![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello. User:BarkingFish has backed out of the recall as the initiator and asked that someone else fill his position. Could you please consider taking the role as the initiator rather than a certifier? I am not even sure a new initiator is needed at the moment, but if a recall were to progress it would probably be less controversial if there were someone in that role.--v/r - T P 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I've typed up the passages from the book "Sandwich: The 'completest medieval town in England' which mention Reculver. Since there wasn't much I decided not to scan the pages, but I can if you want. Best, GabrielF ( talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
“ | The wide channel was probably first formed around 8,000 years ago when sea levels rose after the last Ice Age, causing marine flooding of the lower reaches of an eastward-flowing river (the Stour). The subsequent formation of a long shingle spit at Stonar (the Stonar Bank), perhaps starting c. 4,000 BC as an island of shingle at the bank's present southern extremity, may have impeded the flow of water along the Stour and caused further flooding of the adjacent lolands. In response, the river created an additional, northerly exit to the sea near Reculver, so forming an important connection between the outer Thames estuary and the English Channel. The waters of the secondary (northern) arm then contracted to become the river Wantsum. | ” |
— Page 14 |
“ | The main ports of the confederation each had limbs or minor ports that shared in the burden of ship service and enjoyed the same concessions as those gained by the head ports to which they were linked. By the end of the thirteenth century Sandwich had five limbs: Stonar, Sarre, Reculver, Fordwich and Deal. The first three had been part of the Liberty of Sandwich perhaps since the early eleventh century, and Fordwich was on its westernmost boundary. Deal was the only limb on the coast and not in the Liberty. | ” |
— Page 61 |
“ | Reculver ceased to be a limb during the Middle Ages, although it is named with Fordwich, Sarre and Deal in a thirteen-century manuscript that belonged to St. Augustine's Abbey (CCA: Lit MS E19, f. 30v) and again in a sixteenth-century transcript (Rye Old Custumal, f. 55b) printed in Jeake 1728, 25; Murray 1935, 43, 240-43. The five were joined, c.1373, by Ramsgate and Walmer. | ” |
— Footnote 29, found on page 284, references page 61 |
“ | As little as thirty years after Davis Gate was built in stone, this weighty masonry building may have been proving too heavy for its substructure, for both the foundations and the wharf to the north of it needed extensive repairs on five occasions between 1507 and 1532. The town authorities also continued to spend freely on the superstructure throughout the first half of the sixteenth century, underlining the likelihood of its being as much a status symbol as a fortification or toll station. Caen stone brought from Fordwich (perhaps surplus building material from Canterbury) in 1513 may have been used in the chequerwork of the drum towers, perhaps supplemented by the stone that was purchased from Stonar at the same time. Stonar could not itself have been the source of this stone, unless it were flint cobbles from Stonar Bank, so it must have been brought in from elsewhere, perhaps from the Roman forts of Reculver or Richborough. More above-ground work took place in 1519 and 1532. The gate itself seems to have needed little repair during the rest of the sixteenth century, although the Davis Gate wharf demanded frequent attention. | ” |
— page 159 |
Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive. Given that the 195IP address has also backed up Sumatro's positions on other pages (significantly also seemingly pushing a Bulgarian nationalism), it's unlikely that these are three different people. Rather, it's almost assuredly one person. I'm not up to a long discussion on the talk page - I've been sick all week and just barely up to doing JSTOR research. (Be warned ... a long list of articles wanted will be going up on my talk page soon). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well - then ...
