User talk:Nortonius/Archive 3

User_talk:Courcelles recall
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 - TP 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, TParis, much appreciated; but for personal reasons I must decline – I'm not at all sure that I could keep up. I remain interested in the issue, however. Best. Nortonius (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request - Sandwich
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)
 * I've also uploaded some scans from the 1377 poll taxes that you can find at the resource exchange. GabrielF (talk) 01:44, 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. 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. 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. 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.

Sumatro...
Note 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)


 * Thanks for the tip Ealdgyth, I seem to remember noticing mention of sockpuppetry in connection with Sumatro, and in fact had my own suspicions that they might be connected with user ZYXW9876, who made similar rants at the Slavery talk page a few months back: they insisted that the English word "slave" is an insult to Slavs, a word which, or so they maintained, meant "glory", among other things – they wanted to change the language, poor fool! Essentially, it seemed to me that Sumatro and ZYXW9876 have ranted about similar things in similar ways; though of course it could be coincidence. About the Middle Ages, don't worry, I have no intention of interacting with A*****jm any further, let alone "helping" them and Sumatro maul the article! It would be a shame to abandon the article to them of course, given all your hard work on the Middle Ages – I can see myself reverting or modifying anything that looks like obvious bollocks to me, but to be honest I don't have much stamina for banging my head on some mad bugger's wall complex argument these days; I think we've already seen that A*****jm is so up themselves that they don't recognise a cluebat when it whacks them in the face. Besides, I can think of at least one or two other editors who would probably get involved if things went too far, and who are both sterner and more self-assured than I.


 * I'm very sorry to hear you've been poorly – I'll do my best to supply any papers you need, you only have to ask! Though, I don't know how much longer I'll have access to all that stuff, since it depends on using my son's university login and he graduated last summer – in fact I'm surprised that login's still working! I hope you feel stronger asap. Nortonius (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well - then ...


 * 1 EHR 2012 ✅
 * 2 Speculum 2012 ✅
 * 3 Jewish Quarterly Review 2012 ✅
 * 4 Book History 2008 ✅
 * 5 EHR 2010 ✅
 * 6 EHR 2009 ✅
 * 7 EHR 2011 ✅
 * 8 church history 2011 ✅
 * 9 Eco Hist Rev 2012 ✅
 * 10 Eco Hist Rev 2008 ✅
 * 11 European Review of Economic History 2008 ✅
 * 12 Jour Eco Hist 2008 ✅
 * 13 Oxford Review of Education 2010 ✅
 * 14 Speculum 2013 ✅
 * 15 TRHS 2011 ✅
 * 16 EHR 2009 ✅
 * 17 EHR 2007 ✅
 * 18 Russian Review 2009 ✅
 * 19 Speculum 2010 ✅
 * 20 EHR 2012 ✅

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)
 * On those two, yes ... you had. Oops? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * :) No worries, I've made a start on the others… Nortonius (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can your email handle 5.9MB ? I think mine can… I've got them all (with the usual caveats re clumsiness etc.), weirdly I wasn't supposed to have access to TRHS beyond 2007 but somehow I got that one anyway, very odd! I can send a few at a time if you'd rather. Nortonius (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We can always try it and see what happens! Worst that happens is it screams... and we try again. (If you think this list is bad, I've been pounding my free JSTOR account very very very hard for the last month and a half - trying to get everything I need before it's possibly cut off by the WMF.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok email's on its way! Yep make hay while the sun shines. Nortonius (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! But, how many articles?! Wow… Maybe if I lose my login I'll be checking your library myself! :) Nortonius (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

History of England
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)


 * Thanks for the update. They look like trouble to me: they've been "given clearance", and "you are instructed not to think the worst in others"! Oh dear... When someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about starts speaking of "agendas", I assume psychological projection: when I first saw that editor's edits, I suspected a creationist agenda – but then I do have some idea of what I'm talking about, I've got a certificate from one of those university thingies to prove it! ;) Who knows, though. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Possible sock. Thanks for opening up the discussion at the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. Yes, I wondered about a sock, as they came from nowhere to edit that article – and communicate – aggressively. Nortonius (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The human prehistory of England only began 5,000 years ago, . I had been thinking about posting this there, but you're quite right about not feeding the trolls, Nortonius (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully bored and gone now. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can dare to hope! Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  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, 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)

Move Like This by 28bytes
 * Thank you for making me smile when digging a bit! Did you know that I wrote Sorrow recently, because of the pictured case? That was resolved, now we have the other. Click on "This" to match your user page "then" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes it's funny what you can find if you start digging! No I did not know that, nor do I remember seeing that picture before. I went to the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam in 1997, it was a very emotional experience. Looking at my user page "then", it seems nothing much has changed. Nortonius (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, "unhate" is slow, but worth trying. I received "this" "then" and keep it, did you know? I actually had Sorrow imported to German on a day remembering it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many things I didn't know! And many more I shall probably never know. I did once receive an award for unhate. But what I write is often just the kinder version of what I'm thinking. I think I've become a wikignome too, though I still have sporadic outbreaks of editing madness. I don't think I'm interested in promoting a FA any more, but boredom makes me ponder a couple of GAs. Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ps Thanks for making me look at All Saints' Church, Shuart again.

