User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 12

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sutton Valence Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sutton Valence Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sutton Valence Castle

The article Sutton Valence Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sutton Valence Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent

Hello, Hchc2009. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Andrew Gray (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Conisbrough Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Conisbrough Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at article on England

An editor is using 19C sources to state that England was a vassal of the Holy See. Can you take a look at Talk:England#Sovereignty in the time of King John. Ealdgyth and I have already had our say. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Peasants' Revolt, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 26 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the "turning point in English history, complete with a cast of thousands, dramatic events, bureaucratic incompetence and revenge ..." - precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 7 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions to Featured Biography Articles in 2014 you are hereby awarded this Biography Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom, very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Conisbrough Castle

The article Conisbrough Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Conisbrough Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page number for McGlynn on Magna Carta

Hi, You will probably spot the comments by User:Maralia on Talk:Magna Carta#Further development about some of the other bits we might need to address, but specifically do you still have a copy of the McGlynn book saying p=1307 (Ref 26) as this is probably a typo in the page number.— Rod ^talk 09:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry III of England

Hi Hchc. I just changed the picture on the article for Henry III of England but you reverted that edit, stating that "Doesn't actually show King John's lands in 1200 though, but rather Henry II's empire". Firstly I'd like to mention that I should have said c. 1199 when John came to the throne, not c. 1200. Anyway, the point of that picture in the article is to show the lands that John controlled. John controlled the lands shown in "Angevin Empire.svg" when he came to throne, not the vaguely drawn lands shown in the picture that was previously there. The only difference that is worth mentioning is that the borders of Normandy are very slightly different and presumably show the loss of the Norman Vexin or something. I can't even work it out though because that map is so vague. "Angevin Empire.svg" allows the reader to see exact borders and lands owned by John in a way which is far more useful. If you could enlighten me onto the exact reason you prefer the map currently on the page, and how it helps the text more than the map I chose, then perhaps I could be persuaded to agree. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be content if I moved/copied the conversation to the article talk page in question? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine by me, I just was directing my question at you so I thought it was better placed here but either page works. SamWilson989 (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III FAC

Hi Hchc, it's been a while since you last commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1 - are you happy with the current state of the article? I think I've tackled all of the issues that you raised. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - apologies! Yep, I'm content and have adjusted accordingly to a support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kehl comments

Would you follow up on these Assessment comments please? auntieruth (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Wetheral Priory Gatehouse

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wetheral Priory Gatehouse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Wetheral Priory Gatehouse

The article Wetheral Priory Gatehouse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wetheral Priory Gatehouse for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A helpful tip

At my GA Review instead of using quotation marks, you can use {{xt|your text here}}. It causes green text. You can slash, use italics, and bold text in this template. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard text works fine from my perspective. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - have commented. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Skipsea Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Skipsea Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Louviers

If you have time, could you look over the article for improvements. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Skipsea Castle

The article Skipsea Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Skipsea Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower House

Bramshill House passed FAC, thankyou for your input. I've opened a peer review for William Burges's The Tower House. As the author of another of Burges's work in Cardiff Castle, I invite you to comment so that we can avoid source disagreements in future :-). Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do @Dr. Blofeld:, and congrats on Bramshill House - an excellent piece of work! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to get your Castles in the UK article up to the FA status sometime. Obviously it's a massive scope and plenty of room for additions but I don't think it has to be perfect and in my opinion it is already a superlative piece which could make it without terrible extra effort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Exhumation of Richard III of England BTW Prioryman and yourself for your involvement in it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III

Thank you very much for your help in getting Exhumation of Richard III of England to Featured Article status! I thought you might like to know that I have nominated it for Today's Featured Article for 26 March 2015. The request is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Exhumation of Richard III of England. Please feel free to comment if you have any views. Prioryman (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea - I've added my support. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive comment bordering on incivil

This struck me as a case where we can do better. I hope you agree. Samsara 07:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can Samsara. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Inch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes and Atlantic Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff's inquest of 1170...

Do we have an article or section of article for this? or for the general subject? See Clarembald - my latest bad-boy-abbot ... he took part in it but I'm not sure what to link to... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still watching Hchc's userpage since our last discussion, so I thought I'd have a look myself. The only mention of it I can find is in the article for the 1170s in England. It's a sentence alone though. Other than that, there's no mention of it that I can find anywhere. I think an article should, and could quite easily be made, as I've found a bit of literature on the inquest already with a quick search, so with some better resources it shouldn't be to difficult. Hope this helps, SamWilson989 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Sam, I don't think we've got an article at the moment, but it does deserve one. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write one up... was there just the one inquest or was it regular? I.e. should we have Sheriff's inquest or should it be Sheriff's inquest of 1170? or Sheriff's inquest (1170)? I'm eyeball deep in a slave-trader/forger right now... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the inquest only occurred after Henry returned from France in 1170, as he'd been there for 4 years and he'd received complaints about the sheriffs. Once the inquest was completed and the issue sorted out there wouldn't be a need to be another one for some time so it wasn't a regular event. I think Sheriff's inquest of 1170 with perhaps the other two simply as redirects would be the most fitting. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a quick article now. The best term seems to be the Inquest of Sheriffs. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Reformation