Is the current list. Shouldn't be that much more .. I'm almost done with the big monster list of things to research. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on here, but I've given this editor a 3RR warning and explained to him/her a few of the problems they've introduced. I've also suggested that as they don't seem to know about the subject they should edit something else. Thanks for your reverting that edit. Why they deleted sourced material and changed material that was sourced claiming it wasn't I'm not sure. They also comment about an agenda, whatever that is meant to mean. Dougweller ( talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
unhate
Thank you, editor who tries to do the right thing (like beware of tigers) on scientific background, for quality articles such as
All Saints' Church, Shuart, for
knowing the quality of people, for a clear user page
then and
now, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian, keep working to unhate!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda, that's much appreciated. Nortonius ( talk) 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nortonius ! Browsing through the today's "On this day" rubric of WP en 1st page reminded me I had edited "Meermin", the french version of Meermin slave mutiny between 20 & 30 of september 2011, & had mumbled at that time : "How queer, the Brits haven't written anything in WP en about that ship...I'll have to do with that dutch article and the documentary I just watched on TV Arte, instead of quietly translating a WP en good article...". As I don't know how to look back in the "History" farther than the last 500 edits, you'd be very kind to point me who was the 1st editor (you, maybe, as for Meermin (VOC ship) ? ), & when he (or she ?) launched it. Maybe too you've cast a glance on the french article, so you can tell me what are the grossest among the blunders it certainly contains ?...I had asked a question ("fluitschip or hoeker ?") on the dutch talk page (the sources I got then said "fluitship"). Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. I notice the blue gem Gerda has just kindly presented you with really looks like the Hope (ex Regent)...Wouldn't it be safer for you to pass it to some museum ? ;-) Arapaima ( talk) 09:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We really ought to have an article for Nicholas Brooks: if any of the writing I've contributed to Wikipedia is any good it's thanks to him. A very nice and kind man, he died of pancreatic cancer on 2 February 2014. [12] I'd have said this before, and I have thought about it, but I only learned of his death today. Very sad. Nortonius ( talk) 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
... and now there is one! Nortonius ( talk) 20:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a query at Talk:Ceol of Wessex about a possible mis-spelling. It looks to me as if the source might be an Antiquaries Journal article in 1968, and I do not have online access to this. Maybe you can help?
PS The article on Oxford History of England says that Nicholas Brooks was working on the early Anglo-Saxon volume of the new history, but I cannot find any source for this. Do you know whether it is true and what is happening about the Anglo-Saxon volumes? Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I've raised in more detail the issues around the use of National Archives notes as sources. I'm inclined to the view that they can't be relied apon as they are not true secondary sources, but I'm open to alternative arguments. I've raised it at the FAC talk page. You might want to invite others to engage. Even if these sources get rejected, they only marginally affect the article on Reculver, which i think should go through perhaps with one sentence and one footnote removed. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I was sorry to see that Reculver has been archived, and I hope you will not be put off trying again with this excellent article. As you say, removal of the disputed sources will only affect the article marginally. I was planning to put my oar in when the FAC was closed, so I will make my points here.
I could check Brooks & Kelly at the London Library. I can also check references - for you and any other editor - in my own library. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw on the discussion page for the Meermin that you mentioned having high resolution plans of the Meermin. I am looking to create a scale model, specifically a midship cross section of the Meermin and the plans would be very useful in doing so. If you still have these plans I would really appreciate it if you would email them to me at devinsurban@gmail.com. Thanks in advance if you are able to help me with this!
-- DevinUrban ( talk) 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)DevinUrban
Here A*****jm says "I am the professional writer of material on heritage subjects." Here they say that they "don't have access to a history library with up to date information." What's that I smell…? Nortonius ( talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
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 15:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
unhate
Thank you, editor who tries to do the right thing (like beware of tigers) on scientific background, for quality articles such as
All Saints' Church, Shuart, for
knowing the quality of people, for a clear user page
then and
now, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian, keep working to unhate!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 768th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Peterborough for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, no need to apologise – in fact, I'm sorry that I'm not minded to participate! But that's how it is. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
St Mary's Church, Reculver 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
Eric Corbett --
Eric Corbett (
talk) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The article
St Mary's Church, Reculver 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:St Mary's Church, Reculver for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Eric Corbett --
Eric Corbett (
talk) 21:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The article
St Mary's Church, Reculver you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:St Mary's Church, Reculver 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
Eric Corbett --
Eric Corbett (
talk) 19:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Hatch bell foundry, Nortonius!
Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I'll pass this as OK, even though it makes no metion at all of K-pop or football.
To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page. 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Learn more about page curation.
