User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 9

Your GA nomination of Empress Matilda
The article Empress Matilda you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Empress Matilda for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lankiveil -- 11:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lankiveil! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland.
First of all thanks very much for taking on the review. Cheers! Secondly, where's the best place for me to comment on your points (if necessary), or ask questions? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  10:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly relaxed - you could either intend comments etc. after the points in the review, or start a new section at bottom, depending on how you fancy doing it. Should get the last bits done tomorrow evening. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Old Perse has been waiting 500 years, he can wait another say or so. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, many apologies, I disappeared for a few days, almost rigt after nominating, so have only had about three days available to me. Thanks for the TP message, is an extension possible? I'm gonna crack on with it now, but don't know if the next few hours will be adequate. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course! The seven day thing is a default - the key is getting the article through, not the timescale. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, Hchc2009- I think I've addressed all the points you raised. A couple of things that for the life of me I couldn't source have been removed, and the citations are now filled. Likewise the lede has been developed. The only problem remaining is re. his children (last section), which I can't address as I don't have that "Richardson" book used elsewhere and which seems to be favoured for descendancy. The only thng I found in an WP:RS is a family tree, but although corroborating the childrens' existence etc does not provide DOBs etc. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, don't suppose you've got a copy of the Richardson book? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Will take a look later and check. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that you failed this, so fixed the CN tags, and added a little to the lead, which was all I could see that hadn't been fixed. Would you mind having another look at the article please? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stokesay Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stokesay Castle 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturmmvogel. I should be able to make the proposed changes on Sunday. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In recognition of your outstanding contributions

 * Thanks Ian (and the coordinators!) - very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review
You may not have noticed, but I've started the review at Talk:Stokesay Castle/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Should all be done now, thanks Sturmvogel. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stokesay Castle
The article Stokesay Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stokesay Castle for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 00:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

UNMCK GAR
Hello HCHC, thanks for taking on the GAR. Frankly I was surprised to get a quick response. Since posting the GAN I've been working on the article. One question came up for me, which I posted on the talk page, about whether the UNMC Tanggok & UNMC Busan were the same. Seems they were. So please give me a few days to clarify the text in this regard. I'll ping you when I finish. – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem - will await the "ping"! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's your ping. I think it's ready, and please be critical. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Will take a run through it, probably tomorrow morning now. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of your recommendations are implemented. I'm going to think about 2 of them. And I'm awaiting a journal article which may help as a reference. I'll ping you again when more progress is made. Thanks ever so much. – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Duh! The journal article I was awaiting was available on-line (because that is the way I ordered it from JSTOR). It has a lot of good material which I will incorporate tomorrow. At that point I hope we can re-commence on the GAR. My thoughts are to get the GAR completed and then initiate a DYK on the article in time for a April 6th posting. E.g., "Did You Know the only United Nations Cemetery in the world was dedicated on 6 April 1951?" I will ping you when the changes are completed. Thanks again.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're on - sounds like a plan. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except for the Wall of Rememberance image, I've taken care of your bullets. (The inquiry on Commons auto-archived again, so I don't know if you will get an answer there.) Also, I've commented out a dead link. (The basic website is up, but navigation to different pages is problematic at present. I think its a temporary problem.) So, the article is yours for review & further commentary. Please be critical. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: DYK has a special day holding feature Template talk:Did you know. So the process is this: Once GA status is achieved, I have a 5 day window to apply for DYK. As 6 April is open, I hope to get this done soon. (I don't know how far in advance I might be able to reserve a date ... like set up a special occassion for the start of the war.) No matter how this works out, I appreciate your help.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Will get onto it this evening - I think it's almost there now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

House of Lancaster ACR
Hi Hchc2009

Sorry to be a pain - I don't know if I am confused or you are or we both are but you started this review and the comments, useful as they are, seem to be about the House of Plantagenet article rather than the House of Lanacaster.

Please let me know what is happening??

