User talk:Hchc2009

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of July 2018 Retired.

A great pity

Sorry to see this, and that we weren't able to work up Cardiff. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a great pity to lose your valuable contributions. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope all's well on the home front. What's up? - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing serious, Dank. I'd been having slightly less fun here for a while, and figured that a break would be good - nothing worse than a jaded Wikipedia editor! :) I'm working on another project at the moment, related to medieval history. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good to hear. Retiring is fine, but don't disappear completely, please. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No prob's, will still be around. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah take care. Enjoy your leisure time :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm really sorry Hchc, hope you feel like popping back at some point. Until then, take good care and enjoy the rest of the world. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm also very sorry to see this. (I was away when you announced it so I have only just caught up.) I have been in awe of the high quality of your work. So, I hope that you enjoy your break, however long it turns out to be, and I will hope that one day we will be lucky enough to have you back here. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop on biographies of The Anarchy at Winchester on 1 Oct

I've just seen your retired notice - which is a real shame as I wanted to ask for your help. I've been asked to do a workshop on editing wikipedia for masters students of Medieval History at Winchester University on the afternoon of 1 October ( see event dashboard) & you were the first person that came to mind. I was going to ask you or others with an interest to keep an eye on the articles they will be editing in the classroom.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! Hope you're well. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Edward II of England, "an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Stephen, King of England, "a war-time leader, who was at one point captured by the enemy until saved through his wife's successes in battle; a devout father who ended up passing over his own son in the succession"! - Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years now, miss you.Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2019 (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 16:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth! Hope the family's well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Weeting Castle you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I wish you the best wherever you may roam. Hopefully someday we will meet again. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Thanks Tom! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hijack Tom's thread rather than starting my own. Just wanted to say thanks for the photos of Southampton and I hope you're happy with what I've done with the article. If you ever fancy a pint and end up as far out of your way as Devon, give me a shout. Btw, do you have copies of the two books from your bibliography that I didn't use (Carden-Coyne Reconstructing the Body and Compton Charles Sargeant Jagger)? The former has only limited pages in the Google Books preview and the latter doesn't have any preview and hard copies are ~£100 each which is out of the question at the moment (though I've probably spent more than that on the pile of books I've used; Hussey alone was about £35). All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember using a library version of Reconstructing the Body when I worked on the article originally, but I don't have a copy now unfortunately. I bought a (much more reasonably priced!) copy of Compton when I was doing the work on the Artillery Memorial, which I must still have - although a quick search earlier failed to find it, so it may be under the bed somewhere! Let me know if you want me to carry out a more extended search for it... It's good, but £100 would be steep. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks. I asked Wikimedia UK for a grant and they came through. Carden-Coyne arrived this morning; Compton is on its way. And thanks for your comment at the Southampton ACR—I'm glad you're happy with what I've done with it; I kept your text and formatting wherever possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side note to say horray for grants! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! I wasn't looking forward to having to search for my copy - the house is still a bit of a mess after Christmas. :) Incidentally, HJ, Richard, one of my family was interested in perhaps doing some work experience with Wikimedia UK - do either of you know a good contact there for that sort of thing? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's encouraging! Daria Cybulska, the Head of Programmes, would be good to talk to about it. Her email address is daria.cybulska

wikimedia.org.uk. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tintern Abbey

Hi H - hope you're keeping well and that your other project is proving fulfilling. And first off, ignore this entirely if it's of no interest. I'm casting around for another possible FAC and thought Tintern Abbey might be interesting. It currently has a "Citations needed" tag dating from November 2015. I'm not quite sure why it arose - it appears to have been an OR concern regarding poetry/the picturesque and the abbey? Bottom line - do you have a concern about the current content? At the risk/certainty of sounding sycophantic, I greatly admire the work you've done on here and I'd certainly be interested in your view if you had a specific concern.

Let me know if you do. Ignore completely if you don't. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I'd be inclined to say the tag is unnecessary; the article probably isn't in any worse shape than the 'average' Wikipedia article. On the other hand, it's not really worth arguing about. If you're looking at improving the article anyway, I'd suggest just going through paragraph by paragraph until you've got a source for all the information that's in there, then removing the tag. That way it's black and white, there's no debating how much unsourced material there needs to be to justify the tag. If you're going to be working on it, I'll stick it on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - Harry, absolutely agree and the tag was secondary. I just noticed HCH and Ghmyrtle had been involved in the 2015 discussion and wanted to make sure I wasn’t treading on any toes. Tintern certainly warrants an FA and I think I shall have a crack at it. But must do Sissinghurst first. Ever, KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob's! Inclined to agree with HJ. There were a lot of conversations back in 2015 or so I think - mainly about how far one should interpret some of the primary and secondary material around the artistic history when writing the article, if memory serves. In terms of the content, it's not in bad shape - probably a bit heavily weighted towards the artistic aspects though, at least compared to most accounts I've read of the abbey, and probably needs a bit more on the architecture of the site. It would need a decent scrub line-by-line, I'd suspect. There are a couple of bits that at first glance are very similarly worded to the Coflein text, but that may be me over-thinking it, rather than true close paraphrasing! Let me know if you want a plan drawn up. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HCH - many thanks. A plan would be excellent, and very helpful for the reader to understand the site. But don't trouble yourself yet. We're a mile off FAC at present. Let's see how it goes and I'll be in touch. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward II of England scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Edward II of England has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - I do have this watchlisted. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth - I've pretty much retired, though, so won't be checking the article for current accuracy. Hope all's well with you and the horses! Spring has (finally) arrived here in England... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, King of England scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Stephen, King of England has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 5 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 5, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth - as per the above though, I've pretty much retired, though, so won't be checking the article for current accuracy. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Castle

