User talk:Ning-ning/Archive2

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riddings Windmills

Hello Ning-ning

I will do some research and see what I can come up with for you. stavros1 ♣

Some info here [1] --palmiped | Talk 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm

On the front page is a "did you know" about Wardlow. I see you have added a bit to Norbury. If it makes 1500 characters then Norbury too can go on the main page under joint authorship. We need to do it in the next 2 days. Interested? There is lots of stuff on this place. Victuallers (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine .... I won't tell you how to "suck eggs" in adding to this article. Once we have 1400 or so then I will write a DYK hook. Hopefully by the time we have finished you will know how to go solo on a dyk if you havent done one before.Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brill... I'll write a "hook" tonight for Did You Know ...we have to complete quyickly as old articles are not allowed. (Old means 5 days!) Victuallers (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_May_19 ...Victuallers (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks

Ahhh I prefer your hooks but we need a solid reference to use them. There is a particular problem with Ann Moore. My ref said born in Rosliston ... do you have the ref for Norbury? Victuallers (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse it was "my" article.:-) But she was a proven liar. I think we need to change that article to reflect her doubtful birthplace Victuallers (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norbury is looking great. Maybe a B? Its a lot better than I imagined and will be on the front page very soon. I have created a new article for Ralph Fitzherbert based on a lot of your work and the pics I have begged from Flickr. I'm proposing to write a new hook for this under joint authorship.... if you agree then could we minimise some of the Ralph stuff in the Norbury article to ensure we do not double claim the additions we have made. Do feel free as always to change things. Victuallers (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norbury, Derbyshire

On 25 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norbury, Derbyshire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead men don't wrote

Sounds like a good film title! Thanks for the help ... as you see I've wondered off to aguy who may be from Derbyshire .... don't know. Trying to find out the basic bio stuff. Do plough in if you think you see an opportunity for another shared nom. cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossop

I see you have done an edit on Glossop. I have culled a lot of the duplicated material and some formatting pho-pas, which while necessary, I suspect will not be too popular. I am not a member of the Derbyshire project and haven't got any of the necessary reference books to do a thorough tidy( I just take photos and do an odd svg). Can you keep an eye on it and help the two editors to learn wikipedia ways.ClemRutter (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching Milnrow which has just got GA status. I think it provides a useful model of what Glossop should end up looking like. Looking back at the history- it appears that a lot of material was deleted from Glossop ie November 2007, that could be introduced in the correct format. At times the article has looked quite good. There seem to be a very large number of ip-editors putting in an input, that often is not helpful. I am in two minds whether separate articles need to be written for Glossop MB, Glossop(The Manor), Glossop (The ancient parish). ClemRutter (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Copyright violation- including the embarrassing spelling mistake or Carl for churl/or ceorl. I have just bought a fascinating book (see for sample pages http://www.questia.com/library/book/small-town-politics-a-study-of-political-life-in-glossop-by-a-h-birch.jsp) it will arrive Wednesday/Thursday. When I have digested that, I will have a go at rewriting the entire history section. I think we can leave it another 5 days- but you might want to just delete it to be safe.

I keep seeing references to the mills of Glossop Dale, and my instinct is that this is sufficiently important to develop into a separate article Industrial History of Glossop. As there is material in AHBirch for a Political History of Glossop, it could just be that the History section is reduced to a series of Wikilinks.

As you can see I have been trying to unravel the meaning of Glossop- it is a bit like working with jelly. I think that I have an set in place some structure. AHBirch mentions this on page 5 para 3 as the area problem.Yes I realise that the heading is wrong- just another job.

Take a close look at the image of police infront of the Glossop stone- it looks like a PR shot, rather than a personal photo- Is this another copyvio?

As to the etymology of Glossop, you are probable right but all the sources go along with the 'falsehood' so I am for leaving it with a footnote explaining the problem.

Right barrel of worms we have got here.

ClemRutter (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the last 500 pages in the history to see what was going on a created a sandbox User:ClemRutter/Glossop‎ that is a collection of snapshots of the past see its history. We have some significant players. Damien- who talk page is full of copyvio warnings, who at times has added some interesting stuff but that prompts the question where was that cut and pasted from? Also the graphic of the streets- can we be sure that this was not lifted from another site. He hasn't produced any more to that standard has he? Loads of his images have been removed. But he does spend a lot of time doing it- ususally in the early morning.

87.194.20.168 seems to enjoy creating tables and formatting to his own taste- usually a repetition of existing material on Glossop or elsewhere.

