User talk:Robinvp11

Rowland Laugharne

Hi Robin - I'm Phil,

Your latest revisions of the above are a definite improvement and thank you for adding a source after the rather puzzling removal of my own citation for what was left of my addition and which I've queried.

I'd like to respond to your comment about my deleted additions being possibly more relevant in a separate article on the 'Siege of Laugharne Castle'. Although the attack permanently transformed the town's chief attraction into an uninhabitable, if picturesque, ruin its historical significance seems very minor. Just one of many such events during the civil war in Wales and Laugharne is never mentioned again in the records following the events of 1644. It seems to me though that Laugharne castle did have special importance to Rowland Laugharne and is probably worthy of a brief mention in his biographical article. Trouble is I'm not nearly experienced enough as an editor to judge its appropriate weight (or detached enough as a contributor given my username - purely coincidental btw!)

I believe Rowland's early choice to attack Laugharne castle is a classic revenge story really. Rowland's father John had fought a long and unsuccessful court battle to inherit his grandfather Sir John Perrot's considerable estates. These importantly included Laugharne castle from which his family had taken their name centuries before. Following the untimely death of his mother's brother Sir Thomas in 1594 and after many years of bitter litigation by Lettice as the then wife of Walter Vaughn alongside her sister-in-law Dorothy Devereaux, they finally passed to Sir John's illegitimate son James instead of them. Following his death in 1637 and to the further consternation of John (who was still alive in 1644) and no doubt his only son Rowland, the entire estate passed to an obscure and questionable relative in Herefordshire. The owner of Laugharne castle at the time of the seige was Sir Sackville Crowe who had secured a reversionary lease in 1617 on the Lordship of Laugharne, again in highly dubious circumstances, which he was granted on the death of Sir Thomas' widow Dorothy in 1619.

All this could well explain the now deleted description of Laugharne by the Parliamentarians as ‘one of the holds from whence our forces and the country received the greatest annoyance.’ (see Thomason Tracts E256.44) None of this is original research I think, just linking known information.

I recently edited the Laugharne article to remove an apparently common misconception that it was Cromwell who destroyed the castle in Laugharne in a second seige. The source still survives there - for now at least - "Oliver Cromwell was in south Wales on two occasions, in 1648 and on neither occasion did he visit Laugharne. It would appear that the fact that Cromwell defeated Colonel Laugharne has somehow become associated with Cromwell besieging the castle of Laugharne. The only siege at Laugharne Castle was the one of November 1644".

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirjohnperrot All reasonable points, although a lot of it is speculation.

However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, designed for the general user. There are several implications;

(a) It has to reflect the general academic consensus - and none of your points appear in any of the biographies.

(b) It has to be concise - so not everything can be included; and

(c) It's online. Wikipedia stats show 60% of users only ever read the Lead, and almost the same % do so via a mobile device. What that means is too much detail and they don't read any of the article; so adding stuff is not cost free. Its called 'Bite-size'.

I want people to read stuff I edit, so I spend a lot of time trying to condense - if you look at any of my articles, I'm constantly removing stuff that is interesting to me, but not really central.

I seem to be unusual in thinking about the User (probably because I design online Learning solutions). The problem with Wikipedia is you can end up driving an extremely personal view.

Again, if you do an article on the siege (and it would be a good idea) you can include all this (assuming its sourced). Just not here.

Hope this makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11 Thanks Robin, I take your point about this not appearing in the biographies - maybe there's a gap in the market for me Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fontenoy

Two housekeeping points for User 93.22.148.15 (a) please make sure you put these comments in the right place; if you want to collaborate, I suggest you create a User page. (b) Second, I think you need to read the article more carefully, because you've expended a lot of energy answering questions I haven't raised.

As a general point, have a look at the list of Sources for this article; the vast majority come from me. If you want to suggest I'm biased, then do the work; dig out your own.

I have made notations below.

Hi Robin! I hope you're doing fine. May I please know the reasons of your deliberate removals of informations on the page related to the Battle of Fontenoy. I am sorry but considering the content you add and those (including sourced ones) that you deliberately remove, I can't exactly say you're being objective.

There is even a paragraph in the aftermath of the battle where you state the Allies weren't defeated...

Please point to exactly where I make this claim.

...and evoke a notion of British military superiority held in Europe since the War of the Spanish Succession? The Grand Alliance had great military campaigns with the Anglo-Dutch forces under Marlborough and the often forgotten brillance of a certain individual who acted as his second-in-command in the allied campaign and led the Habsburg/german forces... Prince Eugene of Savoy. The Grand Alliance had absolutely stellar campaigns against the Bourbon forces from 1704 to 1709 but not much from Malplaquet (which Malborough himself led again against Villars) to the Rhine Campaign. The allied campaign in Iberia where the British were quite involved against FitzJames and Vendôme indicates that and which is an often forgotten theater as well doesn't.

Regardless of all this, the original claim didn't come from me, but I checked the reference; if you disagree, rather than a paragraph telling me its wrong, produce your own - otherwise, its unsubstantiated personal opinion, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia.

The Allied infantry (the Anglo-Hanoverian one especially) was definitely considered better than the French one, by de Saxe himself included, for much of the 18th century as France has traditionally been famed for its excellent cavalry and artillery but I think your edits are actually selling the whole campaign in Flanders short, despite it being one of the most highly regarded campaigns of the 18th century by contemporaries and near contemporaries (Clausewitz, Frederick and Napoleon) and many military historians.

Again, personal unsubstantiated opinion, which doesn't relate to this article on Fontenoy.

At the same time you seem to not be willing to aknowledge allied shortcomings and disorganization following the fall of Tournai. Almost the entirety of Flanders fell in 4 months and most of it happened before the diverting of troops and ressources by the British to deal with the Jacobites because yes, the British did not entirely withdraw from the Low Countries.

(a) Again, the article is about Fontenoy, not the campaign in Flanders as a whole; (b) I didn't remove it, so you're talking to the wrong person.

I don't know you might not be realizing it but yeah your edits have a pretty much defined pro-Allied stance which I think we can all agree isn't the point of the article.

If that's the case, provide an alternative view, with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.148.15 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents of the War of the Spanish Succession

Hi. I think you're writing nonsense and personal interests are your matter, not my, just study the battles, I checked them all. For example, do you think landgrave Frederick of Hesse was a Hessian mercenary in the Battle of Speyerbach? Ridicolous. So get Hesse-Kassel back there. On the other hand, I did not notice that Cologne and Liège took part in some battle, no leader or commander of them is mentioned here, so how did they take part in the war? It's weird all over. Then I also don't know why you removed Morocco? In the article about sieges of Ceuta is written that it is part of the war. Philip V then fought with Morocco because it was on the side of the Grand Alliance during the war. --Dragovit (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dragovit That seems an unnecessarily aggressive response. If you take the time to look, I've written many articles on battles of this War, as well as the main one - so rather than assuming I know less than you, perhaps do me the courtesy of assuming I know at least as much.

Once again, the fact Frederick of Hesse took part in a battle does not make Hesse-Kassel a belligerent. Or the Camisards. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.

The Imperial Diet declared it an Imperial War; any German state that took part did so as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Bavaria is listed separately because it was in effect ceding from that decision.

Cologne and Liège - short answer; because there is another Dragovit out there who is utterly convinced they should be included, despite the fact they don't appear in any list of belligerents. And their willingness to constantly undo edits was far greater than mine; you are more than welcome to remove them.

Ceuta; not sure where you've got this from. Ceuta was ceded to Spain in 1668, and was blockaded by Morocco from 1694 to 1727. An English naval officer approached the Sultan in 1706 to see if they could agree terms for resupplying naval vessels, the Sultan hoped to use the opportunity to get it back but it was certainly not a member of the Grand Alliance or even an ally of Britain.

Here's the thing; look at the article, I've used a lot of Sources. I have two large books on the war; Ceuta appears exactly once, Morocco does not appear at all.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few late 17th c. projects

Thanks again for the comments on reviewing; I see Murray of Broughton is now updated B class, though I still reckon it's GA material . I've submitted one of my own recent efforts so we'll see how that goes!

I've started hacking Argyll's Rising about again - I borrowed a bit of your wording to expand the 'background' section, which I admit was pitifully thin before. If you wanted to or had time to improve it further that would be great.

I'd also been wanting to look at Argyll's own article again. I've spent hours weeding out dreadful 19th century DnB verbiage on this but it still needs a load of work; back in 2006 there was a version of the article written by Argyll's biographer, who was subsequently hounded off Wikipedia and eventually reverted completely for a copyright violation of, er, his own biography. If you are interested in reviewing my proposed changes (when I make them) then let me know as the period and focus seem up your street. Same with Tyrconnell, who turns out to be a far more interesting figure than 19th century historians made him out to be.Svejk74 (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - I've always avoided Argyll, because his picture reminds me of my Paisley-supporting grandfather :), but I am currently rewriting the article on the Bishops Wars, so will have to take a closer look.

