User talk:Brendandh



Cromwell's Act of Grace

[edit]

Thanks for the contribution to Cromwell's Act of Grace, I could not find a reference to the Earl of Selcrigge other than the references to the act itself. The information in the article William Douglas-Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton certainly ties in to the Cromwell's Act of Grace but do you have a reference that the Earl of Selcrigge is an alternative spelling for Earl of Selkirk? -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well if we keep our eyes open no doubt a source will turn up. I ran out of steam before tracking down all the men listed in the fined list, so any help is appreciated. The fined list can be sorted, and I made what I think is a not unreasonable assumption the larger the fine the more likely they were important in Scottish society and will have a biography.
The David Laing source used more imaginative spelling than C.H. Firth source. I checked the two against each other and have added Laing's information were it diverges by more than spelling from Firth. Firth tends to give the formal title "Sir ..." while Laing gives the clan title "Laird of ...".I'll add the Laing source to the talk page as his spellings may help in some cases. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Maclellan of Bombie

[edit]

As a contributor to the Bombie article, do you think it correct to say that Sir Patrick was 'the head of his family'? Surely he was 'Tutor of Bombie', ie the representative of the head of family, who would probably be a minor? Shipsview (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry, did not notice this post. I've been doing a little trawling round about this, and most of the sources I have suggest that in fact, the story of the beheading was a fabrication by Pitscottie, writing a century later, as no contemporary sources mention it.[1] It could well be that Sir Patrick was perhaps an uncle or in some way guardian to the Chief of MacLellan. Balfour Paul states that in the 18thc. there was a tombstone dedicated to him in Dundrennan Abbey dated to 1452, however Douglas himself was murdered in January of that year or the year before.[2] A conundrum! Brendandh (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am enjoying your Douglas Arms discussion below! Shipsview (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Cambridge

[edit]

Please provide a citation for your assertion that the Duke of Hamilton is Earl of Cambridge in the Peerage of England. (I seem to recall we've discussed this before, but I can't recall where.) Proteus (Talk) 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've misunderstood the source. Surrender and regrant is a concept that has only ever existed in Scots peerage law, never in English peerage law. The Earldom that was regranted was an Earldom of Arran, Lanark and Cambridge, a combination of the Earldom of Arran and Cambridge (in the Peerage of Scotland) created together with the Dukedom and the Earldom of Lanark (also in the Peerage of Scotland) created for the 2nd Duke. It's rather odd that an Earldom of Arran and Cambridge (and later an Earldom of Arran, Lanark and Cambridge) was created in the Peerage of Scotland, when Cambridge isn't in Scotland, but that's what the source says happened. What is clear, however, is that after the death of the 2nd Duke the Dukes of Hamilton were not English peers, as you assert: the 4th Duke stood for election (and was elected) as a Scottish representative peer, rather than taking his seat as of right (which he would have been able to do had he been Earl of Cambridge in the Peerage of England); and he was then in fact created a British peer as Duke of Brandon. It was only at that point that he claimed a seat in the Lords as of right (and was wrongfully refused). And, of course, the subsequent Earldoms, Marquessates and Dukedoms of Cambridge would not have been created had an English Earldom of Cambridge been extant. Proteus (Talk) 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as to what titles are held by the Dukes of Hamilton, I've tried to analyse Balfour Paul at User:Proteus/Duke of Hamilton. It's not entirely clear what has happened, but I'd be interested in whether you think it's a reasonable analysis. Proteus (Talk) 22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood what I've said - Balfour Paul doesn't support your assertions. You have misread it. Proteus (Talk) 11:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I notice there's been a bit of friction recently between you and User:Proteus over the whole Hamilton/Douglas-Hamilton issue. I have no idea which one is right, but the point about Wikipedia is it's the one that has published sources to back it up that prevails, not the one which might be historically correct. If Proteus can cite Balfour Paul, the London Gazette and whatever else to say it's Hamilton, then you saying you know it's Douglas-Hamilton won't wash. This applies equally to manuscript copies of anything, which would come under Wikipedia:Original research. Really the best way would be for you to write a family history, get it published by somebody other than yourself, and then cite it in the article. Opera hat (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Meetup - next Monday

[edit]

