User talk:MarcusBritish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, MarcusBritish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for How to Win Friends and Influence People. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Biblbroks (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Biblbroks, much appreciated!

MarcusBritish (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Have a nice stay. --Biblbroks (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just subst

Hi! I am just substituting the welcome template in order to have some chronology of events. :-) Have a nice day. --Biblbroks (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wordsworth House Cockermouth.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wordsworth House Cockermouth.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wellington's battle record

Hello! Just a brief note to let you know that I've removed the battle of St Pierre from Wellington's battle record table, as all the sources I've consulted tell me that Rowland Hill was commanding here. Best regards. Guard Chasseur (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I came to much the same conclusion from a couple of sources but have not had time to remove it due to replacing a faulty laptop HDD which has slowly been breaking down this week. Meant backing up all files and reinstalling Windows, drivers, software, etc.. will be back up and running this weekend, not a massive job but still a pain! Will need to consider how this Battle Record table would best be displayed - in a separate article, like his honours, styles, promos, etc (my preferred choice), or in the main article about him (would look out of place). I will also need to add a write up about his military career to precede it as, it would be out of place as a stand-alone table. I will draft that, probably on the sandbox, for review, before anything. Thanks for your aid in getting this table put together without difficulty, I am surprised there has been such little interest (because the Wellington talk page has 129 followers), but your help has been valuable in keeping me on track and focused on getting the table as accurate and presentable as possible. Hopefully we'll have the final draft agreed to soon. Please let me know how you think it best displayed, and anything important you think is worth mentioning in the section or article that would not be appropriate in the table.

MarcusBritish (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The only additional thing I can think of that needs changing is the location of the battle of Boxtel. The wikipedia article says it was fought in the Dutch province of North Brabant. Guard Chasseur (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Changed it to its formal name back then, "Dutch Republic" (1581-1795) rather than "The Netherlands", and linked it for verification.

MarcusBritish (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Combat of Villa Muriel now added. Great source found: Looooooong Google Books Link. Scroll down a bit on linked page - primary material, good read too!

MarcusBritish (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The combat of Guarda: the cited source states that 'on 29 March Wellington was finally ready to move. Three divisions were sent to push the French out of Guarda.' But it doesn't say whether Wellington commanded the allies in this action. If the Duke indeed sent three divisions to push the French out of Guarda, but wasn't involved in leading and coordinating these troops himself, then he can't be considered to have participated in the combat of Guarda. It would mean that Wellington commanded on the strategic level only, and the table is dealing with the battles Wellington participated in on a tactical level. Again, I can't find a source that mentions Wellington's involvement in this action.

Also, I've changed the 'battle of Porto' to the 'Second Battle of Porto', just to make it clear which action he participated in. Guard Chasseur (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that Guarda was bloodless there was no real battle at all, and so no one else to attribute credit to for "winning", other than Wellington. I believe from the source that he was present, despite the lack of actual combat. Also, the table shows only the Tactical Result, it does not determine the level of Wellington's presence, tactically or strategic; he was either there or he wasn't, regardless of if he commanded a battle or not. He had to have sent something to battle the French - a division, brigade, regiment or company to do the push, it does not imply that he was not present, just that those "three divisions" were the units he ordered forward in this case.

MarcusBritish (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair. If I come across any source on Guarda I'll let you know. Cheers, Guard Chasseur (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately Tony Jaques does not list it, probably due to the lack of actual fighting it might not qualify as a "battle" in his definition and there are probably a few such examples of non-combat engagements throughout history that he has avoided to keep his book lighter and more focused on actual fought battles. Whilst I have one source, anything stronger or more definite on Wellington's role would be more helpful. MarcusBritish (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots more minor skirmishes added, earlier today, in case you want to verify anything.. all with sources. Certainly packed the table out a little more - although I question the BBC's unproven claim to 60 battles, I expect there are many little heard of skirmishes that might take us closer to that number. I certainly spent a fair few hours digging up many of the new ones added today and verifying them.

MarcusBritish (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Carlton Bank view.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Carlton Bank view.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleveland Hills

I was just going to drop you a line saying "what the h*ll are you doing here you inaccurate scoundrel and bounder sir?" but then I looked at a map and thought, gosh, he's right! I'd never quite clocked that correctly before. So, instead, well done and thanks! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes - I think in general conversation I too would accept "north", but they are clearly on the north-west corner on the OS map I use (OL26). Plus the National Park website uses north-west as their location. Have walked them a lot recently, will try to get a nice wide-angle photo of them from Stokesley when I'm next there, to liven the page up. Such a beauty spot deserves recognition, considering the rest of Teesside is a dump. :P Thanks for you comment!

