User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 1

Archive 2009 - Sep 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your time here. Your edits to Operation Tonga have been excellent - thanks for all the new information! I expanded that article a long while ago, and been meaning to get back to it, but now I don't need to. This is for you:

		The Airborne Warfare Barnstar
		For erxcellent and informative edits to Operation Tonga. Skinny87 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST welcome![edit]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Skinny87 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom of King John II of France[edit]

Thank you for your outstanding edits to this article. I recently added it to wikiprojects in the hope that someone better suited than I could fix the mess it was in. It's apparently been languishing for years. Thanks! --Lendorien (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Hchc2009. You have new messages at Talk:Military history of South America.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 16:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platine War[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your help on the article about Brazilian military in the 1800s. I´ve written it and although I´m very careful on writting it down with goods sources, my English isn´t good at all. It would be great if I had something like a team helping (lol). Could you help me out in the article Platine War? Once again, thank you. - --Lecen (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think that´s what the article needs. However, at the beginning, it was written that Rosas wanted to annex Bolívia, Paraguay, Uruguay and part of southern Brazil. You replaced it with an Cisplatine link. In fact, it is about the state of Ro Grande do Sul that the old text was refering to. This is why Rosas influenced directly the beginning of the War of Tatters in Rio Grande do Sul and later aided it as the text says later. - --Lecen (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! I´d like to make a few comments on your last edit in the article:

"In comparison to its neighbours, it enjoyed a democratic and constitutional monarchy, and prided itself on the asbence of the caudillos, dictators and coups d'Etat seen across the rest of the continent."

I don´t think the word "prided iteself" is the correct one as the source does not says exactly that. However, it is true that the Brazilians at that time had an arrogant stance towards the Spanish-Americans neighboors whom they considered "barbarians" (a very frequent insult) due to their frequent dictatorships, caudillos, coups, military uprsing, etc...) and indeed were proud of the fact that Brazil did not suffer that. On the other hand, the Spanish-Americans saw Brazil as nothing more as an imperialistic monarchy and the racist insult "Macacunos" (Monkeys, due to the large African descendant population) was even more common. I´d planned to write about this rivalty on the article about the War of the Triple Alliance but as I said before, I´m focusing on emperor Pedro II´s article in the moment.

And before I forget, the source says: "...when Brazil became steady by itself as a country with a solid government and a stabilized internal situation, from the victory over the Tatters, in 1845, and against the pernambucan revolt [in 1848], consolidating, definitely, its superiority on the continent. It must be said that, at this same time, the new republics struggle themselves in endless internal fights that began in 1810 and suffered from a visible insecurity complex in relation to Brazil".

"most of its population, as well as the largest and richest cities, remained loyal to the Emperor"

Although that is also true in the country as a whole, the source mentioned refers only to the Tatters rebellion. That is, the population of Rio Grande do Sul remained loyal (including most of its military men such as Osório, Tamandaré, Marques de Souza, etc...) to the central Government. I think you should put in there that it refers to Rio Grande do Sul more clearly.

who where necessary pardoned rebels, restored order and generally stabilised the country.

I could understand this part... in the original text, it said that Pedro II restored order and instead of persecuting the rebels, he chose to pardon them. "Once defeated, even Gonçalves himself, who had at one time been a firm monarchist,[43] swore loyalty to the Emperor when Pedro II visited the south in 1845"

Gonçalves was not once a time a firm monarchist, but he still considered himself a monarchist even when he rebelled. The Tatters rebellion was full of contradictions: Gonçalves and its men celebrated every December 2 the anniversary of Pedro II. Gonaçalves himself tried to persuade his men of surrending themselves and negotiated with the future Duke of Caxias the end of the rebellion. - --Lecen (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered accordingly; I've left in the 'prided itself', on the basis that I think it sets the context for why that comparative stability was so important to Brazil, and I think it stops short of suggesting arrogance, but feel free to remove it! I'll start on the copyediting on 'The Alliance against Rosas' tommorow. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it´s ok to keep it. The wars between Brazil and its neighboors can be only understood if seen it all as a whole, and not separated. In a certain way, it was nothing more than the old rivalry between Portugal and Spain. But understanding this period of the Brazilian hitory can occur only with a decent article about the Emperor. About your job on the article about the Platine War, it is very good. I do really appreciate your help. Thank you once again! - --Lecen (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next part done! I wasn't sure from the original text if there were one or two 1850 treaties between Brazil and Paraguay or just one (there are two mentions of 1850 treaties in two different paragraphs in the original text, but I was uncertain as to whether these were the same event or not!). I also wasn't sure about the meaning of the 'military front' bit early on; I've gone for "Brazil would not fight on Bolivian territory", but I may have misunderstood! I'll do 'The defeat of Oribe' tomorrow.

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man, how are you? I liked a lot your last edit, however, there is one mistake. You wrote: "From here, the army began to make its way south along the Paraná River towards Buenos Aires, an operation that lasted from December 24, 1851 until January 8, 1852." This period of time, however, does not refer to the movement inside Argentine territory. It refers to the movement of Brazilian ships from Diamante to Santa Fe. Anyway, it was a confusing sentence, so i removed it, as its non-existence will not harm the text. And on the passage of the Tonelero, the Brazilian ships that brought half of the 1st infantry Division was the same one that brought the other half. They returned to get them. It was not two different squadrons.

About your questions (I did not see them earlier, sorry):

I wasn't sure from the original text if there were one or two 1850 treaties between Brazil and Paraguay

Yes, its only one treaty, signed on December 25, 1850.

I also wasn't sure about the meaning of the 'military front' bit early on; I've gone for "Brazil would not fight on Bolivian territory"

The original text was not well written. It does not mean that Brazil promised to not fight in Bolivian territory. It meant that Bolivia refused to send troops to fight against Rosas and opted to maintain its Army protecting the its border with Argentina. It meant in fact that Brazil would not have to worry to also fight in Bolivia. Cheers! - --Lecen (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good - have made the changes as per your suggestions. I'll try to finish off the copyediting on the last two sections later! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it looks very good! I´ve added more sections to the article to organize it better. I don´t know if the titles are o.k. Feel free to change it. - --Lecen (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platine War - pictures of uniforms[edit]

Hey man, I thought you would like to see the uniforms of the soldiers in the Platine War (unfortunately, we can´t upload them into Commons):

DYK for Army of Flanders[edit]

On December 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Army of Flanders, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

58th/59th Battalion[edit]

Thanks for the assessment of 58th/59th Battalion (Australia), I might point out, however, that for B class an article does not require an image and an infobox is more than appropriate as supporting materials. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Quality_scale. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert, I was having real trouble visualising the unit's ops from the text, not being familiar with the AOR - a map was what I was thinking of really rather than an image.Hchc2009 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fair point, but not one that I can really action, unless I draw one myself (and my mapping skills are terrible, also there are issues such as scale and cartography copyright which could be breached by tracing or even freehanding). I've written a number of articles about Australian battles in Bougainville so far and all the maps relating to the movements of the Australian units are still protected by copyright I believe, hence why I've not included them. Nevertheless, I will keep searching (maybe an American military map could be found). Thanks for the feedback. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - thanks as always for championing the Australian mil history in the project! (My mapping skills aren't great either - they don't extend much beyond the ox-bow lake diagrams in my GCSEs, and I don't think I even coloured them in properly... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hortus Palatinus[edit]

On January 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hortus Palatinus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

for your kind note acknowledging my edits to Olivares's page. Four hundred years ago this year Caravaggio died, as did the second False Dmitry. Philip IV wasn't yet five years old and even el conde-duque was just a dewy 23. The springtime of the world! Happy 2010. -- LaNaranja (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boye (dog)[edit]

On January 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boye (dog), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Philip V of France[edit]

On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philip V of France, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Impressive... we don't often get topics as important as a king of France on DYK. Ucucha 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Files in your User Space[edit]

