User talk:John Hampdens Regiment

Welcome[edit]

Hello, John Hampdens Regiment, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:John Hampdens Regiment/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! John Hampdens Regiment, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:John Hampdens Regiment/sandbox[edit]

Hello, John Hampdens Regiment. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, John Hampdens Regiment. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

I have moved the conversation to Talk:Battle of Chalgrove Field please see there. -- PBS (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, John Hampdens Regiment. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi John Hampdens Regiment! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Censored Battle of Chalgrove Field, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalgrove Battle map[edit]

<Ian, you are a software engineer and my role is being historian, and particularly with reference to Battle of Chalgrove. Future ‘Talk’ will be on John Hampdens Regiment (section) and please accept my apologies for ‘bombing’ yours and others ‘User Page’.

How would you feel if a computer game that you had developed was copied and then changed without your consent, would you get angry? Do you understand my anger and frustration towards Wikipedia? The webpage Battle of Chalgrove contains 35 years of my research. Victoria County History, the UK’s leading historians, have cited my Oxoniensia article as has Prof Ian Beckett in Wanton Trooper. Historic England has accepted my amendment to extend Chalgrove’s listed area to include Warpsgrove House; a feature that locates the Battlefield and closes the argument put forward in the Wiki-page Battle of Chalgrove Field.

In accepting the Warpsgrove House amendment Historic England has recently accepted a number of amendments to the narrative based on my Oxoniensia article. The question is will Wikipedia restore the wiki page Battle of Chalgrove? My bona fides follow in ‘Wiki’s Excellence’./>

<Wiki’s Excellence

The Battle of Chalgrove was added to English Heritage Battlefield Register because the Chalgrove Battle Group’s interpretation undermined English Heritage’s main source of information. English Heritage had relied heavily on Oxoniensia Vol 38 pub 1973 ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field’ J. Stevenson & A. Carter which the Independent Review Panel who were convinced by the Group’s argument was utterly flawed. Robinvp11 interpretation mirrors that found in English Heritage’s Provisional Register which was dismissed by the Independent Review Panel.

Oxoniensia Vol 80 pub 2015 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester which academically and to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers totally refuted Stevenson and Carter’s interpretation of Chalgrove.

Robinvp11 relies heavily on Oxoniensia Vol 38 pub 1973 ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field’ J. Stevenson & A. Carter for his interpretation. Robinvp11 confuses, misquotes and is dismissive of statements made by Lester and Lester see his Ref (9) and page 34. The Chalgrove Battle Map is not referenced and is unattributed, it is the writer’s copyright and is found on page 36 of Oxoniensia Vol 80. Robinvp11 should read page 28 to get an understanding that George Nugent-Grenville’s (Lord Nugent) interpretation found in his book pub 1832 ‘Some Memorial’ is pathetically inane. Quote from vol II p431 has ‘He (Hampden) instantly mounted’ his horse to go and fight 2,000 Royalists leaving his regiment safely tucked up in their beds in Watlington. How else can it be explained that Hampden was at Chalgrove without his officers and regiment!? The Independent Review Panel thought this statement was hilarious and threw out English Heritage’s claims. Are Wikipedia’s founders horrified by the absurdity that is damaging its name for academic excellence being published on its website?

Sir Edward Hyde (Clarendon from 1661) was in Oxford with King Charles I on the day of Battle of Chalgrove. The senior parliamentarian officers captured from Chalgrove hours earlier were asked why they were fighting as troopers. Would Robinvp11 care to read what was recorded by Hyde and the King on the day!? A transcription of the original document is found on Battle of Chalgrove Wiki webpage.

