User talk:Nortonius/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reliable sources

{{helpme}}I can't see any reference to PhDs among reliable sources, either for or against: should I draw an obvious conclusion from this, that PhDs are not considered reliable sources? I ask because PhDs are by definition peer reviewed, and form an obvious part of ongoing research.

In Wikipedia:Verifiability it states;

• Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Chzz (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's the kind of thing I mean! If there's no mention of PhDs anywhere, it leaves room for doubt: if PhDs are expressly to be excluded, wouldn't it be helpful to say so, in places like that? Don't worry, I don't mind either way, and I'm not going to start challenging policy! Nortonius (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

People are not sources. Publications are sources. So, yes, a publication by a PhD would be a very good source. An editor who just added stuff and said 'it's okay, I have a PhD' would not meet the criteria. If there are two published sources, and one of them is by a PhD in a peer-reviewed journal, and the other is by a layperson in a pop magazine, yes, most people would agree that the journal article was the better source.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason that a paper that forms part of a doctorate would be inhererently different from one produced post-doc. Of course, any 'non-original research' from the paper could be referenced back to the original reference shown on the paper itself. Chzz (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, those look like good answers to me! Obviously I've no idea how often this question might arise, and I wonder if your answers might not be incorporated into e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability. It seems to me to be one of those fine lines that disappears the closer you look at it, so it wouldn't hurt to make it bolder, as you have. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Hi again!

Following our help discussion, I had a look at your contributions. You're doing a great job, clearing up grammar and other things!

Aha - and whilst I was typing this, you responded to my 'recte' query!

I have raised the question about that article as a helpme on my own talk page.

Just one other thing - regarding woking, and Mr Ishiguro. I googled, found a citation to support the claim he went to the college, and therefore I reverted your edit and added the citation. Whilst it is very important to be accurate about living persons, if you suspect something is not sufficiently cited, it's worth a bit of a google to see if you can find supporting evidence - and then you can add a citation.

I hope this helps.

I will let you know the result of the Medeshamstede - or, of course, you can see what happens on my own talk page.

Thanks for your time,

Keep up the good work!

 Chzz  ►  17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind, thank you! It's nice to be noticed. Thanks for the tip about googling, and Mr. Ishiguro: I did do that, and funnily enough the first thing I saw was a Wikipedia article! I just thought, if I change back that new edit to Woking, and someone doesn't like it, they'll do something about it - which they did, lol! Maybe I was being lazy then, and should have spent more time on it as you did - but as you've noticed I've been busy doing other things! I suppose just leaving a Fact template on such a brief bit of info, lately added, would have troubled me, especially as there was no mention of Woking on Mr. Ishiguro's own page, so I made a snap decision. My bad. And thanks for picking up on the Medeshamstede issue, I've added your talk page to my watchlist. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Thank you for your comments on User talk:Chzz; I see your point, but I still disagree based on the "if there is adequate exposure to the community" bit. Although some issues were raised in the beginning (almost three years ago) by a few users, I really don't think the article qualified as "adequately exposed" until recently. Also, a good chunk of the 200-or-so edits up until a few days ago appeared to be simple vandalism by anonymous users. I guess at what point an article becomes "adequately exposed" can be debated ad nauseam. Anyway, just wanted to give you my thoughts on that. Nufy8 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem - as I confessed at the time, I was sticking my oar in, but hopefully in a constructive way. I thought it was something worth drawing attention to, if only so it could be debated. Thanks for calling by. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, I see your article is going well, and I have a small favour to ask in return. I have just rewritten an article, and I would very much appreciate it if you had the time to have a look at it. Nothing to do with your field at all...but sometimes that's a good thing! It's about a small town in England.

The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire

The peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1

If you have the time for a quick look, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  06:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to change anything you like!

Quite right - should be 'refs' not 'see also' - I'll change that now. I'm trying to follow guidelines in WP:UKCITIES.

--  Chzz  ►  13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I too another look at Medeshamstede just now. I think it needs a 'how to pronounce the word' in there - phonetics, or whichever way it's done - as I was uncertain whether it was 'meeds-ham-steed' or 'meh-dehs-ham-sted'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(slaps forehead) Of course! I'll do it in a jiffy, thanks. Nortonius (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done

[removed indent] You've done a fantastic job on Eastwood - thank you so much! I was hoping you'd do just that, on the history side of things - not my forté. Specifically, thanks for the ref and further info on the toponymy, and the vast improvement to the Domesday book quote. I have no argument with any of it, one of questions for my own education;

• I'm suprised Domesday is not a 'countable noun' - I assumed it would be the same as saying "In the Bible..." - ie "In the Domesday book..." rather than "In Domesday book..."? --  Chzz  ►  16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pleased & not a little relieved that you like what I've done with Eastwood! It's the least I can do, in return for 'Medeshamstede', I'll try to carry on later, editing & reviewing - you probably saw already that I've posted a comment for the review?

About 'the Domesday Book', it's just convention. This is off the cuff, but it's a bit like you wouldn't say 'in the movie the Star Wars', whereas 'the Bible' reflects the fact that for centuries it was considered by many to be 'THE book', 'bible' meaning 'book'. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexwulf 1

{{helpme}} I've just added a long paragraph to the article for Sexwulf: he's almost anonymous, so I've tried to give him a bit of background. I've given it lots of citations and relevant internal links, but I'd appreciate some guidance (possibly from someone with experience in Anglo-Saxon history?) on whether or not it constitutes 'original research'. If you do think it's original research, perhaps you could offer an opinion on any adjustments that might make it acceptable. Much as I'd like it to stay in, there's no point if it might get challenged for that in the future. Cheers.

(Later:) I'm now in the process of developing a major revision of this article, at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox. Note that this proposed revision only omits some templates in order to avoid unnecessary internal linking: they will remain in the actual article. If you want to comment on the revision, please do so on Sexwulf's Talk page. But I'm still looking for comments here, regarding possible OR: obviously, these should now be based on the projected major revision. For all existing comments on possible OR, go here and here.

Note that my concerns regarding possible OR centre on my own discussion of Sexwulf's identity, particularly the notion that he may have been an East Anglian prince. I have two principal justifications for wanting to introduce this:

• It is only possible to indulge in further discussion of Sexwulf's possible identity because I have found a factual error in a printed edition of a primary source: this is referenced in the proposed revision, and the error is illustrated with an image. The work containing this printed edition is commonly cited, though this error has not been noticed in any existing publication that I have seen - nor does it seem likely to be. Ultimately, what I'm trying to do is to avoid perpetuating an error. So, if you see OR, it might be useful to suggest ways in which this information could be preserved in the article, while still indicating its implications.
• In principle, I see no difference between using this information, all of it sourced, and for example making the statement that "[Sexwulf's episcopacy], and the reported shelter given by Sexwulf to Bishop Putta of Rochester, also indicate a close political relationship between Sexwulf and the Mercian king Æthelred: Putta had abandoned his see at Rochester when, according to Bede, King Æthelred had destroyed it." The facts given there are sourced, and the observation takes a common format. Also, it does nothing more than to present an obvious possibility. As such, it's useful to the reader, and it seems unlikely to be challenged as OR.

Obviously, you will make of that what you will! Cheers.

/ˈmiːdsˌhæmstɛd/

{{helpme}} How do I stop this pronunciation being split between lines of text, i.e. in the citation at Medeshamstede? I can't find anything about it. Cheers.

William Peverel the Younger

I've been a bit side-tracked!

Following my investigations, I think it would probaly be worth creating 2 new stub articles;

• William's son, William Peverel the Younger, and
• The Honour of Peverel

First, sincere apologies if you know all of this;

William's son (ab. 1080-1155), also called William and known as 'the younger' inherited the Honour of Peverel. He later supported King Stephen, was a commander at the Battle of the Standard and was taken prisoner at the Battle of Lincoln.

Henry II prosecuted him for treason - allegedly because he was involved in a plot to poison the Earl of Chester, but commonly believed to be a sort of revenge for his support of King Stephen. The Earl of Chester died before he took possession of the Honour of Peverel.

Sorry I'm not being precise in this, but citations and info is available.

My main question to you is, do you think both warrent a stub - which admittedly at present would be quite small, or could both be put into one new article, or should all this go into the article on the first William? I'm sure both *could* warrent an article in the fullness of time, and I'm [leaning to giving them that scope for expansion. The 'honour' could hopefully detail the properties and land included - with some info about their subsequent ownership. 170 towns and villages in Nottinghamshire - lots of very notable buildings, inc Nottingham Castle.

