User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 7

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Free Belgian Forces GA review

Hi Hchc,
It's been a couple of days now; I just wondered if you have any further comments to make on the review? Sorry to pester! All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

All the changes suggested have been made. Brigade Piron (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - all looking good. I'll give it a final copy edit later today, but it should be passed by this evening. Nice work. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi I am a bit concerned about this GA assessment, there are several external web sites used as references was any consideration given to them being reliable sources. ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Jim. I think that it meets the GA criteria for where RS are stated as being required (direct quotes, contentious claims etc.) but happy to be picked up if I've missed some. Not all were solid RS, certainly, but the criteria don't seem to require that they all meet that standard, and if memory serves I couldn't see any OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That gives me even more cause for concern, everything has to be referenced to reliable sources, even more so when doing a GA assessment.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not what is in the GA criteria at the moment, Jim. I've double checked, and the criteria wording is more narrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

nb - apologies for brevity here, but am editing by phone! It's an odd model, I'll agree, but there is a logic to it. The key may be the difference between wp:verifiability (everything must be potentially verifiable to a RS) and the guidance on citations (citations are always good, but only certain classes of statement absolutely require citations to a RS). Have a look at wp:verifiability and the distinction it draws between the two - the GA criteria then might make more sense. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jim. As the editor responsible for the GA writing, could you please let me know which references you believe unreliable? Brigade Piron (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hchc2009. You have new messages at Talk:Donghak Peasant Revolution/GA2.
Message added 01:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Finished, check it out.Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 01:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Peasant's Revolt ...

I'll try to pop on by and look at it. I should at least be able to do a source check for you! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - much appreciated! Having struggled through the crowds this morning into the capital, my sympathy for the rebels continues to grow.... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Structure and organisation of Interregnum articles

As you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force this is a heads-up for a possible reorganisation of the Commonwealth and Interregnum articles, please see Talk:Commonwealth of England#Structure and organisation of Interregnum articles -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PBS - will take a look. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

King John's Palace

I see that you have taken an especial shine to this page. However, it concerns me greatly that you have personally decided what should and should not be visible on this page and it has also come to my attention that you have made some rather hatchet-like edits which have actually compromised the information presented. In our last discussion on the subject you pointed out that all original research ought to be removed unless it had a published source. The fact that all of the original research work was fully referenced and published seemed to pass you by. However, this time you have actually removed basic information such as the section on the establishment of the palace. In this section you have cut out all of the information on how and when the palace was constructed but left the section on the beginnings of Sherwood Forest. Whereas the establishment of Sherwood directly led to the construction of the palace, it seems eminently strange to cut the part on the palace entirely. This is based on solid research which has been published by a number of sources stretching back into the 1840s. It is also critical to any reader of this page exactly when and how the buildings were established - its absolute basics. Please could you be more balanced and circumspect into your edits in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPWarchaeology (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As per previous discussions, JPW, the Wiki has a set of key policies, including Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. The Pipe Rolls of Henry II, for example, are not a reliable secondary source; they are a primary source which require a specialist background to interpret; National Archives SC 11/12, I believe, are a set of original 16th century legal documents and again a specialist primary source; unpublished archives held in county council records are not even published at all, etc.. Drawing directly on these to write an academic article is regular (and appropriate!) business for academics, but for a wiki article reliable, published secondary sources are needed.

For example, if you want to write that "the links between Clipstone and the royal pastime of hunting were made explicit in 1178-80", you can't interpret the 12th century Pipe Roll expenditure records to support the claim on the wiki (which is what you're proposing doing) - that would be original research etc.; you can use a published, secondary source (e.g. a published article, a specialist webpage or an academic book) that itself uses the Pipe Rolls to justify the point. I'd urge you to identify this sort of source for use in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is rather sad and more than a little frustrating. You see, all of these original sources have actually been gleaned from published sources. For example they have been taken from the footnotes to articles and books by the likes of Howard Colvin, Philip Rahtz, David Crook etc etc. The fact that genuine academic research and presentation is being quashed on Wikipedia articulates perfectly why it is considered by the vast majority to be in itself an extremely unreliable and inaccurate source of information. My own attempts to upgrade the publically accessible information on this site based on over a decade of work seems to have been completely negated by this attitude and as a result has been brought down to a level of mediocrity that seems to be the standard for this website. A very sad day indeed for knowledge and dissemination and one that will simply serve to reinforce the poor reputation that the site currently has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPWarchaeology (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If the information being used in an article comes from a book by David Crook, for example, then I'd recommend citing it to that publication, as per the policy guidelines linked above. I think I gave similar advice previously back in April, incidentally, when you raised the same issue before and these issues were flagged up on the article page. Academic work is welcomed on the wiki - with your knowledge of the subject I've no doubt you could make some very strong contributions, citing secondary publications - but the Wikipedia is not intended to present original research, and does have its own set of "house rules", like any other group of collaborators. If what you want to achieve is an article summarising your ten-years of research on the site, including your own personal, specialist opinion, drawing on unpublished archival material, etc., then I'm not convinced that you'll find the wiki is the right place for it. If what you want to build is an article summarising the very best of existing secondary, published sources, rigorously referenced and following the policy guidelines agreed with the rest of the community, then I think you'd fit in well. The wiki isn't the be-all and end-all - I'm thinking of what Philip Davis has built on his site, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at All

I have received your thank for editing. Not at all. All the efforts I have done are just aiming at making the details of Eleanor of Brittany known to the public.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry III of England may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sermons.<ref name=CarpenterVincentODBN>{{harvnb|Carpenter|1996|p=97}}; harvnb|Vincent|2006|p=7}}; {{cite web | url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/12950 | title=Henry III (1207–1272) |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peasants' Revolt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 35 of the community were killed.<ref>{{harvnb|Spindler|2012|pp=62, 71}}; {harvnb|Saul|1999|p=70}}</ref> Historian Rodney Hilton argues that these attacks may have been coordinated by the weavers'

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry III of England, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln, Reading and Simon de Montfort (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) 11:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

I previously noted your fine work on World War I memorials and was curious if you would be interested in applying some of that past knowledge in helping get Commonwealth War Graves Commission to GA. It's content is most of the way there but I could use a hand, if your memorial knowledge and history is still fresh.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy to assist if I can. What would be of most help to you? I can do some general editing, etc., focus specifically on monuments, or equally happy to review at GA if that would help. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hemyock Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lime (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) 11:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Half million award

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Henry II of England (estimated annual readership: 626,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Henry II of England to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like at a minimum, you deserve three more of these:

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing John, King of England to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Windsor Castle to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Henry I of England to Featured Article status.

Feel free to claim any more that I missed! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Very many thanks - a great initiative! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Henry III of England

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

CWGC WWI war memorials

Hi Hchc. Would you have time to have a look at Talk:Commonwealth War Graves Commission/GA1? I mentioned you there. I should have used the notification system, but I've typed out this talk page message now... Not sure exactly what needs doing there, but when I saw that, I thought you would be the ideal person to ask. Ah, I see Labattblueboy has asked as well (above). I will now use this notification system to make sure he knows about that review. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

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

Plas Mawr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Summerhouse and Buttery

Charles the Simple (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Denier

Louis the Stammerer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Denier

Odo of France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Denier

Rudolph of France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Denier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry III of England

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry III of England you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brigade Piron -- Brigade Piron (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I'm travelling with work for much of next week, so if my replies are delayed (or look like they've been badly typed on an iPhone!) bear with me... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dansborg

Hi, you can resume review - i have addressed all the changes. Thanks a lot in advance.Ssriram mt (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bal maiden

Thanks for the revert - while you were doing it, I was in the process of posting this at WP:CORNWALL. Unless you think it will escalate the situation unnecessarily I'll leave my post up, as it might be useful to garner second opinions. Obviously, I personally don't see how the links could be more appropriate since the properties of the different metals are absolutely key to the differences in the mining economy in various times and places. Mogism (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable post to me, and second/third opinions are always helpful. I can see how someone might feel that the links were unnecessary, and (from memory) I've generally agreed with OhConfucious's edits on overlinking, but I'd argue the other way in this case. Definitely one for a talk page discussion. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's map the future, pave the road forward

Hi Hchc2009. I would appreciate if you could take the time to read through my lengthy post at Talk:Empire of Brazil. Thank you and best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I thought that was a very dignified and measured response you just made, by the way, and I look forward to working with you on the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Henry III

Hi Hchc,

I'm sure you haven't, but please don't forget about the Henry III GAR. It only needs a small amount of work. Brigade Piron (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay...! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Hey, Hchc2009. I'm sorry, but I have more important stuff to do than to "discuss" with that user in Empire of Brazil. I know when I see a serious user with pertinent remarks and one who has nothing to contribute for real. His edits were all reverted by other users in the Portuguese Wikipedia. In case you're willing to spend time talking to him, do it. But I'm not. He started so wrong and has given so many outrageous remarks that I find no reason to be there. Regards. Hope you're doing well. --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not doing too badly... The grey clouds of a damp, UK autumn are now upon us, however, so that may change! Hopefully the talk page discussion at the Empire page will work its way through productively. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi, Thanks a lot for reviewing and bringing Fort Dansborg to GA. I have a few articles about forts - so this would be the baseline for those. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - will look for to seeing the others! Great working with you, Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Plas Mawr

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plas Mawr you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello Hchc,

I know you're familiar with the GA process. There's an article that needs reassessment, I thought you can help out here...Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Turkish people/1. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Hi Hchc2009, the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is currently undergoing an A-class review at WikiProject Miliary history. Because you have participated in its last ACR in 2011, you are invited to comment on the article and assess whether it is worthy of the A-class status. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry III of England

The article Henry III of England you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henry III of England for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brigade Piron -- Brigade Piron (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Piron! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

King as proper noun?

Hello- I saw your edit on Henry II of England and was wondering if you could point me to where the MOS calls for capitalization of non-titular uses of words like king, queen, etc. Thanks. Eric ^talk 16:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. The guidance is at WP:JOBTITLES - basically, its capitalised when the correct formal title is treated as a proper noun, or when the title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name. I didn't realise this ages back, and still routinely get it wrong, so if you spot any mistakes, pls revert or correct me! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've always erred on the side of not capitalizing in that case, but the substitution use does make sense. Cheers. Eric ^talk 16:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Plas Mawr

The article Plas Mawr you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Plas Mawr for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)