Meermin article : who was the first ?
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)


 * Hello the article was created on WP-en on 14 October 2011 by Gautier lebon – so, a little while after you were working on the French version! Maybe no coincidence... My first edit was on 28 January 2012. I have my own high-resolution JPEG copy of the 1760 plan for the Meermin, as used by Jaco Boshoff, and it is described as a hoeker there. The sources used in the English article are also quite clear that the Meermin was a hoeker, with no mention that I can recall of a fluyt; and the Dutch article says it was a hoeker too. My French is very rusty, but I'll try to have a look at the French article... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I started the article, but it has been much improved subsequently. I looked at the French version and it looks OK to me.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Gautier lebon, evidently I don't need to ping you! ;o) I've had a quick look at the French article, there are some things I noticed:
 * Hoeker, not a fluitschip, as above.
 * It seems the ship was of 480 tons, not 450: see references in the English article, e.g. to Mountain, 2005 p. 204, which you can see on Google Books.
 * Apparently the Meermin sailed for Cape Town from north-west Madagascar, not Toliara in the south-west: search this link for "Betisboka Bay", though that place-name seems corrupt.
 * The precise number of crew was 56, per Mountain 2005, p. 204.
 * The precise number of slaves is unknown, one good source which it looks like you've used says 140, the Malagasy themselves said there were 150 of them – I see the French article mentions the private trade carried on by the crew!
 * That's all for now, I'll try to have another look later – there's at least one thing in the French article which isn't in the English (yet): the average age of VOC slaves in Cape Town! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Nort. & Gautier for the chat & precisions, take care Arapaima (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In memoriam
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. 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)

Ceol of Wessex
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)


