Jump to content

User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MilHist IRC[edit]

Hi Hchc2009, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at [1]. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a coord, I'd like to ask you to join to make yourself available to others who need help. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley, Ian Rose and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, will do.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you online now, but I've probably not got it set up properly, as it doesn't seem to allow me type anything. Hmmm. Will try and fix later! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somerton Castle (Somerset)[edit]

Can I pick your expert brains again.... Another editor put Somerton up at GAN & the reviewer has (rightly) commented about the lack of information about the castle. Some of the sources are unclear about the existence of a castle or confusion with Somerton Castle (in Lincs). The Pastscape record seems fairly definative, but if you had any other good sources that might help.— Rod talk 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some thoughts on the page.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


re: your message[edit]

Hi Hchc2009, You have new messages on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Stevengraph...[edit]

File:Silk picture of the London and York royal mail coach.JPG

©Geni 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! I'll do some typing tomorrow night and get an article stood up for it. Cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - an initial article on the Stevengraph and another its designer completed.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten GAR?[edit]

Is there anything left at Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich I-211/GA1 to resolve? I think that I covered everything that you raised.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only last point was a query on the review page about whether or not we could soften the "a time to 5,000 m" phrase - as noted on the page, if you think we can't though, I'll happily pass it as GA at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk)

Bastille[edit]

This user helped promote Bastille to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seaxburh of Ely[edit]

"The older books [referred to in the article on Seaxburh of Ely] could be given an OCLC number - let me know if you don't know how to do this, and I can advise." Please advise! Hel-hama (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've left a message on the review page for you.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've now completed revising the article. Please let me know if there's any more you think should be done. Hel-hama (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - I've passed as GA. Nicely done! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Town walls - whats included?[edit]

Hi, I see you are working on List of town walls in England and Wales. How is this defined? does it have to be stone walls or would a Saxon bank count? If so should Langport be included - see Evaluation (1992) and excavation (1996), Hanging Chapel, Langport.— Rod talk 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry cancal that. I've just checked the list & see it is already included.— Rod talk 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob's. We're going with the Pastscape files and Creighton and Higham at the moment, but there's no "official" list to draw on.Hchc2009 (talk)
If memory serves, I think Castellariam Anglicanum has entries for town walls. I could post the names here if you think it's useful? Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds ideal - cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King's list might be the closest there is to a comprehensive list of town walls. He also includes some village defences; I'll include those below with a note. When sites are borderline or treated unusually by King I'll put them italics with an explanation. Unlike with castles, he doesn't include a grid reference.

Are there any other details you'd like me to provide? My sense of geography may be playing tricks on me, but I don't think there are an exceptional number of walled towns in border areas; I think this is particularly true of Northumberland and Cumberland. Nev1 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look good to me; I agree with you about the border areas - unlike the tower houses, which proliferate beyond control! Hchc2009 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German castles[edit]

Hi HcHc. Thanks. It's always good to know the hours spent translating are appreciated! And I'm certainly learning a lot about German history as well as castles! More to follow... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longmans[edit]

I just looked at the title page of the 1888 book, available on Google Books US (I know you are in the UK and things work differently there). It says the publisher is "Longmans, Green, and Co." (yes, two commas) Let me know if i can email you any screenshots from it. Congrats on a fine article! I'd do a review but it would be gilding the lily.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it! :) Changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
For Worcester Castle- amazing level of detail!! Ning-ning (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/1689 Boston revolt/archive1[edit]

This article is now at FAC, and of the first 6 points you raised at peer review, I can only tell for sure that one of them was dealt with: "unpopular laws that turned some New England merchant trading practices into smuggling" was reworded. If you want to weigh in at FAC, great ... or if not, can you give me a general sense of whether your comments were ever addressed? - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked over them and the relevant changes were made. At FAC, my main concern is whether all the modern literature's been covered sufficiently; it looks thin compared to what I might expect for an article on this period, but I know the English histories of the 1680s much better than I do the US ones. I'll have a dig around and see if I can get a better handle on how good the article's academic baseline is. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Worcester city walls[edit]

I've just finished the GA review and left a few comments here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malleus. Should all be fixed now.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A class review of Albert Ball[edit]

Should Albert Ball be promoted to A class or should he be shot down (so to speak)? Please indicate your preference on the A class review page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He should fly high - have added my support on the page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolbadarn Castle[edit]

