm that. -- PBS (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fox Covert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive2

Any further thoughts on your oppose? I'm asking since I've seen some long discussions about OR recently, and OR was apparently the only issue. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dank I think this really needs the views of other editors, but I have added replies to Borsoka's comments (and asked Mike Christie to comment).

I have replied to your comments on my own nomination. Do you have any further thoughts on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

LWT reserves

That was observant of you ... I think there are quite a few more LWT reserves that will be able to go in the template; and I suspect there should also be a list. Some of the articles need development from your very useful starts; I've trimmed a lot of fat (ok, pov) from Sydenham hill wood, and am trying to get Gunnersbury Triangle to GA in time for its 30th birthday in August! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have only created articles for LWT reserves which are also LNRs or SSSIs. There are many more listed on the LWT website. A number of the articles on wildlife trusts have lists of sites, but the only one which has an OSM/Bing map (but a non-standard list format) is Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust. I think your London template is the only one. I have done a basic list for Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and have been thinking of doing a template. I have done a bit more tidying up of Sydenham Hill Wood - there was unclear information on ownership apparently referenced to personal knowledge of the the site manager. Dudley Miles (talk)

Good. Yes, the article smelt a bit of OR, it looks a lot better already. I think I might set about doing some templates for other wildlife trusts, that makes quite a few to be going on with! The LWT article itself needs a bit of expansion, too, and there are all the LWT reserve articles to start, quite a prospect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

One (minor?) problem is that to be useful the templates are best arranged by local authority area, as you have done. This is easy enough for LNRs and SSSIs, where the LA is available from Natural England, but may require checking against maps for other sites. I have wondered (for Herts & Middx) whether it is best to do a list with an OSM/Bing map, and then it would not matter so much if the template is just an alphabetical list without LA breakdown. Do you have any views on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect any sensible organisation of the templates will be fine; if a map can be integrated so much the better. A traditional county could be divided into town and country, or vice-counties if available, or listed alphabetically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap I have now done a list and map of Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust sites. Any suggestions for improving it welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What a fantastic piece of work! Beautiful, clear and informative. I've had a go at the H&M template, with a simple undivided list, and the redlinks commented out, probably all that can be done immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you thinking of doing other wildlife trusts? If so, let me know as and when, and I'll continue with templates... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not for a long time. Over the next few months I plan to photograph and create article about Hertfordshire LNRs and H&M reserves. After that, I might move on to Buckinghamshire or Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful. I hope you enjoy a lot of wildlife and beautiful places along the way, unencyclopaedic though that may be! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The final FLC nom of a list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset

As you have kindly added comments to one or more of the FLC nominations of Scheduled monuments in Somerset I wanted to let you know that the final list, List of scheduled monuments in Mendip, is nomination for Featured List status at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Mendip/archive1. If you had any comments that would be great.— Rod ^talk 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

TFA

Today Æthelwold ætheling, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 6 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Æthelwulf 2

I've been swamped with real life obligations, and also had some reviews I felt obliged to do, so it's only now I have some time to look at Æthelwulf. You've now done so much on it that even if I were to work on it now I don't think I would be justified in regarding myself as a collaborator. I'm happy to work on the article if you like, but I'd also be willing to switch to review mode, and give you a peer review on it, if you prefer. Let me know; and sorry I've been unable to help with the article so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Working on the article has made me realise that in general I am happier with the review than collaborator mode, so I would be happy to switch. However, one area I have not got to grips with is coinage, and I would be happy for either of us to take on that.

I have thought that the king is so much the most prominent Æthelwulf that the article should be moved to that title, with others listed under Æthelwulf (disambiguation). What do you think of this?

BTW one of my plans when Æthelwulf is at least to PR stage is to nominate Radiocarbon dating for TFA. I assume you would be happy with that? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure; that would be great. Thank you. Yes, I agree on moving the page so that this Æthelwulf is the primary; he's clearly the most important person of that name. I'm not expert on coinage but I do have Grierson and Blackburn, so I will see if I can work up a paragraph or so this weekend. Other than that I'll switch to review mode; feel free to leave the article in my sandbox or move it to one of yours if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've put together a couple of paragraphs on the coinage here; let me know if that's the sort of thing you're looking for. The parenthetical numbers are Grierson and Blackburn references; if you're OK with this I'll drop it into the other sandbox and put in proper sfn footnotes. I'm not certain I understand Grierson and Blackburn's point about the debasement; I don't see why uniformity of coinage would address debasement, which is what they seem to be implying. I put a sentence in based on that but might tweak it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That looks good, though I am not clear what you mean about debasement and uniformity, and I think that could do with clarifying. Also, can you look at what there is already in the article about coinage, particularly that it was suspended for a time in the 850s. This is based on Kirby, p. 172 in my edition. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I'll get what I have in first and then look at that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added the coinage section. I can't find that in my edition of Kirby (I have the older edition). Can you give me chapter and context of the page? I might be able to find it that way. Re the debasement: the source is clear that the currency was debased during Æthelwulf's reign. Here's what the source says (visible here): "Metcalf and Northover's as yet unpublished research has shown that towards the end of Æthelwulf's reign the coinage was significantly debased, and it became worse still under his successors. This alone could have been sufficient to drive the earlier, finer coins out of circulation without a formal recoinage, and it may have been one of a number of factors which prompted the chagnes in coin type between c. 850 and c. 885." They go on to discuss a post-Æthelwulf change in coinage, but giving the early date as 850 indicates that Æthelwulf's coinage decision may have been a response to the debasement. I don't really understand how -- the fourth phase of his coinage was uniform, but so was the third, and why would uniformity address debasement anyway? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it answers your query but all I can think of is that the changes in coin type were attempts to improve the debased coinage. The Kirby comment is on page 2 of chapter 10, "The coming of the Vikings". "This Viking attack in 851 appears to have had considerable impact. Royal involvement in the minting of coins in Kent was interrupted and at London Mercian royal coinage was "minimal" after 851. A revival of West Saxon coinage only came in the last eighteen months of Æthelwulf's reign...with a renovatio monetae (a calling in of old coins and a re-striking into new)." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Approximate dates

Hi: just a friendly note to explain why I had changed the date category for Rhodhri. I have been following the guidelines set out at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:People_by_year