Just finished updating Sarsfield before submitting for B; see what u think. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as good a reason as any I suppose :) Incidentally one of the main portraits knocking about usually labelled as the 9th Earl is in fact his father the Marquess, a distinctive looking man. The Earl's not nearly as interesting a figure as his father was but his career is quite illuminating in terms of post-Restoration Scottish internal politics (and of one of the reasons James II was widely disliked; Argyll's prosecution seemed highly personal to say the least).

Sarsfield looks pretty complete now; I'd say a probable GA, given there isn't much more concrete info on him beyond what's in the article (unless you include the dubious "Sarsfield is the word and Sarsfield is the man" type of thing). Incidentally he allegedly once told his French surgeon "there are two factions here, Lord Tyrconnell's and mine; he can do whatever he wants, I do not care. I will always be stronger than him".Svejk74 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did he tell his surgeon? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of "boasting to his friends", post-Ballyneety, according to Wauchope (p.195). I think the full quote has him calling Tyrconnell a "perfidious and ungrateful man", which seems to have been a common enough assessment.Svejk74 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the edits so far on Argyll's Rising; much improved!

An interesting point about Duncanson - I hadn't realised he was involved too, but I suppose late 17th century Scottish society was a very small world indeed at that social level. Incidentally I believe the first Lt-Col of Argyll's Regiment was actually Auchinbreck. Strange that the Auchinbreck family later went Jacobite.Svejk74 (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auchinbreck was hereditary Lt-Colonel for the Earls of Argyll, which is why he felt obligated to turn out in 1685; Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot was one of my first articles :). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Booth

Glad to see you helping out! I'm aware the Presbyterian / Independent split is a bit simplistic but am trying to keep background concise (particularly background outside Cheshire; many of the issues are local to the north-west, e.g. ongoing arguments over militia committees, patterns of religious allegiance etc). Any wording suggestions / changes gratefully received...

A point I did want to try and emphasise is that even in early 1659 the Royalists were generally demoralised and very much in the background; the 'Great Trust' seems very much like an effort to inject Royalism into a separate crisis.Svejk74 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think moderates and radicals is close enough - a major point of contention between Cromwell and those like Edmund Ludlowe was the establishment of the Protectorate (and the proposal by some Cromwell become king). You can argue (as Ludlowe did) that meant the principle was no longer about monarchy, but who ie Charles II or Cromwell. The Independent/Presbyterian split ceases to be a useful identifier because that political principle transcended religious lines eg Fifth Monarchists supported the Protectorate because they assumed it would bring about the Second Coming (like US evangelicals who support Israel for the same reason). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years War revert.

Hello Robinvp11, I have noticed you reverted my edits restoring the Article to his last version before your edits. I know you have made a long work of 5 days. If my edit caused a problem I apologize but some information in the infobox should be kept as well. Especially the repercutions and the Casualties section. The list of commanders and states was insanely long, I agree with you on that. But the consequences should be kept for the understanding of a "normal" reader. A plain "Peace of Westphalia" for such a event is not encyclopedic. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also saying that the article was not updated since 2012 is not true, since I made changes to the Battlebox this year. If you want to change the content on the main body of the article, ok go ahead. Battlebox was ok in the current version. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following Wikipedia guidelines on Infobox ie Consequences is the Treaty that ends it, and territorial changes.

If you have specific changes you'd like to include, please let me know, rather than simply inserting them. The 50,000 Ottoman cavalry were only 'offered', they never actually showed up.

The list of belligerents is taken from Wilson, Wedgwood and Tucker; I see you have an interest in the Ottomans/Turkey but they are not considered participants (and if you read the article, it explains why).

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you in that. The changes you made in the content are Ok for me. No reason for disagree on that. Regarding the outome of the War for sake of room and simplicity just added 3 consequences instead of 8.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has inspired me to go and take another look at some of the casualties etc, so hopefully it will improve the article :). Robinvp11 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Reflections at Talk:French Revolution

Robinvp11, thanks for your work at French Revolution, as well as your comments in several different discussions at the its talk page. This is just a follow-up to my reply to you in your #Reflections discussion there.

Please don't be discouraged, even by being "dragged" by somebody to DR, or even ANI, or wherever. If you keep calm, do the right thing, and just keep on improving the article per policy, as you have been, and discussing calmly at the TP, like you have, nothing ill will come of it. In fact, it can help hone your skills, as one's understanding of policy generally improves in settings with plenty of experienced users called upon to look at contentious situations, so it can even be a good thing, in that sense. There's another benefit: as long as you keep your nose clean, those who are running around half-cocked, issuing unfounded accusations, violating policy, and dragging users to the drama boards will be seen for what they are (and might even end up in the clink), and you'll end up with some positive editor cred among a whole new set of users who haven't interacted with you before and can see how you kept your cool and stayed laser-focused on improving the article, and discussing civilly, while those around you were forcing their opinions into articles and issuing threats. So, hang in there, keep on doing what you're doing, and don't get rattled. If you feel like you're reaching your limit, go off and do something else for a day or two, then come back. It would be a shame to lose your voice there, just because of the misbehavior of other editors.

By the way, I value your perspectives on the article, but what I value isn't so much that we appear to agree on a central point of the content dispute at French Revolution (although that's always nice), but rather that you're trying to do the right thing and stick to policy and discuss civilly. I'd rather you keep on doing that, and disagree with me on every single content issue, than vice versa. Content agreement/disagreement comes and goes, so you can be on the same "side" with someone one day, and 180 degrees apart the next. That's nbd. But following policy and discussing civilly is something you can carry around to every discussion, and will get you respect from editors of good will with opinions all over the map. (You've got mine, so don't worry about taking an opposite position from me some day. ). Actually, now that I think about it, our first interaction *did* start out as nominally "opposite", when you reverted my addition to French Revolution in this edit. That was my first edit there, or at least, lately, and I was unaware of the drama going on at the Talk page; your revert was both completely proper per policy, contained a neutral and informative edit summary, and even may have gone against your own preferences in the article. Bravo! That tells me all I need to know about you, as an editor here.

So, hang in there, stay calm, keep on following the behavioral and content guidelines, and don't get rattled by threats, just let them roll off you, like water off a duck's back. When a discussion gets lively and some editor with limited understanding or a low threshold for histrionics threatens to bring me to ANI, I will occasionally provide them a link to ANI and invite them to do so if they are particularly annoying, but mostly I just ignore their bluster. You can, too. If you ever wonder if your approach on something seems right, or if you're worried about something, or you just want a pep talk, stop by my Talk page anytime. In the meantime, illegitimi non carborundum! Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't normally even go to ANI and I certainly don't know why I went there today but that was a lot to read. Look, some people, myself included, can be overzealous and extremely passionate (that's putting it nicely) about specific subjects we hold dear to our hearts. I admit that may not always be a good thing. I tend to get very narrow minded and focused when that happens but that's because I am a focused person by nature. I am still learning. Sometimes I get it right. Other times not so much. I also talk too much which my Papa told me was an issue and my grandfather warned me against. So, here's my deal. You are an exceptional person and a valuable editor to this encyclopedia. I'd say that if we were on opposite sides and I truly believe that is the case, even for those I disagree with right now. I just wanted to drop a note encouraging you to keep being you, which is pretty awesome (Yes, I read your background). Don't get discouraged. It's easy to do. I've quit three times in the past week. I can appreciate someone who offers a thoughtful and constructive approach to every comment. I find that some editors who have been here for a long time become so familiar with specific nuances that they offer short and terse responses without any depth to it and expect that new editors like myself will just get over it because they have been here for so long...I am rambling. Just keep being you and keep creating, editing and offering your perspective. :-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George III

After we were asked at the Military History assessment pages to comment on the ARW article, I had a brief look. I wrote a response to you on the talk page which seems to have now been spun off into its own section - in short I think your edits removing the overemphasis on George III's role appear entirely correct in that most post 19th century scholarship (certainly everything after Namier) agrees with you. One thing the article has missed is that the conflict was about the authority of Parliament, not of George III, and even George himself seems to have perceived this.