194.205.175.23X I suspect are neighbouring computers in a school.

User:Jza84 now an admin has helped in the past as has User:Victualler and User:Dave.Dunford so they may be willing to assist.

I must wait for the book to arrive- but them I think we will need to have a major cull, and the starting point probably will have to be the (27,029 version of the 14th June.) We can build up the page on my site- discuss it with the Derbyshire Project before we launch. ClemRutter (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put a {{imagevio}} tag on the two offending images so we can get them zapped by an admin. They need an extra parameter- the url.ClemRutter (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book has arrived. Wonderful read. So I am working on User:ClemRutter/Glossop/New where I can make major changes uninterupted- not being too worried about rapid changes of mind. Do have a look- it is at an early stage. ClemRutter (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK- I have a clearer idea of what the article should look like, and have spent some of today working on it.User:ClemRutter/Glossop/New. Some sections are nearly complete and at the copy editing stage- others which I have clearly {{ambox}}ed. Please feel free to join in. It is already too long as an article- and I have left red links for where I think complimentary articles can be written. I think the history section should remain at the moment but eventually will float. I will be taking a two or three day break soon (to pick up a car and to take photographs) so others can catch up. I will put a notice on the Derbyshire project page to invite others to comment.

ClemRutter (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a link

Please send a link when your article has a stub. I have just knocked out Peter Perez Burdett a very unusual guy who I thought was born but only hailed from Derby. I see ClemRutter says he is not in the Derbyshire project .... well he just needs to add his name. The Glossop page could do with a major clean up ... um I have been an admin for a bit now. However I prefer editting to editwars! :-) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

fine

I'll have a look Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC). Hi again.... I looked at "Harry" the Glossop guy you mentioned , but in on-line sources I could anly find a few sentences. Regarding the Burdett pic ... if you upload it somewhere (here?) then I'd be pleased to move it. (IT is too tricky... they have "improved" the commons uploader) Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of Image:Bladder.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bladder.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

How do they know I'm fat?? Victuallers (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the comment ... are they all from Peckham? Made me smile... !! Say do you fancy having a go at this article and we'll see if we can make abother joint DYK? There is some interesting stuff on the Abneys Victuallers (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statue

Don't worry, I didn't like the size myself :-) Renata (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit links

I've tried it out on List of places in Cheshire and it works in IE and Firefox. How is it on Safari? The Derbyshire links are still at the bottom in Firefox! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Renata on the rampage. She's adding pictures to lots of "Places in..." articles, thereby messing up the edit links. And I don't think they're relevant - see my comment on the Derbyshire talk page! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to see my message to the instigator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm

Hi NN, I think we missed our chance with Willesley. As you can see I had a good go at it but it needs to go to DYK within 5 days of its "birth" or of its expansion by a factor of 5. It started its growth on the 10th .... so it would have to be done tonight...... I think we have have to choose another article. Got any ideas? Victuallers (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Oh and I went to Norbury on Sunday .... brilliant Victuallers (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again N₂ I wasn't aware that the pics were being deleted, but I was aware that some of the pics you loaded were smaller than they could have been - but your method was so efficient, that I didn't mention it and besides for most articles no one ever sees a large version. However as I understand it now ... you were worried, but now believe Matt is replacing the images with larger versions ... so all OK in the end? If you get a chance then maybe you might look at the portal etc ... its looking a bit unloved and someone said that we appeared unfriendly! I have had a go at clearing out some of the unassessd articles .... it was about 60 and is now down to 25 or so I think. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Sandiacre is now pictureless. I have sent a note to Matt on commons to ask what he thinks can be done ... twould be a blow to lose all the pics you added. I thought he had replaced them with larger pics, which I would understand, but changing file names doesnt improve the wiki much and in this case its damaging it. cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt has put together a list of 20 or more files he erroneously deleted. I think he is regretful as seems a genuine misunderstanding ... he may well help if asked toi restore the situation. I would too. But its your call. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset windmills

Feel free to create articles on the surviving Somerset windmills. I'd suggest using the same format as the various articles I've already created which I expect you've probably seen some of. Do you have Coultard and Watts book on the Somerset windmills? My copy is in storage at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have the Surrey & Inner London book, fortunately one of a few books not in storage at the moment. Surviving Surrey windmills all have articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a West Sussex mill, strictly speaking. If you want to create the article, list it as Jolesfield Mill, Littleworth with a redirect from Gatwick Manor Mill. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANRC link