However, there is also some discussion on that article's talk page... but nothing has been resolved. I wonder if the discussion should be reopened. Perhaps it's better to leave the categories in the decades rather than an exact date (esp. for people for whom we will likely never have accurate documentation...) Please let me know what you think. --FeanorStar7 17:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I see you raised a query on this back in 2007 and got no answer. Personally I am strongly opposed to giving an exact year category when it is not known. It is misleading as implying that the date is known. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rickmansworth Aquadrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rickmansworth Aquadrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rickmansworth Aquadrome until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wodehouse, again

Thank you so much for your comments at the recent PR for P.G. Wodehouse. The article is now at FAC should you wish to comment further. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Dudley, please don't forget to finish your FAC review of Juan Manuel de Rosas. --Lecen (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf

Congratulations on getting the article on Æthelwulf to a top notch standard. I'm sure the article will achieve featured status like the article on Æthelwold ætheling, you have evidently been working just as hard on the former. I send my thanks for such work to you. I will support you on getting the article mentioned (Æthelwulf) to featured status as it is certainly worthy of the feat. --JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Josh. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 3 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Godwin's biography

Hi Dudley,

I have managed to find, by looking through this article's history, that you appear to have cited The Life and Times of Godwine, Earl of Wessex, written by Hubert Grills. Does this mean that you own a copy of the book? If so, I'm curious if it's actually a detailed biography which has a good deal of information not mentioned in his article, or if it contains nothing that is not easily accessible. Thanks, --Biblioworm 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I do have a copy and it is a detailed biography, although I did not get far enough to know how much it has not in other sources. I gave up on it - so far as I remember because it was discussing a lot of obscure people without explaining who they were - but I would certainly read it if I was working on Godwin. I assume he was an amateur but did a good deal of work. He cites correspondence with Ann Williams, and Frank Barlow says in his book The Godwins that Grills sent him an article discussed in Barlow's book. There is (or was) a copy in Foyles in London. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just want to know if the book actually discusses his life (which is what I want), and is not predominately yet another ordinary book which simply discusses the events of the time with little reference to the actual subject. --Biblioworm 01:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes the book does discuss his life at length. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Dudley. Now the dust has settled on the Maya civilization FAC, I just wanted to say many thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for supporting its promotion - after an epic haul it made FA at the weekend. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Greater London
Thank you, Dudley, for quality articles on are Anglo-Saxon history such as Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians and Israel the Grammarian, for both science and nature in Greater London, for reviewing and clarification, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 935th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Much appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 19, 2015

Dudley, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. A couple of points. One copies an error of mine. It was not scholarship in general which declined in the ninth century, but Latin scholarship in England. Does my edit make that clear? The other is that the first sentence reads oddly to me: "The hermeneutic style of Latin, from the later Roman and early medieval periods, became nearly universal in tenth-century England." How about "The hermeneutic style of Latin, which was used by some European writers in the later Roman and early medieval periods, became nearly universal in tenth-century England." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is fine, and the suggestion is fine too, but I don't want to repeat information in the first three sentences, and we already have "In the early medieval period some leading Continental scholars were exponents ...", so I'll trim that a little. - Dank (push to talk) 10:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine, except I am not sure about "It was first found in the work of Apuleius in the second century and then in Europe in the later Roman period." That could be taken to mean that Apuleius was not in Europe. How about "and was then taken up by other writers in the later Roman period. Also, the image caption does not seem quite right: "Apuleius, the earliest known writer to use the hermeneutic style" Maybe "Apuleius, the earliest writer known to have used the hermeneutic style". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the caption; I'm not involved with those. Apuleius's article says "He was a Numidian Berber who lived under the Roman Empire and was from Madaurus (now M'Daourouch, Algeria). He studied Platonist philosophy in Athens, travelled to Italy, Asia Minor, and Egypt and was an initiate in several cults or mysteries." I wouldn't want to call him "European" without any further elaboration, and since the TFA isn't about him, I think elaboration would be too much of a digression. Would it help to change "then in Europe" to something more specific? - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I take your point that he was north African, but he was arguably culturally Roman/Greek. The wording I suggest is "It was first found in the work of Apuleius in the second century, and was then taken up by other writers in the later Roman period." This avoids getting into the issue of whether he was European or not, which as you say is not relevant to this TFA. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph Hill, Hertfordshire

Hi, I just saw your article for this site and wondered if, judging by the photo of the signage that you took, the site is no longer owned by HMWT - the sign is very old, using an old logo and telephone number (0727 instead of 01727). I've just send HMWT a tweet to see if they will clarify the situation. –anemoneprojectors– 08:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Very likely. This is the fourth site I have found which is apparently no longer managed by the HMWT. Thanks for chasing it up. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

At least you know two of them aren't HMWT sites anymore, though in the case of Rowley Green Common, it could be because the land is owned by the council and managed by the Trusts (I know of a site in Bedfordshire that is owned by a council but managed by WTBCN on the council's behalf, and it's therefore not listed on their website). I don't expect HMWT to reply to be honest, they don't seem very good at Twitter! –anemoneprojectors– 09:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Many sites listed by wildlife trusts are managed on behalf of councils. Knowing Barnet Council, it has probably cancelled the arrangement for Rowley Green Common for financial reasons. BTW HMWT did reply promptly to an email I sent about another site which had disappeared from their list. In that case they do still own it but have taken it off the list because they do not want visitors. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting. They did reply regarding Telegraph Hill though: "We used to help manage Telegraph Hill, but not any more. We do still manage Hexton Chalk Pit neraby". –anemoneprojectors– 22:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I went to Hexton Chalk Pit as well and I created an article about it today. A brilliant site and well worth a visit, unlike Telegraph Hill, which is sadly rather boring. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! I wish I had the time and means to get to these places. By the way I do have some photos of some of the LNRs or HMWT sites - Colney Heath springs to mind, I know I have others too. I could upload them if you would like! By the way, congratulations on the FL! Are you planning or attempting to visit and create articles for all the HMWT sites? Lemsford Springs is perhaps the most notable - it's been featured on a few TV shows (this year's Springwatch, for example), so there should be lots of information out there about it, even if the site isn't accessible. Also, if you're planning to visit Ridlins Mire, I'd be interested to know how you get on! –anemoneprojectors– 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes please do upload them. It would be helpful if you could put them in the correct category - for Colney Heath it is Colney Heath Local Nature Reserve - or create a category for reserves which do not already have one. I hope to visit (and create articles about) all HMWT sites which do not have photos on Wikimedia. As a member I can almost always get access. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