Oxoniensia Vol 80 pub 2015 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester can be viewed in Flipbooks formation on the Battle of Chalgrove Wiki webpage or at www.johnhampdensregiment.org.uk. This website is linked to webpage Battle of Chalgrove and has copies of the contemporary documents written out in full so as to assist the reader. It is the administrators’ duty to restore the Wiki webpage ‘Battle of Chalgrove’ as the definitive interpretation. Regards, Lester & Lester, a leading authority on the Battle of Chalgrove.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hampdens Regiment (talk • contribs)

John Hampdens Regiment Have you readWP:OWN yet? It is NOT the administrators’ duty to restore the "Wiki webpage" to your preferred version, if you have any dispute with content please discus it on the article's talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say in your misplaced rant on User:Ian.thomson's page that "The Chalgrove Battle Map has never been posted to Wikipedia by the copyright holder. Whoever posted it to Wikipedia is in breach of copyright."

The Chalgrove Battle map was uploaded by you [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You responded to this by posting to Theroadislong's user page; user pages are not for communication with the account's user, user talk pages are. As Theroadislong has posted here, you should reply here instead of on their own user talk page, to keep the discussion in one location. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Hampdens Regiment You said on my user page "it is accepted that you are correct and the map was uploaded to Wiki by me. You state that the ‘image to be used by anybody and for any purpose as long as they properly attribute it to you’. Where is that accreditation on the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage?" The credit is here [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse comments[edit]

You say at the Teahouse "It is the administrators’ duty to restore the Wiki webpage ‘Battle of Chalgrove’ as the definitive interpretation. Regards, Lester & Lester, a leading authority on the Battle of Chalgrove" It is not remotely clear what you mean by this. The article does not belong to you and administrators have absolutely no duty to restore the article to your preferred version as per WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a joint enterprise, we collaborate. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, My knowledge of how Wikipedia operates is extremely limited and ask whether it possible for me to retrieve the webpage Battle of Chalgrove?

Do you have the expertise to tell me the procedure? John Hampdens Regiment (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no procedure as you have been told multiple times before see above. "The article does not belong to you and administrators have absolutely no duty to restore the article to your preferred version as per WP:OWN. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages[edit]

<David, Thank for the guide to the 'Article Talk Page'. My knowledge of how Wikipedia operates is extremely limited and apologise to all for my transgressions. John Hampdens Regiment (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC) />[reply]

When you add new comments to a discussion on Wikipedia talk pages, including (for instance) the Teahouse, article talk pages, and user talk pages, please add your replies below the post you are responding to, and not at the top of the section. I have moved your recent comment to this Teahouse discussion so it appears below the earlier comments. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bondea it is a steep learning curve getting to grips on how to reply to Teahouse but it is being learnt. The real problem is finding the correct terminology to find the person/link to get the webpage Battle of Chalgrove restored. Can you assist and tell me how this achieved./> [[[User:John Hampdens Regiment|John Hampdens Regiment]] (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC) John Hampdens Regiment]

John Hampdens Regiment You keep asking the same question in multiple places but appear not to read the responses? Again... "The article does not belong to you and administrators have absolutely no duty to restore the article to your preferred version as per WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a joint enterprise, we collaborate." Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat two more things that you have been told but apparently not read. Firstly the article Battle of Chalgrove has not been changed since it was first generated nearly 14 years ago, as you can see in the article history. Secondly, if you have concerns regarding the content of a different Wikipedia article (such as Battle of Chalgrove Field?), the place to discuss those concerns is on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, John Hampdens Regiment. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sharing your account. You've made it clear that two people are sharing this account. (Special:Diff/953748492) Each account is for the use of ONE person only. You are each free to create, and edit with, a new account each.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the first post on this page pointed you to the five pillars on which Wikipedia is built. The second pillar is about maintaining a neutral point of view and verifiability of articles. A key aspect of that is the prohibition on original research, even if you have self-published it elsewhere before promoting it on the wiki. Wikipedia does not claim to be, or want to be, at the leading edge of the latest research. It aims to cover material which has been covered elsewhere, a comfortable and reliable way behind the leading edge. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 30391[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

John Hampdens Regiment (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #30391 was submitted on 2020-04-30 22:52:16. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]