Nice work with Dolbardarn Castle, although I wonder (caution: original research alert) if reusing the castle's timbers really was symbolic as Avent suggests. I would have thought it would be much more powerful to reuse the stone and leave the last hold out of the Welsh princes as a ruin. Anyway, I noticed this rather nice picture comes from the Cadw website. Having read the licence and the Cadw website linked, I think that means we can use this image too but wanted to check with you that I hadn't misunderstood the Open Government Licence. The images on the Cadw website would be a great resource, I wonder how many other editors know about the licence, I certainly didn't until a few minutes ago. Nev1 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is yes; the OGL is suitable for the Commons, according to their licensing gurus, and Cadw seem to have been careful about marking up some of the webpages (e.g. the major artistic reproductions of the castles) as being outside the scope of the OGL, reaffirming that they really did mean the OGL to apply to the others as stated on their copyright page. I know the Welsh Government is quite progressive in terms of encouraging greater use of its resources like this and I have to say I quite applaud them on this one. I'd only come across the OGL in passing before but it is a powerful tool that government should be able to make fuller use of in the coming years. On Dolbardan, I agree, I'm always cautious about over symbolising practical activity (!), but Avent seems to be the biggest voice here. I might do Castell y Bere next... I've got Emery's volume on the northern castles, BTW, if you need any of his material on Warkworth. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do like a good aerial photo, and I've also added one for Caerphilly. Denbigh and White Castle also look great but our articles don't get much traffic and aren't in great shape so I didn't bother with them. Would that be Emery's Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, 1300–1500? The third volume is on Google books, but the main description on pages 144–150 is missing a bit. Once I've finished with Summerson and Goodall I'll take a look at what Eales has to say. The article would probably have been a bit easier to write if the Percy's had shown a bit more imagination in naming their children. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing worse than several hundred years of a noble family with the same name... Yep, Emery's Greater medieval houses (I picked it up when a cheap second hand copy came up: the other two remain astronomically expensive...) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much finished with Summerson and Goodall and have taken a brief look through the few available pages from Emery but could do with another set of eyes to see if he covers anything not already in the article if you have the time. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, probably tomorrow night now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Castle[edit]

Hi Hchc2009. In regards to MF's query about King John's capture of the castle the following might be of use to you, from notes I made a while back. I haven't added this to the article, because only the part about Marshall actually has a ref; I think the remainder came from web searches. Ning-ning (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1216 the city declared for the French Dauphin. The castle was given to William Marshall, son of the Earl of Pembroke by King John.(Bridges, XXII) The castle was besieged by an army loyal to John, under the Earl of Chester. The defences of the castle were breached on 17 July 1216 by Fawkes de Breauté, who then captured the city. The inhabitants of the city were fined 300 marks, which they paid using gold stripped from St Wulfstan's shrine. On 16 August 1216 John visited the city, and ordered the inhabitants to pay Walter de Beauchamp money to be used for alms.

Thanks! Which source is the Bridges (XXII) bit from? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Bridges, Tim; Mundy, Charles (1996). Worcester: A Pictorial History. Chichester, UK: Phillimore", already in the article's bibliography. The local university library has a fantastic local history section, except Worcestershire! Ning-ning (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed Bridges from the bibliography, but there's still a ref in the text. I presume you don't regard Bridges as an RS? (Haven't got an opinion on it myself.) Ning-ning (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2011 (UT
My mistake - I'd removed the unnecessary citation from the lead, and forgot it was used in the main text. I'm working from my mobile, but will add back in on my return (unless you can oblige!) Sorry about that! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll do that. Ning-ning (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Hchc2009/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

John, King of England[edit]

There's a little inconsistency about the date of birth. Fryde, Greenway, Porter and Roy, p.37 (the reference currently used for John's DoB) says 24 December 1167. After checking against the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography I changed the article to say 1167, but then I saw that on page 17 of the 1978 edition of his biography of John, Warren says Christmas Eve 1166. Turner gives 1167 on page 20 of his 1994 volume. I reverted myself so the article currently says 1166, but I'm wondering which year is correct. Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fish the books out later and have a proper check. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the Handbook/ODNB/Turner over Warren in this. Warren's book is one of the older biographies, whereas all of the others are reasonably current. Unfortunately, I can't dig into my books because we're redoing the floors and they are currently stacked in corners while the bookshelves are moved! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Warren on his own would be suspect. I'm keen to see what the last conference noted and double check against that. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klondike Gold Rush[edit]

