User talk:Ron B. Thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Ron B. Thomson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PIMS

Right, sorry! I didn't realize I deleted the names as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Street (TTC)

Hi, I notice that when you merged information from these articles that you also blanked the pages. Please do not do this during an AfD; content should remain visible in articles until the conclusion of the AfD process since blanking the pages makes it harder for the articles to be evaluated and some editors may not realise that the pages have been blanked. In article merging it is common practice for pages to be redirected. However, that is a separate process. TerriersFan (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard de Fournival

Hello Dr. Thomson: I linked the name using the French form; an article had already been written back in 2006. Thanks!

If you ever need any research help, please let me know. I work at the Library of Congress, where we have a large collection of things mediaeval; and I have contacts at Catholic University of America (Frank Mantello, whom you might know...); ave valeque! Peter --FeanorStar7 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking talk page

Hi, I notice that you are regularly blanking your talk page. Though permissible, it is not recommended since it makes it harder for other editors to follow discussion threads. A better approach is to periodic archive the page - see WP:Archive. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medeshamstede

Hi,

I see that you are a member of the Wikiproject: Middle ages, and that you are an active editor.

I have recently helped a little with the article on Medeshamstede, with a non-expert peer review.

I think this article should be rated 'B' class, or at the very least 'Start' class, following the considerable work put into improving it, chielfy by user:Nortonius.

I would assess it myself, but lacking any expertise in the subject area, I feel that would be inappropriate. Therefore, if you can spare the time, I would very much appreciate your assessing it and rating it (as B or Start).

The work is still in progress; after a time, it should be worthy of a GA review.

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To Ron B. Thompson: thanks for the review and revision of the article - I'll have a closer look at it, and your comments, later. Something I did spot though is a point where I think the sense has been changed, but don't worry I'll sort that out at some point today. Also, I've had thoughts about a revamp for the whole structure, so the introduction of that new section was a very welcome thought: at the time of writing, you can look at an outline for a future structure here, if you like. Certainly the intro needed and still needs attention! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I said elsewhere, apologies for the wet "Thompson" - a slip of the digit! I know how annoying that kind of mistake can be. I've had a closer look at your revision - if I may, I'll list some comments here:

• "name given to Peterborough": trouble is, it wasn't Peterborough until after the 10th century refoundation, so logically no.
• "something" is redundant, but Chrisieboy David Underdown's taken that out.
• I would avoid using parentheses and hyphens in the main article, wherever possible, so I'll be taking those out - but thanks for the commas in that Durobrivae/Castor para, I must've missed those! I now see that the commas were removed in your revision.
• ""Gyrwas", to whom he refers": it's the word Hugh Candidus is describing, not the people, so I'll be changing that back.
• That bit about Sexwulf possibly being an East Anglian prince: here the sense really is changed, as that possibility does not derive from Hugh Candidus. See Sexwulf.
• "bishop" vs. "Bishop": I think that one could be argued. It is a title, as Chrisieboy has pointed out, but Sexwulf was "a bishop": I think it was intended to be understood as "consecrated as bishop of Mercia", where you would have a lower case "b"; but I really don't mind.
• "chronology of [the] kings": I don't see the need for "the" in that, it seems unnecessarily repetitious to me...?
• "in varying degrees": um... Again, I don't see how "in" is an improvement over "to"...? It's normal to speak of things being done "to a high degree", rather than "in a high degree".
• "Mercian royalty": another question of logic, and sense, I think. Unfortunately for the phrase "Mercian royalty", not all of the saints that might have been Mercian royalty necessarily were - I confess that I've struggled to word that, do feel free to have another stab at it, preserving that sense!
• Guthlac: a problem here is, we now have "and" twice in the same sentence. I might just change it back...
• Pega: similarly, we now have the sense "who" twice in the same sentence...

I have similar thoughts on much, but not all, of the remainder. I would also stand by the prior use of things like colons and semicolons as correct. Sorry the list is so long, but I thought it was the least I could do, in view of the detailed attention you have paid to the article. But, bearing that in mind, could I ask that you suggest such changes on the article's talk page in future, as I'll be undoing a lot of your changes? No offence, but this will take some time, and I think a lot of it would have been proper material for prior discussion. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Science WikiProject

Ron,

Nice to see you on Wikipedia; it's a useful place for us retired academics to present our insights to a broader audience. I see that most of your edits have not been in your professional field, but in case you want to get involved, you might want to join the Wikiproject dealing with the History of Science.

Another historian of medieval science would be most welcome to help retain some balance on articles. As you may have noticed, there is a current tendency for some editors to go overboard in trying to compensate for the perceived neglect of Islamic science. That's a politically sensitive, and time consuming project and I would understand if you don't want to get into that area; I've somewhat backed off the more general articles myself.

Anyway, glad that you're involved. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve: I noticed you lurking about, and I noticed the long involved discussion about "Science in the Middle Ages" in various articles, especially about the planting of the dates of European history onto other cultures where such a division is not valid. For now I would stay out of this.

I have been cleaning up a variety of items which have to do with other interests (my brother-in-law on a Canadian railway; the articles relating to my winter home in the Algarve; and the Church of St. Roch in Lisbon where my new English Guide Book is about to appear. This latter has led me into cleaning up 16th-century Portuguese portrait art! I hope to get back soon to HofS. Richard de Fournival is on my list to look at, as well as Masha'allah and astrolabes. Cheers. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)