User talk:Nortonius/Archive 2

The Bourne archive
My response at RS Notice board with respect to the Bourne archive demonstrates my continued support for what I believe are suppressed wikipedia editors. To be absolutely clear, this is not a personal response to you in any way. I hope this is understood --Senra (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine, but I'd recommend avoiding talk of "POV-pushing", it's pretty aggressive. And, for my part, I'm not trying to suppress you, or anyone else, I'm just trying to do my bit in keeping WP to the straight and narrow, according to policy. If you look up on this page, you'll see that I still ask for help myself! I'm not trying to dismiss you, or anything you've done - I've been trying to help! Nortonius (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am too hot under the collar to discuss this further at this point. I will cool down and I will continue editing. In the meantime (whilst I am still hot and irrational) as I am sure you can see, I am very unhappy about the removal of the Bourne archive as an EL. I cannot eloquently express my feelings that I feel this is wrong and biased. In this particular context, though this has much wider implications than that of discussion of this archive alone, are we to prevent visibility to our readers of works such as Kingsley (1865) Hereward the Wake as just being a novel or indeed Fairweather (2005) Liber Eliensis for using Gesta Herwardi instead of the more learned Lapidge (1999) Gesta Herewardi? We are not writing a thesis or a reviewed journal here. We are writing an accessible encyclopaedia. If we become too entrenched in our interpretation of policy, we will end up creating something which the majority of our readership cannot easily digest. My feelings are confirmed by the prose style being exhibited in the current version of the Gesta Herewardi article. Actually, I can probably accept that article developing in that way, as the Gesta Herewardi is less accessible to many anyway (with a rational flicker occurring in me there) but if similar styles translate into other articles such as Aldreth or Hereward the Wake I will be most saddened. I would like to close by saying I sincerely apologise for putting you through this unreasoned and intolerant point-of-view. It is not my intent to upset anyone; though I think you can see I am frustrated in not being able to get my point across articulately. By the way, I do not believe the above entrenchment is at variance with my continued view that we should strive for high quality sources, an effort I will continue to make throughout my editing --Senra (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok - all understood and accepted - but before I go on, this is my direct response to your most recent comment on the RSN topic, in this edit signed at 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC) - this is a response which I feel I must make, for the record, as this is a public forum:
 * Yes, I said "[Any thoughts regarding "reliable source" status for The Bourne Archive, and WP:COI at Gesta Herewardi, gratefully received], and in the meantime I'm holding off from any related editing" at 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC) on the RS Noticeboard, having originally posted this topic at 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC). Then, another editor kindly responded with what I took to be a supportive comment in this edit signed at 11:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC), getting on for a day later, so, having at last received a relevant "thought", I saw it as a green light, and I subsequently made this edit to Gesta Herewardi at 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC). If waiting only until "getting on for a day later" seems impatient, just look how rapidly the RSN is edited - things get buried - and as far as I can see I only got a response because I "waved my hand" on the RSN talk page here, with a comment signed at 10:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Note that I'd already removed the EL once, at 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC), before posting the RSN topic at 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC), and, forgive me if I me point you now to WP:BRD - it was at the back of my mind all along, and has only just made it to the front, but I do believe that I should have pointed to it earlier, in which case, my bad - but, since making my first related edits, I've tried my utmost to "be considerate and patient", as is recommended at WP:BRD, to all concerned.


 * So, talk of my "removal [of the EL being] despite the statement "... and in the meantime I'm holding off from any related editing" made 13:24, 17 August 2010" is misleading and ill-founded, to say the least, and I reject it.