 * My guess is "Coel" was just a typo, so I've changed it to "Ceol": he's the subject of the article, and it makes direct sense, without creating a need to refer to the "Celtic North". I couldn't find anything about forthcoming books in that Oxford series either, and I've been out of the loop for too long to have personal knowledge, I'm afraid to say. In the absence of a citation, I think that whole list of forthcoming volumes should probably not be there anyway, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nortonius (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reculver
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)
 * Yes, thank you very much – better to get this cleared up now, obviously. And, I was just looking at exactly what's involved, I'll add a note on that at the FAC, but I agree that rejection of the sources would only affect the article marginally. Thanks also for the suggestion that I might invite others to have a look, I'll post my note to the FAC and then think on it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:08, 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.
 * On reflection I am basically on Hchc2009's side on the National Archive sources. You can make a good case that they are reliable, but the crucial question is whether it would be immediately obvious to a reader of the Reculver article, and I do not think it would without reading your explanation on the FAC discussion. Effectively, you have done OR to establish that they are reliable. Hchc has suggested a wording to get round the problem. I wonder what you and he think of an alternative where the archive has been cited in a secondary source, wording the cite 'Primary, cited in secondary'.
 * I do not think you should be citing the print Sawyer. It is effectively a superceded edition, without the modern critical assessments in the electronic version.
 * You cite S 546 in 60, but its authenticity is disputed. For example Keynes described it as "probably not authentic." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support Dudley, but I think I'm about done for now. About S 546, Keynes wrote that in 1980, whereas more recent assessments indicate otherwise, e.g. in Kelly (2008): "The earlier of the two surviving single sheets cannot be significantly later than the mid tenth century, and there seems no reason to doubt that the diploma reflects a genuine donation of this period." Further, given that my interest was not in the grant itself but in the bounds, dealt with exhaustively in Gough (1992), I think it's a fair citation. Like the documents cited via the E 179 Database, which were used not because I was interested in whether they were accurate tax returns but for their description of geography, of which I remain convinced there's no doubting their usefulness. Given their status as records of central government taxation, it seems to me perverse to think otherwise; and my view remains that the Database is secondary, which would make any talk of OR moot to my mind. That discussion only arose because the nature of the Database was questioned, and I know that those involved would be very disappointed if they were aware of the outcome. More to the point, I note that hamiltonstone, who first raised the issue, was ultimately satisfied with my use of the Database. Of course, if you'd got in before the FAC was closed then I'd have had something more like a consensus to work with, but it went otherwise, and sitting on that ants' nest (my ants) for weeks on end has left me exhausted. Personally, I'm more disappointed with the close than with how the discussion went, except for the lack of it. Which is why I think I'm about done for now. The article has tended to attract so little attention (not just at FAC) that my guess is it'll remain pretty much as it is for a long, long time. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Don't be too discouraged by that close. Something that often happens at FAC is, when an issue gets raised during FAC and a long discussino ensues, the detail of the discussion 'scares off' new reviewers who don't want to trail through it all. Starting a new nomination of the article in a few weeks may go just fine, so long as you can resolve what to do on the sourcing issue beforehand. In that regard, I'd make a couple of suggestions / responses to Dudley. We all do OR behind the scenes in this project, including to assess the reliability of a source. I'm not aware why such research is not valid for determining reliability - it is only an issue in hte text of an article itself. So i think that is not an argument against using National Archive sources per se. I'd also say, though, that if you were to remove those few citations that are still in contention, and confine the article to the remaining sources (which would have a tiny impact on the substantive text), the article should progress at FAC with little difficulty. Anyway, see what you think afte a few weeks' break. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to cooperate with that. The first article I nominated (for FLC) failed because an editor started copy editing my text and gave up half way through. Yours only failed because the FAC process could not cope with the detailed discussion of sources.
 * It is surprising that the Sawyer editors did not pick up the Kelly comment on S 546 - they are usually very good at that. As some historians have questioned the charter, it might be helpful to show the ref as "S 546, cited in Kelly". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for your comments, I'm actually quite touched that you came to my talk page with them. Yes, I'll give it some time and think about it. About the Sawyer editors, something seems amiss – I emailed them a tad over two months ago about a blatant error in the translation for S 8, I haven't had any reply and it's still up on the website. Also, looking at S 546 again, I don't think there's been much dispute over the charter's since the 1980s, although whether it's a genuine charter or a copy of one seems to remain questionable: thing is, the latest word is presumably in Brooks and Kelly's Charters of Christ Church Canterbury (2 vols.) of 2013, but the Sawyer editors haven't caught up with that yet either. (It might even provide the  word, given Brooks and Kelly's authority on these things, but it'll be very difficult for me to get sight of it.) Maybe it just does take time, but it makes me wonder... Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * Thank you, yes, please do! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Not sure when I will next go there, but should be in the next couple of weeks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I now have the book. They regard S 546 as a 'technical forgery' - an early copy. Keynes 2013 appears to accept their views. Email me if you would like me to send you a scan. I checked half a dozen charters on Sawyer and every one had the latest comments as Thompson 2006. It seems they have stopped updating. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah that's great, thank you, I'll email you in a sec. I'm not familiar with Thompson 2006, I'll have to check that out, thanks for the tip! About S 546, that actually does sound like a "last word", if there ever is such a thing. I wonder why they stopped updating the Electronic Sawyer with a work from 2006 – my first use of the Electronic Sawyer that I can remember was in April 2012, when I found that www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/ was dead and had to hunt around. IIRC the Electronic Sawyer was its direct, updated replacement, and I'd used the www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/ URL as late as September 2010. I expect the Electronic Sawyer was the product of a finite research grant, but I'm very surprised no-one seems to be keeping an eye on it. It would be a terrible shame if it were left as is. Nortonius (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Meermin Plans
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


 * I would have put the plans up on Commons by now so you could download them from there, but I'm afraid the digital image I have is copyrighted so I can't share it. You can get your own copy from where I got mine, by contacting het scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam and saying you want a copy of this. I think they take PayPal now, and it wasn't frighteningly expensive. Do let me know if you get the model built and feel inclined to share an image of that! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol…
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)

Precious again
  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, 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)


 * Nice – thanks again! :0) Nortonius (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Peterborough FAR
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)


 * Thanks but I'm not interested. Nortonius (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, and sorry for bothering you - I just saw that you were amongst the top contributors here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 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)

Your GA nomination of St Mary's Church, Reculver
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)

Your GA nomination of St Mary's Church, Reculver
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)

Your GA nomination of St Mary's Church, Reculver
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)

A page you started (Hatch bell foundry) has been reviewed!
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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Hatch (disambiguation)


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
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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)


