User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 15

Four years ago ...
English castles
	... you were recipient; no. 310 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Your GA nomination of Southsea Castle

The article Southsea Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Southsea Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tilbury Fort

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tilbury Fort 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/J. R. Kealoha

Let me know if you can possibly give this another review. I am trying to get it eventually to feature article status as a very short featured articles. Thank you!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, have reviewed. Best of luck with it! Hchc2009 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tilbury Fort

The article Tilbury Fort you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tilbury Fort for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, an article which you edited. The reassessment page can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

``I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2009, so I'm still relatively new."

I thought this comment at the top of your userpage was pretty funny, considering that Wikipedia itself only got started in 2001. In fact, have you considered running for adminship? Nsk92 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think of myself as pretty new - there's always more to learn around here, and its a good state of mind to maintain! On the admin side, I doubt that I'd have the occasion to use most of the more technical tools and I'd feel awkward about asking the community to trust me with them. If we went down the "unpacking admin tools" route, I might be more tempted, but I don't think we're near a consensus on that yet. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right on the first point, but it was still a funny comment to make -:). Regarding adminship, I sort of agree with you in general, and I also would like to see a substantial degree of unbundling of the adminship toolkit. Still, there is certainly a place for content-oriented admins even now. E.g. at DYK, FA, ITN and other things related to the main page, there are many functions that only admins can perform. You could, just as an experiment, ask for some feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Explain your reservations there and see what others think. Anyway, just a thought. Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hay Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hay Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neville–Neville feud

Hi Hchc, hope you're well! Just wondered if you could take a look at this latest one, and advise on the layout? Frankly, I think it looks pretty crap- too busy, pretty messy? But if you could cast your jaundiced eye over it and recommend any stylistic alterations...? No rush of course.

Have a great weekend :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look tomorrow - you too! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick copy-editing stab at the paragraph structure; see what you think; pls revert if they don't work for you!
In terms of layout, you're probably ok, but it is a tiny bit busy on my screen. I'd be inclined to remove the Beaufort picture, and "upright" Ralph's, which would ease the flow. You could then left justify Raby Castle into the "background" section, which would make it even smoother.
Did the Neville arms really have a patterned red background, btw? I'd have thought it would have been plain red.
An interesting piece - thanks for writing it! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Taken your suggestions on board, and it looks much better. Do you think, if you've got time

I think you got cut off there... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that... must be a bad line ;) Can't remember now, but anyway, I've gone through it implementing the relevant points you raised about the Bonville-Courtenay feud peer review (double quotes, caps etc). What you reckon? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hull Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hull Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

York Castle

Instead of keep reverting, why not format the references correctly yourself, then post the diff to EdwardUK's talk page. That way, he might actually learn what he is doing wrong. Part of editing Wikipedia is collaboration, is it not? Also, you don't own the article. Good faith editing is encouraged, even if such editing is not optimal. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the talkpage message, most other pages I've looked at use a different citation style so it took me a while but think I've worked out where I was going wrong - it didn't help that when I tried to cut+paste the text that the italic tags kept changing into quotation marks, (very frustrating) EdwardUK (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hull Castle

The article Hull Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hull Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWI directory

Hi there. Apologies for the impersonal nature of this post. I am sending this short note to a number of people who were involved (some still are) with World War I topics, letting them know about a WWI projects directory that I've started (in my userspace for now). Would you be able to look and see if there is anything you might be able to add or advice on what is most useful? If you want any follow ups, please put your name on the talk page. Many thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hay Castle

The article Hay Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hay Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haughley

Sorry about this I was endeavouring to produce using the archive in our village I'm somewhat new to all this. I think you will get this message I'm not sure if this is the way to reply? Vanfluff (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Can I check (because I don't want to cause offence by teaching anyone to suck eggs!) how familiar you are with writing academic articles or essays? You mention on your page that you're the chair of a local history group, so if I was to draw comparisons between how to write on the wiki, and how academics use citations etc., would that be helpful? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I do appreciate your help. We are so new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how and what to do. We have so much information and things to share but we are now loathed to share it and spend time in case it is deleted so not sure what to do. What do you suggest as we only fit this in when we have time. I don't think there is a conflict of interest as some of us merely live in the village Vanfluff (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Matilda

Why do you keep wiping out my work? What is wrong with what I have written? I have cited several books, and in fact, the new facts which have been added are relatively few. Much of my work is about for clarity and context. There is nothing untrue or offensive in what I have written, no abuse, no large-scale deletions. There seems to be something mindless about this rubbing out of other people's work. I wish you would be reasonable.