 * About the above timings - sorry if I'm telling you something you already know, but UTC is (sort of) equivalent to (but not to be confused with) GMT, whereas in the UK we are currently on BST: I've (hopefully) regularised all timings as UTC, just to be clear. If that instead confuses you, don't worry, you're not alone.
 * I'll respond more fully when I've had some sleep, I hope you have a good night's sleep too. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok - I said that I'd "respond more fully when I've had some sleep": well, I've had some sleep, and, though I planned to go into detail in responding, really I don't think I have the energy for it, and, having seen how you've responded to my previous attempts to interact constructively with you, it feels to me as though this would be a bit like picking at scabs, so I'm going to leave it alone. And, for my part, I've been over this ground, and I think I've pretty much said everything that I felt needed saying. But to re-assure you that I'm not being dismissive, here are a couple of points:
 * I think you are wise to "cool down and continue editing" - as you do so, please note that my posting of a topic at the RSN was intended to attract comment from uninvolved editors, who as far as I knew might have completely disagreed with everything I'd said and done - RSN isn't a venue for content dispute, it's for seeking opinions on RS. In the event, I think it's fair to say that two uninvolved editors generally agreed at RSN with what I've said and done, one emphatically, and one giving some qualification in comment on the issue of the ELs. WP being a public forum, where pages turn up on "watchlists", for example, I'm also aware of the comments made to you by editors Ealdgyth and Malleus Fatuorum, and I hope you can find a way to take all of these comments on board. I would only add that I have not been trying to "wind you up".
 * If you don't like my writing style, forgive me if I suggest that that is your point of view: if you find fault with it, then by all means try to "improve" it, but it's my writing style in this sort of context, and I'm too old to bother changing that now. Maybe I'm just too old school for your taste, and I'm sorry if that's the case. Remember too that even experienced WP editors can be driven away.
 * That's all for now. Please feel free to post further messages to me here, if you wish. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither of us will be driven away from wikipedia! Least of all me. The discussion has polarised. If this discussion was held over a beer, this would be less dramatic. I explained that I was "hot under the collar" and I do not think you have taken note of that. I came on here today to stike my note to you of 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC) (my timings as displayed with my preferences). Having read the above I am not inclined to strike. You seem to be taking my point as a personal attack whilst it is most emphatically not intended to so. I will not be visiting this page again. At the moment, given the above, I do not feel like editing Wikipedia to be honest but I know I will get over that. To repeat: I would like to close by saying I sincerely apologise for putting you through this unreasoned and intolerant point-of-view. It is not my intent to upset anyone; though I think you can see I am frustrated in not being able to get my point across articulately --Senra (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha - yes, we really are failing to communicate, and I am sorry for my part in that! :-) But I've tried to be clear - I accepted your apology above, and I accept it again, truly; I held back from going into detailed analysis as I felt this would annoy you (i.e. "wind you up"!), and I wanted to avoid that - except in the matter of edit timings, where I do have to be allowed to set the record straight in this public forum, which is what I said I was doing, i.e., I wasn't retaliating to a perceived personal attack; I said that you were "wise to "cool down and continue editing", as you'd said; and, above all, yes, I think the main point is exactly as you say - if this discussion was held over a beer, it would be less dramatic! In fact, I'd like to think there wouldn't have been any drama at all... Without face to face contact, and the signals of body language, how communication can go astray! I even wished you a good night's sleep! But hey ho. I'm fine with you leaving your comments unstruck, by the way, it'll all be water under the bridge soon enough. And keep editing! Really - and I have said this to you before - I for one think you're doing fine! Just stay cool, and watch out for the tigers! ;-) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gesta Herwardi
The journal article arrived today. I will be reading it over the next few days. If it reveals anything useful, I will let you know --Senra (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the kind of thing we want! :-) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cratendune
In my search for Cratendune sources, I came across Sigebryht (rex Orientalium Anglorum). The bibliography in that article might be useful to me, though are you able to translate what the article says about Cratendune? --Senra (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... My initial reaction was to say, no need, it'll be someone's translation of a historic edition of the article Sigeberht of East Anglia - but you may already have found that, and noticed, as I did, that the English article currently doesn't mention "Cratendune"! Very loosely, what it's telling us is that "The valley of the river [Lark] was also a route leading up to the island of the marsh of Ely, where, in the Liber Eliensis, a church consecrated by St Augustine himself [presumably Augustine of Canterbury] is said to stand, at Cratendune." That could easily be worded differently, e.g. perhaps "fen" for "marsh", but that's the gist, I think...? That English Sigeberht article needs work, too! But then I only scanned it very briefly... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Liber Eliensis (1962) p. 4 says Augustine built a church there, "in honour of the constant virgin Mary"... I think you have access to Fairweather's recent translation of that...? (later:) And, Sigeberht of East Anglia says pretty much the same thing, it just doesn't mention "Cratendune" - and, it isn't sourced! Shock, horror...! ;-) Nortonius (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That helps and, erm, confuses. I still cannot reconcile how Augustine of Canterbury (d. 26 May 604) could have consecrated Cratendune when the date given for its founding in Chronicon Abbatum et Episcoporum Eliensum (erm, apparently) is 607. I need to see Hall's Fenland Survey. Ho hum. Another trip to the library. Please do not let me divert you. Thank you for the translation; much appreciated --Senra (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (As a complete aside but relevant to other discussions, the hijacking of wikipedia pages to further commercial interests can, should and will be halted ref Fenland Survey) --Senra (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'd call it a rough rendering rather than a translation, but you get the idea. I wouldn't get too confused yet, though - I'm guessing the Chronicon Abbatum is just wrong if it says "607" for Augustine's church, from what E.O. Blake says in Liber Eliensis p. 4 n. 3...? Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just seen what Fairweather has to say about it, she takes account of what Blake says, and it makes sense - "Lib. El. is earlier than Chron. Abb., but latter seems less confused", in so many words. I'd still guess that these are two different physical churches, one built by Aug., and then Æthelthryth's...? Just because Lib. El. says Penda "destroyed" a church, doesn't mean it's true - it might be "licence" for "scattered the community (leaving the building deserted)". That sort of thing crops up all the time. (later:) Acc. to Fairweather, Chron. Abb. says "There was no church in the whole Isle except the one church founded by Augustine." Which implies that "as we all know, now there's another one (i.e. Æthelthryth's foundation, later Ely Abbey etc.), at Ely". All speculation on my part though. Nortonius (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Cratendune was one of those accidental articles that I had not intended touching. It was a redirect to Ely until a recent drive-by of Little Thetford by (diff here) removed a critical sentence. I politely asked why following which I felt that (rather defensively in hindsight) I was being bullied. This incident, although it has now been amicably resolved, began a process of belligerence which affected my communications with you too. To misquote Frank Zappa, "In a fight between me and the world, back the world". I have apologised for that elsewhere. Yes I saw your email thank you; all good. Sorry, but I thought replying would prolong our agreement to differ. Incidentally, Cratendune could do with an expert touch if you are feeling generous --Senra (Talk) 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok - just thought I'd offer a compromise on the EL issue! Egad though - Cratendune! I'll have a look, but I'm not sure there's much I can add, from what I saw the other day. Think I'm off for a bit now though, at least for today, I'll try to have a look soon-ish. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the email - useful article. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanished
Sorry I disappeared on 17th; I was disconnected, could not reconnect for hours, and subsequently was off the net for 3 days.

Also sorry I missed you on 21st - on that occasion, I just happened to be away from the keyboard for a bit.

Anyway; all good.  Chzz  ► 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gah!! Three days of having to face the real world! ;-) I thought it must be something like that - most unlike Chzz, completely out of character, etc.! Glad you've got it sorted now, the world wasn't the same. I'd hook up now, but it's getting a wee bit late and I have a family visit tomorrow, so mustn't be too late to bed - unusual for me though that may seem! Really good of you to come here and keep me up to speed, I'll trying hooking up again when the coast is clear, ttfn. Nortonius (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was unusual - hardware problems (oo-er).


 * Have fun with family, if such a thing is possible.


 * See you anon.  Chzz  ► 22:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Candidus peer-review
I posted Hugh Candidus to peer-review and have received useful feedback from. Are you able to provide any references for the second paragraph of his written work? --Senra (Talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd never seen any mention of HC being unfamiliar with Old English outside of this text in the article, lifted from the 19th century DNB - e.g. Mellows, HC, 1949, pp. xxxv-vi, says "that the language of the early eleventh century was still understood in monastic circles in Peterborough in the mid-twelfth century, quite apart [my italics] from the evidence afforded by the transcription of the [ Peterborough Chronicle] there". In other words, Mellows didn't see a problem with HC's understanding of OE in 1949 - in one place (p. xxvii) Mellows actually prefers HC's version of a word to the Peterborough Chronicle's. So, unless you find this argument supported anywhere else, I'd just delete it - i.e., the last two sentences of that paragraph.