A tag has been placed on Joseph Hatch (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pam D 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have Æthelwulf at peer review, and should be most grateful for comments. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
I have added a coin to one article which I have already got to FA, Æthelwold ætheling. This is from volume one of the BM Anglo-Saxon coins book at [16], 1078 on page 230 and plate XXVIII.2. If you have time, would you kindly apply your skills to this one as well. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reversion of some recent editing on the Archbishop of Canterbury article. The editor you reverted has a long history of very unconstructive and polemical editing intended to denigrate the Anglican tradition from his particular Roman Catholic viewpoint. Afterwriting ( talk) 13:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelwulf/archive1 and I should be grateful for your comments. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:
in partial fulfillment of your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#St Mary's Church, Reculver. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce ( talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks Ealdgyth! I shouldn't be surprised how quickly it keeps coming around, but...! The same to you and yours! Nortonius ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history service award | |
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 2 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Nortonius,
Great article on St Mary's Church, Reculver, but possibly improved with an image of the present structure? Say File:St Marys Towers Reculver Castle.JPG. SethWhales talk 09:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
-- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
unhate | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 768 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the following information you can read that Alfred at the age of five goes on a pilgrimage with his elder brother on 854 AD. Info: Project Gutenberg. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by J.A. Giles and J. Ingram. Read ebook (with images), time line 854 AD. -- User:Peters01 (Bismarck 16:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I have English Benedictine Reform at PR. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Nortonius
I've just posted a query about the above in the "Mercia Morris" discussion on the "Modern Uses of the Term Mercia", in the "Mercia" article. Is that something you'd like to respond to?
Snoobysoo ( talk) 22:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Snoobysoo Snoobysoo ( talk) 22:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As the initiator of a requested move at Talk:Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company#Requested move 29 November 2016, is it possible for me to alter the proposed target name without starting a new request? I'm afraid that might contravene something or other, or simply attract the unwelcome attention of bots. The only consensus so far is that "Ltd" should be removed from the target name, and with hindsight I'm pretty sure that the inclusion of it was a simple mistake on my part: I've a feeling I knew better but simply forgot. So, I'd like to get rid of it. I'm busy for a few hours from the posting of this, so if you're replying quickly I may be a while getting back to you. Thanks for reading. Nortonius ( talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
HMS Spiteful (1899) 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
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga --
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The article
HMS Spiteful (1899) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:HMS Spiteful (1899) 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
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga --
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk) 13:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
OCD |
Good editors are made with it; and addiction is a common affliction. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Nortonius. I have nominated Æthelflæd at FAC. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, if you're looking for the origin, it's Admiralty Order in Council No. 20 from 28 March 1903, there's an online copy at http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/O_i_C/Vol9/020.html. Nthep ( talk) 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi -- I think this post of yours got deleted and not restored in the back-and-forth earlier. Up to you if you want to try to fix it and reinsert it where it should have been. This evening I'll try to go through and make sure nothing else is missing. I plan to go through this article and bring it up to modern MoS standards; should have done that a while ago. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
On 8 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Spiteful (1899), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in 1904, HMS Spiteful (pictured) became the first warship to be powered solely by fuel oil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Spiteful (1899). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, HMS Spiteful (1899)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
While I couldn't see any more of Engineering via Google Books than you, I found a mention in something called The Engineer which may be helpful. (I say "may" as I haven't had a chance to read it myself due to connection problems - it's ~15 MB.) BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 02:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I find their site search frustrating, too. The easy way is to tell your favorite search engine what you're looking for. On Google the syntax is
That still showed only 16 July, so the 23 July link came from http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1954_Jul-Dec .
The Google search results lead me to believe you may also find something useful in the 31 January 1913 issue. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 01:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nortonius. I have drafted a short article in my sandbox about Osferth. I should be grateful if you would look it over if you have time. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Hatch bell foundry 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
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
We had an exchange a while ago about the difficulty of finding minor edits. I raised this at the Village Pump and was advised to enable wikEdDiff in Preferences, Gadgets. I find this helps. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. In future, please "e-mail this user", as copying and pasting entire articles on talkpages could be seen as a copyright violation. Zigzig20s ( talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations, it's a... |
...
