User talk:Bridgexplorer

Resource request

Hi there, I moved your request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. (This is where you should post requests in the future.) Happy editing! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Much of what you're looking for is available online, but you'll need to clarify.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you 71.196.228.247 ?

It would be helpful to know that you and the other contributor are the same person. Then one could hope to address all the perceived faults at once.

It does seem worrisome to me to have so much added at once. But chiefly it is the typos that caused me look.

   "The Long Parlimaent which Olivfer Cromwell"
   "stood to loose power"
   "defense at his trail"
   "snatched teh bill"

Could you review and look for these and others? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've fixed that you can 'loose' a horse but you 'lose' a horseshoe. You might follow a 'trail' while trespassing, and a 'trial' might follow trespassing. 24.28.17.231 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so

Good work. Thank you for the correction. I will make the first change.

In the cases of 'lose' (v) vs 'loose' (adj), I believe it is correct as is.

- 'no time to lose' - 'to lose power'

English Civil War

I recently made this edit to the article English Civil War in it I asked for full citation for:

• Hibbert p. 151.[full citation needed]
• Gillespie, 130.[full citation needed]
• Carlton, 224.[full citation needed]
• a b Carlton, 225.[full citation needed]
• a b Smith, p. 123.[full citation needed]
• Coward, p. 191.[full citation needed]
• Carlton, 222[full citation needed]
• Kenyon, p. 127.[full citation needed]
• Gregg, p. 335.[full citation needed]
• Kenyon, p. 129.[full citation needed]
• Kenyon, p. 130.[full citation needed]

As far as I can tell these were all citation you added at 04:01 on 16 August 2012

...Elder Vane. ^[1] These notes or minutes from the King's Privy Council contained evidence that Lord Stafford had told the King, "Sir, you have done your duty, and your subjects have failed in theirs; and therefore you are absolved from the rules of government, and may supply yourself by extraordinary ways; you have an army in Ireland, with which you may reduce the kingdom."^{[2] [3][4]} Parliament as representatives of the people felt betrayed.

Strafford was considered guilty of raising and Irish army to reduce England for the purpose of generating revenues and abolishing English freedoms. Pym immediately launched a Bill of Attainder, stating Strafford's guilt and that the Earl be put to death.^[5] Charles, however guaranteed Strafford that he would not sign the attainder, without which the bill could not be passed.^[6] Furthermore, the Lords were opposed to the severity of the sentence of death imposed upon Strafford. Yet, increased tensions and an attempted coup by the army in support of Strafford began to sway the issue.^[6] On 21 April, in the Commons the Bill went virtually unopposed (204 in favour, 59 opposed, and 250 abstained),^[7] the Lords acquiesced, and Charles, fearing for the safety of his family, signed on 10 May.^[7] The Earl of Strafford was beheaded two days later.^[8]

The King himself being thereby implicated, and the Long Parliament passed the Triennial Act, also known as the Dissolution Act, in May 1641, to which the Royal Assent was readily granted.^[9][10]. In the meantime both Parliament and the King agreed to an independent investigation of the king's involvement in Strafford's plot. This Triennial Act required that Parliament was to be summoned at least once every three years, and that when the King failed to issue proper summons, the members could assemble on their own. This act also forbade without Parliament's consent, Ship money, fines in destraint of knighthood and forced loans were declared unlawful, monopolies were cut back severely, and the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished by the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 and the Triennial Act 1641.^[11] The very doctrine of modern freedoms, have to some degree, their origins in these acts. All remaining forms of taxation were legalised and regulated by the Tonnage and Poundage Act.^[12] On 3 May, Parliament decreed The Protestation, attacking the 'wicked counsels' of Charles's government, whereby those who signed the petition undertook to defend 'the true reformed religion', parliament, and the king's person, honour and estate. Throughout May, the House of Commons launched several bills attacking bishops and episcopalianism in general, each time defeated in the Lords.^[13]

