User talk:Coldupnorth/Archive15

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations!

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

good biographies scout

 

Thank you for quality articles about such as Bill Clinton, Winston Churchill, University College London and Brownsea Island Scout camp, for You Never Can Tell (song), First Sea Lords and distilleries, - repeating (14 December 2008): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2658 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Precious Prize, most kind of you. Coldupnorth (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I note your recent edit to Highland Clearances. I have to ask you:

1. Have you read the cited sources on which the article is based?
2. How do you feel your edits match the content of those cited sources?

WP:NPOV directs that articles should represent " all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." See my recent comment on the article talk page for what an RS is in this context. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired. Firstly, please keep comments related to the article and dispute on the article talk page. Secondly, you seem to have the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works, what NPOV is and how to reliably edit an existing cited source. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions are now on article talk page. To which I should probably add another: how does reliance on NPOV support your edits? You have edited an analysis, by a noted historian, of the difference between the historiography and the popular view of the subject? Wikipedia now has a different emphasis on the subject from the cited source. (Yes I will copy this last bit across.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired, I've got a copy of the ebooks of 'Debating the Highland Clearances' by Eric Richards and 'Set Adrift Upon the World: the Sutherland Clearances'. Give me a bit of time and I will put a more reasoned response on the article talk page. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thinking of sources, if you are going to read something of Richards and Hunter, you probably ought to take in something by Devine - so as to complete the triumvirate of the main historians in the subject. (Obviously, just my opinion of course.) Devine's The Scottish Clearances is his most recent, and is available as a Kindle book if you prefer electronic. As a paper book, his Clanship to Crofter's War is much more concise, but without the breadth of coverage, being more a collection of individual essays. Richard's major work is, in its full title, The Highland Clearances: People, Landlords and Rural Turmoil. He has a two volume earlier earlier work on the subject, but his conclusions are in the later book. Other influential writers, though less easy to get hold of, are Dodgshon and, for a background on clanship, is Allan I Macinnes' Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stewart 1603-1788 - thought strangely this is not used as a reference to the article. (I have been looking at aspects of a related article today (Scottish clan) and Macinnes was an ideal source for that, but it was probably already over-cited.) Journals include Northern Scotland and The Scottish Historical Review and there is at least one agricultural history journal whose name completely escapes me as I write this.

On another point on Highland clearances, I did today trim some of your added text in one part, as I felt it was saying something that the article already said. I am now becoming particularly aware that the article needs: (a) a section on John Gordon of Cluny, as an example of the most uncaring of the landlords (but making clear that he was something of an exception) (b) a big trim down of the text on the Sutherland Clearances, which needs its own article (c) a section on the differences between the public conception and the academic historian view, together with the historiography. This would allow the coverage of this in the lead to be a bit more concise (though probably not a lot that can be trimmed). Looking back at the subject, I am reminded of the intensity of the reading effort needed to cover it adequately - checking the more minor works to see if they say anything different is a challenge. It is only this that delineates the boundaries of the academic consensus, which to me seem relatively closely set. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight into additional sources. I have downloaded Devine's Scottish Clearances on my Kindle but given its size, it will be one for me to look at next year or over the Christmas period! Thanks too for explaining the trim of some my added text. Given the size of the Sutherland Clearances, I agree this would be a good candidate for a new article, allowing for an overview in the main article on the Clearances. However, it is certainly a large task to take on but I would be happy to read, review and help where I can afterwards. Best, Coldupnorth (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Coldupnorth

Thank you for creating Arbikie distillery.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jacobite rising of 1745 into Charles Edward Stuart. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this but noted for next time. Coldupnorth (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Edward Stuart 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 Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Unlimitedlead. I will be the one reviewing Charles Edward Stuart for GA status; please be on the lookout for comments and prepare to adjust the article accordingly. I look forward to working with you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Unlimitedlead, thank you for undertaking the review. I am free most evenings (UK time) and will adjust the article as required during these times. I have the book sources to hand as needed. Kind regards, Coldupnorth (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I apologize for the delay in the GA Review: I can only edit on Wikipedia for a limited time a day; this may conflict with your time zone. I am also sorry for being so picky with grammar, punctuation, etc. However, it is a must if we want to get the article to GA status. Keep up the good work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem, happy to work on it as long as needed. Grammar has always been one of my weaknesses. Thank you for your help. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I have a major inquiry about the article. It states many times that Charles was a pretender/claimant to the thrones of Great Britain and Ireland. However, most if not all works on Jacobitism refer to Charles as the pretended "King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (and France)." Even Charles himself did not recognize the Acts of Union 1700. What do you think? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

A fair point but I do not think it incorrect. Great Britain is a geographical name. This is different from United Kingdom. As the article says 'Pretender to the thrones of Great Britain' I think it correct. However, it is no issue to mention them individually as England, Scotland and Ireland as that is also correct. In fact I've made the change as I think it more consistent to name the individual Kingdoms. You could also argue there were other territories such as Wales, but ultimately the Principality of Wales ended in 1542 becoming part of the Kingdom of England (albeit contentiously). France is a different matter but effectively Charles's father James agreed to end the Stuart Claim for continuing French support. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! As a side note, I am unable to work on the review until Wednesday. Apologies for any inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC))

The article Charles Edward Stuart you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Charles Edward Stuart for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Charles Edward Stuart you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Charles Edward Stuart for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unlimitedlead -- Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

After weeks of meticulous reviewing, I am pleased to inform you that Charles Edward Stuart is now a GA article. Congratulations! Thank you so much for your hard work. Collaborating with you on the article was a pleasant experience, and I look forward to working with you some time in the future, perhaps on the Antinous article ;). Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for all your assistance in getting it to GA. I'm really glad to see the article reach GA standard and I appreciate your assistance in addressing those final grammar errors. I'm out for today, however, if the Antinous article is still unreviewed tomorrow evening, I will be happy to undertake the GA review. I look forward to working further together. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Charles Edward Stuart (estimated annual readership: 615,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the award. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Coldupnorth for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Coldupnorth (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Coldupnorth. I have taken a look at my sources and addressed all issues you pointed out on Talk:Antinous/GA1. If you take another look and see if everything is alright, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:POSS. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it exists, thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You're still getting it wrong[1]. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)