User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 6

Please...

If you can ... Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1 would be greatly helped if you'd dig into the subject matter and find any and all flaws. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Nice article, btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we've got most of your comments... care to revisit? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(Nagging a bit) Chance you could revisit? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - done, couple of last comments, but all looking good. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stansted Mountfitchet Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bailey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Henry I of England ACR

G'day, Hchc2009, there still appear to be a few comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry I of England that haven't yet been responded to. As the review has now been open two months, I am keen to close it this weekend (while I have the time). As you appear to be very close to achieving the level of support required for promotion, could you please return to the review and respond to the remaining comments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's up to date now... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a reply at...

Talk:Castles_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:R#PLA.

Please familiarize yourself with WP:R#PLA and then restore my edit (boldfaced "adulterine castles") to the Castles in Great Britain and Ireland#The Anarchy article section. You may wish to consider further comments that have been added to the article talk page as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You! :  }

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Thanks for expanding Adulterine castle from a redirect to an article page. Doing so quite fully addresses— and then some —my concerns about user accessibility. And earns you a side of {{chips}} to accompany your serving of {{trout}}.

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

The 'fish slap' itself is for helping to make a simple routine font edit into an extensive ordea... err... adventure. With a little extra wrist for lack of (expressed) remorse. However, once again, the new article looks to be off to a great start so enjoy your 'chips'. Hope I didn't add too much vinegar. ;-)

Upon reflection, 'silver linings' abound as the wiki has grown beyond either of our initial intentions. A boldfaced redirect term has grown into a free standing article and an oversight in the WP:MOS (specifically in MOS:BOLDFACE) has been corrected to account for WP:Redirect's WP:R#PLA section. A peculiar form of team work, perhaps, but I must admit it's also been an effective one. :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What a huge fish! :) Cheers - and thanks for offer of help on the image side, v. gratefully received. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Anarchy for GA

Hi Hchc2009, I saw you're now the primary contributor to the article on The Anarchy. It looks really good and I'm certain it would pass GA now. It wouldn't take much to pass FA at this point either. If you want to nominate it, I'd be happy to review - just leave a note on my talk page to let me know if you do decide to nominate it. Regards, Lemurbaby (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! I've got a review I've promised to do at GA, but when I've done that I'll nominate it and drop you a note. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adulterine castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to King Stephen

Richard I of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Denier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1

I think I got your last ones. If you could possibly strike or move to the talk page the ones you think are dealt with? (And it goes without saying I'd love a support ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All done - and a support is in the bag, nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Finnikin of the Rock

Please join the conversation here regarding your recent edit of Mont Saint-Michel. Thanks.Nodar95 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Canterbury city walls

Super job! I think it has FA potential.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your superb work on Canterbury city walls. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - v. much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peasants' Revolt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Sandwich

Thanks for your kind words about the Battle of Sandwich (1217). Djmaschek (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

You may not have noticed, but I've reviewed your article on John Crichton-Stuart, 2nd Marquess of Bute. I'd also like for you to go back and look at the changes I've made in HMS Warrior in response to your comments. I'd particularly appreciate it if you could look through Ranger Steve's comments and see if you agree with some or all of his comments. I'm most interested in your opinion on the background/introductory section that I've added and if I really need to spell out all of the things that Brown didn't mention in his comment. You didn't say anything about that earlier and I don't think that it's needful, but I'd like a second opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been travelling with work - yep, will comment on the Warrior and make the changes you've proposed on the Bute review. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Henry I

Greatly pleased to see your excellent work on Henry I recognised and promoted to FA. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - and thanks for your work on the reviewing! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian

Were ready when you are! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we are ready for your review ;) Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the tipper. Have added the GA criteria list and will work through it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hchc,

Thank you for your time in the evaluation. It is greatly appreciated. I had a few questions...

What do you mean expand out the acronym form of POW exactly? Should it be P.O.W.? Prisoner of War? And must it be the same for all "POWs" in the article?

Also, I think its fine to leave that his cousin was Ernest Dervishian since I added it in the section where his family is described. Dervishian's life, who was similar to Juskalian's, seems quite relevant to me. They were personally very close to eachother as the excerpts of various sources states. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On POW, yep, I think its important to explain acronyms on the first use in the main text, e.g. "The prisoners of war (POWs) were sent to..." Thereafter, you've established the acronym and can just continue with "POW" (or POWs).