 * This dab page isn't necessary, and wouldn't actually have helped anyone looking for "Jospeh Hatch" by searching on his name. I've added a hatnote to Joseph Hatch, which is what is needed here to point people to the bellfounder of the same name. Thanks. Pam  D  07:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you, that only occurred to me after I created the dab! But by then I'd done it, and I steamed on after other details; so I've been pretty much expecting it to be deleted – thanks for adding the hatnote, which I only wondered about, was it lazy of me not to tag the dab for speedy delete myself? Sorry if it was... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf
I have Æthelwulf at peer review, and should be most grateful for comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Dudley, great, I'll do my best! By the way, I meant to think more on your ideas of monastic reform posted on the talk page for Reculver, but I've been rather distracted, sorry about that. Nortonius (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
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:


 * What a merry-go-round... Nortonius (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Asking for more help
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, 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)


 * ✅ – I've added it to the existing file since you asked me directly! Happy to help. Off for most of the evening now. Nortonius (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * NB: I've uploaded a version with a paler background to highlight the coins more - feel free to revert if that doesn't work for you! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is that – and there's this other one if Dudley likes that treatment, although its colouring might mean it wouldn't work as well. But you might want to fix that too for all I know! Nortonius (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Hchc. All help welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
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)

Æthelwulf
This is now at Featured article candidates/Æthelwulf/archive1 and I should be grateful for your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note Dudley, I'll be having a look in a bit. Nortonius (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kozodoy article pdf
Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:


 * Kozodoy, Ruth (1986), "The Reculver cross", in Archaeologia 108, pp. 67–94

in partial fulfillment of your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. 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)


 * Hi, email sent, thanks! Nortonius (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...
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)

St Mary's Church, Reculver
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. Seth Whales  talk    09:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll respond on the article's talk page. Nortonius (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Old rx request
--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Pilgrimage Alfred the Great
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)
 * A better edition is a more current one. I strongly suggest the translation by Michael Swanton published in 1998. That edition lists no entries at all for 854. The relevant pages are 66 and 67. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Project Gutenburg source it says only that "The same year King Ethelwulf sent his son Alfred to Rome; and Leo, who was then pope, consecrated him king, and adopted him as his spiritual son." The year under which it says that is 853...! However that edition is extremely out of date, even ancient, and there are recent alternatives, e.g. the one indicated above by Ealdgyth, in which you'll find no entry for 854. There'll be a good reason for the difference but I'm not going to go into it, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the subject. Nortonius (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

English Benedictine Reform
I have English Benedictine Reform at PR. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Dudley, I've got a busy few days coming up at home and elsewhere but I'll certainly try to devote some time to it. Nortonius (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Acting Witan of Mercia
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)SnoobysooSnoobysoo (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested Move
As the initiator of a requested move at Talk:Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company, 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)
 * Hi Nortonius. It believe it will mess up the RM bot if you change the nomination text directly, but these are discussions with humans, (I've closed hundreds or RMs; we look at what was said), so my suggestion is as follows: Just below your nomination text, make an indented note in a form something like this:
 * Nominator's note I have reconsidered my position based on the discussion below and request a move to the title: Changed Title instead, because... --~
 * Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, that saves me a lot of bother – I shall do exactly that. Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

 * Thank you Ealdgyth, that's very kind – and the same to you, from the sporadic disappeared church and occasional ship person! I know 2016 has not been a great year, I hope very much that things pick up in 2017. Nortonius (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Spiteful (1899)
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)

Your GA nomination of HMS Spiteful (1899)
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)

Trivialist

 * Thanks – I certainly hope so! :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you took that in the good spirit in which it was offered. Cheers!  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New FAC
Hi Nortonius. I have nominated Æthelflæd at FAC. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip Dudley, I'll have a look in a bit. Nortonius (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Chief Artificer Engineer
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)


 * Thank you,, that's very kind! But yes I've found that, now I need a reliable secondary source for a bit more info, just enough to clarify the role for the reader, in a footnote. Your input is very much appreciated. Nortonius (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted post
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)


 * Thanks for pointing that out – I'm sure a few bits popped in and out during that storm in a teacup, and I wasn't in a hurry to revisit it. I just had a quick look through and added my comment back: I'm not sure anything else is missing now, but would be grateful if you would indeed have a look. I'm pleased to hear you plan to go through the article too, let me know if at any point you would like me to have a look at that as well. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Spiteful (1899)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's touchingly kind of you to keep this up,, thank you! Nortonius (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

J. W. Reed obituary
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)


 * That looks much the same as the text that I'd asked for,, it was probably networked from one source to the other or from somewhere else entirely – found and read, thanks so much! Nortonius (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Glad I could help. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Searching Grace's Guide
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
 * site:gracesguide.co.uk "battle of the boilers".