1. Upham p. 187
2. Upham 1842, p. 187.
3. Hibbert, 151
4. Gillespie, 130.
5. Carlton, 224
6. Carlton, 225
7. Smith, 123
8. Coward, 191
9. Carlton, 222
10. Kenyon, 127
11. Gregg, 335
12. Kenyon, 129
13. Kenyon, 130

Please add the full citation to the article, in the references section (see WP:GENREF) each general reference should contain the information mentioned for that type of reference in WP:CITEHOW (both those links are in the guideline WP:CITE) -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Part I*

For the full citations on Hibbert, Gillespie, Carlton, Coward, Gregg, Kenyon I do not have these at hand but will have to re-research these. My primary references are Upham, and Ludlow. I integrated the information from these sources with what was there previously. Here are some of the supporting references from Upham or "The Libary of American Biography, Conducted by Jared Sparks, Vol IV, New York, 1844, Life of Sir Henry Vane, Fourth Governor of Massachusetts by Charles Wentworth Upham, Chapter VIII.

Upham quote

Full Citation for Part I "Sir Henry Vane, the younger, first made himself particularly prominent in the movements of the party, which was gradually preparing to overthrow the monarchy, at the trial of the Earl of Stafford. As this trial involved him in an embarrassing and very disagreeable collision with his own father, as his conduct in relation to it has been much misrepresented by the historians, and especially as it is, in itself, one of the most curious and interesting passages of English history, it will be proper to relate it at considerable length. The actual administration of the executive department of the British government was, in those days, conducted by what is calledf "His Majesty's Privy Council." In the recess of Parliament this body was intrusted with the whole burden of affairs. Whenever a person was admitted to the Council, before taking his seat, he was required to make oath that he would "keep secret all matters committed and revealed" in him, that should "be treated of in Council." Lord Strafford, by his haughtiness, violence of temper, arbitrary deportment, tyrannical proceedings, and high-toned principles of government, had made innumerable enemies; and the time was evidently nigh at hand when he was to experience the weight of their anger and vengeance. His impeachment and punishment were accordingly resolved on, and the necessary measures were taken to bring him to trial. The design was accomplished under the following circumstances. The Long Parliament, as has already been stated, commenced its session on the 3rd of November, 1640. On the very first day, when it was in order to proceed to such business, Mr. Pym, the most experienced member of this House, and one of the ablest men that ever held a seat in it, rose in his place, and entered into a particular enumeration of the troubles of the kingdom. His speech was constructed and arranged with consummate ability and art. After enlarging upon the public grievances, he carefully exonerated the King of the blame, and threw it upon his advisers, speaking of the acts of maladministration in the following words; "as done and contrived maliciously, and upon deliberation, to change the whole frame of the government, and to deprive the nation of all the liberty and property, which is their birthright by the laws of the land, which are now no more considered, but subjected to the arbitrary power of the Privy Council, which governs the kingdom according to their will and pleasure; these calamities falling upon us in the reign of a pious and virtuous king, who loves his people, and is a great lover of justice." The attention of the House, it may well be supposed, was roused and vixed upon the orator. He proceeded, "We must inquire from what fountain these waters of bitterness have flowed; what persons they are, who have so far insinuated themselves into the royal affections, as to be able to pervert his Majesty's excellent judgment, to abuse his name, and wickedly apply his authority to countenance and support their own corrupt designs. Though, I doubt not, there would be found many of this class, who have contributed their joint endeavors to bring this misery upon the nation, yet THERE IS ONE, more signal in that administration than the rest, a man of great parts and contrivance, and of great industry to bring what he designs to pass; a man, who, in the memory of many present, sat in this House an earnest vindicator of the laws, and a most zealous asserter and champion of the liberties of the people, but who has, long since, turned apostate from these good affections, and, according to the custom and nature of apostates, become the greatest enemy to the liberties of his country, and the greatest promoter of tyranny, that any age has produced." Mr. Pym then, after a pause, amidst the breathless silence of the House, pronounced the name of the "Earl of Stafford, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and