A meetup will be held in Edinburgh next Monday, June 20th. Just an informal meet in a pub. With luck we will also have a geo-notice banner in time, although this process seems broken at the moment. Details here; please sign up if you are interested. All welcome. Sorry about the short notice. 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comes

[edit]

Saw your correction of the Latin at comes. I know nothing about these titles, but only wonder whether you could double-check. In the title Comes Britanniarum and Litoris Saxonici per Britannias, I'm not familiar with the use of Britannia in the plural, but Comes Britanniarum is also plural: "Count of the Britains" (genitive plural) which I assume refers to political divisions. In the Roman era, there were Galliae, as in Tres Galliae, the three Gauls. Which is why I ask. I don't know, and have no particular interest in that period. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comes Brittaniarum is plural because similarly to Gaul, it refers to Britannia Superior (capital Londinium) and Britannia Inferior (capital Eboracum. The "-am" ending in Comes Littoris Saxonici per Brittaniam, is accusative case singular, because it just refers to the one location. Oops just noticed my own spelling mistake in Litoris/Littoris! Brendandh (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As I said, I really didn't know; just wondered whether the two were the same or not. And now I've learned something interesting. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country houses in Scotland

[edit]

Hi. Yeah I think I'll feed Castles in Scotland into it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

douglas-hamilton

[edit]

I am not sure if I should respond here, or on my talk page. anyway, I thought I was responding the consensus on the talk page of the article. I am not sure what the legal name of the Dukes were and are, and most references to the people in question, refer to them as their title. Douglas-Hamilton does seem to be the name that most accurately describes the lineage (although other Scottish nobles put their paternal name last). However, wikipedia policy for names prefers the one, the person is most known by. So even if the legal name is Hamilton, but they are better known as Douglas-Hamilton(today, not when they were alive), then Douglas-Hamilton should be the one used. However, you would need a valid source that uses the name Douglas-Hamilton. The best sources would be ones most like wikipedia, that is encyclopedias, or history books. Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented no sources; merely an opinion that the seventeenth century must have treated compound names as the nineteenth century usually (but not always) did. Your actions contradict the most reliable secondary and tertiary sources on the subject; please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do; I agree with WP:VERIFIABILITY. For one thing, an article of real substance could be written on his marital adventures; it should have his name agree with the sources. Should I be forced to read and collate all the sources, I shall probably be impelled to write that article. On the other hand, if I thought he was unimportant enough to get his name wrong, I should put the article up for deletion; we are not a genealogical treatise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's awfully big of you! Opinion? Importance? Genealogical treatise? Um, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia is it not? How important are you, with your opinion? Ever heard of ancestral memory, visiting the sites, hard copy in situ? No, didn't think so....Brendandh (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable sources will be welcome. Ancestral memory will be treated with all the respect three centuries of oral transmisson deserve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton was MP for Lancaster. The original entry of the page Lancaster (UK Parliament constituency) referred to the Marquess of Douglas. I corrected this to Alexander Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton because my understanding is that he was, at the time, a Hamilton. Do you have a view? Shipsview (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was because he was the MP for Lancaster before his father's death, and using the courtesy title of Marquis of Douglas and Clydesdale. Following his father's death he obviously went to the House of Lords and was barred from standing for the Commons. Either way, the style of the eldest son of the Duke of Hamilton since 1761 has been Marquis of Douglas and Clydesdale, with the address form Lord Clydesdale, rather than solely Marquis of Douglas. Hope that helps? Brendandh (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Douglas Douglas-Hamilton.jpg

[edit]
Pay attention to licensing

File concerned:
File:Douglas Douglas-Hamilton.jpg

File:Douglas Douglas-Hamilton.jpg seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file description page.