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I must have clicked on the wrong link... Apologies! I've clarified in the ACR page. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again HCHC2009, I think I have addresses all your original points. No one else is looking at this so can you have another look and feedback? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

mea culpa
Please forgive me for becoming embroiled in a childish battle. User:Boleyn's objection to what seemed to me as a logical and uncontroversial redirect threw me and I responded poorly.Drdpw (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let me know if you want a third opinion at any point. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. As I stated in the original edit summary, that page is redundant, as the list on it is also/already on the Henry VIII page. that is all.Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also take a look at the Mistresses of Henry VIII page as I copied the information from it, along w/what was on "Illegitimate children of Henry VIII" onto the H-8 page in a new section and redirected them there.Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Will take a look; will probably be first thing tomorrow though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And now the information that I transferred to the Henry VIII page has been removed due to lack of citations; which means that the two other articles must be poorly cited as well. As I was just passing through the Tudor neighborhood I will leave this whole set of issues for you all (Tudor aficionados) to sort out.  I guess what they say is true - no good deed goes unpunished.Drdpw (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left a third party comment on the page. I can't claim to be a Tudor expert though, Drdpw! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. Having a separate Children of Henry VIII article that simply duplicates information already in the Henry VIII article plus a separate Illegitimate children of Henry VIII (acknowledged & possible) article, along with a separate Mistresses of Henry VIII (confirmed and alleged) article, the information therein could be easily put into the Henry VIII article still seems unnecessary to me and well within the guidelines for redirect. Additionally, Henry VIII's mistresses are also named in the List of English royal mistresses article; as are those of Henry I and Charles II, though the illegitimate children and mistresses neither monarch have their own article.

GAR
Hi Hchc2009, you previously reviewed Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, would you mind having another look at it please? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, happy to. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Go to Hung, drawn and quartered Talk page
Before making edits, you should discuss them in the talk page, especially as this is hotly debated. Thank you.


 * ? Hchc2009 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Hanged, drawn and quartered? – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the historical furore over the name of that page, I won't make any jokes...! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks Borsoka! Glad to be able to help. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work

 * NB: thanks, v. much appreciated!" Hchc2009 (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Blockhouse
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old Blockhouse 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 Zawed -- 08:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zawed! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Blockhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tresco (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) 08:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edward I
Hello, Hchc2009! I want to greet you and explain something about Edward I’s family. I deleted Juliana’s name from the table of his issue because there is no evidence he had daughter Juliana. If Eleanor bore him a daughter at the time, there is still no contemporary source for her name. You can see this, where John Carmi Parsons wrote about names in Edward’s family. (My talk) 14:12, 28 March 2014
 * It's probably worth starting a thread on the talk page of Edward I, Mychele; if you like I can copy and paste this over? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, off course! Just go ahead; I will join discussion tomorrow!

Your GA nomination of Old Blockhouse
The article Old Blockhouse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Blockhouse for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- 22:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting Cornish castles
Hi mate, just so you know, following long discussions, place naming conventions for Cornish places has been decided to be |Cornwall, England, United Kingdom." This was due to some friction between Cornish "nationalits" and those who wanted a more accurate designation.

"the use of both England and United Kingdom in Cornish related articles is a compromise worked out between both sets of nationalist minded editors". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall/Archive_3#England.2FUnited_Kingdom Serpren (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that! Thanks for letting me know, and I'll stick by that consensus. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance! Serpren (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=603772175 your edit] to Early skyscrapers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ford 2005 36–37, 39"/> In 1928, the [Bank of America Building (Providence)|Industrial Trust Tower] was built in Providence. {{cite web|title=Industrial Trust

