Yo Ho Ho edit

Happy New Year edit

  Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Ealdgyth. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have no excuses not to be productive as I am retired! Dudley Miles (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Promotion of Edward the Martyr edit

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Edward the Martyr, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Customising watch list edit

I wish to use the delete bot edits option in my watch list, and I have implemented it many times, but each time bots are shown the next time I open the watch list. I cannot find how to save the change. Please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Click here: Special:Preferences
  • Go to the Watchlist tab
  • Scroll down to the heading called Changes shown
  • Check the box beside Hide bot edits from the watchlist
  • Scroll to the bottom and click the <Save> button.

Enjoy! —Scottyoak2 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Scotty. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Scottyoak2, I have checked hide bot edits but it is erratic whether it works. Today, it worked when I first logged in but since then bot edits have shown. Can you advise what the problem is? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Without knowing how you are using your watchlist in your workflow, I'm not able to replicate any unexpected behaviors.
The watchlist options that you set in your Preferences section are activated when you log in. When you then go to your watchlist page, it will be displayed using your Preference settings. Whilst viewing your watchlist page, there is also a —Watchlist options— box at the top, with various checkboxes. You can toggle things on and off, and then click the <Show> button. Doing so does not change your Preferences settings. So, if you then log out and log back in; your Preference settings will be reactivated (as expected).
If you need more help, post another {{help me}} on this page, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, to ask someone for assistance. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

FAC mentoring edit

Hi there, I recently took Edict of Expulsion to GA, and I am hoping to bring Eleanor of Castile to that standard also in the not too distant future. I was wondering if you still do FAC mentoring and would be interested in helping with me taking the Edict of Expulsion page through the process? Next year is the 750th anniversary of the related expulsions by Eleanor of Provence from her dower towns (Cambridge, Worcester, Gloucester and Marlborough) so it would be great to get some of the related pages to a good state, starting with the 1290 Edict. Jim Killock (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have looked at Edict of Expulsion and I have some comments, but I do not think it needs mentoring. I suggest that you take it to peer review and I can comment there. You may also get comments from other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much! I've listed it for review. Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quick note to say thank you for the feedback on Peer review, that I have pushed this to FAR, if you have any further thoughts, or advice how I can get more feedback / support. Jim Killock (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

William Marshal page edit

Hello Dudley Miles. I have started a talk page discussion on the whole four/five kings debate, and I would appreciate it if you could chime in. Best to you and yours. Vyselink (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

FA review edit

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Promotion of Nicholas of Worcester edit

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Nicholas of Worcester, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverting edit

You referred to the cited article as "vague and speculative". As in contrary to the other sections of the article? It's called "Possible causes". Could you point out the part in the paper that disqualifies it as a source in the Wikipedia article, in contrast to the other sources? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb Hipporoo (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is vague and speculative because no mechanism is suggested in the source how a change in orbital eccentricity caused by a passing star led to global warming, or why the change was not permanent and was reversed at the end of the warming. Thanks for your edit, but you need to use the original source at [1] in Astrophysical Journal Letters, which may provide the basis for a good edit and should be cited rather than a journalistic summary. The edit also uses the word "revealed", which implies some sort of revelation and is not a good word for science. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Revert on Henry III edit

Hello, I noticed that you reverted changes I made to the article regarding Henry III of England. In your summary you stated that it was "too colloquial", and I had some thoughts on that. First, I'm wondering if you read through the entire list of changes? For example, there is one point in the article where the way the sheriffs treated the lower classes during the reign of Henry III is described as "robust" when I assume they meant "heavy-handed", using "robust" (strong and healthy; vigorous / able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions) there doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why this part would warrant being reverted.

Also, how is making an article more colloquial a bad thing? I understand that some things can be lost in translation or over-simplified but I don't believe the edits I made reach that level and this website is to provide knowledge to as many people as possible, right? This can't happen if the language used is too complex or scientific, especially if the terms used are too archaic - but, again, I don't believe my changes really touched on anything like this to begin with.

I would like you to describe more thoroughly what the issues with my changes were so we can discuss it properly.

Sincerely, MeadeIndeed (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cooloqualism is fine in many contexts but not in an encyclopedia. Most of your changes made the article worse in my view, and as it is an FA the current wording is likely to have passed review by FAC reviewers. "As time passed" is a vague colloqualism. "reduction in royal authority" reads better than "reduction of royal authority". "his own faction" is fine as it is. The Cambridge Dictionary prefers percent to per cent. "the major barons" has a specific meaning which is lost in "the powerful barons". "gave them a poor reputation" is a personal opinion whereas "generated much unpopularity" is neutral and more encylcopedic, Ditto replacing "was slow" with "often dragged his feet". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
First of all, excuse the slow reply.
You mentioning the Cambridge Dictionary made me interested in trying to find out if there is a preference at all on Wikipedia when it comes to which form of written English should be used, what I found was this bit under the "Controversies" title and "English varieties" sub-title at English Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language" - and it continues with - "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". So, technically, you're correct that it should be "per cent" as it's the preferred spelling of the word in British-English and the article is about an English king. However, there doesn't seem to be any set guidelines as to what style is preferred. I tend to go with "percent" since it reads as it sounds and also because most of my interactions with English both online and in books has written it as such. Though I will try to keep it "thematic" to the article being edited going forward.
When it came to why I switched out some instances of "major" to "powerful" barons was due to the word being used several times in close succession, I do however agree that perhaps changing from "major" to "powerful" makes it lose some of its meaning. I didn't change from "major barons" to "powerful barons" throughout the article but I see your point.
I thank you for pointing these things out, I still think some of the changes were valid - such as the one I mentioned previously regarding the sheriffs and their "robust" attempts to collect taxes - but I'll try to keep it in mind. I do admit that some of the changes were a bit more "flowery" than intended. MeadeIndeed (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bristol West (UK Parliament constituency) edit

Maybe you know something I don't, but I thought Bristol West was being replaced by Bristol Central (UK Parliament constituency) for the next election. Tammbecktalk 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Byfield Pool edit


The article Byfield Pool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nicholas of Worcester scheduled for TFA edit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gog. The blurb looks fine to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply