User talk:Redpathanderson

Welcome
Your council Bolsover article is a nice addition but is it about the hall, the council (ie the committee) or the district? Do have a look at similar articles. Do not take this as "a slap" .... Welcome!! Victuallers (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK ... so if it is the committee then your article say .....Bolsover Town council ... is asn area...??. Do you mean Bolsover Town Council administers an area of ... or Bolsover Town .... is an area controlled by a council? Victuallers (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Monbijou Park
A tag has been placed on Monbijou Park requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Xp54321 ( Talk, Contribs ) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Crown Fortress
I am trying hard to make some constructive edits to your article - your current actions are likely to fall foul of WP:3RR. It is nonsense to say that Henry's successors built castles during hie reign - in any case only Elizabeth carried on his fort-building, so "In the reign of the Tudors" might be better. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume this was intended for me?
 * "It in no way infers that Henry VIII was suceded during his reign, sucessor, by it's very definition, means someone who comes after, this is irespective of weather it is acheived during the period the predecessor is in power, or following it."
 * It nether infers or implies anything. It STATES that "During the reign of Henry VIII" "many new Crown fortresses were commissioned by" "his successors".
 * Can't you see that that is nonsense? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, my talk page is User talk:Ian Dalziel - the page you are updating is nothing to do with me! -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:TP -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is not nonesense!
 * Why? How could Henry's successors commission fortresses during his reign? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the entire point, it in no way gramatically, infers his succesors commisioned fortresses during his reign. By the very fact, that by definition, to to sucede you must come after
 * But the bit I keep trying to change SAYS "During the reign of". He didn't HAVE any successors until AFTER his reign. What is your problem with the way I have worded it now?
 * And "adherents" would be courtiers, people like More and Cromwell - hardly castle builders. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Adherents eqaully played a part in it, you don't honestly think that Henry VII, arranged everything! do you? Adherents can eqaully be a generla term for those who follow on, re his successors and courtiers.


 * Find me a dictionary definition that covers that, would you? No, adherents can NOT in any sense mean his successors. You might want to look at WP:OWN as well, by the way. If you think my edits are invalid, please explain why, do NOT revert. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For one I have and have never in anyway expected to own a article, as you would like to believe, but I do find your arguments tedious, and your re-writting, tedious. As for adherents, I don't need a dictionary, as apart form anything I have seen, the same term in use, in various other, identical cricumstance. Yes in deed it can mean, follower, but it can also mean, someoen who "carry's on from", which is afterall, someone who sucedes, and therefore a sucessor.
 * No it can't. Quote a dictionary reference that says that "adherent" can mean "successor"? Also check WP:OR and WP:CIVIL. The point about ownership is that you do NOT have the right to revert my edits without a reason. I am really doing my best to discuss this - you would already qualify for a ban under WP:3RR. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More fundamentally, can you find a reference to support your assertion in the lead that "Royal Castle" aplies only to a "palatial residence"? I have never heard that distinction, and I'd have called all the castles built by James of St John in North Wales "royal castles". Without some support for that distinction, the whole article seems just to be revisiting ground covered by Castle. You really do need to support your statements - see WP:SOURCE. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a very great difference between a Royal Castle, and that of a Crown Fortress certainly. And Those castles built by James of St John, aren't all Royal Castles, though they were are patronised by the Crown, at a date when as I placed in the article, little distinction could be made. Due to the fact that, little seperated, the fund sof the Moanrch and the state, as it has doen since the 19th century(atleast). And infact there are documents, as far back as the reign of Henry VII, that designate, and differentiate, bewteen those castles which, were Royal and those which were Crown. Fundementally Royal Castles are residences, even if the have a defensive nature. As for Crown Fortesses, they became, purely military buildings. The article, may indeed revisit some aspects of other articles, but then thats the point, most do. My article, refers to the context in which the term is used, and it's history and modern application. As for sources. I have read many books that clearly, disctinguish, the two types of castle. But I am not sure where I would find the sources again, or for that matter on the web. As the subject is very rarely raised in, it's own right. Yet the application has existed for centuries, and the differences between the two. One book that certainly recalls the difference is "Country Houses from the air", I can't remmebr the author, but it states, that Bolsover Castle, became a "Crown Fortress", whatsmore, the author published another book about "Royal Castles and Palaces" Past and present, and makes no mention of Bolsover Castle. In another Book I read, about "Castles of Britain", it clearly differenciates between the two, designating the likes of Pendennis as a "Crown Fortress", and Windsor, as a "Royal Castle". This can be found in numerous books, and articles.

Whatsmore, I revisted ground thats already covered, to give an idea of the different circumstances, in which these came into existence, aslo to be able to provide information on examples, and generally to be as informative as possible.


 * That's good - I'm prepared to believe that, and to work on improving the article. It's an area that interests me. But you do need to find a documented source for the assertion - either find the book and cite it, or find a supporting independent statement on the web. That's how Wikipedia works - you can't just write down what you know, you have to be able to support it. I'll have a look myself and see if I can find anything. I do have a load of books on fortifications. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well happy to improve on the article. I've been waiting on some news form a friend, who has greater access to sources, but he's come-up Blank as to a source for definition, or it's use elsewhere, yet he agrees, eh's heard the term in use, as a historian, all he can suggest is trying to search as many Books on castles and fortifictaions.

Quotations
You included a variety of direct quotations in the article Grove, Nottinghamshire without identifying the sources of these quotations. This is, at the very least, confusing to the reader, and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources. --Russ (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Being new to the site, I'm unsure of how to cite sources, would you be willing to tell me how to.


 * Sorry for not answering sooner. There are some suggestions at CITE that you may find helpful; however, it is more important simply to identify the source with enough detail so that other editors can find it (author, title, date, etc.) than to get the format precisely right.  This is particularly true when you are quoting someone else's words: we need to at least know who said it, and how to verify the quotation. --Russ (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Kingdom of Great Britain date in Edinburgh article
Hi Redpathanderson

I reverted your 1603 date for the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain (again). Per the linked article, the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 when the parliaments of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England decided to unite. 1603 was the date of the union of the crowns, but the two countries remained separate Kingdoms for another hundred-odd years. Incidentally, Great Britain was England and *Scotland*; Ireland didn't formally join the united Kingdom until 1800, when the Kingdom of Great Britain joined with Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All these dates and facts are readily available from the relevant Wikipedia articles.

Cheers, This flag once was red   20:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not entirely true, as James VI used the title of King of Great Brittain as part of the union of the crowns and so therefore invoked the first Kingdom of Great Britain, which is one of the reasons that led to the creation of the Union Jack. It beacme the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, and due to the fact that Queen Anne and her sucessors continued in the path of using the title of King of Great Britain. Infact if anything you can say there was an even earlier Kingdom of Great Britain, invoked by one of the Anglos-Saxon Kings, who was afteralll elected King of all the Britons.

so there are in effect three kingdoms of Great Britain, not just the 1707-1801 one mentioned in the article. Which is why I would suggest someone should alter the existing Kingdom of Great Britain arcticle and consider some manner of disambiguation.

Also why I accept that Ireland has never been part of the Kingddom of Great Britain, it had always fallen uder the title as used by James VI, I'm sure if you check all the relevant histroy resources you will find this self-evident. As it is half of the information on here regaurding at the very least the use of the term King of Great Britain is incorect. Therefore so by logic must be that of the Kingdom of Great Britain, as I have already stated declared or not, they did exsist.


 * With respect, it's entirely true. James VI styled himself King of Great Britain (following in a tradition started by Elizabeth I (Welsh ancestry, styled as British ancestry by her adviser Dr. Dee to support England's pan-national ambitions), but the Kingdom of Great Britain did not come into being until 1707 with the merger of the two parliaments.  England and Scotland were separate kingdoms until 1707, in much the same way that New Zealand and Canada, say, are two separate Kingdoms under one Queen.  Your viewpoint is your own viewpoint, and not one supported by mainstream historians, existing Wikipedia articles or any references.  That you believe the Kingdom of Great Britain article should be altered to support your view suggests to me that you are engaging in WP:OR.  I'm copying this to the Edinburgh talk page to widen discussion.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * | Done. Could you have a quick check that I'm not misrepresenting your position?  I've tried to be as neutral as possible.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To start with this is not a WP:OR as I have read many such historical texts away from this site, that catergorically cite he was the first king of the Kingdom of Great Britain(as the one who united the Kingdom under the personal union, even if not constitutionally under a single federal parliament). whatsmore whilst it is certainly true that Scotland and England maintained their own parliaments until 1707, but as one explanation of this period as I've been told by a Cambridge Historian, you must think of this period as more like that of the German Empire in 1871 just after it's confederation until 1894. When there was no unified system of government between the kingdoms, and when Germany was not even sure of it's offical title. This issue in Britain further clouded unlike the German Empire by not having a presedent to use that of Emperor, but as you sate in the tradition of King of Great Britain. Indeed even with the United Kingdom as it is, you have a federacy of Nations/Kingdoms, and you must remember while the supreme title in the British Royal Famliy is that of King/Queen of Great Britain & N. Ireland, they also claim to be the kings/Queens of England and Scotland. Afterall when they created the new Scottish Parliament as state legislature, it was not the Imperial Crown or St. Edwards Crown(the ones used traditionally for the coronations of Kings/Queens of Great Britain) but the Scottish Crown whih they used to institute the parliament, infrot of the Queen who is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whilst also being Queen of England and Scotland. Whilst by all accounts given the Catholic/papal tradition, they should exclusive of each other, I'E one or the other not both, British Royal Tradion dictates this is not a concern Also in a way as it was the British Empire before the Comonwealth, the term King of Great Britain, is also used like that of Emperor to denote a supremacy over those former Dominion and Colonies, even if we of course no longer have the official power and now the almost purely ceremonial use of supremacy.


 * That James VI was the first king of England *and* Scotland is not disputed here. What is disputed is that the union was itself called the Kingdom of Great Britain.  The Kingdom of Great Britain article doesn't support your assertion (preferring the 1707 date), and neither do the Kingdom of England or Kingdom of Scotland articles (again preferring the 1707 date).  If you can cite texts that state that the Kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1707 then do so (it would probably be worth doing so on the article page itself, as well as the Edinburgh article).  Without any references it *is* WP:OR.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   11:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly not a WP:OR, As I Already said the present articles aren't right, indeed Jame IV not only use dthe title King of Great Britain, but there are even documents of his day and by his successors that are written Kingdom of Great Britain, and this was before teh 1707 union of parliaments.

I do not have the many of the books myself anymore but will check the ones I have, and I am certain all sate him as not only King of Great Britain, but that following the personal union of Crowns, the term Kingdom of Great Britain was regualarly used. Else why do you explain the use of the Union Jack as created by/for James VI. Otherwise surely he would have just used the two seperate flags of the Kingdoms, whne adhering to the separate Kingdoms.


 * Please do provide references. Until you do, you're simply asking us to take it on trust that what you say is the case - and since what you claim isn't supported by any of the articles at present, by my memory of Scottish and British history, or even the | CIA I think it's fair to say that your position is controversial and the onus is on you to provide evidence in support of your claim - without any supporting references your position *is* WP:OR.  When and if you do find references the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom articles would be the logical first places for this information.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Right for starters in the few books baring any relation to this issue I have found nothing proving or disproving. But look alone on the internet;

IRENE CARRIER. James Vl and I, King of Great Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. vi + 153, introduction, Mr. Stephen A. Coston, Sr. and Mr. Richard Neumeier ; When King James VI of Scotland ascended to the English throne in 1603, he forever joined the English and Scottish crowns. King James was the first to call his island kingdom, "Great Britain". Great Britain consists of England, Scotland, and Wales. These kingdoms, however, maintained separate parliaments until 1707 when they were fused into one. The United Kingdom, formed in 1801, consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

James I, King of Great Britain—History]. [Dalrymple, Dav... Memorials And Letters Relating To The History Of Britain In The Reign Of James The First. Published From The Originals. The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged.

Charles I 1600–1649 King of Great Britain

Charles I was the second king to rule the united kingdoms of Scotland and England. However(http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/rens_01/rens_01_00099.html)

Im sure if I look into it further I can find more refrences to the Kingdom of Great Britain as of 1603

this one atleast proves it is a common assertion even if he does not cite references

"Great Britain" was the name of a sovereign state from 1603 (when James VI of Scotland acceded to the throne of England as James I) to 1707, the date of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, at which point it became "The United Kingdom of Great Britain".

Albert Herring(http://everything2.com/title/Great%2520Britain)

King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom by W. B. Patterson

(Source: Larkin and Hughes, Royal Stuart Proclamations. vol. 1.)

By the King.

A proclamation concerning the Kings Majesties Stile, of King of Great Britaine, &c.


 * I'm in complete agreement with both those references. I don't believe they contradict my position.  The first says that the King referred to his kingdoms (plural) as Great Britain, but that the kingdoms (plural) remained separate until 1707.  The second reference also refers to two separate kingdoms, while alluding to the union of the crowns.  The union of the crowns is distinct from the union of the states.  The third one - leaving aside that it's everything2 - I don't think you've read in full.  Scroll down further, to...
 * ...it was James VI of Scotland who succeeded the last of the Tudors, Elizabeth I to become king James I of England in 1603. From the beginning James made it clear that he desired to be the king of a single kingdom and that the kingdom should be named Great Britain....a Joint Commission was established in June 1604 to produce concrete proposals, but by the time it had reported in 1606 sentiment in both Scotland and England had moved decidedly against the idea. The actual Instrument of Union made no mention of a Great Britain...Therefore James' vision of a kingdom of Great Britain came to nothing at the time...James proclaimed himself as 'King of Great Britain, France and Ireland'...Thus Great Britain had a king, a currency and a flag even though legally speaking, there was no Great Britain.
 * Incidentally, this should really be discussed on the relevant talk pages - I doubt I'm going to convince you that the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist as a state before 1707, and you certainly haven't convinced me that the editors who wrote the Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England and United Kingdom articles are all wrong.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   12:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought this was ll part of it, whatsmore if you insist I will look at other sources, but there are various articles that show the Kingdom of Great Britain as established 1603. I doubt I will convince you, and you certainly won't me, that it is otherwise, or for that matter a great number of people. Especially as you seem to doubt atleast two accepted sources, not only the very Stuart Proclamations as issued by James VI, but the work of a much respected author, who is afterall published by the Cambridge Press. Further more I will ask my Cambridge historian to look for the evident evidence, and if needs be get him to send me the sources. As for a state, this is perhaps where you and the editors are confused, it was Kingdom a union under the Crown Imperial, and even after 1707 it was not as state but a union under both CRown Imperial and Parliament.