Overlinking?
Hello Hchc2009. I noticed you reverted the links I added here based upon WP:OVERLINK. I do not believe those links violate WP:OVERLINK, which says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article", but does not say Absolutely. On the page Overlink_crisis, it says "Excessive" is usually more than one link for the same term in the same paragraph. My links were not in the same paragraph, and were separated from each other enough so that no two links appear in the same browser screen. As it happened, I read only a portion of the article, and did not read the portion containing the first linked use. A reader should not be forced to search through a long article in search of a link, when a link could be provided in the current section as long as it is one or more screens from another similar link. Would you mind if I reverted your revert? Curious Eric  18:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, thanks for the message! It's a standard that's used at FA, ACR etc. (for good or for bad) and across the wiki, so, to be honest, I'd prefer it if you didn't revert on this specific article, which would then be out of step with the wider implementation of the guidance. Would you be up for starting a debate on the relevant MOS talk page, as a more general issue? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Aerial Vids
If you like the Wells video I took with the quadcopter camera today, do you have other sites (accessible from my part of the world) which would benefit from the same treatment? (I've tried Ashen Hill Barrow Cemetery and Stanton Drew Standing Stones) I'm vaguely thinking of Nunney Castle or even the whole of Bristol Harbour - what do you reckon?&mdash; Rod talk 17:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nunney would work well, particularly if flown at parapet level, I suspect. Farleigh Hungerford Castle is one where an aerial view would add a lot, and Hales Castle looks like it shows up brilliantly by satellite imagery, but is harder to capture on the ground (as I found out!). Glastonbury Tor might also be interesting... I'd agree, Bristol Harbour would be fun. Is it easy to fly? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nunney, Farleigh Hungerford, Hales Castle and Glastonbury Tor are all possible trips, but I have a busy time at work for the next few weeks & I need to be able to find a day with decent weather (almost no wind) and I can get time away from work. Bristol Harbour might be several trips & then stitch together the video - a summer project maybe. The problem is not flying in restricted areas, where there are crowds of people etc, not near roads or bridges. Under CAA rules you don't need a licence if non commercial, fly line of sight only, limited height & distance etc. Plus the batteries only last 15-20 mins on full charge. I got my DJI Phantom Vision which has a built in camera (you can get others & add a gopro camera) a couple of weeks ago & still learning to be gentle with the controls but yes it is quite easy to fly - when it gets complex is when trying to fly it and control the still &/or video camera (done through your mobile phone) at the same time.&mdash; Rod talk 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very impressed with that video, and with how stable the quadcopter is. Commons features videos on its main page, so I'm thinking there must best some kind of process there to recognise that kind of content. Would it be practical to use it on some of the sites mentioned in list of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset (particularly the multivallate ones)? If done late in the day when shadows are more pronounced it might make some of the earthworks show up well. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I reckon that as well as adding videos to Wikipedia, it might be worth adding them to Youtube as well. The options aren't necessarily easy to find, but you can select a Creative Commons licence when uploading to Youtube, and it would raise the profile of the video. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The stability depends on how fast you manipulate the controls - I'm learning not to be too violent with them. Hill forts etc could be possible - I tried to do Priddy Circles the other day, as we don't have any photos, but they are little more than vague hollows in the fields & doesn't show anything up - trees also get in the way. I have included one in a DYK nom (Template:Did you know nominations/Priddy Nine Barrows and Ashen Hill Barrow Cemeteries) but had to fiddle with the code a bit & we will see what happens. I am also putting them on YouTube (my channel) but haven't even looked at the licences.&mdash; Rod talk 20:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Vikings vs Norsemen
Hello. I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page has degenerated to a debate over the meaning of the term. To avoid any continuation of this argument, I've proposed that we merge those two articles under the name "Vikings" and address the debate over the proper meaning by creating a new page about the raiders/traders/explorers under a name such as "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)". If this is acceptable to you (or if you have concerns over this being implemented), please weigh in on the issue, as it is difficult to establish a consensus with only two people involved. Thank you, MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have left a message on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Epic Barnstar

 * Thanks - happy to be able to help! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen
There's a more formal vote going on at the bottom of the Vikings talk page. Your vote would be appreciated. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Charles's Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tresco (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) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

King Charles's Castle
Hello there ! I just had the privilege of reviewing your fantastic article for King Charles's Castle. I've finished my review and have left my comments at Talk:King Charles's Castle/GA1. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions for me in the meantime. As I stated in the review, this article looks just about ready for passage to GA status! Thanks again for all your hard work and contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Caponer! I'll have a look and address the changes tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King Charles's Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King Charles's Castle 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward II of England
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edward II of England 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:LilaTretikov
Hey Hchc2009, I saw that you blanked User:LilaTretikov and wanted to ask if you were willing to undo that action. As a very long term community member I can certainly appreciate the norm of having a user page created by the user themselves I think it is entirely reasonable to create something like this as a start and perhaps I can explain why Julie did what she did a bit better.

We have actually created ‘shell’ user pages for many staff members so that they would have something off the bat for community members to know who they were and their job title. A staff member just starting off has a ton of things to do and a lot of information to learn and helping them with their user account is often not the most important thing on that list, getting them to dive into the community and learn about their job is. A new volunteer starting off will often have a similar case where they will edit with a red linked account for days, months or years before finally creating a user page.