I thought it was worth mentioning here as subsequent editing of the talk page means that it's no longer clear I was following up your comments on George III, and I seem to have got dragged into a discussion on the historiography of the mid 18th century (it happens this has a bearing on my background reading on the lead up to 1798 in Ireland, so it's not all been wasted time :)) Svejk74 (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best to avoid getting too invested in this article because several of the editors involved have a policy of never using ten words if its possible to shoehorn in 100 :). It doesn't seem a particularly controversial point but then Americans have a habit of individualising problems (kill Osama/Saddam, win the War on Terror, get rid of Trump, end white anger/racism and economic decline etc). Robinvp11 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at explaining over there, if only because I'm not too pleased at being told I'm ignorant of 18th century British history. Let's see what accusations this generates.Svejk74 (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theophilus Jones (soldier)'s death in Osbertstown

Was that in Meath? Modernly the only Osbertstown seems to be in Kildare, or at least Google Maps thinks so. If you say there was an Osbertstown in Meath I believe you, because you seem to be doing a bang up job on the article and my knowledge of Irish history and geography is not great. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I have done a little research. I think I might have done the same research when I wrote the original article, I have vague memories coming back. Doing searches, it looks like maybe "Osbertstown, Meath" is an error in something written about Jones, and it has been copied in a number of places. But, if you search, there doesn't seem to be any other references to such a place, while there are lots of references to Osbertstown (or, modernly "Osberstown") in Kildare. And Osbertstown is quite some distance from the border of the two counties. So, maybe it is Kildare? Brianyoumans (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianyoumans: I assumed it was County Kildare but then another Source said County Meath; looking more closely, they've confused it with Oberstown, County Meath so I've changed it back. Thanks :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About recent edits on Thirty Years' War.

@Robinvp11: Do you think England, Scotland, Tsardom of Russia, Ottoman Empire and Poland can add into "Supported country" in each belligerents of Thirty Years' War? I think you are not supportive to add Smolensk War and Anglo-Spanish War (1625–1630), because it was the war outside of Holy Roman Empire and I assume that's why you deleted "Supported country". -- Wendylove (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@웬디러비: I've had a similar discussion with Dragovit before :) so I'll put this on the article TP.

"Supported country" is not a definition used by historians or an option per Wikipedia - see Template:Infobox military conflict. I know it's used elsewhere eg Korean War but it is a fabricated category and its use is incorrect - in Korea, Belligerent is the United Nations.

There are two problems; First, where do you stop? For several centuries France provided funding to the Ottomans for their wars against Austria; logically, if you include the Ottoman Empire in the Thirty Years War, you must then include France on nearly every single conflict fought by the Ottomans from 1500 to 1860, including ones where it was technically a belligerent on the other side eg Cretan War (1645–1669).

Second, Does providing aid or equipment qualify? Some editors think so, see Vietnam War; if so, that would require a vast expansion of the Infobox on nearly single conflict since 1850.

If people want to play around with flags, the place to do this is for articles on specific battles, where Combatants allows split into different national units - eg Battle of Jankau. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind answer. I hope this talk end peacefully. -- Wendylove (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary for article Brazilian Revolution of 1930

It might interest you to know, that during this period, and for some time before, the heads of Brazilian states were actually presidents. See Altino Arantes Marques as an example. 48Pills (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. The Wikipedia articles use the term Governor, so I've followed that plus it might also be less confusing for the general reader. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Williamite War

Hi, noticed you were doing a bit of work on the Williamite War recently - you might be interested to know I recently found a contemporary sketch of Aughrim now used on the article page which might be a good replacement for the present 19th. c. Mulvany historical confection. Appears topographically accurate, so the artist may even have been present there.Svejk74 (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, used it :). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg Monarchy or Holy Roman Empire on Thirty Years' War

Hi. While I looked on infobox of Thirty Years' War, I found that Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg Monarchy is both used as belligerents. There are many differences of two words, but I am not sure which to choose. And, do you think we will get problem when using both words? -- Wendylove (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its ok; the first part (from 1618 to 1635) is a civil war within the Holy Roman Empire; so in that phase, we have Habsburg Monarchy, Bavaria etc on one side.

After 1635, all members of the Holy Roman empire agreed not to fight separately. I'd suggest replacing Torstenson War in the Infobox with Post-1635 Peace of Prague, then its both technically correct and consistent with the other side (ie Sweden, France etc). Hope that makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Gell

Very good article - happy to assess any further Civil War people you are working on. I have finally continued my occasional series of Booth's Rising related people by updating Mytton's brother in law Thomas Myddelton - a long and not terribly interesting career. (Roger Whitley might be a more entertaining subject given his career trajectory) Svejk74 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - I'm working my way through some of the more obscure ones, lockdown helps :). Robinvp11 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Scarrifholis

Dear Robinvp11. Thank you very much for your recent efforts on the article Battle of Scarrifholis. It is nice to finally see a photo on the infobox. Nearer inspection of this photo and comparison with the aerial photography on Google Maps, however, allows to identify the peninsula shown on the photo as the one at the mouth of the River Swilly near Drumerdagh, downstream from Letterkenny and about 16 km from the battle field, which lies at Newmills, upstream of the town. Unluckily, this photo shows a place that is too far from the battlefield and a landscape that is too different from the one at the real location. It is misleading for the reader. I feel very sorry for you, but what can I do? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johannes Schade: There are two things you can do. (a) Correct the caption for this picture on Wikimedia Commons and other pages (I took it from the article on the Swilly) and (b) since you appear to have local knowledge, upload a correct picture. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Robinvp11. Your answer makes sense. Unluckily, I also do not have a photo of the battle field. I still feel that the place shown by the photo is too far from the battle field to be helpful and not better than nothing but worse. I understand that your work on the article is in progress and I do not want to intervene there now. I live in Bangor, County Down near Belfast, Northern Ireland, still quite far from Letterkenny and the battle field. The photo's caption in Wikimedia is correct: "A view of the mouth of River Swilly at Lough Swilly, Letterkenny, Co Donegal". That is east and downstream of Letterkenny. The battlefield is west and upstream at the "pass of Scarrisholis" (as Murphy says), near Newmills. Besides, the existing article Newmills describes a village of that name in County Tyrone, not the hamlet at the battle field, which is in County Donegal. The "pass of Scarrifholis" is not a mountain pass (i.e. a place where a mountain ridge can be crossed) but a (not very pronounced) "narrow" or defile on the valley of the River Swilly. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I am just reading the article on the Battle of St Neots. I live in the town. I simply wanted to congratulate you on writing a pleasing piece of text in grown-up language. This doesn't very often happen in Wikipedia. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I appreciate the thought :) Robinvp11 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll of the thirty years war.

There are some sources that show that the death could possibly be as high as 12 Million at the very theoretical most. While most sources put 8 million as the most accurate, I think it is good to ad the possible of the lowest estimate as well as the highest estimate. It is thought the war had claimed no less than 4 million to the best estimate 8 million, to the highest 12 Million. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You've used the phrase "some sources" three times now. Provide them and I'll take a look. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few links, but this is one I could remember at the moment. This site uses the 4 to 12 Million death toll mark https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/05/23/thirty-years-war-first-modern-war/ TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're asking me to spend (more) time on this topic based on "a few links", most of which you can't remember. Hmmm.

• For about the 5th time, I know "some people" think 12 million. The question is whether that is a reasonable figure; based on everything I've read, the answer is No. I've explained this at length in the article - I've even made it clearer just in case. I'm not including it in the Infobox, which is supposed to present generally accepted facts. Blogs (especially unreferenced) are not acceptable Sources.

• The idea because "some people" claim a number means it should be therefore be mentioned is absurd. Take Dresden 1945: official Nazi records at the time listed 25k deaths. Goebbels inflated it to 250k. In 1991, the far right AFD claimed 500k. In 2005, an exhaustive German inquiry estimated 27k; this is the figure listed in the Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting we should include 500k because some looney right wingers made it up?

• I see from your TP and other contributions death tolls are your thing; ok but I'm not spending any more time on this and I won't respond to further entries on this page. As previously requested, if you want to continue this line of argument, please do so as part of the A class review. You'll get the same answer but it allows others to comment if they wish. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years War was responsible for Italy plague of 1629

Just like WW1 was responsible for the spread of the Spanish Flu through the mass mobilizations of troops. German and French troops carried the plague to the city of Mantua in 1629 as a result of troop movements associated with the Thirty Years' War. The plague went on to claim around 1 million lives. I think it deserves to mentioned in the thirty years war article. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's already Wikipedia of this epidemic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1629%E2%80%931631_Italian_plague and they reference a book https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaplag00kohn

I feel like this should be added on thirty years war article, so more people can know the further destruction of this war TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardress Waller

Dear Robinvp11. You say: This has been assessed as a B and I've done a lot of work on it, so I think its reasonable to ask other editors to follow the format previously established and use the same citation system. We've had this discussion before; there is no need to include copious footnotes providing word for word quotations for references. I do not question it, you are right. You have done an admirable job bringing this article up to B and you do not need me to tell you this. I am a small fish. Only about half your edit count and your number of articles created. The word for word quotations are not needed but WP:FOOTQUOTE says "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." I add quotations to make it easier for the reviewers and helpful editors to work out what is supported by the citations and what is not, so that they can add citations that cover the unsupported content or remove it. I do not think that adding a footquote changes the citation style in the sense of WP:CITEVAR. Besides, I see you are an experienced and much appreciated reviewer. I have submitted Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty for A at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. It has of course lots of footquotes. Perhaps you would like to review. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the fiscal reforms of Charles II of Spain

I noticed how you mentioned that the Bourbons were shocked at the ‘weakness of the military’ and the ‘empty treasury’, but I think the wording Caused some confusion. Well, The Land and Naval forces were crippled for the spanish ever since the miserable blows during the 30 and 80 years’ wars. The fact that the nation managed to survive Louis XIV’s incursions were written about by Luis Ribot and Storrs (who also elaborated on spanish successes in Lombardy during the 9 years’ war).

As for the public coffers (this refers to Castille, the region that suffered the most from these problems) , throughout the 1680s, continuous and rigorous efforts were made to improve the fiscal situation. These included a lowering of the tax burden (the only such thing witnessed in 200 years), the devaluation of silver and the stabilisation of the billon, then the subsequent action to reduce the interest of the indebted. These shocked the economy in the short term but it calmed the Monetary situation after decades of chaos and bankruptcies and no such reform were taken after it.

I think I failed to put a citation for that (Though it is mentioned in pages 33,34,35 of Luis Ribot’s paper), the sources for it are;

•Juan Antonio: La política fiscal en Castilla durante el reinado de Carlos II.

You will find more references on Ribot’s paper. 2344Mkonji (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @2344Mkonji: Thanks for that. I've included some wording on this in the Legacy section which I think balances the various views. See what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I just read the Legacy section but I doubt that’s relevant with the economic recovery and it isn’t chronologically correct.

1) Population: The decrease in population began early in the 17th century and continued to decrease until the 1670s when it increased for a while. Then, because of the locusts and plagues which ravaged the nation (along with france and holland), it fell again during the 1680s and continued on that path till the late 18th century.

2) Economics: 1680 was the year that the deflation took place and was disastrous at first but was lessened in 1686. Note that the currency was extremely inflated and was subject to continuous instability prior to 1680 and during the century before.

What I believe you should mention is that the rigorous reforms that lasted for 6 years were necessary to keep a constant trend and served as a stepping stone to the reforms of the Bourbons (especially Charles III).

This is important as it ended a century of Exacerbated Inflation. Read this study and please do mention the importance of this.

https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/438/wp06-07.pdf?sequence=1

2344Mkonji (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; I've included the Villanueva paper and I think the revised wording adequately reflects these points. In addition, the first two paragraphs of the "Reign" section makes it clear that these problems were not unique to Spain eg the impact of the Little Ice Age led to famine and population decline across Europe. I've also moved this discussion onto the article TP, so please add further comments there. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812

HI, in this edit you introduced a reference to "Greenspan 2018" without defining it. If you could fix this that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done - there was a spelling error in the Bibliography (Greespan, versus Greenspan :)). Robinvp11 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are a few other reference errors in the article, probably typos too but it's not a subject I am sufficiently familiar with to tackle. If you install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js you'll see them highlighted in the reference list. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article has not been written by me and the references need verification, so I'm working my way through it. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you keep altering the page numbers I have given for books, I have the Knecht in front of me, the third civil war is discussed from page 40-42. By page 85 the conclusion to the book has started. On page 60 the reign of Henri III is being discussed. Sovietblobfish (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - I'm looking at Holt, not Knecht and I forgot to change the author. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair play, thanks for your efforts on the article. Though I'm still not sure about the removal of the infobox. I feel given the peace's of the war are included in the infobox, it makes sense for the infobox to be featured on the article Sovietblobfish (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I removed that, my apologies - didn't mean to, I will restore it :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks a dozen :) Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Treaty Infobox; if you look at other articles on Treaties, its not usual to include the battle Infobox relating to the war being settled.Robinvp11 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahhh, no, though the campaignbox for the FWoR is a little unusual, contains a fair amount of non battle items, such as riots, edicts and coups. Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you figure out how to collapse it? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't be too hard. I know this isn't related to our original discussion, but thank you for your work on the Monluc article by the way, I look forward to seeing you develop that further. I had intended to get to it myself at some point, but for now I am focused on 3rd War articles. Possibly the first serious content edit I've seen on the French Wars of Religion (if indeed you intend to flesh out that part of his career) not made by me since I started working on this area a year ago Sovietblobfish (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vergt

Hi again,

Thank you for your work on the battle of Vergt article, I wish I had access to Courteault and Bryson when writing it! Was such a total rewriting necessary though, surely at least some of the words I wrote were salvageable as they stood. Sovietblobfish (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your query; I'm going to explain this in some detail as it may well come up again :)

First, my aim (which I'm sure we share) is to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia, particularly relating to this period. I think we've achieved that.

Second, the vast majority of your points and conclusions appear in the revised article, so your work has not simply been thrown away but expanded. All the additional Sources I found, such as Courteault, are freely available on the Internet - what matters is knowing where to look and what to look for, which is where your work was helpful.

I expanded the number of Sources to provide a more rounded perspective, while I couldn't trace some of those in the original eg Although Monluc would work with them (the Spanish), he found them too cruel in their abandonment of the rules of war.[Thompson, page 157]. That doesn't appear in Thompson and makes no sense given what Montluc himself relates about his own treatment of Huguenot prisoners.

I have followed the general flow, but as you mention on your own TP, the grammar and sentence structure needed a lot of work. That's not a criticism, I can read French but my ability to write it is minimal, so I would expect the same. Tbh, I would have failed this article for a B rating on those grounds (as with the recent assessment on the Peace of St Germaine).

For example, this paragraph doesn't make grammatical sense in English;Understanding Duras' movements and intentions, Monluc rushed to intercept, rallying the Spanish to his banner from their mutinous state with appeals to glory, he headed to Siorac on the Dordogne before crossing, he appealed to Burie who hesitated, unwilling to act without the orders of Montpensier.[11] As such he sent a captain to appeal to Burie's men, who, desiring to follow Monluc, force Burie's hand.[11] Continuing, Monluc crosses the Vézère where he learns from several locals that Duras has taken his artillery and footmen to Vergt whilst his cavalry rest at Cendrieux.[12] Monluc hurries his infantry to catch him, whilst also learning of several straggling nobles who have gone off from the main body to hunt, who he arranges to be kidnapped by riders. As the riders return with the captive nobles, Burie and his forces arrive.[13] Duras meanwhile concentrates his forces on the meadows of Vergt.[13] The crowns forces arrive on the field the next morning, on 9 October 1562.

If you combine those elements (grammar, more Sources, etc), its really hard to simply retain the original wording but if you look at the revised, nearly every point you've made is included (with the exception of Montluc's claims about appeals to glory, which various historians claim don't appear in the original, unedited version of his Memoirs);

Hoping to intercept the Protestant army, Monluc sent letters to Burie advising him of the situation and hastily left Lectoure; he reached Siorac on 7 October, where a letter from Burie informed him he was unwilling to act without orders from Montpensier.[13] Montluc managed to convince Burie's senior officers to follow with their men and early next day crossed the Vézère with the few troops he had available.{{Sfn|Forneron|1876|p=98}} Here he learned Duras' artillery and infantry were at Vergt, with his cavalry stationed in the nearby village of Cendrieux; having failed to send out patrols, they were unaware of how close the enemy was and the Royalists captured 25 of their officers who were out hunting.{{Sfn|Forneron|1876|p=98}} In the evening Montluc was joined by Burie and his men, who brought with them four pieces of artillery. Duras ordered his cavalry to withdraw from Cendrieux but assumed his officers had been captured by local Catholic partisans and only discovered the truth when the Royalists arrived outside Vergt early on the morning of 9 October.{{Sfn|Forneron|1876|p=99}}

I hope this makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fair, thank you for providing such a detailed breakdown, language is a hard thing to master.

