Thank you today forCyfeilliog, "a bishop in south-east Wales in the time of Alfred the Great. He is best known for having been captured by the Vikings and ransomed by Alfred's son Edward the Elder for the large amount of forty pounds of silver."! - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today, between many who just died,Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good foran unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how could he have been overlooked? that makes no sense: he was the second one in line of succession and, at the end of the day, he succeeded his father; is there any act, deed or charter, in which the 2nd, 4th & 5th sons are named and the 3rd one is expressly omitted?Jan Hejkrlík (talk)19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is a provision in Æthelwulf's will, as recorded in the premable to Alfred's will. We have to go by that whether or not you think it makes sense.Dudley Miles (talk)19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I plan to nominateMother Solomon for FAC soon. She was a Native American woman forced into Kansas by the Indian Removal Act. Eventually though, she resettled in Ohio and lived out as a nanny and cultural activist. You were listed onWP:FAM, and I wondered if you would be interested in helping with preparation. If you aren't, no worries!Averageuntitleduser (talk)17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.Justlettersandnumbers (talk)19:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today forEdward the Martyr, about "the latest of my nominations of Anglo-Saxon kings. Edward was regarded as a saint in his own time because the murder of a king was considered an unforgivable crime, and his feast day is still listed today by the Church of England, but he could not be more unworthy of the designation. Historians regard him as "an obnoxious teenager who showed no evidence of sanctity or kingly attributes"."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent reverts at this article.
Please seeWP:NAMB:"It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." This is a widely-accepted editing guideline. Why do you think an exception should be made in this case?162 etc. (talk)21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question remains: Why do you think an exception should be made in this case? There is no realistic scenario where somebody seeking the Hamilton neighbourhood would arrive at theAinslie Wood, London article.162 etc. (talk)22:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there is. It is very easy to click on Ainslie Wood without noticing that you are clicking on the wrong one. I have made similar mistakes many times.Dudley Miles (talk)22:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm reacting to your reverse at Dendrochronology article. I have that picture with crossdating principle from the author, I even did a translation of it. It's not violated copyright, but if OTRS is needed, I can arrange it.
The picture is unhelpful. The pictures at the top seem random. Buildings and pile-dweliings could be transposed and fossilisation is not relevant to dendrochronolosgy. Below that the samples line is a set of shapes which tell us nothing. Then there is "waney edge", a term which is not used in the article and is not explained. The overlap presumably is of dates, but with no explanation of what or of specific dates. Then there are two sets of identical zigzags with unexplained different colours. Finally there is the number of samples, which appears to show a peak at the end of the pre-historical period, which cannot be correct. The picture no doubt was useful in the book which explained it, but it is of no use to readers of the article.Dudley Miles (talk)10:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus. Do you even understand the topic? Are you really analysing if it's correctly showing some data? It's an illustration of how crossdating in dendrochronology works and also how the reference is made.
The top pictures illustrate the source of data. We can use sub-fossil tree trunks, old constructions and other more recent object like wooden desks under painting. That's how for example chronology for oak was made, spanning sever millenia.
Waney edge is maybe not common term, I'm not native english speaker, but that could be edited in the SVG file.
The overlap is just overlap of row of similar tree-ring growth. Nothing else. No need for data sice is actually relative chronology.
Zig-zag lines are tree-growth widths of each sample, so with different colors. The black line is statistically calculated tree-ring growth reference. And why is number of samples from pre-historic times incorrect? Archeologists often have the piles dendrochronologically dated. And since there are many findings, many piles and many datings, why it doesn't make sense?
So actually this picture is quite simple and good fro illustrating the method of dating, relative chronology and building a reference. Apparently it just needs more description - which is not a reason to delete it.Dominikmatus (talk)13:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that a diagram is going to help someone who does not understand crossdating. The article currently uses the term without explanation in the history section and not at all in the methods section I think the term needs to be explained in words on first use and it would be very helpful if you would add the explanatkon. I am not sure where it should go and you would need to think about that.Dudley Miles (talk)23:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