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)


 * That's a neat trick, thanks again – and thanks for the tip(s)! Nortonius (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Osferth, Alfred the Great's possible illegitimate son
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 – I've had a quick look, very interesting! If I knew anything about this chap it would've been when I was an undergraduate, and if so I'd certainly forgotten about him since. Although I do remember being fascinated by Alfred's will in passing. All very tantalising. I'm on car-fixing duty for a neighbour tomorrow daytime at least but I'll have a closer look asap. In the meantime, let me know if there's anything in particular you have in mind. Nortonius (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other points, but unfortunately they are OR. I find Abels' theory that Osferth was a maternal relative because he had an Os- name unconvincing. Oswald was a West Saxon ætheling. Then there is the question what relationship could have been so special. He could have been a maternal cousin, but West Saxon kings must have had many maternal cousins, so why should Osferth have been singled out as a relative in Alfred's will and attested as propinquus regis and frater regis in charters?


 * I emailed Jinty Nelson with my theory that Oswald (who attested as filius regis in 868 and 875) was Æthelberht's son, and she described it as "very plausible indeed". It seems possible that Osferth was Oswald's son. Oswald could have been born around 860, and could have had a son around 880 and died before Alfred drew up his will in the mid-880s. In that case, it seems likely that Osferth would have been described as "my brother's grandson", but he might have been described as a relative and the frater regis a mistake, as most historians seem to think. I think this is possible, though it is more likely that Osferth was Alfred's illegitimate son.