I have to disagree about your final point regarding Thompson, page 157 "Yet terrible as the old war dog was, he still waged war according to the rules of the game. He is outspoken in condemnation of the conduct of the Spanish companies sent by Philip II which joined him before Agen [1] "

[we go down to the footnote] "The French spared the women there, but the Spaniards killed them, saying they were Lutherans disguised These ruffians slew some 300 prisoners in cold blood - not a man escaped saving two that I save" - Montluc II 457, 458." Sovietblobfish (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although this is one of the examples given by historians as to the unreliability of Montluc's final, published Memoirs :) Robinvp11 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given Montluc does not shy away from describing his extra judicial brutalities with some pride in other passages of his memoirs, it surprises me the historians you've read would reject his account of occasional clemency, for he is hardly trying to hide himself. Further there is quite some difference for a man who has spent his career fighting the Spanish in the Italian wars seeing his own men engage in violence, and those of his historic enemy against Frenchmen, but fair enough Sovietblobfish (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this to one side I think you have elevated this article magnificently, it reads cleanly and very well, and while I'm sad to see some elements removed perhaps it is for the best Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should emphasise (because it may/will come up again) that your work provides the essential framework; I wouldn't even have thought to do this article (or the one on the Peace of St Germaine, which I'm still looking at :)) without it. Because I think these are essential/interesting topics, I want to ensure as many people as possible read them - so the edits and flow are focused on making the articles clear, logical and easy to read. Plus (as a former soldier), I like maps :).

For this and other articles, if I've removed something you think should be included, please let me know. You can see from other articles I've written that I do a lot of research, so I'm always challenging myself to distinguish between "Interesting" and "Essential" information. I leave out far more than I put in, plus I'm (obsessively) and constantly editing my own content to simplify.

I had no idea Montluc's "Memoires" were so carefully studied - I've come across loads of articles by both English and French historiographers on their reliability and context. So updating his bio is another one I'm currently looking at. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Montluc's memoirs are probably the most popular military memoirs of the 16th century among historians. I suspect more due to the writings on the Italian Wars than the writings on the FWoR. Sovietblobfish (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with in the Romanian participation section of World War I. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edict of Amboise

Hi Robin,

I know you're a firm believer in the wikipedia motto of 'be bold' but can we talk about some of the edits you're making.

The removal of the point about the wax, seems to miss the point of its inclusion, its not really meant to be a piece of curious trivia, its a statement that this was a temporary piece of legislation (in contrast to subsequent peace edicts which would be intended as permanent).

The opening sentence which you characterise as 'blah blah' isn't me making a vague summary of the terms, its the first clause of the edict.

I respect that for you every article contains too much information and needs cutting down, but that is just one of the many philosophies of article writing that exist on wikipedia, not a guiding light for all editors, it seems fairly needless to cut information like this rather than focusing on building new information.

My thanks for your efforts fixing my referencing and the addition of the infobox plus the tidying up of the language. These are very much appreciated.

Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sovietblobfish:

Re the wax; I understand the point but the current phrasing doesn't make that clear. Why don't you reword it - I think it would help explain why it proved so hard to enforce (eg its temporary).

Re opening paragraph; all treaties start with some statement about "perpetual peace" or similar sentiments and they're generally considered part of the verbiage eg including the titles of the signatories. In this case, I think its also extremely misleading because the whole weakness of the Edict was that substantial elements of the nobility on both sides didn't support it.

You're welcome to make amendments - I just think its easier to do the edits, then as with the wax say "I think this needs to be back in and this is why".

I might have said this before :) but I really appreciate the work you're doing and I want people to read it. We need to remember Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia - so the longer it is, the less likely it is people will do so. That's why simply adding new information isn't always a good idea.

Nearly finished Blaise de Montluc - I'm going to put it up for assessment shortly. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert the wax edit to make it easier to reword the section.

I'm not sure I agree that more information means less readers, I think a comprehensive article is far more useful for consultation as a member of the public. As long as there's nothing irrelevant in there.

I've enjoyed watching your progress with Blaise de Montluc, though there is still much I want to add to the article for the period 1567-70 truth be told. Alas for the time being I'm too busy with work to get the referenced research done. Best of luck with assessment! Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise de Montluc

My congratulations on how you've elevated the Blaise article. While one day I still intend to give it some thorough love myself, in the meanwhile this will more than make up for the abysmal state it started in.

I think you might be the only other editor who's done content editing related to the French Wars of Religion in the 18 Months I've been watching over these pages haha! Sovietblobfish (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over religious policy as it stood in the year 1560.

Hi Robin, its gone back and forth in edits several times now, so I feel it would be good to establish where figures stood as far as religious policy was concerned

Anne de Montmorency - persecution, leading architect of the Henri II policy in the 1550s Francois Duc de Guise/Charles Cardinal de Lorraine - Evolved considerably during this period, as Wanegffelen and Carroll have established in the last few decades, prior to 1563, the Guise represented the moderate conservative faction; scaling down persecution, with the long term hope that the faiths would reunite, essentially passive toleration though without condoning Protestantism or allowing public worship. This was embodied in the Edict de Romorantin and the first edict of Amboise (1560) where they seperated the crime of heresy from the crime of rebelling and practically speaking ended the death penalty for heresy. After 1563 they realign towards the ultras. Admiral de Coligny - two faiths, toleration Antoine de Navarre - he's really hard to pin down, but he eventually sides with the Guise position Louis Condé - two faiths, toleration de Beza, Calvin, the Calvinist clergy - one faith, Calvinism but they would take toleration as a tactical short term victory to get there Catherine de Medici - temporarily two faith toleration, but with the goal of reunited Catholic church when a religious council can reconcile the two positions.

So there are 4 positions here.

Also on a related note prior to his rather strange meeting with the pope in 1563 Lorraine was far more a Gallican than an Ultramontane, the leading Ultramontane of 1560-2 in France was Cardinal Tournon Sovietblobfish (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its hard to follow but describing the Guise as moderate conservatives may have been true when they controlled the monarchy under Francis but changed significantly thereafter. Roelker clearly identifies Charles of Lorraine as an ultramontist and explains why this distinction matters (as per FN);

The failure of the Colloquy of Poissy took the option of a reunited Catholic church off the table;

I also think the distinctions make more sense if seen as a contest between a strong central monarchy (Catherine's option) and powerful regional nobles wanting to preserve their independence - one of the huge attractions of Calvinism for the higher nobility was the concept that rulers were divinely ordained as part of God's plan (plus didn't have to pay taxes that went outside their realms). Apart from the clergy on both sides, positions changed not as a result of religion per se but how best to achieve those political aims (culminating in Henry IV converting to Catholicism). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In February 1562 the Duke of Guise and Charles Cardinal of Lorraine travelled to meet with the duke of Wurtemmberg still seeking some unity between the Catholic position and the Lutheran position. As late as August of that year they were still largely in the moderate conservative camp (see the evidence presented in the recent article "The Compromise of Charles Cardinal de Lorraine: New Evidence")

Roelkers scholarship on Lorraine is out of date, and largely reliant on older works, he became an Ultramontanist, as she says, but that was only 1563 onwards. Sovietblobfish (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch change in command Malplaquet and Tilly in the Infobox

Hey Robin. I don't want an edit war, so thats why i message you here. I just want to make clear why I added what I added.

Firstly, Tilly was absolutely present at the Battle of Malplaquet and commanded the cavalry stationed behind the Dutch infantry on the allied left. And because he was the highest Dutch commander present I thought it was fair to put him in the infobox.

Secondly, I added the piece about the change in command because I think this is a pretty significant change. The front in the Low Countries was always subject to the approval of the Dutch. For Marlborough this was often a major struggle, but he had worked really well with Field Marshall Overkirk, who played a major role at both Ramillies and Oudenaarde. His death was thus a major event and deserves a mention somewhere in the article in my opinion.

I am curious to why you disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDijkgraaf (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robinvp11, if I may call you so. Thank you very much for your attention to the article William St Leger. Among the many improvements and corrections of mistakes that I had made or that were there already before, you have given me much to think about how I approach infoboxes and the structure of biographic articles. I hope you will agree to spare a bit of your precious time to discuss some of the changes you made. I definitively have much to learn from you. You are a far more experienced wikipedian than I with about double the edit count and two A-class articles I saw.

To keep this intervention from getting too long I will limit myself to the infobox. I wanted to discuss first on your talk page before possibly carrying over an improved version with your input to the article's talk page if you feel that it is worthwhile.

