User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 5

GAN for John Hope
Thanks for your efficient commentary for the GAN on John_Hope,_1st_Marquess_of_Linlithgow. I'm pretty new to any serious Wikipedia contributions, though I've written about half a dozen articles now and I figure it's worth getting into the habit of writing them properly with at least GA/A quality as I do them. I plan to take your advice and bring this (as well as my others) up to the standards and hope you'll be in a position to comment once more when I've made the requisite improvements. Sincerely, Unus Multorum (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be very happy to help out, either as a reviewer or as a second pair of eyes before any review. Just drop me a line as required. In the meantime, have a great New Year! Hchc2009 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NB - with the referencing sorted, the article will be a great GA candidate! Hchc2009 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks very much for your help with the GA review of Street House Anglo-Saxon cemetery‎! Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a nice article, I enjoyed reading it! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Talk:Fort Yellowstone/GA1
I think I've covered just about everything raised in the initial GA review on the Fort Yellowstone article. User:Mongo have lent a hand as well. Please take another look. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do a proper run through, probably this evening. It was looking good the other day though! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Good to have you back! Have a good New Year as well, and I look forward to working with you in the coming months. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Western Front-Flanders
Sorry to be a nuisance but would appreciate your confirmation that you have spotted my replies on my "talk" page and that you will be able to change the article's title for me. Many thanks Weglinde (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have just left a final query on the page to check that others are happy with the proposed retitling; looks like a sensible move to me, though, and if there are no objections, will happily carry it out for you. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Lydford Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Bailey