In this case because of Lila’s visibility, and people’s interest in who she is, I think it was entirely reasonable for Julie to create a bit more then a shell user page and reasonable for the foundation executives and board members who directed her to do so. Lila is going to be booked for back to back meetings for almost the next month straight but there is certainly a likely hood that she might want to say something on wiki before she has the time to sit down and flesh out her user page. When she does that I think it is reasonable for a community member to be able to click on her username and learn a good amount about her (linking her signature to her new article or her meta user page seems less useful ;) ). Jalexander--WMF 20:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I'm sure that Julie didn't intend to, but in engaging in this sort of paid edit she was running straight against the WP:NOPR guideline, which applies to employees of the WMF just as much as it would do to a PR company or a corporate institution. Paid advocacy – that is, "being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia" - was indeed condemned by Sue Gardner as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people." WMF staff adding in phrases about their new boss, such as "Lila has been a leader in the technology space for almost 15 years", or about her former company, SugarCRM, being "recognized as a visionary leader in Customer Relationship Management", while well-meaning, feel exactly like promotional language, and it runs counter to our guidelines.


 * I'm very keen that Lila engages on Wikipedia and joins the community here. Sorting out her own user page will only take her around 30 seconds, less if she has a fast internet connection (!), as she will simply have to revert my edit. In doing so, she would be taking responsibility for the statements made about her (which are otherwise unreferenced, and therefore run against the WP:BLP principles); it would be inappropriate for me to add them to her user page for exactly those same reasons. As an aside, I would have thought it would also be sending a positive message about how she intends to operate as an editor on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC) (NB: the "it would be..." was meant to refer to Lili putting up her own user page, not me removing it) Hchc2009 (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the paid advocacy/editing angle, that guideline is very much about articles... not user pages, and I see very limited (if any) connection to it and her user page and don't think Julie's edits fall within that box at all. That said, I agree that the language could certainly be read as little more then a typical biographical piece; I’m going to discuss rewriting it with folks here. Jalexander--WMF 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, uh ... I just reverted the edit, then came here and found this. Sorry about that, Hchc! Having said that, you know me from Milhist, but I've also done a lot of research into paid advocacy vs. the WMF for the Signpost. Please trust me when I say that this isn't that. While the biography can (and probably should) be shortened by a great deal (if only for aesthetic reasons; but it also reads like standard corporate PR, which I would like to think the WMF is above), it's not against any policy or guideline that I know of. It certainly doesn't contradict the WMF's stance against paid advocacy, which is targeted at malicious operators like the former Wiki-PR. It's a userpage on which a relatively wide leeway has traditionally been allowed.
 * As for sending a positive message, I'm not so sure. I was pointed to her userpage by an editor who thought it was the latest purposeful trolling, as they saw it, by the Wikimedia community. Given our prior interactions, I already know that wasn't your intent, but it doesn't come across as very kind!
 * And for a completely random aside—still no Internet in the new house. You don't really know what it's like until it's gone. :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know how you feel (the internet is a little rusty where I'm right now!)
 * In terms of the policy, if you imagine that this this had been (say) a PR firm, or a corporation, who had created an account for their incoming CEO on the wiki, and where "executives and board members" had then instructed one of their staff to put up what appears to be a standard corporate PR piece, using promotional language and making claims about the CEO in the 3rd person, before the CEO had ever come onto Wikipedia, citing that the CEO would be too busy to do so themselves!... I think we'd be reaching for the Wikipedia (vice WMF) paid advocacy and user page guidelines pretty quickly - which do cover self-promotional material and promotional editing more generally (although, as Ed says, there is more leeway traditionally given to non-article pages).
 * The "paid editing" debate here and elsewhere on the other wikis shows how serious the community feels this issue is, but also how important it is for the WMF and similar organisations to remain "clean" themselves. As an aside, when I first saw someone noting that she had a userpage, I was actually initially really pleased to see what I thought was Lila starting to get engaged early in the Wikipedia project - and really disappointed when I actually read it, and then found that someone had been paid to put it up there for her.
 * Anyway, Jalexander and Ed, thanks for your replies, and for Jalexander offering to pursue some of the details - very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're now trialing a WiMax (which is free from the local university) to WiFi converter, but it's coming in at one mb/sec. Not enough for multiple people to do much of anything.
 * I did think of it from that angle, but this isn't the same as any other PR company—technically speaking, WMF employees are a major component of the very limited segment of paid staffers allowed to edit Wikipedia. This isn't Wiki-PR trying to create an account for Jordan French! While I'm fully on-board with wondering why Lila hasn't come around to create any of her userpages (and why the WMF is using a rather blatant example of corporate-sounding PR that the community hasn't exactly been fond of in the past), I also don't believe blanking her userpage is allowable within current policy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd disagree, although a better example than Ms French might be a company staffer or PR type in Microsoft being instructed to create a Wikipedia user page for Bill Gates, complete with promotional corporate blurb; we'd no doubt be pleased that Mr Gates was intending to join us as an editor, less happy about the promotional activity! (Of course, Mr Gates may be with us already, editing anonymously, as may Ms French - that's the great thing about the wiki!)