Perhaps searching for 'peverel', 'peveril' and similar should lead to a disambiguation page listing the two Williams, the book, and perhaps a mention of "THE PEVERIL OF THE PEAK HOTEL" Derbyshire (big hotel), and I'm amazed that the Manchester pub doesn't have it's own article. One of the most famous pubs in Manchester. But I digress from my digression :-)

Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how all of that would be distracting!

• Yes, I would say they deserve an article each. There are already 2 "Honour of..." articles, Honour of Grafton & Honour of Richmond, and it's a worthy area of study: this sort of thing helps give meaning to such things as calling e.g. John of Gaunt, "Lancaster"; but from my own experience, it can be a lot of work, exploring fees! Maybe there's already enough in print about young Wm. to make it easier, if nothing else you could start with the Victoria County History series for this, a lot of which is online. And it sounds as though you already have enough for a stub on the *notable* Wm. Peverel the Younger.
• About disambiguation, I can't see any problem with the general plan: I discovered there's even a "Medehamsetede Hotel" (I hope that spelling's just an editorial blunder, but if it is it should be sorted!), mentioned at Medehampstede! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I noted the other day - but was hesitant to it's relevence and hence didn't post it to you - that there is a Medeshamstede Education Trust which I suspect (but didn't confirm) run 2 schools;

• Medeshamstede Education Trust - a secondary school at 53 Willesden Avenue, Walton, PE4 6EA
• Medeshamstede School - urbine Way, Swaffham, Norfolk, PE37 7XD

I don't actually know if they're connected; needs further research.

(apols for quick n dirty refs; lazy/unskilled)

--  Chzz  ►  22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, whoever named the trust and those schools had some interest in history, anyway - Walton is presumably the place that was once a berewick of the manor of Peterborough; and Swaffham is just down the road too, and was the original home (presumably) of Robert of Swaffham, a 13th century cellarer at Peterborough Abbey. I think they'd only be of interest to editors working on education in the area, but thanks for the thought. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if you do decide a 'disambiguation' is needed, they should be listed - the two schools - if nothing else. You can list stuff that there's no wiki article for. And maybe one day there will be an article about each of the schools (likely, eventually).

--  Chzz  ►  23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All true! Sorry, my mind was wandering among the tombs of local saints, more fun than it sounds! I'll try to remember to do something about it. Nortonius (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New article created, William Peverel the Younger. Needs work, and links can be improved, but it certainly 'fills a gap' - many articles refer to the events.

The Honour needs creating now; I'll do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, you have been busy, well done - those Wikiservers will be smoking! It's on my watchlist now. Nortonius (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Created Honour of Peverel. Not too pretty, but better than no article, I think - and hopefully can be improved in the future. --  Chzz  ►  04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a tic

I've kinda screwed up the peer review page thing; I'm in the process of getting it sorted - help from a helper...I'll get back to you when things are back to normal - about the ? and the P and everything...but right now, the Eastwood talk and peer-review pages are in a slightly confused state :-/

Hang fire. I'll reply here in a short time. Cheers. --  Chzz  ►  09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok - but I've just added a comment to the review page, about Messrs. Plumb & Meredith: they're extremely misleading, and I'd forget them if I were you. The change from Estewic to Eastwood will be a product of usage, not the work of some local preacher - unless he launched a re-naming campaign from his pulpit, issuing pamphlets and boring his flock every Sunday for months on end with a rant about how Estewic was unholy - or something... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Am 'on hold' for help sorting that problem out). Can't use that quote. Shame. Can we say something like "As the local dialect evolved, Estewic became Eastwood". Or something like that? Or would that be 'original research'? I mean, obviously, it happened...and I know spelling etc was all a bit...matter of opinion, back then (Mr Pevere-i-l). Or maybe we don't need that bit at all, and we leave it as an 'exercise for the reader', kinda thing. I'll certainly look into it in local history books when I get chance. For now, I think I'll try and find a bit more to fit between 1155 and 1603...which hopefully will allow me to make the 'History' more readabe. --  Chzz  ►  09:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think I'll say, leave it out, as an "exercise for the reader" - or for their imagination. It's too complicated a story for the article. "Estewic" is highly likely to have been nothing more than what the Domesday commissioners thought the locals said, in their impenetrable local dialect ;o) - that happened all the time, so apart from the fact that it's in Domesday Book it can be ignored. Presumably ϸveit/thwaite changed to wudu/wood progressively: the meaning of clearing will have been forgotten over time, and the link (conceptual, phonetical and geographical) with Sherwood no doubt usurped it. Whoever first committed it to writing will have been some innocent clerk, long turned to dust by the time Messrs. Plumb & Meredith came along. Hope that helps? Nortonius (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pevs

D'you think a family tree would be worthwhile? Like either William_the_Conqueror#Ancestors or William_the_Conqueror#Descendants perhaps? I can make stuff like that if we think it's constructive. --  Chzz  ►  09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, why not, if you're up for it: things like that are so helpful... Nortonius (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one do you prefer? (or describe some alternative)?

BTW that problem I was having has been fixed, hurrah. SNAFU.

--  Chzz  ►  10:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Great that you've got that problem fixed, there are so many IT traps in editing this stuff, it can be a nightmare! About family trees, apologies to whoever dreamed up that style, but the one for William's ancestors is horrible: I think it is very useful for the way it gives links for the individuals, but it tells you very little - it just sends you off to find things like dates and who they were for yourself, which isn't helpful at all!!! I'd go with the classic style of the one for his descendants, but maybe you can combine the two styles to give it links? Not sure that's even possible, though... Nortonius (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Am playing with an idea in User:Chzz/tree - I think it has great potential - easy to edit, flexible - boxes resize. Hmm. --  Chzz  ►  11:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quiet

Hi,

Just a quick note, as we haven't communicated for a few days - after much discussion!

I got sidetracked again, this time by the China earthquake. I got embroiled in trying to improve the article - which was much like trying to groom a dog whilst it leaps and bounds through a muddy bog. I think I have learnt my lesson, but it was an interesting exercise. I'm still not 100% clear in my head about whether/how wikipedia should cover the news, but I think it's futile to chase around the net and try to keep up with BBC, CNN, etc. We can't compete with them, and we shouldn't.

OTOH, it's pretty 'cool' that wikipedia can have a reasonable article about an event within hours of it happening. 'Not a traditional encyclopaedia' and all that. It impresses people.

If WP made a decision not to cover news articles - for, say, 10 days...well, it would then be possible to create more of an encyclopaedic entry. But - what about when someone dies - surely their page needs updating ASAP. And then, a celeb death could result in a grey area.

On a related topic, I found User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article very worthwhile - and I recommend it.

I am considering 'leaving the fray' to develop great quality articles largely 'off-line'.

I'm getting frustrated by the 'admin overhead' on wikipedia; the tremendous waste of talents in arguing the toss. If that energy, plus the effort put into current news, could be channeled into making good articles - well, I feel that's what WP is all about - and I think many people are losing track of that original intention.

The recent debate over that 'virgin killer' article, which I think you were aware of, and subsequent discussion about WP:PROCESS has formed my opinions on that. As I see it, the vast majority of those voting were admins (or wanna-be's) and they voted to keep their job easier, rather than something that would improve WP for the general, non-voting readership.

Anyway - sorry to go on at such length; I just wanted to keep in touch.

I have noticed Medehamstede coming along in leaps and bounds.

I have noted your comments on the tree; I will get to it, eventually. Ditto Eastwood.

Regards, --  Chzz  ►  16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Yes, I'd noticed how busy you've been! And I think there's a lot of truth in all that you say here... Lately I've found avoiding getting sidetracked is essential in doing this editing - just about everything I've looked at in connection with editing Medeshamstede has needed some tweaking, or at least a query! Keep it up then, and of course I'll be interested to see further developments in the stuff of yours that we've already discussed, too! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I had another read of Medeshamstede, and was very impressed. I've asked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages to reassess it to either 'Start' or 'B' rating. I think it should be GA-nominated when it's stabilized.

I couldn't find a single error (in grammar/structure)!

Two tiny niggles for you - things I thought did not read clearly. I think they should be re-worded, although I can't think of a great re-wording myself;

• Numerous local saints are connected to varying degrees with Medeshamstede, and many of them are Mercian royal in nature. These include

• The importance of these daughter churches, and indeed that of Medeshamstede itself, is indicated by the likely relationship with royal Repton; by the fact that Tatwine, a notable scholar who became archbishop of Canterbury in 731 AD, and was later canonised, was a former monk of Breedon; and by the fact that St. Guthlac was a former monk of Repton. It is also possible that Tatwine was directly involved in Guthlac’s move from Repton to Crowland.[30]

What I mean is, I find the sentence structure of those 2 to be a little awkward.