Lord-President of the Council established in York, for the northern parts of the kingdom, who in both places, and in all other provinces, where his service has been used for the King, has raised ample monuments of his tyrannical nature;" and concluded by expressing his full belief, that, if the Commons "took a short survey of his actions and behavior, they would find him the principal author and promoter of all tose counsels, which has exposed the kingdom to so much ruin." After a free and full debate, the House of Commons voted unanimously, (thereby indicating in the most decisive manner how strong and conclusive was the evidence of his arbitrary misconduct and general guilt,) "That they would forthwith send up to the Lords, and accuse the Earl of Stafford of high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanors, and desire that he might be presently sequestered from Council, and committed to safe custody." Mr. Pym was directed to carry up the impeachment to the House of Lords. Lord Stafford had not been able, on account of indisposition, to leave his lodgings that morning, and was entirely ignorant and unsuspicious of the proceedings against him. It was a most remarkable circumstance, that, while detained in his house, he conceived the purpose of procuring the impeachment of some of his opponents, and was so eager to carry it into effect, that, notwithstanding his unfit state of health, he actually left his sick chamber and proceeded towards the Parliament. Clarendon informs us that he reached the House of Peers, soon after three o'clock, just as the House of Commons, with Pym at its head, appeared at the bar; and great indeed was his amazement and consternation, when the message was communicated. It was as unexpected to the Lords in general, as it was to Stafford himself. There was hardly any room for discussion. An impeachment sustained by the unanimous vote of the representatives of the nation, just assembled from the bosom of the people, left the Peers no alternative. After a brief debate, they voted to comply with the request of the House, the Lord Strafford was committed to the Tower. The Commons then proceeded to appoint a committee, which, at their request was joined by a committee of the Lords, to frame articles of impeachment and prepare the specifications of charge, with full power to send for persons and papers, and with authority to conduct their examinations in private. This procedure was, with good reason, objected to, as a dangerous precedent, by which the Parliament, from being a court to try offences publicly charged, was likely to be converted into an irresponsible and secret inquisition. But it was vindicated on the following grounds; "that the charge against the Earl of Strafford was of extraordinary nature, being to make a treason evident out of a complication of several ill acts; that he must be traced through many dark paths, and that this precedent seditious discourse compared with that subsequent outrageous action, the circumstances of both which might be equally considerable with the matter itself; and therefore, that, before this charge could be so directly made and prepared as was necessary, it was requisite that a committee should be made of both Houses to examine some witnesses upon oath, upon whose depositions his impeachment would easily be framed." In addition to the appointment of a committee with such powers, the still more extraordinary measure was adopted of passing a law that "Privy Counselors should be examined upon oath, touching such matters as had been treated of in Council." When the reader considers the bearing of this law, in reference to the organization and nature of the Privy Council, as before described, he will perceive its immense importance. By nullifying the oath of secrecy, imposed upon its members, it entirely revolutionized the character of that branch of the government. It threw the Council into the power of the Parliament, and, through them, of the people. If every thing said in Council was liable to be exposed and subjected to scrutiny and censure by the Parliament, Counselors would necessarily be led to deliberate and act as in view of the people, and the popular principle be thus made to bear with controlling energy upon the King himself. It was indeed a great and decisive encroachment upon the prerogative of the Crown; and the King was induced to yield to it, and sign the law, because a reluctance on his part would have been instantly and universally interpreted as an acknowledgement, that sentiments had been uttered in Council by his favorite Stafford, which could not bear the light, and would be brought out by putting the Counselors on their oaths. When the power to compel Privy Counselors to testify had been secured to the committee by law, great curiosity was felt and expressed throughout the country in reference to the evidence it was expected to bring out. Then again all were impatient to discover by whose