Wikipedia Good Article!! **Image ©
Acabashi;
Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0; Source:
Wikimedia Commons. |
The article
Hatch bell foundry you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Hatch bell foundry 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
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about this - the Abbey had been incorrectly listed on Cluniac priories in Britain - I have now removed it. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 16:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks Ealdgyth, it's nice to be remembered, and the same to you! :o) Nortonius ( talk) 14:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Since yesterday I'm seeing red Harv error warnings in the "Notes" section of HMS Spiteful (1899) where previously there were none, and despite the fact that the links are functioning perfectly for me. I've checked to see if the same is occurring in other articles, e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver and Reed water tube boiler, and it is, so it's not limited to the first article. Now I'm wondering if the problem is at my end or more widespread across WP. Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Reed water tube boiler 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The article
Reed water tube boiler you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Reed water tube boiler 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk) 04:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, advice would be welcome with a new account that insists on changing Bermondsey's historical county from Surrey to Kent. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] I left a message on the editor's talk page, giving examples of how we know Bermondsey was historically in the county of Surrey, but the editor appears not to have seen it – their last change to "kent" followed my posting of that message by a bit more than an hour. While I want to avoid drama, this does need to stop. Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 17:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Dom Kaos has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
For being so helpful at Talk:David Bowie. I know it was 13 months ago, but I've just happened upon your discussion with User:Sreedb (don't ask me why, I was looking for something completely different). It was great to see an editor going out of their way to help and guide a newbie. Recently I've been spending a lot of my WP time over at the AFDs, where few prisoners are taken and things can get heated, so it was refreshing to stumble upon a bit of WP that's a bit more gentle. Thanks for making me smile. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 16:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you dom Kaos – if I've made someone smile, my work today is done! :o) You're very kind, I haven't had any kittens in my house for far too long. Nortonius ( talk) 17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nortonius. I hope you are well. I have Edward the Elder at FAC and should be grateful for your comments if you have time. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Would have preferred if you asked a question before reverting. I changed the country as a)ship pages don't normally link to a country from the infobox, b) common terms should not normally be linked, c) its hidden behind a pipe, d) many ships solely existed when the formal name of the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but they all just say United Kingdom in the infobox. So consistency is my reason but I'm not going to revert you Lyndaship ( talk) 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the current version of the St Mary's Church, Reculver article, hovering over "Fn 21" (for "Footnote 21") brings up the content of that footnote as might be expected; but clicking on "Fn 21" takes me past the relevant subheading, "Footnotes", right down to the citations/references, under the subheading "Notes"; if I scroll up to find footnote 21, I find that it's highlighted as I'd expect, nonetheless; and clicking on the "up" arrow next to each of the refs in footnote 21 (numbered 103–108) merely drifts me part-way back up the list of refs, instead of returning me to the relevant spot in footnote 21. I've tried to stare out the code for footnote 21, in the hope of spotting an error, but to no avail. Any ideas what's wrong here? The rest of the article seems to work ok, as far as I can bear to look. Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 16:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello. User:BarkingFish has backed out of the recall as the initiator and asked that someone else fill his position. Could you please consider taking the role as the initiator rather than a certifier? I am not even sure a new initiator is needed at the moment, but if a recall were to progress it would probably be less controversial if there were someone in that role.--v/r - T P 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I've typed up the passages from the book "Sandwich: The 'completest medieval town in England' which mention Reculver. Since there wasn't much I decided not to scan the pages, but I can if you want. Best, GabrielF ( talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
“ | The wide channel was probably first formed around 8,000 years ago when sea levels rose after the last Ice Age, causing marine flooding of the lower reaches of an eastward-flowing river (the Stour). The subsequent formation of a long shingle spit at Stonar (the Stonar Bank), perhaps starting c. 4,000 BC as an island of shingle at the bank's present southern extremity, may have impeded the flow of water along the Stour and caused further flooding of the adjacent lolands. In response, the river created an additional, northerly exit to the sea near Reculver, so forming an important connection between the outer Thames estuary and the English Channel. The waters of the secondary (northern) arm then contracted to become the river Wantsum. | ” |
— Page 14 |
“ | The main ports of the confederation each had limbs or minor ports that shared in the burden of ship service and enjoyed the same concessions as those gained by the head ports to which they were linked. By the end of the thirteenth century Sandwich had five limbs: Stonar, Sarre, Reculver, Fordwich and Deal. The first three had been part of the Liberty of Sandwich perhaps since the early eleventh century, and Fordwich was on its westernmost boundary. Deal was the only limb on the coast and not in the Liberty. | ” |
— Page 61 |
“ | Reculver ceased to be a limb during the Middle Ages, although it is named with Fordwich, Sarre and Deal in a thirteen-century manuscript that belonged to St. Augustine's Abbey (CCA: Lit MS E19, f. 30v) and again in a sixteenth-century transcript (Rye Old Custumal, f. 55b) printed in Jeake 1728, 25; Murray 1935, 43, 240-43. The five were joined, c.1373, by Ramsgate and Walmer. | ” |
— Footnote 29, found on page 284, references page 61 |
“ | As little as thirty years after Davis Gate was built in stone, this weighty masonry building may have been proving too heavy for its substructure, for both the foundations and the wharf to the north of it needed extensive repairs on five occasions between 1507 and 1532. The town authorities also continued to spend freely on the superstructure throughout the first half of the sixteenth century, underlining the likelihood of its being as much a status symbol as a fortification or toll station. Caen stone brought from Fordwich (perhaps surplus building material from Canterbury) in 1513 may have been used in the chequerwork of the drum towers, perhaps supplemented by the stone that was purchased from Stonar at the same time. Stonar could not itself have been the source of this stone, unless it were flint cobbles from Stonar Bank, so it must have been brought in from elsewhere, perhaps from the Roman forts of Reculver or Richborough. More above-ground work took place in 1519 and 1532. The gate itself seems to have needed little repair during the rest of the sixteenth century, although the Davis Gate wharf demanded frequent attention. | ” |
— page 159 |
Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive. Given that the 195IP address has also backed up Sumatro's positions on other pages (significantly also seemingly pushing a Bulgarian nationalism), it's unlikely that these are three different people. Rather, it's almost assuredly one person. I'm not up to a long discussion on the talk page - I've been sick all week and just barely up to doing JSTOR research. (Be warned ... a long list of articles wanted will be going up on my talk page soon). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well - then ...