I'd advise that you take up the discussion on the talk page of the article; three different editors have now observed that the changes are not an improvement. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the second person to ask that I should take the discussion to the talk page, so I have done that. I hope you will now state, on that talk page, why the changes are unacceptable.

Your GA nomination of Deal Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deal Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge

I presume you have heard about The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

Bristol (Day 1-3)
Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
Devon (Day 7-9)
Dorset (Day 10-12)
Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
Somerset (Day 16-18)
Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 16:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for organising this Rod; will see what I can contribute. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for reviewing a total of 4 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Thanks Peacemaker! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Buckenham

Reliable sourcing...?

Hope all well! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look... Hchc2009 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Deal Castle

The article Deal Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deal Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Marmion Tower

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marmion Tower 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Marmion Tower

The article Marmion Tower you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marmion Tower for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Longoria

One person you'd never expect to turn up at Castell Coch or Cardiff Castle. She seems to be loving it [1] [2].♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Harry's Walls

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Harry's 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southsea Castle Plan 1577.jpg

Are you sure you haven't got north and south reversed on this? I thought the bridge went out via the north side.©Geni (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working from memory (will check on return) they moved the original bridge during one of the redevelopments. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the 1707 map shows two bridges (on towards the land and one towards the sea) but they are both on the west side. This recreation shows on bridge to the north and west.©Geni (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will double check - But I'm under canvass in the middle of nowhere right now! :) should be back on Monday and will get out the books again and check. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - have changed accordingly! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Harry's Walls

The article Harry's Walls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Harry's Walls for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dartmouth Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dartmouth Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Device Forts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Victoria (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) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dartmouth Castle

The article Dartmouth Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dartmouth Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kingswear Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kingswear Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kingswear Castle

The article Kingswear Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kingswear Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add your GAs to the list at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. I may have added your castles but can't find them. They should have the GA icon by them now and the tally updated. Great job! Gloucestershire starts today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Should be fixed now. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malmesbury Castle...

True but someone could get a pic of the gatehouse on the site (according to Historic England) which became part of the prison. I was just looking at it for the West Country Challenge & decided there wasn't enough (sources, content etc) to expand it.— Rod ^talk 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm confusing my castles - I was thinking of Dorchester Castle which I've also edited this morning. Feel free to remove the image request - although we might get one of the site.— Rod ^talk 11:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No prob's. Hope all's well with you and that you're enjoying the good weather! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cromwell's Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cromwell's Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also completed the review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Hchc2009. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cromwell's Castle

The article Cromwell's Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cromwell's Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco in the United States

A new article that you might be interested in, given Early skyscrapers. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather fun! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bayard's Cove Fort

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bayard's Cove Fort you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bayard's Cove Fort

The article Bayard's Cove Fort you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bayard's Cove Fort for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunstanburgh - a Statement Of Friendly Intent! (no siege)

Hi Hchc2009. Thank you for all your fine work on castles, and especially on Dunstanburgh, a subject very close to my heart. Thank you also for your thanks, if you see what I mean - it's nice to have my fiddlings-with appreciated, particularly by someone who I think did most of the writing we now see there. I have had some involvement with the article in the past (that is putting it mildly) and I am delighted to see how well it is doing now. I hope you do not mind my current round of messing around with it. I am trying to keep it to a minimum and just change things which I strongly feel can/should be improved, but I am absolutely NOT up for any form of conflict over this, and am often simply wrong, so if I do something that appears daft to you please revert away and I will be very happy to discuss it. An example might be siegework vs. siege-work where I changed it because OED thought it was wrong BUT I am completely prepared to accept that there can be cases where standard usage "in the business", or locally, or whatever, might not match what the dictionary thinks! Happy collaboration is my aim. :) And finally - do you you know Dunstanburgh personally, as it were? I'd be intrigued to know. Thanks, happy editing, and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just editing from my phone, so apologies for the brevity! Your changes all look like improvements, IMHO, and thanks for the copyediting. My own grasp of hyphens etc. is limited, and very happy to go with your interpretation. :) Will reply more fully once I'm by a proper keyboard. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say, I've only seen Dunstanburgh from the perspective of a visitor - I've never had the chance to live in that part of the world. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've been there, though ... it really is something very wonderful. :) DBaK (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) ...unless you're a Percy perhaps :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hastings