Hey there Hchc2009, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Hchc2009/Sandbox2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I knew they weren't allowed in standard user or talk-space, but hadn't picked up on the user-space draft rule. Cheers.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Tour de Nesle Affair[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Tour de Nesle Affair at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tour de Nesle Affair[edit]

On March 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tour de Nesle Affair, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charter fair[edit]

Hi Hchc2009, you were very quick off the mark expanding my Charter fair stub! Well done. Best wishes Andy F (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Hchc2009, you've done a great deal of good work on the Charter fair article. You've also done very well with inline citations so I have removed the refimprove tag. You deserve this:

		The Original Barnstar
		For speedy work in expanding Charter fair from a stub to a fully-fledged article Andy F (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes Andy F (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Bavarian Succession[edit]

You made some comments at the FAC for this article. Would you take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed? I hope you can support the article eventually, and appreciate your constructive comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response added to the FAC page - thanks as ever for all your hard work on these articles! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platine War[edit]

Hello! Well, as you have noticed there is a "disagreement" at Platine War article. The reason is simple: Belgrano insists on adding information that represents a minority view in Argentina. That's not even "the other side of the dispute". That's a minority view that appeared in the 1950s and is advocated by ultra-natiolalist historians that supported the dictatorship of Perón. In other words, they were trying to bring legitimacy to a present-day dictatorship by using a past one as a model.

The book used by Belgrano as source to present that "only" 80 were murdered by Rosas is called "Juan Manuel de Rosas, el maldito de la historia oficial" (Juan Manuel de Rosas, the bewitched of official history). Official history is nothing more than the mainstream history as it is taught in Argentina today for millions of young students every year. If you take a look in the article about the author of the book (Pacho O'Donnell) you will see that he is part of a "neorevisionist school". Downsizing the number of people murdered by dictators among minority historians isn't new, and Holocaust denial is probably the best example.

Belgrano has been trying, including "reviewing" the article, at all cost to enforce a view of Rosas as "not so bad guy" and went so far as to claim that there was a conspiracy between the British Empire, the second French Empire and Argentina to ruin Rosas's public image after he fell from power. And present-day historians have commited the "mistake" of believing on the view presented by that "conspiracy". I am not kidding, just read the article's talk page!

I know that Wikipedia has the rule that all sides must be presented. Ok. Fine. But as far as I know, minority views can not be presented with the same strengh as the mainstream view. Belgrano could use those historians to advocate that the ruthless Rosas wasn't that bad on Rosas's article. But why in the article about a war? It is like someone trying at all cost to put in the World War II article a view that Hitler did not want the war and did not kill 6 million of Jews, but just around 50,000 and for that "he isn't that bad". Can you get the picture?

Not only that, but Belgrano keeps lying or evading questions and worse: he erase information that he dislikes in subtle ways. One example, and you can see by comparing his last edits with my last one is about the "mazorca". The mazorca was Rosas's SS, a group that is called by Brazilian, British, American and even Argentine historians as "terrorists" who formed a political police force. Belgrano removed the "political" and left only "police force" clearing trying to change the meaning of the sentence. Another example is that he uses "sum of public power" to descrbie Rosas's power which is nothing more than "dictatorship". He also called another friend to discredit my remarks!

As you can see, there is an editor who wants to clean the image of a mass murderer dictatorship who is hated even in his own country but since almost no one knows Argentine history it lefts me as the only one who is trying to stop this madness.

P.S.: The section Rosas's main article that presents the "dispute" among historians on his rule was written by who? Belgrano. Yes, him. Just look at the history archives. Of course that anyone who reads it will believe that there is a true dispute among historians in Argentine when in fact, it is at most, I reapet, at most a minority view.

Anyways, regards and is good to see you back in the article. --Lecen (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.2: You don't need to know Spanish to read this The Age of Caudillo (p.125), The History of Argentina (p.45), Argentina (pp.32-33), The Epic of Latin America (p.589) and Cambridge history of Latin America (p.643). --Lecen (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'd seen the article on Pacho on the wiki, which draws out the neorevisionist perspective. I agree with you in principle about the minority/mainstream distinction, in that the policy guidelines don't require a minority opinion to have the same prominence in an article as a mainstream opinion; I'll have a read through the links you've sent me this week, and see what that's telling me from an English language perspective, and then pitch back in with comment/proposed edits later on in the week. I'd agree that Belgrano's reviewing of the article in the way he did wasn't necessarily very constructive, but IANVS's advice on the article talk page was sensible - don't end up looking unreasonable yourself by pushing the argument too hard. You've put a huge amount of work into this article, and we'll end up with a reasonable consensus if we keep the debate calm.

Yours, as ever, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is becoming more and more awful. He has simply removed all references to Paraguay in the first subsection without warning. He has added ridiculous information such as "Most politicians in the former Spanish colonies did not gave much importance to the territorial looses, because of the lack of a patriotic feeling product of the short life of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata" which would imply that Rosas mass murders and conquests plans were nothing more than "patriotism".

"Both countries aimed to harm the other one by promoting, financing or supporting separatists movements, or seceded countries when they were formed". What is this? When Brazil became independent in 1822, it was Argentina that financed and supported Cisplatina's independence. Then in 1834 once again Argentina financed and supported the Rio Grande do Sul's independence. What the Brazilian government did, and only in the end of the 1840s was to give financial aid for(already) rebellious Argentine provinces to depose Rosas, not to acchieve independence. If Brazil was an expansionist country, why it didn't annex Uruguay in 1851? Or after the Empre defeated once more Uruguay in 1864? God, I can go further than that! Why Brazil did not annex Paraguay and Uruguay at the end of the War of the Triple Alliance in 1870 when it had an Army of 50,000 men in the region and the fourth most powerful navy in the world? Argentina had an army of 5,000, Uruguay had 500 men and Paraguay was utterly destroyed. But I do know where Belgrano wants to get by this stupid and unsourced information: to make Rosas "not a so bad guy", because if he wanted to annex other countries, he did it "for patriotism" and because "other countries also wanted to do that".

"Unitarians also supported separatism in the Confederation in order to harm Rosas, and the seceded countries had their own ambitions as well". Please, explain to me, is there one single book that says that one single Unitarian desired Argentina's fragmentation? If that was the case, why the hell did the Unitarian Bartolomé Mitre fought for 10 years (1852-62) to reunify Argentina when it was split betwwen the Confederate Argentine and Buenos Aires? Ow, but what Belgrano wants to? Yes, to make Rosas not that bad. After all, he was a "patriot", who was trying to keep his country intact (a new Lincoln, perhaps?) and away of his ruthless and ambitious enemies (other countries and the Unitarians).

"Rosas first had to gather allies across the region who shared his vision. In some instances, this entailed becoming involved in the internal politics of neighboring countries to back those sympathetic to union with Argentina, and occasionally even financing rebellions and wars. which led to the creation of the Riograndense Republic (which would be later defeated and reanexed into the Empire of Brazil). On the other hand, Brazil supported the independence of Paraguay, and promoted a project that would expand Paraguay with the Argentine Mesopotamia." Read very carefuly this sentence. Very, very carefuly. Look at the way he put distinct history facts that are apart of each other by years. When he writes that Brazil supported the independence of Paraguay, his goal is to make sure that Rosas was doing something that other country was also doing. So, all he wanted was to keep Argentina intact from the ambitions of an Empire. However, Brazil recognized Paraguayan independence in 1844, after ten years of seeing Rosas finance a bloody civil war in Uruguay and a secessionist rebellion in its own soil, in Rio Grande do Sul. And more: Paraguay had been independent since 1811, decades before Rosas got into power. As well as Bolívia.

