User talk:Candle-ends

Welcome!

Hello, Candle-ends, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining our community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. First thing: be bold! Editors are always happy to correct or revert mistakes and discuss changes with which they disagree. Here are some links you might find useful:

And for more detailed information:

Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

You can also check out the community portal, which has lots of ideas on how you can help Wikipedia.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Dunadd Boar Vandalism Question

I had a look through the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Proceedings (uses cookies, so you'll just need to click "I accept" to access the indexes and articles), and there are a couple of papers in the 30s that discuss the "Pictish Boar", and the one in the 1939-1940 volume has a good picture and a little discussion of it. They did not tut at Victorian vandalism, which you might well expect them to do were the rumour true. I didn't check the C19th indexes to see if there were any drawings (photos are a bit unlikely, but not impossible) from that period. Good luck ! HTH. Angus McLellan 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An update: I looked at the Lane & Campbell Dunadd book. It mentions (p. 18) that, next to the boar (which is taken to be authentic), there's a graffiti carving of a man with a pipe (or horn) with KING FERGUS above it, which is taken to be modern. This could be what was meant. Regards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III; British or English?

Just out of curiousity, why the change to 'English monarchs' category? Candle-ends 17:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Monarchs used to include monarchs from the Kingdom of England but it was decided that it was inappropriate to include English monarchs but not Scottish or Irish, so the monarchs who only ruled over England were moved to there own template. Philip Stevens 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be 'only ruled over England and Wales'? And I think Ireland was technically (if insecurely) in English hands at that time, too. Candle-ends 19:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During the Kingdom of England Wales was classed as part of England and to some extent still is. Those who were also monarchs of Ireland are indicated with a ‡. Philip Stevens 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to the activities of the anon (who as you'll see from the history of the article has been around for a while now. I "watch" this article, but it's still not always easy to spot changes, as some contributors try to cover their tracks by making lots of minor edits, knowing that only the last one shows up on the watchlist. Deb 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]