 * What I can give you, which might make up for that suggested deletion, is a quote from Clark, Cecily (ed.), The Peterborough Chronicle 1070 - 1154 (etc.), OUP, 1958, p. xxi. After discussing how sometimes HC gives a fuller, more original-looking account than the does the Peterborough Chronicle, but how sometimes it's the other way around, Clark says:
 * A small point remains: the refutation of the suggestion that Hugo wrote not only his own History but also the later parts of [the Peterborough Chronicle]. This was put forward by Howorth on the grounds that there was at this time no other historian at Peterborough whose name has been preserved, and further that as Hugo may have been of Norman descent he may well have written the 'Frenchman's English' of the [last part of the Peterborough Chronicle].(footnote 1: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: its Origins and History", Part I, Archaeological Journal, lxv (1908), esp. 201.) It might not have seemed necessary to argue against this suggestion, had not Hall in a widely used work shown reluctance to reject it.(footnote 2: Early Middle English, Oxford, 1920, ii. 252.) There is no need to require a name for any Old-English chronicler. And the vigorous and idiomatic English of the [last part of the Peterborough Chronicle] certainly does not suggest any but a native writer, whereas Hugo may well have been at least half Norman.(footnote 3: He bears a name not yet usual among the English; and that he was accustomed to writing French rather than English is suggested by his occasional use of N-forms for Lincoln (if these are indeed original), see Journal of Ecclesiastical History, iv (1953), 104.) And, moreover, as Liebermann pointed out,(footnote 4: "Über Ostenglische Geschichtsquellen", Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, xviii (1892), 5.) his style is placid, smooth, even dull, whereas that of the [Peterborough Chronicle] is naïve and lively. All the evidence there is seems to be against identifying the two authors.
 * Hope that's of some use - Clark also cites "The Peterborough Chronicle (The Bodleian Manuscript Laud Misc. 636), ed. Dorothy Whitelock, with an appendix by Cecily Clark, Copenhagen, 1954." I don't have a copy of that, but you might get sight of it via the library? On the other hand, Clark deals with the question of HC writing the Peterborough Chronicle pretty firmly in the quotation I've given you. I might add that the last paragraph strictly ought to say that HC was first published by Sparke - as Mellows makes clear (pp. xix-xx), Sparke didn't publish the earliest version of HC's history but the latest - there are considerable differences - and as far as I know Mellows' edition of HC from 1949 remains the best, and, it’s more accessible. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Senra, I notice that you haven't edited Hugh Candidus since I commented above - is that because you didn't find the comment helpful, or would you rather I made use of it in an edit myself? Either way, I don't mind, or maybe you've just been busy elsewhere - I'd like to know though, as I might be tempted to do something with it myself. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So sorry. I have been busy elsewhere to be honest. I do pop back to Hugh review now and again, but I was not certain how to answer the queries raised. I recall (now) that I had posted here but forgot about it. I do not mind you editing the article. If it requires a lot of research, feel free to bounce it back and once again I apologise for not checking this page --Senra (Talk) 16:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, no need to apologise, and thanks for the response! I'll probably be busy for the rest of today, perhaps I'll have a go at HC tomorrow. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two sentences but do not feel confident in adding any. Some sentences still remain unreferenced but I did find the source of the conjecture that Hugh's English was suspect here:"" - see also talk page --Senra (Talk) 17:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done quite a bit today, per the above - I actually put back something about the conjecture re HC's English, but worked in the other stuff too. Also sorted a ref or two. Probably more to do though. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. I will have time tomorrow I think to work a little on the lead --Senra (Talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Confirm Martin, Janet (1978) pp. 17-8 is correct; perhaps it should be Martin, Janet (1978) pp. 7-8? (ref 9 of this version) --Senra (Talk) 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, pp. 17-8 for Walter of Whittlesey's book - pp. 7-8 is Robert of Swaffham's - it is confusing, you were right to check! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there just some kind of edit conflict? It looks like I removed some items from the bibliography that you just put in, but I didn't mean to, I didn't go near the bibliography honest! And, I wasn't warned by WP of an edit conflict...? Confused myself, now! Nortonius (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * obvious ec but I didn't see it either. Was tidying the sentences per review whilst I was here. Stopped now - all yours --Senra (Talk) 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird! But - phew! Actually I'll be off for the night now that we've got that bit of WP weirdness sorted, I really can't see how that happened, if neither of us was warned... Oh well! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reculver is getting close
FYI I've left some thoughts on Talk:Reculver - I've done some tweaks to the article and it's really just a few refs away from WP:GA now. Good stuff. Incidentally, I don't know if you're aware of WP:WPASK and WP:MEDSCOT but you probably ought to be.  You might also be interested in WP:GLAM/BM which still seems quite active even though the original raison d'etre has gone. Le Deluge (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I saw the tweaks - all looked good to me, I'll say more at Talk:Reculver. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Big butts
Hello my friend, not seen you for a bit, so I wanted to mention this one afore I forget, because I think you might enjoy it.

This erudite synopsis of a popular musical piece, which can be viewed on YouTube, is wonderful.

Best to you and yours,  Chzz  ► 19:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha yep, finely crafted and a most worthy addition to WP! Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Sorry, I've been sort of off and on lately - very on at times, but paradoxically off throughout...! Thanks for the good wishes, same to you bud, I'll try to get myself onto IRC tomorrow, cheers! p.s. Hey did you ever sort out those Japanese lyrics, talking of such things...? Actually I've a feeling there's something about it out there on the interwebs, I might try & find it myself in the meantime... Nortonius (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries at all; I'm quite sporadic myself, recently. Lots of 'real life' things going on; I should be moving soon. Maybe, in a few months, I might finally get a decent internet connection. But, in the meantime, I will be same as you - in and out, as it were.  Chzz  ► 22:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reculver Abbey
Hi. I merged. But can you add parapgraph to Reculver on the abbey using http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=38194?Starzynka (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for getting in touch. I see you've merged the articles already - I'll tidy that up for you if you like (done). "Reculver Abbey" isn't usually referred to as an "abbey" - mostly it's a "monastery" or a "minster" - and the source you give, although it's a very good one, is very old. And, the abbey/monastery/minster is already given a lot of coverage in the Reculver article, under the subheading "Medieval". So, I don't think a new paragraph is needed. But, I can certainly add the source you give to the article, in a ref! I'd forgotten, but I'd already added the source you give - it's already there! But, I've tweaked and moved it, to make it clearer. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10
I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into 	"ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle].

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ► 08:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

peterborough
Hi Nortonious. As a major contributor to  the Petrborough  article you  may  be interested in the current discussion  about it.--Kudpung (talk)


 * Thanks for the nod, I've posted a little something in the discussion, and I'll probably keep an eye out for its progress. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"My arse contemplates those who talk behind my back" - some French person
As you are aware, I am somewhat sucked in to Wikipedia 'stuff', but I've learned not to care

Well, you prob know that "Pending Changes" is one such area (at this point, glance at WP:PCRFC - do not be put off by length and Post hoc te proc indeed! :-)

I would really love your thoughts on the last link.

BTW did you know that all life can be subdivided as "mouth first" or "arse first" - and humans are "arse first"?

Not a lot of people know that.

I'll get my coat.

Manly hugs,  Chzz  ► 23:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That'll explain the raspberry jam, then! And, from what you say, you must've noticed that I've tinkered myself (if you'll pardon the "tinkered myself" expression) with learning not to care, and defended its validity within WP...! But frankly, I hadn't heard of this Picabia geezer before, though I'd probably have imagined him, given time - for an explanation, see e.g. this - from which one might derive the motto, "be magnificent!", which seems apt here.


 * More to the point, I'd only heard of PC via the news, when Jimbo first announced it, and, owing to a degree of IRL cba, actually I haven't been following its progress. At the time, I thought I detected a degree of doublespeak in Jimbo's description of PC: rather than "making it easier to edit some of its most controversial articles" (maybe BBC correspondent's words, but clearly reflecting gist of JW's), it looked to me to be just another layer of complication (read "discouragement"), albeit a lower one, for editors new or experienced; and, I couldn't, and still can't, see how it would work in practice. For busy articles, isn't there a risk that it'd simply result in an exponentially-expanding mess? In neglected articles (no idea of figures here, but I'd guess "a small but significant proportion" as a minimum?), wouldn't would-be editors feel ignored and give up? Maybe I'm missing something, but...? Anyway...