On his cousin, I'm still not personally convinced - but that's definitely *not* a GA requirement, more a matter of my own taste, so please feel free to keep it in! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding Hchc. I believe I have completed all your suggestions. I have placed "(POW)" in the lede where the "prisoner of war" term is first introduced. Looking forward to hear your opinion. Thanks once again. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fixed those issues. Feel free to double check. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Finished. However, I have added a new section about his Post Vietnam days (Should the section be titled "Post Vietnam War"?). You might want to check it out. Also, I added another sentence to the retirement section. You can double check that as well. Thanks once again for your time and diligence. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!

I was thrilled to see Henry I made it all the way to FA in so short a time. Good work as always! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - a lot of effort from across the community went into it, and it look really great now. :) Hchc2009 (talk)

Cwmsymlog

In a few days I will add more information (sources, etc.). The article is still under constructionRomeinsekeizer (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I thought your wife's sketch was particularly nice, by the way. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (diolch) for the larger illustration and thank you for the nice compliment for my wife. I added the sources (chapels, mining, archaeology, place-names, etc.). I know the place very well and visited it five times (the sixth time is once coming). I am an archaeologist and worked with Richard Feachem, who lived in the vicinityRomeinsekeizer (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We could definitely do with more archaeologists on the wiki! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed a lot. It is now conform the other articles with references, etc. Please check whether I did it the right way.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look. The formatting looks fine to me. If I were giving some advice, I'd expand the details slightly. For example, "W.F. Grimes: The prehistory of Wales (2nd edn. 1951)" - I'd probably advise giving the page number (or range) that the information came from, which would make it easier for anyone looking it up later. I'd also recommend giving the publisher and location. For example, you could have "The Prehistory of Wales. W. F. Grimes. National Museum of Wales: Cardiff (1951). 2nd edition. Pages 22-23." - or however you fancied formatting it. As the first author of the article, the choice of formatting is yours! :) The page number(s) will really help anyone coming to it later on though. There are some templates for referencing you can use if you fancy it, but they're not compulsory; if you like, have a look at Henry I of England as an example of one. Just shout if I can help at all on anything else. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will certainly add: publisher, place, etc. The pages create partly a problem, because I am in Holland and not in the UK, where I used the books. I only go to Wales staying in Cwmsymlog. I will try on the Royal Library in The Hague. Perhaps the books are there too. But I doubt it. There is no library in Cwmsymlog, even no shop. I have two of the books at home and will of course than add the pages. I will see what I can do! I will too look in my paperwork. Thank you for your offer to help me.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeinsekeizer (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

On the Royal Library I found one book more than the two I own. My two books are also in the library. I will look in my books for details concerning the books.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

After some searching I found all the necessary pagesRomeinsekeizer (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! I've made a minor formatting change, but they look good. I know the problem of not being able to find a book you've used; I'm always mislaying the one I need somewhere in my (somewhat untidy) house, and spend ages grouchily looking for them... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I wrote 33 articles, sometimes partly, for wikipedia. One is about major William H. Mounsey. (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Romeinsekeizer (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Hchc...it was a pleasure working with you. This is my first GA and you gave me a very good impression of process. I greatly appreciated your openness and understanding. Hope to work with you in the future again! Keep on editing baby! Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, great working with you! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lobsterthermidor

I feel a bit foolish to say that I've un-retired, I'll see how I get on for a while longer, but thanks very much indeed for your kind comment. It wasn't a fishing exercise. It reminds me a bit of when at the age of 8 my parents got my new school starting dates wrong, and having accepted a leavers-book I reappeared at the old school the next term, somewhat red-faced. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

No problem - good to have you back! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Manor of Molland etc

Hi. Sorry for the panicky message at Manor of Molland, but I was worried that you were about to embark on cleaning up all those tags I put on the article. As you can see from the latest talk page message there, I intend to use this article as evidence for the removal from article space of some of Lobsterthermidor's (Lt's) work. It's unfortunate, but I don't see any other way, apart from spending the next year or so working solely on his articles – he was pretty prolific!