List of national nature reserves in Somerset at FLC

Inspired by your work on Herfordshire, have nominated List of national nature reserves in Somerset for FLC. Would you be kind enough to take a look and add any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of national nature reserves in Somerset/archive1?— Rod ^talk 17:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I am not happy with the old format for SSSIs, and I am working on what is - I hope - a better one at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire. Any comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Comparing List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire with List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset I like the addition of a photo for each site if available and happy with the area representation. I'm not sure about the Biol & Geol as column titles. Not sure about the abbreviations for other designations (and some of those aren't referenced (yet)). I have noticed with recent lists a request for a brief description/notes on each row - but don't know if that would apply here.— Rod ^talk 07:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The list originally had a double column heading for biol and geol as with Somerset. I changed it to single columns because I could not work out how to make the columns sortable with double headers. The extra columns for photo, access, other designations and citations made the table far too wide for smaller screens, which is why I abbreviated biol and geol, and also did not attempt a description column - which no SSSI list I have seen has. What is your query about other designations abbreviations? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Galley and Warden Hills

Hi, I visited this site recently and although I didn't see anything on site to show it, I was told by the CEO of WTBCN that they manage the site on behalf of Luton BC. I thought this information might be of interest to you now there is a wiki page. –anemoneprojectors– 16:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The site is not listed on their website. There seem to be a number of reserves which Wildlife Trusts do not list even though they manage or assist with maintenance, and we need a reliable published source before we state this in an article.

Did you take any photos you could upload to Wikimedia category "Galley and Warden Hills"? 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, we need reliable sources. I do have some photos, yes. I'll see if I can sort some out. –anemoneprojectors– 09:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

National Planning Policy Framework

Hiya Dudley Miles, My understanding is that PPS9 was replaced by the NPPF?

ref: p58 Annex 3: NPPF

MyTuppence (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction - I did not find this when I searched. Could you update Site of Nature Conservation Interest with this information? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

List of local nature reserves in Somerset

Thanks for your comments on the FLC of List of national nature reserves in Somerset which has now passed. I wondered if you would be willing to take a look at List of local nature reserves in Somerset and make any comments at: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of local nature reserves in Somerset/archive1?— Rod ^talk 19:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am away for the weekend but will do it next week. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripes for your contribution of 7 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Scholz's star

Eh that's fine,[5] but the authors of the study are really just sort of throwing up their hands, imo. To quote (PDF):

The predicted Galactic coordinates of the nearest

pass of the binary system (`, b = 135◦ ± 15◦, 47◦ ± 13◦)

is near one of the two strong peaks in the longitude

of aphelia distribution of new class I comets from the

Oort Cloud (` = 135◦ ± 15◦) (Matese et al. 1999).

However this appears to be coincidence, as any comets

on eccentricity ∼ 1 orbits from the vicinity of the

nearest pass ∼70 kya would have periods of ∼4 Myr,

and hence require ∼2 Myr to reach the inner solar

system.

I mean it could be just a coincidence, and they go on offer plausible reasons why a bunch of Class 1 comets became active about this time per Matese et al. But as importantly your interpretation that this means "any objects" is too strong, because they only modeled Sol's Oort Cloud. There's no reason to presume that Scholz's star(s) wouldn't have an ice cloud of its (their) own, which the paper doesn't seem to consider at all.

Anyway, I generally take a fairly liberal view of the "See also" section as a "if you enjoyed this article, you might also like" deal. But it's easy enough to throw these two events into the same category and let future generations wonder if two of the perhaps most notable events from this period are in any way related. Cheers! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But they cannot be related as any collision by an object with the earth only 70,000 years ago powerful enough to set off a supervolcano or affect the climate would certainly have left a signature which would have been found by scientists. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wildlife requests

The FLC, Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust is a lovely page and I have gladly supported, but I look forward to a future article that includes my favourites from the official list of plants and creatures specifically protected by the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981:

• Barberry Carpet Moth
• Bedstraw Broomrape
• De Folin's Lagoon Snail
• Dickie's Bladder Fern
• Ear-lobed Dog Lichen

• Fairy Shrimp
• Glutinous Snail
• Least Lettuce
• Martin's Ramping-fumitory
• Pink Sea Fan

• Starved Wood-sedge
• Stinking Goose Foot
• Tentacled Lagoon Worm
• Trembling Sea-mat

I place myself entirely in your hands. Tim riley talk 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I will scour the country to find the Stinking Goose Foot and Trembling Sea-Mat. They must be as fascinating as their names! Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A great English treasure

If I can possibly interest you in a musical English treasure who would have revelled in Waterford Heath and its peers, I have Ralph Vaughan Williams up for peer review. Quite understand if you are otherwise engaged, naturally, but if you can look in, any comments will be gratefully received. – Tim riley talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh...

Per this, you happen to have a pdf copy of that article? Sounds interesting... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Emailed to you. Tell me if you have a problem receiving it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Came through fine. Now to find time to work on Bede's article.. heh. Lots of luck with THAT! (Moving in the next six months, setting up new business, etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. I am going to retire early next year, so I should have more time for my interests, including Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lucky! Good luck with your retirement - I'm about 25 years away (at least). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that List of nature reserves in Barnet – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 11. 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) 01:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Giants2008. I have copy edited the blurb - change anything you do not like. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Æthelstan and English Unification

Æthelstan is considered the first English ruler de juris, but Edgar the Peaceful was the first ruler de facto of an actually politically unified England. Best to make that distinction.