Ma®©usBritish (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SSSis in Yorkshire

Hi. That's fine - happy to help. For most of the SSSIs it should be easy to identify the interest. If the sheet mentions a rock formation, a geological time period or a soil type, the interest is geological. If it mentions a habitat description and includes lots of species names, then it's biological. If both things are mentioned, it's both. If there are any that you're not sure about, let me know which ones, and I can take a look and give you a second opinion. SP-KP (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

Hi there. Ah! I didn't spot that Battle Record page for Wellington, must be pretty new. Richard Holmes is a well-known historian, albeit not a totally prolific one. Nevertheless I assumed his views would be verifiable but I'm happy to trust your knowledge as you seem to know what your talking about as evidenced in that Wellington's battle record page you have created. Over and out. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Stevo. I considered Holmes one of the top British historians, and a library of knowledge - what with over a dozen books to his name covering many periods in history, as well as TV programs and projects, he was a very clever man. His recent death is a sad loss. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"or am I welcome to pick up the baton and continue to use it as I see fit?" Would that be the 13th baton? I left the information there for someone else to use as they see fit. I would be delighted it someone else would use it. -- PBS (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no better source than an international treaty such as the definitive treaty (1815) (the first source I listed). At the time I made the list, the ticks (eg the first 3 on one line are for three titles) were for those in the article the crosses were for those not in the article. Since I compiled the list some of the awards may now have their own articles (eg see Order of the Elephant). -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cleveland Way onto Cringle Moor.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cleveland Way onto Cringle Moor.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)  Done

RE:Peer review issues

Hi MarcusBritish, hopefully I can help explain it. The B-Class assessment stays on the talk page until it gets a higher assessment rating. (In reality you don't have to remove it as using FA/FL/A/GA will override the B-Class criteria.) So, no need to touch the B-Class. Now, on to the Peer Review, the main issue here is that the Peer Review is still open. Given the paucity of reviewers around at the moment I would suggest opening an A-Class review (ACR) rather than a new peer review. I think you have got all you can out of a peer review, the next logical step is an A-Class review. If you do open an ACR then the PR needs closing. You can do it yourself or you can take the easier option and ask one of the coordinators (like me) to do it. ;) Hope this helps. If you want to open up an ACR I can talk you through that if you like as well. Woody (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks to the table just now so that it is more in line with "wiki-formatting" rather than standard HTML. I've also used {{dts}} for the dates, it saves all of the "display:none" formatting. Given that the Peer Review is currently open, I don't think there is much to be gained from putting it through PR again. I think it best to keep pushing the article forwards and up the assessment scale: go to ACR. Opening it is fairly easy, the instructions are at WP:MHR#A-CLASS. The key points: Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner, then click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template. This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article. Then you write your nomination page listing your reasons for nominating, link to the peer review here for example. Then you add the transclusion to the WP:MHR#A-CLASS page. I can deal with the PR for you if you would like. Woody (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't notice that there were date ranges used there otherwise I wouldn't have used it, I've reverted myself on that one. You do need the full length for the dates though, so you need to do that. On the wikitables though, I have to disagree with you. Frankly, I don't think it will get through the assessments, particularly FLC with non-standardised formatting. You can force the column widths to help with your padding issue though. On a personal level, I find the wikitables much easier to look at and more intuitive. The html version looks dated. If you have an accessibility issue with the styling, you can try and attain consensus to get the style amended but it is the basis of all wikipedia tables and so a lot of thought has gone into making it accessible and usable and it is widely accepted across Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again about the dates thing, just wasn't looking what I was doing. I know all about the issues surrounding sorting etc for wikitables, my current FLC List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F) was a labour of love getting the rank column to sort how I wanted it to. I'll offer my comments on the ACR in the next couple of days. I've done all the admin stuff relating to the PR and the ACR so that is all set now, you've just got to wait for the reviews. By the way, you are a trailblazer in the sense that there are no other similar lists currently at FL status. Good luck. Woody (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an error to think that simply because one reviewer hasn't brought up doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. Some reviewers concentrate solely on one specific area eg images, citations, prose and won't look at other areas. Reviewers, particularly in assessment processes, have the right to offer suggestions and offer demands for their support ie I suggest X or my opinion is Y... but this is a policy and I oppose promotion if Z remains in the article. It is then for the person closing the review to judge the merits and weight of this oppose.

Reviewing is always about opinions and when doing it over the web and in plain text the nuances of language and face-to-face contact is lost. The way comments are made can be easily misinterpreted by the person reading them and this always has to be taken into account when reading the reviews. You need a particularly thick skin sometimes, FAC in particular. Incidentally, that is what I think has happened here, comments have been misread and wires have been crossed.

Wikipedia in general is suffering from a dearth of reviewers so anything you can do to help will be gratefully received. There is no MOS of reviewing no, but there have been a number of rules of thumb drawn up. The signpost came up with this and MILHIST's Academy offers a number of suggestions. A few editors have offered their opinions and pearls of wisdom on reviewing for the Bugle (MILHIST newsletter) and these can be found here. Often it helps to just get stuck in and learn from any mistakes. If you have any questions after that, feel free to ask away, Regards, Woody (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You misquote me, I said "dearth" not death! All of the review processes are suffering from a lack of reviewers be they within or outside of the MILHIST project. Our ACR and PRs are lacking as well as the main PR/FAC/FLC etc. Incidentally that is part of the reason why we (Coordinators) are going to merge our PR into the main PR system. As a project, Milhist is one of the most active and productive of Wiki-projects, the talk pages are congenial, active, and very productive. Our backlogs are miniscule compared to other projects so it is something many other projects look to for inspiration. It's fine being frank, you've just got to be careful as to how your comments could be construed by someone else with a different viewpoint. Woody (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)