User talk:Rjm at sleepers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Rjm at sleepers! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

== About User:STBotI ==

I read your post on User_talk:STBotI, and just wanted to say that all of the copyright image bots require actual copyright or license templates, like these: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags. A description of fair use won't suffice. connor.carey (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I

I think your article on the "High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I" is a useful addition to Wikipedia, thanks for making the contribution. I have fettled it a little, and it might be worth looking at the regicide page to see if anything can be copied over from there. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find a source for the army council quotation - I copied it from the regicides page where it is similarly unsourced. You've also tagged "this sparked further royalist uprisings which were known as the third civil war" with citation needed. Were you suggesting the need for a citation that the execution sparked royalist uprisings or a citation that confirms the name third civil war? Rjm at sleepers 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Third Civil War can look after its self, no it is the presumption that the execution sparked further royalist uprisings. I think you can build a case for saying that with the execution of Charles the I the crown was then free (no longer imprisoned in England) for the Scots to place it upon the head of Charles II so starting the Third Civil War, but I am not sure one can argue that the execution it sparked further (English) royalist uprisings. Either which way it is drawing a conclusion that ought to be sourced. If one just blandly says that "A year and a half after the execution the Scots proclaimed Charles II king of Scotland, and this ignited the Third Civil War.", then one is on far safer ground as it is a statement of fact not inference. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:-) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have changed the link in this article to a page that includes the Canadian House of Commons. Surely it s better to link to the British version. (English would have been even better, but it doesn't exist.)

Also, you have included a section on a trial during the interegnum. Was this in anyway connected to the court that tried Charles I? Rjm at sleepers 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • (1) Apologies-amended (2) The 1649 'gagging act'(reference section) mentions the existence of a HCJ for the trial of others namely James Earl of Cambridge. Since there had been no further enactments I read the original act to see if it constituted a HCJ with an independent existence outside of Charles I's trial. My first reading concluded that this was indeed possible and that all subsequent HCJs took their authority from the original. A second reading prompted by your comments has convinced me of the opposite. This may explain why they did not want Hamilton's trial publicised!

Anyway I have listed further HCJ Acts found. I hope you agree it is appropriate to mention them in this article. Aatomic1 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ODNB

"Add Thomas Hammond who is said by ODNB to have attended 14 sessions but did not sign)"

What is ODNB? please put it in as a reference. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your question

Well, firstly, AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion held to measure consensus. While the number of editors arguing for a given position certainly is a factor in weighing the consensus, it is not the sole consideration. In the case of Local history glossary, there were several arguments weighing in favor of deletion.

  • The article was a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  • While the article was pretty well-written, we have more appropriate sister projects for that type of content.
  • The article has already been transwikied to Wikibooks, which is better suited to handle it, and has a format much more conducive to writing a great work on it. Since the transwiki had already taken place, no content is lost, simply moved. Some of the definitions also may very well be appropriate for Wiktionary, if it doesn't have a page on the word-Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is!

In sum, the arguments regarding the fact that the topic was inherently unsuitable for this project and better suited to Wikibooks were just not answered, the content has already been moved to a better home, and most of the "keep" arguments center around the "Other articles like this exist" argument. Unfortunately, we often have articles which are not suitable and haven't been noticed, but that doesn't mean any other article like it is suitable. I'd strongly encourage you to help with the Wikibook if you wish to continue work on the subject, but if you do still disagree, you may also request a deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Conquest

Hi - I left an edit field note in error, the correct talk page discussion I meant to refer to is [1]. It discusses the difference between the terms "conquest" and "invasion". Historians use the term "conquest" and not "invasion" when referring to this event because it took a generation to conquer the country and remove any remaining resistance. Although there were later invasions, and even symbolic events such as temporary taking the throne, none of them "conquered" (subdued, pacified and fully controlled) England. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Famine Book

I read your entry on the talk page and just wanted to let you know that entries on "did you know" have to come from recently (less than 5 days) created or substantially expanded articles. Also, if it's a book, it's probably written from it's author's POV. When you write ABOUT the book, thats when you have to be neutral. In other words you can say something like "this is a book that claims the Irish famine was evil" but not "this is the worst book ever written about the famine".Galf 09:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I said evil above but that was a bad choice of words, because most people agree that the famine was in someway "bad", I should have said something more controversial... I also forgot to say something else, if you feel that the book (not the famine, at least in this article) are misrepresented you can always edit it, fror example, by adding a book review that is critical of it. Just always remember to attribute any opinions you include. Galf 13:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chadwell

Please do. I can put some details in about the civil parish history too. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 07:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Chadwell St Mary CP and Tilbury UD occupied the same area from 1912 to 1936. [2] MRSC • Talk 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etchingham

Yes, the James Templer reference was the residency in Etchingham, not a fact I had come acrioss before. ColinBoylett 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bletchley Park

Regarding the reference you added to Bletchley Park, could you add some info to say who published it? --Concrete Cowboy 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial use of Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Orsett-hall-fire.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Orsett hall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orsett hall.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Denehole.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Denehole.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earthworks (archaeology)

Thanks for adding some references to this article. I've added it to Category:Archaeology and removed the uncategorised tag. Can you have a look through the sub-categories for Category:Archaeology and see if there's an better and more appropriate sub-category for it? (I know nothing about archaeology!) Cheers. DrFrench 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:169549 73198344.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:169549 73198344.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved

Apologies--the stuff below ended up on your user page. It shouldn't have, of course, it should have been here on the talk page. My mistake. DGG 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Sir Hugh Dacre Barrett-Lennard, 6th Baronet

I declined to delete it, as speedy deletion requires no assertion of importance, and I consider saying someone is a baronet is sufficient for that, though most people think it i not enough to ultimately keep the article. I changed the tag to propose deletion in 5 days to give time to show it's notable for WP purposes.