Hi DollyD. The link is [2].Ning-ning (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting incorrect linkage. I've amended it. I've posted it on your talk page because this link does not seem to have been read by either the creator of the article nor those who have so vigourously defended it. Don't feel like handing anything to them on a plate ;) Ning-ning (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ning-ning, Thanks for the link. I agree with your proposal for a possible "Cruising on the River Nene" article that could include information about other clubs in the area. This seems like a far better outcome than a straight-out deletion. DollyD (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stigand

Can you tell I got a new book in? (grins) I'm done for now, I think. Feel free to rip my additions to bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lied. Another book in the stack applies... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. NOW I think I'm done. User:Karanacs is copyediting it too, so don't freak. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Damn, just when I've learnt it all by heart! I am freaking, Karana is good at it... Ning ning (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she is. After William de St-Calais gets done, it'll be time for our man the rich archbishop to shine at FAC... --Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: SR N15X class picture.

I'm not really sure, as I am only familiar with the works of Terence Cuneo, Craig Tiley, Philip Hawkins et al. I did a quick search on google images, and nothing came up. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Looking at the link you posted, although the style is similar, I don't think Mr. Moore is my man. The LSWR locomotive (L11 class, I think)looks a bit too "crisp" to me, even taking into account image resolution. Thanks for the research, though, and that inage of the LSWR loco might come in handy one day! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could, as I only have access to a copy every time I'm in Swansea University library. Looking closely, it might be an M. Robertson or Robinson. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

Please explain your revert immediately. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not see at any point where there is a need to copyedit any of it. Could you please clarify - otherwise, I suggest you revert. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you reverted the entire lot, simply for one word?? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are things that are being discussed on the talk page. We will alter the wording as we go along. You however, have just reverted dozens upon dozens of changes. Did you even check exactly what it is you reverted? I think you should check the diff again, as I don't think you understand the scale of your revert. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point does not even make sense. I do not see anything wrong with that wording. Besides, you have failed to answer my point. The collateral damage you have done by reverting is tremenda. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O F Hunziker

The Talk history for the O F Hunziker article indicates "Put status on hold" as of Sep 1. I think that I have addressed all outstanding issues, except changes inherent in editions of Condensed Milk. Regarding the latter, I provided relevant language from the 2nd and 3rd edition prefaces at my talk page but am unsure whether these early (1918 and 1920) changes add any value to the article. As I don't have access to later editions and have been unable to find any contact information for the current publisher (Cartwright Press), I am unsure what to do further. What are your thoughts? Apart from the editions issue, are there any outstanding issues? Thank you for your already-substantial time and assistance with this matter.--Rpclod (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the message, Ning-ning. No worries or hurries, I just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking anything -- this is my first GA review.--Rpclod (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Frederick Hunziker

There are a couple of minor issues with the recent GA assessment for the above article. I've commented in more detail on the article talk page. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O F Hunziker has re-arisen to GA-dom. Ning ning, thank you very much for all your assistance with this one. It looks as though the GA category issue has been resolved. For your appropriate level of editorial pestering and good humor when re-assessment occurred, I would like to grant you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For patience and humor, many thanks on behalf of Professor Hunziker and other non-amphibians

I hope that is ok. Thanks also to EyeSerene^talk and the other editors. This is a fascinating process and I am glad to see the checks and balances that create Wikipedia integrity.--Rpclod (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

broken image on your user page

Derafsh_kaviani.jpg is broken. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ning-ning (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid...

Doing good with the copyedits, but you need to be more careful about the citations. When you moved "Wilfrid used Hadrian's Wall as a source of building stone for the church at Hexham." you disconnected it from the source that said that and moved it to a section sourced to the DNB, which doesn't mention the wall at all. I've fixed it, but we need to be really really careful of citations when copyediting. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I am working on the section regarding Sussex at the moment- will be ultracareful. Ning-ning (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a biggie, just wanted to give you a heads up. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's major discrepancies between Missions in Sussex and Cædwalla of Wessex. The latter article is an FA, with relevant bits sourced from Bede. It seems that Cadwalloper wasn't a king when he was first in Sussex but an aristocrat, didn't invade Sussex but maybe was exiled from Wessex and was in Sussex with an armed following, wasn't converted after he met Wilfrid but appears to have had a Christian frame of mind (or something) beforehand. Bit about Wilfrid getting sent to the IOW to convert the inhabitants may be problematic since Codwaller invaded the island with the express intent of massacring the pagan king and people. Ning-ning (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relic of the expansion. Previously there was one or two sentences on the event, so some things didn't get updated to reflect the new information. I've changed it appropriately in the text (the main problem was the "Wilfrid had previously had contact with Cædwalla, and may have served as a spiritual advisor to the king prior to Wilfrid going to Sussex." where I've replaced "king" with Cædwalla. (This is the one line sentence that was originally in the article, and it's my fault I didn't update it correctly.) Fixed!

Nottinghamshire windmills

Hi, I've noticed that you have added a number of windmills to various Notts articles. I'm currently working on a List of windmills in Nottinghamshire in my sandbox. Would appreciate it if you could expand the list using the book you quote as a source. You are welcome to edit in my sandbox if you wish or you can wait until the list is live. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can give book title, author and page number that is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the list, feel free to expand it. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of my ancestors was the owner of a windmill on the Forest a Samuel Maltby (1733 - 1787) I have some information and a copy of a drawing of the mills somewhere on file. --palmiped | Talk 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

You need to make sure that you don't add an extra line. There's a blank line in my sandbox if you want to copy it when creating new lines. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it- thanks! Ning-ning (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Oxfordshire- sorry for the misalignment- I managed to miss it on preview. Learning gradually... Ning-ning (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of which, how are you getting on with Oxon? Do you have Wilf Foreman's book?. Let me know when you've finished as it is the next one to be converted to a stand-alone list (any county with 20 or more mills). Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can't tell you at the moment, as I don't have my notes with me. Also I've managed to mislay the Notts book! Oxon is about 1/3 way through- the OS COORS slow it down (also had to take a bit of a wiki-break) Ning-ning (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about I work on Oxon in my sandbox and create the new article? Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Sorry about late reply- day out on the coast. The ref is the Wilf Foreman book. Your sandbox would be good for the new article. I'll try and contribute a bit more over the next week- I seem to have OS co-ordinates for a lot of mills that don't presently have them; just got to find a better way of putting them into the correct format than my present cut'n'paste method. Ning-ning (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Oxfordshire is done. Added some images today. Geograph website was down yesterday, couldn't access it at all. Haven't found a quick way of adding the oscoor template yet. I just c&p the first part {{oscoor| and add the rest. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really excellent work! I'll try and complete the Staffs list probably in the middle of the week- that I assume will also become a stand-alone list. Ning-ning (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bosworth Field

Hi, thank you for the interest in the Battle of Bosworth Field. Your copyediting is of great help. I would like to check with you this book: K. S. Wrights' The Field of Bosworth, Leicester: Kingsway Publication (2002). What are Wright's credentials? How reliable are Kingsway Publication's products for academic or scholarly studies? As the plan is to bring the article to become a Featured Article, there would be greater scrutiny on the sources it uses. Ealdgyth would be the best person on this project as far as I know to evaluate how this book stands. (This source is currently unreferred to, are you planning to add material from it?) By the way, are you the IP 24.238.41.82? Jappalang (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, last things first- no, not an IP!

I just found the Wright book at the local reference library- a further example of his writing is here [4]. This is the first time I have seen this book, I don't know Wright's credentials, and I suspect that Kingsway Press is a private venture of Wright. Nonetheless I had twenty minutes with the book, and I have just borrowed a copy of "Bosworth 1485 Psychology of a Battle" by Michael Jones (who is cited in the article). Wright's book is far superior. Given that Jones' theory that the battle occurred near Atherstone has been largely dismantled (e.g. he claims that a Bronze Age tumulus is a Henrican burial mound, and that King Dick's Hole at Atherstone was where Richard went swimming...) if Jones gets cited, I don't think Wright should cause much of a problem :)

I was planning to add material from Wright regarding cannonball finds at Ambion Hill; he has reviewed most of the known finds of stone shot (with photographs of a few). This could be boiled down to something like "There have been a number of finds of stone shot on Ambion Hill, the majority being 2 to 3 inches in diameter"- or something like that- the useful thing as far as the article is concerned is that these seem to be the only confirmed archaeological evidence found so far (although some think they're from the 1644 skirmish).