 * I read through WP:PCRFC - blimey! In the BBC News article that I cite above, it is reported that PC was introduced for a "two month trial": my gut feeling is,why wasn't the thing turned off after two months like it was supposed to be??? When is a two month trial not a two month trial?! What a mess! No wonder WP:PCRFC reads like an attempt to herd cats... And, in light of that, how does the present situation impact on WP's perceived integrity...? Anyway... Again!


 * About your thoughts, I'd support them. I think it is important to remove PC asap - I hate things like instruction creep, and, personally, I think allowing PC to run after the initial two months were up is outrageous; I think the process you suggest would plainly be profitable; and, with something fundamental like this, "rinse and repeat" would be important, until the thing is self-evidently wrung dry. One question, though, about "Change the various policy/guideline/edit-notices/WP:RPP to state that PC is only to be used for testing, and not on any live articles": how would this testing work, if not on live articles? Curious to know what you have in mind, is all!


 * HTH...? While you're here, any thoughts on this discussion? Manly hugs right back matey! p.s. My ISP seems to be in the process of falling over, otherwise I'll be checking in periodically as ever! Nortonius (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't say much about PC - it is a massive topic (as you can see from that RfC) - and that's part of the issue. It's not just one, simple thing - it can be configured and used in a zillion ways. But...just to answer your specific thingies;
 * "another layer of complication" is certainly one of the bigger concerns with it
 * It does work in practice; it's been on 900+ articles since last June/July, and in some cases it has proved effective and probably better than the alternatives. But how it would scale up...we just don't know.
 * I am not "anti-PC", nor pro-. Actually, I don't see how anyone can be. PC could be anything from a little tool we use on "Today's Featured Article" occasionally, right up to the "Flagged Revisions" system used on German Wikipedia, where all edits have to be reviewed before anyone sees them.
 * You are right in thinking it doesn't work well on very busy articles - it simply generates more log entries and complicates the article history. An example would be, when tried on Barack Obama it failed.
 * "neglected articles" is exactly where lots of people think it could help - specifically on 100,000 BLPs that may not be watched - that's where we can have nasty vandalism for long periods, and that is what can cause a media furore (and has).
 * Basically...we need to a) test more, and b) nail down the exact (consensus-agreed) policies for when it may and may not be used - both during any further test, and during any potential wider acceptance.
 * Totally agree it is outrageous that it continues to be used. I'm not interested in blame, but yes - it must be removed; got to take 1 step back before we can think about moving forwards
 * The only reason I specified that it'd say "don't use it on live articles" is, there are a few Wikipedia-space pages that are PC-protected, specifically so that people can play with it - Pending_changes/Testing.
 * Thanks very much for taking a look. It's a big help - to get an 'outside opinion'.
 * Regarding your own discussion - I'll take a look ASAP. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 17:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, ta! No worries, I think I just don't like PC, editors have enough to do as it is - unless some match-up could be found between the strength of criteria for applying PC to an article and the number of editors who in practice are prepared to watch it actively? I take it from your explanation re neglected articles that PC "flags up" pending edits to editors in a position to review them, rather than leaving them hanging around until someone stumbles across them? That does sound more reasonable, and, if so, is something I haven't seen mentioned - 'course, I've no idea how it actually works anyway! And, understood about "testing" (no, don't test any longer!), thanks for explaining. Hang in there bud. Nortonius (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they show up in Special:PendingChanges and anyone with the "reviewer" permission can 'accept' them. The page is probably empty most of the time - most currently get dealt with in minutes, because there's so few PC'd pages. But yes...if there were 100,000 pages using PC, we've really no idea if we could cope, or if changes might take days to be checked. And there are other concerns...at the moment, "reviewer" user-right has been given out like confetti to anyone who happens to have been around for a few weeks. If a change is 'accepted', others might not check it. Pro's and con's, etc.  Chzz  ► 18:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

...and just in-case you feel like seeing it (on the test pages, or whatever)...

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Feel free to go 'Bwahaha' and buy a white cat to stroke, if it helps.  Chzz  ► 18:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha - well, as I already have a ginger one and a tortoiseshell, having a white one too might be greedy, though I like the idea of being able to stroke it and go "Bwahaha"! :o) Yeah, the whole thing looks like a potential nightmare to me, and overly bureaucratic, to boot - I think my understanding of PC is entry-level at the mo, having only looked at it today per this discussion, but I do get a sinking feeling when I think about it...! If Jimbo wants that level of bureaucracy, then I think he needs to start thinking about paying lawyers to do this work, rather than expecting us volunteer drones to do it - and, what a horrendous idea that is! TTFN. But - blimey! I've just been made a reviewer! Is that a bit of the confetti you were talking about drifting my way, or was there some kind of process involved, over which I wasn't consulted?! Anyway - bwahaha.....! Nortonius (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past, many users in-good-standing were arbitrarily given the 'reviewer' right (about 5000), so I asked an admin if they might grant it to you - just in-case you wanted to see PC for yourself. There's no procedure necessary to ask for it; and I used that standard template, because amongst other links, it mentions that if anyone doesn't want it, they can just ask for its removal. Hope that makes sense :-)  Chzz  ► 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah guessed as much, haha! Been having a looksee at what's involved, so far looks a bit tl;dr to me, but I might dip my toe in at some point! (On second thoughts, this might seem a bit fussy, but it feels inconsistent of me to describe PC's continuing to function as "outrageous", and then say I might have a go at it! But, thanks to "reviewer" rights, I now know what it looks like and, having tinkered with a few buttons without actually saving anything, how it works - so, great, thanks for that! Now I can see why it wouldn't really work for high-traffic pages, but would for low ones. Still think it's another layer of complication, though!) Laters. :o) Nortonius (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bouncing bomb
Patience, my friend - I'm writing it already:-) PeterWD (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, good for you! It's just that I saw you hadn't been active yet today, you cover a lot of articles, and I was about to go off and do other things, sooo! Cheers. p.s. While I'm at it I also meant to point out that there's an inconsistency now in citation styles: I don't mind if you want to change them all one way or the other, but they've been "Author, A.N., Title, p. x.", and you've added "Author (year), p. x." Up to you. Nortonius (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Long time no lobster
Heya, it's been a while. I hope you are well? And so forth and so on.  Chzz  ► 11:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ohai! Really nice to hear from you. Yes, very few lobsters about, maybe Jayne Mansfield's got them all. Been keeping my head down more than usual of late - can't summon the energy to do much, apart from hunting bears and racking my bounty up in Red Dead Redemption... I'd had it in mind to ask for a reminder of your suggestions of how to turn this into a viable article, remembering that I was going to keep only people, and ditch places and all the other stuff, I do think the number & sheer variety of people name-checked by D&C is a remarkable thing in itself, and my list isn't quite finished yet; and re Reculver, you suggested a way of re-jigging the refs? But I can't remember how... Frontal lobe disturbance, I think they call it! And, cba... But maybe I'll get around to fiddling with those things one day, if you can ba to bung something about it here? Actually I'd been thinking, I hope Chzz didn't get the wrong idea when I said "them new-fangled ways can fook off", or some such - as in, I very much appreciate knowing you bud, I'm just feeling a bit meh about WP these days... As a friend said to me t'other day, "You've done enough." Feels a bit like that, though obv others have done more and are still doing it. Hope things are ok your end, though! Cheers again boyo. Nortonius (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Re. yr Sandbox - well, being blunt: a) it be a useful list (as is) on some other wiki, but b) for enwiki you'd need actual refs to e.g. books about D&C, or somesuch, because otherwise it'd always have huge problems as 'original research'.