We have to revert all these recents aditions, since he is imposing a view that is shared only by him and perhaps a few Argentine historians that were supporters of Juan Perón's dictatorship in the 1940s and 1950s. He went as far as to claim that there was a conspiracy between Argentina, Brazil, U.S., France and UK to destroy Rosas's public image. Because of all that, I have removed the GA nomination. The article is a mess. It looks awful. And yes, I am that perfectionist. Ow, and sorry for answering you with many ironies. They were not directed towards you, but to Belgrano's "work". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all recent Belgrano's edits, including the one where he erased sourced information. Not only that, but I removed any mention of Rosas a "dictator" or of his ruthless rule in Argentina. The disputes between the Argentine political factions, Unitarians and Federalists, is mentioned. I have also added in the infobox the information that this international war is part of, or related to, the Argentine and the Uruguayan civil wars. Done that, any part of the text that could be debated or fall into endless dicussions are gone. If someone wants to write about Rosas's legacy or government he/she can do that on his article. If someone wants to write about the Argentine wars between Unitarians and Federalists van do that on its proper article. I believe what I did is fair and we can consider the discussion over, right? --Lecen (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Budwig[edit]

Hi there, I've added my comments to Talk:Johanna Budwig. I'd be interested in your views, particularly on restoring the other ACS reference and tackling the Nobel Prize canard. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown in some comments on the talk page. Essentially I think we can reasonably put in the article quite a bit on information supported by references, provided that we note the sources - usually her proponents. But that's often the way with many subjects of wikipedia articles, and shouldn't effect her notability - we just need to keep the article itself neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chile[edit]

I will check, but it may be difficult. The problem isn't merely of being interested or not: my history books are about Argentine history, and only deal with the history of other countries tangencially, when it's needed for giving context for something, but that's it.

Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile may be able to help? MBelgrano (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thai army[edit]

No worries..andycjp (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olivares[edit]

I see you've discussed the article on the Count-Duke of Olivares. I posted the following on its talk page tonight and I'd be interested to hear if you have an opinion on this subject:

"I'm not an expert on the Spanish biographical articles by any stretch, but it seems to me that the majority of the ones I've seen don't include the "y" portion of the person's name in the title, e.g. it's Luis de Góngora, not Luis de Góngora y Argote; Francisco Goya, not Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes; Óscar Romero, not Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez; Enrique Pérez de Guzmán, 2nd Count de Niebla, not Enrique Pérez de Guzmán y de Castilla, 2nd Count of Niebla; etc. I think the logic is similar to the reason why we don't include middle names in the article title unless the person's middle name is widely used.

"So, by that logic, it seems to me that this article's title should be "Gaspar de Guzmán, Count-Duke of Olivares", not "Gaspar de Guzmán y Pimentel, Count-Duke of Olivares".

Thoughts?"

Adam sk (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the linked page. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Goodrich Castle[edit]

On 21 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goodrich Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Briavel's Castle[edit]

On 28 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Briavel's Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodrich Castle[edit]

I should be able to finish off this GA review today with luck. Just one small thing, could I ask you not to strike out those points that you think have been dealt with? It's easier if I do that, as after all I'm the one whose job it is to decide if they've been dealt with or not. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause any confusion! And thanks for all the work on the review. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Anyway, I've finished the review now; let me know when you're done or if you have any questions. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009[edit]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010[edit]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review: Economy of England in the Middle Ages[edit]

As a courtesy note due to your magnificent contribution in creating this article, I wished to drop you a line as the GA reviewer. I am a social historian of class and labour history, who has read reasonably heavily in modern Political Economy and Economic History. I am a pedant about citations. But I'm generous in review!

I also thought I should drop you a line to note that I believe your article could well do with a historiography section. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a historiography section - would allow the article to cover the debates around Postan etc. Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its kinda at the point of everything but the MOS done, and I'd rather do that as yet-another-close-read as a spit polish. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in the US in meetings until tomorrow night, but I'll have some time Friday and Saturday to do some of the work on this - very many thanks again! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no time limit on this :) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! it is now a GA. Apologies for the delays. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anglo-Maratha War[edit]

Hi - I've made the changes you recommended in the peer review for the Third Anglo-Maratha War . A summary is on the peer review page - [1]. Please let me know if I can improve it further. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do later - was out of town for a couple of days. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are now on the peer review page. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Economy of England in the Middle Ages[edit]

On 17 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Economy of England in the Middle Ages, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Speedy (1782)[edit]

I see your userpage offers assistance with copyediting, and your quick review of HMS Speedy (1782) at WP:FAC was great. I've been doing a lot of the copyediting for A-class and FAC WP:SHIPS articles, but there have been several requests for a greater variety of reviewers and copyeditors before and at FAC. I'd like to offer to help with copyediting on any articles of your choice, in exchange for your help copyediting any article that could use your talents at our A-class review page. It would be nice to get them all copyedited before FAC, and most of the articles on that page will arrive at FAC at some point. Thanks again for you help with HMS Speedy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of St Briavels Castle[edit]

The article St Briavels Castle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:St Briavels Castle for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Oxford Castle[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Oxford Castle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BabelStone (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anglo-Maratha War[edit]

Hello, Hchc2009. You have new messages at Talk:Third_Anglo-Maratha_War#Good_news_-_Third_Anglo-Maratha_War_is_now_a_GA.21.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zuggernaut (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Cabral images[edit]

Thanks for taking a look. I did name searches at both the Google Books copyright search and the US Copyright Office (1978–) sites, and didn't turn up anything registered under the 2 artists names (Oscar Pereira da Silva; Roque Gameiro) who died early in the 20th century. There were also no results for the mid-19th century lithograph attributed to Eduard Rensburg and/or George Mathias Heaton. I don't know how comprehensive the searches on those 2 sites are for graphic art, but they are the only places I know to check. I have no idea of how any of the titles would be anglicized or the names of any heirs.

The chances of anyone during that time period registering an old painting in the U.S. before it had expired in the nations of origin (assuming they were ever eligible for copyright in those countries, which isn't at all certain) is almost non-existent. • Astynax ^talk 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you that this covers due diligence - give me a shout if I can lend any more moral support to the case. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harriss reference[edit]

Hi, and good work on the economy article. I added the book because I thought it was essential to the topic. Since I didn't see a "Further reading" section, and I thought it was silly to add one for just one book, I just put it in the bibliography. Are you saying all the books that were there are referenced somewhere in the article? Lampman (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. As I said I think it's an important work, and I think maybe the whole story of parliamentary taxation is somewhat underplayed in the article, primarily the increase in lay subsidies to finance the wars of Edward I, and how the rates were fixed from 1334 onwards. Would you mind if I added a couple of lines on that? Lampman (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It might not happen right away though, feel free to deal with the ref as you please, re the GA nom. Lampman (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borodino class battlecruiser FAC[edit]

Could you please clarify if you support the nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1 or not? If there are any remaining issues please let me know there so I can respond to them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Hope it all goes well. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank YOU ...[edit]

... for the tremendous improvements to the article since I last expanded it a bit. I'll try and finish the copy-edit this evening in case the GA review suddenly starts - feel free to complain if I've messed anything up. I may be able to add a few things from Wilson, Barbara (2005). The City Walls and Castles of York: the Pictorial Evidence. York: York Archaeological Trust. ISBN 1-874454-36-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - a really good read and lots of pictures.

The illustrations in the article are a great improvement, too - maybe a few more present-day ones could be added? However, the panorama at the end is rather a let-down, as the most prominent feature is the dire Hilton Hotel. (You may have deduced that I live in York!) Best. --GuillaumeTell 19:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the GA rating. I'm thinking about adding a couple more images, and a few extra facts from Wilson and Mee, in due course (i.e. within the next couple of weeks). --GuillaumeTell 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing work to both of you, Hchc2009 in particular for your York Castle article. Excellent work amigos!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despenser War[edit]

I'm a little sceptical of the 30,000 troops Alison Weir says the King used in his siege against Leeds Castle. I think the number is way, way too high! Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere and her garrison managed to hold out for over 5 days (15 days according to Roy Martin Haines, Edward II's biographer). I don't think this would have been possible against 30,000 soldiers. The King's forces also had ballistas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 'tad dubious too. Sounds like a chronicler figure to me. I'm trying to find my copy of Ian Mortimer's work on Mortimer, which is usually a little better on the figures. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Barbara Tuchman in her A Distant Mirror said not to rely too greatly on figures given by medieval cchroniclers as they had a tendency to exaggerate. How could the King have fed 30,000 men for a number of days?!! I heard the Ian Mortimer book is excellent. I've created articles on Roger Mortimer's wife Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville and Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere; hence my interest in the Despenser War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a FAC[edit]

Hi, Hchc2009. I know this kind of article is not quite your focus, but since you reviewed Pedro Álvares Cabral I thought you could give this one a try. It is a good article and I believe you might enjoy reading it. I'd like to see your honest opinion about it, whether if you support or oppose the nomination of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco as a FAC. The page of the nomination is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appearing at the nomination. I'll try to fix those issues you raised. Also, any further comments and help will be very appreciated. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - very happy to do what I can, given all the efforts you put into these articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc, Astynax has answered your remarks. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes you suggested. I hope the text is fine now. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have left a comment on the page. The FA criterion on prose is fairly high - it requires the prose to be "engaging, even brilliant"; in my opinion, we're at best only just there with the article, but I'm supporting on the basis that the underlying scholarship is first rate, and the prose has certainly been improved. Thanks as ever for all your work on these Lecen! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Magersfontein[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to post feedback at the A-Class review of this article. I believe that your concerns have all been addressed - could you please indicate if you support or oppose the article's promotion. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco[edit]

Well, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco has ben promoted and now it's a Featured article. Good news, huh? Anyway, I'd like to thank you for all your work there. Since the times of Platine War article you've helped me a lot and I really do appreciate that. Thank you my friend, --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why don't you join me and Astynax and help us out with our articles? It's time to you get some true recognition around. We've just finished Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies and nominated it as Featured article candidate. However, I'm presently working at Empire of Brazil, which is one massive article. It will certainly bring the Empire back to live once it's finished. Do you want to help us wih this one? Once it's done, all three of us can nominate it and I'm pretty sure that reader will enjoy it. --Lecen (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Castle[edit]

Once again, well done on the revamp of Windsor Castle, it's a very impressive piece of work. I was wondering if you'd considered taking it through WP:FAC? I asked Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), who's shepherded more than his fair share of articles through the process, what he thought of it and he seems impressed too. Nev1 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated - and thanks for the copy-editing too! I'm strongly tempted by the idea of trying out the FAC process, albeit with a slight anxiety about the different experiences various editors have had with it (in the sense that I get the impression that some some have found it quite trying). Malleus has a fair point about the citation rate, by the way; I'm usually torn between the twin goals of readability (end of paragraph citations being good from this perspective) and editability (if that's a word! - sentence by sentence citations making it much easier for an editor to safely move text around an article without confusion over sources). If you don't mind me asking, how did you find the Tower of London and Castle FA experiences? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking castle through FAC isn't really comparable to an individual castle the issues involved were completely different such scope. The candidacy for the Tower is here and might be worth reading through. For the most part it was ok; it got plenty of attention because everyone's heard of it. I was able to deal with concerns about prose. The only significant sticking point was SlimVirgin's oppose. While acquiessing to a reviewer's every request may make the ride smoother, ensuring the quality of the article is the main point. If you provide a rationale why you don't think a suggested change is necessary the FAC delegates will take that into account. A case in point is one of the reasons SlimVirgin opposed was "the Tower of London was an important and notorious English prison, but there is little mention of that in the article". In response I was able to provide numerous instances where the Tower's role as a prison was mentioned in the text. Overall it's a rigorous experience, but as long as you stay calm when faced with opinions you may disagree with there's often something to take out of it to improve the article. With Windsor I think you may have an easier ride as it's image isn't as dark as the Tower's. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would the recommended sequencing be, then?... GAR, then FAR? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was my article I'd probably skip GAC. Once the content is there, I find GAC can be a useful stepping stone to smooth out the prose, but I think in this case it's up to scratch and in any case you can't be sure when your article will be reviewed at GAC. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go. I'll do the alt text for the images tomorrow first though! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some stuff on visitor numbers; they seem to hover around 900,000. Just a note that alt text is useful, but isn't a FA requirement any more. Nev1 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on alt text keep changing. It's now a part of the accessibility guidelines, which in turn are a part of MoS, so all images once again do need to have alt text. But it's not the same text as of old; in this recent FAC of mine you'll see that the only alt text on the two images is "alt=Photograph", which would do for most of the images in Windsor Castle as well. For myself I've only rarely found FAC to be a particularly stressful experience, and far more often a helpful one to get the final wrinkles out of an article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. One thing you will certainly notice at FAC is how picky reviewers can be. One thing that would definitely be remarked on is the inconsistent capitalisation of things like "State Apartments", vs "state apartments", "Crimson Drawing room" (its name surely isn't Crimson Drawing) vs "State Dining Room". I'd definitely recommend going through the whole article again to make sure that the capitalisations are correct before launching an FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - will do! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and on the system.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That Would Be Very Kind of You[edit]

I have searched some information from English webpages, including blogs. Yes, blogs might not be so convincing as academic sources. If there is some inaccurate information, I would like to be informed and I will remove it.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010[edit]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Towton[edit]

Thank you for starting to look into this article. I have attempted to address your issues with the lede, and I hope they are resolved. If there are still issues, please feel free to point them out. I will do the best I can to improve this article (although copy-editing for "proper" English would very much be appreciated since my wordings have oft been criticised). Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, and also for pointing out the awkward sentences. I hope I have resolved the issues in Background. Jappalang (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems to have been several days since your last comments, which I appreciate for the feedback. I am curious on whether you intend to continue the review. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing your review. I have tackled your concerns and hope they might be resolved by my feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the A-Class assessment for this article is nearing the 28-day limit. If you are unable to continue the review by then (I think it is 1 Feb), I would still appreciate feedback afterward on my or the article's talk page. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments are now in - thanks for a fine article! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reading and pointing out areas where the article can be further improved. Your help have made it a much better article. Jappalang (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military historian of the Year 2010[edit]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

I've just had the pleasure of closing your WikiProject Military history A-Class review nomination for Kenilworth Castle as successful. Congratulations on a well-written and informative article - I found it particularly interesting as I originally hail from Coventry and have visited Kenilworth Castle a number of times. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Eleanor[edit]

I am sorry that I would not be intended to buy the books recommended. In fact I am a Chinese living in China (so you may find my English is not so proficient). Your copy edit is certainly welcome. I would like to know more about the poor girl.

The Talk Page may also be a good place for discussion.

Thanks.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your opinions at that Talk Page and raised a new question. Waiting for your reply. Sincerely.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your sources, they really contain a lot of information, but only a little has something to do with the lady.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion[edit]

Hchc2009, since you are one of the nominators of Empire of Brazil to Featured status, I'd like to request your opinion at Talk:John VI of Portugal#Requested move. I'm having a huge headache with an user called Cripipper in Talk:Empire of Brazil#Anglicization of names. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some basic stats and some slightly more tailored estimates, and gone back on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Southampton Castle[edit]

Hello! I have submmitted your recently created article Southampton Castle for Did You Know? on Wikipedia's Main Page. My submission has been reviewed, and there are some issues that may need to be clarified before your work can be featured on MainPage. Please review the comments underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige - I've replied on the DYK page. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil[edit]

Hchc2009, the next article I will nominate to Featured status will be Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. If you're interested, join the team again. A third opinion in it is always good. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, King of England[edit]

Just to let you know, I've passed this as a GA. I left a couple of notes on the review - none were serious enough to hold up passing, but you might want to have a look at them regardless.

Thanks, and well done! Shimgray | talk | 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Southampton Castle[edit]

On 4 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southampton Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Southampton Castle was one of the first castles in medieval England to be equipped with a cannon? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Image[edit]

Hello HCHC - I've posted a reply on the Windsor Castle page. Thanks. WyrdLight (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - all sorted! Hchc2009 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Roses come for you[edit]

		The Wars of the Roses Barnstar
		Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the Battle of Towton. They have really helped to improve the article and be recognised as a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King John on the BBC web site[edit]

I thought that you might be amused to look at this. Good luck with the article at FAC. -Aa77zz (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I enjoyed it! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Rupert of the Rhine[edit]

Please see this Talk:Prince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine#Career_in_the_Restoration_Navy and comment if you please. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - commented on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Hope you don't mind my last edit. It's only to prevent confusion. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - I don't necessary disagree with you! NB: the link doesn't seem to work though when I clicked on it. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. The file name contained spaces. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for your comment regarding the List of Castles in England. When I found, to my surprise, that I wanted to tackle the revamp, I felt I needed to crack on with it before I changed my mind, so I'm glad to have your approval. Paravane (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King John: repeated refs --> named refs[edit]

You don't really have to change these if you don't want to. Some people refuse to do it. Moreover, some of these may be "false positives" in that there may be two refs in one line (eg. Smith 1987 p. 12; Jones 2002 p115). If Jones 2002 p. 115 appears elsewhere as a lone cite, it would be repeated (incorrectly!) in this list.

Barlow, p.305
Barlow, p.305.
Bradbury (2007), p.353.
Bradbury (2007), p.353.
Carpenter (1996), p.223.
Carpenter (2004), p.223
Carpenter (2004), p.223.
Carpenter (2004), p.264
Carpenter (2004), p.264.
Carpenter (2004), p.277
Carpenter (2004), p.277
Carpenter (2004), p.277.
Carpenter (2004), p.286
Carpenter (2004), p.286.
Curren-Aquino, p.19
Curren-Aquino, p.19.
Duncan, p.267
Duncan, p.267.
Elliott, pp
Harper-Bill, p.304.
Harper-Bill, p.304.
Harper-Bill, p.308.
Harper-Bill,p.308.
Huscroft, p.170
Huscroft, p.170.
Johnson, p.142.
Johnson, p.142.
McLynn, p.366
McLynn, p.366.
McLynn, p.460.
McLynn, p.460.
McLynn, p.78
McLynn, p.78
McLynn, p.78.
Turner, p.106
Turner, p.106.
Turner, p.120
Turner, p.120.
Turner, p.128
Turner, p.128.
Turner, p.133
Turner, p.133.
Turner, p.133.
Turner, p.166
Turner, p.166.
Turner, p.169.
Turner, p.191
Turner, p.191.
Turner, p.193.
Turner, p.193.
Turner, p.194
Turner, p.194
Turner, p.194.
Turner, p.23.
Turner, p.23.
Turner, p.23.
Turner, p.31
Turner, p.31.
Turner, p.98
Turner, p.98
Turner, p.98.
Turner, p.99.
Turner, pp.173–4
Turner, pp.173–4.
Vincent, p.196.
Vincent, p.196.
Warren, p.123
Warren, p.123.
Warren, p.132
Warren, p.132.
Warren, p.184
Warren, p.184.
Warren, p.185
Warren, p.185.
Warren, p.253.
Warren, p.253.
Warren, p.253.
Warren, p.253.
Warren, p.26.
Warren, p.26.
Warren, p.38.
Warren, p.38.
GlitchCraft (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - will fix them! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you get AWB, all you need to do is run over the page once, and it will fix them all in one blow. Tremendous timesaver. But some people don't like AWB, I know. GlitchCraft (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've gone through, and they seem to be all okay now - very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring![edit]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Barnstar[edit]

		Medieval Barnstar
		For excellence in articles on Medieval history. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011[edit]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cartagena de Indias GA re-review[edit]

Hello, I addressed the issues you listed for Battle of Cartagena de Indias GA review and would appreciate the re-review you offered. Thank you for your constructive critique - it resulted in an improved article.Tttom1 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a GAN for the article. I look forward to your review, thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and critique and passing it to Good Article status.Tttom1 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big article on castles off the northwest coast of France[edit]

I've started reading through it and so far it looks excellent. The only snag is the name, and it's been moved to castles in Great Britain and Ireland. MickMacNee made the move and gives reasons here, but Great Britain is the main island of the British Isles so excludes the likes of Anglesey and Piel Island which are obviously related. A couple of alternatives are mentioned on MicMacNee's talk page, but I may be overcomplicating things. While Great Britain and Ireland may technically exclude some parts, will most readers be aware of this? Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Southampton Castle[edit]

The article Southampton Castle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Southampton Castle for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section order[edit]

Your changes to several castle articles, while welcome, are slightly wrong. The "See also" section should be placed before "References", not after it. Perhaps you could revisit the articles you changed and move the section? --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - thanks for spotting it! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

I've undone some of the copyediting Philg88 (talk · contribs) did over at castles in Great Britain and Ireland as in some cases the meaning was changed. I might revert the rest later, but I think you'll want to take a look at the changes yourself. The mission of the Guild of Copy Editors is certainly laudable but can be a bit of a mixed bag; in future I'd recommend finding someone whose standard of writing you are familiar with. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've been lucky in the past with them, but having taken a quick look at it, Philg88's finding it harder to keep the meaning straight in places. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Royal Artillery Memorial[edit]

The article Royal Artillery Memorial you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Royal Artillery Memorial for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I've fished out a reference for it and added it in. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now pleased to tell you that it has passed. Harrison49 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raglan Castle[edit]

Fantastic re-write! KJP1 (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! - it is a great castle to cover in an article. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really pleased you've got it to GA status, which you throughly deserve. I spent my childhood looking at the castle from my parent's garden and it is a really amazing building so it's great that you've given it an article to match. KJP1 (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Motte-and-bailey[edit]

The article Motte-and-bailey you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Motte-and-bailey for things which need to be addressed. Harrison49 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work - it's now passed. Harrison49 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil[edit]

At first, yes, but not later. It's annoying to see editors who act like they are experts in the subject when in fact they know nothing. But this kind of thing makes me see that I should have improved many other articles. Perhaps I'll return writing for Wikipedia only to make people understand a little more about Brazilian history. Anyway, I was quite surprised to Empire of Brazil as a today's main featured article. We made a great article and we certainly deserved seeing it there. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Fort[edit]

Thanks for the appreciation.--Nvvchar. 10:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Coastal Command[edit]

Thank you for your review. It should be ready in the next day or two. Harrison49 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be ready. Would you be able to have a look? Harrison49 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi89 was still working on it earlier, so I'll wait until they've paused and go back over it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Citadel of Damascus[edit]

Hi Hchc2009, when you peer reviewed Citadel of Damascus you mentioned that you found a 19th century image of it. Did you follow up on that? I'm slowly working my way through the comments and would be nice to have some extra images.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded and left the link on your talk page.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Coastal Command[edit]

Hi there. The nomination of CC took me by surprise. I didn't really think it was complete at the time. I have changed some of the article re: the comments on GA. Can you tell me what you think of it now? My sources on 1950-69 period are limited, so I'm wondering whether the Cold War part is enough in detail and length. Dapi89 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's looking a lot better. I've passed it as a GA, many thanks for all the work! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo[edit]

Hey Hchc, I've replied to your comments here. Thank you very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied back on the page now; all looks good to go to me.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Trust[edit]

Hchc - I left a message on my talk page, but I don't know wether you've picked up on it yet. Do you need a hand with converting the propetrty list? I am not sure what wikipedia etiquete is re: editing someone elses sandbox!, Please let me know (I have some time to get stuck in this weekend), PeterPahazzard (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hchc, I have had a good go of setting up the property list in your sandbox, however holidays and work comitments means that my time to spend on this is diminished. I had hoped to make a start on the descriptions, and perhap the locations as well, but not likely to have time for this in the coming weeks. Do you think it worthwhile to move over to the main article article as it stands, or wait until it's a bit better developed? Peter Pahazzard (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe Waterville Castle[edit]

Hi Hchc2009. Just noticed there is an article for the village of Thorpe Waterville. I added the castle as a link in that article as it was already mentioned; however, as I don't know the geography of the area - it could be closer to Thrapston - I'll leave it up to you as to whether to include the village in the castle article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I'm not sure either about the geography; the books were referring to Thrapston, but the name would suggest it should be close to the village! Hopefully some denizen of Northamptonshire might be able to assist! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the co-ordinates are correct (grid reference TL022814) then the castle is in the village of Thorpe Waterville and you can see for yourself on Google maps by following the linked co-ordinates. Thrapston is about two and a half miles away and is a larger settlement. Nev1 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll update accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Hadleigh Castle[edit]

I've left some comments here and the review is now on hold. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South American dreadnought race[edit]

Hi again Hchc, you've reviewed my articles in the past, but I've only just realized that you wrote Military history of South America, which is a beast of an article. Would you happen to have any information you could add to the above article from any of your sources? Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the mil hist of SA well! (not an easy one...) I'll have a look; I'm usually stronger on the land component though (with the exception of the turn of the century naval theorists, which I've got a pet interest in!). How's the Majestic Titan effort getting on generally, BTW? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said, that was a beast of an article. I can't imagine writing it! Thanks very much. Perhaps one of your pet theorists had an impact on Brazil's order. ;-) OMT is still going. It's really only Parsec, Sturm, and me now. Cam is still around but is back to the D-Day invasion, Tom basically retired, White Shadows has mostly finished with the Austro-Hungarian ships, and Yoenit has moved on to other topics. I dunno if we'll ever get it finished, but we'll give it our best shot!

DYK for Medieval Merchant's House[edit]

On 17 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Medieval Merchant's House, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Medieval Merchant's House (pictured) in Southampton was being used as a brothel when bomb damage during the Blitz revealed the building's important medieval architecture? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stapling[edit]

Hi Hchc, congratulations on your share of success with DYK above. Thank you too for your exposition on the History of the English fiscal system. Would you consider expanding this article? The Staple.

Some are expressing their anxiety (here Talk:Merchants of the Staple) over the sheer quantity of related articles and the cloudiness of the particular article, The Staple. If you can give it/us some certainty (looks as if you might have/have access to the knowledge) that would be great and perhaps the articles Merchants of the Staple and Statute of the Staple could then be merged into and become sub-paragraphs of it? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the English Fiscal system isn't mine, actually (I did the Economy of England in the Middle Ages). Still, will drop by and takea look. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle[edit]

What do you think? Is the article now up to the GA standards? I added some more info in some places and did another copyedit.. Anything else that needs to be done? Thanks for the help with it so far! --ddima/talk 17:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of KC review[edit]

Thanks for your review. I believe to have addressed your concern adequately. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Comment added to that effect on the review page.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset castles[edit]

Thanks for all your work on Nunney Castle & congratulations on getting it to GA. Following your inspiration I've had a bit of a go at Dunster Castle and wondered if you would take a look at that? When I get some time I might try to tackle some of the others at Category:Castles in Somerset if you fancied collaborating?— Rod ^talk 18:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always keen to work on castles! I've added a quick map of Dunster to the article, and will have a look at some of the historical articles on it over the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Nunney Castle a certified "Good Article"! Your work is appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a specific Somerset "house style" for infoboxes on castle articles. Since Infobox historic building was removed as an option I tend to use Template:Infobox historic site simply because it includes fields for the date and reference number for listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. I have debated this elsewhere but I don't think consensus was ever reached.— Rod ^talk 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a go at Bridgwater Castle today. I know the lead still needs expanding, but would you fancy taking a look?— Rod ^talk 11:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. I've trimmed the lead picture slightly, to lose the text; there's also an 18th lithograph of the castle here that is probably usable - see what you think. Mackenzie has some more detail, albeit slightly antiquarian, here. Holmes, who I've used elsewhere, has some material on the estate supporting the castle here. I'm guessing the reinforcement of the castle in the 1380s and 1390s will have been linked to the threat of French coastal raids; if the sources say so, it would be worth adding; if not, let me know and I'll dig for a general quote from a wider text. When we say the castle was "deliberately destroyed", it is probably worth linking to the slighting page. We should also probably add that the remains are a listed building.
Incidentally, I've ordered the latest work on the geopositioning of Norman castles in Somerset, which should help us with a couple of these, and will also give some good intro material should we do a "list of castles in Somerset" page. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the slighting link & listed status for the watergate etc. Can I leave the others to your expertise? What do you mean by "latest work on the geopositioning of Norman castles in Somerset" ? book?— Rod ^talk 17:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob's, I'll cover them. I've ordered Stuart Prior's "The Norman Art of War" book, which apparently does a good analysis of the location of Anglo-Norman castles in Somerset based on the geography etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a quick scrub through Bridgwater and added an additional pic. I was wondering if the architecture bit might fit better earlier on, closer to the construction of the castle? Be interested in your thoughts. Meanwhile, I've got some material on Farleigh Hungerford through. I've moved a copy of the existing page into my sandbox6, so that I can play with it a bit. 16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If either of you is going to do a list of castles for Somerset, I could give you the names Cathcart King gives in Castellarium Anglicanum if you think it would be useful? Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be useful as a companion to List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset. I've done a bit of expansion on Cary Castle and now working on Castle Neroche which should be public later this evening (and could appear in both lists). Do you think some of these others could be joining Nunney Castle before long in going for GA?— Rod ^talk 17:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be useful - I don't have a copy of that one! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extant

Babcary (aka Wimble Toot, which might just be my favourite name for a castle) ST561280
Bridgwater ST300373
Brompton Regis (Bury Castle) SS938270
Castle Cary ST641322
Castle Neroche ST272158
Charlton Musgrove (Cockroad Wood) ST746323
Dunster (Torre) SS992343
English Combe (Culverhay) ST719631
Farleigh Hungerford ST801576
Harptree (Richmont) ST561557
Locking (Locking-Head Farm) ST363609
Montacute (St Michael's Hill) ST493170
Nether Stowey ST187396
Newton St Loe ST694640
Nunney ST737458
Penselwood (Balland's Castle) ST753311
Selwood (Hales Castle) ST797443
Stogursey (Stoke Courcy) ST203426
Taunton ST226247
Wells (Bishop's Palace) ST553458
Wells No. 2 (Fenny Castle) ST508436
Worle (Caslte Batch) ST362637

Vanished

Cadbury – there are records of spending on a castle of this name in 1209 but King thinks it may not even be in Somerset
Castle Cary No. 2 (siege castle)
Dunster No. 2 (siege castle)
Glastonbury

Possible castles

Donyatt ST343145
Enmore ST238
Othery (Burrow Mump) ST359305
Stowey Sutton ST597593

Castellarium Anglicanum can be a tricky pair of books to lay your hands on, but it certainly is handy. I provided OS grid co-ordinates so you can check against the Gatehouse website. King is sometimes a bit hit and miss with 'vanished' castles; they're supposed to be sites where the location is uncertain but the documentary evidence suggests a castle did exist, or no remains survive, however I have come across a few examples where the site is securely known or there are earthworks listed as vanished. For the most part he is correct though. I took a look at Category:Castles in Somerset for comparison. Crewkerne Castle seems to be the only one that King didn't include (Midford Castle is an 18th century folly). I'm not entirely sure why, it may just be the case that when dealing with over 1,500 sites in England alone some might fall through the cracks due to human error. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you both like I'll start a page in my sandbox for everyone to edit (once I've done with Castle Neroche this evening). We do have some of the non linked or possible ones - but some may not be the same era ie in the Iron Age list. This points up the need for clear inclusion & exclusion criteria to be included in the lead. As an aside from your favourite name try Fairy Toot at Nempnett Thrubwell, but tis not a castle.— Rod ^talk 18:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK very early first stab to show the sort of thing I'm thinking about is at User:Rodw/Sandbox/List of Norman Castles in Somerset. Feel free to edit etc, but don't expect column sorting etc to work yet.— Rod ^talk 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Quick thoughts on what to include/exclude. I'm not certain about the title "Norman castles", as it can be ambiguous: I'd recommend we aim for creating a "List of castles in Somerset", and then work out which categories of castles to include. In the List of castles in Gloucestershire I did, I was very puritan, and went for medieval castles, including fortified manor houses with a licence to crenellate, but I didn't include any later "castles" which were just called "Castle X" because it was the fashion in the 19th century! (You can probably tell my personal bias there!) Another approach would be to follow King's Castellarium Anglicanum as a classic/authorative text, which has its advantages. A third approach, used in the "List of castles in England", would be to use several measures, but include later "castles". My personal preference would be for one of the first two approaches. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the list should be called? List of Castles in Somerset? I've been adding and checking some of the others & have a few points/questions:

On Montacute Castle Liddiard is used as a book reference - do you know the details? Also needs adding to the list
Wimble Toot, Babcary - lovely name but according to this is a Bronze Age bowl barrow, so I don't think it should be in the list.