treachery it had been made known to the prosecutors, that offensive words had been uttered by Strafford in Council. It was, of course, understood that some member of that body had given information, contrary to his oath, of language, used by the accused at its sittings, which could be construed into treason. But every member of the Council positively and solemnly denied that he had ever made any revelations of the sort to a human being. There was something mysterious in the affair, and the development of the testimony was awaited with the most intense interest, not only by the parties concerned, but by the nation at large. At length the trial came on, the mysterious evidence was produced, and it was decisive of the fate of Stafford. So odious had this unfortunate nobleman made himself, by his arrant violence, that the joint committee were almost literally inundated with complaints and accusations. A general demand was made for his blood, not only by the people of England, but also by the Scotch and Irish, who had alike suffered from his passionate and domineering spirit, and arbitrary principles of government. But notwithstanding all this, it would have been difficult to convict him of high treason, had it not been for the evidence drawn from the Privy Council. In pursuance of the authority conferred upon them, the committee summoned the members of the Council, and put them on their oaths touching the conduct and conversation of the Lord Stafford at their board. And when Sir Henry Vane, the elder, came upon the stand, he testified, that at a particular date, which he mentioned, the Parliament having refused to grant the supplies which had been requested, his Majesty convened the Coucil, and asked the opinions of his ministered in reference to the course he ought to adopt under the circumstances; and that, in reply, Lord Stafford said, "Sir you have done your duty, and your subjects have failed in theirs; and therefore you are absolved from the rules of government, and may supply yourself by extraordinary ways; you must prosecute the war vigorously; you have an army in Ireland, with which you may reduce this kingdom." English Civil War - Part II Full Citation Quote from Upham Part II Response for Full Citation Quotes "The Libary of American Biography, Conducted by Jared Sparks, Vol IV, New York, 1844, Life of Sir Henry Vane, Fourth Governor of Massachusetts by Charles Wentworth Upham, Chapter VIII, starting at page 187-198" "These words were traitorous in the highest degree, and, sustained by sufficient evidence, would inevitably secure and require the condemnation of Stafford. Upon calling the other members of the Council to the stand, the Earl of Northumberland testified to a part of the words imputed to the prisoner by Vane; but the Marquis of Hamilton, and Lord Cottington could not remember that such language or sentiments had at any time fallen from him. Although it was well known that these last-named witnesses were deeply interested in not remembering any thing against the prisoner, having sympathized in all his feelings, and participated in all his plans, and although the testimony of Northumberland corroborated and confirmed the substance of that given by Vane, the latter was placed in a very disagreeable and trying situation. The bitter and unmitigated hatred between him and Stafford inclined many to suspect that he had sworn falsely against him; and almost all believed, that he must have committed a breach of faith, in communicating to the prosecutors the nature of the testimony which he could give, if it was absolutely required of him. It was certain, that it was known that such evidence could be drawn out, otherwise there would not have been any inducement for the passage of the law compelling Privy Counselors to testify; and it was equally certain that, if any one of that body had given information, it must have been Vane. This chivalrous and high-spirited statesman stood, therefore, before his country and the world, with the imputation of either a perjurer or an informer, or of both, stamped upn him by general suspicion. His character had never before been impeached; and, while he protested his innocence, he could not but perceive that a deep, and, as it seemed, an indelible stain was fixed upon his name for ever. He felt that stain not "as a wound," but as worse than death itself. All that he could do, and, against the apparent evidence of the case, it was of no avail for him to do, was to reiterate the declaration, that the words to which he had testified were uttered by Stafford; that he had never mentioned or in any way alluded to them in the presence of any human being, until he had been put under oath; and that it was utterly unknown and inexplicable to him, how they could have been revealed, or in what way the prosecutors had obtained a clue to any of the consultations of the Council board. When the trial came on before the Parliament, the mystery was brought to light in the