That would need a reliable source, and I do not know of one. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 22, 2015

Dudley, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff from the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. I have made a few copy edits to wording taken from my own draft of the lead which did not look right to me. Please revise anything which looks wrong to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your "ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be back in a week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf FA

Congratulations! And well deserved. By the way, I don't know if you remember but you once suggested that I might create an article for Reculver Country Park:[6] I find myself still wandering historical byways in the vicinity, but I think it would be a bit beyond my knowledge. I notice that you, on the other hand, might find it a doddle, and I'd be delighted if you were to do it. I wouldn't begin to think of putting any pressure on you here – really, it just occurred to me to let you know that you mustn't worry about me, if you were interested. Nortonius (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I concentrate on lists of nature reserves, and only photograph and create stub articles on the reserves themselves. A typical example is Dancersend. You describe the park as an SSSI (based on Kent CC), but it is not listed by Natural England at the list of Kent sites. This is probably because it is listed with a different name or part of a larger site, and you could track down which one by looking at the NE map. (Select any map for a Kent site and zoom out until you can move the focus to Reculver.) I suggest you add this information to the Reculver article, and add the NE citation and map for the site to the references. Kent CC is obviously not a reliable source for the SSSI. I see there are several photos of Reculver Country Park on Commons, and when I know which SSSI it is in I can create an article similar to the Dancersend one - which you could add to if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it – you just demonstrated how far beyond my knowledge the subject would be! Reculver Country Park is a tiny part of Thanet Coast SSSI, which runs between Herne Bay and Ramsgate, right around the Isle of Thanet! For NE, Reculver Country Park seems to be identical with Bishopstone Clifftop, judging by the grid reference, although you may know better... I'll try to work that into the Reculver article. Nortonius (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The citation here says that the coast between Beltinge and Reculver is important geologically - may be something there for one of your articles (if you have not already covered it)? I am on holiday from 3 to 13 November, but I will see what I can do when I get back. BTW there should be a map showing the different parts of the site so you can confirm whether the park is the same as Bishopstone Clifftop. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you know whether this edit is correct or vandalism? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good edit – "proe-" is very rare; in fact the translation there would be more accurate as "weighed down" rather than "stuffed"! The geology is covered in the Reculver article, but thanks I'll have a look at that citation. I've been feretting for maps but found it most frustrating – e.g. I haven't found anything to support the alleged SPA, unless it's this one, which seems unlikely as it's centred (sandwiched?) between Sandwich and Ramsgate. I haven't found a decent map for the Country Park at all in fact, although there is one here, on p. 2. I've yet to look again at the Ramsar claim. I hope you have a good holiday! Nortonius (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The way you find a map of an officially designated site such as an SPA (explained to me by Rodw - I claim no credit) is go to the govt Magic Map, click designations on the left, find and tick England SPAs. You then need to keep blowing up Kent until you can see Reculver. So far as I can see the coast is in it but not the park. (You should be able to get it by typing in the name of the site in the box at the top, but that does not seem to work.) I assume the same will work for a Ramsar, although I have not tried it. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I think a penny has dropped, in that Reculver Country Park is purely a creation of the local authority. Comparing it with the map on p. 2 (in section 1) here, the Magic Map does show that most of the Park is inside the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA; it also shows that the Park mostly overlaps with the Bishopstone Cliffs LNR; but it doesn't seem to want to show Ramsar sites in any detail at the moment. I'll keep trying. I just got it to show Ramsar sites by turning everything else off. The Ramsar site here is coterminous with the SSSI. So most of Reculver Country Park qualifies as SSSI, SPA and Ramsar: it's just the eastern end that's exluded, i.e. the area of Reculver itself and the area adjacent to the car park, visitor centre and the neighbouring caravan site. I'll have another go at Reculver. Nortonius (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've had a go. I fear it might be a bit scrappy, with some geographical overlap, but I'll leave it as it is for now. Nortonius (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Dudley. Nortonius (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One point I forgot to mention Nortonius. To find the area of a site, click on the "i" at top and then click on the site. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Dudley, that's a very handy tip. Nortonius (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Going back to the original subject of this thread, something just occurred to me, and I'd like to ask your opinion, if I may. Æthelwulf was promoted to FA with three citations of The Electronic Sawyer, one of which, in the caption for the image of S 316, was the only citation for the "fact" in question. You may recall that the FAC for Reculver failed mainly (I think that's a fair assessment) because of objections to citations of the E 179 database of medieval and early modern central government records of taxation.[7] An example of such a citation is in no. 133 in the current version of Reculver. What occurred to me is that the citations in the two articles seem directly comparable, but how do you think they compare? I think Æthelwulf has only three such citations, whereas Reculver has I think seven, five of which are bundled with citations of secondary sources. Might the age of the sources be a factor in drawing a line between The Electronic Sawyer and the E 179 database, or would that be purely arbitrary? Any thoughts gratefully received! Nortonius (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction. In two cases in Æthelwulf the comment was based on secondary sources and I added the Sawyer number so that readers could easily check it if they were interested. The caption was OR but it was minor and no one objected. On the other hand you were - arguably - relying on OR for your interpretation. However, there are of course different views on what is OR and it does depend partly on the views of the editors who choose to review an article. I opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive2 as OR but other editors disagreed and it was passed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley. I've looked at the Stephen I of Hungary FAC, and some light may be dawning. That citation I linked to (no. 133) is intended to support the following: "By 1540 Bleangate hundred no longer included land on Thanet, its members being listed then as Sturry, Chislet, Reculver and Herne for the archaic taxes known as 'fifteenths and tenths'". Am I to understand that is being regarded as "interpretation" of the source? I'd considered it to be a simple statement of fact, viz comparable to reading a map, and in keeping with the policy I quoted here. Would it be any better as, for example, "In 1540 the members of Bleangate hundred were listed as Sturry, Chislet, Reculver and Herne for the archaic taxes known as 'fifteenths and tenths'"? Or do you think it is irredeemable without a secondary source? If so, have you any thoughts on how I might be misunderstanding WP:PRIMARY? Sorry, I still feel confused! Nortonius (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking again at the Reculver FAC, several points strike me. 1. The discussion was about whether the National Archives are a primary source. So far as I can see, no one raised the point you are arguing now, that WP:Primary does allow some use of primary sources. 2. I did support your FAC. That was before other editors raised the question of OR, and I did think of getting involved in the discussion, but the FAC was archived first. After reading the discussion I did think that some of your research was OR, but I was not aware that WP:Primary allows some use of primary sources. 3. On note 133, the argument that hchc raised at the time was that it might have been an interim record which was changed later. This seems to me very unlikely. 4. I am confused why Stephen I of Hungary was passed and Reculver failed. In my view you could argue that you were making an allowable use of primary sources, whereas the Stephen article included extensive quotes from partial original sources without making clear whether this was just local colour or conveying information using a biased original source. 5. There is obviously a range of views on primary sources. Hchc2009 favours a strict line, and I am inclined to agree with him. Mike Christie and Ian Rose are more liberal. (I apologise if I am misrepresenting anyone.) In the FAC review, you said that you could easily redraft to cover all the points bar one relying only on secondary sources, and that you were arguing just on the point of principle. However, I do not think an FAC on one article is the right place to establish such an important point of principle. I would urge you to revise the Reculver article - which really should be an FA - and raise the point of principle at Primary sources talk, where anyone interested can have their say, not just those who happen to choose your article for a review. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Dudley, you obviously put a lot of time and thought into that response, and I'm extremely grateful. I think I did try to allude to WP:PRIMARY in the FAC, but all too indirectly – for example when I wrote: "As regards using these sources for historical analysis, I'm quite sure I've not done this, instead just stating what's there, comparable I'd have thought to reading a map?" I was aware of WP:PRIMARY, but honestly felt shy of pushing it too hard, for many reasons, one of which was that I was genuinely surprised when the idea of OR was introduced: I had felt sure of my ground but was made to doubt, and, given what you say, perhaps wrongly assumed that everyone commenting there understood WP:PRIMARY better than I. I was also surprised the FAC was archived when it was, and I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to get involved in that discussion.