 * Newnham Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Scarp

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Fort Yellowstone GA
Hchc2009 - I think I've addressed most if not all the issues raised during the second review. Thanks for all the suggestions. The article is much better now than it was a month ago. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wimble Toot Castle
Can I pick your brains... While trying to improve List of castles in Somerset I looked at the NHLE entry for Wimble Toot Castle (see here). The case for it being a castle rather than a hill fort/barrow seems to be based on Prior, Stuart. (2006) The Norman Art of War: a Few Well-Positioned Castles. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-3651-1. I don't have a copy do you? How would you rate the strength of the argument for this one to be on a castle list?&mdash; Rod talk 20:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've got a copy. Will fish it out later and look it up. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He's got a plausible case. Will add some more details to the article tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right... King looked at it in a ground survey 1954, and came to the conclusion that it was a barrow, according to the NHLE. Elsewhere, his reasoning is given that there were no medieval settlements around it, so this was more likely than it being a motte. Prior argues that in addition to a ground survey, he has identified documentary evidence for the settlement existing, and has a plausible enough case for it being linked to the nearby Roman Road. He definitely did more research on it than King. There'll be no way of being certain about this either way, I'd imagine, without excavation, but provided we continue to emphasise the "probably", I think Prior's got a reasonable case to be given primacy as the most recent authoritative source. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I'l be guided by your expertise. If you had the time or motivation would you be willing to have a look at Castle Batch &/or Locking Castle which are the two which have the poorest descriptions on List of castles in Somerset that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Castellarium Anglicanum divides the castles of each county into 'extant', 'possible', 'vanished', and 'rejected' with some additional categories which aren't relevant here. Wimble Toot is listed under 'extant', be the whole description reads "Small motte" and there isn't even any further reading given. As you can see, very little has been written about the site. When so little is known about a site "possible castle" is probably the best assessment available, so as Hchc2009 says go with Prior. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On Batch and Locking, I've found some (slim) bits that can be added to Batch. On Locking, I've emailed the council to see if I can get a copy of a 2010 report they wrote; will see if that helps at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Batch has been updated. Council is trying to find a copy of the 2010 report. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've added this into the list.&mdash; Rod talk 19:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to look at your draft new intro for List of castles in Somerset, whenever you are ready.&mdash; Rod talk 17:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done some editing on the rest of this list but left the lead alone - I was wondering how you were getting on with the redraft?&mdash; Rod talk 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle is now a Good Article
Congratulations on preparing a comprehensive and informative article that is now a Good Article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you see...
This on John? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I recognise the title from other publications, I think, but I didn't realise there was a freely accessible version of it on JSTOR. Will register for an account and take a look at it! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not sure it's "freely available" - I got JSTOR through Wikipedia ... if you can't get it, I'll send it your way if you email me. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castle Batch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bailey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN
Hey! Would you have time to review Santa María de La Cabeza castle for good article status? — ΛΧΣ  21  22:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, should be able to during the week, work permitting! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was too slow - it's already under review. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Damn. Well, your comments there are very welcome :) — ΛΧΣ  21  13:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Trenck's Pandurs/GA1
G'day Hchc2009, I was just checking GANs, and noticed that you had commented that you failed this article back in August, but it is still showing as a current nominee. Didn't want to step on anyone's toes if I wasn't reading it right, but could you do the honours? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it's doing that - it looks like its failed on the talk page...? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Penstowe Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert of Gloucester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Hchc2009, Thanks a lot. I really do appreciate the time and interest you took getting the Third Transjordan attack to GA. Its much better than it would have been otherwise. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Green children of Woolpit....
Just a note to say that since Green children of Woolpit has been protected to prevent editing except by those with admin rights, it might be wise to avoid all non-essential editing on it. While adding JSTOR references, in line with the existing citation style, is hardly contentious, it does give a poor impression to some non-admin users who have been blocked from editing the article, and might be best left until the protection has been lifted. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think anyone would object, but I will refrain from editing the article further until non-admin users are permitted to edit again. Gabbe (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers - much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond
Hello Hchc2009. I've shifted for a time from Duchy of Brittany to develop a better and more complete review of the Duchy's history. That shift includes doing the majoring of the rework on this article. Perhaps because it is about one person rather than many over a long period of time, and from a time when written documents are available, it has been easier to find and incorporate references throughout. Another contributor has rated the article as GOOD ARTICLE. Could you please review the article to consider placing it in the same gradients as Duchy of Brittany and having it assiged it a letter grade? I am not sure yet how to request or manage 'grades' and assessments. This will help a lot in continued work on Duchy of Brittany. Many Thanks. I will be reappearing in a while when computer set up permits as Breizhtalk. See you around. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved from your user page. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ed!
 * Grades are handled in two ways, either by a particular WP:Wikiproject, or through wiki-wide mechanisms, such as the WP:Good Article process. For the former, many of the medieval articles with a military flavour could be nominated for a grade review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment. For Good articles, the Good article nominations page has the details of how to nominate an article for review. Drop me a message if you get stuck. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathuedoï I, Count of Poher‎ proposed new addition by Breiztalk
interesting rejection on your part. Yet your personal page says you have been reviewing (only) since 2009. Is that right ? Why did you actually reject the draft page ? Could you please state whether you work for Wikipedia or whether you are a pro bono contributor/editor such as myself. Thanks Breizhtalk (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As per the edit comment, the article only listed one source, and that was not a reliable secondary source, a requirement in the guidance for an article to pass. The topic is notable, however, so my advice would be to find reliable secondary sources, add them to the draft,and then resubmit. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, it's usual on the wiki to leave messages on user's talk pages, rather than their user page. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC))