Is the current list. Shouldn't be that much more .. I'm almost done with the big monster list of things to research. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on here, but I've given this editor a 3RR warning and explained to him/her a few of the problems they've introduced. I've also suggested that as they don't seem to know about the subject they should edit something else. Thanks for your reverting that edit. Why they deleted sourced material and changed material that was sourced claiming it wasn't I'm not sure. They also comment about an agenda, whatever that is meant to mean. Dougweller ( talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
unhate
Thank you, editor who tries to do the right thing (like beware of tigers) on scientific background, for quality articles such as
All Saints' Church, Shuart, for
knowing the quality of people, for a clear user page
then and
now, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian, keep working to unhate!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda, that's much appreciated. Nortonius ( talk) 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nortonius ! Browsing through the today's "On this day" rubric of WP en 1st page reminded me I had edited "Meermin", the french version of Meermin slave mutiny between 20 & 30 of september 2011, & had mumbled at that time : "How queer, the Brits haven't written anything in WP en about that ship...I'll have to do with that dutch article and the documentary I just watched on TV Arte, instead of quietly translating a WP en good article...". As I don't know how to look back in the "History" farther than the last 500 edits, you'd be very kind to point me who was the 1st editor (you, maybe, as for Meermin (VOC ship) ? ), & when he (or she ?) launched it. Maybe too you've cast a glance on the french article, so you can tell me what are the grossest among the blunders it certainly contains ?...I had asked a question ("fluitschip or hoeker ?") on the dutch talk page (the sources I got then said "fluitship"). Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. I notice the blue gem Gerda has just kindly presented you with really looks like the Hope (ex Regent)...Wouldn't it be safer for you to pass it to some museum ? ;-) Arapaima ( talk) 09:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We really ought to have an article for Nicholas Brooks: if any of the writing I've contributed to Wikipedia is any good it's thanks to him. A very nice and kind man, he died of pancreatic cancer on 2 February 2014. [12] I'd have said this before, and I have thought about it, but I only learned of his death today. Very sad. Nortonius ( talk) 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
... and now there is one! Nortonius ( talk) 20:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a query at Talk:Ceol of Wessex about a possible mis-spelling. It looks to me as if the source might be an Antiquaries Journal article in 1968, and I do not have online access to this. Maybe you can help?
PS The article on Oxford History of England says that Nicholas Brooks was working on the early Anglo-Saxon volume of the new history, but I cannot find any source for this. Do you know whether it is true and what is happening about the Anglo-Saxon volumes? Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I've raised in more detail the issues around the use of National Archives notes as sources. I'm inclined to the view that they can't be relied apon as they are not true secondary sources, but I'm open to alternative arguments. I've raised it at the FAC talk page. You might want to invite others to engage. Even if these sources get rejected, they only marginally affect the article on Reculver, which i think should go through perhaps with one sentence and one footnote removed. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I was sorry to see that Reculver has been archived, and I hope you will not be put off trying again with this excellent article. As you say, removal of the disputed sources will only affect the article marginally. I was planning to put my oar in when the FAC was closed, so I will make my points here.
