User talk:Redpathanderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Speedy deletion of Monbijou Park 3 Crown Fortress 4 Quotations

[edit] Welcome

Your council Bolsover article is a nice addition but is it about the hall, the council (ie the committee) or the district? Do have a look at similar articles. Do not take this as "a slap" .... Welcome!! Victuallers (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK ... so if it is the committee then your article say .....Bolsover Town council ... is asn area...??. Do you mean Bolsover Town Council administers an area of ... or Bolsover Town .... is an area controlled by a council? Victuallers (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Monbijou Park

A tag has been placed on Monbijou Park requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Xp54321 ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Fortress

I am trying hard to make some constructive edits to your article - your current actions are likely to fall foul of WP:3RR. It is nonsense to say that Henry's successors built castles during hie reign - in any case only Elizabeth carried on his fort-building, so "In the reign of the Tudors" might be better. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume this was intended for me?

"It in no way infers that Henry VIII was suceded during his reign, sucessor, by it's very definition, means someone who comes after, this is irespective of weather it is acheived during the period the predecessor is in power, or following it."

It nether infers or implies anything. It STATES that "During the reign of Henry VIII" "many new Crown fortresses were commissioned by" "his successors".

Can't you see that that is nonsense? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my talk page is User talk:Ian Dalziel - the page you are updating is nothing to do with me! -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:TP -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is not nonesense!

Why? How could Henry's successors commission fortresses during his reign? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the entire point, it in no way gramatically, infers his succesors commisioned fortresses during his reign. By the very fact, that by definition, to to sucede you must come after

But the bit I keep trying to change SAYS "During the reign of". He didn't HAVE any successors until AFTER his reign. What is your problem with the way I have worded it now?

And "adherents" would be courtiers, people like More and Cromwell - hardly castle builders. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Adherents eqaully played a part in it, you don't honestly think that Henry VII, arranged everything! do you? Adherents can eqaully be a generla term for those who follow on, re his successors and courtiers.

Find me a dictionary definition that covers that, would you? No, adherents can NOT in any sense mean his successors. You might want to look at WP:OWN as well, by the way. If you think my edits are invalid, please explain why, do NOT revert. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For one I have and have never in anyway expected to own a article, as you would like to believe, but I do find your arguments tedious, and your re-writting, tedious. As for adherents, I don't need a dictionary, as apart form anything I have seen, the same term in use, in various other, identical cricumstance. Yes in deed it can mean, follower, but it can also mean, someoen who "carry's on from", which is afterall, someone who sucedes, and therefore a sucessor.

No it can't. Quote a dictionary reference that says that "adherent" can mean "successor"? Also check WP:OR and WP:CIVIL. The point about ownership is that you do NOT have the right to revert my edits without a reason. I am really doing my best to discuss this - you would already qualify for a ban under WP:3RR. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More fundamentally, can you find a reference to support your assertion in the lead that "Royal Castle" aplies only to a "palatial residence"? I have never heard that distinction, and I'd have called all the castles built by James of St John in North Wales "royal castles". Without some support for that distinction, the whole article seems just to be revisiting ground covered by Castle. You really do need to support your statements - see WP:SOURCE. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a very great difference between a Royal Castle, and that of a Crown Fortress certainly. And Those castles built by James of St John, aren't all Royal Castles, though they were are patronised by the Crown, at a date when as I placed in the article, little distinction could be made. Due to the fact that, little seperated, the fund sof the Moanrch and the state, as it has doen since the 19th century(atleast). And infact there are documents, as far back as the reign of Henry VII, that designate, and differentiate, bewteen those castles which, were Royal and those which were Crown. Fundementally Royal Castles are residences, even if the have a defensive nature. As for Crown Fortesses, they became, purely military buildings. The article, may indeed revisit some aspects of other articles, but then thats the point, most do. My article, refers to the context in which the term is used, and it's history and modern application. As for sources. I have read many books that clearly, disctinguish, the two types of castle. But I am not sure where I would find the sources again, or for that matter on the web. As the subject is very rarely raised in, it's own right. Yet the application has existed for centuries, and the differences between the two. One book that certainly recalls the difference is "Country Houses from the air", I can't remmebr the author, but it states, that Bolsover Castle, became a "Crown Fortress", whatsmore, the author published another book about "Royal Castles and Palaces" Past and present, and makes no mention of Bolsover Castle. In another Book I read, about "Castles of Britain", it clearly differenciates between the two, designating the likes of Pendennis as a "Crown Fortress", and Windsor, as a "Royal Castle". This can be found in numerous books, and articles.

Whatsmore, I revisted ground thats already covered, to give an idea of the different circumstances, in which these came into existence, aslo to be able to provide information on examples, and generally to be as informative as possible.

That's good - I'm prepared to believe that, and to work on improving the article. It's an area that interests me. But you do need to find a documented source for the assertion - either find the book and cite it, or find a supporting independent statement on the web. That's how Wikipedia works - you can't just write down what you know, you have to be able to support it. I'll have a look myself and see if I can find anything. I do have a load of books on fortifications. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well happy to improve on the article. I've been waiting on some news form a friend, who has greater access to sources, but he's come-up Blank as to a source for definition, or it's use elsewhere, yet he agrees, eh's heard the term in use, as a historian, all he can suggest is trying to search as many Books on castles and fortifictaions.

[edit] Quotations

You included a variety of direct quotations in the article Grove, Nottinghamshire without identifying the sources of these quotations. This is, at the very least, confusing to the reader, and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources. --Russ (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Being new to the site, I'm unsure of how to cite sources, would you be willing to tell me how to.

Sorry for not answering sooner. There are some suggestions at Wikipedia:CITE that you may find helpful; however, it is more important simply to identify the source with enough detail so that other editors can find it (author, title, date, etc.) than to get the format precisely right. This is particularly true when you are quoting someone else's words: we need to at least know who said it, and how to verify the quotation. --Russ (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)