Your view of "note 133" is quite correct: of course I might say that, but I have direct, personal knowledge of the documents concerned, and have doubted the wisdom of saying so. I felt that explaining that in the FAC might seem arrogant and might anyway make no difference. It would certainly have compromised the degree of anonymity that my user name allows. But my argument that the E 179 database can be regarded as a secondary source is precisely because it's the product of several years' work by professional historians, who were paid by Cambridge University and provided with computing and practical support by the Public Record Office: what the database says is the result of extremely time-consuming historical analysis, and not merely the work of data-inputters. I felt that I did make the argument you suggest about allowable use of primary sources, as well as the argument about secondary, but that those with opposing views simply weren't buying it. Perhaps I should have been more insistent, but even now I'm not sure how I might have done that without angering people who after all are volunteers. Anyway, you're quite right that an FAC isn't the best place to explore a point of principle – nor is your talk page, apologies for going on a bit there! But again I think perhaps I was too shy: it did occur to me to get an uninvolved opinion, but wasn't sure how and was afraid I might be accused of forum-shopping. You mention "Primary sources talk", but I'm not sure where you have in mind – do you mean Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard?

Thanks also for the kind words about the Reculver article, I very much appreciated your support at the time and, on the whole, I think the article might even be in better shape now than it was then. That is, barring any minor updates that might be needed, e.g. under "Governance". I think I shall test the issue of the primary sources first, wherever you might suggest, and then, if need be, consider adapting the article to make it redundant. I haven't forgotten that you also previously suggested getting something in print: I'm pretty confident that can be done, but it still hasn't risen to the top of my to-do list. That may change...! Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea of the best forum for discussing whether National Archives are a primary source, as I do not get involved in that type of discussion. I am sure you would know better than me. I would however urge you to pursue seriously the idea of an article about Reculver in a historical journal. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Dudley, on both counts. I shall try. Nortonius (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 29, 2015

Working on this one now. I'm considering declaring November Dudley Miles month. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. The blurb looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your "leading European scholar of the tenth century, and one of the very few who knew Greek"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Æthelstan & Law

Hi Dudley,

I see that you want me to add references before I change "first" to "one of the first" re written vernaculars in western Europe. However, changing the claim that English was the first written vernacular in western Europe to the more skeptical "one of the first" doesn't seem to me to be something that needs references– on the contrary, surely the reference requirement should apply to that claim instead. The reference you cited in reverting my change comes after the next sentence, and seems to apply to the written laws referred to in that sentence, not to the "vernacular" claim. Old Irish and Old English legal texts do indeed go back to about the same date and, by the way, it is still controversial if one is earlier. However, while those are the earliest Anglo-Saxon texts known, they most emphatically are not the earliest Old Irish texts.

I have written to Sarah Foot to ask if that particular claim is in the book, since I don't have her book myself & live in France, where it would take quite a while to get it; I very much doubt it is, as it would not be supported by academic literature. I do have quite a lot of references for my change (to check this out, try simply Googling "earliest vernacular writing in western Europe," including in Google Books and Google Scholar), but prefer not to put them in for a simple change of this kind; the counter-claim (as in the article as you reverted it) would mean proving that Anglo-Saxon was written earlier than Irish Ogham writing– which is not just names but includes words– from the fourth and fifth centuries and poetry from about 600 AD. That has never been done, AFAIK, and would definitely need a reference.

Just thought I'd let you know why I haven't put references for my change. I think the original claim is the one that needs references. It seems petty and completely beside the point of the main article to add references for this simple change from a broad to a less broad claim. I will put in a bunch of references if I have to, but I don’t like edit wars.

I'm quite interested in Æthelstan & the article told me a few things I didn't know. Thanks for all your work on him. I know editors can feel very proprietary about articles. Feel free to erase this comment after reading it if you like. Best wishes. Evangeline (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up on the above. Today I received a response from the professor whose book Æthelstan: The First King of England was cited in the reference you mention. As I expected, the professor did not support what that first sentence claims and it is not in her book.

"I have found the passage in my book. What I said is not that the English were the first to write anything in the vernacular (which I wouldn't claim) but I did say that they were 'the first peoples in northern Europe to use the written vernacular–Old English– in the work of government, producing increasing numbers of administrative documents of different sorts in the later part of the pre-Conquest period.' That quotation lies at p. 136."

This means that the claim I changed is unsubstantiated and I believe you should allow my change without my having to supply references, as it is the claim itself that should have them. However, I will wait for your response, and post references if you really think it necessary. Best wishes! Evangeline (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes apologies. I should have said - as Foot did - the first in northern Europe to use it in the administration of government. I should have checked when you made the amendment. Are you happy if I change it to "The Anglo-Saxons were the first people in northern Europe to write administrative documents in the vernacular"? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive2

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive2. I have now attempted to respond and think I have dealt with most of them, but I lack the expertise to understand exactly what you are suggesting with a couple.— Rod ^talk 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have replied on the Palaeolithic and medieval, which are interests of mine. Is this OK and is there anything else? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I've made the changes as you suggested.— Rod ^talk 08:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the issues have been addressed now?— Rod ^talk 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I supported on 28 November. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dudley Miles. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1‎.
Message added 15:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded to your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

New FLC

With three supports at the other FLC, feel free to nominate a second one. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf again...

