User talk:TharkunColl

Sarehole
Your link leads to a page not found.

In any case, Warwickshire is supported, not by Tolkien, but by his biographer. And by a nineteenth-century guide to Warwickshire, with which I began. Supply a verifiable source, if any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Happy to. Go and find the postcode for Sarehole Mill (if you do it yourself, you know it's correct) and type it into the following traditional county locator . TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ireland
Well, I dunno about third revert, but in any case, I'll leave it to discussion at WP:RSN and elsewhere. There is no problem with listing the Irish Free State as a former Dominion, because it was so described at the time. However, listing it as a former Realm is problematic. We need a source that isn't synthesised saying that the Irish Free State was a Realm. Do you see my point? It would be helpful if you could address this on the article talk page. Besides, we still need a source. There isn't one in the article, and continually reinserting material identified as unsourced isn't helpful unless you actually add a source. --Pete (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "realm" is exactly equivalent to "dominion" in this context and has no separate legal existence. Please bear in mind that the style of a monarch is a matter for the royal prerogative, and has no force in law other than what it purports to have, namely, a title. ðarkun coll 23:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the equivalence of the two terms. Nevertheless, we need a source. The article currently has no source at all. If you think the article needs Ireland included, would you consider adding a source? The best official source we have is from the Queen: A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. Note the use of the capitalised "Realm". Ireland and India never had the Queen as their monarch, and it would be synthesis to extend the official definition beyond what is stated. Previous monarchs never supported any similar definition - they referred to Dominions. This usage postdates Queen Elizabeth II's accession in1952. The long series of changes marking the transitions from Empire to Commonwealth and the post-war decolonisation activity, not to mention ongoing movement towards republicanism means that we cannot regard the relationship of monarch to nation as somehow preserved in aspic. What applied in 1913 does not necessarily hold true in 2013. And vice versa. The Dominions of 1931 are not the Realms of 2013. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no legal definition of "realm", as I pointed out above. It is merely a descriptive term that is applied to the dominions. Evolving legal status is another matter entirely, and has no bearing on the title. For example, although Canada and Australia (and arguably New Zealand) obtained virtually complete sovereignty as recently as the 1980s, many of the smaller, younger realms have yet to undergo an equivalent process. ðarkun coll 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of the passage on the Queen's website indicates that she does not share your opinion. But if we have no valid source, hey we have no article! I'm grateful for your opinion, of course, but what we really need is a source. A reliable source. You seem to have repeatedly inserted material that was identified as unsourced. Could you fix this, please? --Pete (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Queen's opinion does not have the force of law. Nor, indeed, does the opinion of those who wrote her website, which I'd be surprised if she's even read in any great depth. I have inserted no extra material into the article, I merely replaced what was unilaterally removed. ðarkun coll 12:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You reinserted material which was identified as unsourced. If you have a source, please identify it, or remove the unsourced material. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to change a long-established article it's you who need to provide sources, and to convince other editors. ðarkun coll 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm saying that there aren't any sources. I can't find any, nor can you obviously. I can't provide sources that do not exist. The material I removed is unsourced. You inserted unsourced material. I can't put it plainer than that. --Pete (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anstey College of Physical Education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiverton (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) 09:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Roman/Byzantine Emperors
I know I'm a little late, but I was reading the talk page for List of Roman Emperors today and found myself agreeing with your suggestion that it should be merged with the List of Byzantine Emperors. I very much liked your arguments, I thought they were well made. I don't konw if you keep up with Wikipedia all that much anymore and I'm not sure there's much I could do at this point, but I'd love to help get your proposal pushed through. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