following unexpected and extraordinary manner. When Mr. Prm, who conducted the impeachment, came to the charge of "his endeavor to alter the frame of government, and his intention to levy war," he adduced the evidence of the elder Vane, as that on which he chiefly relied. After it had been given in, Pym rose and informed the Court of the manner in which that evidence had been obtained. He then stated, that some months before the beginning of that Parliament, he visited young Sir. Henry Vane, the eldest son of the Secretary, who was then just recovering from sickness. The substance of the interview he related in these words. "While we were together, and condoling the sad condition of the kingdom, by reason of many illegal taxes and pressures, Sir Henry told me, if I would call upon him the next day, he would show me somewhat that would give me much trouble, and inform me what counsels were like to be followed to the ruin of the kingdom; for that he had, in perusal of his father's papers, accidentally met with the result of the Cabinet Council upon the dissolution of the last Parliament, which comprehended the resolutions then taken. The next day he showed me a little paper of the Secretary's own writing; in which was contained the day of the month, and the results of several discourses made by several counselors; with sever hieroglyphics, which sufficiently expressed the persons by whom those discourses were made. The matter was of so transcendent a nature to the commonwealth, that I desired I might take a copy of it; which the young gentlemen would by no means consent to, fearing it might prove prejudicial to his father. But when I informed him, that it was of extreme consequence to the kingdom, and that a time might probably come, when the discovery of this might be a sovereign means to preserve both church and state, he was contented that I should take a copy of it; which I did in the presence of Sir Henry Vane, and, having examined it together, I delivered the original again to Sir. Henry. I have carefully kept this paper by me, without communicating the same to anybody, till the beginning of this Parliament, which was the time I conceived fit to make use of it; and then, meeting with many other instances of the Earl's disposition to the kingdom, it satisfied me to move whatsoever I have moved, against that great person." The paper was then submitted to the inspection of the High Court of impeachment. It contained the words sworn to by Vane, under the initials of Strafford's title, as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and also the advices of the other councselors, which, with the exception of Northumberland's and Vane's, were similar to that given by Srafford. After Pyn had resumed his seat, and the paper had been examined by the members of the Court, young Sir Henry Vane rose, apparently laboring under much excitement of feeling, and confirmed the statement of Pym. He then proceeded to explain the circumstances under which he had obtained possession of the paper as follows. "My father, being in the north with the King, the summer before, sent up his keys to his private secretary, then at Whitehall, and wrote to me, that I should take from the secretary those keys, that opened his boxes where his writings and the evidences of his lands were, to the end that I might cause an assurance to be perfected, which concerned my wife; and having perused those evidences, and dispatched what depended thereupon, I had the curiosity to desire to see what was in a red velvet cabinet, which stood with the other boxes. I thereupon required the key of that cabinet from the secretary, as if I still wanted somewhat towards the business my father had directed. Having gotten the key, I found amongst other papers, that mentioned by Mr. Pym, which made that impression on me, that I thought myself bound in conscience to communicate it to some persons of better judgement than myself, who might be more able to prevent the mischiefs threatened therein; and so I showed it to Mr. Pym, and, being confirmed by him that the seasonable discovery thereof might do no less than preserve the kingdom, consented that he should take a copy thereof; which to my knowledge he did faithfully; and thereupon I laid the original in the proper place again, in the red velvet cabinet." After having thus ingeniously acknowledged the whole transaction, he turned towards his father, and said, in conclusion, "I know that this discovery will prove little less than my ruin in the good opinion of my father; but, having been provoked by the tenderness of my conscience towards our common parent, the country, to trespass against my natural father, I hope to find compassion from this House, though I have but little hopes of pardon elsewhere." Sir Henry Vane, the elder, now rose. His habitual expression and general air wore the appearance of uncommon sternness and severity, and on this occasion he exhibited more than was usual of the