Thank you for offering your help and for mentioning improvements made by me. If you have Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush 1896–1899, (2001) you could probably improve references and add information. I don't have the book myself but understand that the 2001 edition is looking back on the historical views of the gold rush; this may be added to the legacy section. Apart from that, the article needs copyedit from someone who knows the subject but has not been involved in the process of making it. By the way, I have also written a helping article about the Nome gold rush, which needs improvement of references. Soerfm (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. About photos: So far I have had no problems with copyrights since all US photos published before 1923 belong to public domain. I once asked the Canadian image library about one of their pictures and they had no objections against me using it, therefore I just use the 1923 rule for all images. About the text: I think you should finish it the way you started and then ask for a peer review. I already got one from User:Nikkimaria which can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/Klondike Gold Rush/archive1. Try asking the same user again. Personally, I will try to improve the leads. Soerfm (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for the message. First, I fully agree on your point of view and I am sorry about the mistake. Like I said I am going to work on the leads because I don't have Berton and I don't want to interfere with your edits. Nevertheless, I sometimes have to mix the leads with Berton material if there is an overlap and thereby references get unclear. I will try to improve that. If I do it in the future, please ask specific questions on the talk page of the article and I will correct it. Soerfm (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, about price calculations: maybe you would like to use the Template:Inflation, then you don't have to worry about maintenance. Soerfm (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The headlines look fine. However, in general, further explanations in leads are needed since all routes involved going by water either on sea or on rivers and some of the routes by land started with a sea travel. The weather poses the same problem: snow could cover obstacles but on the other hand a snow storm could close a trail. I will wait and see how much information you have before I try to explain the distinctions between different ways of travel and the role of the weather. About the prices: I think you should expand the food note about how they are calculated, I think it will look good. Soerfm (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I got the idea to the appendix from Ancestors of John, King of England, as a matter of fact, which I too found very elegant. About the price calculations, I have been thinking about some kind of info box at the top, but it depends on the amount of text; if it is too much we will have to make it a footnote Soerfm (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the footnote and $. Soerfm (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make the changes. I have been thinking about moving the picture myself and the only reason for the mining section to be where it is, is that it was introduced late. I hope you can improve the references of it because they are poor except maybe Allen and National Park Service. Soerfm (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notice the increase in page views and hope it will stay. I am a bit surprised though since I didn't think the size and quality of the article meant very much only the number of links to it. Soerfm (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could get a copy of: John A. Gould, Frozen gold: A treatise on early Klondike mining technology, methods and history (106 pages), Pictorial Histories Pub. Co (2001), ISBN-10: 1575100827, ISBN-13: 978-1575100821? It looks promising as a source to the mining methods. Soerfm (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that could be helpful, if you are almost done with the Klondike article, would be if you could get Gold-Rush Nome; An Illustrated Historical Chronicle by Carrie M. McLain (1969) and improve a bit on the Nome article. The two gold rushes were closely linked and I have been trying to explain similarities and differences myself, however I don't have many sources. For instance, claim jumping was a big topic at Nome (at least to begin with) but not at the Klondike, this comparison could be expanded. Soerfm (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, mining at the Klondike: do the sources tell anything about the use of mercury for refining the gold. As far as I understand mercury was not used very much at The Klondike in contrast to other gold rushes (Chicago Records mentions it as a normal process for placer mining). If this is true, it could be worth mentioning under Legacy, environmental effects. Soerfm (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is OK, there may be a few footnotes. I am looking forward to seing the mining informations. Soerfm (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I think I will remove the link to the cultural legacy article. It is no longer a main article and it is not a good supplement either. The atlas maybe integrated as picture links. I hope that the mining article can become a main article. Soerfm (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination is a good idea; the article is ready: substantial and well structured coverage, near perfect citations and good illustrations plus everything is prose except the appendix. Soerfm (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is OK, what should I do? Soerfm (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is added, what do you think? Soerfm (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine about the Alaska Gold Rush. I have to admit that I once thought that Klondike was in Alaska and that Klondike and Nome was the same thing. These misunderstandings still exist, I am afraid, and therefore I think it is important to clarify names and places. Soerfm (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the review is put on hold until we have made the corrections. I will see what I can do about it on the article talk page. Soerfm (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to University of Washington there are no copyright claimants for the pictures we have borrowed from them in the article. Still the actual photos belong to them and because of that we need their permission to use them. I am not sure what would be the right procedure. Should we ask them to fill in a form for each photo granting us permission and will that be enough for Wikipedia if UW doesn't actually hold the copyright? Soerfm (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email
Dear Mr. ...my name...
The photographs you have listed belong to the University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections. If you wish to use them, you need to obtain permission from us. There are no copyright claimants for these photographs, but the actual photos belong to UW and cannot be used without our permission. You can request permission by filling out the attached permission for use form.
Nicolette Bromberg
Visual Materials Curator
Special Collections
University of Washington Libraries
...@uw.edu