As someone who has done a lot of work on history-based articles, I'd greatly appreciate your opinions. For instance, it appears to me that Lt's contributions were noticeably different from the accepted norm (not just in the formatting) – would you agree with that? Do other articles rely almost entirely on such ancient sources? Any comments you have (even, no especially, unfavourable ones) would be most welcome. Best,  —SMALLJIM  16:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Some thoughts from me:

• There's probably a place for "Manor of X" kind of articles. The theme is a little old-fashioned, and super-ceded in a number of ways, but essentially still legitimate. I personally think that the Victoria County Historians were the Wikipedians of their day! :) Per se, then, forming a "Manor of X" article from individual sub-sources isn't a problem from my perspective - but you do have to be very careful in the process, which Lobster wasn't.
• As a result there's a serious problem with the sourcing of many of these articles, varying between the use of:

• OK sources, e.g. Hoskins, W.G., A New Survey of England: Devon, London, 1959;
• Slightly dated sources, e.g. "Rogers, W.H. Hamilton, The Antient Sepulchral Effigies and Monumental and Memorial Sculpture of Devon, Exeter, 1877"; these are no longer high-quality historical sources, as research, theories and sources have moved on, but are probably fit for the purpose they're being used for here;
• Primary sources, inadvertently disguised as secondary sources, e.g. "published as charter no.243, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, Oxford, 1950, p.177", and probably constituting OR;
• Blatantly primary sources, almost certainly OR, e.g. "North Devon Record Office 50/11/27/5 16 May 1748 21 George II".

• Add to that the slightly chaotic quality of the sourcing (with a Lobster citation, typically you can't be sure it was accurate), and it's a huge headache. I'd be inclined, rather than user-spacing, to simply prune back to the elements supported by the OK and dated sources. Yes, we'd be taking a risk that secondary sources actually exist to support some of the apparent OR, but I really doubt that anyone other than Lobster has been combing those record offices recently. It's a shame, and I wish he'd either publish independently (which would be great) or adapt his style on the wiki (which would be equally great). If he wanted to set up his own webpage, and hang .pdf versions of his drafts off them, for example, I'm sure that some antiquarians or local historians would find it useful. He knows his stuff, but I don't think that this was the place for his work. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those useful thoughts. I'd love to prune back to what's well-sourced, but there is the problem that Lt often stuck a ref at the end of a long sentence, which only verified the last (often unimportant) part. A simple, easily-spotted example is this:

...who married William Strode of Newnham, Plympton St Mary, in whose possession Loughtor remained for many centuries and on which site they built their new Georgian seat of New Newnham House, today known as Newnham Park, the site of a clay-pigeon shooting school.[24]

where web ref 24 just confirms that Newnham Park is a shooting ground. Unravelling those difficult-to-disentangle problems would take too long (and access to all the sources). But you have pointed me to what is probably the best solution: stubify them. WP:STUBIFY fits perfectly. No AfDs needed, a talk page note mentions the problematical content that remains accessible in the history, but anyone restoring it bears the responsibility of accurate sourcing, per WP:BURDEN. Thank you!  —SMALLJIM  20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hchc2009. You have new messages at Talk:Newport Castle.
Message added 20:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for you input! I posted a reply. CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New section

Hello, look on it from this perspective: http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BAbor:Topo%C4%BE%C4%8Diansky_hrad_%282007%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.150.59 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The only references I've found to it call it a tower - almost certainly, given the location, a stone version of a bergfried tower, rather than a keep. It's potentially worth adding it to the bergfried tower article, as its a nice picture. If there are reliable references to it being termed a keep, though, obviously that's a different matter. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.150.59 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to the article on the town, btw. If you fancied creating an article for the castle itself (which doesn't seem to have one yet), I'd be happy to help out or give advice. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ACR for the Russian battleship Potemkin

You commented on this review a while ago; I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it again and see if your concerns have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War

Hchc2009, Uruguayan War was promoted. Thank you very much for your review and support. You know I appreciate it. Now I'm working on Juan Manuel de Rosas. Once I'm done with it I'll start working on Platine War. With the articles about Pedro II, Duke of Caxias, Count of Porto Alegre, Marquis of Paraná and Viscount of Rio Branco already FA, once Rosas and Platine War are finished, we'll have a group of high quality articles about this military conflict. --Lecen (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

They're coming along well! And I was glad to be able to help. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet

Thanks for your comments to date (I have started working through these).

There are a couple I could do with help on; the nature of the title "Lady of the English" & the death of Beckett. I don't have the sources to hand and I am not sure I know the detail behind these. Could you provide text and citation details - I can either edit these in or you are welcome to do it directly?

Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Will fish out some references! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to learning something! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

May have to be tomorrow night now, I'm afraid, but I'm on the case! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)