 * I have wondered about trying to get a brief article published about Osferth and Oswald published under the title "Alfred the Great's mysterious relatives" in a journal such as Notes and Queries although I have not looked at that journal for many years and do not know what they publish. Do you have any advice on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A few quick thoughts,, OR being fine in a discussion here about something you might work up for publication! About the "Os-" name, I think this merely supports the obvious understanding that Oswald and Osferth were members of the West Saxon royal family, telling us nothing specific about their individual descent. Apparently "[p]eople who could claim descent from the [Jutish] royal family of [the Isle of] Wight were amongst the highest echelons of ninth-century West Saxon society", and of course these are believed to have included Oslac and Osburh. This is from Barbara Yorke's "The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the origins of Wessex", in Bassett, S. (ed.), The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, 1989, p. 95, and I don't know if that information needs revising. If not, then there's no need to look to Mercia, as Abels apparently has: I haven't found any basis for the Mercian connection and this information in Abels' book isn't showing for me on Google Books. If you think it's important, perhaps you might expand on that for me. In the meantime, for West Saxon "Os-" names of other than Jutish origin, it seems equally valid to look to Sussex – which only came under West Saxon control from the 820s – judging by Martin Welch's "The kingdom of the South Saxons: the origins" in Bassett's 1989 book, pp. 79–80. Was this why Alfred's bequests to Osferth were all in Sussex?
 * That was my carelessness. I should have said Jutish. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm just relieved that I haven't missed anything! Nortonius (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * About Osferth's parentage, I understand but can't accept as conclusive the argument that he was not Æthelred's grandson because Alfred referred in his will to "the older and the younger" of Æthelred's sons, assumed to be a reference to Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. Nothing that I've seen (and I would emphasise that limitation) proves that Oswald was not Æthelred's son. For example, we cannot know that Oswald was not a "middle" son, as opposed to "the older and the younger", with whom Alfred might have maintained good relations, while falling out with Æthelhelm and Æthelwold – we're not even sure who their mother was. And Alfred's will also refers explicitly to his "eldest", "middle" and "youngest" daughters, rendering reference to "the older and the younger" sons of Æthelred possibly meaningless with regard to how many living sons he had. Maybe Oswald was one of them, intentionally excluded in the expression "the older and the younger". Following that line of speculation, we might not need to look further to understand Osferth's importance to Alfred, if he was Oswald's son. That Osferth continued in importance to Edward and Æthelstan would also follow, if they were dealing with a continuing need to secure the loyalty of a potential rival claimant to the throne, who on the other hand might for all we know have been a favourite of Alfred's and indeed of theirs. "If we are to believe Asser," according to Keynes & Lapidge (1983), p. 13, Alfred understood the idea of having favourites. As Nelson says, it's sobering that Osferth occurs in no narrative, but for me that merely illustrates the fortuitous nature of survival among the evidence. Did he do nothing of any note as an ealdorman?
 * There are several points. 1. It was not a question of Alfred falling out with his nephews. He was describing an argument when he acceded to the throne and his nephews would have been infants. It is generally asssumed that he quarrelled with their maternal relatives. Any such quarrel would have invoived a third son, but I agree that the point is not conclusive because Alfred might not have mentioned him if he had died in the meantime. 2. Alfred speaks of an agreement when his brother became king in 865, and providing for their children when "we were all oppressed by the heathen army", presumably when the vikings invaded Wessex in 870. This implies but does not state that their children were born after 865, but Oswald attested in 868 and Alfred is thought to have been young to attest at the age of 6. 3. According to ODNB Æthelred was born around 848, and if Oswald was 6 or more when he first attested, he must have been born at the latest in 862, when Æthelred would have been 14. I think that this is the strongest argument, although as Æthelred's DOB is not certainly known it is not conclusive. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re point 1, by all means redirect the falling out from Æthelhelm and Æthelwold to whoever might have taken it upon themselves to dispute with Alfred on their behalf, but we can't know who they were. From "mine mægcild oððe yldran oððe gingran" in Alfred's will, I think the only thing we can reasonably be certain of is that those kinsmen were younger than Alfred, per "mægcild". Re points 2 and 3, I think the range and uncertainty of dates allow the possibility that Oswald was no younger when he made his first attestation than Alfred was when he made his, and I can't see any implied connection between an agreement in 865, the "troubles", and the age of any children – I do agree that it looks unlikely that Oswald was Æthelred's son, I just don't think it's impossible. As an aside here, it may be interesting to note that, when Alfred's will was rendered into 15th-century English at Hyde Abbey, where his remains were kept, Osferth was understood to be Alfred's "cosyn" (f 11). I haven't seen that noted anywhere else, unless I've blindly missed it, perhaps for the obvious reason that this is such a late source. On the other hand it presumably represents the tradition at Hyde. Nortonius (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know Old English, and it would be OR to question the translation of Keynes and Lapidge. However, you agree that it is unlikely that Oswald was Æthelred's son, and I do not think anyone would claim more than that. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re OR, see below. I wouldn't say I can read Old English either, but patterns are fairly easy to spot: "mine mægcild oððe yldran oððe gingran" is literally "my kin-child or the older or the younger", for which we'd substitute "either the older or ...", hence my emphasis of "mægcild". Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's all pure speculation, of course, but I think it needs to be borne in mind. Above all, as far as that goes, I think we mustn't lose sight of Oswald's alleged status as a king's son. What's missing for me now is your theory about Oswald being Æthelberht's son. Beyond that, I don't see why anyone would dismiss Osferth's status in S 1286 as "frater regis [Edwardi]" without good reason. That is, I think the presumption that Edward didn't have a [half-]brother called Osferth is not a good reason. My own feeling is that information regarding Alfred's sexuality has been built up to be something of a paper tiger, in that of course there was tension between being at once God's anointed and a very powerful man. Perhaps we only know so much about this aspect of Alfred's reign because of its pivotal events and the overwhelmingly religious nature of the surviving literature. I think it would be more interesting to see if we know what happened to any other illegitimate royal offspring recorded in Wessex at around this time: were there any? I don't remember, maybe not. If Alfred was so ashamed of his sexuality, we might have expected an illegitimate son to be bundled off into obscurity. Personally, I think that Alfred knew what he wanted, and if it suited him to promote an illegitimate son then so be it.
 * The discussion about Alfred's sexuality is based on Asser's statement that Alfred prayed for a disease which would conquer his sexual desires. As to Oswald being Æthelberht's son, it seems very likely that he was the son of one of Alfred's elder brothers, and he is shown that way in the family chart in Foot's Æthelstan. Æthelbald seems unlikely because if Judith had had an infant son in 860 she would probably not have left England. If Æthelred is ruled out, that leaves Æthelberht, who is the only ninth-century West Saxon king who is not known to have married, and as ninth-century kings' wives had such a low status in Wessex, it is possible that evidence of his marriage has not survived. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood about Asser and Alfred's sexuality, but that's what I meant about the "overwhelmingly religious nature of the surviving literature": Asser is promoting Alfred as an "ideal king" and takes cues from hagiography, in which seeking relief from carnal desire is part of the formula. I wouldn't pay it any attention beyond Alfred's image to contemporaries and in posterity, an important subject in its own right. I certainly don't think it helps establish whether or not Alfred had any illegitimate offspring. Particularly since Asser says that the disease God gave Alfred in response was piles. Erectile dysfunction would have made more sense, but that would have been no use for a king. For me Asser flounders here, and anyway relies on pious credulity. His chronology is interesting though, in that he indicates that Alfred's lust was only a "problem" for him before he married Ealhswith, at which time he would presumably not yet have turned 20. If we are to consider the possibility that Alfred became a father in his teens – any time from the moment of puberty, really – then I think we should do the same for his brothers, although I agree about Æthelbald and the timing of Judith's departure. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Æthelberht had an unknown wife and children. By the way I notice that, in proceedings during the reign of Offa of Mercia that involved Cynewulf of Wessex, it was stated (or reiterated) that "[i]llegitimate children [were] to be excluded from the father's inheritance": Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 216–7. Of course, it was Offa's daughter Eadburh whose behaviour is supposed to have led to the "un-Germanic" status of "king's wife" instead of "queen" in Wessex, so I don't suppose the bit about illegitimate children need have been forgotten either. Nortonius (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Stenton ref. I plan to work on Alfred eventually, and I will have to get to grips with his sexuality then, but in the meantime I think I can steer clear of it - unless you think it needs discussion in the Osferth article? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think Alfred's sexuality has any real bearing on Osferth, since we know Alfred had several children, so I'd give it a wide berth in discussing Osferth. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As for publication, if this specific question of Osferth's parentage has not already been explored in depth in some paper or notice, or if it has but you have ideas to add, the only advice I can offer is try it, most definitely! I've no recollection of looking at Notes and Queries, but a quick scan of its website suggests that it might be a suitable venue, if what you write isn't too "speculative", however they might define that precisely. If the question of Osferth's parentage hasn't received individual attention before, then I certainly think it might fit there. I don't know of any better venues, and would recommend checking things like English Historical Review to see if they accept shorter notices. I've a feeling they do, but my memory on that is very vague. I hope the above thoughts help: when I describe them as "quick" thoughts, I mean that they have pretty much exhausted any ideas I might quickly gather on the subject. I can only hope that they make some sense! Nortonius (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks I will have a think. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your very helpful comments Nortonius. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've just added some further ramblings that may or may not make any sense. Nortonius (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that most of our discussion above would be OR in the Osferth article, are there any changes you would recommend? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear,, I've only shared the above with you on the merest off-chance that you find any of it useful when (or if) you come to write something for publication – it's such a different exercise to writing for WP, and wonderfully liberating. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious. Thus far I've only treated the proposed Osferth article as a trigger for those thoughts. I'll share any thoughts about it on the talk page there, I'd hope within a day or two, although if there's anything that really catches my eye I might just dive in, unless you'd rather I didn't. Speak soon then. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes please jump in if you see how to improve anything. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatch bell foundry
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)