Cheers,

--  Chzz  ►  17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha yes! I spend a lot of time struggling with that kind of thing, and those sentences have been catching my eye! The problem is to condense the information into the shortest possible text, maybe that's over-doing it! If you or anyone wants to give suggested re-writes for those sentences here, feel free - for now I'll plead "work in progress", and hope they'll get sorted at some point! Thanks for the compliments, and the referral! One thing the article desperately needs, both as it is and for projected inclusions, is more pictures... Cheers. :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)

Re. 'Numerous' - maybe drop the 'varying degrees' - which, although valid, could be considered superfluous as the nature of their involvement is detailed in the list. Also, I don't know if you'd agree 'of them' could be snipped? or a semicolon to split? ie

• Numerous local saints are connected with Medeshamstede; many are Mercian royal in nature.

Re. 'The importance' - maybe warrents a new subheading, and then expand the para a little?

Royal Repton connections

The significance of these daughter churches, and indeed that of Medeshamstede itself, is indicated by the likely relationship with royal Repton.

Tatwine, a scholar, was a monk at Breedon from ??? to ??? AD. He became archbishop of Canterbury in 731 AD, and was later canonised. St. Guthlac was a monk at Repton from 698 to 700 AD. It is possible that Tatwine was directly involved in Guthlac’s move from Repton to Crowland. (ref)

I would avoid the phrase, 'the fact that' - as it's an encyclopaedia, we can take it as read that we're stating facts. I think 'notable' might be unnecesary too?

I hope this little bit isn't original research? (I guess your ref covers that?)

Note: This is my attempt to 'have a stab at it'. At least it might give you an idea.

I would recommend not spending too long pondering one para; if you're stuck, move along. I think your time could be more productively spent gleaning core material; if it's going to be proof-read by many other eyes, later, then I'm sure the grammar, tone etc. can be improved as part of that process.

Re. images - I have found 2 resources to be useful;

• Mayflower image search
• Flickr using advanced search and checking the 'Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content' and 'Find content to use commercially ' boxes.

Regards,  Chzz  ►  20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about not dwelling too long on individual details - but again, my brain works something like that...! ;o)

• The trouble with that "Numerous..." sentence is it tells you what to look for in the list, so I'm not sure that I want to tinker with the information it contains...?
• I see what you mean about the phrase, 'the fact that', but it points to the use of facts already established... Maybe I need to find another way of putting it...
• Similarly, I think 'scholar' is relevant, but again it's a question of degree: I suppose "notable" does look odd to WPers, but that's not its context here. Maybe "noted" would be better...? Or "noted for his scholarship"? Not all archbishops of Canterbury were, would be the point...
• I'll think further on the "Importance..." subheading idea - it might mean a struggle to avoid repeating information...
• Which "little bit" are you worried about, for OR? It's a very interesting question: I asked for some views on this a few days ago, re an edit I made to Sexwulf, but nobody's responded yet - maybe you'd like to have a look at that? I raised the issue because, although I "originally researched" a manuscript, all I've done is to offer the information to the reader, give it a context, and explain its significance: the reader is then in a position to form their own "opinion". I do think it's a very fine line I'm treading there - which is why I asked for views - but that's just a feature of writing about early Anglo-Saxon England - within reason, it's what you have to do! I'd quote from the Dictionary of National Biography entry for Sexwulf, which does the same thing (but isn't aware of the manuscript reading), but I'd be worried about copyright - is that silly of me? Could I quote it on this page? It would be the whole of Sexwulf's entry... See what you think, anyway, if you get the time!

Thanks for the comments, it's great when someone bothers! And for the tips re images - I've searched high and low in Mayflower, but haven't got to grips with flickr at all yet, I'll give it a go! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. phrasing - I quite understand your issues; perhaps best left until a later review, if you can't see a reasonably easier way to clarify the,

The 'little bit' was the connection between the 2 monks - does the reference actually connect them, or are you inferring it from the overlapping attendance? Personally I'm liberal about inferring from research, but I'm aware that others on WP jump up on the slightest hint of 'original research' - example;

---

From the 66,000 injured added to the 15,000 dead (this is rounded), wouldn't the casualties be around 81,000? Just searching casualty on wikipedia gives "a person killed or injured in a war or disaster". Should somebody just change the heading from 'casualties' to 'deaths' or add the injuries in (for a true casualty total)? 72.200.21.121 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Does the cite say specifically, 81,000 casualties? We can't conduct original research according to Wiki policy. That means, no a+b=c. --haha169 (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, sorry. If a cite says, "150 people in Footown like cheese, and 20 like milk", and we say "170 people in Footown like dairy products"? Original research? No. We summarise. Jeez...--  Chzz  ►  04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's if it is in one cite. I was under the impression that he was referring to two separate cites.

A=Cite 1

B=Cite 2

C=Original Research--haha169 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)}}

---

Hmph. --  Chzz  ►  23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh... My... God... Pointless, or what...? Hopefully Medeshamstede, Sexwulf et al. will be too obscure for the sharks to start circling them like that...!

• p.s. I think you spotted a hole there re the connection between the 2 monks - thanks - hopefully I just plugged it, by adding another ref!
• p.p.s. I quote haha169 from his (identified as male) talk page: "I highly doubt that I will get blocked for that, probably some admin will delete it, but thats about it. In fact, chances are that admins won't even care. Its quit a minor rule, and discussions regarding this have been "a bit of an over-reaction"". Sneaky of me to quote that, perhaps, but it suggests that haha169 sees selective observance of rules as a way around a problem, a.k.a. an "over-reaction", so I would see that as fair game in this situation. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ta for the 'gossip' :-) Quite a laugh; you can probably understand now why I'm going to bow out of my recent sortie into 'current affairs'. I'm still seeing out the 'China earthquake' debacles, because I became involved. But "It's learnt me".

I'm also doing a few favours for other peer-review candidates; hence the lack of development on my own stuff. But I have started to rewrite history (!) of Eastwood - more story-like. I think it'll work; of course I'll let you know :-)

I'm off to Manchester tomorrow; maybe I'll have to research the Peverils while I'm there :-)

Couple of days with no wiki - how will I cope?  Chzz  ►  01:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! My view would be, if you're going to stand on rules, you have to be squeaky clean about how you use them... Yes, maybe you can "peveril" whilst in Manchester (and so emerges a new verb...) - but just enjoy the break! :o) Nortonius (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Test

This is a test; I'm just demonstrating talk pages to someone. Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm flattered that my talk page serves as an example for you - supposing you're only saying NICE things about it, of course! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ta. You'll probably have someone called user:jdzooks reviewing your page before too long ;-) --  Chzz  ►  02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honoured, I'm sure. ;o) Nortonius (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

World War III

Well. As I said, I have to log out and get an early night. And then, following a chat on IRC, at 6AM I find myself proposing a merger between the articles People's Republic of China and China.

They've been arguing back and forth forever, about misrepresentation of PRC and ROC. It just strikes stupid old me that a user, typing in 'china' in wp, wants to know stuff. How hot is it, do I need a brolly, do they have McDonalds. That sort of thing.

Surely the distinction between PRC and ROC can be explained from a NPOV in a single, great article?

Well, we shall see.

So, now you know who to blame when the flaming reaches as far as the fair Medeshamstede.

'nite --  Chzz  ►  05:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're up against...! In that sort of situation, maybe there'd be room for a "China" page giving the sort of useful, general info everybody wants, linked to other pages for PRC and ROC, that people can then squabble over to their hearts' content...? Speak later, then! Nortonius (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's daft and confusing for someone who looks up 'China' to get a choice of 2 pages. Also probs w/ overlap, and maintaining 2 pages - gonna be of lesser quality. If the idiotseditors could get their stuff together and discuss it constructively, the world would be a better place. Prob not gonna happen; it's just that after talking to one very aggrieved user (who wanted PRC to redirect to China) about his flame war with another (who wanted the opposite), I stood back and thought, hang on, this is daft, it should be one article! OK, several little offshoot articles, sure - 'politics in China', 'History' etc - because obv there is a lot of stuff.

But basically - well, imagine looking it up in a book, and finding 2 different sections vying to be 'China'?

Also, if they did get merged, I reckon it would reduce the flame-wars between them. Maybe not initially - there'd be a hell of an argument about keeping the new article POV.

Ah well, I live in hope of a world of peace. But not much hope, given the first contributor said "your proposal, wrapped in such a thin fig leave, fools no one" and then, on my talk page, called it 'asinine'.