I don't believe our policy says that the WMF has any exceptional rights to use paid editing on the wiki to promote their CEO, or to circumvent the guidance on the use of user pages etc... Reverting such an edit isn't unreasonable as part of the BRD cycle. In terms of consensus, though, from the discussion above, I'm clearly in a minority of 1:2! (although, if Jalexander will allow me a mildly cheap shot, one of the editors is being paid by the WMF). I'm disappointed that the uncited, promotional claims about both herself and her previous company are still there several days later however... Hchc2009 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King Charles's Castle
The article King Charles's Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:King Charles's Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Grats! Especially given my enormous love of castles already the article makes me want to read more and visit it specifically. Jalexander--WMF 23:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Caponer, and thanks too to Jalexander! Hchc2009 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

 * Thanks Rupert! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edward II of England
, I just wanted to touch base with you quickly to let you know that I have not forgotten this review! I've gone through half of it thoroughly, and will finish reviewing the rest and post the completed review suggestions on the GAR page this evening (EDT). Please let me know if you have any questions for me in the meantime! Thanks again for all your great work! -- Caponer (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, will look forward to reading the review. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've finished my review, and have left my comments and suggestions for you to address at Talk:Edward II of England/GA1. I cannot stress enough how incredible I found your research and writing to be in this article. It has been a great pleasure and privilege reviewing your work! -- Caponer (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward II of England
The article Edward II of England you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward II of England for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. -- Caponer (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * ...and thanks for the reviewing! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Will do! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

BWV 37
Please go over the history of the article, and then perhaps make me understand, I fail completely, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will do, and thanks for engaging on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I engaged on Nikkimaria's talk page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on the article page. Thanks again, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied there also. Believe me, I prefer to write articles from scratch, such as this one --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC);)
 * You've done some great music articles, I've seen your work around the wiki before and been envious! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (back from rehearsal) I don't like envy ;) - I could do more content if not held up by arguments about almost nothing. Did you see that I was requested to get the permission to change the placement of the references from myself? And the ? I worked on Kafka, - that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Caerphilly Castle & Doctor Who
Would you consider these articles to be sufficient reference?
 * DoctorWhoLocations.net Caerphilly Castle
 * BBC Caerphilly Castle
 * Facebook: Visit Wales official page

If so, I plan to include links to the following Doctor Who episodes on Caerphilly Castle: The producers certainly like the castle!
 * The End of Time
 * The Eternity Trap
 * The Vampires of Venice
 * Lost In Time
 * The Rebel Flesh
 * The Almost People
 * The Power of Three
 * The Bells of Saint John
 * Nightmare in Silver

In addition, many of those episode Wikipedia pages reference Caerphilly Castle as a filming location. Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The first appears self-published, and I'd query whether the Facebook page is a high-quality source, but the BBC page looks entirely good to me as a reliable source (given that they own the series, they ought to know...!). The trick usually is writing a paragraph on it that will tell us something about the castle (which is the focus here), rather than the TV series, but it should be do-able. I'm usually allergic to popular culture sections, which all too often become a random list of bullets, but done well, they're really useful. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, first go: Long-running British television show Doctor Who chose Caerphilly Castle as a filming location for several episodes, including The End of Time . Producers at the BBC note the castle's "corridors" and "cells" as particularly appropriate for some film sequences.
 * And finally ended up with (and placed onto Caerphilly Castle): Long-running British television show Doctor Who chose Caerphilly Castle as a filming location for several episodes including The End of Time . Producers at the BBC note the "residential quarters of the East Gatehouse, Constable's Hall and Broase Gallery" and the corridors and cells of the "dungeon of Broadfell Prison" are particularly appropriate for some film sequences.
 * Cheers. I've tweaked slightly, which I think keeps it more tightly to the source; see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Your revision is just right. I appreciate your help with this topic! Runner1928 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, great working with you! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!
It has been ages (years actually) since I last visited the Wiki pages Cardiff Castle and Caerphilly Castle...they both look excellent. The GAs are well deserved, congratulations. Seth Whales  talk    21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Erm...
Happy to fix the harverrors at Caerphilly Castle, thanks for the thanks! I came here with an ulterior motive and noticed a ref and full stop out of place in the relevant section above(!), so I went to have a look and found the harverrors instead. My ulterior motive was prompted by noticing your plan of the Kronan, linked at its FAC. Any chance of working your magic on a ground plan for St Mary's Church, Reculver? There's a ground plan here (scroll down), but I have a bigger, more accurate one I could email you, if you weren't horrified at the prospect. How much do you charge? ;o) Though, I have only a vague idea of the copyright implications... Forgive my cheek, absolutely none of my business if you'd rather not for any reason at all – it looks like a lot of work to me, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - it looks perfectly do-able, provided we took due care not to breach the copyright of the specific portrayal by EH etc. I'm away from my normal email address, so I'll email my current contact email to you in a moment, and I'll take a look at the bigger/more accurate version. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah that's fab, thank you! Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Received, and am on the case... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, sorry about the idiotic delay. I just thought, there are two small circles in the foundations of a step aligned north/south between the central, rectangular area of the nave and the eastern chancel with the semi-circular wall: you're welcome to lose the outlines of the step, but the circles represent the foundations of two columns, and are kinda vital! I should have mentioned that before... Nortonius (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem - will keep an eye out for them! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you an interim version... see what you think so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! Email coming your way shortly. Nortonius (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Version 2 with amendments done, and emailed over... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, emailed back to you. Nortonius (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and should be finished now. I've uploaded it at the Commons. Hope it's what you were after! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks really fantastic, thank you so much! :o) It's very much what I was after, a picture paints a thousand words – if in creating it you got a fraction of the pleasure I take in seeing it then I'll be pleased, but do let me know if there's anything you think I may be able to do for you in return! Thanks again – right, now to have a play with it...! Nortonius (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks great in the article, and was a fun change from my day job! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad you approve, I've had a hankering for this plan for years! Fun eh?! That's a relief, it looked like very hard work to me and I feel like I owe you big time – but if you want more of the same let me know, I'm sure I can think of something! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pevensey Castle review
Thanks for taking on the review of Pevensey Castle. I've not forgotten it! Unfortunately I'm in the middle of a house move so have been unable to do much about this review for the last few days. I'll try to make some of the recommended changes next week when I can find somewhere to log on. Prioryman (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, my move is done and my Internet is back on, so I've been able to tackle your review suggestions. I've left comments there. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Empress Matilda to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bencherlite, very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see her, "of the stock of tyrants", on he Main page,  precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Kronan-thanks
Thank you for commenting Kronan FAC. I really appreciate all the helpful pointers.

Peter Isotalo 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oliver's Battery (Tresco)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oliver's Battery (Tresco) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but I've made my comments on this nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, caught Feitlebaum's, missed yours! Will get on with that forthwith! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi!
I hope you're surviving work ok! I was wondering if you've seen the Reculver FAC lately... Sorry, I know you're busy – in your own time, of course. I know almost zero about the FA process, but I can't help thinking, if I were a FA co-ordinator, I'd be waiting for a response from you before proceeding – you've asked a lot of pertinent and very useful questions! Btw, the formal tone of the bit I wrote about "arguing in good faith" wasn't aimed at you (or anyone else in particular at the FAC), it's just that I've become a bit paranoid at WP over the years, you just don't know who's watching and might take a pop when you start setting out an argument like that...! Actually I've been surprised at what a pleasant atmosphere there's been. Anyway I remain very grateful for all the time and effort you've put into all things Reculver! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments left, and thanks for all your work on the article too! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oliver's Battery (Tresco)
The article Oliver's Battery (Tresco) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oliver's Battery (Tresco) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reviewing Sturmvogel! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pevensey Castle review reminder
Hi Hchc2009, I just thought I'd remind you that the review you started at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pevensey Castle is still outstanding. Any chance you could finish it? I'd like to wrap it up soon, as I'll need to take a wikibreak in a couple of weeks' time. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)