Viewing changes
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)


 * Thanks for the tip,, I'll give it a go. Nortonius (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

E-mail this user
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)


 * You're welcome, I think. Nortonius (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hatch bell foundry
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)


 * That's great to hear, ! And thanks for the highly appropriate notice above! While I'm here I have another article that I haven't nominated but I think is probably ready for GA – Church of St Mary the Virgin, Reculver. I know there are backlogs everywhere but if you agree let me know and I'll nominate it. Oh and Reed water tube boiler is already nominated – I forgot! On the other hand, if you're on a roll for your GA cup submissions then never mind and good luck! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol not this month but maybe later sometime - when I've had a chance to recover. I am in the middle of a massive push on a Review of an article that would print out to at least 22 printed pages... Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow that is indeed a biggie, very brave of you. Well thanks again for the GA button, and if I've still got those two articles hanging around when you're recovered, and if you fancy it, you'd be very welcome. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Cluniac prayer - Bermondsey Abbey
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)
 * But it was a Cluniac priory, per the source in the article, and that's not what concerned me. Rather, I do not see why the addition of a "prayer" to this WP article is relevant. Nortonius (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!
Thanks Ealdgyth, it's nice to be remembered, and the same to you! :o) Nortonius (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly spurious Harv error warnings
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)


 * I checked all three example pages and didn't see any red warnings. The pages don't seem to be contained in any hidden maintenance categories related to such errors. That leaves us with two possibilities: Either there was some problem, likely with a template used by all three pages, that has since been fixed, or you still see the problem; then you'd need to provide more detail: Which note shows the error, what exactly does the error say, have you tried purging the cache? Huon (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Huon, thanks for the response. Interesting that only I'm seeing these errors, then. I've tried purging each of the three pages, with no change. One example is at HMS Spiteful (1899), under "Footnotes", item 21, where the last sentence reads: Engineering ranks in the Royal Navy in 1914 are discussed in detail in, but the rank of Chief Artificer Engineer does not appear explicitly. Harv error: link from #CITEREFAnon.1914 doesn't point to any citation.