Hello Dudley, I just noticed that, whereas the article currently has "in 855 Danish Vikings for the first time stayed over the winter on Sheppey", my copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has Vikings overwintering on Thanet in 850. Just thought I'd mention it. Nortonius (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So Stenton says. I will amend. The source was Abels, and I am glad to see it was his mistake, not mine! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's nice when that happens, although I must admit I spotted it quite by chance myself! Nortonius (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire

Hello, I saw your reversion of my renaming of List of Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire. You are right that local nature reserve is an official designation, but generally on Wikipedia we only capitalize proper nouns. For instance the lists with "list of national parks of" in the title, where despite being an official designation "national park" is not capitalized. More specifically "list of local nature reserves" (though I see that some of those are capitalized too). That's why I thought lower case made sense. Does that persuade you?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, but I do not agree. If we capitalize proper nouns, why not have member of parliament? In my view we should follow the source, which does capitalize at [8]. More importantly, capitalization helps the reader by signalling that the phrase is an official designation. This particularly applies to local nature reserve, which sounds like an unofficial description if it is not capitalized. The designation one grade up, Site of Special Scientific Interest, is capitalized on Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it. Usage is mixed for various designations. In this case my reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters and the prevalence of lower case in "list of local nature reserves" with the more prominent Greater London and England lists lower case lead me to think it should be lower case. Anyway, keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". This seems to me decisive for capitalization, as Local Nature Reserve is consistently capitalized by Natural England, the official body recording designations by local authorities. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Begwary Brook

Hi there, how strange then the the brook, hamlet and nature reserve all share the same name? Should there not be some reference to this in the Begwary article? Adding is always better than subtracting... Bleaney (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted because you said that the nature reserve is named after the hamlet and it is clearly named after the brook. Whether the hamlet is named after the brook or vice versa is uncertain and would need a reliable source, but I agree that it would be uncontroversial to say that they have the same name. If you want to add to the Begwary article there is interesting information at [9]. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

		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 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Ealdgyth from the Anglo-Saxon and nature reserves person. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

When I got to the IPs talk page they were appealing a block, which I declined. Doug Weller (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

London Borough templates: tube and rail stations discussion open

Hello and a Happy Christmas. Thanks for your recent contributions, improving London's coverage. I would like to invite you to: Category talk:London borough templates.- Adam37 Talk 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

Hi Dudley , thank you for your amendment to my addition of Æthelweards account of the Battle of Buttington, I have amended my reference according to your instructions but I disagree that it is WP:OR as I have quoted a published work of a translation not the original source which would have been in Latin. Other translators may interpret it differently but my reference is a reliable published source that is directly related to the subject. I think it is important to get consistancy on Æthelhelms role in Buttington as Æthelweard claims to be the grandsons grandson of Æthelred I and Æthelhelm is one possible route for this claim. Giles translation of his work was an accepted publication and not the original source. Later unpublished translations substitute the word illustrious for famous which is a significant difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markalliston (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The question of whether the Æthelhelm who fought at Buttington was the same man as Æthelweard's ancestor is relevant to his article, not Æthelred's. I doubt it. He was probably Ealdorman Æthelhelm of Wiltshire, the father of Edward the Elder's second wife, and I find Barbara Yorke's arguments against the claim that Edward married his cousin's daughter convincing. See Æthelhelm. In any case Alfred's nephews were a threat to his aim of ensuring that the crown was inherited by his own son, and historians have argued that he ensured that Edward, not Æthelhelm and Æthelwold, got the experience and prestige of taking part in battles. See Æthelwold ætheling on this. Æthelhelm's article could do with expansion to cover these points if you are interested in undertaking it, but I think you would need to look at historians' views rather than interpreting a translation of an original source, which in my view would be OR. See also Ancestry of the Godwins (if you have not already seen it), for further discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley at least you seem to agree that Æthelred I has a son called Æthelhelm which many do not agree. Æthelweard's account of Buttington places greater significance on Æthelhelm than it does on Æthelred Lord of The Mercians which seems to indicate that he had a biased towards Æthelhelm. It is possible that Æthelhelm died before Alfred in which case he would not have been a threat to Alfreds children. Æthelfrith would have been to young to have claimed the crown leaving a dispute between Alfreds son Edward and Æthelwold over who should claim the throne after Alfred. I am quite willing to expand Æthelhelm's article looking at the points you have mentioned. My view taken from Æthelweard's chronicle is that it is written from the Male line Wessex perspective. Other records that seem to support this are Æthelstan's of East Anglia's title of Half King which would also take on extra meaning if he was the son of Æthelfrith son of Æthelhelm son of Æthelred I. The fact that Æthelstan had land at Uffington, Wantage, a place of special significance to the Wessex Royalty indicates close family ties. This is OR and no historians seem to have covered this possibilty in fact Æthelweard's claim seems to have been ignored in many instances by historians. My view is not impartial so will need monitoring, but I should expect to see what few facts there are to be apparent rather than omitted. Markalliston. —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any serious historian questions that Æthelred I had a son called Æthelhelm - he is mentioned in Alfred's will. However, I don't know who you mean by Æthelfrith - your link points to a king who lived c.600. In my view it is significant that no descendant of Æthelred I disputed the throne after Æthelwold's death, and the probable reason is that all the surviving descendants were descended from a daughter of Æthelred, and that was not regarded as giving any claim. Of course, that is just my theory.

Æthelred had another possible son called Oswald, and Keynes and Lapidge in their edition of Asser suggest that Alfred's mysterious relative Osferth may have been a grandson of Æthelred by Oswald, but no one seems to have claimed that Æthelweard was descended from Osferth. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that should have been Æthelfrith of Mercia father of Æthelstan Half-King. My view is that Æthelred I never intended for Alfred's line to keep the throne, it should have reverted to his elder son Æthelhelm after Alfred's death. Unfortunately Æthelhelm died before Alfred leaving a young son Æthelfrith of Mercia who was too young to take the throne when Alfred died shortly afterwards. This led to a dispute between Æthelwold and Edward, which Edward won, becoming King establishing Alfreds line as the main line for Royal descent. Æthelfrith of Mercia grew up accepting Edward as King but his sons still held a substantial powerbase and support mainly in Mercia and East Anglia, especially his son Æthelstan Half-King. This declined however when King Edgar murdered Æthelstan's eldest son Æthelwold taking his wife Ælfthryth by whom he had a son who was eventually to become Æthelred II. This caused a lot of disquiet across the continent and when Ælfthryth murdered Edgars oldest son, St Dunstan foretold of the collapse of the Anglo Saxon culture. Æthelred II then marries Emma of Normandy cousin of William which did eventually lead to the collapse of the House of Wessex as rulers of England. Æthelweard wrote his chronicle after Æthelred II became King and may have known of the prophecy so there may have been some political motivation apart from Mathilde, Abbess of Essen's duty to remember the dead.