St. Albans Cross
I see you have reverted my edit to the Mercia page. I was wondering what your source was for those colours for the St. Albans cross? http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/event/st-albans-day/ and https://britishcountyflags.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/insert-image-9-tam-castle-2.jpg?w=640 and http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/sitetools/app-error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/default.aspx would all suggest different. Thanks. Cdh1984 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The earliest illustration of St Alban's Cross is found in John Speed's The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine of 1610/1611, and uses light blue:
 * http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/8939/Britain_As_It_Was_Devided_in_the_tyme_of_the_EnglisheSaxons_especially/Speed.html
 * The darker blue version was invented by the Flag Institute, a private organisation with no legal authority, in 2014, because its internal rules do not allow identical registrations, and St Albans City Council had already been using the lighter version. This has no bearing on the traditional flag of Mercia, which predates the use of the St Alban's Cross by the City of St Albans. The photo of the flag flying from Tamworth Castle may be affected by light condidtions and is therefore a very unreliable guide, but in any case it is clearly lighter than the very dark version proposed by the Flag Institute. See here for a much better example:
 * http://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/Talks-held-Tamworth-joining-massive-Greater/story-26628582-detail/story.html
 * TharkunColl (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If a photo may be affected by light conditions then surely a map from 1610 may be subject to fading. It appears to be the same blue as used on all the coats of arms but it is still not sky blue.  The Tamworth sign certainly not this shade, even if it is lighter than the one used by the Flag Institute.  Perhaps a compromise like this one would be more accurate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Arms_of_Edward_the_Confessor.svg ? Cdh1984 (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Alban%27s_cross_(corrected_blue).svg ? Cdh1984 (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at the other colours on the map, you'll see that there's no evidence of fading. In any case, it's not the job of editors of Wikipedia to propose compromises in the manner you suggest (a compromise regarding the form of words used in an article is different, for instance, but what you're suggesting is actually the creation a completely new design, which is, in any case, still darker than the John Speed illustration and the flag on the official Welcome to Tamworth sign). The basic fact is that the Flag Institute is not an authoritative source, but a private organisation. The best I can suggest is for you to add a new, short paragraph to the "Symbols" section of the article, showing their proposed new flag, but making it clear that it is not the traditional design, but rather a new, deliberate creation. TharkunColl (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You still haven't provided a source for the shade of blue currently being used on the article. How is my suggestion any more of "new  deliberate creation" than the sky blue one you are insisting is the "traditional design"? Cdh1984 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The ultimate source for all renditions of Saint Alban's Cross, not just on Wikipedia but everywhere, for centuries, is the first known (and certainly the earliest surviving) illustration of it, John Speed's atlas. It's not sky blue, it's the best representation in hex colour co-ordinates of the original printer's ink. TharkunColl (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that is the "best representation"? The blue on John Speed's map is clearly darker than the one being used on wikipedia whereas the yellow looks closer to white. Cdh1984 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Moseley school badge.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Moseley school badge.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Maeoniae.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maeoniae.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  04:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Midlands Engine.png
Thanks for uploading File:Midlands Engine.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 09:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarehole, again
In any case, is there any part of the present wording which you contend to be demonstrably false?

Sarehole was in Warwickshire between 1911 and 1972. There is at least one nineteenth-century source which says it was in Warwickshire then. Your wording denies the first and is silent about the second. A record of six reversions over two days will not look well - and omits verifiable claims. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Either it was in Worcestershire, or it wasn't" That is not an encyclopedic attitude. There are occasions on which we do not know.


 * As for the post-code, supply a reference that British postcodes *never* cross the boundaries of ceremonial counties. American postcodes certainly do, and with reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any occasion where the county of a place is unknown, and the suggestion is absurd. To say that it was in Warwickshire from 1911 to 1974 (not 1972, incidentally) by virtue of being part of the County Borough of Birmingham is true but irrelevent, expecially since Tolkien moved from Sarehole in 1900. Please check out the following map and since you can't be bothered to find it yourself, the postcode for Sarehole Mill is B13 0BD. Zoom in and you will see that it is a long way from the boundary. TharkunColl (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article
I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a British Empire Project member interested in colonial or military history. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Dear Sir, in the article about "Mount of Olives Hotel" you wrote: "One of the oldest surviving Baphomet carvings can be seen above the door to the hotel kitchen, at the far end." - con you point to a source that confirms that? Where is that information taken from?

Ezio a (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC) 

White Wyrm of Mercia
The specific white wyrm (on a green background) image, which you uploaded, is copyrighted by the Acting Witan of Mercia. Why is it appearing on here under an open licence? AlltanLagain (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Tharky? is that you?
Dog gone it. I haven't seen you around the 'pedia, for years. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there, long time no see! I pop in from time to time, but not very regularly. TharkunColl (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

argument for merger of lists of monarchs of Britain/England
Hello!

I have just read the merger debate on the British talk page, and i feel for you. These debates are never equal, there was essentially a "cultural leftist" bullying going on there.

Probably that's why you and your very few friends didn't arrive at the best argument. When Scotland and England united, there were two main specific fragments of Scotland that survived, the state church and the judicial branch of power. One of the fragments that got annihilated was the numbering scheme of monarchs. So currently on the British list there is Charles III, but of you go up, you don't see Charles II. Obviously, you find him on the list of English monarchs, and this is a frustration for the readers. Many might not even know where to look for this information.

However, I do not advice you to go back there and restart the debate! They will most probably just say that it was a sign of English opression, that they continued the English numbering. Well, yeah, because the union was not equal, it was more like an orderly conquest. It's a istorical fact, but they will keep denying, mocking, etc. It's infuriating, the best is to avoid it.

How do you sign here, 193.224.72.250 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)?

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tristram the Younger - source?
Hallo, there's a drive to find references for unsourced articles, and Tristram the Younger is one of the small number left in Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2008. I see you created it, in 2006, and am delighted to see that you're still an active editor. Could you remember what source you used, and add it, I wonder? Thanks. (If it doesn't get sourced there's a danger that it might be nominated for deletion as unverified.) Pam  D  12:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it may have been this https://nightbringer.se/the-legend-of-king-arthur/arthurian-characters/t-arthurian-characters/tristan-the-younger/
 * TharkunColl (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Tristram the Younger for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tristram the Younger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tristram the Younger until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)