What this primarily needs is stronger evidence about his activities. Priests and other clergymen, and baronets as well, are generally considered notable only if they have in fact done something notable. (Not my decision, just information) Further, this will need documentation. Apparently the basic information is from an obituary, and it should be cited -- and be certain you're not copying it. But it really will take at least one and better two news article or magazine or some other reference to him. The London Oratory is a prominent church with an article in WP, so there might well be something.

If you find information, add it and remove the tag. Someone will probably then nominate it for deletion via the AfD process, and you can then defend the article. Without further material, I advise you that it will certainly be deleted if brought to AfD. You are of course perfectly welcome to try. (This isn't my personal opinion about the merits necessarily--just advice about what people will probably do.)

What I very strongly suggest is that you add the information as a section to the article about the Barony. That combination article can realistically be defended, and, in my opinion, it is the best way in general to deal with bios of this sort when there is limited information. You can then turn the individual article into a redirect to that section--if you need assistance with that, ask me. DGG 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed you have -- the pro-baronet and anti-baronet parties have been after each other for months at AfD. I stood for the baronets at first, except that one particularly undiscriminating editor started writing articles about all his relatives basing it only on a genealogy book by one of the family, which not surprisingly lost everyone's sympathy. I advised you on the basis of the present consensus at AfD. (and DRV). Of course it will change. The thing to do about family quarrels is to side-step them, so I think the section approach is the way to go. Works on all sorts of subject-- if consensus changes or you can find info, it can be changed back to an article easily enough. DGG 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earthworks

Hello, I am interested into earthworks which are a bit longer... systems to mark the boarder of a territory for protection and taking taxes or as defense lines. In Germany we have a lot of systems which are rather forgotten nowadays. Most of the seem to be made in the middleages. The have one or two dykes and so one, two or three ditches and were grown with thorny hedges. A length of up to 30 miles or longer is not unusual. What would be a proper lemma for it in English? -- Simplicius 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Belhus.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Belhus.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm..

For this article, I don't believe an infobox is necessary. It's very generic, and anyone who reads the article will easily find that information. That is just my opinion of course. When was he the surviving son? And how is that relevant, or what did the other siblings die of? To use abbreviations like JP and MP, you need to put Member of Parliament (MP) the first time it's used. Then you can use MP. The only thing in the article that really needs fixing is the referencing. All sentences/paragraphs should be referenced with inline citations. The first reference could be converted to a normal one using <ref> tags and the template {{Cite web}}. References also should come after punctuation. I hope this helped a bit, people from this time period are definitely confusing to write about. And one more thing, if you searched a genealogy site like RootsWeb for him you might be able to find a more exact birth date, maybe. Good luck, Psychless 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth I at Tilbury

Thanks for tidying up my revisions to the introduction to Tilbury, that was sloppy wording on my part. I lived in Tilbury for a few years, including at the time of the events in 1988 to mark the 400th anniversary of the speech, so I should have done better! Regards, --Malcolmxl5 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Hugh Barrett-Lennard, 6th Baronet

Having just spotted his obituary in the Telegraph,[3] I have just noticed your excellent article on Sir Hugh. I have taken the liberty of expanding it a little.

The original was very good - perhaps you may consider nominating such articles for WP:DYK in future, so they can appear on the Main Page and receive a wider audience? -- !! ?? 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic landscape characterisation

When English Heritage is the sponsor of the program, I would submit that additional sources are necessary to ensure the most reliable coverage and to establish the notability of the program. That is why I have included the template in this article. Erechtheus 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I removed the template. Please know you had no obligation to add references, but I do thank you for your efforts here and on Wikipedia in general. Erechtheus 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tithe maps

Hello, thanks for the contact. I hadn't realised the article was so young until after I'd made the edit (sorry!). It looks good now! Excellent work! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in Enclosure

Hi RJM. Good edits in Enclosure. I noticed you've been wikifying the refs, and have been having trouble with the ibid ones. I don't know if it's possible to do ibids entirely using the Wiki ref system, but there are two ways I know of to do it reasonably neatly. One is simply to repeat the whole ref each time, with just the page numbers different. This leads to a repetitive reflist, but each ref can at least be linked from within the article. Another way, which I've just noticed being done in Boar#Habits, is to use a repeat ref, but keeping the page numbers in the text as superscript. This seems much neater, although the page numbers don't link.

Regards, --Richard New Forest (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:England people message

This edit by Cyde removed "by settlement" from the category scheme, referring to a CFD which I could not find. This had the effect of making Category:People from Basildon [i.e the town] a subcategory of Category:People from Basildon [referring to the district] (previously had been Category:People from Basildon by settlement). I thought this change was bad, so (rather than revert, which would be naughty) I changed it to Category:People from xxx (district). This reintroduced disambiguation between places from districts. I made a note of it in the documentation. MRSC • Talk 15:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Wool-market.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wool-market.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] No content in Category:People from Thurrock

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:People from Thurrock, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:People from Thurrock has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:People from Thurrock, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exmouth

I'm mystified. Are you sure your message was for me? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Training ship. I'm with you now! --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chadwell (Leicestershire)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chadwell (Leicestershire), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Chadwell. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contact!

Dear RJM, are you an ex Beal boy? If so please message me on my Talk page. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Chadwell Skyline.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Rjm at sleepers!
We thank you for uploading Image:Chadwell Skyline.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thurrock Council election 2008

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Thurrock Council election 2008, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Triwbe (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British toponymy

Good job on that passage about transferred names for lost features. —Tamfang (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)