 * Reculver - I honestly can't remember what I said (memory like a wossname), but probably/maybe I was suggesting 'Harvard-style references" - for the books. That is, where the little number after the fact links to a short ref e.g. "Smith 2008, p. 1" and that links to the full details of the book in a 'Bibliography'. An example is Marco Polo. I wrote a 'how to' on it, in User:Chzz/help/harvard - and I'd be quite happy to do it for you, too, if you thought it'd be worthwhile. Or I could 'demo' it or something, and we could see if it was useful. Let me know.


 * And no, I didn't get the wrong idea - I perfectly understand. We do what we do. For me, for now, it feels 'right' to be as involved as I am - if/when that changes, I'll wander off too. But yes - things have been going well; it's quite a long time since anything truly annoyed me on-wiki, and I've thoroughly enjoyed myself in helping and getting to know quite a lot of great new-ish users recently. For example, had dabbled with Wikipedia briefly years ago, and came back to it in Feb, and I was able to help her a bit in creating History of the horse in Britain, and now I'm advising her on her first review of GA candidate. Best of all is, Pesky has helped out another new user,, and she has helped out another new user...and so forth. It's great when that works. In addition, I'm enjoying myself as an Ambassador helping some students write articles as part of their college course. Elsewhere, inevitably there are 'arguments' - e.g. the PC debate still rages (day 314 of our 2-month trial started last June), RfA is a broken process, and all  those sorts of things - but SNAFU; Wikipedia is still an amazing thing. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Chzz, thanks for all the above, and soz to be so slow in responding - on top of chronic and increasing slackness, I had a birthday and other associated traumas to negotiate!


 * Re D&C, OR hadn't occurred to me! Thought I was simply citing published sources, i.e. RS... I don't suppose moving the track listings into inline citations would help?! Don't worry, I have faith in your judgement - as far as I can see, no-one's published the scripts in a RS format, so maybe that's that then! (That is, there's this, as we know, but it's self-published, probably copyright infringement etc., hardly RS.) Though, if that's the case, it seems a fine idea to leave that embryonic article lurking as it is, until such time...!


 * Re Reculver, yes that's exactly what you suggested, now that I see it again, Marco Polo 'n' all - sorry if I'm blowing hot and cold on this but can't really see myself doing anything about it now, so not about to ask you to grind your way through it for me, kind offer though it is. Point is though, if I do get the urge, I won't have to bother you about it again, I can probably work it out for myself now thanks to you! I think you suggested it in response to something I said, about someone else saying it was about time the Reculver article was reviewed for GA - looks like a good idea, but, the moment seems to have gone for me.


 * Glad I was just being paranoid in wondering if I'd given the wrong impression before - yep, despite all the broken/wearisome stuff in WP there's loads of good stuff too, including you, really pleased to hear you're enjoying yourself! TTFN. Nortonius (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speed of replies is of no concern whatsoever; I'm a firm believer in no deadlines.


 * D&C's recording is a reliable source, however, it is also a primary source - and that is the concern. It is perfectly acceptable to say "D said THIS &lt;ref>Album name, track number time&lt;/ref>. But, if other people have not analysed the material - and written about these things - then it does indeed become OR.


 * Consider, for example, that I could create an article stating how many times D&C use the letter 'q' in their works. That would be exactly the same situation. I could reference the moment of each use of that letter, and it'd be reliably sourced - so why couldn't we have such an article? Because, unless some book, newspaper or what-not had written about "Use of the letter Q in the works of D&C', then it'd be original research, and that inappropriate for our Encyclopaedia.


 * We probably could (for example) write of the frequency of the letters in some forms of bible, because other people have analysed it, so it would not be OR. (I suspect that it would, however, be as boring as fuck)


 * Reculver - honestly, it would be no bother at all, if you wanted me to do it; it would be a pleasurable little task I could attend to at my leisure, as a break from other more demanding areas of this project; I actually enjoy having gnomish jobs like that, and the only reason I have not just dived in and done it already is, because MOS tells me to tread lightly, and seek consensus first, before converting citation styles. In the case of that article, I believe 'consensus' of the majority editors is, pretty much, you - and if you prefer to leave it, one day, to have at it yourself - that's absolutely fine by me too.


 * While I am here, I have something else to ask of you; if, one day, you might glance over History of the horse in Britain - which is in pretty good shape, but the author (who I have mentored somewhat) is keen to improve it further, and I wondered if you might possibly be able to provide some input. Forgive me if it is out of your field, but I see no harm in asking. Note, also, that this is a long-term thingy, so there is absolutely no hurry whatsoever.


 * Boomshanka. Or not, as you may prefer. and yes, I really am sad enough to have just spent 15 minutes creating that wiktionary entry, just so I could say it here. I just hope it is not deleted by the time you read this  Chzz  ►  01:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, boomshanka to you too! Re D&C 'n' OR, yep no that's fine, it simply hadn't occurred to me to think of it like that - s'pose I was having too much fun, and thinking of the quotes rather than in terms of "analysis"! Anyway, "fun" was always the key to that pet project, so never mind eh?! I'll leave it as it is, though I'll probably fix the wikilink on my user page to make it slightly more visible, after all there may be a way to do it one day! Thinking of it in terms of analysis though, I can't imagine anyone ever publishing a suitable source - what form would it take?! Published scripts alone wouldn't be any good it seems (But why haven't they been published? Beats me!), and anything really suitable might make it difficult to avoid copyvio... Anyway, feel free to fix and add things to it yourself if you ever get sufficiently bored...!


 * Talking of which, Reculver: well, since you put it like that, be my guest! Tinker away! Or, copy & paste a bit into your user space and do a tiny bit on that, so I can see what it'd look like? Up to you. Anyway, I don't suppose anyone else will mind... About horses, as of now I haven't looked at it, but I will some time soonish - or Ealdgyth's a horse specialist, you might ask her, though she's usually very busy. Our paths haven't really crossed for some time now, but we share an interest in some Anglo-Saxon historical stuff... On the other hand, not knowing anything about a subject is sometimes helpful in this game, so no indeed, no harm in asking! Big cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Recluver, yes, I'll tinker, some time. D&C analysis, apart from possible-wiki-article (which might indeed need trimming), there's always other places for it - I'm thinking of Wikiquote, TV Tropes, or even make a D&C wiki on Wikia, come to that. Ealdgyth, great suggestion, which I've passed along to Pesky. Re. not knowing being beneficial sometimes - yes, absolutely...or, more specifically, a combo of people from varied backgrounds, some with expertise in the subject (or parts thereof), some good at copyediting of technical bits of wiki, etc. is ideal.  Chzz  ► 04:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Recluver
Well, I've tried a bit - see.

To move to clearer citations, it's necessary to change from saying e.g. "See THIS and THAT, because of such-and such, and then again there is THE OTHER" and just, instead, say, "Ref THIS, ref THAT, note THE OTHER".

If you see what I mean.  Chzz  ► 04:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm yes I see what you mean - trouble is, to me explanatory footnotes thus "See THIS and THAT, because of such-and such, and then again there is THE OTHER" are much more helpful than just "Ref THIS, ref THAT, note THE OTHER". While the first gives you an idea straight away of whether you'd be interested in following up the refs, the 2nd tells you 0! Except where you can find more info, if you can be arsed...! I find it v frustrating when I'm researching something myself. Also, glancing through Reculver the other day, I think one or two bits of formatting need fiddling with too, as something looked to have become a bit garbled. Really hope all is well with you old bean. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Differential analyser and Ernesto Pascal
Hello, i would try to explain the aim of my edit of Differential analyser page. First of all, in Italian "integrafi" means exactly integraph. For that i can understand reading quoted text, Pascal's contribution was a sponsorship for the use of integraphs in solving differential equations, a theoretical study of this approaching method and the design of modified devices suitable for this use, "i miei integrafi" (my integraphs). These instruments was produced just as prototypes. For what i know, University of Napoli had one integraph and few parts. The integraph was stolen few years ago :-( May be, universities of Pavia and Milano have two Pascal's integraphs in their caves. I'm searching them, let see. If you can read French, cap. 11 of this text is a good reference for Pascal integraphs http://www.reunion.iufm.fr/dep/mathematiques/calculsavant/Equipe/Resources/tournes_riccati_part3.pdf bye --Ancelli (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's ok, you go ahead - no offence, but I was only interested in improving the English in the article, and I did not intend to change its meaning. I hope that is ok with you. Nortonius (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reculver
One quick comment, for now: it focuses too much on history (not surprising!) - thus it isn't "broad in scope", which is a GA requirement. For example - the "Geography" section is all historic; it doesn't mention where it actually is. The lede says "situated about 3 miles (5 km) east of Herne Bay" but there's no elaboration of that in the body. Other things are - climate; demographics; politics. What's the last census data day? What's the weather like? Who is the MP? What schools are there? Where's the nearest hospital? Transportation links - which roads? Train line? Anything in the news about it (not necessarily now, and not trivial news, of course. Just, looking for info apart from the 'history' side). Any sports teams, or other clubs? "Famous" residents? I hope you get my point; I'm not suggesting trivia - and I know the history side is your interest; if it was "the history of Recluver" it would be OK, but to be an article about the place, I think you need to expand the non-historic parts, if that's at all possible. I do realise it's a tiny place, and is kinda 'mostly known' for the historic background; but I imagine even in a place that small, there's more that can be said about the current/more recent history.

It's just a quick suggestion; something you might be able to ponder. If it's going to become a great article, we need to think: "what encyclopaedic information can we say about this place?" - any and all encyclopaedic information.  Chzz  ► 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! I was looking at it today and thinking, in a fuzzy sort of way, that the historical bit loomed a bit large, compared to the rest of it! Thanks for the specific ideas! I'm all done in from retrieving lobsters today, so I'll start working through your excellent points probably tomorrow! Cheers for that! Nortonius (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Any quick way I can find a GA on an English village, preferably in Kent? Is there some way to mash up Category:Good articles and e.g. Category:Villages in Kent? No? Ok, it was just a thought... Nortonius (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's Birchington-on-Sea - an FA. You could check for others in WP:FA and Good_articles/Geography_and_places.  Chzz  ► 12:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (There actually is a way to "mash up" two cats, called WP:CATSCAN - but it's more hassle than it's worth, in this specific case, compared to just looking at the list; there's not that many Euro-place-GA's)  Chzz  ► 12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you! Yes, "just looking at the list"... I do feel dim, sometimes - I'll resist the temptation to blame it on having a cold, and a cat of my own jumping on and off my lap like a yo-yo this morning... I'll mash him up if he's not careful! Nortonius (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't read too much into Birch-o-S being FA. It's not all that amazing. It became an FA in 2007; these days, it doesn't look like FA quality. I actually suggest looking at other more recent FA places - even if they're not so similar. Chew Stoke, Herne Bay, Kent and Westgate-on-Sea are also FA, but also 2007 vintage. Weymouth, Dorset isn't so bad. Mendip Hills is probably better, because it was reviewed (as FA) last year.  Chzz  ► 13:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I immediately noticed an inconsistent spelling "archeologist" vs. "archaeological", and "five of the fifty six seats", at the B-o-S article... Not great, exactly, though obv not a "P-o-S" (lol?) either - but, another example of dimness, I actually knew but had forgotten that Herne Bay was FA! Duh... Thanks for the further tips, may your lobster-retrieving be ever easy. Nortonius (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Howdy.


 * I've dropped some comments in Talk:Reculver/GA1 - hope it is constructive; it was a bit hard to explain.
 * (Unrelated) you might be interested to note that tomorrow's today's featured article (!) is Egbert of Wessex which I thought might be up your alley, because it includes wiggly old writing.  Chzz  ► 17:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep all good, thanks for the tips for GA & tomoz's FA, bonkers busy IRL right now or I'd say more, pip pip! Nortonius (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(With apologies to R&H) The Sturry with a fringe on top is almost as far from London as Little Thetford! --Senra (Talk) 13:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * lol! You may have seen I've had an offer of help with coaching from Sturry to Herne Bay via the WikiProject Resource Exchange - not until the new year, but great if it comes off! Nortonius (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reculver at GA?
Hello Nortonius. I heard on the grape-vine that Reculver may be close to GA. I would like to offer myself as your GA reviewer. It would be my first GA review though I have recruited a mentor to keep me alert. Should you be interested, please let me know before you submit it so I can keep my eye open for it --Senra (Talk) 23:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha! Hello Senra, yes, that sounds like a good plan, thanks! It might be helpful for both of us: though I have my misgivings about getting too involved in WP these days, I'd be really pleased to see Reculver at GA after all this time, and who knows how I might feel further down the road? I'd appreciate knowing that there's someone waiting to dive in, and, we'll both be learning. That's got to be good! Ok, MF's just given me his biggest GA tip, which is to "nominate this at GAN now" - actually I'm ready to sign off for tonight, so I'll do it some time tomorrow probably, and message you just before I do. Cheers, and good night! Nortonius (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have published the review of Reculver which I sincerely hope is fair and reasonable. As it is my first review against GA criteria, it may appear over zealous, too comprehensive or missing some points entirely. I published sooner rather than later in a spirit of trying not to keep you waiting too long, although I had wished my review would be modified by Aircorn before you saw it. In case it is not clear, you may entirely ignore all issues marked [Optional] as the review is not in any way based on those. Your fixes or counter suggestions against all issues marked [Criteria ...] are required for a GA award --Senra (Talk) 13:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, that's great! Looks good, really helpful, though yes I hope Aircorn has a look soon, before I get too stuck in with fixes etc. - I'll be posting something on your talk page shortly. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can appreciate, I am still learning the reviewer ropes here. It appears I am entitled to put this notice on your page: . The notice would specify a time-limit of seven days. I feel unable to do this for two reasons: (a) it puts you under needless pressure and (b) the holidays are almost upon us. I therefore propose that we work together to ensure the review progresses in a reasonably timely manner given the holiday period. I, for my part, will let you know immediately if I discover a GA-review time-limit that I cannot escape from (I believe rules are there to be ignored on occasion) --Senra (Talk) 13:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good plan, and thanks. :) Perhaps I should've ignored advice and waited until the new year for GAN... But I agree with you about rules. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reculver – some historical sources
Some WP:RS ideas from a brief search (not part of any review)
 * British History on-line:Reculver 176 results including
 * WP:RS and interesting (to me anyway). Smugglers? Ethelbert buried there or not? Halsted states and attributes both views with equal weight so we don't know but to me, it is encyclopaedic :)
 * VCH is most definitely WP:RS. "Eadbert, king of Kent, who was buried at Reculver on his death in 761"
 * Shipwreck 1389 off the coast near Reculver. WP:RS as far as I know
 * "Charles I - volume 420 - May 1-14, 1639 ... [1 p.]. May 2. 15. Extract from the principal register of the Archiepiscopal see of Canterbury of an order concerning the repair of Reculver Church, Kent. ... Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1639 (1873)"
 * 'Suits and suitors', Analytical index to the series of records known as the Remembrancia: 1579-1664 (1878), pp. 484-499. "Rouge Croix Pursuivant in 1580; York Herald, March, 1593. He was a Member of the Painter Stainers' Company. He died October 15th, 1625, and was buried at the Church of Reculver, Kent."


