User talk:Hchc2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Battle of Öland FAC[edit]

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

Peter Isotalo 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook 13 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge Castle[edit]

Hi Hchc2009,

I noted your reversion of [[File:cmglee_Cambridge_castle_mound_evening_view.jpg|thumb|none|300px|Spectators atop mound await the St John's College May Ball 2014 fireworks.]] with the message "Image appears to be pretty similar to the basic view of the mound". The main difference is that it is a night view, and also encompasses a larger field of view, which provides additional context. Do you see any disadvantage of including the image? Thanks, cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 12:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wasn't convinced that the night view of the mound adds much encyclopaedic value, given the day-time shot was already there - you can't see much from it because it is dark, and unlike some locations (e.g. the Eiffel Tour at night, say), the night-time view from the mound isn't exactly famous/notable. The MOS discourages excess images, unless they add particular individual value, and this seemed to me to be such an example. Happy to discuss it further on the talk page of the article? (We can always copy over this as a starting point? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Brough Castle[edit]

I had a look at your page and noticed this article and had a look. I was a little surprised as I didn't know Brough had a castle. Clearly it doesn't because my Brough is in Humberside.;O. I did notice that the references have red all over them, they seem to be harv but the citations are <><>.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the biblio references really need the "ref = harv" removed from them; at the moment its a superfluous parameter so, if like the two of us, you have the detect broken harv links on, they glow red! (the average reader wouldn't notice though...) I remember trying to draw the map for that one, and having trouble with the southern wall...! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I was somewhat satirically amused by all the fires, it reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

John Giffard (1602–1665)[edit]

Phew! The man from Delmonte he say.... Thanks for your input.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

...and thanks helping to find a good compromise, and for the latest additions. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the feedback. I myself still learning a lots of things in wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for the enlightment. Dreamfayth (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, very happy to help with anything similar - just leave me a message here. I started back in 2009, and I'm still learning a lot myself too! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Battle of Verdun[edit]

So, did Verdun pass for GA-status? I haven't received any notifications on whether it did or not. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've caught up with your suggested amendments; I'm finding it a useful discipline to have the prose subjected to such thorough scrutiny. Thanks for the effort you're making.Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So when...[edit]

Are you going to tackle Ludlow Castle? I've been busy improving the people involved in its early history - surely the castle deserves some love! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah... I ordered the key book for it last week in fact, so should be ready to make some progress on it when it arrives! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunstanburgh Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porter. 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) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DPL bot, its now fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)