On 11/29/2011 4:19 AM, ...my name... wrote:

Dear Nicolette Bromberg,
thank you for your email. I am looking for your permission to use the following picrures from your collection on Wikipedia (the Klondike Gold :Rush article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klondike_Gold_Rush):
1) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/alaskawcanada&CISOPTR=2999&CISOBOX=1&REC=4 by George G. Cantwell.
2) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/transportation&CISOPTR=646&CISOBOX=1&REC=18 by Sam C. Partridge.
3) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hegg&CISOPTR=10&CISOBOX=1&REC=4 by Eric A. Hegg.
4) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hegg&CISOPTR=689&CISOBOX=1&REC=16 by Erik A. Hegg.
5) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/curtis&CISOPTR=563&CISOBOX=1&REC=3 by Asahel Curtis
6) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hegg&CISOPTR=716&CISOBOX=1&REC=37 by Eric A. Hegg.
7) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hegg&CISOPTR=501&CISOBOX=1&REC=10 by Eric A. Hegg.
8) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/curtis&CISOPTR=572&CISOBOX=1&REC=19 by Curtis Asahel.
9) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hegg&CISOPTR=704&CISOBOX=1&REC=9 by Eric A. Hegg.
10) http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/hegg&CISOPTR=320&CISOBOX=1&REC=40 by Eric A. Hegg.
I either like you to tell me if any of these were published before 1923 and therefore belong to public domain or tell me if I can get a licence to use it. I like to pay if they are affordable but I must be able to use them as I please.
Regards ...my name...

Soerfm (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map sources added, don't worry they are all old. Soerfm (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I will look at it tomorrow. Soerfm (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed the article has been listed as GA. Should we thank Nikkimaria together? Soerfm (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!
You did a nice job yourself! Go for sounds allright, it can't be far away. I suggest: you work on Frozen Gold and I make copyedit and footnote suggestions on the talk page (I can't really change the article in a safe way). Should we ask Nikkimaria again afterwards? Soerfm (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Nikki, suggest:

Thank you!
For your Good article promotion of Klondike Gold Rush. Hchc2009 (talk) and Soerfm (talk)

That sound good. Please try to improve Mining methods of the Klondike Gold Rush in the first round. Soerfm (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the rules for wiki links, I just removed them in the code except at the first occurrence. This means that Bonanza Creek and Jack London are wiki linked in the info box. I think that the first occurrence in the body text will be better, then I will remove them from the info box instead. Soerfm (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your improvements of references, details and page views on the Klondike Gold Rush article. Soerfm (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hazard Perry[edit]

Just touching base with you. Thanks for the review. We'll start work and get back to you on your many good points. Because of the timing issue (upcoming bicentennial), this is an article that is worth the effort. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. I've some bits on the sources and biblio which I'll cover off tomorrow - agree, definitely worth getting this artilce up to GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at AV-8B ACR[edit]

Thank you for your comments at the AV-8B ACR. I don't want to be disrespectful to you, but some of the comments are unreasonable. For example, you'd like to be explain the meaning of drag, when it's already linked. Unless you are expecting the reader to be seven years old, I'd understand why you're making that comment. The fact is, readers of the article are likely to be adults, in which case it is assumed that they know what drag means, because it is taught as basic physics in schools. What you're asking me to do is like making me explain what supercharger means in an article about cars and what stern and bow mean in an article about ships. BTW, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, so I'm not going to do anything about it. As for "early trialling of Direct Voice Input (DVI)", well, it's a link right there (and it can also be guessed from the name). Wikipedia is designed so that if the reader doesn't understand a concept, they can jump to the article which explains it. It would be understandable if you have troubles understanding "close air support aircraft, as well as flying battlefield interdiction and armed reconnaissance missions", but as for drag, it's a simple physics term that is taught in schools.