 * ODNB has 20 entries (free text search using the term "Reculver") such as
 * "In the same year as the death of Boys's second wife, 1783, John Duncombe published his Antiquities of Reculver, which included much information that had been supplied by Boys" also in old DNB 1885
 * "Æthelberht was apparently regarded as the senior ruler. Eadberht died in 748 and was buried in Reculver Minster; his position in west Kent was inherited by his son Eardwulf 762."


 * A vision of Britain through time has quite a few British historical travel writers
 * "This Reculver is a place of ancient memory, named in the old English-Saxon Reaculf, but in elder times Regulbium ..."

etc

The above should keep you off the streets for a few evenings. Have fun --Senra (Talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha thanks, yes there is some new (to me) stuff there. Nortonius (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider also Heritage Gateway, a database of historical records covering all of England. A search for all finds within 1 km of Reculver returned one Natioanl Heritage List for England result, 129 Kent Heritage Environment Record (HER) results, 56 Pastscape results and 15 National Monument Record Excavation Index for England results. An impressive amount of heritage; certainly more than my own Little Thetford and only slightly less than my nearby Ely :)


 * All the above historical sources and the newspaper clippings sent separately probably together constitute the limit of information that I can dredge up find on Reculver. I hope it is useful and can help you fill out the article. As I said before, do ignore it all or use it as you see fit.


 * --Senra (Talk) 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that's all good, thanks! Currently in a fortuitous break from friend's copyediting (though more to come this eve), so looking at the online resource you suggested here, looks good but awkward, I'll say something there in a bit. Cheers. p.s. You've probably seen I've made some initial responses on the Reculver review. Nortonius (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Transport:Railways in Reculver. I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways which has resulted in some sourced material that may be useful to you --Senra (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fab! Really appreciate the help with all this! I've just commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

National Monuments Record (Reculver Saxon Shore fort, Regulbium)
It is likely you have seen this National Monuments Record entry, which lists twelve sources. If not, enjoy ... -- Senra (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - haven't seen it but will read with a mug of tea! Just about to save response re Pevsner update at Talk:Reculver/GA1. Nortonius (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Enjoy your tea. The above NMR record was obtained via the English Heritage Gateway; I use it all the time as it is a quick way to find sources and helps me to ensure I have comprehensive historical coverage in my articles. I may pop in now and again during the next few day but don't expect too much sense from me during this festive period :) Have a nice Holiday :) -- Senra (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep you too! :) Nortonius (talk)

Reculver next steps
I made one minor change to the article yesterday. I hope you don't mind -- Senra (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw that, thanks. Metric vs. imperial did bother me when I put the area in, but I went with metric because that's how it is in the source. I do agree with your change for consistency though, and I'm happy to leave it like that. Nortonius (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider submitting this article as a FAC. Be aware that I was previously advised to submit to a peer-review beforehand. Perhaps you should consider looking at both the pre-FAC peer review and the FAC of Little Thetford before deciding whether to go straight to FAC or to offer the article for a peer-review first. Good luck -- Senra (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, FA is lurking in my mind again, thanks for the tips! You might've seen that I've added a few bits and bobs since your last change, and I think I might carry on like that for a bit, working towards the "comprehensive" angle. But I'll do as you suggest when I've had enough of that, or run out of steam! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ah, you're too kind Dr. Blofeld, I'm no longer a barnstar virgin! Though, this won't change me, I'm not worthy, praise belongs elsewhere, etc.! Thank you! :) Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Nortonius,

I've uploaded the book chapter you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link at that page. GabrielF (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Thank you GabrielF! :) I'm deeply chuffed. And, I've responded at the resource exchange, indicating that I've downloaded it now and backed it up, so you can take the link down now if need be. Thanks again! Nortonius (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind note on my talk page. I'm glad to be able to enable editors to make important contributions. Keep posting on the resource exchange, I'll try my best to fill any other requests. GabrielF (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Jamestown, Virginia?
Looking at the revision history of "Jamestown, Virginia", I think it's clearly subject to persistent and ongoing vandalism from IP editors – would an admin have a look and see if it needs semi-protection? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for a week (and the most recent IP has been blocked for two days). If this occurs again, the place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, great – thanks, and duly noted. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoy (boat)
Hi Nortonius, thanks for adding the cigarette card to the article. I like it, and it features the hoy, rather than the hoy being a side bit. As you noted, I rescued the previous picture, but the Cuyp painting of Dordrecht is even better. I followed up on the Churchman's cigarette series in WikiCommons, only to find that someone had beaten me to adding the pictures to the articles I would have added them to. One exception, I added the HM Brig Fantome to HMS Fantome (1810). Do you happen to know if Churchman did a series on British Army units, and if so, if they are available on WikiCommons? That said, are we sure the cards are out of copyright? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, nice to hear from you - actually Victoriaedwards added the image, earlier today, I just uploaded another version and tweaked "Hoy (boat)" in a way that I hoped made sense, and would meet with approval! I agree, the Cuyp is much better, but then I think they're both lovely! I've only been aware of that article for a few days, since I stumbled across it while looking for things for Reculver. Otherwise I don't really know anything about Churchman's cigarette cards, I'm afraid; but, I looked for the date of the series for "An English Hoy" through this Google search, and found it here, where it is given as "1937" – the "Story of Navigation" series of cards is therefore out of copyright in the UK I believe! I checked and saw the same date in several other places. You might be able to do the same for the other cards? I hope that's all of some use to you! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Great article on Reculver. I had never heard of it and now will have to think about visiting at some point. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're too kind! :o) Frankly, Reculver fascinates me – but I was last there in the 1980s or early 1990s, and it doesn't look like I'll be returning for the foreseeable... Tell you what, though –  if you do make a trip to Reculver one fine, sunny day, would you take a camera? Ignore this if I'm being cheeky, but it would be fantastic to have a quality image of the Elizabethan brick gateway at Brook Farm, on Brook Lane, as described e.g. here, "Brook is now Brook Farm, where there is a remnant of Maycott's home in the form of a gateway,[184] which is a "very rustic Elizabethan affair",[238] all of brick, with mouldings.[238][Fn 53]" It's fairly easy to find it in Street View, on Google Maps or Google Earth, at this grid reference: . Cheers either way. Nortonius (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreimast Hoeker Zeylende voor de wind
Is this any good to you? I have no idea where it should be categorised, so I'd be grateful if you could sort that on the image's Commons page. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prioryman that's just fab, and I've sorted out lots of commons categories for it now – thank you so much, it's a real surprise to have this image so soon! I've also responded on Fæ's talk page. Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!