Oh - and many thanks for finding that symbol thingy. --  Chzz  ►  13:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised such a fight can go on for very long at all, let alone around articles for what is surely an important subject for any encyclopedia - must be time for a supreme WP being to stop people wasting all that energy, spreading so much hate, and generally talking bollocks nonsense... I just went and had a look at the offending comment - the editor calls him/herself "Arbiter of Truth"!!! How ironic... But of course he/she wouldn't see it... I think you ought to have that comment framed for posterity! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The importance of these daughter churches

It's definitely neater with 'the fact that...' substituted. I still think it's trying to cram too much information into a single sentence, though. But, like I said, it could wait - the structure of the entire bit could change, with all the other info you're adding. --  Chzz  ►  00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - and yes, I think there will often be sentences that are too long! I think many of them are there to invite the addition of further information, in a way, but I've found that the ones we're talking about here are very resistant to reduction - as you say, time will tell. By the way, I meant to identify the actual changes in my previous comment, but forgot, sorry. Also, I'm thinking of changing the structure of headings in the article: thoughts for that are developing, so it's likely to keep changing for a bit, but to see what I mean have a look here. Where it says "Done, pretty much", obviously that leaves room for plenty of further tinkering! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Eastwood, history, head-scratching

Hi,

I've been trying to improve the 'readability' of the history part of Eastwood, as that's the area comments from the peer-review were directed at.

I want to quickly get it into an 'acceptable' state, before, perhaps, throwing it up to the dogs of GA assessment. However, I'm spending many hours scratching my head over re-wording, etc.

I've added some bits from other sources, and written a draft; without worrying about references (which I do have); I'd really appreciate it if you could look at User:Chzz/eastwood/hist.

There's so many changes it's hard to describe them, so I've put it there so it can be compared to the existing version. I don't know if it's easier for you to just edit it, or else comment on it; whatever works best.

Thanks in anticipation, --  Chzz  ►  00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just had a quick look (it's waaay too early in the morning for me to think about doing much more, maybe later!), and so far 2 things in particular have struck me:

• "The settlement arose due to the rich agricultural land, the proximity of the River Erewash and – most importantly - the extensive and easily-mined coal deposits": coal has been most important recently, but it won't have had anything to do with how "The settlement arose..."; and I wonder about the rich agricultural land - it's often made, over generations... Do you know a local Geography teacher who could pin this down for you? Just a thought. But maybe best always to skirt these sorts of issues, & home in on the simplest & most obvious - how about something like "The location of the settlement is primarily due to the availability of rich agricultural land, and the proximity of the River Erewash. Industrialisation in the 19th and 20th centuries brought major expansion, particularly through the development of coal mining"? That way, you don't even commit yourself to knowing whether there were any medieval miners in the area (I expect there were...?), but you still introduce the info, & save the detail for later. Again, just a thought.
• About synthesising the History section in particular, maybe this will be made easier as you add more info... But it occurred to me, you could do worse than consider the scheme at History of Woking, where bits of info are grouped according to period, century etc. That way you won't end up with a dirty great long section where the reader might become lost in a stream of consciousness... But I don't know what GA people would think about that: History of Woking is currently rated "B-class", but no-one's commented on it.

Cheers. (p.s. Did you get a chance to look at Sexwulf yet, with OR in mind...? Busy busy!) Nortonius (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comments. Re. coal deposits - I think they were acutally used from very early days; that info is from here although admittedly edited to fit the article - I'm trying to make it more 'readable'. Do you think I'm 'interpreting' the cite too much? To be honest, I just want to get the 'choppiness' thing sorted out, so I can GA it ASAP. How much of that draft do you really hate?

Re. Sexwulf - I have been remiss; I'm sorry. I will now pour a large glass of something, and get into said article. Will post in a new bit (if still capable).

Sorry for delay on Sexwulf; I've been severely side-tracked. (check my contribs!)

So - to Sexwulf I go. --  Chzz  ►  02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I guess what I'm trying to say is; what do I need to do to that 'rough draft' of the amended history for Eastwood, i order to make it good enough to put live - i.e. better than the current one, so I can request a GA review? Assumig I put all the refs in the right places and tidy it up. --  Chzz  ►  04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Medeshamstede

I have read over the article (as suggested by Chzz) and made a number of modifications to the spelling and grammar. But the main problem seems to be that it lacks a lead paragraph. What had been the "lead" was actually a discussion of the name. I have created a new "name" section of that material. Someone needs to add a short summary of all the other material in the article as the real lead paragraph.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: semicolons join two closely related "sentences" each with main verbs. Colons preceed parenthetical comments or lists (usally with no main verb).Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Got your message: I found a few scribbles I made about the lead: "an early name of an important monastery at Peterborugh; from the 7th century; with many local daughter houses; destroyed? by the Vikings; refounded in 10th century". If you find a problem with my changes, I made the change because I found a problem with the original, so you should look for a third way of expressing what needs to be said. Cheers (and I am a "dry" Thomson). Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh... Evidently so! (later: I meant to add "sorry" here, about the wet "Thompson"!) Like I said, I'll have a look at it. Nortonius (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your points. If you want some of them changed back I won't stop you. I would point out that for the last 35 years I have copy-edited hundreds of books before they go to print and I think that the changes I made are both valid and an improvement in clarity. I also realize that over the last 100 years grammar has become more loose and earlier "errors" (from the point of view of a 19th-century grammarian) have become almost common use; so I don't insist on the "correct" version -- the definition of "correct" has changed too much. As well, I did not want to cause you a lot of problems but Chzz asked me to read it over and as well as looking at it from an over-all point of view (e.g., the need for a proper lead), I do line-by-line copyediting. If the sense has changed in your opinion, then certain turn it back. Some points that I remember, without rereading the article: "the name give to [what is now] Peterborough": we are trying to help the reader immediately identify the place and its modern descendant -- perhaps "what is now" is really what is needed to help the reader. Commas are not just where one breathes in reading a sentence; they mark off structurally different items; hence I have remeoved many as being unnecessary. However, an over use of necessary commas can also be confusion (when do you return to the main sense of the sentence), which is why I put some of the items (counties/shires I think) in parentheses -- again it helps the reader. I stand by my comment on colons or semi-colons, but I'm sure it doesn't both most others. I must say that I found on the whole that the article was well researched and well written and certainly summarizes and presents all that is known on the topic. All the rest that we might want to see in an article is pretty much unknowable, the bane of medieval history. Best wishesRon B. Thomson (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Please don't misunderstand me - I very much appreciate the input, and the time you obviously spent on it. And your experience. I think you hit the nail on the head with what you said about 'correct': I used that word - sorry, mea culpa - but it did stick with me a bit as I typed it. I was thinking of going back and changing it to something less determined, but I got distracted by life around me (by way of explanation, not an excuse). What I mean is, I think I've just got my style, and I believe it to be "acceptable": it's something that I too have developed over years of study, influenced by books I've pored over, and work I've successfully submitted. So, I'm happy with it. But about clarity, yes, there's definitely room for improvement. About rules, obviously they're essential to communication. But, as someone once said, in so many words, when we see such rules being insisted upon, we can be sure that those rules are already being left behind.

The way I look at it here, though, is that this is a work in progress: I'm confident that the punctuation scheme I've used generally works, and it will all settle down soon enough. Information will be added, and senses honed. A perfect example is over-long sentences, which certainly do occur! What worried me was that there were some clear instances of an intended sense being lost, through (totally understandable) unfamiliarity with the information which was being set out. Rather than tinker with individual bits of punctuation, I would rather break text down into shorter sentences - though I agree it might not look that way at the moment! And, though I've indicated that I'm not too wedded to the rules, I do remember seeing some WP editorial guidance about later editors following existing style when working on articles - it's a precedent I would invoke, shall we say, among a number of possibles. I fully accept that, should the article come up against strong objections over style, further down the road, then that will have to be faced. So, thanks very much, and I sincerely hope that makes my thoughts a bit clearer to you. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexwulf 2

When was he born?

Ref to 'old English dictionaries' - needs to link to the relevent bit (specific URL; right-clicky and 'properties' on the bit you want); which bit is it? I couldn't find it under 'sex' in the 'old' bit.

• 'episcopate' - wikilink
• 'Lichfield' - wikilink
• 'bishoprics' - wikilink

St Wilfred redirect needs fixing

If you put 'he died' in the 1st para, and remove it from the 2nd, then the whole article from para 2 on could be nice and chronological.

From 'Hugh Candidus' onward...it gets very hard to read; too many 'asides'; needs to state fact. fact. fact. I suppose really this will end up as sections; the 1st sentence being one, and another being about 'The charter of King Æthelred' - thus giving you space to explain the suppositions clearly. At the moment, it is rather convoluted.

Maybe say the 'forgery' stuff first, then explain why it's the only source, THEN say what it says about Sexwulf.