Thanks for your comments and advice - I'd suspected it was an accidental revert at firstfirst, but I've now taken this up on the article's talk page. The Parson's Cat (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of Hastings#Dispute30Sep2016. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman war elephants

Hey, I saw you have done some work with the war elephant page, I am planning to make a roman war elephant, or history of war elephants of rome, or some other title, page, I was wondering if you would be interested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eynsford Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solar (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) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgwater Castle

I've just been looking at the article on Bridgwater Castle (as I recently acquired a book on Bridgwater history which includes a chapter on it) and wondered if you worked on castles where there are now no visible remains? The chapter seems to have some useful bits but doesn't follow any logical order (eg chronological or geographical) and jumps around. Is there a particular example you would recommend for the structure of an article like this?— Rod ^talk 19:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few castles which have mostly vanished, and agree with your analysis of the Bridgwater article. In these cases I've tended to go for a straight chronological narrative, making sure that occasionally the article summarises the physical appearance (since we can't really do that in an architecture section). Have a look at Bedford or Southampton Castle, where there's plenty of history, but almost nothing physically left any more. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look at them and put something together in a sandbox over the next week or two. Perhaps I could ask you to take a look at it before I make it live?— Rod ^talk

I've now done some work on this & I would be grateful if you would take a look at my sandbox before I make it live.— Rod ^talk 09:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a lot better! Some thoughts...

The "End of Bridgwater Castle" article probably needs individual page numbers for the referencing; you're currently giving the citations the page range for the entire article.

Done.~~

It would worth double-checking the "charter" for the castle; at least one of the sources is saying "licence to crenellate", which would be more normal for the period.

Gathercole definitely says "charter". Which source says licence to crenalate?— Rod ^talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the date, the charter is likely the licence to crenellate mentioned here. The author of the website has done lots of research on such licences. The original document is part of the Charter Rolls, hence the Gathercole's use of the term 'charter', but licence to crenellate is more common. If you can read Latin (I scrape by with Google translate) the text is here. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rod, the History of Somerset, for examples, prefers the licence verb. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed.— Rod ^talk 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The date the castle was built seems to be disputed; at least some of the sources are saying "soon after" the 1200 license/charter date, rather than 1220.

I think it was constructed over many/several years - I have changed this to early 13th C which covers all possibilities.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the early history, you mention a motte. Is this really correct? Castles of 1200 weren't typically built with new mottes.

Looking again at the Dunning book I have changed this to keep and turrets as per the source.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The urban survey gives a useful description of the castle having: "outer and inner bailies" with the the buildings including "the constable’s house (on the high ground of Kings Square), a chapel

(St Marks), hall (Mortemere’s Hall) and chamber, stables, kitchens, horse mill and gatehouse as well as a bell tower and dovecote." Hchc2009 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all advice. It is now atBridgwater Castle if you wanted to edit further.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelstan

Hi,

I'm not sure the talk page would help much, since Owain Knight does not seem to know what they are: his pattern of editing shows that what he's really about is bold, pointless edits, mostly picture changes, page moves and template removals, without ever any justification to them. Actually, it's because he has recently begun to display the same disruptive behaviour on the French Wikipedia that I have arrived on Æthelstan. I reverted him there because the difference in quality and relevance between the two pictures was obvious, but in my opinion all his edits should be looked into. Ælfgar (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're seeing him pop up a lot on various pages ... but talk pages seem to be a complete loss. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a formal warning notice on his talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

War memorials

Hi, the book I was waiting for arrived this morning and I've made a few tweaks to the Devon County War Memorial article following your comments at the ACR, which was closed quicker than I was expecting. I'm planning to attempt FAC once Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northampton War Memorial/archive1 is wrapped up, but I wanted to make sure I addressed your comments first. On a related note, I know you wrote The Cenotaph, Southampton a few years ago and you've probably seen that I'm working my way through Lutyens' war memorials; I'd love to see that make it to featured status. It's quite a way down my list and some of the articles higher up have been badly neglected but I wouldn't have thought it would need more than a few tweaks to be ready for FAC. I wouldn't want to step on your toes, though. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the Southampton Cenotaph up to FA, that would be great! Definitely wouldn't be stepping on any toes on this side. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian's Wall