same dark and frowning aspect. He was evidently very much wrought upon by the disclosures that had been made. He felt that his own honor was implicated in the publication by one of his family of a secret document, which he had held doubly sacred because its discovery would prove fatal to a personal foe. He thus commenced his address. "The ground of my misfortune is now discovered to me. I have been much amazed, finding myself pressed by such interrogatories, as made me suspect some discovery to be made, by some person as conversant in the counsels as myself. I am now satisfied to whom I owe my misfortunes; in which I am sure the guilty person will bear his share. It is true, being in the north with the King, and that unfortunate son of mine having married a virtuous gentlewoman (daughter of a worthy member now present), to whom there was somewhat in justice and honor due, which was not sufficiently settled, I sent my keys to my secretary, (not well knowing in what box the material writings lay,) and directed him to suffer my son to look after those evidences that were necessary; and by this occasion, it seems those papers were examined and perused which have begot this trouble." After relating a few more particulars, Sir Henry again expressed his grief, and disapprobation of the disclosure made by his son, and resumed his seat. The House was in the mean time a scene of the most extraordinary and thrilling interest; the distressing collision between the father and son; the strange manner in which the evidence had been originally obtained; the sudden and unexpected solution of the mystery, which had hung over the testimony of Vane; and the fearful confirmation given to that fatal testimony, all together produced an intense excitement through the whole assembly. The reader will judge for himself of the conduct of the younger Vane. While it may be regarded as an indiscreet and unauthorized indulgence of curiosity to have opened the "red velvet cabinet," it is probable that it will not, by many, be considered an unpardonable offence, for a son and representative and heir to have used the keys, which had been intrusted to a secretary. But that which the father most condemned, and about which there probably would be the greatest uncertainty and difference of opinion, was the communication of the paper to Mr. Pym. On this point he did not act without reflection and cautious reluctance; and, whatever other may think to have been his duty, it is evident that his own conscience entirely approved of what he had done. If such advice were given by the King's favorite minister, and one of the most powerful and active men in the government, it is certain, that the country could not be considered safe for a moment, until it had been brought to light. The House passed a formal vote justifying the conduct of the younger Vane, and expressing its opinion, that it ought not to incur the displeasure of his father. But the feelings of the latter could not be assuaged by votes, and we are informed that a long period passed away, before a reconciliation was effected with his son. This was the last public transaction in which Sir Henry Vane, the elder, took a conspicuous and active part. The testimony, whose curious history I have now related, was decisive of Strafford's fate, and satisfied his judges that he had given traitorous counsels to the King. The only way in which his friends could meet it was by pretending that the whole was a fiction, a deliberately contrived plot. Such, indeed, is the view Clarendon endeavors to insinuate into the minds of his readers. But it cannot stand the test of a fair examination. It was altogether too monstrous a supposition, and in such utter violation of what was known of the character of Pym and of both the Vanes, that their bitterest enemy hardly ventured to do more than insinuate it. Besides, the testimony was in perfect keeping with the character of Strafford, was substantially corroborated by the only member of the council, who could have been expected to confirm it, and, as Clarendon admits, was fully sustained by the manner and appearance of the parties during the painful and exciting scene, in which it was brought out at trial of Strafford." It is a remarkable circumstance that the sympathies of many persons, who are themselves the ardent friends of liberty, are still given, in a great measure, to those characters in the annuals of the mother country, who were the most violent opposers of republican principles; while the suffering martyrs in the cause of freedom are disregarded, or permitted to rest under calumny and reproach. Strafford has admirers, it is probable, even among republicans. It becomes us to examine a little more carefully the actions and characters of men, before we yield to them our love and sympathy...Warurton...Clarendon...Burnet...Hume...Mackintosh...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgexplorer (talk • contribs) 09:06, 15 December 2012‎