"Possibly Sexwulf was a son of King Anna" definitely needs citation (if not OR) - and I hate 'possibly'. "It's possible that ..." is better. Or "Evidence suggests that..."? Or something.

Instead of "make sense of" put "explain"?

After "of a royal family" put a full stop. It's getting far too long.

'evangelising' - wikilink

Re. "Alliteration such as that between "Sexwulf" and "Seaxburh" was a common feature in Old English personal name giving within families."

needs work, e.g.

Alliternation commonly affected old English names; hence "Sexwulf" became "Seaxburgh".

New para before Medeshamstede

"were both founded in the territory" - delete "founded" - repetition

Replace ""Gyrwas", a people who appear in the..." with "Gyrwas. These people appear in the...

(The 'Gyrwas' need an article too ;-) )

Could you replace "a document in existence by the mid 9th century" with "a 9th century document"? I do understand the precise distinction, but...for clarity?

"This would also give a sound basis"...sounds like you're trying hard to get away with OR! However, I think with more careful wording, it'll be fine. i.e. "This happened, and most people think this happened, so it's likely this happened". OR? I don't think so.

I don't think you need "which has been described as" - delete it - the quote covers you.

HTH,

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, lots of useful stuff here! I tried to make it tight for sense, but beyond that I didn't do much at all, because I was adding to an existing article, and I was afraid that what I'd added might be thrown out at any moment as OR! I've been getting severely distracted of late, sorry but I still haven't been through it all thoroughly - hoping I might do that today. Guilty as charged over things like long sentences - but I love breaking them down too, so time will tell...

What I am trying to do, is to get away with giving the reader this information, without it being torn down as OR - a subtle but important distinction, and it is a struggle! ;o) Maybe I can't win. But... My "OR" lies only in identifying a transcriptional error (read "factual error") in a primary edition of charters, which all sorts of people, from scholars to Wikipedians, reference as a "reliable" source - i.e., see the external link Anglo-Saxon Charter S 72 Archive Peterborough (in the reference currently numbered 6). That is, I've seen the manuscript, so I know it's different to that classic edition (i.e. the edition is wrong), and that little detail has the potential to change what we think about who Sexwulf was. The rest just follows, to a student of the subject. I just think it's very important to clarify that for the reader - otherwise we'd be perpetuating a misunderstanding. Ultimately, that is what I'm trying to avoid.

I have still only received two responses on this - you can see the other one, from Ealdgyth, here. So, thanks a lot! I'll let you know when I've attacked it again, in case you want another look. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've put together a trial revision of Sexwulf's article, in which I've tried to take account of your points. You can see it here, I'd be grateful if you'd have a look if/when you get the chance. Likewise Ealdgyth's comments here: she writes and reviews a lot of this stuff for WP, and is supportive on the OR issue. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're basing stuff on the fact that you've seen the charter, and you think the transcription is wrong (I'm not doubting that it might be, wouldn't be the first time), it's OR, unfortunately. If you get a correction published in a journal, then it's not OR any more, it's published. Unfortunately, putting forth novel theories is the very definition of OR. For what it's worth, I think it's possible, but it's not somethign that can go on Wikipedia without being published first. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

I hope you understand by now that, when I review, I tend to just 'say what I think' - so, if I appear inpolite, it's not that - it's just more efficient to state what I think, otherwise it all gets very wordy, e.g. "Perhaps it might be better if..." etc. There's an implied 'IMHO' on the end of every line!

OK - a look at the new version.

The date after his name; "?xc." ? What's that mean?

"was founding abbot" - A founding abbot, or THE founding abbot?

The head is a bit too short; should be a couple of para's summarising the rest.

History

Full-stop needed after 676 AD, then "Bede also descriBED him"?

I know why you've put 'see' in "with his see at Lichfield" (mind expansion etc) but couldn't you put 'seat' (and the word could still wikilink to the same article) to ease readability

Maybe move 'he died c.692' to the end, so the whole section is chronological?

Re. Eddius Stephanus mentions...""the profound respect...etc Is it Eddius who had the respect? If so needs rephrasing to show this...e.g. Eddius said, in xxx book, that he had "the profoundest respect..."

Identity

"According to John Blair," looks a bit lonely before the quote box. Could a sentence be put before that? A bit more info about the context?

"– John Blair, "Seaxwulf (d. c.692)", - does that mean 'died circa... or dated circa? Sorry, I know that's prob a convention, but for the layman...maybe spell it out?

After "King Æthelred of Mercia: " - should be semi-colon not colon? (picky!) or maybe full-stop, and "This charterpublication..." ?

"it is held to be of historical interest..." (facts backed up with refs don't need to be vague, if you know what I mean. Similarly, "It appears to describes Sexwulf..."

"one of the greatest monasteries of the Mercian kingdom" - could Mercian wikilink to something?

Cheers for now,

(P.S. If you have time, please could you comment re. last comments in User talk:Nortonius#Eastwood, history, head-scratching

--  Chzz  ►  19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. How about a picture or two in the article? Doesn't matter what (as long as vaguely relevent); I just don't like articles without pics! --  Chzz  ►  19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's understood, and it's all good! Thanks for the input! I've searched pretty long and hard for a usable picture of Sexwulf - I like pictures too - but nothing's really caught my fancy yet, or made me think, 'That'll do.' [That's now done.] Did you not see my comment for that Eastwood draft? I posted something here earlier! I'll be working through your latest comments for Sexwulf next - Medeshamstede will have to take a bit of a back seat while I try to sort out its founder, first things first I suppose! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

if you're around (Thursday, about half eleven AM)

...see my reply on my talk page --  Chzz  ►  10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tenth-century

When this phrase is used as an adjective, modifying a noun, it is hyphenated (tenth-century refoundation); when it is used as an adjective + noun phrase, it does not have a hyphen (it was refounded in the tenth century). Cheers Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be difficult - it's just that my postgraduate professor beat over-punctuation out of me many years ago! (That "over-punctuation" being informal, by the way!) By the same token, if you prefer "re-founded" as one word, then by all means! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub-page

Hello. Thank you for the sub-page help. PajaBG (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, when many actions of the people here make you wish to do quite the opposite from thanking, what you did was really nice and, importantly, helpfull so I think it deserved to be mentioned :o) Now, I have one more technical question (guess I am lazy, it is easier to ask then to check pages here): while ago, someone replied to me on my user page instead on my talk page. As I had no intention to create user page I didn't mind, but as I added link to my sub-page there I would like to move it to the talk page. Can it be done with move option or I need to copy it manually there? Thanks in advance. PajaBG (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! ;o) I'll tell you what tho, it IS easier to ask than to check help pages here - sometimes I feel as though I spend half my time just doing that! Because, most of those 'help' pages seem just to pontificate on the subject, forgetting to tell you what you actually need to know! Maybe the assumption is just that you're expected to know some of that stuff, e.g. about html markup... But... Oh, I could go on! Let's just say you're having a common experience...

Another 'yes', regarding the negative 'actions of the people here'. They can be incredibly, pointlessly rude and aggressive. My method is to keep my head down, and to 'avoid the obvious idiots'. If challenged over something, first be certain of your facts or, especially if discussing with someone here, don't forget that they could be right - and be ready to accept it if so. But, at the same time you'll be working out who's right for yourself - you, or them. So, it's ok in the long run... Just don't let it get to you!

Anyhow - your question - we all make mistakes so no big deal, but be sure, normally only you should be putting anything on your user page. Now, unless a page is locked in any way, pretty much every page in Wikipedia works the same way. Hopefully you've had some fun using your sandbox by now, and it sounds like you've at least had some little experience in editing pages already. So, you've got the basics of that. Also, remember that, within reason, you can do what you like with your own pages, especially your sandboxes (you can have lots or one). Just, no obviously 'bad' stuff that'll get you into trouble.

Now, the secret is, moving that text is easy. As I'm guessing you'll know by now, if you want to copy text from one page to another, you just select 'edit this page', copy the text, close the page (or go to 'article') without changing anything; then open the page you want to paste to, and the rest is obvious. To move it, just cut, instead of copy.

In this situation, I'd say that's all you have to do, though it might be a good idea to leave a message on that editor's talk page, politely pointing out the mistake. But it's often a good idea when doing something like that to leave behind something like "(moved [whatever] to [wherever] on [this date])" in its place, and introduce said stuff in its new home with something similar. Then, you can be reminded of what you've done, and it's obvious you're not trying to fool anyone else. That's a pretty foolproof method - and, to be honest, I've yet to try moving anything anyhow - mainly because it can involve a lot of work.