I would like to remove Extant as a title & the "vanished" and "possible" lists - they can always be added if/When we get more evidence. Then I'd like to make it public for others to edit - what do you think?— Rod ^talk 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think List of castles in Somerset (lower case castle is a good title). I forgot to mention that Cathcart King uses the pre-1974 county boundaries. The Gatehouse takes the stance that Wimble Toot isn't a castle. The Somerset HER mentions that the site has been suggested as a castle but has no further details. It's interesting that very little has been written about Wimble Toot, although Mike Salter in his own list of castles in Wessex seems to have included it (I'd be interested to see what he says) but this is probably because as far as I can tell his own lists are based largely on Cathcart King's. I'd like to know what Stuart Prior has to say on the matter though... Nev1 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Prior covers Wimble Toot in some detail, so I've written a quick article for it. Liddiard sorted as well.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Wimble & Liddiard. Are you happy if I move it now to List of castles in Somerset?— Rod ^talk 18:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tis done - lets move further discussion to the article talk page rather than clogging up yours.— Rod ^talk 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Wimble Toot Castle you added a redlink to Downend Castle suggesting it was 19 miles along the River Cary. I'm trying to identify this but can't find it on Pastscape. Any hints or ideas for more info?— Rod ^talk 10:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be called Chisley Mount (see here) or the one here and here?— Rod ^talk 11:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - the local village is Downend, South Gloucestershire, and there was originally a small motte and bailey there; Bridgwater Castle overtook it in prominence later; Creighton and Prior have some bits on it. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its miles from S. Glos. Down End doesn't have an article. It's just north of Dunball part of the parish of Puriton. Just not sure what to call it - various sources call it Downend Castle, Down End Earthworks (here), Motte with two baileys immediately east of Bristol Road, Down End, Chisley Mount & Motte and Bailey castle, Down End. Down End definitely appears to be 2 words.— Rod ^talk 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to call it Down End (or Downend - I've seen both) Castle, and then note in the intro that it can often be called Chisley Mount.Hchc2009 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK initial stub at Down End Castle, with redirects done for alt titles. I'll add it to the list later.— Rod ^talk 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your reviewing work, great stuff. Btw, I'm getting a lot of books on airborne ops in WWII, looking forward to collaborating. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Have dropped you an email. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks very much for your work on the GA review of Battle of Mughar Ridge, its very much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011[edit]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of the Mallians[edit]

You said you had some tips on the Mallian Campaign article. I'm almost finished with sourcing it and I just nominated it for GA status. You think it ranks up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on your talk page.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I requested the people to make some maps at the map making section. I'm going to download that program though and give it a shot for next time. Thanks for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Inkscape, I tend to use a PD map (either from the wiki, or from scanning a PD book), tidy it with Paint if necessary, set that as the bottom layer and lock it, create a layer above and then do the arrows, text, circles etc. as new layers on top of that, then just save the result as a .png or what have you and the effect can look quite good. There're probably better ways of doing it, but I'm a Luddite! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAR 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

Please take the time to review the changes that have been done to the article in question, and responses have been left on the GAR page. Enjoy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - will do so later! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Richmont Castle[edit]

On 24 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richmont Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Richmont Castle once overlooked the Chew Valley? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Hi mate, I believe I have finished implementing some suggestions on the article Action of 23 August 1967, but I can't find the converter for the monetary value.Canpark (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I've done the converter bit, and passed it. Nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate.Canpark (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion[edit]

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Framlingham Castle a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk)

And Clare Castle too! Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farleigh Hungerford Castle[edit]

I've just got back from holiday & found your great work at Farleigh Hungerford Castle. I will have a closer look later, but suggest nominating for GA soon.— Rod ^talk 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review Belitung shipwreck[edit]

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to do the review. I will start putting in the amendments in a little while and drop you a note once completed. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, fell asleep on the settee - cold pizza is not that nice lol :¬(

I will go through the necessary amendments this morning/early afternoon and hopefully get them all addressed by late afternoon. (are you in an area over GMT+3?) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love cold pizza! (provided it has peperoni on it). I'm on standard GMT, but I'm on leave this week, so will be about all day. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, we are in the middle of an update to our HACCP policies and reapplying for licensing, I had a call out today so will let you know once finished. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - no rush! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do me a favour and place some marker next to, or strike though, those you think have been addressed satisfactorily? I am getting lost going through them all and am a little worried that I might miss some. If you would rather not, would you mind if I placed something next to the ones that are not yet addressed so that I can remove the marker as I finish them? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone through this morning and struck through as requested... Remaining issue is primarily what to do about the new volume, either in terms of making sure we've updated any new academic arguments, or in terms of ensuring that the citations for existing statements are as strong as possible. Let's discuss when our time zones reoverlap! :) 06:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I did of course leave the most difficult part till last lol. I'll get the other small ones finished in the next hour or so and then try and read through the pertinent PDF's to see if everything is up-to-date.

I am GMT based, though most often work at night, I do not know why I thought you might be ahead :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done most of the rest, just some final things to look at, and the route-map to modify. For some reason the yellow route is not present - I think I accidentally deleted that version and uploaded the previous version. I will fix that tonight and upload it, as well as add a little more to the route section. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have done the same thing myself in the past (usually managing to delete my saved newer version from my hard drive in the process...!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is what I did as well :¬(

Thank you for your work reviewing the GA nom, and the pass, I will address the map issue and any other small items that may have been missed tonight, unfortunately I had to go into work today as we had a failed freezer.

It has been an enlightening experience, I suppose most peoples first GAs are. The plan is to develop it more thoroughly from the latest evidence from both the Sackler gallery catalogue, archaeological papers, and perhaps some Indonesian sources. It may take a month or two, or even three, but I really would like to get it up to FA standard. There is a lot of detail from Flecker about the wreck, as well as the new info from the Sackler catalogue - hopefully I can double its content, and maybe get permission for some underwater photos.

Once again, thanks for your help on improving it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent topic for an article - I could well see it being suitable for FA in due course. If I can help at all as you progress it, do let me know. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayaguez Incident GA Review[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to do the review. I have a few other pressing commitments at the moment, but will work through your comments when time permits. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand - no rush! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward III of England[edit]

Can you check over the latest addition - I don't have Fowler so I can't check if that addition is in the source given. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will investigate later this evening - no prob's. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleargh. I've reverted the current version, because it makes no sense. The English did support Joanna, incidentally,, but its certainly not on pages 58-9 of Fowler (I don't have access to a copy to hand, but Google isn't showing any reference to Joanna at all for those pages, or indeed the whole book). I suspect he's just cut and pasted from the wiki page. I've pointed him in the direction of Mortimer, who does mention it - I have a copy somewhere, but I need to find the volume tomorrow under, ahem, all the other books in the house. I did look at this a while back, and there are really very few sources available on Joanna that are reliable, courtesy of the French Revolution and other inconvenient events! A shame, as she seems an interesting character. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU[edit]