In Jones' book, the principal point of interest is the description of the French mercenaries as being from a recently disbanded military camp at Pont-de-l'Arche- the appendix quotes from A. Spont 'la Milice des Francs-Archers (1448-1500)' in Revue des Questions Historiques, LXI (1897), p. 474 a letter written on 23 August 1485 from Chester (Jones thinks Leicester) by a French soldier describing the battle. Unfortunately Spont only quotes a few lines "he [Henry] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won.", and of course the letter has never been seen again. Hope this is of use and interest. Ning-ning (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN on the Wright book? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ISBN, [[5]] gives publication data (down the bottom of the page)... and Ken's phone number. Ning-ning (talk)

Definitely a Self published source then, and needs to satisfy that requirement before being used in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took him out...pending an early morning phone call to demand his credentials! Ning-ning (talk)

Just to note that Jones is not cited for exact details about the battle, but for preceding events that are mostly in agreement with the community. I hazard this is likely why Cambridge was willing to publish his The King's Mother, and his Bosworth 1485 Psychology of a Battle was published by Tempus. I guess Cambridge was not willing to risk their reputation by publishing Jones' findings. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Now Peter Foss is cited in the section on the battlefield site- but he's not in the bibliography in the present article. In the previous version of the article he was cited as "perhaps the most definitive study of all". His published writing is a small 80 page booklet (pretty sure I've seen the first edition) published by Rosalba Press- there's a second edition (1998) by Kairos Press. He's not (as far as I know) an academic but an author and painter, published by small local presses, and is not in agreement with the community. Neither Jones nor Foss satisfy the requirements for reputable sources. Ning-ning (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further details (quote from Rosalba webpage)- "Rosalba Press is the publishing arm of the Yorkshire Branch of the Richard III Society....Peter Foss had long studied the accounts of the battle (and other documents) and the geology and topography of the area around Sutton Cheney and Ambion Hill, and had come to revolutionary conclusions regarding the site of the battle. His theories had not been published, and the Branch thought strongly that they deserved a wider circulation. Arthur Cockerill was the moving force behind the publishing of The Field of Redemore (1990) which was acknowledged to reflect great credit on the Branch.. He looked after every aspect of the production and distribution, taking over from Richard Knowles. The book sold well, recouping the heavy costs of production." Ning-ning (talk)

Foss' views are cited as the opinion of English Heritage, which would be a respected society. To reiterate, the article is not taking Foss as the expert opinion, but using English Heritage's opinion that certain views of the local historian are noteworthy (all information on Foss are cited to English Heritage). Again on Jones, we are not using Jones' studies on Bosworth, but his text (which comes from another book) on the events leading to the battle. Jappalang (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I don't know what the publication reputation of EH is. They're primarily a quango charged with managing historic sites and enforcing listed building regulations. Basically then, the article is citing Foss only insofar as he is being cited by an anonymous pdf, which claims he's a historian (which he's not). Ning-ning (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quango or not, they are a government body that has to take responsibility for their actions. Anonymous or not, their paper is a government work. Furthermore, Foss' theories are not cited by them alone. His paper was printed by the University of Birmingham,[6] and his views are cited by Gravett and Morgan. Regardless, it is the English Heritage's opinions about the studies of the battlefield location that are reflected in the article here. Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now what's happened. EH were charged in circa 1994 to draw up a battlefield register. They had previously been criticised for allowing development and metal detecting within the sites of some battles. They used Foss and Williams combined to draw up the boundaries of the registered battlefield, commenting that "the different theories about where the Battle of Bosworth was fought can be reconciled in a single, continuous battlefield area without any one area relying too much on a single theory." The report is their outlining of the reasons for their drawing of the boundary (they include areas where combatants were stationed before the battle, areas involved in the battle, but not areas where fighting occurred afterwards, and the boundaries drawn so that they can be appreciated on the ground by a visitor). Ning-ning (talk)