Also obvious, that only applies to pages like your own user page or talk page, unless it's being done by consensus. And, you wouldn't do that with text from an article. Just copy that sort of text to a sandbox, if you want to play with it, then paste your edit back later, with a helpful summary. A final tip - if you want help with something, create a new section on your talk page, setting out your problem, and type {{tl|helpme}} immediately below the section heading (that's t, l, |, helpme, if it looks unclear there). Someone should come along pretty soon with some advice, hopefully within hours. There are other ways, but this is the simplest. Any good?! Cheers.

Thanks again. I've been editing and adding data for two and a half years now (500-600 articles, mostly about geography, I don't have a counter) so I know lots of stuff :o) Just, since I am not much into technicalities (of any kind), wasn't sure whether to move that section of the page by the move option (will it move only that section, will it place it chronologically on the new page, etc) or manually, but I decided to the the latter. The guy who replied to me on the wrong page did it quite obviously by mistake and it was year and a half ago so I made no fuss about it, especially since I still don't plan to do anything else on my user's page or to add any more sub-pages. I just liked this one I created and since it was voted for deleton, I wanted to keep it. And sure, you can reply here, no problem. Take care PajaBG (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I have another question for you. Can you recommend me someone who is doing the copyediting of the articles, since English is not my mother tongue? I have managed to find few people by now but they seem to disappear even before I post something new here (though I did pause for a while) :o) In any case, thanks PajaBG (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to be slow responding - I don't know of anyone else, but if you still have anything that you want someone to look at, I'll see if I can give it a go. Nortonius (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's OK. Well, I don't have anything specific. I wish to find someone who would work with me and help me by copyediting my new articles since English is not my native language. Though, if you have time and will, you can check Tašmajdan which is the last one I re-wrote. Thanks anyway. PajaBG (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kvenland

Replied on my talk page. --Drieakko (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And more :) --Drieakko (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nortonius, I must stress my point that I view the article Kvenland as a highly biased. The article is nothing but commentary of primary sources, presenting un-referenced suggestions and guides on how the obscure text passages should be understood.--130.234.68.211 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear 130.234.68.211, unaware as I am of any published discussion specifically regarding Ohthere's account, I have to say that there's nothing wrong with a commentary on such a primary source, which, in the only Kvenland section with which I have been creatively involved, is very carefully consulted, explicated, and referenced. That is not OR, IMHO. Nor is there anything wrong with guides on "how the obscure text passages can be understood", if the reader chooses to consult a source themselves: "should" is very much your word - your personal interpretation.

I believe that the article in question had already been much discussed between editors, before I took on the section about Ohthere. I suggest you talk to Drieakko about the rest. In the meantime, if you are adding material from reliable, published sources - which it looks like you are doing - then, that's wonderful; but, if you are editing the article as a whole on the basis of doctrinaire notions of what is or is not acceptable, then I must ask you to desist. As I say, if you can supply information regarding Ohthere from a published source, go right ahead: if not, then you must allow what is already in the article to stand. Otherwise, you effectively rule a highly valuable source out of consideration. That would undoubtedly do the general reader a far greater disservice than might the aspects about which you appear to be concerned.

On that basis, I shall be removing the two "Fact" tags once more, from the discussion particularly of Ohthere's account, and I shall be moving the tag in the section "Summary" back to where I put it, since there is only one item in that list which is not a solid fact, on the basis of sources and modern, published scholarship. I should be extremely grateful if you would refrain from editing them again, unless it be in adding information from a published source. I would also like to remind you that the best way to approach this sort of issue is first to discuss it with any existing editors. Thank you. Nortonius (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view such interpretative guides might not be really neutral and they should be referenced even in the seemingly self-evident cases, but I comply with your wish to show good faith. There are serious problems in the text, but those fact tags are not really important after all, so maybe that was an over-reaction from my part. Thank you for your polite answer.--130.234.68.211 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, to say that "such interpretative guides might not be really neutral". However, if this concerns you, it simply means that, if you have your doubts, then you should raise them with other editors, before undertaking a wholesale review of an existing article; and, perhaps more importantly, you should compare what is already in the article with any referenced sources. As for making references to reliable, modern sources, again, I totally agree. I have to ask, however, how can this be done, if such sources do not exist? Personally, I find it hard to believe that they do not - simply, I have not found them. So, once again, do please feel free to use such sources should you find them. Thank you for your equally polite answer - and your gracious mention of a possible "over-reaction". I shall be going "offline" shortly, but you must feel free to contact me again, should you wish. Nortonius (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kvenland map

Dear Nortorius, I am not intending to start a revert war, bur I ask you to read my objections against the map in the Kvenland talk page before you restore the map. The map presents a very original and unreferenced location of Kvenland in SW Finland, and such are are not allowed. It seems like a cartographical manipulation to me.--130.234.5.136 (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry! I'm not about to go to war! But, as I said in my summary, it seems an over-reaction: the caption for the map (with which I have no connection, by the way) is quite open about its nature, and the text in the article seems to be well referenced; and, If you object to it so strongly, and in the absence of anything useful to add, as it seems, I think it would be better if you went away and found something more suitable to replace it with, than to remove an interesting element of the article. It does no good to follow rules when they are unhelpful, however specific they are. No offence, but, allow me to explain what I mean by saying that the word "doctrinaire" covers it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that Wikipedia rules must be followed in the most doctrinaire, uncreative, boring, slavish and banal way imaginable, and that is the way I am going to proceed. Among the rules there is a nice motto abouth verifibiality being more important than the truth! It is not as absurd as it might seem: Wikipedia has no resources to critically assess original hypotheses and theories on topics like this, so the strict observance of the verifibiality rule is, at the day´s end, the only way to maintain a degree of trustfulness in Wikipedia. In other environments I am open to debate or alternative hypotheses, but that is not the way Wikipedia works.--130.234.5.136 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and that's up to you - like I said, I'm not going to war over it. I just hope that you take the article forward: perhaps it would help you understand what I mean better if I express the view that, it's all very well to stick to the rules, but it was interesting information, and my main concern is that, while observing the rules, it is important that people go beyond simple policing, and make a useful contribution. So, I look forward to seeing what useful information you contribute, to replace the information you have deleted, and hope that you contribute it soon. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not able to edit any digital images right now, but personally I think I have made a very useful contribution by removing an unpublished original interpretation on the location of Kvenland. As it was achieved mainly by a clumsy and arbitrary manipulation of a map, it cannot have much scholarly merit (this is not an attack against you and your merits, as you are not the author of the map).

In other words, I believe I have deleted a piece of uninteresting disinformation. The loss of useful information of the Nordic geography in the process was regrettable collateral damage. Of course, it would be important to have a map in an article dealing a topic of historical geography, but I cannot conjure up such a thing immediately. Other, minor improvements are in store. I'm feeling like a self-important fool now, because I cannot imagine why anybody should get emotional because of a silly ancient country somewhere up in the silly boring old Northern Europe...but this is what I'm trained to do. Best regards,---130.234.5.136 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Understood about how you feel! But, couldn't you perhaps put in a few more refs for the textual element, and tweak that a little, as soon as possible? I do understand your objections, believe me - it's just that it really is an interesting element in the article, albeit a minor element in global history. Good luck with it, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Visigoths

Spanish and Portuguese are not specific to Spain and Portugal. In Spain and Portugal several Romance languages are spoken indigenously besides Spanish and Portuguese. There is no incongruity in speaking of the Romance languages of Spain and Portugal without specific mention of Spanish and Portuguese (which are Romance languages). "In Spain and Portugal, many Romance languages developed given names and surnames with Gothic etymologies." Srnec (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you just said is silly. The sentence as it stands is specific, starting, 'Of what remains of the Visigoths in Spain and Portugal...' But, the fact is that many Romance languages began and continue without any connection with the Iberian peninsula, other than a parallel use of Latin. So, it's a question of grammar, and logic. End of story. However, as I've already suggested to you, if you want to change the meaning of the sentence, go right ahead and change it. I am only concerned that the sentence must make sense. If the last sentence of your message is an intended re-write for the article, it almost makes sense - but, you still seem to have the perspective wrong. Logically, it means it's possible that Romanian "visited" Spain & Portugal, and, while it was there, it developed these names: that's totally incongruous. The current edit of the article covers this question of logic perfectly; but, if you want to broaden the scope of that sentence, feel free - I've already said that, twice - but, it must make sense. Please don't post on my talk page again, unless you have something sensible to say. Nortonius (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. The sentence is grammatically correct and factually accurate as I wrote it. Please read again: "Of what remains of the Visigoths in Spain and Portugal there are ... most notably a large number of Romance given names and surnames." This does mean something different from "Of what remains of the Visigoths in Spain and Portugal there are ... most notably a large number of Spanish and Portuguese given names and surnames." I was trying to change the meaning of the sentence to be broader and more inclusive, since there are other Romance languages thus affected. You don't seem to understand what logic is, since your sentence ("Of what remains of the Visigoths in Spain and Portugal there are ... most notably a large number of Spanish, Portuguese, and other Romance language given names and surnames") also leaves open the possibility that Romanian visited Spain and developed etymologically Gothic names there. The sentence always made sense. No version of the sentence tells the reader anything about whether the languages mentioned originated in Iberia or elsewhere. The reader must know that independently. "Many Romance languages" developed in Spain and Portugal, it is up to the reader to know which ones, just as it is up to the reader to know what the "other Romance languages" are, that Spanish and Portuguese are Romance languages, and that Spanish and Portuguese originated as distinct languages in Spain and Portugal (not respectively, since Portuguese really originates in Galicia, today in Spain). None of the sentences tells us any of this. You are taking "logical" to mean "runs smoothly through my mind" or something like that, not "is entailed by premises". Srnec (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you don't get it now, I can't explain it to you. But, perhaps I should apologise for my tone - I confess that you didn't catch me at my most patient - anyway, I'm not going to get into a fight with you over it, do as you will. Nortonius (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bookland