I don't think you have linked "drag"; if I'm wrong, my apologies. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you've done a lot of research and know a lot about aircraft; you may overestimate what a typical reader will know. Many average drivers wouldn't know what a supercharger does, for example; it's one thing if that's a single instance in an article, but there's an awful lot of phrases like this in the AV8B article. By giving the average reader a bit more of an explanation, it will make it a lot easier for them to read and appreciate the excellent content. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that I clarify "Direct Voice Input", then I'll do it, otherwise, it would be good if you'd remove some of the comments. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 22:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to suggest is that if you said "Direct Voice Input, allowing the pilot to use voice commands to issue instructions to the aircraft," for example it would mean that they wouldn't have to leave the article via the link to understand the phrase. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warkworth plan[edit]

Could you add the page number to the plan you uploaded? I tried checking on Google books but there's only a snippet view. Nev1 (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Your GA nomination of Southampton town walls[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Southampton town walls 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - will make the suggested changes tomorrow - thanks for your help! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks Hchc2009 for helping to promote Klondike Gold Rush to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May Revolution[edit]

A pair of months ago, I nominated the article May Revolution for A-Class, and you made a review, pointing some things to fix. I made some fixes and nominated it again, here. As you are already a little familiar with the article, it would be helpful if you check it again and see if the problems have been fixed as desired. Your old review is archived here Cambalachero (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob's, will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday wishes...[edit]

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You too, and I'll watch out for those trolls! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello, Hchc! How're doing?! I wanted to wish a Merry Christmas! I hope we keep seeing and helping each other next year. Hav a nice holiday! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not too bad, and Happy Christmas as well! I'm ploughing through a major bit of work on Henry II in userspace, so have been slightly quiet in other contexts. What's your next project likely to be? 14:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You're going to be very surprised: I'm quite tired of Brazil's history and I'll start working on Robert E. Lee. Let's see how is it going to end. Are you in need of any help? --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one! The Civil War articles need some improvement. I still want to improve the coverage of Grant's river campaigns at some point... I'm okay at the moment, but my head hurts from having read too many article on medieval law in the last three weeks! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand how it's possible that articles about the American Revolution, or Abraham Lincoln or American Civil War in the English language Wikipedia aren't Featured. I thought I was being a little too selfish and decided to help other projects. I wanted to work on Abraham Lincoln, but there is a weird policy on that article about "don't change anything" (or "article ownership") so I opted to move to Lee. The article about Lee is almost never edited so the chance that I might get in trouble with other editors are slim and I already talked with other usual contributors and they were quite happy with my initiative to help. Let's see how it will end. In case you have any interested on joining me, please let me know. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it bookmarked and will keep an eye out for it; I've not got so many sources for Lee (I inherited most of my civil war collection from my dad, who was a fan of the North!), but happy to help out with copyediting etc. as required. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more than enough! I'm going to finish the Duke of Caxias article and I'll start reading a few books about Lee. --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas for 2011[edit]

Hchc2009,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - hope you had a good one too! Hchc2009 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Cenotaph, Southampton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park (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) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth Castle[edit]

Hi & happy new year. I don't know if you've heard about Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA? but I was thinking about trying to improve Monmouth Castle as my contribution & wondered if you had any thoughts or good sources as you are the best Castles specialist I know?— Rod talk 09:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a good option: there's quite a few interesting aspects to it and you've also got the regimental museum inside it. Davis's website has a bibliography; the link to Armitage from there will give you a basic out of copyright map. I've got a few of the books listed - give a me shout if you need me to fish them out etc. I've also probably got a decent version of Speed's map of Monmouth about the place, which I think has a 17th century picture of the castle on it. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll take a look. I presume the map on Monmouth is the one you are referring to?— Rod talk 10:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, although I think that's a re-cut version - I'm pretty sure I've got a version of the original somewhere as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm having a play about at User:Rodw/Sandbox/Monmouth Castle (which you are welcome to edit) & have added the castle infobox but I can't get the Monmouthshire map to display - any ideas?— Rod talk 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had similar problems with Raglan Castle: I remember going for the "Wales" map in the end.Hchc2009 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The map is "Wales Monmouthshire" rather than "Monmouthshire" for some reason, now fixed. I've done a quick & dirty expansion to Monmouth Castle if you wanted to add anything else that would be great.— Rod talk 17:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - useful to know! Will have a look over it in a bit... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Year[edit]