 * But, as I say, the link works perfectly for me, i.e. clicking on "Anon. 1914" in the text takes me to the item in the Bibliography. This is one example of 15 on this page, two under "Footnotes" and the rest under "Notes". Nortonius (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any of them. If you still see those errors despite purging the cache, you may want to report this as a bug via Phabricator. See also Bug reports and feature requests. Huon (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the input Huon! Nortonius (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see these errors also, because I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed, as does Nortonius. That said, they look like spurious errors, since as far as I can tell, the CITEREF value matches between the short footnotes and the full references. I think it may be a bug in the script, or a known shortcoming that can't be fixed. I notice that if I change "Anon." to "Anonymous", the error messages disappear. Pinging, who might have some insight for us. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * [See also: Village_pump_(technical)] – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk to TheDJ who recently.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jonesey95, yes, well spotted – all the errors relate to inline refs with "Anon." as the author, and if I remove the full stop from such an inline ref and from its target in the bibliography the error disappears! But, while this is a new issue for me these last few days, "anon" is a word, albeit rather an archaic one, and "Anonymous" risks confusion with a certain group, so I wouldn't want to change the formatting in these inline refs and bibliographies to work around what seems to be a recent, unrelated development. Thanks for the tip Trappist the monk, and for pinging TheDJ! We shall see. Nortonius (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have had the same problem with a comma, so I think it is probably a problem with punctuation rather than anon v anonymous. BTW have you thought of putting HMS Spiteful (1899) up at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review? It looks to me suitable on a quick look, apart from the very short lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Dudley, yes that's the issue as I see it, punctuation – in my (known) instances a full stop. Thanks for the A-Class review suggestion, I've been rather shy of trying to get articles promoted beyond GA since what I regard as the "Reculver debacle", in which I would continue to maintain that WP policy was misapplied; but I might give it a go. The lead looks short to me too, but that'll be partly because it was adequate for GA. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For a minute i figured this might be due to recent changes with supporting more characters in anchors, but I think it was actually always broken, just nobody noticed it. Anyway, it's fixed now, by escaping the anchor value before looking it up. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help . Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, all seems good now. Nortonius (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I regarded the Reculver discussion as an interesting and constructive debate which helped me to clarify my ideas, but of course I can see that you view it differently. I thought, as I said at the time, that some of your findings were the basis of a good journal article rather than a Wikipedia one, but of course there will always be different opinions. I have given up on GA as the standard of reviewing is too variable. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to agree about the standard of reviewing at GA generally, Dudley, although I haven't had a bad experience myself. I only edit intensively on pet projects (as may be obvious), and am not terribly bothered about WP. Spiteful became a pet project when the model illustrated in the article passed to me through family: the discovery regarding fuel oil (compare the article as I found it) explained the model's existence, for reasons that don't belong on WP, and compelled me to try to do it some justice. About Reculver, I did make a start on something for publication, but it's very much on the back burner for now, and it may remain there. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reed water tube boiler
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)

Your GA nomination of Reed water tube boiler
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)

Bermondsey, Surrey vs Bermondsey, Kent
Hi, advice would be welcome with a new account that insists on changing Bermondsey's historical county from Surrey to Kent. 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)


 * I don't see a reference for the historical county in the article itself. Adding it there, instead of on the other editor's talk page, would be helpful. The article's talk page is also a good place to discuss disputes over the article's content. That said, if necessary, there's WP:ANEW, the edit-warring noticeboard. You should, of course, make sure that you aren't also edit-warring; being right is no excuse there. For now I'll add the source you provided to the statement in the article (though better references would still be useful), and I'll leave an explicit note about edit-warring on the other editor's talk page. If they persist, a block may be necessary to stop the disruption and to get them to discuss instead of reverting. Huon (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Huon! To be honest it hadn't occurred to me to check whether the article included a citation for Surrey. Although, I'm not sure how we could improve on the Victoria County History as a reference for something so basic ...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
 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}}

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)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How time flies! And strangely I'm still here ...! Thank you for this honour Gerda, it and all kind thoughts are so important ... Nortonius (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder
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)


 * Hi Dudley, thanks for the note, and your recent email. I'm rather struggling at the moment, although not for time. I'll certainly have a look if I can. Nortonius (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

HMS Spiteful
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)


 * That's a "no" then – sorry to be abrupt but I'm not well. Thanks for stopping by. Nortonius (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I've raised the issue of linking countries in ships infoboxes at the SHIPS project . Your comment would be welcome Lyndaship (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Misbehaving citations
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)
 * I can't replicate that. In Chrome in Windows, I am taken perfectly down to footnote 21. Same in Firefox. Sam Sailor 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting ... I just assumed I'd made an error in the code! I'm using Safari on Mac OSX, now I've tried Firefox and got the same result as you, working fine. My Mac's getting a bit old, maybe it's having an "off day". Thanks for taking the trouble to look into it! I'll close the help request myself. Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)