I could check Brooks & Kelly at the London Library. I can also check references - for you and any other editor - in my own library. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw on the discussion page for the Meermin that you mentioned having high resolution plans of the Meermin. I am looking to create a scale model, specifically a midship cross section of the Meermin and the plans would be very useful in doing so. If you still have these plans I would really appreciate it if you would email them to me at devinsurban@gmail.com. Thanks in advance if you are able to help me with this!
-- DevinUrban ( talk) 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)DevinUrban
Here A*****jm says "I am the professional writer of material on heritage subjects." Here they say that they "don't have access to a history library with up to date information." What's that I smell…? Nortonius ( talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
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 15:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
unhate
Thank you, editor who tries to do the right thing (like beware of tigers) on scientific background, for quality articles such as
All Saints' Church, Shuart, for
knowing the quality of people, for a clear user page
then and
now, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian, keep working to unhate!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 768th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Peterborough for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, no need to apologise – in fact, I'm sorry that I'm not minded to participate! But that's how it is. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
St Mary's Church, Reculver 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
Eric Corbett --
Eric Corbett (
talk) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The article
St Mary's Church, Reculver 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:St Mary's Church, Reculver for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Eric Corbett --
Eric Corbett (
talk) 21:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The article
St Mary's Church, Reculver you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:St Mary's Church, Reculver 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
Eric Corbett --
Eric Corbett (
talk) 19:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Hatch bell foundry, Nortonius!
Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I'll pass this as OK, even though it makes no metion at all of K-pop or football.
To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page. 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Learn more about page curation.
A tag has been placed on Joseph Hatch (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pam D 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have Æthelwulf at peer review, and should be most grateful for comments. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
I have added a coin to one article which I have already got to FA, Æthelwold ætheling. This is from volume one of the BM Anglo-Saxon coins book at [16], 1078 on page 230 and plate XXVIII.2. If you have time, would you kindly apply your skills to this one as well. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reversion of some recent editing on the Archbishop of Canterbury article. The editor you reverted has a long history of very unconstructive and polemical editing intended to denigrate the Anglican tradition from his particular Roman Catholic viewpoint. Afterwriting ( talk) 13:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelwulf/archive1 and I should be grateful for your comments. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:
in partial fulfillment of your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#St Mary's Church, Reculver. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce ( talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks Ealdgyth! I shouldn't be surprised how quickly it keeps coming around, but...! The same to you and yours! Nortonius ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Military history service award | |
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 2 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Nortonius,
Great article on St Mary's Church, Reculver, but possibly improved with an image of the present structure? Say File:St Marys Towers Reculver Castle.JPG. SethWhales talk 09:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
-- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
unhate | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 768 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the following information you can read that Alfred at the age of five goes on a pilgrimage with his elder brother on 854 AD. Info: Project Gutenberg. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by J.A. Giles and J. Ingram. Read ebook (with images), time line 854 AD. -- User:Peters01 (Bismarck 16:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I have English Benedictine Reform at PR. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Nortonius
I've just posted a query about the above in the "Mercia Morris" discussion on the "Modern Uses of the Term Mercia", in the "Mercia" article. Is that something you'd like to respond to?
Snoobysoo ( talk) 22:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Snoobysoo Snoobysoo ( talk) 22:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As the initiator of a requested move at Talk:Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company#Requested move 29 November 2016, is it possible for me to alter the proposed target name without starting a new request? I'm afraid that might contravene something or other, or simply attract the unwelcome attention of bots. The only consensus so far is that "Ltd" should be removed from the target name, and with hindsight I'm pretty sure that the inclusion of it was a simple mistake on my part: I've a feeling I knew better but simply forgot. So, I'd like to get rid of it. I'm busy for a few hours from the posting of this, so if you're replying quickly I may be a while getting back to you. Thanks for reading. Nortonius ( talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
HMS Spiteful (1899) 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
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga --
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The article
HMS Spiteful (1899) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:HMS Spiteful (1899) 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
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga --
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk) 13:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
OCD |
Good editors are made with it; and addiction is a common affliction. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Nortonius. I have nominated Æthelflæd at FAC. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, if you're looking for the origin, it's Admiralty Order in Council No. 20 from 28 March 1903, there's an online copy at http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/O_i_C/Vol9/020.html. Nthep ( talk) 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi -- I think this post of yours got deleted and not restored in the back-and-forth earlier. Up to you if you want to try to fix it and reinsert it where it should have been. This evening I'll try to go through and make sure nothing else is missing. I plan to go through this article and bring it up to modern MoS standards; should have done that a while ago. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
On 8 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Spiteful (1899), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in 1904, HMS Spiteful (pictured) became the first warship to be powered solely by fuel oil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Spiteful (1899). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, HMS Spiteful (1899)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
While I couldn't see any more of Engineering via Google Books than you, I found a mention in something called The Engineer which may be helpful. (I say "may" as I haven't had a chance to read it myself due to connection problems - it's ~15 MB.) BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 02:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I find their site search frustrating, too. The easy way is to tell your favorite search engine what you're looking for. On Google the syntax is
That still showed only 16 July, so the 23 July link came from http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1954_Jul-Dec .