Hello Nortonius, your changes are all to the good, and clearly your experience and information is more recent and more extensive than my own (and am glad to see more things like the charters on line - I took a quick tour). Well done (perhaps with more to come) and Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Often when I dive in and do that sort of edit it gets reverted and challenged, usually for no good reason, so it's appreciated. I'll edit further if anything else occurs to me, but for me something like "bookland" comes under a heading of "general knowledge", rather than it being a speciality. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Back

Hi,

Just a quick note to say, I'm back on Wikipedia. I see you haven't been here for a while, but if you do pop on, please drop me a note. Cheers! --  Chzz  ►  17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Stenton‎

Thanks for finding that ref, I am happy that addresses the issue of the tag.

Just thourght I would let you know that you marked the edit as "minor" - I think you may not understand what a WP minor edit is. To help you may want to take a look at WP:MINOR, taken from the page :

• Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable.
• Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - I suppose I felt my edit only changed the article superficially and indisputably, but then maybe that was just my POV, as I thought the article already explained why he's noted - obviously you didn't! Glad you're happy with the refs. Nortonius (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving The Man Who Sold the World...

Per the discussion on the talk page for The Man Who Sold the World (album) headed "Redirection", I thought I'd have a go at swapping the pages around. I read up on what I had to do, including moving over re-directs, and thought I'd be ok. I successfully moved the article for the song "The Man Who Sold the World" to "The Man Who Sold the World (song)", and then tried to move the article for the album currently at "The Man Who Sold the World (album) to "The Man Who Sold the World", but failed, getting an error message along the lines that "this page already exists". Yes, it does, as a redirect - and I did read about moving over a redirect. Now I just feel stuck... Or maybe I don't need to change anything else, except for redirects? Thanks.

Think I've done the redirects now...?

I'm trying to fix it. I think it's because Talk:The Man Who Sold the World still redirects to the talk page of the song, but we'll see. Fingers crossed this works. sonia^♫♪ 08:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yay, thanks - as you can imagine, never having done this before, I'm a bit freaked at the potential for disaster! Cheers.

(By the way, sign your posts with ~~~~, please.) It's still doing the same for me- I think maybe you're not allowed to move over a redirect that has a longer history. So what I'm going to do now is tag the redirects for deletion so that the page can be moved. Slightly messier, but it'll work. sonia^♫♪ 08:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, for some reason today I didn't think I had to sign on my own talk page...though I've done it often enough before!) I did check redirect edit histories, thought I was going for one with only the one edit - must've got mixed up with the varied capitalisations, or something! Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for that- from the rest of your history, I should have known you didn't need reminding. I don't really know very much about the intricacies of moves- but I"ve done one of these big move-fests before, and it did involve two moves and one delete in between, so I guess this will be the same. If it turns out it was unnecessary, you're more than welcome to {{trout}} me. Cheers, sonia^♫♪ 09:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry - right now, I feel like the one who needs trouting! Yes, it does seem to be turning out to be a "move-fest" - sorry...! Nortonius (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's all done now- happy editing and my talk page is always open if you need a hand :) sonia^♫♪ 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, fantastic! I expect you've seen my thanks on your talk page by now, you're very kind! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Any table-formatting experts out there?

I'd like to adjust the width of columns in the table at Abbot of Peterborough, particularly so that entries in the "Dates" column aren't scrunched, but, having had a look at Help:Table, I can't see how on earth the present widths were formatted in the first place! Or maybe I'm just being dim... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now there is no width set for any column in Abbot of Peterborough, so it is set automatically to be wide enough to display all the text. To increase the width of one column, add a width parameter before the column name, like this:

== Abbots ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! width="225" | Dates
! Works
! Notes
|-
|Example name
|Example dates
|Example works
|Example notes
|}

which creates:

Name	Dates	Works	Notes
Example name	Example dates	Example works	Example notes

Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 14:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Simple when you know how - brilliant, I'll have a tinker, thank you very much indeed. Nortonius (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 18:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Statue linking

Thank my friend, that was a very kind suggestion. At the moment if you click Salisbury Cathedral it links to the statues page, but do know what? I think I like your idea better, it is more direct and meaningful. Right, must go, got a lot of re-editing to do;-)) best. Richard Avery (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to keep the niche in front because I think the reader may have a tendency to stop at . . .Cathedral. cheers Richard Avery (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gelderland/Niobe

I just moved article "HNLMS de Gelderland" to HNLMS Gelderland per the article's talk page, and fixed double redirects - only when I came to do the latter, I noticed that the redirect "German anti-aircraft cruiser Niobe" has a talk page "Talk:German anti-aircraft cruiser Niobe", which seems to have been left behind by someone else's earlier edit of that article, for which the summary was "merge and redirect". If you follow me. At which point, I haven't a clue what to do! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Deleted. If that's not what you wanted, please repost.  ℳono  18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've deleted it. If it happens again, you could tag it {{db-g6}} "non-controversial technical deletion" - the admin who looked at it could see what has happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both! Only, I can't help thinking it should've been merged with Talk:HNLMS Gelderland, and then deleted, as it had assessment templates and many categories which the new talk page doesn't (nor did it before I moved it) - I had thought of copy/pasting, but had a feeling that would be deprecated, and anyway might introduce further complications. What do you think? And, while I'm at it, I'm wondering if a redirect "Niobe (German anti-aircraft cruiser)" wouldn't be more useful, maybe I'll create it...? Sorry if I'm being a pest, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've merged it in, and cleared the ratings (then someone in the Project will rate it)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if you move a page, you should tick the box for "Move associated talk page". Then it will come across complete with its history, and the old talk page will be left as a redirect which you can tag db-g6. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - I did that in my move, and, more for the record than anything else, if you read from the beginning of the topic above, you'll see I was talking about a historical issue, which I identified, in which someone else had left a talk page attached to a redirect, and that this was not directly related to the move I made! But, thanks for the help, and especially for putting the issue to bed. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, I was confusing the two. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's a confusing business! Thanks again. :-) Nortonius (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alienated from the see of Ely

I saw your edits to Hugh Candidus. Thank you. On another matter, I posed a question at the humanities help desk as "... Alienated from... " in 17th century English history which was answered. I am still a little stuck though. Perhaps you can help. Was it the Act of Supremacy 1558 which gave Elizabeth the power to recieve the profits of a see during its vacancy? No worries if you don't have the time or an inclination to answer. It is only worth half a sentence to one or two of my articles anyway. I just like to get things right --Senra (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)the

Hi, no problem, there was a time when I pretty much knew Hugh Candidus and his history of Peterborough Abbey backwards - glad you don't have a problem with what I've done anyway, and hopefully in the next day or several I'll dig out my old files and see what else I can do with the article...