MOS:INFOBOX would seem to be the right place to look for instructions, but it deels only with the design of new infobox templates. The instructions for using an infobox must be taken from the documentation of the particular template. I had not understood this before and realised it only after reflecting on your corrections. In the given case this is TEMPLATE:INFOBOX OFFICEHOLDER. The instruction starts with "Paste the code for the relevant office ..." So I paste the 65 "General office" fields (includes office2) for President of Munster and Privy council, add 8 of the "Member of Parliament" fields, and the 72 "Personal data" fields, altogether 145 fields. Curiously, the equal signs are aligned in different positions in the "General office", the "Member of parliament", and the "Personal data" fields, which might mean that only an alignment but not these particular positions are intended to be prescribed. Then I removed 54 fields following specific instructions starting with "native name", which is only needed if different from the English name, and have 91 fields remaining. You end with 33 parameters of which 10 are empty. One might argue that further fields could be left out for good reasons, but I do in fact not understand at all why any empty fields should be kept. Are these fields that should still be filled? The very first, "imagesize", should never be used as the image size should not be fixed to a number of pixels but in terms of %. The second "nickname" does not seem to be useful in the given case.

You seem to give a lot of extra information in the infobox that is not (or not yet) provided in the text, e.g. "resting_place = St Mary's, Doneraile". Such unsupported claims are of course in risk of being deleted by any editor including myself. Some of it is IMHO not needed in the infobox e.g. lifespans, especially if not given in the text and without citation.

With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William St Leger: source Gillespie

Dear Robin, if I may call you so. Thank you very much for your recent additional work on William St Leger, by which you have improved and extended the article considerably. However, I do not understand your correction to the description of Gillespie (2006) in the source list. You removed the parameters |location=, |url=, and |url-access=. Why? The verso of the title page does give Dublin as the publisher's address, the URL works, Internet Archive does demand a log-in to access the content. I would appreciate very much if you could explain, so that I can avoid similar supposed errors in the future. I would like to continue my work on the article in collaboration with you and expect to learn a lot from you as you have studied history and are more experienced. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the query.

"Location" is increasingly rare - if you look at Amazon or other retailers, its not included in the book details and since 2018/2019, its not a requirement for professional citations. I'm also not sure what it tells you;

"URL" pre-supposes access to IA and that the page cited is available (which isn't necessarily the case). The reference should be comprehensive enough for anyone to find it if needed, which makes the ISBN more important than the url and people often leave it out.

I suppose it comes down to personal preference so if you want to put them back in, feel free. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robin, thank very much you for your reply. What you say about the location is interesting. I agree that many of the locations given in |location= are quite useless, especially those for major publishers that have offices worldwide. The parameter is still useful for small local publishers and historic ones that do not exist any more. It seems that consistency is often demanded by reviewers, e.g. User:Gog the Mild stated in the A-Class revue of your nomination "Jacobite rising of 1745" on 18:40, 13 November 2018, "Sources either all need a publisher location, or none do. I suggest removing it from the 3 which do.", which you then did. I have seen others like that. Your A-Class nomination "Thirty Years' War", however, was passed with a source list where some source descriptions gave locations whereas others did not. I feel the sure way in Wikipedia is still to add it. There does not seem to be any official guideline on the matter. WP:CITEREF does not pronounce on the subject as far as I have seen. Perhaps You could push for a decision? — With regard to |url= and |url-access=, I find it is important to make it as easy as possible for the reader and especially the reviewer to find the source. I agree of course that the ISBN should always be given when it exists, but I fail to see how that helps to find the book on the Internet. Everybody can register for free in Internet Archive so there is no restriction. A reviewer might get tired of looking for a book in Internet Archive, Google Books, Hathi Trust, Gutenberg, or elsewhere and give up on the required spot-checks or forgo the deeper understanding that the reading-up in the sources would give. I think I will bring these parameters back. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE says under "What information to include" that "Citations for books typically include ... place of publication ... ISBN (optional)". There is no requirement to provide urls, but no prohibition on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Wise. Thank you very much for pointing this out (see above). I think as long as WP:CITE states in section "What information to include" that "Citations for books typically include: ... place of publication", it is not OK to go and delete |location= from {{Cite book}}s in articles. Dear Robin, you seem to have very good reasons for doing precisely that, but first you will need to get the "quasi-recommendation" in WP:CITE out of the way. Perhaps the right thing for you to do would be to open a discussion on this in WT:CITE. The first step might be to have an "(optional)" added after "place of publication" as is the case of the ISBN. Many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Macartney (British Army officer) infobox

I would be grateful if you could review the infobox which you apparently added to George Macartney (British Army officer) by Special:Diff/869825577 back in November 2018 - the information it contains about his military career seems largely inconsistent with that in the rest of the article and instead seems to be mostly the same as that for Lord Mark Kerr (British Army officer, born 1676), whose infobox you had apparently been expanding a few days previously and where the information does seem in line with the article. I apologise for asking you to revisit, and correct as necessary, an edit that you made nearly four years ago, but as this is an area where I have no expertise and (beyond birth and death dates) I cannot even be sure whether any of the information in the infobox correctly applies to George Macartney, my only available alternatives would have been either to ignore the problem and let the incorrect information stand or to remove almost the entire infobox. PWilkinson (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

I am currently making a page about the Dutch Raid on North America during the Franco-Dutch War. Since you are an experienced editor and well versed in this period I thought you might be interested to help out?

Draft:Dutch Raid on North America DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds interesting; do you want help/comments now or should I wait until you've finalised your draft? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, yeah it is a great topic and it is weird that this expedition doesn't have a page yet. Anyway, yes it would be great if you could add stuff to the draft. The page would be publishable faster that way I think. Maybe you could help out a bit with describing the backround for example.

For the expedition itself I am currently using 3 sources of which 2 are in English:

• Anikin, A. (2015). The Lost Soldier of Orange: A Brief Biography of Governor Anthony Colve, 1644–1693. New York History, 96(3–4), 336–353. https://www.jstor.org/stable/newyorkhist.96.3-4.336
• Shomette, Donald G.; Haslach, Robert D. (1988). Raid on America: The Dutch Naval campaign of 1672-1674. University of South Carolina Press.

Maybe you are able to find more sources or something?

If you have other/better ideas I would like to hear them. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a look (I'm just finishing an article) and I'll make some additions. It may be easier to trace this in Dutch sources but I'm curious about the political tensions between Zeeland and Holland which drove it - if I recall, Zeeland pursued its own commercial policies in West Africa and elsewhere.Robinvp11 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11 Thanks. Your additions are great. I have done some myself today and I will add more in the coming days.

About the cause of the expedition. I have not read anything that mentiones the tensions between Holland and Zeeland as THE cause. The main cause just seems to be that Zeeland needed extra revenue to finance the war. Reconquering New Netherland wasn't planned by the State of Zeeland DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	ElwoodMcCable (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William, Count of Nassau-Siegen

Thanks for your additions to the article William, Count of Nassau-Siegen. I did change some things, because they were incorrect. Furthermore, due to the advice I got on my talk page, I have expanded the lead a bit, so it resembles the former text. That also done to keep the lead consistent with the leads of his parents and siblings, Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Rijswijk

Hi Robinvp11. I am just curious about including the name/ territory/ polity "Germany" here, when I would assume the polity in question would be the Holy Roman Empire. Also, there were mentions of "Germany" in this version of the article, but they have singe been removed. regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Hi - look, I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but please take a look at Template:Dubious#Usage. Specifically: When using this template, it is strongly suggested to simultaneously discuss the dubious statement on the article's talk page – and to point this template to a specific talk page section (either new or existing) which contains that discussion.. You have proposed a complete rewrite of the lead, we have objected to that proposal, but have invited you to set out specific concerns about the prose. The tag serves no purpose when there are people active on the talk and willing to discuss - let's get started with that.

Incidentally, I noted on your userpage that you would like to understand more about the Scottish dimension of the British Civil Wars. I could probably help you with that - my partner is a professor of early modern British history, whose speclialisation is, well, exactly that. If you would like to outline the sort of stuff you've already read, and what you're particularly interested in, I'd be happy to get her suggestions on some recommended reading. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toulon OOB

Hi, what's going on with the Battle of Toulon (1744) order of battle? I see you removed it from the article to split it out, but can't seem to find it elsewhere in mainspace? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons I don't really understand, the sub-article was deleted - you're more than welcome to recreate it. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mantuan War of Succession

Hi Robin,

I was recently perusing the Urban VIII wikipedia article, and noticed a very unusual sentence (which has now been removed) that asserted the Pope backed the 'Protestant' Charles I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, against the Catholic Hapsburg candidate. I found this very strange, as in my specialism, which is a bit before that time, I know well that Charles' father and mother were both Catholic league sympathetic ultras, and no nobles of his standing would be converting to Protestantism without Protestant parents in the French nobility in the seventeenth century. Moreover Gonzague was a member of a Catholic Holy Order and had named his kids traditional Catholic noble names.

I spoke a little with Kansas about this, and they were unable to find any evidence as to their religious affiliation in the materials available to them but suggested you were the one to call about this, obviously we're fairly sure this was included in the article due to a mistake, but would you happen to be able to confirm this?