I am sorry but we seem to be talking at cross purposes. You had already provided a full citation for Upham in the English Civil War article, which is why I did not include it above in the list of authors that need a full citation. It is the other authors such as Kenyon that need a similar level of detail placed into the general references section. Thanks to the detailed Upham general reference and inline citations, I am able to go and look up the information myself if I wish to verify that the text is supported by the citation, and assuming good faith I was not requesting a quote.

One of the services Wikipedia provide for readers (and editors) is to back up our summaries with the sources from with those summaries come. This allows editors and readers to check that our summaries are accurate and to find more details on a subject if they so wish. It is because there are insufficient details in the citation for the other authors you added that I am requesting more details (year, title, publisher etc).

I you found those citations in another book (and did not read the books that are cited) then please see SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Civil War -Response

Thanks for the clarification, I did not add the other references. They existed through others before I added in Upham references into what was previously existing. I just did my best to synthesize and harmonize what was there before with what I had read in Upham's account.

I believe I have the references (not the authors in your list) that can be re-sourced to rebuild the section, but did not want to undo the work of others. Others more or equally qualified could similarly rebuild the section.

Please see the diff from your 04:01, 16 August 2012 edit (if you look at the history of the article it clearly lists this edit as expanding the article by +2,984 characters), so you did add the paragraphs to the English Civil War article with the short citations as listed above. Did you copy the other paragraphs from somewhere else on Wikipedia? If not where did they come from if you did not write them? -- PBS (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used another tool to mechanically check my finding. I looked for the insertion into this article of the footnote <ref>Carlton, 222</ref>. The tool is called WikiBlame. It looks for the first instances of text placed into an article.

First I ran it backwards from 1 August 2012 Click here the citation is not found in any of the 500 edits before 1 August 2012

Second I ran it backwards from 1 December 2012 Click here it confirms that the edit you made on 16 August 2012 introduced the footnote <ref>Carlton, 222</ref> into the text.

-- PBS (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff you introduced similar wording into the article Long Parliament at 22:50, 10 August 2012 about a week before the edit to the English Civil War article. So presumably that is where the text comes from. (if you copy text between Wikipedia articles you need to note it in the history of the article (see WP:PLAGARISM#Copying within Wikipedia)), but that does not get us anywhere nearer finding out where these sources came from. All we have done is move the problem from ECW into the LP article (see WikiBlame on LP).

Doing an internet search on the sentence which the <ref name="Carlton, 225"> supports "Charles, however guaranteed Strafford that he would not sign the attainder, without which the bill could not be passed." reveals that it exists in the article Charles I of England and that WikiBlame on CIoE shows that the citation at the end of the sentence was clean up at 15:32 on 18 April 2010 by Rjwilmsi. The sentence was introduced into the article Charles I of England by AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 at 15:10, on 6 April 2010 (diff).

As the article Charles I of England contains not only the short citations but also the general references, those general references that now support text in both the Long Parliament and the English Civil War articles will have to be copied across. If you had stated in your edit histories where you had copied the text from as recommended in Copying within Wikipedia, then not only would the copyleft requirements of Wikipedia been met (Copying within Wikipedia), so would the plagiarism requirements, and the problem of insufficient citation information to meet WP:V could have been met much more quickly. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In future if you copy text between articles please attribute the source in the edit history of the article to meet copyright and other requirements. If the text has short citations please make sure to copy the general references over at the same time. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Civil War -Response

My apologies and I will. Clearly I made a mistake. I can think of a few possibilities and I will check them. These non-primary references may have come from Ludlow's memoirs, or one of the other articles I have been working on. I will check and either provide sources, or re-source what I have read with valid references from my collection. Give me a few days to get to this. Things are busy.

the short citations did not come from Ludlow's memoirs, they are short citations to secondary sources that came from the Wikipedia article Charles I of England when you copied some of that text into the Long Parliament article. Please see my comments in the previous section on what to do when copying text between Wikipedia articles to conform with Wikipedia policy on this issue, to meet plagiarism requirements and to help reduce the time it takes to fix mistakes like this. -- PBS (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Civil War -Response

Ok, that sounds right. My apologies. I will try to better attention to the detail in the future.

Started making changes on Long Parliament article. I will complete there, and then do the same for English Civil War. Thanks for the help. Please back check once I complete.

The usual way to respond to a comment on wikipedia is to indent by one using colons at the start of the line (as I have done here). Editors do not usually start a new section for each comment they make.

I have been through the Long Parliament article today and copied over the citations from Charles I of England. That left some citations which were not full ones. On investigation they turned out to be ones you had included from Ludlow's Memoirs. Please see the diffs of this edit to see how to annotate such citations of citations. Another example format is given at WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

On a different note. You should not rely on Ludlow's Memoirs so much for matters of opinion and his speculation. He was not a impartial observer and as the section Edmund Ludlow#Reputation and writings makes clear his Memoirs as published are in part 18th century Whig propaganda. -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same author same year

I noticed with this edit you tried to solve a problem when there are two general references with the same author and the same year with the family of harv templates.

There are more fancy ways to work around it, but the simplest way is described in Help:Shortened footnotes#Multiple works by the same author in the same year which is the method I used in my last edit to the English Civil War article. -- PBS (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project

FYI: There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history of which there is a period task force called Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force -- PBS (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bridgexplorer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]