The reason given by the user who added this tag is: We do not know the date of death of the human author of this work, because the uploader has not identified this person's name. Per Work for hire#Copyright_duration, if the person is known and died within the last 70 years, this work is still under copyright. The family releasing the photo to the press without copyright is not sufficient to establish its status as public domain unless the family stated as much explicitly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I uploaded this picture, from a hard copy that I own, 5/6 years ago. It was taken in 1932/3 (therefore 78 years old) by an unknown photographer specifically to give to the press, who at that time were covering Clydesdale's (as he was then known) and others' expedition to fly over Everest. Brendandh (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Arms

[edit]

I can't find anywhere what the 15th century Douglas earls of Angus and Morton looked like. Presumably they both contain the three white stars in a blue background above a red heart in a white background and were quartered. But were the quarters significantly different to the Douglas of Douglas line? Anywhere online that depicts them? Ta. -Bill Reid | (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the Angus Arms changed very rapidly, I think the first earl of Angus is: quartered 1st & 4th Argent, man's heart Gules, a Chief Azure, over all three Stars of the first (for Douglas), 2nd & 3rd Argent, a Lion Rampant Gules (for the ancient Earls of Angus), over all a shield of pretence or with a Lion Rampant Gules surmounted by a Cost Sable (for Lordship of Abernethy). The Abernethy Lion Rampant is that of the Earls of Fife, [3] with the differencing of the Cost Sable to denote a cadet line. Later Earls added and subtracted various quarterings over the the years the most important of which is the Or, Fess Chequy Azure and Argent surmounted by a Bend Sable charged with three buckles of the first (for Stewart of Bonkyll). Other quarterings were Argent, five Piles Vert to signify Lordship of the Forest(Ettrick, Jed etc.), and Argent, three Piles Gules, for Wishart (I haven't been able to work out that connection yet tho'!).
Morton as a descendant of Andrew Douglas of Herdmanston (ie Douglases of Dalkeith) did not use the heart as they had become a cadet line at a point earlier than Sir James Douglas, and their arms were: Argent, a Chief Gules, overall two Stars of the first. Regent Morton started using the Heart and three Stars as he was a grandson of the 6th Earl of Angus and only Earl of Morton jure uxoris.
There are a few plates in William Faser's Douglas book here [4] but I don't think anyone has put anything in commons yet. Hope this helps? Brendandh (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more here. Bell the cat Angus, had three Chevrons Gules on a Field Ermine to represent Liddesdale (apparently the old de Soules arms), when Liddesdale was removed from his authority and given to Patrick Hepburn, 1st Earl of Bothwell, Angus replaced them with the five Piles Vert for the Forest. Good book here,[5], though hard to read on my browser trying to order hard copy! Brendandh (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for that and the The Douglas Book which I have now downloaded. Very interesting piece on Bricius of Douglas, Bishop of Moray and his uncle, Freskin of Kerdall in that book too. The other book shows the Angus armorial of Angus and Morton earls which is exactly what I was looking for. I noticed that the Douglas arms being used in the infobox at Battle of Arkinholm shows the heart with a crown above it. Would this have been post-forfeiture? Anyroad, thank you. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, changing that. The crown was added by the first Marquis of Douglas in the early 17th c. Brendandh (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[The] Pleasance

[edit]

(Moved to Talk:Pleasance)

Your request for rollback

[edit]

Hi Brendandh. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagcruft

[edit]

Hi Brendan, I noticed this. Could you please examine the guidelines I pointed to in my edit summary and then undo your edit? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:William Douglas, Duke of Hamilton.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:William Douglas, Duke of Hamilton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


File rename notification

[edit]

A file you uploaded [6] has been renamed to File:Preston Mill (2).jpg.

This has been done because the revised name was felt to be less cryptic, more accurate or brings the filename in line with established naming conventions. In line with current policy, efforts have been made to ensure usages and links to this media have been updated.

If you feel this notification to be in error, please contact myself or an administrator.


Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PICT3611.JPG missing description details

[edit]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:PICT3611.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

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

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PICT3611.JPG listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PICT3611.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PICT3611.JPG listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PICT3611.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:House of Stuart, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move against consensus

[edit]

The article was returned to House of Stuart by talk page consensus. If you persist in your attempts, it will constitute disruptive editing and you risk being blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well a little lesson in Scots history here: The ruling house of Scotland for nearly 500 years, and then that of England and GB for a little less, was spelt 'Stewart'. 'Stuart' is a Gallicisation brought about by the Auld Alliance with France and their inabilty to pronounce the letter 'w'. Disruption was a major part of the reigns of Robert II until Queen Anne, far more than some wee wikiedits. That drive for consensus was not publicised on any of the relevant WP talk pages and therefore is valueless. Will be making a move request to move for not only this but also for all the other Scottish monarchs that have had the Anglo treatment. Arbitration required methinks... Brendandh (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House of Stewart

[edit]

I know I made a similarly naive move of James I, I guess you wouldn't be surprised at the vicious reponse that resulted. Apparently if you label someone as a "Scottish nationalist" whilst expounding English nationalism thats not hypocrisy. Labelling someone a "Scottish nationalist" means their views are irrelevant. Ah well NPOV is also a core policy you know. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one is not a sockpuppet do not know about the other

[edit]

Named editor is not a sockpuppet. Just an uninformed user. I struck the vote, user Dohn Joe unstruck, I struck again, User Dohn Joe said he or she could vote so I left it. Do you have any evidence the numbered IP User:64.148.59.44 is a sockpuppet or was it just a comment? If the editors can vote please do not strike. I am not sure of the rules. Thought someone has to be autocofirmed but if that is not the case the vote is valid and should be unstruck. Can't seem to get an answer except from DohnJoe - see his edit summary. Mugginsx (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad

[edit]

I didn't mean to call it vandalism. I was on the diff page, and went to hit "undo" but the rollback one instead. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it time?

[edit]

Hi Brendandh! It is going on two weeks for the James I consensus. Isn't it time to get an Administrator to close (it said 7 days) and to change the title? There is a clear consensus 24-10. I am not very experienced in these things but it seems to me it is passed time. Mugginsx (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you change title?

[edit]

I am not good at that stuff yet. When it is appropriate would you please change the title? Thanks. Incidentally, you gave me some great medieval info couple of years ago. Don't know if I properly thanked you, anyway it was great! Mugginsx (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--FormerIP (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well if I ask you to change it back again, will you do that too? --FormerIP (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Brendandh to change the title. I also posted it on User:JimboWales and you may direct your remarks to me. Mugginsx (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Brendandh. You have new messages at User:Mugginsx.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This wasn't on at all, and your closure comment wasn't any better. As an involved editor you shouldn't have been closing a contentious discussion, and you especially should not have closed it with a triumphant comment and then what appeared to be a comment hoping for drama on Mugginsx's talk. It wouldn't surprise me if the move were procedurally reversed now. Please don't do something like that again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved administrator has just closed the ANI. (misunderstood). As to your remark - Not "hoping for drama" - expecting it would be more appropriate, though I am sorry that Brendandh has had to suffer for my ignorance and I offer my sincere apologies to you Brendandh. Mugginsx (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Douglas, 3rd Baron Douglas

[edit]

Whoops! Thank you for the correction. And for the page moves. Shipsview (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubh Glas

[edit]

Referring to your reversion on Clan Douglas Wikipedia says (so it must be true): 'Linguistically, Douglas is derived from the Gaelic elements: dubh, meaning "dark, black"; and glas, meaning "stream" (also a derivative of glas, meaning "grey")' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_(given_name)) and 'Etymology - From a place name, Gaelic dubh (“black”) + glas (“stream”)'. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Douglas) I tend to think 'Lady Douglas' is right. Shipsview (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid Wiktionary is wrong. 'Dubh' is Gaidhlig for Black, 'Glas' is a Gaidhlig word describing a colour that we do not have a word for in English, the nearest cognate being Cyan. The various rivers bearing this name would be 'Abhainn Dhubh Glas'. the last two words being descriptive adjectives of the noun 'Abhainn'- river or flowing water. (cf. all the river Avons in the British Isles, plenty River Rivers!) Brendandh (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward Stuart

[edit]

I hit rollback instead of the one of the Twinkle options that allow an edit summary. The material was a copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
thanks for your help with the Robert the Bruce article i`ll see where the source of Longshank`s probable hight came from.

Thanks again Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Hamiltontownarms.gif

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Hamiltontownarms.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis/Marquess of Douglas

[edit]

Brendan, I spotted your amendment on the Marquess of Douglas, and wondered if you have a view on whether he should be Marquis of Douglas? There is some inconsistency within the article. Shipsview (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that in Scots usage it's 'Marquis' rather than 'Marquess', consistent with the French form, and historically the English form. Similarly for viscounties, in Scotland it is usually 'Viscount 'of' xxxx', rather than the English form 'Viscount xxxx'. Brendandh (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Shipsview (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. In David de Brechin, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Scone, John Barbour and Countess of Strathearn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

I apologise for the recently expressed words.