I appreciate your support on Joanna of Flanders, however, keep investigating and if you found any source available, please contact me so I can make an arrangement to edit the short sentence of the Breton War of Succession involving her, again, many thanks.--Corusant (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, again many many thanks.--Corusant (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal for outstanding work on Kenilworth Castle, York Castle and Stephen, King of England, which were promoted between January and August 2011. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hchc2009, I just want to add my own personal congratulations to the above award. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated guys! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

	Well done
	Congratulations on your achievement in getting Farleigh Hungerford Castle to GA, an excellent improvement on the article. Now you said something about Dunster Castle.... — Rod ^talk 07:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been distracted by some hard-core work on the Bastille, but it's on the list! ;) Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordship?[edit]

I'll be happy to support your candidacy if you want to run, Paul. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement - yes, I think I'll give it a go this year. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	I hereby award this much deserved barnstar for expanding Bastille from this to its current state. Well done! Keep up the great work! Ruby comment! 17:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated, thank you! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion[edit]

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making keep a certified "Good Article"! Your work on castle articles is amazing, and this article on a general castle topic helps Wikipedia a great deal. Please accept this barnstar. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image question[edit]

It seems the 19th-century French didn't give you too much trouble in the end, congratulations on doing the Bastille justice. Hopefully one day I'll turn my attention from British castles, but there are so many I still find interesting. Which brings me to a question related to King John. Your article uses File:RochesterCastle.JPG which has the same name as this image on commons. Having replaced my copy of Rochester Castle's guidebook 9 months after losing the damned thing I'm having a go at expanding the article. I was going to use the commons file I just showed you but as it has the same name as one on Wikipedia the Wikipedia version overrides it. The way I see it there are two options: I can transfer the Wikipedia file over to commons under a different name as it has a suitable licence or ask an admin on commons to move the file already there to a new title. As the first option would directly effect John's article I was wondering which version you wanted to use for your article? Nev1 (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have just got back from a couple of days away with work. It's a right pain when you misplace a book! I'm fairly relaxed about the image - the second one would work fine by me. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAC review of Girton College[edit]

Thank you for starting a GAC review of Girton College. There now only remain 1 "clarification needed" tag and 1 "citation needed" tag. We are working on them. If a short-term solution cannot be found, I will remove the two problematic sentences. I hope that the steps taken so far to improve citations will allow you to perform a deeper review. Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Absolutely. I'm travelling between tomorrow and Thursday, but will then get stuck in on the deeper review. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodiam Castle[edit]

The Bodiam article will appear on the main page tomorrow (Thursday) but I won't be available until perhaps Saturday or Sunday. Could you deal with any talk page queries that crop up? I may have intermittent access via my phone, but can't guarantee it and would want the article to be derelict when it hits the front page. Nev1 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can cover some of it - I'll be offline thursday 1000-1630, but will keep an eye on it before and after. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunster Castle...[edit]

Great stuff. If I can help please please let me know.— Rod ^talk 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you enjoyed your pint? It's looking good - obviously a few bits like "post-invasion period and the xxx rebellion" & the Dunning ref, but in general I think you've done a great job, As I said let me know if there is anything I can do to help.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for all your work. The Carter ref is an email newsletter sent out to subscribers every few months. They are not put into the archive until 6 or so months later - so it should appear on that page at some point but until then I can't see it being available. It might be worth emailing Susan Rennie on info (at) fortifiedengland.com who writes the newsletter to ask if she would make it available.— Rod ^talk 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Once I've got that sorted, shall we put it up at GA? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK taking a more detailed look..

In the lead should parliament link to something more specific eg Parliament of the United Kingdom or possibly Rump Parliament or even Commonwealth of England
In History/11th to 16th c should "William de Mohun" link to William de Mohun of Dunster, 1st Earl of Somerset? I would personally make Walter of Douai a red link as he is mentioned in lots of Somerset articles.
I'm no grammar expert, but I had to read the sentence "William successfully held the castle and was made the Earl of Somerset by the grateful Empress, although chroniclers complained of the way in which he subsequently raided and controlled the region through force during the war, causing much destruction" a couple of times for it to make sense - could it be split into 2 sentences?
The sub heads in history don't quite work. we have 11th to 16th followed by 14th to 17th (which starts with "In the 13th century") - why the overlap?
The wl to Marshwood isn't right - the one linked is miles away.
In "English Civil War and the Restoration" should Commonwealth point to Commonwealth of England?
Should "mid-Victorian" be wikilinked?
Should "Conservatory" be wikilinked to either Conservatory (greenhouse) or Sunroom?
billiard links to a dab page

I think the work you have done is great & the questions & comments above are minor.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks - great working with you as always! I'll work through these tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. It looks GA standard to me now.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replace the Adkins ref which needed a page no with the Gathercole one. Are you happy to nominate this at GAN or would you like me to do it?— Rod ^talk 10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind too much - it's been a team effort. Tell you what, I'll try to do it this evening. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Castle[edit]

Thanks for the help with Bodiam the other day. Is there any chance you could cast an eye over the Rochester article? I feel like I've essentially finished off the content and will start on copyediting soon, but would appreciate a pair of knowledgeable eyes checking there are no gaps before I take it to FAC. Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You wouldn't happen to know where I can find a free version of the castle's plan would you? The HMSO book had one that might be compatible, but I don't have access to it at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look over it tonight. I haven't got a PD version of Rochester - my usual "Crown Copyright" expired collection hasn't got that one in. It's a fairly simple design, though, so if you get stuck give me a shout and I can try to draw it out on Inkscape for you. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB: the architects http://www.robinkent.com/368.html Robin Kent] would also almost certainly have one. Again, happy to drop them an email if you'd like me to. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could drop the architects an email to see if they can help that would be great. Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will give it a shot. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's worth a go. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at List of castles in England[edit]

A consensus is taking place at Talk:List of castles in England. You are invited to participate.

Stephen...[edit]

Don't get me wrong, you've done an awesome awesome job with this... my nitpicking at the FAC shouldn't make you think I hate the article, I just want to make sure it's the best it can be. I hope you take all my comments with that in mind, and always remember that I do think it's excellent work. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The encouragement is much appreciated, particularly after a long day at work! As ever, you do a great job with these reviews, and I certainly appreciate the effort, passion and knowledge that goes into them. Thanks! (and I have a day off tomorrow, so will be able to get down to some solid grafting...) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like tomorrow before I can get back to this... not only are we waiting on the delivery of a dryer, but the vet just called and the cat we took out for a declaw operation isn't quite ready for the operation, so back home she must come... blech! Busy day! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about on the level with the two hours I spent with my ISP on the phone today trying to fix a fault with their server... :( Hope your cat isn't in too bad a mood on their return! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what king is up next, anyway? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn between Rufus and Henry II. I'm tempted to be ambitious and go for Henry as I do like the family politics, but I need to do a bit more reading around the Becket controversy first... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Henry. I'm currently reading all the crap for Thomas Becket, so I could perhaps be persuaded to deal with the Becket controversy ... we could do a Featured Topic of the Becket controversy - I've got Gilbert Foliot already at FA status and we'd need Henry II for it also ... Rufus is a topic close to my heart, so unless you really really want three-times-the-verbiage for his FAC,....Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I have mentioned that I am Chinese[edit]

So I would be glad to help as possible as I can, if I am not too busy.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - I've left a note on your talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, as for Chieh-kao, "chieh" was the Chinese character "秸", meaning the stalk of some certain crops after threshing, while "kao" was the character "稿", meaning the stalk of cereals. But I am afraid that I could not tell what "chhii" is.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting my fellow friends, "chhii" is probably the character "楯", meaning rail or extendedly shield or banister. But I am not so sure how to read it in ancient China. According to modern pinyin it reads like dun or shun. Could you please tell me how to pronounce it with international phonetic alphabet? Or in which sentence or text does the word appear?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness that one of my fellows find out both words: chhii is 渠, containing the literal meaning of shield; chieh-kao is actually 桔槔, literally meaning shaduf/shadoof.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.

If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Hchc2009, I hope and believe you will coordinate the Project well. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]