Thanks Sovietblobfish (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban certainly supported Charles I and sent a Papal nuncio to negotiate a settlement, but did so in pursuit of a general policy of weakening Habsburg expansion in Northern Italy. I'm positive you're correct :) Robinvp11 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for confirming our suspicions :) Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second English Civil War - Roberts 2004

Hi, in this edit to English Civil War you added a reference to "Roberts 2004" but left it undefined. I know it was a couple of years ago but do you remember the work? All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me dig it out - I meant to come back and finish updating the article but got side tracked, so thanks for reminding me :) Robinvp11 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edict of Amboise

In this edit

The Parlement of Aix refused to acknowledge they'd even received the edict for a year, forcing the King to eventually suspend the Parlements most recalcitrant members in November.

to

The Parlement d'Aix refused to acknowledge receipt of the edict for a year, forcing the King to its most recalcitrant members in November 1564.

you inadvertently disrupted the sentence. I understand the "ferment of the moment" but now you have time to fix the problem. And perhaps even look for other inadvertencies? Shenme (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re: Williamite War in Ireland please see the talk page of that article. thanks,

Charles Trevanion

Hi, I hope you are well. I just noticed that in Charles Trevanion the "Career" section seems to end in the middle of a sentence - just when things get exciting with the start of the Civil War! It looks like this was introduced by you in this edit. Do you recall how you were going to continue? All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your edits on Pompey

Policy, as per WP:ERA is:

An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed.

You are in breach of a long-established policy. The burden is on you to justify the change, not on me or anyone else to justify not changing it. Nicknack009 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fr Rev

Hi Robin, I'm sure you have it watchlisted, but do you have time to monitor French Revolution for a bit? Because I don't just now, and it would be good if you could lurk, in case things get out of hand. Just to be clear, I'm fine with the 14kb removal of stuff that got moved out to the "Bibliography" article; it's more the petty warring recently I was worried about. Thanks, and hope all is well with you, Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - these guys need to resolve it on the TP :) Robinvp11 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Malplaquet

Hi Robin, per my response (WP:BATTLEGROUND), it was broadly directed in unequal portions (the lesser to you). You have reasonable reason to be peeved. You have acted commendably with edits to resolve the dispute but let your frustration get the better of you. I too feel some of your frustration but in this case, it was probably better to let the embers of this dispute die out rather than restoke the fire. If you ever need to vent, contact me. A parting thought: a camel is a horse designed by committee. This is the nature of WP for all of its strengths and weaknesses. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input but I avoided responding on a number of occasions, precisely to avoid re-stoking the fire. I'm familiar with the Camel/Horse analogy but I do not have a problem with collaboration. The edit record shows I'm willing to make changes even when I don't agree. I do have a problem with the way it is conducted by certain individuals, whose preferred method is to denounce different views as not simply wrong, but somehow morally deviant.

It's not just this article and not just this editor; people are constantly allowed to get away with poor behaviour, and the only consequence is silence.

You've been a witness to this. I wrote most of this @#$%ing article, took me weeks, you've seen the number of Sources used. Elsewhere (and I remember you being involved), another editor calls me a liar five times in the same thread; nothing happens. On various occasions, this one accuses me of vandalism, bias, ignorance, making stuff up etc, while posing as the soul of forbearance. Nothing happens.

I don't see why I should be criticised (so matter how mildly) for calling it out. I don't need to vent, but I don't want to be running to Wikipedia admin every time some one says something nasty. Why should I have to continually turn the other cheek, when the consequence is to allow others to get away with poor behaviour? What would you suggest? Robinvp11 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been travelling a bit (near 500 km yesterday) and hence my delayed response. I thought I had posted the WP:BATTLEGROUND comment at Malplaquet before I had posted here but I hadn't published the draft before you responded. My apologies for any confusion. I thought long about whether I should respond to your ping at Malplaquet. My response was a qualified support for you that deserved further explanation (here at your TP). Yes, for all its policies about civility and NPA, the reality is a contradiction, and administrators are a fickle lot when it comes to dealing with this. It is reasonable to call-out inappropriate conduct, particularly when the offence is gross or habitual. I have also become more inclined to call-out such behaviour when it is directed against others, such as yourself. Usually, this should be done on a users talk page. However, one should do this in an objective and calm way, such that one's own conduct remains above reproach. IMHO, your reasons were sound but the execution was a little questionable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question please

I would rater ask you here than stir the possum at the article's TP. From what I can see, the sources quoted in the casualty section are as follows. Allied (21,000 to 25,000 killed or wounded): Lynn 21K, Holmes 22.5K Clodfelter 24.5k, Chandler 24.5k and Somerset ?. French (21,000 to 25,000 killed or wounded): Lynn 11.5k, Corvisier 12k, Delbrück 12k and Somerset ?. Could you please confirm this is correct. I cannot see from the discussion etc where Somerset's figures are reported and I cannot access this for myself. Could you provide these please. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious Revolution

@Robinvp11 Hi Robin. The point is that James misjudged his situation. To quote Kenyon: In the actual crisis of 1688 Childs shows that the defection of the army was not so decisive as many-not least James II-pretended. The officer corps, over- whelmingly Protestant, was undoubtedly shaken by the purges in the Irish army in 1686 and 1687, but it was so divorced from the nation at large, so much an isolated and unpopular enclave, that its loyalty to its commander and protector was not seriously undermined. Only a tiny minority of officers defected to William in 1688, and very few of these took any troops with them. Of 500 officers who served continuously from 1685 to 1688 only 127 took commissions under William III in 1689; another 147 fought in various Jacobite armies; and the remainder (226) simply retired. Similarly, only a handful of NCOs and enlisted men wavered in their allegiance, and the new regime was at once faced by serious mutinies. The inescapable conclusion is that it was James II who let the army down, not vice versa. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but most of this is simply not true - it ignores (for example) the Protestant Officers Group, which included Churchill and others, and having written several bios of the senior officers involved, it is nonsense to claim "they were isolated from the nation as a whole". One of the things that shook James was the widespread rioting by his troops in the wake of the Seven Bishops being acquitted. Mutinies post revolution were largely to do with lack pf pay, and objections to being sent to fight in Ireland.

I have yet to find any other historian (and I've read a lot of them on this period) who claims the army essentially stayed loyal. One reason why the invasion fleet made its way to Torbay unhindered was because the garrisons of places like Portsmouth and Plymouth (composed of his best troops) defected.

Let me express a wider concern; as I've said before, I'm happy to make sure these articles are not overly anglo-centric and I've been at pains (both here and elsewhere) to exclude views that are too one sided. I'm also (as you know) continually trying to make my own edits more concise by removing stuff that I find interesting but doesn't necessarily move the article along. So given those two facts, it's frustrating to continually see stuff added that doesn't do that, or has a specific perspective. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration and I often find your criticism fair and valuable. I also see that you indeed try to be neutral, but that doesn't mean I can just sit back and hope that you add a missing perspective. I think you understand that too.

Anyway, could you cite me works that directly dispute what Childs wrote? Non of the reviews I read from other historians on his book question his findings. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Garrison of Plymouth defected on 26 November, several days after James's retreat from Salisbury. Portsmouth I can't find so fast. The defection of Plymouth's garrison isn't in conflict with the article DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to say that a long article doesn't neccecerily mean that we have to cut a lot of stuff. Editors of the Eighty Years War page showed this beautifully by dividing up the article in several articles. You could for example make a page 'causes of the Glorious Revolution' or 'William's invasion of England (1688)' or 'historiography of the Glorious Revolution'. That way the information stays on wikipedia. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estates-General

Hello

I hope you don't mind my fiddling around with the wording too. The problem I have is that the article is meant to make sense to someone who has no background in French history. So we need to briefly explain early on what the Estates-General was. (Policy states that people should not have to follow a link to understand an article: links only provide more detailed information on specific topics.) My preferred wording would be: "The Estates-General was an advisory body representing the three estates of the realm. The First Estate was... etc." Just saying "The Estates -General was divided into three" is no good because we haven't said what this thing was that was supposedly divided into three. In any event, Old Regime France was a corporate society and the Estates-General was an assembled body of the three estates, not a single thing divided into three. It's also misleading to talk only about legislation: the Estates-General wasn't a modern parliament, it was an advisory body on all matters concerning the realm, not just laws. I understand the need to make the article more concise but the first priority is to be accurate and informative. There's plenty of room for cuts elsewhere in the article. Hope this helps. Thanks again for all your improvements to this article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Harman (admiral)