The descent of the Anglo Saxon Kings and some Nobility is covered quite comprehensively here ; [Anglo Saxon Kings] but I note that Oswald is not mentioned so thanks for the information I will investigate further.

Æthelweard's reference to Æthelhelm at the Battle of Buttington does seem to have a biased towards him suggesting that there may be some emotive relationship between them, which would be the case if Æthelhelm was his Great Grandfather.

Can we get the statement that Æthelred Lord Of The Mercians led an army of Mercians, West Saxons and Welsh changed as it is misleading. He may have led an army of Mercians but according to Æthelweard; Æthelhelm and Æthelnoth appear to have been the first into battle and Æthelred Lord Of The Mercians followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markalliston (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia rules we have to base articles on the most authoritative secondary works, not on original sources such as Æthelweard. Looking at an original source, we may be unaware of other sources which give a different view, but experts will be aware of all the relevant sources. In this case, they probably judged that Æthelred was the overall commander. Who was first into battle is a point of detail.

As they say The_devil_is_in_the_detail

According to DNB on Æthelred "Later in the year, a reinforced viking army set out on a raid up the Thames valley, and then up the Severn. Æthelred followed it, with a force that included the ealdormen of Wiltshire and Somerset, contingents drawn from every fortified settlement in English Mercia and Wessex east of the Parret, and a detachment sent by the Welsh princes. The raiding army was besieged on the Severn at Buttington near Welshpool, but eventually cut its way out and limped back to its base at Shoebury, Essex." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

According Æthelweard though it was Æthelhelm that engaged the viking army first. What I am trying to understand is why Æthelweard (historian) places the emphasis on Æthelhelm at the battle of Buttington. It is the opening paragraph that is misleading as at that point it has not gone into the detail of the work by Marios Costambeys and Smyth. Thanks Markalliston

Another interesting claim is in John Whitaker (historian)'s book The Life of Saint Neot where he claims that St Neot was in fact Alfreds eldest brother Æthelstan king of Kent. This is interesting because Hart claims that the murdered Æthelwold may of been the father Leofric founder of St Neotts Cambridgshire. If true Leofric would have had a claim to the bones of St Neott which were moved from Cornwall to Cambridgshire if he was a descendent of Æthelred I.

My view is biased though as there is the possibility that my Surname is derived from Alestan of Stambourne, who may also have been the Alestan who held West Ham in the Domesday. West Ham was originally granted to either Bishop Æthelstan or Æthelstan Half-King in 958 and whoever held West Ham then, appears to have been the foster father of King Edgar.

Having just read a translation of [Alfred's will] I note that Æthelhelm and Æthelwold are translated as his brothers sons whilst Oswald is translated as his cousin so may not be a son of Æthelred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.219.180 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(Markalliston 16:24 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.219.180 (talk)

Oswald may have been the son of any of the four brothers who became king, but Æthelred is most likely. See Oswald 6 at [10]. He is not mentioned in Alfred's will, so was almost certainly dead by that time. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If Oswald was Æthelred's son and he was witnessing charters by 868 ([Sawyer 340] which is an early charter that Oswald is recorded as witnessing, then Æthelred I must have been born before 847, or he is the son of another King. PASE also has another charter dated 863 for Oswald 6, but eSawyer has no mention of Oswald in that charter.

Alfred married in 868 at the age of 19, and if Æthelred married at the same age he could have had a son by 868. PASE gives 4 charters witnessed by Oswald, one in 863, two in 868 and one in 875. However in 863 he is named as Osweald, and unlike in the others he is not called "filius regis", so the Osweald in that charter is probably a different person. By the way, Ann Williams floated the idea that Æthelweard was descended from a daughter of Æthelred in the Deerhurst Lecture 1996. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Oswald could have been born by 868 but it is likely that he would have been too young to witness charters unless Æthelred was born earlier or he is the son of an earlier King. Yes I was aware of the Ann Williams proposal which is why I am trying to understand why Æthelweard puts the emphasis on Æthelhelm at the battle of Buttington. Todays historians translate Æthelweard's referral to Æthelhelm as the famous Æthelhelm whereas earlier translations use the word illustrious, my idea is that he uses the emotive term because he is descended from him, just a possibility but it shows how meaning can change depending translation.Markalliston

Æthelred at 20 years old might have insisted on listing his baby son as a charter witness. Æthelwulf and Æthelbald are very unlikely as Oswald would then have been son the of Judith of Flanders, and she would hardly have gone back to the continent leaving a son behind. Æthelbald is possible, but he is not known to have married, and I think Æthelred is marginally more likely. However, this is all the personal views of both of us. We have to base articles on historians' views. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The other possibility is the elder brother Æthelstan of Kent he is only presumed to have died in 851 but as mentioned earlier John Whitaker (historian) claims he may have been St Neot. Another point I have reflected on is that Æthelweard would not be the grandsons grandson of Æthelred as Oswald's son may have been Osferth introducing an extra generation. Thanks. Mark Alliston 23:06, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

Albert Ketèlbey

Dear Dudley, Many thanks for your recent comments on the Albert Ketèlbey peer review. The article is now at FAC for further comment, should you wish to make any. Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the pdf - it'll be a big help! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth - and for replying on Edward the Confessor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor

Hi Dudley,
Thanks for your interest in the Edward the Confessor page. You may not be aware that the King's Ely page (the school was founded in 970) lists Edward as an alumnus, and quotes a source for this : http://www.upsdell.com/StEdwardTheConfessor/saint.htm