Aetherstone, as far as I know, has yet to gain any prominence in academic, official, and popular circles. The Battlefield Centre might have put it as one of the contenders for the location, but I highly suspect that they are doing it to avoid the possible mess such as that of 1985. English Heritage ignored it (and even Battlefields Trust "concluded that [Jones'] interpretation is wrong in certain key respects")[7]. Until some respectable publication or Englsh Heritage makes heavy mention of it (I suspect in the event that if it happens, it would be in a "this is flawed/incorrect"), I doubt it (plausible or plainly wrong) is of import to include it here. Jappalang (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from Foard that the York memorandum demolishes Jones' argument that the battle was named after the locale where burials were made, since the name Redemore given by someone who probably was with Richard on 22 August and who arrived at York on 23 August would "pre-date" any burials. Ning-ning (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as stated before, EH's report was used to state their opinion. Even though Williams and Foss are used as their sources, it is not for us to determine their findings (meaning any of research of the two debating historians) are reliable to include in the article. Let us just go with what secondary sources (EH, Ross, Chrimes, etc) think of these findings. Jappalang (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also pondering just how much of Foard's work we can use. Obviously his society and his credentials are solid; he is definitely an expert writer, thus qualifying as an reliable self-published source. However, are his findings released and accepted by the academic and historical societies? The report is published in 2004 to the Leicestershire council, but so far neither the Battlefield Centre nor any other source (book, report, etc) has endorsed the details in the report. Perhaps it is just too new for the evaluations to have taken hold? Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the report was commissioned by and published by Leicestershire County Council, who run the Battlefield Centre.Ning-ning (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, but the Council has evidently not acted on Foard's theories (go through the Battlefield Centre site) nor has any historian taken up Foard's findings. WP:SPS requires us to be careful when dealing with such reports. Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Since I live here I could go ask at the University of Leicester, or at the Battlefield Centre- there's bound to be some obscure but important secondary source knocking around discussing the latest findings. Ning-ning (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not be too fixated to include much of its information in that case, but if you have the chance to confirm those stuff, why not. Hey, on your next trip to the Battlefield Centre, can you take a photo of the diorama there (such as this photo). I think it would be nice to have for the article. A similar photo of the stained glass window at Husbands Bosworth would also be nice to have for the Commanders section. Jappalang (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you do take the photos, inquire for information about them (who created the arts, on which date, etc). There might be plaques or a guide who could help with that. Those information would be helpful to establish the copyrights of the creator. Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is up with these actions? Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Quotes from Foard and Williams; the Foard appears to be questionable SPS (see above) and the Williams deleted because a direct cite from his book and not the EH. Ning-ning (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Williams, calling on local place-name patterns, has suggested that the inference that Redemore was a discrete area is in fact a misinterpretation, and that the term applies to a broad swathe of land characterised by reddish soils. Hence for Williams the link with Dadlington is not proven..." is on page 3 of their report. Although EH does not explicitly give the date of the memorandum, it does state it to be "dated the day after the fight" (hmm, we could remove the Foard cite here then). As for the report itself, I am not entirely sure what to do with it; hence my seeking of other opinions at the peer review. Jappalang (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; a direct Williams quote is "A simpler and more accurate rendering of the key passage would be 'six roods of meadow in that part of Redmoor within the fields of Dadlington." That's preceded by his claim that Foss used a 19th century printed copy of an 18th century transcript of a lost tithe settlement, which transcript was rejected by the 18th century Royal Justices for whom it was prepared, and followed by the bit about Red in Leicestershire placenames meaning Red and not Reed. So there's three parts to his argument- a) original source not available b) key passage appears to show that only part of Redmoor was in Dadlington c) the soil is red clay, like that at Redmile and Ratcliffe Culey, after which the area was named. Ning-ning (talk)

...and the soil is reddish (checked yesterday) at Dadlington, by Fenn Lanes, but greyish at Shenton. The extent of the reddish soil I don't know, but I think that EH and Foss are perhaps biased sources as regards Williams, for example his source for a lot of information wasn't Hutton as claimed, but another source, a manuscript revision of an earlier work by a local historian. Ning-ning (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reading again, English Heritage does not state that Williams relied a lot on Hutton for information; it says Foss blames Hutton for propagating the notion that the battle took place on the north side (which inadvertently influenced Williams and others). I think "Williams relied primarily on William Hutton's 1788 The Battle of Bosworth-Field in the wiki-article is incorrectly written. I will correct it later. Jappalang (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staffordshire windmills

I'll let you finish expanding it before I copy the list into my sandbox and add sources, generally tweak it etc. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Source is Staffordshire Windmills by Barry Job, Midlands Wind and Watermills Group, 1985. Ning-ning (talk)

List of windmills in Staffordshire has been created. Re your recent additions to other list, these need to be sourced per WP:CITE. For websites the template is {{Cite web}}, the bare minimum info needed is {{cite web | url = | publisher = | title = | accessdate = }}</ref> and for books the template is {{Cite book}}. The most often used parts of this template are {{cite book | first = | last = | year = | title = | pages = | publisher = | location = |isbn= }}</ref>. Just copy these and fill in missing details where necessary. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Re Gloucestershire mills; just discovered I didn't make a note of the source, so I'll have to track that one down. I won't add any more until I find it. Ning-ning (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mills task force

Proposed at WT:HS Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Unknown watermill.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Unknown watermill.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]