To great irritation, it is a problem on Wikipedia that users revert a whole edit despite that only a part of the edit’s content is disputed, incorrect or similar.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sites and places associated with Arthurian legend, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlisle (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) 10:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Paisley Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mortlach

[edit]

Regarding your last edit, isn't it against WP:PTM? Is the Bishop of Mortlach ever called "Mortlach"? If not, then it may be an inappropriate entry. You seem to have some understanding of the subject, so I ask you (I have zero understanding in the material itself). Were you perhaps referring to the bishopric rather than the bishop? I would agree the bishopric is not a PTM, but then a proper link would be to Diocese of Aberdeen. Would "Diocese of Mortlach" be appropriate? --Muhandes (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is now Dufftown and the lands around it were known as Mortlach until the 18/19th c. It was the centre of what would later become the Bishopric of Aberdeen following the move from there to the coast in the 12th c. At that date diocesan boundaries were certainly more fluid than they are today. Cf the removal of the cathedra of the Bishop of Moray from Spynie to Elgin at a slightly later date. Brendandh (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of Florence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Emilia
Tarbolton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley
William Fraser (bishop) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rue Saint-Jacques

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

[edit]

ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Clan Cumming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Comines
William Cumin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Comines

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wat of Harden's spurs

[edit]

I'm afraid there was no sign of spurs in the display case with the horn, but I'll double-check that when I'm next in the Museum which I hope will be some time later this week. Kim Traynor 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perth

[edit]

When you requested the move it was present on three separate pages. It is better to keep these discussions in one place, otherwise it can be confusing for the closer and respondents. I have now redirected the other requests to Talk:Perth (disambiguation)#Requested move. I had to do it without discussing with you first as comments were already appearing in other discussions. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gifford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sinclair (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) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Berwick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twin town (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) 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palmes family

[edit]

Brendandh, could you help expand the content on the Palmes family article please? Thanks (Yahoo12445678 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Caledonia

[edit]

The reason I reverted your addition in Caledonia is because the source does nothing to back up the statement made. No one is challenging the name of the mountain. However, the article makes no connection between "Schiehallion" and "Sìdh Chailleann", it does not connect "Schiehallion" and "fairy hill of the Caledonians", and more importantly it never even mentions Caledonia or the Caledonians! It is totally unrelated to the subject at hand, and has no place in this article. You were bold in your addition, I've reverted and now explained the reason for the removal, please discuss on the talk page before re-adding (see WP:BRD), if you truly feel this source somehow supports statements in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlisle and Penrith (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) 12:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yetholm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deserted medieval villages

[edit]

Hi. As a major contributor to List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom, you might be interested to see a discussion that's just opened on "How to Write about... Deserted Medieval Villages" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. GrindtXX (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Moray

[edit]

Hi - I see that you've attributed a knighthood to Moray in his wiki-article. I know of no evidence he was knighted (there's no mention of it in the letter to Lubeck and Hamburg, or the letters to the Prior of Hexham) so I've undone your change. If you've something that supports your edit, it would be great to see it. Regards. Jaygtee (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Balfour-Paul is not a primary source and he gives no evidence to support ascribing a knighthood to Moray. Contemporary documents do not state that Moray the younger was a knight. Neither he nor Wallace as described as a knight in the Lubeck-letter. The transcript of the Hexham safe-conducts also describe neither man as a knight (Wallace only is described as such in 1298, presumably after knighthood and the guardianship was conferred on him on an unknown date in the winter of 1297-98). Moray also had status so he didn't need knighthood to gather support. So I think that Balfour-Paul is wrong and I'm reverting it. Jaygtee (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balfour-Paul may be published, scholarship has moved on. Professor Barrow in his book "Robert Bruce" (fourth edition, 2005) describes Moray as an esquire (page 98). This book represents one of the most important sources published on Scottish history and Barrow is widely respected. In addition to this, the Lubeck letter still exists and can be clearly seen NOT to refer to Moray as a knight. It was written by people who knew him. So I'm reverting again.Jaygtee (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick of Luxembourg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aalst (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) 10:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

Blenkinsop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dennis the Menace
County of Longueville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Giffard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

[edit]