 * Gosh – I – er – no, thank you! :D Nortonius (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Meermin slave mutiny
Good work, nice article. Keep it up. --John (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for taking the time to look at the article, and then coming here to tell me that – much appreciated! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pigot's
I've scanned the sections on Canterbury, Sturry and Herne Bay from Pigot's 1839 edition. You can find a link at the resource exchange. GabrielF (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also uploaded a scan of the book on the S. African burghers and some lengthy quotes. GabrielF (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More fantastic stuff from you GabrielF, thank you so much, you're a star! :D Nortonius (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Image as requested
Here you go. Not sure where you want to include it, categorise it etc so I'll leave that to you! Prioryman (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, I can't thank you enough! :D Nortonius (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Meermin (VOC ship)
I am so sorry. RL has been overwhelming for me at this moment.

I have seen the Meermin GAN entry and I am trying to get myself involved with a little difficulty. I have read the article. I am struggling to gain traction in a subject I am unfamiliar with. I should note that after first reading this exceedingly well written Meermin article, my immediate thought was "Is this ship notable enough?". My considered belief is "Yes it is notable but only just" based on the availability of some sources and the "infamy" of its last voyage. I felt it would be more notable following successful location and salvage. I find it useful to compare articles with others. In this case, I have found the Mary Rose featured article and the List of shipwrecks, which are both helping me understanding the nature of such articles. I will try hard to find time over the next few days to read these articles so I have a better understanding of what topics should be included in Meermin.

(On more of a reviewer note rather than a collaborative one, for someone unfamiliar with the derivation of the term VOC, I felt the article did not explain this term. I could not see how Dutch East India Company abbreviates to VOC. After searching for a few minutes, I eventually found "nb 3" which explains the abbreviation well. My own opinion is that we should either move the contents of "nb 3" into the body or move the note "nb 3" closer to the term VOC or even ditch VOC altogether as English readers will be more familiar with Dutch East India Company than VOC anyway)
 * – I've moved explanation of VOC into the body; a monogram of VOC was used as the company logo, and VOC is how the company is widely named in sources relevant to the article, so I think that's the best way for us to name the company in this article about a company ship. (never mind how easy it is to type! ;o) ) Nortonius (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. I meant to add that I had precisely the same trouble comprehending VOC when I first saw it, which is why I created the footnote, originally in the mutiny article –  thanks for reminding me, and for the prompt to merge it into the body of the ship article. :o)

Once again I am sorry that RL is preventing me devoting as much time to this as I would like. RL should gradually improve over the coming few weeks.

-- Senra (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Goodness don't apologise, I've only been hoping everything's ok with you, and thinking you'd miss the action; not wondering where you'd wandered off to, believe me! :o) Good points all, though I think the Meermin's adequately notable, given the events that happened on board, etc. If we need to know about the mutiny, then I think we need to know about the ship (using the expression "need to know" loosely): what type of ship was it, who built it etc., and conversely it's been suggested (on the mutiny article's talk page) that this kind of detail didn't belong in the mutiny article. On the other hand, I can't claim credit for the idea of creating the ship article, but its actual existence is my fault(!) entirely. I couldn't agree more about location/salvage; there's been contact with the overseeing archaeologist just today, though further news from that source may take a while to arrive. About VOC, yes, maybe it's time to move "nb 3" into the article – apart from anything else, once VOC's meaning is established, it's more accurate and a darn sight quicker to type! ;o) Good to hear from you, just feel free to join in when you can! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, or perhaps already knew, my style of reviewing tends towards collaboration rather than prescription, but don't be afraid to revert me if I make a change you don't agree with. It can sometimes take a few iterations to get something right, and I'm not even always right myself. Usually, but not always. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I like your style, and I appreciate the tip! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Ah, thank you Sp33dyphil! :D That's two in as many months, I mustn't let it go to my head – think I'll leave getting drunk and taking drugs until I'm working towards my third, "difficult" one! ;o) TBH, don't ask why, but it always takes me a bit by surprise when someone takes the trouble to do something nice, so it's very much appreciated! :o) Nortonius (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always nice to acknowledge people's hard work. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and it's much appreciated! :o) Nortonius (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Eadred's Charter
Hi Nortonius,

I've uploaded a scan of the chapter Eadred's Charter of AD 949 and the Extent of the Monastic Estate of Reculver, Kent that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the file on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More thanks than anyone would know what to do with! :D Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * I like... pie. Nortonius (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's make this an opportunity to unhate!
Ha, thanks! Unhaters gonna unhate, or something! I'm good with that. Obvious harassment was obvious. :o) I'm not big on barnstars (I've only got three anyway!), but this one makes me think I'll add all three to my user page, albeit in my usual, sort of discreet way...! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A fluffy kitten for you!
Ah, thanks Pesky! :o) [hugz] No problem – it helped keep me occupied! I really didn't think I'd do much with an article on horses to begin with, but what did I know?! I only hope what I've done meets with approval… Yes, I miss working with you; only three days to your op now! I've had a bit of a rest from WP, but now I seem to be cooking up a proto-article in my user space, dunno if it'll be any good, or get speedy deleted or whatever when/if it goes live. Here's thinking of you, and wishing you a super result from your op, and a speedy recovery from that and the cloud of unknowing that is narcotics! [more hugz] :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

source request
Are you still looking for "Rollason, D.W. (1979), "The date of the parish boundary of Minster-in-Thanet (Kent)", Archaeologia Cantiana 96: 7-17"? If so please send me email. Probably I'll have it in a day or two. Zerotalk 08:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Email sent, thank you! :o) Nortonius (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
207.157.121.92 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request - reculver
Hi Nortonius,

I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange - this is the 1927 article from Archaelogia. You can find a link at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)