About monarchs taking ecclesiastical profits during vacancies, and even going so far as to alienate ecclesiastical property at such times, I'd have to do extra digging to point you to an actual source, but e.g. at Peterborough in the 12th century the abbey's profits were merrily sucked up by Henry I during the vacancy of 1125-7, and the monks themselves had seen Abbot Turold's settling of knights on abbey estates as alienation, soon after 1066; but similar things went on before 1066, including alienation. Re Elizabeth I specifically, this is way after my time (if you see what I mean), but, whatever the Act of Supremacy of 1558 set out to do, you can be sure Elizabeth's dad, H VIII, made no bones about what to do with ecclesiastical profits during vacancies: as is said at Act of Supremacy 1558, among other things "The Act revived 10 acts which Mary had reverted", and "replaced the original Act of Supremacy [of] 1534". The Google Books result you were pointed to gives an example of the impact of this being codified by Elizabeth, with compensation to the Church, and speaks of this as "unprecedented and enormous power" for Elizabeth, but in practice it was nothing new — if anything, I'd think it was the compensation to the Church that was new, or, at least, a relatively recent development; but, my shorter answer would be, no, English monarchs had been taking profits of ecclesiastical vacancies and alienating ecclesiastical property for centuries before Elizabeth, and I expect other European monarchs were doing the same — I just don't have a ref to hand! Hope that helps a bit...! Nortonius (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Candidus

The above helps a lot. Thank you for taking the time. Just for the record, Hugh is very new to me; the article is almost just a wikified copy of Hugh. I stumbled on him whilst trying to clean up the prose in Aldreth (more acurately, the flowery prose describing two battles supposedly fought there between Hereward and William), which frankly needs more work. Perhaps you would consider cleaning it up yourself or collaboration at least? I actually stopped work on it when I realised I was getting confused with sources --Senra (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, and again, no problem. Yes, I did spot the "Attribution" for Hugh's article, and there's much more recent stuff, some of which you've already found. I'll try to work it in, and clean the article up some more.

I had a look at Aldreth, and made a couple of tiny changes already. Actually I think the best approach with the battles would be to reduce mention of them in that article to the bare minimum, and leave it to Hereward the Wake to make more of them — so, don't get bogged down with the flowery prose! I'll try to have a go at Aldreth soon-ish, if you don't beat me to it.

I know what you mean about getting "confused with sources", and my definite preference for how to deal with the various titles for different versions of the doings of H the W would be to go with whatever title or description is given in recent academic publications: you found that Michael Lapidge, Malcolm Godden and Simon Keynes used accepted the use of "Gesta Herewardi" in Anglo-Saxon England 28, 1999, and you really won't find a better set of authorities than that! Then, if you have to refer to individual versions, write something like "X's version of the "Gesta Herewardi"..." — "Gesta Herewardi" simply means "(the) deeds of Hereward", so really it's a "catch-all" description anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! You are getting around (Talk:Gesta Herewardi) and finding some of the same issues I found. As I say, I stopped work on Aldreth trying to seek more clarity of sources. For example, my as yet still unanswered question "Gesta Herwardi or De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis" here and my visit to the library armed with some Anglo-Saxon and Hereward books. I had previously come across The Bourne Archive and was starting to trust it when I noticed the author, R.J.PENHEY, seems to have edited wikipedia a lot as RJPe (talk · contribs) (without inline references). So, basically, I stopped editing in these spaces, hoping I had not done too much damage and was awaiting an answer to the reference desk query before proceeding. From memory, I think I wikified Hugh Candidus in the Gesta Herewardi article; added references and a geology section to Aldreth and created Hugh Candidus followed by wikifying Hugh in other articles as listed under "Hugh Candidus" here. I may have forgotten something else, not sure. Whatever I touch I try to ensure is well referenced. I will leave this area to your obvious more detailed knowledge (I would ask you to answer my reference desk question if only for historical reasons so that I can point another editor to it in future). Finally, just for completeness, if we use the rule "follow latest sources" should we be following Fairweather? I am so confused with all this :) --Senra (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha - yes, one thing leads to another! Pressed for time now, will respond/react more fully later - in the meantime, don't worry! :-) Nortonius (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK - I've posted a response at the Reference desk, as you sensibly asked. You never know, it might even wake someone else up! About Fairweather, I've commented on that at the Reference desk — bear in mind, it's not a rule, and I'd avoid thinking in terms of the "latest sources", but rather think in terms of "current consensus"; and, with this sort of topic, by "consensus" I mean, among specialists, like Lapidge, Godden and Keynes.

About the Bourne Archive, no offence to R.J. Penhey, but frankly it looks to be little more reliable than a blog, when Penhey expresses opinions; so, I certainly wouldn't link it from a Wikipedia article, in any shape or form, even in referencing a pre-existing, independent work which is available from the site. The trouble is, at first glance, it looks like everything there is a verifiable source, whereas, to be fair to Penhey, s/he does sort of point out that this isn't the case, under the heading "What’s it all about?" — though you may have to read that very carefully, or even between the lines, to spot it there — but it is clearer elsewhere, for example on the page for the "De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis", where all references to Hugh Candidus are in footnotes explicitly written by "RJP". So, if the Bourne Archive is the only online source for something, then by all means look at it for personal guidance, but be aware of the pitfalls, and frankly (that word again!), if you need a reference for WP, the only thing to do is look up whatever you want in the library instead!

What I meant by "don't worry" is that you look to me anyway, FWIW, to be trying to do it right, as you say, and remember there's nothing you've done that can't be undone, and that there is no deadline! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the above: 'all references to Hugh Candidus are in footnotes explicitly written by "RJP".' — This is not so. I was pointed in Hugh's direction by Miller's statement in his preface. The reliability of this is discussed in footnote 2. Miller may be wrong but as anyone who has attempted to deal with Hereward's story will have noticed, incontrovertible evidence is hard to come by. Hugh's authorship of the Latin version is, in my opinion, the best-supported hypothesis we have. :)(RJPe (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I stand corrected, and, in fact, gobsmacked, that someone could have got that into print — why on Earth Miller wrote that, I have no idea! So, well spotted! I suppose I skipped reading that preface because I've covered this sort of ground many years ago, and would have (arrogantly?!) assumed that, if he had anything significant to contribute, I'd have it ferreted away somewhere - in which case, my bad! But, read on!

About Miller/Sweeting, I expect you've seen something I was looking at very late last night, which is photographs of the manuscript on which Sweeting's text is based, here. You'll see that the text doesn't begin with a title as such, but a sentence which reads "(Here) begins the preface of a certain little work about the deeds of Hereward the famous knight". The author has used the form "Herward(us)", but for this I'd just point you to what I said at the Reference desk, about "the use of "Æðelþryð" vs. "Audrey"": bear in mind, this manuscript was written long after the event by an Anglo-Norman, and even Anglo-Saxons gave themselves plenty of latitude in how to spell personal names. Anyway, there are two points about this sentence: later "titles" for the work have simply lifted some or all of the words "de gestis Herwardi incliti militis" from this sentence, and some have added words of their own, and so have no special authority - for example, Miller/Sweeting's "title" introduces the word "Saxonis" ("the Saxon"), which isn't in that sentence; and, there's no mention here of Hugh Candidus. I spent six weeks looking at this manuscript, many years ago, and as far as this is concerned it's unfortunate that I wasn't researching H the W, because I made reams of precise transcriptions from it, and I still have them! So, I can't personally swear that HC isn't mentioned further on in the text - but I can guarantee that, if he is, there wouldn't still be doubt over the text's authorship, more than 100 years after Miller and Sweeting.

About RJP, though, my point remains the same, which is that, at De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis, all discussed references to Hugh Candidus are in footnotes explicitly written by "RJP". Miller doesn't "discuss" the possibility that HC wrote "Gesta Herewardis", he states it — he's done what I did earlier, which is to make (or accept from an earlier writer) a rash assumption! RJP then uses references s/he has found as the basis to then assign authorship of a version of "Gesta Herewardi" to HC, almost as a form of shorthand(!), at footnote 2, here: "For convenience, I shall refer to the author as Hugh or Leofric depending on which version is under consideration." RJP then goes on to speak of HC as the author of the "Gesta" as though it were a given, e.g. at "[RJP’s notes]", here. So, it's fair to say that RJP has considered the authorship question more than Miller did, but ultimately what s/he has written is self-published, not properly researched, and, though I haven't read through the whole thing, is already looking to me like a minefield. Hope that helps! :-) Nortonius (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

More to come but in the meantime, we have gone off-topic. May I respectfully suggest this thread be re-factored to reflect we are discussing Hugh Candidus? Perhaps a new heading below Nortonius reply of 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)? --Senra (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) No problem - yes, the topic has drifted, but I wouldn't worry about protocol overmuch, as this is an exchange between you and me - for future reference though it's not a bad idea, so I've done as you suggest, which I think is spot on, with a subheading. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My recent edits to Aldreth, here are my attempt to address our joint concerns express above as "I'll try to have a go at Aldreth soon-ish, if you don't beat me to it". I accept what you say above re The Bourne Archive but in my defense, I do not have a copy of Miller/Sweeting to hand. I did do a quick comparison between Googel Books:De gestis Herwardi Saxonis and that contained within The Bourne Archive starting here. The Bourne copy was more accessible to me than the Google copy. Feel free to re-edit --Senra (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)