As an alumnus myself, I have always believed this to be correct. As far as I am aware, all alumni since the year 1013 have also believed this to be correct. Do you have reason to believe this is incorrect - or do you perhaps not trust this source? Piedmont (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

that source does not say he was an alumnus of King's Ely. It says he lived at Ely Abbey before he was exiled. The idea that King's Ely was founded in 970 (or whatever) is ... quite frankly, pretty silly to a medievalist. I'll just point out that Edward Miller's The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely has no mention whatsoever of King's Ely or of a school founded at the abbey in 970. Since that's pretty much the definitive work on the early history of Ely ... it'd need some pretty strong sourcing to see the school as founded before the charter was granted in Henry VIII's time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edward Miller published his book in 1951, and although he was aware of the Liber Eliensis, which is as close to a primary source (written in the 12th century) as is available, he may not have been aware of all of its contents. The full Latin text of the Liber Eliensis (that Miller chose to call the Historia Eliensis) was published only in 1962 (ref. Blake, E. O., ed. (1962). Liber Eliensis. Camden Third Series. London: Royal Historical Society.). The 2005 translation by Janet Fairweather tells us that:

"...(Edward) was taken there (i.e Ely) in his cradle by his father the king and his mother the queen, he had been presented on the holy altar, wrapped in a gown edged with small circles, largely green in colouring, which is still shown there and, just as the elders of the church who saw and were present had been accustomed to tell, he was confined there in the cloister with the boys for a long time, reciting the psalms and divine hymns with them."

Now, of course the school was not called King's Ely until the granting of a royal charter by Henry VIII on 10th September 1541. But the name is not the point. The point is that there has been a school on the same site (i.e where the cloisters were originally located) continuously since 970 (although the oldest extant structures are late 11th century), and Edward received some education at this site. Note that the school is careful not to claim that it was founded in 673 (the original date of the foundation of the abbey on the site by St. Etheldreda) precisely because the site lay in ruins between 870 and 970, i.e no education was conducted on the site during that interval. Piedmont (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Weirdly enough - I'm pretty well aware of the Liber Eliensis (hint - check out who did most of the editing to the article on it). Note that the section on Edward is from well after his lifetime. Just because it says "confined there in the cloister with the boys for a long time, reciting the psalms and divine hymns with them" ... it does not mean there was a school there. Or that if there was a school there that it is at all connected with the school that received a charter in 1541. Besides misreading the Liber, there is also the point that child oblates (which would have required a school or at least some instruction) no longer were a part of Benedictine monasticism after about 1100. There is also the problem that Frank Barlow (historian), in his biography of Edward notes that the story in the Liber is meant to imply that Edward was meant to be a monk. Barlow points out that the Liber story is not related by either the Vita Ædwardi Regis or in Osbert de Clare's writings on Edward from the early 12th century. Barlow states that the story of Edward being at Ely given in the Liber is a later invention to explain two objects owned by Ely related to Edward. One was a pall, which Ely claimed was used to wrap up Edward's infant boy when he was offered to the abbey as an oblate, and the other was a charter of privileges given by Edward after he became king. Unfortunately, the charter appears to be either an outright forgery or at best an original document so changed and revised as to be impossible to interpret. Ely's story was that Edward was to be a monk, not that he was put at Ely for an education. Barlow points out that the English monarchs did not put their offspring into the Church prior to the Conquest. He also points out that Emma was unlikely to put her firstborn son into the Church. Nor would the choice of Ely be normal - the usual monasteries that were patronized by the late Anglo-Saxon kings of England were in Wessex. Lastly - Edward is a witness to many of the royal charters in exactly the period he is supposed to be tucked away in Ely - 1007, 1008, 1011, and 1013. Edward, his younger brother Alfred, and their mother were in London in late 1013 when Swein invaded. Emma went to Normandy first, and only later were the two boys sent by their father, but they left from London, not Ely. In short - although the Liber is a great source for events close to its composition, it's not a good source for information about Edward. It's the first appearance of this story that Edward was at Ely - and it's contradicted by works composed much closer to Edward's life (and the Vita is a work that stresses Edward's piety - if it didn't mention that he was educated at Ely with the monks, it's quite likely it never happened.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a reply to this, but if you agree I would like to move the whole discussion to the talk:Edward the Confessor page. There are 2 reasons for this: firstly that this topic has been raised there before (unfortunately I didn't notice this before attempting to tag Edward with Category:People educated at The King's School, Ely), and secondly because I think this discussion will be of interest to more people than those who are likely to see it here - and hopefully save the same ground from being covered again in the future. Piedmont (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You say that there has been a school continuously on the site since 970. However, as Ealdgyth pointed out, this is unlikely, particularly as for most of the Middle Ages Benedictine monasteries did not take child oblates. Extraordinary claims require thoroughly reliable sources, and the King's Ely article gives no reliable sources for the supposed early history. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dudley, as I suggested I have copied this correspondence to the talk:Edward the Confessor page, because it may be of wider interest. I have posted my reply there. I think it may be bad Wikipedia etiquette for me to delete this correspondence from here - but it would be fine by me if you did it! Piedmont (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Chafford Gorges

I have reverted your edits on the Chafford Gorges Nature Park page with an explanation on the talk page. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ceol: Links added/removed

Hi, Dudley: I noticed that Ceolwulf & Cynegils had been already linked, however not in this paragraph; I considered it easier on the eye and more comfortable for the reader to add the links to the breakdown so that all persons mentioned in this breakdown would have the same “status”; after all, it is the general public and not the “scholars” that read the Wikipedia; nevertheless, if you are of a different opinion, I will respect it; (BTW: Queen Seaxburh was not a descendant of Ceol and not a member of his sub-house, if any, as she was a member of the House of Wessex “only” by marriage); all the best--Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a Wikipedia rule that links should not be duplicated, and although I think this is carried too far in long articles, I do not think duplication is needed in a stub article such as the one on Ceol. BTW your link to Ceolwulf was to a disambiguation page, not to Ceolwulf of Wessex. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That "Æthelred" coin

Hello. Sorry, haven't been around much lately so I missed your message on Commons. I'd be the first to admit that it's not a very wonderful effort, but I'm not sure why you wanted it deleted. As a C11th coin, it plainly isn't Æthelred I, but it doesn't seem to show up there (at least it doesn't right now ...). Can you help me out as I am a bit confused here. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Angus. Sorry I did not notice that you had uploaded it or I would have posted you before suggesting deletion. It is labelled Athelred.gif and the description says first decade of the 11th century, which would obviously mean Æthelred II, but the description also says that it is a penny of Edward the Martyr, who died 978. It is used by several foreign wikis, and I was concerned that it might be used incorrectly as it is unclear from the description which king it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)