I've decided to tackle this for the core contest ... and would like a second opinion. With these edits I took out a "Seventh-day Adventist" historian from 1948 and 1950. Here I remove a sentence "It was the rallying point and the battle cry that made the Reformation nearly unassailable." which to me is not only way POV laden language but not true (the Reformation was never "nearly unassailable"). But I just got reverted and would like an opinion on whether or not the edits I made should stand. I'm really leery of outdated/religious sources ... and I hope to improve the article a lot more. But if I have to fight the whole way...I don't think I have the energy to deal with another Middle Ages situation .... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a scout around Froom's work and the extent to which he is cited today by mainstream historians. He does get used occasionally, albeit in a particularly narrow field, and personally I think that the ^{[better source needed]} tag might be most appropriate rather than a straightforward removal (he's not necessarily fringe as far as I can tell, but we should ideally be using more up to date sources). On the "rallying point" language, I'd agree with you, the language is strange and if Froom genuinely argues the second bit, he's not expressing a point that modern historians would agree with. I've watched the page, so happy to join in the discussions if it's useful. The article could definitely do with improving, and the Middle Ages has been relatively peaceful for a while now...! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

You have not replied on the GA Review page for a while. Please reply. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review all the recent changes on Saturday morning; thanks T*J! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castell Coch

Thanks again for The Tower House plans. They're very clear and much enhance the article. It will be interesting to see how it gets on at FA. Thanks also for the editing/ordering of The Red Castle. I think the development it needs is now much more visible. A little surprised that there has been no reaction from the Dr. Who fans as yet. As a related aside, I see you have done some impressive work on the 2nd Marquess. An "under-rated" figure, as you say. The 3rd Marquess hasn't been much better served, by history or by Wikipedia. The Grand Designer, while full of facts and very welcome, reads to me a little like a thesis. Sometime, his Wikipedia page will need doing - it's in a rather sorry state at present. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, always happy to help! The Red Castle is a lovely property; I've a couple of sort-of-OK pictures from the reconstruction work that are now out of copyright, but the quality isn't great. Agree about the 3rd Marquess, it does need a bit of attention... The 2nd Marquess also needs a decent published biography - some parts of his life were well covered, but other bits were completely opaque, although I'm sure that there would be primary sources available in the archives. Will look out for the Tower House at FA... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009 and Dr. Blofeld:

I've opened up a line at the Castell Coch Talkpage as it might be easier to keep everything on that in one place. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Just moved some of the quotes to the architecture section. The lede of course should summarise the body, not have new material on quotes! Something summarising the aim of Burges and Bute in prose with the quote paraphrased a bit might be useful though. Already looking better though, even at this early stage! I will try to help out when I can!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Just to say, it is looking fantastic. Astonishing quality, at equally astonishing speed! KJP1 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decent team effort - I think it's increasingly looking close to completion. I've left some "consistency of style" type of questions on the talk page this evening, and we'll need to dedupe wikilinks etc. and all that kind of thing, but it has to be pretty close to potential review now. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower House

Thankyou for your input into the peer review, especially for uploading those plans! The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where it remains, with a plethora of interesting and useful, although exhausting, comments! Castell Coch's coming on beautifully, despite the rather odd interventions from that Californian IP address. Will join you when the FAC allows. I think you're overlooking Burges! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Ta - Burges will come out more as we expand the architectural section, I'm sure!:) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on Coch. I reckon at this rate we can avoid GA and open a peer review once done and take straight to FAC. A fair bit of work to be done yet though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely getting there... I'm just about to take a stab at a gallery of some of the architectural details. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

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

Castell Coch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Three Fates

Edward II of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scarborough

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Big Inch

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Big Inch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Castell Coch images

Please feel free! :) The references are listed on Dr. B.'s page. If you're in the US, the images are PD-1923; if you're not, then they may not be free of copyright. Both HathiTrust and Google "limit" those outside of the US from full viewing of the journals and articles apparently by IP "gatekeeping". So someone not in the US can't even read articles, let alone copy anything. I'm in the US, and can copy them without issue; this is why they're "hosted". If you upload anything, though, I'd suggest doing that here and not on Commons. We hope (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon they should be okay in the UK and Europe as well, as Burges died in 1881 and the 70 year rule would apply. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]