Evening H, I hope that the world beyond Wiki is good for you. I have to say this place has gone a little crazy since you left. But I continue to mess about with some architecture-related bits and pieces, and am now thinking about Cardiff Castle for FAC. It warrants it, as the symbol of Cardiff, and it would give Billy Burges FAs for his three most important buildings. So, I just wanted to see if you'd have any concerns about this. If you do, let me know. If you don't, don't put even a toe in these unsettled waters, and I'll take silence as consent. With all the very best. KJP1 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - yep, life's not bad at this end! I'd heartily endorse someone getting Cardiff Castle up to FA, would be great to see that happen. Let me know if you need any help/input etc. The Wiki has certainly been looking a bit strained the last few months - a lot of the structural tensions between the different parts of the community have become much more visible... Hchc2009 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again! Excellent re. the “Gothic feudal extravaganza”, I shall set to and be in touch. Very glad to here life in the outside world proceeds well. KJP1 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Stanley Kubrick

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Artillery

Hiya! Just for the next time you pop your head round the door, I finally got round to finishing what I wanted to do on the Royal Artillery Memorial, and I've put it up at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Artillery Memorial/archive1 (as a co-nom, of course; you wrote most of it!). Hope you like it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great to see it progressing! I've left a message on the review page. Hope you're well and enjoying life! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for John, King of England, introduced: " I am nominating this for featured article review because King John is a challenging medieval figure for a wikipedia article: his reign excites strong feelings amongst many academics, with historical views changing significantly over the years. He was, however, a fascinating ruler at a critical moment in British history."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You too - and I hope you and the family are all keeping safe. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I have been thinking about castles, as one does, and just wanted to say that I am delighted to see you occasionally editing here. No pressure or anything ... it's just very good to see you still contributing, is literally all I wanted to communicate. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I am also glad for your return from retirement. If you feel up to it, I would appreciate copyedits and conversion to British English at Fortified position of Liège; I made an effort to write in British English there, but I am not British, so I'm sure there's holes. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for your share in Southampton Cenotaph, about "another war memorial in another city, again by Lutyens. This was his first (it was already in progress when Lutyens got the commission for its much more famous sibling in London). In many ways informed those that followed, and in others it's a complete one-off. Either way, it's a big piece of the puzzle in the story of Lutyens and his war memorials."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ham House

A quick note to thank you again for the Ham House plan. It finally made FA, although it was a bit of a bumpy ride! Hope all is good with you. KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all well! Great to see the article getting its FA star. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mont Saint-Michel in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mont Saint-Michel in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Saint-Michel in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klondike Gold Rush

I see that although you are retired you do make some edits. If you have the time can you look at Talk:Klondike Gold Rush#Conversion of $. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth! Hope your year is going well too. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issue?

Hi Hchc, I know you likely will not see this message, but I am pleased to inform you that Edward I has recently passed FA! Thank you for all your hard work on it; I am honored to be a small part of continuing your legacy. On a related note, while working on Henry II, I noticed that there are several references to Bates (2003), but said source cannot be located in the Sources section. Are you able to inform me which publication that is? Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'll likely be David Bates (historian) - but I'm not sure which of his publications that is. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The University of East Anglia has a partial list of Bates' publications: https://research-portal.uea.ac.uk/en/persons/david-bates/publications/

It doesn't list anything for 2003 that looks to fit the bill. Given the page numbers cited, it's probably a book rather than an article or chapter. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello @Ealdgyth. I believe I may have found the solution: in the Sources section, there is a chapter written by Bates, but it is in a book published in 2003. The date given on the Wikipedia article says 1994, which may be an error. However, other sections of the book (not from Bates' chapter) are cited in the article, leading me to question if I should just cite the entire book and not just that chapter. Then again, this could be an entirely different 2003 publication and I could just be confusing myself. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation was added by hchc in his revision of 15 January 2012 at [1]. It must be an error as, apart from the wrong date, it is shown as the introduction chapter and the page numbers are 85 and 207 (as Richard Nevell points out). I think you need to delete the bookand find new sources, which should not be difficult in view of the massive literature on Henry. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I got the publication date mixed up by the sounds of it! I can’t work it out either… really sorry about that, and I agree with Dudley’s recommendation. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Hchc. I will take that feedback. Glad to see you're still lurking around in one form or another :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hchc. Just a heads up that I plan on co-nominating this with you sometime this year. Is that alright? Obviously as an inactive Wikipedian I do not expect you to come out of retirement, but I would like to share this honour with the person who put together such a well-written and comprehensive article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine - it would be brilliant to see the article progress to that final stage. And many thanks for all your efforts in improving it over the last few months - it's much better than when I last saw it! Hchc2009 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are still here, but it has been promoted! Congratulations on your hard work, and thank you for allowing me to be a small part of it. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great news - really well done! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FA review

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castell Coch scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]