 * I'm going to let it rest (it's past 1am where I am right now), but just wanted to clarify one point - I don't doubt either of the referenced sources. The union of the crowns *did* occur in 1603, and James did style himself as King of Great Britain.  The formation of the state, however (which is what this is all about), did not occur until 1707 when the parliaments consented to a union of the two separate kingdoms.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   13:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But thats part of my whole point there has never been a state of Great Britain, as in effect even since the Union of 1707, it has been a union of nations /sates, not a state in it's own right. Just as Germany is a union of states, or the US is the United(union) States. And if you look at the stuart proclamations it quite clearly states that not only is there a "union of crowns" as you put it, but that this is the Kingdom of the Island of Great Britain. Surely this is the Kingdom of Great Britain. An further more this assertion is supported by other historians.


 * (replied on Edinburgh's | talk page, This flag once was red   20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Torksey Castle
Redpathanderson,

Please see my comments at Torksey Castle. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 05:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Grove Hall
Sorry about this but I have tagged your article as copyvio. Your history section, substantially the whole of the article, is a straight copy of a page of a copyrighted website. See Copyright FAQOrdyg (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Reculver Castle
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Reculver Castle, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Reculver.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Reculver Castle and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Reculver Castle with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Reculver Castle.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Reculver Castle saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have located a good many articles that are also copyright concerns, primarily drawn from . The licensing terms at castleuk are not consistent with Wikipedia's requirements, as they explicitly withhold modification and commercial reuse. Wikipedia's contents are licensed under GFDL, which permits both. We can't copy sentences or phrases from other sources to Wikipedia unless they are public domain, licensed compatibly with GFDL, or unless they meet our limited non-free content guidelines (which requires quotation marks as well as attribution and which sets out the circumstances in which text can be duplicated). If you are bychance the owner of that site, you can easily resolve concerns related to articles drawn from that source by altering license there to GFDL 1.3. (However, please clarify that the license covers both text and images, as without specific release of text we have to presume that it is protected under the standard copyright provisions.) See Donating copyrighted materials for more. If you are not the copyright owner, you may be able to obtain permission as indicated above. See Requesting copyright permission for more details. If you cannot, you might wish to consider revising these problematic articles in the temporary spaces linked from each article face. I will list the specific articles of concern below once I have finished compiling them. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I may have located all articles of concern. Please see Copyright problems/2009 January 16 for a complete listing of these, beginning with Reculver Castle and continuing through Budby. If there is verification that the duplicated text in these articles is free for use, for instance if some of it is public domain, please provide a link to that verification on the articles' talk pages. If you are sending verification of permission through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation as directed above, please note that at the articles' talk pages. I will be traveling beginning today until January 19th. If you have any questions about this prior to the 19th, please address them to User:Dougweller, an administrator who also works copyright issues on occasion and who is aware of these concerns. Otherwise, I'll be happy to talk to you about this after my return. I'll be watching your talk page if you would care to leave any comments here. You can also leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, although it may be a few days before someone gets back to you there. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems resolved
All of the articles tagged and identified at Copyright problems/2009 January 16 have been addressed. Where possible, I have simply removed the copyright infringement, as with Dalton-le-Dale. Some I have rewritten completely. Some have been deleted.

I note that in your comment here you restored copyrighted material that had been removed from the article on the grounds that valuable information was being lost. Please understand that there is no information so valuable to Wikipedia that we are willing to infringe on copyright to include it. Copyright violations are a legal concern which could, if not handled correctly, result in serious problems for the project. If you cannot say it in your words and the source is not free for use, you can't include it except in those limited cases that meet our non-free content guidelines for text. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material that has been removed may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original sources or plagiarize from those sources. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

None of which was copied and pasted form the original texts, it was all rewritten, which none of you idiots seem to understand. Furthermore, I believe that it is others on this site especially those who claim to manage it who are "persistent violators". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.48.193 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your note on the topic at Talk:Torksey Castle. If you need further clarification on these matters, please feel free to let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)