The Google search results lead me to believe you may also find something useful in the 31 January 1913 issue. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 01:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nortonius. I have drafted a short article in my sandbox about Osferth. I should be grateful if you would look it over if you have time. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Hatch bell foundry 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
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
We had an exchange a while ago about the difficulty of finding minor edits. I raised this at the Village Pump and was advised to enable wikEdDiff in Preferences, Gadgets. I find this helps. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. In future, please "e-mail this user", as copying and pasting entire articles on talkpages could be seen as a copyright violation. Zigzig20s ( talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations, it's a... |
...
Wikipedia Good Article!! **Image ©
Acabashi;
Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0; Source:
Wikimedia Commons. |
The article
Hatch bell foundry you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Hatch bell foundry 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
Shearonink --
Shearonink (
talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about this - the Abbey had been incorrectly listed on Cluniac priories in Britain - I have now removed it. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 16:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks Ealdgyth, it's nice to be remembered, and the same to you! :o) Nortonius ( talk) 14:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Since yesterday I'm seeing red Harv error warnings in the "Notes" section of HMS Spiteful (1899) where previously there were none, and despite the fact that the links are functioning perfectly for me. I've checked to see if the same is occurring in other articles, e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver and Reed water tube boiler, and it is, so it's not limited to the first article. Now I'm wondering if the problem is at my end or more widespread across WP. Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Reed water tube boiler 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The article
Reed water tube boiler you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Reed water tube boiler 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk) 04:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, advice would be welcome with a new account that insists on changing Bermondsey's historical county from Surrey to Kent. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] I left a message on the editor's talk page, giving examples of how we know Bermondsey was historically in the county of Surrey, but the editor appears not to have seen it – their last change to "kent" followed my posting of that message by a bit more than an hour. While I want to avoid drama, this does need to stop. Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 17:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Dom Kaos has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
For being so helpful at Talk:David Bowie. I know it was 13 months ago, but I've just happened upon your discussion with User:Sreedb (don't ask me why, I was looking for something completely different). It was great to see an editor going out of their way to help and guide a newbie. Recently I've been spending a lot of my WP time over at the AFDs, where few prisoners are taken and things can get heated, so it was refreshing to stumble upon a bit of WP that's a bit more gentle. Thanks for making me smile. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 16:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you dom Kaos – if I've made someone smile, my work today is done! :o) You're very kind, I haven't had any kittens in my house for far too long. Nortonius ( talk) 17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nortonius. I hope you are well. I have Edward the Elder at FAC and should be grateful for your comments if you have time. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Would have preferred if you asked a question before reverting. I changed the country as a)ship pages don't normally link to a country from the infobox, b) common terms should not normally be linked, c) its hidden behind a pipe, d) many ships solely existed when the formal name of the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but they all just say United Kingdom in the infobox. So consistency is my reason but I'm not going to revert you Lyndaship ( talk) 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
In the current version of the St Mary's Church, Reculver article, hovering over "Fn 21" (for "Footnote 21") brings up the content of that footnote as might be expected; but clicking on "Fn 21" takes me past the relevant subheading, "Footnotes", right down to the citations/references, under the subheading "Notes"; if I scroll up to find footnote 21, I find that it's highlighted as I'd expect, nonetheless; and clicking on the "up" arrow next to each of the refs in footnote 21 (numbered 103–108) merely drifts me part-way back up the list of refs, instead of returning me to the relevant spot in footnote 21. I've tried to stare out the code for footnote 21, in the hope of spotting an error, but to no avail. Any ideas what's wrong here? The rest of the article seems to work ok, as far as I can bear to look. Thanks. Nortonius ( talk) 16:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)