 * which source was not suitable in the first request for review ? Maybe moot, because it has been re-edited with additional sources. Please reconsider the rejection. There are many pages that are reasonable at STUB or other level that have far less information. The second version with the revised edits is now more completely sourced than the corresponding article in French Wikipedia. This should have been approved from the first request for review. I hope we can all agree to go ahead now. Please advise. Thanks Breizhtalk (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was only source listed in the first request version, "Cartulaire de Redon chartes CCLXXV & CCLXXVI du 25 octobre 913". Being a primary source from the 10th century, this was not a reliable secondary source, one of the criteria for a pass. I'm glad to see that a reference from Neil Price has been added since, and I hope that this will satisfy whichever editor next reviews this article for creation. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Camouflage FAC
Hallo Hchc, since your comment on the Camouflage FAC the images have been radically culled. I'd be very grateful if you could indicate what you now think on the matter. With many thanks for your time - Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment left on the FAC page - the best of luck with the candidature, and hope it goes well. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. It's been a hard slog, nothing like GA, and it's still in the lap of the gods, but I'm grateful for all the contributions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It'll get there eventually - but you're right, it is a different sort of process to the GAs. Liked the Military Camouflage article as well, btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that's good to hear. What would you like changed in the article? I've viewed it at different window and font sizes, and in different browsers - it looks a lot better in Firefox than in Internet Explorer, not sure what to do about that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry I of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falaise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Type 26 Review
I believe the issues with the GA nomination have all been accounted for an any other input would be great. Thanks for the in depth review. --Molestash (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Just got back from work, so will run through it tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done and passed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry I of England
I've begun the review for Henry I of England; this is clearly ripe for promotion, and I only need your opinion on a few small points. Thanks for your hard work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will fix those bits tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Hchc2009; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Frequent Wind
At, your concern was that many 'graphs were too short. In looking at the sections you mentioned, I did see some bullet-point lists, but only where appropriate, and it seems like the rest of it was formed into decent-sized 'graphs. Did you want to have another look at it? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I reviewed it in 2011, there have been a range of improvements. I'd be happy to review were it renominated, although I'd note there's still one "citation needed" tag outstanding. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the requested cite and nom'd it again. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm travelling on work over the next day or so, but will try to review it towards the end of the week, assuming that no-one else beats me to it! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've started the review page, and will run through it in the next couple of days. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes!
Thanks. Much better. :) DBaK (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dank
Would you like for Milhist to review Middle Ages when it gets to FAC? Is there some appropriate WP:MA task force tag or category that would clue us to include it in the announcements template, even though it won't show up in Article Alerts? - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's been tagged under the Medieval warfare task force; it would be good to add to the review, as its a land-mark article and Ealdgyth's put an awful lot of work into it so far already. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Duchy of Brittany
You recently deleted a great amount of material and then moved some other things around in the interests, if I can recall right, of shortening the article. There is no need to attempt such a shortening. That is not a good criteria. The article after all is meant to span a Ducal area over more than 700 years (depending on the start and end point of the article). I want to point out an error, and please correct it. You moved material from the 10th century section concerning the Viking Occupation to the Origins section. The Viking period in question covered from roughly 907/918 to about 936/939. A complete history of the Duchy requires that the 10th century material appear in the 10th century and that some of the material that appears to have been deleted in the process be restored. Please let me know if you can do that. Breizhtalk (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably one best pursued on the talk page of the article itself, Breizhtalk, but... You'll see in the lead that the article covers the history of the Duchy, which existed from 939 to 1547. As such, the main body of the article - beyond the background/origins element - should focus on that period. Extensive detail on the history of Brittany prior to the formation of the Duchy may fit better, perhaps, in the History of Brittany or the Kingdom of Brittany. You may also wish to have a look at WP:SUMMARY, which applies to this issue as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no.
 * Your edits and moves were out of line and could easily be construed, with the deletion of material during the lengthy process and the moving about without using the guideposts already in the article and seemingly accepted by the article's community (this is a collaborative exercise !) as Vandalism. I've tried to make the point before concerning your editing style, that before you engage in wholesale changes to articles of this kind that you need to engage in discussion, which you did not.
 * A separate issue is how you would ever try to express your 'judgement' in this manner concerning the lead in section of the overall article after several people, including me have spent, so much time trying to improve it. PLease do not attempt to alter the Origins section in the manner you are inclined to comment on.
 * Please recall that WIKI guidelines are guidelines only, not rules and certainly not laws subject only to one editor's interpretation (yours). They also evolve. You can see this by comparing some of the similar period articles written and edited by others than you.
 * You have in addition failed to consider the Collaborative nature of how these articles are supposed to be assembled. Look at what you have done to the minor but related topics at the end of the article. Just because the info had no direct citation you chose to delete the material submitted by several people. That leaves the article subheadings intact but with no content. It is both substantively and cosmetically a disaster. These changes were again made without prior Discussion in the talk page. In the past if you think something needs a citation then you can request that as you have in the past. But the brute force method of simply deleting entire sections alienates those who are attempting to provide useful info and to work collaboratively.
 * As to what interests me most at this point: The article as a 10th century section. You moved one third or so of the 10th century to the origins section, notably the last seven years of Alan I and the entire Viking Occupation period, all of which fell in the 10th century. That is an error. For several years now what many contributors have done is stick to a simple schema of trying to keep info related to one century in that century's section with appropriate joining sentences at the end of a time section and the beginning of the next for cohesiveness. You need to restore the 10th century info to the 10th century section. Please do that. Breizhtalk (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As above, content matters on a particular article are best handled on the relevant article - e.g. if you feel that pre-Duchy events should be covered in the 10th century rather than the Background session, you'll probably get a wider response there than by raising it here. I'd urge you read Vandalism before using phrases such as vandalism, however, as it has a specific meaning on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"A bit more to come"
Hi, sorry to pester, but are you planning to return to WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Niels Bohr? The review seems to be stagnating and if you were to wrap up your review, it might spur things on a bit. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, had forgotten about that. Will get back to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished off my bit. Apologies for the delay! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. Thanks for chipping in—reviews are always appreciated. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

King John's Palace
Hi there,

I just wanted to query your edits on the page for King John's Palace, King's Clipstone, Nottinghamshire.

The page was originally created by myself using a document authored as part of a series of archaeological and historical reports written by myself and Andy Gaunt on the back of almost a decade's worth of research into the site. It seems that a substantial number of edits have been made by yourself, in particular any section which refers to our original research work. Given that that research is based on solid fieldwork grounded in the professional study of history and archaeology by ourselves I fail to see why this was removed. As it stands you seem to only be happy if the page refers to existing published sources. By taking this stance you are actually retarding the new knowledge that Mr Gaunt and I have managed to bring to the subject by effectively removing our research from the page. This will therefore serve to erase a decade's worth of work and take the study of the site back to how we found it in 2004.

James Wright — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPWarchaeology (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * James, to be honest, you're absolutely right - the article does need to be based on existing published sources. The guidance for this is at Identifying reliable sources and No original research. They often cause significant challenges for professionals used to writing for professional, peer reviewed publications - where original research based on primary sources is usually encouraged!
 * Primary sources like pipe rolls, patent rolls, archival sources (as used in the article under discussion) or unpublished archives and papers aren't appropriate sources for the wiki, which does depend on reliable secondary sources, and original research isn't permitted either. In the case of this article, this was first flagged up in the summer of last year.
 * My advice would be to ideally identify published, reliable, secondary sources that support the material in the article. If that's not available - and I'll admit I had difficulty finding sources myself when I tried - then there is a problem. It sounds, though, as what you perhaps really want to be doing is publishing your findings in a professional journal - I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs here, but wouldn't the Castle Studies' Group Journal, or a similar vehicle, be a good place for a short piece on this site? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Newnham Castle
Hi Hchc2009. I was just reading through Jardine-Rose's article on Newnham Castle and noticed you put Wikipedia's article together. I might be having a dim moment (please excuse me if I am), but I can't see the figures 11m by 6.5m in the text. Looking at the plan included on page 196 of the CSJ article it is much more square-shaped than rectangular, excluding the projections, and the size of the building was a bout 9m square. Should I go ahead and change the figures? Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I may have used the plan. Definitely change the figures if I misread it! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll hunt down a ruler and see what's what. I sent you an email by the way. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Email received, will reply tomorrow - our baby's been making a bit of a din and have been distracted... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see the more accurate measurements added! Hope all's well. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a ruler in the end! I'm doing well, and have arranged a very busy June for myself with a couple of papers to write. Should be interesting! Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

By the by, would any of these photos be useful for the York Castle article? They're copyrighted, so can't be uploaded to Commons, but one might be useful as an external link. The near vertical photograph is unusual and interesting in its own way, but perhaps not as useful as the other two photos. Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They're nice, aren't they? I'd be really tempted, if I had the cash, to buy a quad-copter UAV for this sort of thing. Typically, I'm sure, I'd end up crashing it, but it would be great to have this capability in the back of the car. We should definitely add a link. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted myself, but know someone who bought one and after a few flights flew it into a tree. I bought one of the really tiny ones you can fly in doors to see how easy it would be to control. It was great fun, especially for dive bombing friends and family, but a devil to control indoors, so I imagine outdoors would take some skill. I think the photos linked to were done by sticking a camera on the end of a very long pole. A simple enough approach, and one I'd like to try myself, although my approach would be much lower tech. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

 * Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)