Hi Robinvp11. You added a reference for "Davies 2004" to John Harman (admiral), which is missing it's required cite. Could you add the cite for let me know what this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the ODNB online, which means there are no page numbers. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be ODNB, and so no page numbers, but even a short form to ODNB requires a cite. I can't set it up myself, as I don't know which entry you refer to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For instance Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich has a reference for "Davies 2004", which connects with "'Montagu [Mountagu], Edward, first earl of Sandwich'. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 10.1093/ref:odnb/19010". It's that second part that is missing from the John Harman article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Martinique (1667)

I assessed this article as B. It was prematurely removed from the assessment page. I have temporarily restored it. I thought I would let you know in case you have not seen it. Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Robinvp11 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Friedlingen

I have assessed the revised article as B Class. If you have the first names of Despordes and Fürstenberg-Möskirch, it might be helpful to anyone who wishes to write an article about them to add those names. Also, is Kanderbach the same river that is covered by the article Kander (Germany)? If so, it might be useful to link Kanderbach to that article. If there is some reason for the distinction in your sources (e.g. old name), that could be the subject of a footnote. Good work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link to the Kander, "Kanderbach" appears to be what the French called it, so I don't think we need a FN. I've found a name for Fürstenberg-Möskirch, but so far no trace of Desbordes. Some other minor changes made, thanks for reviewing this. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II of Spain reversion

I disagree with your grounds for removing the Crown of Castile from Charles II of Spain's birth and death details. This is for two reasons:

1. You say in your edit reason that 'Crown of Castile is not a place but a political entity' but all states are political entity. As an example someone born in Nancy in 1760 can't be said to have been born in France because at the time Nancy was a part of the Duchy of Lorraine. At the time of Charles II's birth and death there was formally no 'Spain' only the Crowns of Aragon and Castile in personal union. Therefore the link to Spain should have been removed and not the Crown of Castile.

1. I edited this article to make it consistent with all the other kings of Habsburg era Spain. By making this alteration you're not only going against consistency across those articles but also all the other biographical pages of monarchs who were born in polities that no longer exist.

Ecrm87 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's not a state, people are still referred to be as being born in Scotland. Having written this article and various others on Spain, I'm well aware of the structure of the Spanish monarchy. The point of the Infobox is to provide a simple and clear summary for the general reader, not introduce further complexity. If I ask most people where Madrid is, they'll say "Spain", not "Crown of Castile until 1707".

I don't think suggesting it's easier for the general reader to use geographical locations is that controversial or difficult (since they remain the same, regardless of changes in political entities). It's also in line with Wikipedia Infobox guidelines ie avoid unnecessary complexity etc.

Given your previously stated views, it's not a hill I'm going to die on. ie Wikipedia policies really are dumb. Two hundred years of historical usage and along come a group of people who decide they know better. No wonder academics look down on this place.

I always (briefly) check User TPs when these discussions come up to gauge whether it's worth engaging in them. Saves a lot of stress. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using geographical locations is that borders change. Not in this article, certainly, but in others and a certain consistency has to be achieved in how to handle changes of borders across Wikipedia articles. It makes logical sense to give the name of the polity of the time, otherwise we'd end up saying that Powhatan was born in the United States as that's where his birthplace happens to be now. 'Spain' is not itself a geographical location, it's a polity, otherwise we might as well use 'Iberian Peninsula'.

What better way is there to concisely show that Spain at the time was not a unitary state then by saying Madrid, Crown of Castile, Spain? It's not complex, legally correct, avoids confusion and educates at the same time. It also matches the article with Charles' wife, whose birthplace is listed as Wiener Neustadt, Archduchy of Austria, Holy Roman Empire, all of which are necessary appellations. My edit didn't include Habsburg Spain originally and I now think it should.

Thank you for reminding me of what I wrote, I'm not especially proud of that sentence which reflected frustration after a long and tedious debate. Ecrm87 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Á lot of your edits on the Seven Years War are largey opinanted, plús you removed lots of belligerents. And yes The Carntaic and French and Indian War where part of the Seven years war. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French and Indian War is included, so not sure what the problem is there. Could you provide a reference for the claim that the Carnatic War is part of the Seven Years War (rather than occurring at the same time. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1710

The difference with peace talks in 1709 seems to have been that Louis was now willing to agree to subsidize the Allied war effort against Phillip. That is what assist meant in this context. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it's a level of detail that isn't needed here - maybe include in the article on the Treaty of Utrecht, which could do with some attention. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity

I'm a reporter for WP:Signpost. You may have heard that Trump posted a video using the term "Unified Reich", which has been traced to Wikipedia by Newsweek. It's impossible to trace the exact sentence used by Trump - it slowly developed from 2002 to 2022. But the final form of that sentence was written by you - just switching word order mostly (diff follows). I'm just wondering if you have any comment. You may have 15 seconds of fame on this!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• diff Any quote from you that I can publish? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  TS and Newsweek should both spend more time studying their history. But this isn't about history - any modern politician who talks about creating a "Reich" is dog whistling furiously, regardless of where they take their wording from.

  The wording you mention was indeed written by me, but comes from an article on the outbreak of WWI, not WWII as stated by various news outlets. Specifically, it refers to the Second German Reich created in 1871, which is generally held to have "unified" the German states. The increase in economic strength comes from the removal of internal trade barriers and other factors, rather than political changes.

• I've altered it to more accurately reflect this.Robinvp11 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-war talk page archive

Hello! Please make sure to add the "Talk" prefix when creating a talk page archive. The page was incorrectly published in mainspace, and I've now moved it to its correct namespace. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Robinvp11 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelrigg's Lobsters

From the Wikipedia article on the Royal Horse Guards: "Raised in August 1650 at Newcastle upon Tyne and County Durham by Sir Arthur Haselrig on the orders of Oliver Cromwell as a Regiment of Horse, the regiment became the Earl of Oxford's Regiment in 1660 upon the Restoration of King Charles II. As, uniquely, the regiment's coat was blue in colour at the time, it was nicknamed "the Oxford Blues", from which was derived the nickname the "Blues." In 1750 the regiment became the Royal Horse Guards Blue and eventually, in 1877, the Royal Horse Guards (The Blues)." Urselius (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The London Lobsters were raised in 1642, and disappeared when the New Model Army was formed in 1645. I have no problem with the lineal descent from the unit raised in 1650, but its not the same one. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure sophistry. See The National Army Museum's take on this, here: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/royal-horse-guards-blues - where Hazelrigg's Lobsters are mentioned in the origin of the Blues section. If you take a regiment of soldiers, give them a new colonel-in-chief and a new name IT IS THE SAME REGIMENT WITH A NEW NAME, NOT A NEW REGIMENT! I think that the National Army Museum is a better source for a Wikipedia article than your unsupported opinion. You need to produce a superior source than the NAM that explicitly and unambiguously supports your viewpoint, then you can make your edit, not otherwise. Urselius (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "If you take a regiment of soldiers, give them a new colonel-in-chief and a new name IT IS THE SAME REGIMENT WITH A NEW NAME, NOT A NEW REGIMENT!"

Totally agree, but since I've never suggested that to be the case, I'm not entirely clear on your point.

(2) Thank you for providing this reference. I'm puzzled, because the page I'm looking at says this;

"In July 1650, during the Third English Civil War (1649-51), Oliver Cromwell invaded Scotland to defeat Charles, Prince of Wales, and his Scottish Covenanter allies. Within a month, Cromwell had ordered Sir Arthur Haselrig to raise a regiment of cuirassiers (armoured heavy cavalry) in Newcastle-upon-Tyne who should be dressed in dark blue uniforms."

There doesn't appear to be any mention of "London Lobsters" - maybe you have a different version. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it hard to deal with drive-by editing eg people who haven't worked on the article, making changes without consultation, ..." Try living up to your profession of intent. Urselius (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed our interaction, and look forward to our next.Robinvp11 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bro I Have To Explain to You

If You Edited the Page of Charles II of Spain from Charles II to Charles II of Spain does It mean That You Need to add the of England on Charles II in the Page of Charles II of England? Christopher Nkunku (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Glencoe

Why did you delete my edit alluding the Beethoven songs, one of which is clearly referring to the massacre and demanded a source? Was it overly challenging to go to the lined 25 Irish Songs, WoO 152 (Beethoven) and see for yourself? Because if it was, you shouldn't be editing too much... Barr Epstein (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia expects you to supply the Source yourself, rather than require those reading the article to embark on a journey of discovery. If it's that simple, shouldn't take you long.

Wikipedia is about collaboration. Hard to do if your starting position is to insult other editors. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ignore the discussion

I pinged you from the talk page that you've been edit warring on, so please don't ignore the discussion that I started. M.Bitton (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Battle of Sidi Brahim, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]