The book series of Game of Thrones is mentioned and sourced, the only issue for me is whether it should be there for the tv show as well. It's well sourced in Game of Thrones itself. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, there's no source been given to support the claim that the wall in the book is an overt allegory of Hadrian's Wall. Hchc2009 (talk)

Damn, what was I thinking? Inspiration, yes, Martin says that. He also says GoT isn't an allergory. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eynsford Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eynsford Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bury/Berry Castle - help please

Hi, I have had some email queries about confusion in the article Bury Castle, Somerset (which is now at Bury Castle, Selworthy). The confusion was about another Bury Castle, which we didn't have an article about but now at Bury Castle, Brompton Regis. My problem I have now been staring at articles about Bury & Berry castles for about an hour and I am confused. Can you please check the naming (& hatnotes) of:

Do we need some sort of dab page (to stop others being as confused as I am)?— Rod ^talk 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Bury Mount & Bury Manor (called Bury Manor Castle in the article). I think I'm going to stop looking.— Rod ^talk 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bury Castle in Greater Manchester isn't any more notable than any of the others. I think for the sake of simplicity it should be moved to Bury Castle, Greater Manchester and Bury Castle turned into a dab. That would simplify the hatnote situation as well. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: I'd agree with Nev - dab the page and link from there... Thanks for tracking all of these down! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having some association with Bury, Lancs (where we still don't recognise the "Greater Manchester" of which you speak), I would naturally disagree with the assertion that "Bury Castle in Greater Manchester isn't any more notable than any of the others"; our mediæval heritage represent the finest set of foundations under a car park that the nation has to offer. It is, though, clearly a nonsense that what amounts to little more than a stretch of stone wall should be listed as Bury Castle whilst all the other bits of random stone wall are Bury Castle, Somewhere. I'd support the move to Bury Castle, Greater Manchester with Bury Castle as a dab.Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a dab page. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Device Forts

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Device Forts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

England in the Middle Ages

hi. i am a wikipedian from hebrew wikipedia, and i translated the article to hebrew -here. At the end of the article there is a very long list of bibliography. I would like to know, did you use all the books listed there? and can you bring me a list of the main books that you rely on them for writing this article? I would appreciate your help. TZivyA (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! My Hebrew is very limited I'm afraid. In answer to your first question, yes, all the works listed were used (it took a while to do the research for this article!) I'm happy to highlight the key ones, but might not be able to do so before the weekend, if that's okay? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TZivyA, if you were looking for a "cut-down" list of the works used, I'd focus on the works in the "Survey" section, especially the Penguin volumes, and perhaps the Yale series on the English kings (e.g. Warren's "Henry II" etc.). You'd have some very accessible works, and they're all peer-reviewed and written by leading academics in their fields. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. thank you for your answer. do you know if there is online version of those works? Wikipedia policy requires that I have verified the sources before I add them to the article. Because of that I don't have time to go through them all I'm trying to find the main ones. TZivyA (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some, but certainly not all I'm afraid. I can vouch for them, if that helps, since I wrote the original version. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for The Anarchy

Hello there, I've just gone through all of your additional references from this revision, and some appear to be missing the relevant books in the bibliography (which I assume you have access to?). I've marked the references which have their books missing. Possibly, the references have incorrect dates, for books which are already listed in the bibliography? If you could take another look at the article, it would be a great help. Nonetheless, I'd like to thank you for your already excellent work on the article. Regards, EP111 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I've gone through and added them in; let me know if I've missed any! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. If you could kindly add the book for ref.246, Kadish p.40? Regards, EP111 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that one! Yep, will look it up in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell: Perfect. Thanks. EP111 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Yeoman Warders reversion

Ref your comments on your reversion:

"Reverting removal of citation needed tags; pls don't remove until a citation is provided." I removed the citation needed tag from one section - the section to which I had just added five citations!

Elsewhere in the article, I moved (but did not remove) one citation needed tag and added three new CN tags.