New Year
Happy New Year Soerfm (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Hchc2009. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hall XPTBH.
Message added 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...[edit]

If I sign up for William the Conqueror and William II of England, does that mean you'll tackle Henry I of England? I despise Henry. Absolutely. Without restraint. Would rather strangle myself than write his article. If that works, that'll just leave ... Richard I of England out of the early English kings to deal with. Henry III of England will be a problem as no on has written the "definitive" biography yet ... the three Edwards are taken care of for biographies, and there is a good one on Richard II also... but Henry III is lacking. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, happy to cover Henry I! :) Richard I is challenging because the "political" nature of the discussions of his sexuality etc. though... There's been some good recent work on Henry III's taste in architecture and castles mind you. Did you have a good New Year's? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having started on Richard I but not finished it I feel like that article should be my responsibility, but my access to library books is frustratingly limited at the moment. Nev1 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Libraries...? I've heard of these strange things spoken of in my town, usually when hapless strangers ask for directions! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My New Year's was as per usual ... I managed to stay up til midnight local time only by reading. I should plunge into the first Willie in a few days... we are pretty much house-bound for most of January and February here because of the weather - and unless we get a good snowfall, the photographic opportunities are somewhat limited. Luckily, I have most of the information for Willie I right here on my shelves - as also for Willie II. Libraries are what people own, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progress...[edit]

...is being made ... but slowly. BLECH. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning to look more and more like a proper article, with verifiable citations and everything! :) Nice work, Hchc2009 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things now missing, mind you, is a random list of books and films in which William is mentioned in some passing way... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Grand Forks Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bar, Creek, Roadhouse and Church

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Cenotaph, Southampton[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January Bugle[edit]

Hi mate, I hoping Ed and I can put this baby to bed in the next day or two. How are you going with your book-review-cum-op-ed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and linked... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, were did you want this published? It could either be placed before my review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2012/Book reviews, or be posted in a separate section as a review essay. I'd suggest going the review essay option given that you've used the review of the book to discuss how to write articles on castles, but that's your call. It's a really interesting article by the way. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly much more than a book review, and we've got a good book review anyway from Nick, so going the review essay route is a thought, however the pragmatist in me as co-editor prefers calling it an op-ed as I don't think we've had any other submissions for op-ed this month... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for it either to be classified either way - op-ed or review essay works fine for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed[edit]

I've added your op-ed here. Hopefully you like the title, but if not, feel free to change it! Thanks very much for your work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and thanks for pulling the edition together! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have more inspiration, feel free to write another. ;-) Ian Rose deserves most of the credit for getting this together, but thanks, much appreciated! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be afraid...[edit]

Talk:Henry II of England/GA1 Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugle article blurb[edit]

Heh, tks for catching that one, mate -- it was probably my fault, certainly my responsibility. I may have been guilty of pigeonholing you (if it's a castle, it must be Hchc)...! Will check more closely next time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

) I wish I had written it though - it's a cool fortification, and I love the architectural symbolism. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing[edit]

This reply to my post to Talk:Kenilworth Castle could have referred to the other page without mentioning names. In mentioning names and quoting them you allowed yourself a reason to notify other users who you suspected would be sympathetic to you point of view.[2][3][4] That was in my opinion thinly disguised canvassing. I am not going to take it any further, but if you do the same thing again it may seen by others to be part of a trend and be taken to an ANI. -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW as it happens Nev1 has edited the article in the past and probably had it on his/her watch list. -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in, I fail to see how that's canvassing. The articles and issues under discussion appear to be very similar, and Hchc2009 had every right to quote from the other discussion given that it's clearly relevant. Notifying the editors who he or she was quoting is common courtesy and good form. Threatening an editor with an ANI report for this kind of thing is totally over the top and is getting pretty close to bullying. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, if you're concerned about my actions, please feel free to take the matter to ANI - I won't be offended or put out. That's what the processes are there for - although, like Nick-D, I think the proposal unnecessary. In the meantime, and more positively, thanks for your restraint in editing the articles under discussion. From your comments on multiple talk pages, I believe that you find Wikipedia's policies on references and citations aggravating, but letting the matter drop in the latest case has been sensible, and does allow us to focus on getting the content into the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of religious figures of Brittany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanus (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) 10:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments[edit]

Thank you for you comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Ohio class submarines. Could you please have another check? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hchc2009/Archive_2&oldid=1140534052"