If you consider that my removal of CN tags "until a citation is provided" is errant, then please edit to reinstate the CN tag, rather than simply clicking "undo", thus deleting in its entirety the considerable amount of work I had done in copy editing the article. Misha An interested observer of this and that 23:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now we are cross-posting with each other between here and there! Thanks for your self-reversion.Misha An interested observer of this and that 23:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Misha; I misread the screen, and had thought that you'd done entirely the opposite edit! Utterly my fault, and my apologies for messing you about like that. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eynsford Castle

The article Eynsford Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eynsford Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hchc2009. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Device Forts

The article Device Forts you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Device Forts for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviewing Sturmvogel! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For the wealth of resources on the henrician forts. What a fine ring of articles. Nice to see Device Forts promoted to GA. Retired electrician (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Retired Electrician! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes

A project has recently decided that ALL infoboxes have to be modified so that all coordinates parameters are the same for ALL infoboxes - see Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. A bot has done that for all articles using Template:Infobox UK feature. You have reverted that update for Bamburgh Castle, Belsay Castle, Caerhays Castle, Cotherstone Castle, Featherstone Castle. Just to let you know that I shall be restoring the changes to those five articles in the next few days. Twiceuponatime (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the 'bot had broken the formatting, Twiceuponatime, breaking the infobox. I think this is described at User talk:JJMC89#Lua error. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Launceston Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Launceston Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Not sure what this might be about, any ideas? --JustBerry (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who the IP user is, JustBerry, but I'd guess that they'd read my user page, which does note that he was one of my childhood heroes! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Just letting you know, I suppose. --JustBerry (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hastings

Stop your edit warring. You are the only person doing it.

Are you incapable of understanding an edit summary? Didn't you already see where it was discussed? Why in the world are you demanding it to be discussed again after it has already been.

Revert your edit. This is between Ealdgyth and me. If Ealdgyth has problems, they can continue discussing. This started because Ealdgyth thought the bot messed up, which it clearly didn't. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I kinda DO think the bot messed up. Personally, I don't think the bot should leave an edit summary saying it is fixing a specific checkwiki error when ... it doesn't fix that error. I get why it thought there was an error in this case - but the edit summary IS misleading - since it did not fix any such error in its edit. And I wish the bots would stop inserting "" into ref names and stop reordering refs. But I've combined the ref, so hopefully we won't have this problem again. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		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 01:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking other for help is a good thing

I regularly ask bot operators for help. Hera are some recent examples that involve only bot tasks:

I also ask people to run scripts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Back to writing an encyclopedia. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ed! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need help: Мonument class descriptions

The gov.uk site that hosted monument class descriptions like [5] and [6] is down. Forever, I'm afraid. The new historicengland.org.uk/ site doesn't have these MCDs (seems to be still under construction). Google didn't help. Perhaps you know? Is there any chance of finding them online? Retired electrician (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... probably worth dropping them an email to point out the error - they're trying hard, but they've seemed a bit overwhelmed of late. In terms of finding them for the time being, I'd try the Wayback Machine archive - http://web.archive.org/web/20120410163941/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/artcast.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20120410161621/http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/block.htm, for example, will give you archived versions of the two urls listed above (suggesting that they've probably archived versions of most of the description sites). Hchc2009 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! curiously, I've been at archive.org but somehow missed it. Retired electrician (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World War I memorials

Hmmm... Let me get this straight. You edited out my addition of the image of United States NATIONAL World War I Memorial, with its highly unusual and elegant Egyptian Revival design, which is monumental every way in scope, and site of numerous international conferences on World War I, a very prominent urban landmark (66m high on a hill overlooking one of the 25 largest cities in the U.S.), originally inaugurated by each of the military leaders from all of the major (and many minor) Allied powers --- and which, more importantly, perfectly illustrates the textural point made in the section. --- And for what reason: « Avoiding wall of images, as per MOS », however, you choose to retain that rather insignificant memorial in East Isley in the next paragraph (!!). Removing U.S. National image leaves images of 1.) a British temporary cemetery, 2.) London's Cenotaph, 3.) Sir Reggie's Cross of Sacrifice, 4.) a window in Derry, plus 5.) the aforementioned East Isley memorial, all for the U.K. And, for America, the article only has an image of Calvin Coolidge laying a wreath. --- You need to thoughtfully reconsider what you have done and return the addition I made. Clearly I disagree with what you have done, but I don't do edit wars. -- Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk)

Would you be content to have this conversation on the article page? Would ensure that other editors interested in the article would be more likely to see it. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope you would see the worth of my comment and reverse your own change. My addition, obviously, is a valid contribution to the article. A conversation about this is not necessary. Do what you will. -- Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk)