Hello, Unoquha! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Fantastic start on Scottish Renaissance painted ceilings - many thanks for adding this topic! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to see this article. It's been on my 'to-do' list for a long time, but never got round to it. Well done! Brendandh (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any way that we may start an article on this much maligned March warden? A creature of Arran's and Mary's I think. I'm presently rural without ready access to hard copy, yet chatting to an old local chap here who was told by his grannie etc, how Bastie's head was shown on the mercat cross of Duns following his assassination by the Homes has got me quite interested. Brendandh (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine d'Arcy, sieur de la Bastie, started.Unoquha (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Antoine d'Arces" might be the best name, as used in France, could be moved, though I don't know how.Unoquha (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Unoquha, another great addition. I have seen his name as "Antoine d'Arces", and also anglicised as "Anthony D'Arcy" (in George MacDonald Fraser's The Steel Bonnets). The former might be the most appropriate as you say. I can move the article if you want me to, or you can do it yourself via the "move" link, it is under the arrow next to the star, at the top of the page. Full details at WP:MOVE. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, thanks for edit too, (he is D'arses in English letters!).Unoquha (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Agnes Dunbar (mistress), without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This move was badly misconceived, there could be some serious reasons why the naming conventions in relation to people are not the same as ships, if you disagree raise it at the appropriate places. This smacks of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (see WP:POINT) and maybe even harassment (see WP:HA). PatGallacher (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Leicester links! I'd say Andrew Dudley is a really nice article now and could be a Good Article with some sources formatting etc. I'd hope that WP:PRIMARY is not an issue with such a little-known figure. If you are o.k. with this, I'd would do the work necessary as I can (without removing/changing content, of course); but for the moment I am too lazy anyway ... just asking ... Buchraeumer (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Cheers, carry on.Unoquha (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks again for your interesting stuff around here! Buchraeumer (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated you for autopatrolled user right. —bender235 (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are correct about Moray having been killed on 23 January 1570 rather than Fraser's 11 January. Might I suggest, however, that you include as a hatnote Fraser's alternative date as well as the Calendar State Papers noting his letter written the 20th January. They can go after the Spottiswoode reference for his death date in the lead. This way, readers can see that there are different dates given, and hopefully will prevent the date from being constantly changed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for this, I'll have a go, though Saturday that week appears to have been the 21st!Unoquha (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your hatnotes look good. If Saturday was the 21st perhaps we should just remove the day and leave 23 January to avoid confusion. It's possible Spottiswoode miscalculated and added Saturday in error. If Moray wrote a letter from Stirling on the 20th, given the state of the Scottish terrain at the height of winter, it's unlikely he could have been at Linlithgow the following day. I say we leave the 23 January date, but omit the word Saturday.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent additions to the Agnes Keith, Countess of Moray article. The affair of the jewels is interesting, and I'm pleased that you have expanded it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query about the use of "polyglot" instead of "linguist" in the article on James IV of Scotland: if you consult a dictionary, "linguist" usually has two main definitions, someone fluent in or skilled at languages, and someone who studies linguistics. "Polyglot" is the preferred term for someone fluent in many languages, since it is unambiguous, and since there's no other word for someone who studies linguistics. (Not all linguists are polyglots) Note that on Wikipedia, "linguist" forwards to "linguistics", not a disambiguation page.

In the context of James IV, he was clearly a polyglot, and not a practitioner of linguistics, so "polyglot" is a better term.

108.28.163.61 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting his experiment in linguistics reported by Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie, mentioned in the article and some linguistics primers. You won't find a dictionary older than I am that makes your distinction, O tempera, O mores! many thanks, Unoquha (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I fixed the refs for the 'experiment', in Language deprivation experiments.Unoquha (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a friendly challenge! I don't know how old you are, but the Century Dictionary is certainly older, at about 120 years (that, or you should be much much more famous). Wordnik.com has made the whole thing searchable online, and the second def for "linguist" is "A student of language; a philologist,"[1] with "philologist" being what linguists were called before "linguist" and "linguistics" became the norm. 108.28.163.61 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that philology in 1890 was more to do with Etymology than modern linguistics, but again wikipedia doesn't agree with me.Unoquha (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dudley has made it! Thank you so much for the article! And for finding those nice little details (dogs, tapestries ...) Buchraeumer (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! you've devoted much time to this.Unoquha (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert Logan is one of those that has been sitting on my 'to-do' list for ages. Will dip in where I can. Good stuff. Brendandh (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response! don't mention it etc. I think his namesake dad & grandad were interesting folk. Maybe they would be best dealt with on the same page.Unoquha (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unoquha,

Article: Siege of St Andrews Castle.

You have done a good job of the above so far. "We" (the WikiProject Military History Coordinators) encourage you to to improve the article to something around a "B class". At the moment it really needs an Infobox and an image, even a map. I personally encourage you to keep working on this one article, because it could become a good article and a worthwhile read to readers. Adamdaley (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the new Bastian Pagez article. It looks like a good candidate for a T:TDYK nomination. Are you aware of any suitable free images? Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not disagree with your edit to Slighting, I am not sure that the source does support the extension that you have added. Would you be so kind as to point out on which page of the various sources provided that say that Dunbar was slighted? I have got half way to added the text of the Treaty of Edinburgh to Wikisource -- which talks about demolition and razing them to the ground -- but got sidetracked with the text for the Treaty of Berwick, and ran out of steam for the moment (see my Sand Box on wikisource ). -- PBS (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice that you are checking. An inspection for the 1560 Dunbar slighting and an allocation of the work and a note of (slow) progress is in the Calendar of State Papers Scotland vol.1 (1898), so I've put that ref on the page, and is already summarised in Dunbar Castle. The final 1567 slightings happened after the defeat of Mary, queen of Scots. Samuel Haynes, Collection of State Papers, (1740) gives other info and treaty detail, Foedera is harder to find on googlebooks but the treaty texts are complete.Unoquha (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone curious on this; I've put a lot of what I think is interesting about these events on "Treaty of Fotheringhay", but it seems to me that it would be better moving that content to "Capture of Berwick (1482)", and leaving "Treaty of Fotheringhay" as its redirect. This is beyond me, yet I know that cut'n'paste moves are not quite right. Unoquha (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead as cut'N'paste, as the destination was pre-existing so it seemed reasonable.Unoquha (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha, I noticed this edit to the above article and was wandering if you could provide more detailed bibliographic information in line with the way the rest of the article is formatted? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out, I was a little lost trying to find the details of that particular volume. Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, added a few links to characters in your list. One thing perplexes me however, there are names in there of some of the 'disinherited', who would surely have been in Balliol's array? Brendandh (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this. It would be good to have a line referenced from a secondary source, saying that this ancient genuine list might be inaccurate, both in some personnel and numbers. (Not something I know much about: it would be good story if some people had changed sides: or that the list "slipped in" deliberately some other names for their posterity's sake.) Unoquha (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to play Wiki games with you. Cannot prove a negative. I am too busy anyway. Will let a very qualified administrator decide who is familiar with the article. It is not personal - just don't think it should be there. Mugginsx (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's an interesting point often remarked on in the UK, with the sentiment that the "monarch of Scots", the Kings and Queen of Scots ruled over their people, not a territory. The sentiment may be later than the 16th century.Unoquha (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The special sentiment that the monarch of Scotland was King of the people, and not the land, so King of Scots, is an old one founded legends on the election of Fergus I. It turns up in discussions about the monarchy in the 1570s, see Marian civil war, e,g., Both George Buchanan and David Chambers were patriotic writers, and shared a view of the nature of Scottish kingship drawn from part of a myth, that the Scots had been a migrant people from Scythia who had elected their first King, Fergus I, in response to a crisis, 251 years after their arrival in the land of Scotland.(Williamson, Arthur H., (1979), 119-20, citing Chambers, Histoire (1579)'Singularitez', f.13a). Unoquha (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unoquha i see you have made improvements to the article on William Eure, 1st Baron Eure. Could you possibly do the same for this family Palmes which was connected with the Eure family? The article needs quite a bit of clearing up. Thank you (Ealingbroadwayresident (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there. I've enjoyed our collaboration in tweaking the above article. I suspect you're the originator, so I just wanted to say that I find it very well written and full of fascinating detail which, I imagine, would normally be hard to come by. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just expanded it (last Christmas). There is a huge quantity of published sources, mostly on-line, and links to most of these in the article. These sources do compare well and agree on most points, the difficult point being the number of casualties on 7 May 1560, where I've tried to indicate the problem. I guess that some exaggeration of the number may have suited both sides, the English commanders being keen to get more resources or a resolution. As Knox mentions the fallen on that day, and has Mary of Guise make the 'tapestry' remark, it seems useful to emphasise this here, as an incident that had key significance at the time.Unoquha (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed wondering whether the words "fair tapestry" should be in quotation marks? Kim Traynor (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indented the whole Knox quote beneath, with his alleged quote of Mary of Guise. Seems a good way of doing this, handling primary-source quotes, to report the key point and then quote the text.Unoquha (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. That was a bit stupid of me not to notice the phrase's occurrence in the longer extract. Kim Traynor (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I put the quote in full on the page only after you mentioned it at 13:18.Unoquha (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Good to know I'm not losing my marbles after all! Kim Traynor (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help? I'm researching for an article on Cunningham of Drumquhassle, a supporter of the Earl of Lennox and apparently Treasurer of Scotland during his regency from July 1570 to June 1571 (according to two sources he was Collector-General Brown, KM. "Records of the Parliaments of Scotland". and Treasurer Thomson, Thomas (1833). A diurnal of ... Scotland. Bannatyne Club. p. 180.). However, a third source (E. B. Pryde, D. E. Greenway, S. Porter, I. Roy (2003). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Royal Historical Society. p. 188. ISBN 052156350X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) omits Drumquhassle (and William Stewart, listed in the WP article) completely, jumping direct from Richardson to Ruthven.

This is where you could come in - you added "Accounts of the Treasurer of Scotland Volume 12" to the Treasurer of Scotland article. Do you have access to it? Can you confirm whether Drumquhassle was indeed Treasurer? Of course, given the political turmoil in Scotland at that time, the absence of records may not prove he wasn't Treasurer, and I'd value your opinion on that too. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Cunningham of Drumquhassle was not the Treasurer. He was Captain of Dumbarton Castle, and Master of the Royal Household for Mary, Queen of Scots and James VI. He may have been a 'Collector of Thirds', certainly as Master Household he was in charge of spending that royal income stream. In Accounts of the Treasurer, vol.12 (1970), p.365, 3 November 1573, he was paid £54-6s, as, "Capitaine of Dumbertane and maister houshald to oure soverane lord the Kingis majestie", for the work of a silversmith re-making some silver plate. This is about the only time he turns up in TA, vol.12. However, he may feature in Donaldson, Gordon, ed., Accounts of the Thirds of Benefices, SHS, which I haven't got. He features in quite a lot of narratives though. Good luck with the article.Unoquha (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the parliament record linked above means that Drumquhassle was appointed in October 1570 to be the Collector of a special one-off tax raised to send ambassadors to England. So he was in charge of issuing receipts and making sure the money was paid. (May have been an earner for him too: but would have been a gamble if he was liable for shortfalls.) Hope that helps.Unoquha (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, you can say that, "the anonymous author of the Diurnal of Occurrents stated that Drumquhassle was made half (joint) treasurer with Robert Richardson in 1570", which is certainly true of that author, but not supported by the extant exchequer records. (The Diurnalist may have been thinking of the Collector job.)Unoquha (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'm finding it quite a challenge to unpick the work of old historians and the situation is made worse by a character who seems to drift in and out of the narrative. I was aware of his captaincy of Dumbarton Castle - probably why he was picked to assist in the assault to recover it from Mary's sympathisers in 1571 (oops, actually the result of this). I suspected that there were a number of people involved in the treasury (not least because Drumquhassle doesn't seem to have had high enough status), but your insight clarifies things. I'll let you know when my article is ready and let you look it over before taking it out of my sandbox. Wikiwayman (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to read my final draft, you'll find it in my sandbox. You'll see that I've avoided the issue of treasurer altogether as the text is already confusing enough to the lay reader. You'll also see that I've had to weave in a summary of the politics of the time thoughout the article to make sense of the Drumquhassle story.

No rush - I'll post it in January 2013, as I'm still thinking of a DYK - something like "... did you know that John Cunningham escaped one charge of treason, only to be hanged for another?". Any input or comment would be appreciated. Wikiwayman (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very good, with coverage of some complicated areas of Scottish history. There is a primary source quote (verifiable on line) for John Cunningham of Drumquhassle. He was mentioned at least 6 times in the letters of the English diplomat Robert Bowes who observed the Gowrie regime. After the Gowrie regime crumbled, JCoD was interrogated in August 1583 and it looked like he was going to be made to carry the can, and Bowes also mentions who his friends were;

"But the first draught thereof, which I have seen, is thought to be so sharp, especially to Gowrye, as labour is made to qualify it; and thereon it is either to be mitigated or otherwise wholly stayed. Drumwhassell hath been straitly examined for many matters, touching the delivery of Dunbarton to her Majesty, conference with the laird of Clysh and Mr. John Colville, severally, and for the bringing in of the Hamiltons to the extreme danger of the King, with many other like effects; wherein he hath in some things confessed that he had conference with others; chiefly for the home-coming of the Hamiltons, which is made a great matter here; as at meeting I shall show you. Argyle and his wife, with Glencarne, have been suitors for him; nevertheless he remaineth in ward with the guard, but he is in comfort to be shortly delivered."

This is, Correspondence of Robert Bowes of Aske, Surtees Society (1842), p.564, Bowes to Walsingham, he is mentioned on pp.195, 197, 502 also, probably others. Here with link *Stevenson, Joseph (1842). Correspondence of Robert Bowes, of Aske, Esquire. London: J. B. Nichols and Son. Unoquha (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the early 17th writer David Hume of Godscroft gives Cunningham, Master of Drumquhassle a kind of epitaph, in the History of the House of Douglas. Godscroft describes that he and Malcolm Douglas of the Mains were executed at the direction of James Stewart, earl of Arran.

"This Cunninghame was an ancient Gentleman, and of an old house, who (himself in person had beene a follower of the Earle of Lennox (the Kings Grandfather) and had done him good service when he took in the Castle of Dumbartan, ... yet both were hanged at the Market Crosse of Edinburgh. The pretext was a forged conspiracie to have take the King on a certain day at hunting, and to have carried him to England. Their accuser was Robert Hamilton of Inschemachon (Inchmachan) ... with a tale which was so unhandsome, toyish and ridiculous, that no man did beleeve it."

From, Reid, David, ed., Godscroft's History of the House of Angus, vol.2, STS (2005), pp.329-330. The unbelievable tale from 1585 still survives in its original form, involving horses with cut-tails, and can be read in an HMC report, which I'll find. Unoquha (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This toyish unbelievable accusation, including the horses with cut-tails to carry off the King which mentions Robert Cunningham, (?Master of Drumquhassle), was made by James Edmonstone of Duntreath at Edinburgh Castle on 16 February 1585. Edmonstone's informant was "Blak Johnne Hume of the the Law." It is printed in Historical Manuscripts Commission: Report on the Laing Manuscripts at Edinburgh University, vol.1 (1914), pp.38-9.

(From these two references alone, it's not to clear to me if there was a Robert Cunningham, Master of Drumquhassle, and a concurrent John Cunningham, Laird of Drumquhassle. If so, the Master might have been John the Laird's uncle.You might know already) Unoquha (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing; I see in your draft you have the execution dittays subsequent to Black Johnny Hume of the Law's accusation from Pitcairn's Ancient Trials. This was in February 1585 or February 1584/5, Scotland and England then officially reckoned the year number changed in April, as the tax/financial year still does. (Old-style and new-style dates. Every 16th century date in January, February, March is at risk of this confusion) Unoquha (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, see Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vol.3 (1880), pp.722-3 & footnote, 724-5, 729. The footnote, p.723 explains that Malcolm Douglas of Mains, the co-accused was Drumquhasle's son-law, and says that Angus and the banished Scottish lords in England claimed the accusation was frivolous. (The point about the horses in the accusation was that the accused had disguised and dishevelled their best horses to make them look like old ones that wouldn't be suitable for an adventure, and dressed themselves like beggars.) Another identical copy of Edmonstone's version of Black Johnny's story is printed in Calendar State Papers Scotland, vol.7 (1913), pp.563-4. Unoquha (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this subject has caught your imagination too! I'll work through your comments (thanks for including references) and add them in where I can. If you want to edit my sandbox directly, I'm not precious about it, or about sharing the DYK.

Thanks for your point about the dates, it had occurred to me that there was something strange going on with dates in different sources. I'll add that to the article as a note in case somebody goes back to a source and repeats my mistake in good faith.

As for more detail on the treason trial of 1585, I think it is merited. I didn't put the detail into the Douglas of Mains article as I wasn't confident of the sources (except perhaps Pitcairn, note the comment at DoM about romanticised history).

Master Robert CoD - I think this is a mis-titling of JCoD's third son, see this article. However, it was his second son (William) who eventually got fingered for conspiracy to this treason, while his heir apparent (John) was fingered for conspiracy in the 1579 treason charge. If one considers that this was more of a witch-hunt than serious pursuit of justice, it wouldn't have really mattered who was to hang, so long as they were perceived to be against Arran's party. I don't think it would have been JCoD's uncle as he would have needed to have outlived Andrew CoD by some 30 years, JCoD already had grown-up children and I cannot see any political benefit to Arran's party in hanging an old man of at least 60 years. Wikiwayman (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good thinking. This may not be an important strand for you: Looking at David Hume of Godscroft, the later chronicler, his thinking is that the Robert Cunningham Master of Drumquhassle is the uncle, the old laird's younger brother, so he is "ancient" (perhaps even 70), and so Godscroft would be saying that this Robert, MoD, like the earl of Glencairn of the time, had supported Matthew earl of Lennox in his rebellion against Regent Arran and Mary of Guise in 1543-4, (see Dalkeith Palace, Battle of Glasgow (1544), Cumbernauld Castle, etc.) This is quite possible, making him a close contemporary e.g., of the masters of work [[William Macdowall], Robert Drummond of Carnock, and of Regent Morton, and young Morton certainly was involved in the 1543-4 rebellion.

And in the context of the "disguising your best horses as knackered" story, employing an old man in the conspiracy fits nicely. In political terms too, hanging this old venerable fellow, an ornament to the family, fount of totemic knowledge etc., not the head but the eldest man, would be deliberately shocking and demonstrative, and an affront to the earl of Glencairn too. (The passage in Godscroft is among list of the shortcomings and political angles of James Stewart, earl of Arran). So this is how I read Godscroft's quote above, though it is the opposite of your line, apologies!

Still, Godscroft may be mistaken, and this Robert Master could have been a young man, as you suggest. So, in order to show that Godscroft was probably correct, all that may be needed is any reference to an adult Robert Cunningham, Master of Drumquhassle, in the years 1540-1580, to show there was such an individual, with no note found of his death before 1585. Unoquha (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% correct above; Godscroft was thinking of 'Lennox's servant, Robert Cunningham", who appeared at the trial of the earl of Bothwell, 12 April 1567, to speak for Lennox and accuse Mary's servants. (CSP. Scotland, vol.2, (1900), 319-320) This man may have been the Master of Drumquhassle, the man hung, and the laird's uncle, or some of those three other identities.

Presumably a lawyer, possibly then a younger son (but of the older generation), this Robert Cunningham turns up in another legal incident in October 1570, when, as Regent Lennox's "servitour", he interrogated a messenger called John Moon under torture at Doune Castle, (CSP Scotland, vol.3, (1903), 384). The John Moon incident is mentioned on the Doune Castle wikipage.Unoquha (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a possible date for JCoD's birth (not WP:RS) of 1511. If so, that would make JCoD 73 years old at his execution, and it would be unrealistic that he had an extant uncle. I think the "servitour" is different from JCoD's son, (part of another Cunningham family?). Will see if I can track down the original source for the DoB, as I think knowing JCoD's age helps the article overall.

According to the Bowes letters, JCoD is working for the Queen of England in August 1580!

Drumwhessel appeareth not only to remayne at her Majesties devotion, but also to be disposed as her Majestie shall thinck, pressing me very earnestly to give him advise and resolute direction, with all possible spede.

So he was guilty, but not of the treason he was hanged for. This just gets better and better. I'm minded to leave out the whole uncle issue for now, we've proved notability and can add in extra details later as they turn up. Wikiwayman (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't really looked at the family tree, and of course, not all of this will fit a Drumquhassle article anyway.

On the "at her majesties devotion" issue, it is bit more nuanced. That is, at the time James Stewart, earl of Arran, was in the driving seat. Elizabeth's advisors didn't like his foreign policy position, his attitude to Mary, Queen of Scots, and possible relations with European Catholic powers. Neither did the Kirk of Scotland, and clearly neither did Cunningham. So he would think of himself as a patriot, a political activist, siding for the time with Robert Bowes, the English rep in Scotland, having a chat, mulling over the possibilities, taking advice and perhaps the odd sub of £10 Scots, in a situation of temporary mutual interest, up to a point. Cunningham is in the political opposition in the Arran years, and Bowes is there to be their friend. The English aim is to subvert the "Scotland under Arran" that threatens them, so Cunningham's entanglement with Bowes is anti-Arran ascendency, rather that anti-Scotland. So it's not black & white hat cowboys here! though in the sense of polarity, there are broadly two main parties in Scotland.

The Gowrie regime had declared themselves legitimate, and the successors of the Scottish Reformation, at one point calling their capture of James VI the "late act of the Reformation." It happens that the Gowrie regime wasn't completely Walsingham's puppet, though England did prefer them, and they had their independent agenda, and they also didn't get enough support in money or resource from England to be sustainable. And before that England was happily in bed with Regent Morton's Scotland.Unoquha (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd sub of £10 Scots? How about a pension from the English crown of £100? [Source here], it relates to the time of the Morton Recency, but it's a hefty amount of cash, and shows that JCoD was important to the English. Morton himself gets £500, so for JCoD to get £100 (the same as some of the Earls) he must have had to work quite hard. Wikiwayman (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(of JCoD) "The man hath more wit than honestye." Bowes Wikiwayman (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great and fits nicely with above. When Regent Morton was in power, playing with the English is OK. When Arran's in power in 1585, and your party is in the wilderness, they'll hang your brother (or other), Robert, the Master of Drumquhassle.

The English pension list for June 1574 gives him £150, he has a citation for it; "Drumwhessle; able to persuade by credit and counsel, especially about the King and Argyll, and apt to do good by the commodity of his office of Dumbarton, which he commands." from Calendar State Papers Scotland, vol.5 (1907), p.1-2.

I find the Laird of Drumquhassle is also the "Receiver of Rents for the Earldom of Lennox", mentioned in 1578, ibid. p.305., and here's the twist, he was personally a Catholic, despite his Anglo-phile political leanings, according to a list of Scottish Catholic lords and lairds made in 1578, which appears to be a list made by a Roman Catholic, as it calls Calvinists heretics, ibid. p.329 (Latin). Unoquha (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, so, if you ever go to Dumbarton Castle, you will find a wall cupboard in the room in the gatehouse halfway up the steps with a stone with a carved consecration cross brought from a chapel re-set there. Perhaps it came from the Lennox chapel in Dumbarton town, which Lord Fleming demolished. Unoquha (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a very good, quite slim book, Gordon Donaldson, All the Queen's Men, (1983). He goes through from Carberry to the Ruthven Raid, and identifies and lists people by region on the king or queen's side. (The King's side being likely to accept English rewards) The lists include all manner of lairds that wouldn't get into general history. It should be cheapish on ebay/amazon/abebooks. In Donaldson's time some writers saw the king's men and the successor groups as the "left", and the Marians as the "right," which is food for thought, particularly where the issue of interest is their relation with England. Wikipedia has a bit of hole here, and needs Marian civil war, to cover the six years of war 1567-1573, Carberry to the lang siege and Regent Morton, that set the scene for next 15 years of conflict in James's reign. Unoquha (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about JCoD being a catholic - Bowes certainly didn't think so, saying JCoD hated catholicism. Maybe he was a bit free and easy with it, changing what he told people as he saw expedient. I've been to Dumbarton Castle a couple of times, but I can't persude the kids to go there in the wind and rain. The HS membership is renewed for next year, so there'll be more opportunities. You'll see I've been working on the last few years of JCoD's life in the sandbox article, and Bowes is a very interesting source. However, I'll be taking a wikibreak for a couple of weeks, so don't expect much change. All the best! Wikiwayman (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cunningham of Drumquhassle uploaded. I added your name to the DYK as a co-author, as I've found your advice and research (above) of great value, and the article wouldn't be what it is without your input. Wikiwayman (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No first name, a son of the present laird of Drumwhassell in September 1571, according to William Drury, had served the late Regent Lennox. Then, he had just resigned as a leader of 25 horsemen in the Earl of Morton's army in Leith. "Dumwassell (sic: ?the laird) being this Regent's (Regent Mar, John Erskine's) sister's son, ..." CSP Scotland, vol.3 (1903), p.708. So this 'deserter' is a nephew of John, earl of Mar, the laird was married to Mar's sister? For Drury, the desertion of a relation of Regent Mar is news for Lord Burghley in London, thinking "it may be unkindly taken" in Scotland, i.e., upsetting the King's party. Unoquha (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fits with the Guthrie Smith source; JCoD's mother was daughter of the 4th Lord Erskine, who was also grandfather of the 18th Earl of Mar. So the deserter is a generation below. Going back to the "servitor" of Lennox, this could well be Robert. Check the Lineage section in the sandbox. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I realise that the Marian civil war started in 1568. I added the Siege of Inverness (1562) to the box because it was part of the conflicts involving Mary, Queen of Scots and kind of a prelude to the Marian civil war. However I think the Siege of Inverness (1562) and also the Chaseabout Raid could be added to a separate box, which I will do right away, if only you could give me a name for the campaign box. Thanks,QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hi, I have just put the Siege of Inverness (1562) and the Chaseabout raid into a separate box: "Mary, Queen of Scots feuds". So they are not in the Marian civil war box. Let me know if you find anymore battles to add to it. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, thank you. If a better name for the box occurs to me, not too long, or biased pro-Mary or her opposition, I'll let you know. The 'Siege of Inverness (1562)' was followed by the capture of Huntly Castle and the battle of Corrichie.Unoquha (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Moubray House, it was a pleasure to read. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha, I noticed your recent work on the Battle of Corrichie. Am I right in thinking that this is not part of the Marian civil war ? and that it belongs in the box with the Siege of Inverness (1562) ?. QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works nicely. I'll see if there is more on Inverness (1562) in Randolph's letters and the royal treasurer's accounts.Unoquha (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the feud box, Kirk o'Field and David Rizzio. Both of these were carefully planned armed interventions against members of Mary's court.Unoquha (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just one more thing. Should the Battle of Carberry Hill be removed from the Marian civil war box as it took place in 1567 a year before the Marian civil war started in 1568 ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be best, the 'Marian civil war' page could be introduced in the 'Carberry' aftermath section. This seems quite a good solution, as the Mary 'feuds' box now traces a good part of the history of her reign (through a military lens), a history of governance and opposition which is lacking on her page.Unoquha (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I updated the coords to point to the pub, if thats more or less where it was? Not actually sure about having an infobox halfway down the article but seems to work (wark?) well enough. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for help & reassurance here.18:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to get my head round certain of the datings on the Lord Warden of the Marches article. The prime source for which is here [2]. If Kerr of Caverton's murder and Bastard Heron's liberty following was, as I understand it, the premise for the 1513 invasion, then he certainly couldn't have been warden in 1514! Also, from what I remember Andrew Barton's death had a deal to do with the deterioration in Anglo-Scots relations then too. I wonder whether some mention should be made of that in the Flodden article? Best Brendandh (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've not seen that book. I think the Heron / Kerr murder of 1508-ish was a real thing, or a very old story, so I could look for a earlier source to better identify the two men. Probably many Robert Kers then. The table in this book might be updated by more recent works, Thomas Rae, Maureen Meikle. On Flodden; would be good to have a few sentences on other identified particular causes for declining relations resulting in the invasion (since James IV didn't have to oblige his treaties, though he did so); lack of reparation for Andrew Barton, some argument about cash legacies expected by Margaret Tudor through 1512/3 (fn. 10 at present), James IV might been have threatened by Henry, other motives to be found in MacDougall & Mackie etc. (My thoughts; the Barton issue makes sense as a cause, and the English mentioned it at Flodden (and in chronicles after), but James IV might rather have preferred to think and claim he was fighting for the auld alliance only. That is, to an international audience, to go to war over a "shipping incident" might have been discreditable.) Unoquha (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs (Buchanan, Holinshed) and extra circumstances for the murder of Robert Ker, warden of the Middle March by John Heron, half brother of Heron of Ford, in Ridpath, George, Border History, Mercat Press (1848 reprint 1979), p. 331-2. Ridpath mentions the Andrew Barton issue and the legacy for Margaret Tudor in the same long paragraph, which shows these three incidents are usually considered among events antecedent and contributory to the Flodden campaign.11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This is one of those, "I am clearly missing something here" things, but I cannot work out what you did with this edit [3]. Was this text copied from Art in early modern Scotland and was there a correction of attribution? I am not arguing with the edit, but it I am working on something on Portrait painting in Scotland, so I am trying to make sure I haven't cut and pasted an error and I just cannot see what happened in the diff. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait I see it in the correction in the Art in early modern Scotland article. Apologies, it is clear now.--SabreBD (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at 'Renaissance in Scotland' though, I have moved the sentence about disruption & minorities out of the range its footnote. My motive was to establish a tradition with "Mynours"; to be disrupted in the regencies; then the royal portrait painter established by James VI in his adult rule. (In their articles you'll see they were appointed as such by privy seal letters.) You're very busy with these articles! Unoquha (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have managed to reconnect the footnote. Its a very helpful edit. Yep I suppose I have been busy, its mainly a case of one thing leading to another (If I just had a section on A that would create an article on B) and having brought the books for one article that can be used for another article. Thanks again for this. Much appreciated.--SabreBD ([[User talk:Sabrebd|talk])] 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha, if you are around could you comment on a discussion at Talk:James_Douglas,_4th_Earl_of_Morton#Morton's widow?, relating to his family? Many thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha,
I liked your additions to the article. Even when I only found them so late, thank you, I appreciate your work a lot.
Beste wishes
Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha,

Do you have access to Boyd, William K. ed., Calendar of State Papers Scotland, vol. 6 (1910)? We can find other volumes available online, but not volume 6.

Do you know how if Lennox's extravagance or the raid are mentioned in the introduction to that volume? You may be able to help the discussion at Talk:Raid of Ruthven#Primary source or secondary?.

I am asking because you added the source in 2010.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have seen that you are the main editor of the excellent article on Pedro de Ayala. That made me think that you might find the following article interesting:

Revised transcription of Pedro de Ayala’s 1498 report about English voyages of exploration

Best, L.A.R.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.227.1.40 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for putting up and providing this academia paper, which will improve the article. 09:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.153.93.58 (talk) meant to sign, sorry Unoquha (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email about Edinburgh access - if you're still interested, could you please complete the linked form? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha,

I noticed you reverted my change to the Rough Wooing article for the place name Traprain Law from "Dunpendyrlaw" back to "Dounprenderlaw".

I assumed that the "Dounprenderlaw" was vandalism making reference to the law firm Prenda Law, given that the linked page from Traprain Law includes the following under Name History:

"Before that, it is found on old maps as Dunpendyrlaw." (Unfortunately, the domain given as the reference is no longer current.)

That was the only cross-reference I checked; somewhat lackadaisical.

There seems to be an inconsistency between the Rough Wooing article and that on the linked article on Traprain Law. As this inconsistency is present in what I assume are the original articles from the World Heritage Encyclopedia here and here, I'm uncertain your reversion won't cause readers confusion (as it did for me) with the inconsistency.

There is an extant spelling of the one given in the Rough Wooing article given in Maitland of Lethington, and the Scotland of Mary Stuart : a history: "...the fifth bail to be made and kepit upon Dounprenderlaw."

There seems to be more references to Dunpendyrlaw as an older name for the hill, such as here.

I won't change anything further but I think at least the Traprain Law article should be amended to include both older spellings to avoid confusion and maintain consistency.

Ornicus (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Ornicus[reply]

Hi, the mention in the Rough Wooing article is quoting an original spelling of the time as represented in the printed cited source, the Register of the Privy Council.

As you note, the same source is quoted in Maitland of Lethington. So yes, it would have been tidy to add the Register of the Privy Council spelling and reference on the Trapain Law page also. I'll do that. You probably know the Library of Scotland digitised old maps website I guess 'Dunprendyrlaw might be found there, so I'll have a look. Unoquha (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I found an NLS image of a map with 'Dunprendyrlaw' and added a ref to the other spelling. Unoquha (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on the Hobart connection. I did write on Dudley some years ago and will try to return to him some time, perhaps soon. I didn't do him justice, particularly in terms of sources and citations. He was certainly a rogue, possibly mentally unstable, but enormously interesting. The Hobarts had a seat in Buckinghamshire, but, as is often the case with peers, they also had a major property outside the eponymous county. Blickling Hall in Norfolk is a place I have visited a few times and was long their home, but is now a National Trust property. It's well worth seeing. It is the most likely birthplace for Anne Boleyn, although her family sold it very early in the 16th century. The Hobarts bought it in the early 17th century and became earls of Buckinghamshire in the 18th. The family have occupied all sorts of fairly important, but never quite leading, positions in church and state. Thanks again. You've rekindled my interest in Dudley, whose own seat is just a few miles from where I live. Sjwells53 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Arthur Jeferries Collins's Inventory of Elizabeth I of England as a source at Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom and wonder if you, the main author of Inventory of Elizabeth I of England, can give me some advice on medieval English units of currency. On page 75, Collins writes: "the Royal (or Great) Crown itself passed into the keeping of the Mayor and Commonalty of London in 1386 as security for a loan of 4000". The amount is followed by what looks to be an italicized lowercase L. I assumed this was an old version of the £ sign, but now I'm not sure. Could it be shillings or something else entirely. Firebrace (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this lower case means pounds of money, as in "l-s-d" = pounds, shillings, and pence. Best wishes, Unoquha (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley into Theodosia Harington. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unoquha. You recently created George Home, Earl of Dunbar as a "useful redirect," but it actually redirects to itself. I don't know what target you intended. I've tagged the page for speedy deletion, but you are welcome to edit (or recreate) it if you know a valid target. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I changed the link to a valid target (my mistake), and took away the tag, and now it seems a "useful redirect" I'd hoped for. Unoquha (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edits to both these articles you seem to have implied Henry Jetto was a possible actor at the Masque, as several African actors are recorded as present. Is this identification supported by the secondary literature on the event, or is it just original research? Tenpop421 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I mean to say that Sir Henry Bromley was connected to both the masque at Stirling and the biography of Henry Jetto, which seems a sure fact, and a fact about Bromley that may have been important to both men. That is worth mentioning and not pushing the sources at all. Bromley's story is part of Jetto's story. Having stated the case, I'll try and amend Jetto to explain the link without making the inference (beyond the sources) as you mention. Best. Unoquha (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put the Stirling "connection" as an afterthought. Also, I am from Holt, Worcester, and know the Holt Castle garden well, so I have an interest, but a kindly one. Anyone with access to the published calendars of state would see the possible connection. Happy 26th December.Unoquha (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm being unclear, @Unoquha:! What I meant to ask is if there is any secondary literature which mentions Jetto in relation to the masque. I don't doubt that there were black actors at the Masque, but it seems that including it in Jetto's biography would imply an identification which might not be academically supported. Either way, have a happy new year! Regards, Tenpop421 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I do not know of no secondary published source as yet making a connection, so the the detail of Henry Bromley's life, the trip to Stirling, seems to make a connection in the article, as you point out. The solution is not necessarily to delete permanently the mention of Bromley's role in the embassy to Stirling, but add more context around it about Bromley's standing, and the garden at Holt castle, not yet described on wikipedia but available in published secondary sources. Again, I have an interest, and was on the phone only yesterday to a granddaughter of a recent owner of the castle, and we shared memories of its beauty and its garden. So the points to add, could be Bromley's importance as a gent and knight and the value he invested in his estate, home and garden at Holt. (I used to live in Holt parish, and am even more deeply involved, as I suppose I may have Jetto ancestry too!). The church at Holt where Jetto is buried is adjacent to Holt Castle, and certainly, as far as I know, parish events are still held in the garden which Jetto knew. I have had some informal communication with the historian Miranda Kaufmann about this, and also about the article Ellen More, an African servant in the Scottish royal household, in an earlier period than Jetto's. So, finally: I will delete the Stirling link from "Jetto" for now, but hope to add a contextual paragraph for Bromley and Holt Castle to "Jetto", and the Holt and Holt Heath, Worcestershire articles when I find good secondary sources for these. There are other historic places at Holt, in Domesday and later, and to this day, as you can imagine. Happy New Year! Regards, Unoquha (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. I have made another edit on the article "Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley" of which you area major contributor. The aim of my edit was to provide a URL for the citation of CSP Vol. 5 on which you recently improved. You seem to be such a good historian, eminent Wikipedian, and seem to know the history and the sources of the Scottish 17th century so well. I hope my contribution is correct and welcome. I am a novice on Wikipedia and a foreigner living in the UK. Please tell me if I should have done things differently. I am for example unsure about the use of the Volume parameter in the list of sources. As I did it, the "5" does not appear in bold because I added the volume title ("A. D. 1574–1581"). How could I have done it better? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great that you put in these links to archive org. I put the years covered in the title, which looks OK, and simpler to check. Most of the papers copied in these books from "state papers" at The National Archives at Kew are digitised now, and can be seen via State Papers Online, log in available via some libraries. Best.Unoquha (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. I am glad to hear that there are no major problems and that my interventions are generally appreciated. Thanks for your kind remarks and advice but please do not hesitate to correct me where needed. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Scholarly Barnstar
		A barnstar for your untiring and scholarly work on various obscure topics in British history! Your articles are consistently interesting, if also unconventional. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's really nice, many thanks !Unoquha (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. Thank you for your recent contribution to the article "Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley", which expands and improves the content. I maintain a watchlist of about 100 articles, most of them Irish biographies that I am trying to improve. I find that edits like this, your one, are, unluckily, very rare, about 1 out of 100. Most edits are about the form, most of them admittedly useful as well, but quite a few are counterproductive, pushing some kind of an agenda, e.g. politically motivated (Irish nationalism), and even destructive (vandalism). Johannes Schade (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! I too am surprised that people don't more frequently bring new material to improve articles.Unoquha (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed James Maxwell, 1st Earl of Dirletoun was newly created when I was tidying up Black Rod - you might be interested to know there's a short biographical piece in Parliamentary History which seems to shed quite a bit of light on his career & what happened to him during the 1640s. Let me know if you don't have access but would find it useful! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!Unoquha (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your many references in Scottish history articles to the Danish ambassador Steen Bille. My interests are mainly Danish naval history, but I live not ten miles from Falkland Palace. A bowl of Tayside strawberries seems appropriate. Viking1808 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most kind - thank you ! Unoquha (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that you have done quite a lot of work on the various Earls of Sutherland and was hoping you could comment on a discussion I have started on the correct numerical designation of the 10th and 11th Earls. The discussion is here: Talk:Earl of Sutherland. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Christian Friis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Another page. See Christen Friis & Draft talk:Christian Friis#Article

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 01:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. We have met before and you probably know that I have always appreciated your contributions. I wonder whether you would welcome some contributions from me to your new article Claud Hamilton of Shawfield. I could add a family tree and some short additions to the text. I do not want to be intrusive or disruptive. I noted your remark "I always write references so they are useful to other researchers. I am always saddened to see them converted to eccentric formats." I hope I have not been among those who have saddened you. I prefer to use templates (Sfn and Cite book) in my citations. I find the citations as they are now in the article difficult to understand and to look up. What does HMC stand for? One finds a wide variety of citation styles in Wkipedia. According to WP:CITEVAR we are supposed to respect this. With many thanks, best regards and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, of course you can add as much to Claud Hamilton of Shawfield as you can! With regard to converting references, the guidance WP:CITEVAR does mention not changing an article's existing style, and further 'If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it'.
I've added a link to HMC Laing in the CHofS article. HMC is Historical Manuscripts Commission, they published summaries and quotations of archival material in various collections, and many of their reports are on archive.org or hathi.trust. This one, you'll likely know HMC, 11th Report Appendix Part VI: Manuscripts of the Duke of Hamilton (London, 1887) The odd volume numbering is because the HMC "reports" were notionally letters addressed by the commissioners to Queen Victoria, stating that Lord XYZ had some interesting papers, and the appendices were the useful detailed summaries.Unoquha (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha, Thanks for your kind reply. I felt I was targeted by your remark "I am always saddened to see them converted to eccentric formats", which you added on 27 May 2021. I am ready to revert any change of citation style that you object to. Please point it out to me. I must admit that I have sometimes changed the citation style of an article without consulting the authors concerned. I would also be interested to see which citation style you consider "eccentric". Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. Still going with Shawfield. He has often been confused Sir Claud Hamilton, constable of Fort Toome. I might have to create an article for that "other" Claud Hamilton to sort this out. But I will take a day off tomorrow. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha: I finally created the article Claud Hamilton of the Fort of Toome. Best regards, Johannes

Claud Hamilton of Shawfield's inventory mentions his things in his house at Elieston, West Lothian, so I suppose he left the place to his nephew.Unoquha (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should think Claud Hamilton of Toome was Claud Hamilton of Shawfield's grandson, in which case you have made him marry his grandmother. See Claud son of Robert, son of Claud Hamilton of Shawfield, Pasul (1904), p.41.Unoquha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. I would very much like to discuss "Shawfield"and "Toome" with you, but for now I have difficulties to follow. I think you know far more about the subject than I do. Concerning your first comment above I do not find an inventory of his house in Elieston, West Lothian. Is that somewhere in Paton, 1914 (https://archive.org/details/reportonlaingman01greauoft/)? I have looked around and made a search for Elieston but found nothing. It seems this house was near Edinburgh after what is said in the Diurnal. I have not yet understood to whom it belonged. My guess is Robert Hamilton, Toome's father-in-law. —I think Shawfield and Toome were some distant cousins but for our practical purposes here quasi-unrelated. They knew each other and were friends as is clear in the letter about Shawfield's death in Paton (p 132–135)". I think the grandson you think of is Claude Hamilton of Montalony (d. 1695). I think he was too young in 1618 when Toome was made Constable of Fort Toome. Do do not know the ref. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this frames the previous notoriety of John Black in disputation context. Secondly, the value of the similar outcomes is in understanding plainly the overlap in violence in the same place at the same time. Please reflect on how we can reach consensus. NoelveNoelve (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a removal of expert analysis by an award winning historian and book directly on the topic. There isn't anything else like it. It defines the social and political context of the murderers actions. It's near enough wikipedia content at it's best. Again, this'll need returning to for consensus. NoelveNoelve (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of Michael Lynch myself.Unoquha (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

l can provide annotation as per wikipedia guidelines, i.e. debatedly (or some other word?) killed without trial, killed on the basis of evidence extracted under torture. We can flesh out some ways of reaching consensus. NoelveNoelve (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha (is this pronounced ['unowa]?). You created the article Claud Hamilton of Shawfield using a <ref>free-text citation style if I may call it so. I changed it to "Sfn-cit book". I am used to this system and found it easier to edit in it. I always thought I would change it back later. However, my edits took much longer than what I foresaw. I feel I should change it back to your original citation style. However, this is quite a bit of work and I am not so sure that I understand your citation style well enough. Before starting I wanted therefore ask you whether I should do this. Please tell me frankly. I should learn to better respect and understand other people's citation styles. With apologies and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references I write are mostly using a formula commonly used by authors: Author Name, Book Title, vol. number (Publisher, Location, year), p. number: Joan Thirsk, Food in Early Modern England (Hambledon Continuum, London, 2007), p. 23.Unoquha (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. Thank you very much for the instructions above. I interpret this as meaning that I should go ahead and change all the Sfns in the article to the indicated format. I agree that you have the perfect right to demand this. I have started, but I must admit that it takes me more time than what I expected. Also I feel that a lot of information is lost in the process. Most notably your format seems to have no place for a URL. I feel that this makes it unnecessarily difficult for a reader or a reviewer (e.g. when you submit it for GA or FA) to look up what the source actually says. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of reference with two links included, to the author wikipedia page, and to a page image digitised by the internet archive. It is easy to place a url within square brackets: William Fraser, The Melvilles, Earls of Melville, and the Leslies, Earls of Leven, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1890), p. 7.17:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I should add, this is not "my format" or "my citation style", but simply the manner in which footnotes and endnotes appear in most books that I read.Unoquha (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One finds a wide variety of citation styles in Wikipedia. According to WP:CITEVAR we are supposed to respect this.Unoquha (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unoquha. Thank you very much for your additional instructions. I did not mean that you arbitrarily invented that style, I understand it is based on your wide reading and experience. I just did not know what to call it. I have converted all the Sfns to REF. I wonder whether I should regroup citations of the same page by naming the REF as you did on you article Moubray House? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to congratulate you on an absolutely fantastic read! Never thought a wedding article would be so interesting. I've nominated it to a DYK and hope it gets to the main page because this article deserves many eyes on it. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, glad you like it! Probably a few things to be fixed as yet, thank you! Unoquha (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unoquha. Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you; not only did you write this article, expanding it from nothing to an article that should probably be considered for a good article review, you also expanded Naumachia, an article sadly bereft of significant post-Roman content, with details about the River Thames battle! BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha, Why have you deleted the edits I made to the page on Pedro de Negro? RLamb (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted your own edit.Unoquha (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. RLamb (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate included a staged sea-battle between Christian and Turkish ships in the River Thames? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I visited Eleanor and Ralph Verney's tomb in King's Langley today, and uploaded some photographs to Commons. The tomb is an incredible survivor. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, this is a great addition to the article! Unoquha (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Coronation of James I and Anne that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha, thank you for your recent edits to Sundrum Castle. I wanted to let you know I've also recently been working on Maybole Castle, which may be of interest to you. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering, if you had time, to look over the article to see if the people mentioned therein are correct. I feel you might have access to more information than I do. I created several of the Murray articles a while ago but had to ask for them to be deleted, such was the tangled web of mess I created for myself. Seasider53 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks about right to me. There aren't articles for these lairds of Tullibardine yet, the oldest is this William, William Murray (died 1562). I haven't been to the chapel myself. It is mentioned in books by Richard Fawcett. All best wishes.Unoquha (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am making minor prose edits to this article you started. As I am a new MILTHIST member and a relatively new Wikipedian, I am trying to stick to simple editing tasks. Please let me know if you have any issues with my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcanami (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you have any more info on this gentleman. There are a few decent resources, but their previews on Google are limited and the titles don't seem to be available for purchase. Seasider53 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Named in a Perth bridge project in 1765, added this to the article. Seems a bit young at 25, and so could have been his father, if so, still worth noting in this current article.Unoquha (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for edit on this article. But what is your source for the idea that the harper at Anne of Denmark's court was his father rather than the man himself? In the main source (Donnelly's article) I can't find any such possibility. If you can't substantiate it, I would revert to the previous version. Aklein62 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coronation of Edward VI, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edward VI was only nine years old on the day of his coronation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coronation of Edward VI. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coronation of Edward VI), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading some of your wonderful coronation articles. Such great research and prose, thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm glad that you like them.Unoquha (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I might have mentioned this to you before, but take a peek to see if it might be of interest. Hoping to get over the line this year, if not early next. Seasider53 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Unoquha!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Unoquha, and thank you for writing so many articles about British royals, nobles, aristocrats and courtiers, especially those about women who are generally so poorly represented. I see from your user page that you are not particularly interested in wikiprojects but if you were to become a member of Women in Red, I'm pretty sure you would inspire many more contributors. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting touch with this kind affirmation, and I will have a closer look at the project, all best wishes!Unoquha (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information on the above, roaming wife of Thomas Hay Marshall? I was thinking of creating an article on here, with the basis being the naming of Rose Terrace being part of her notability. I fear there isn’t much about her online. Seasider53 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. But the divorce is clearly of interest to historians. I see an open-access article about the ballad and her story, so I put that as an external link.Unoquha (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingratis was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Owning land and being knighted don't in themselves amount to notability in the Wikipedia sense. This presently consists mostly of genealogy and information about family connections - see WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTINHERITED - plus information on land ownership.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Wandesford and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ingratis (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unoquha! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ingratis (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help removed template. Thanks you. 103.120.176.238 (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha,

Thanks for creating an article for the wedding of François II and Mary Stuart. I understand you came to make the article via your work on Mary Stuart (whereas if I ever produced such an article it would be coming from other work on François) but its great to see active content creation on this period. I've had a look through your catalogue of creations, very impressive! :)

If we keep working on our respective sides of the channel I'm sure we can make this period of Anglo-French politics very fleshed out on Wikipedia! sovietblobfish (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these kind words, and also the article could indeed look well with a bit more François II.Unoquha (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After you've finished what you have for it (and I've finished the project I'm working on at the moment, so maybe not until next year haha) I can help with integrating some French sources I have at my disposal. sovietblobfish (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey of St Mary, Haddington, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good news and thank you! I have changed the article title to Abbey of St Mary, Haddington.Unoquha (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:16th-century tailors, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Can you please add categories to any category you make? Otherwise people can't find it. Mason (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African presence at the Scottish royal court has been nominated for conversion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You report that she lived to 1620 but don't give a citation. Can you kindly provide your source? Thank you. ZoneAlarm5 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this. I can't remember where I saw the 1620 date, and will try a find a source. In the meantime I will take out the unsourced information. Thank you.Unoquha (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it unclear whether he went to Seton Palace or Pinkie House? The new wording seems ambiguous DarmaniLink (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unclear in the translated source, I think. Both houses belonged to the Seton family. I could check this page, and rephrase here as required.Unoquha (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the source the house is called "Zidon", so I will use that.Unoquha (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems better: "Wedel went to Musselburgh and visited a house which he called "Zidon" (possibly Seton Palace or Pinkie House), and enjoyed the garden but could not get in." Best wishes, Unoquha (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unoquha. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:George Wandesford, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you rename that article, which is the incorrect name. It is known as the Scultpured Cross, not the Canna sculpured cross. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the edit summary "article describes a particular sculptured cross rather than sculptured crosses in general". There are other sculptured crosses in Scotland and elsewhere. The HES CANMORE database has entries for "Strathmartine, Sculptured Cross" and "Moniaive, Sculptured Cross" and so on.Unoquha (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what canmore defines them as, not what are actually called in sources. Did you look at sources. No you didnt. The starthmartine celtic cross is called the Strathmartine Cross, not the Strathmartine Sculptured Cross. What a total waste of time. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your contributions to wikipedia.Unoquha (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you added the paragraph on the miniature Anne Clifford sent to her mother in June 1615 and I would love to know how you came across that wonderful letter, as it has taken me a lot of digging this evening to find out where it is! It has been bugging me incessantly, so I had to ask, though I apologise if this isn't the 'done' thing. CountCavendish (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These Historical Manuscripts Commission volumes are (mostly) online, but are not easy to find, here is a link HMC 11th Report Appendix Part VII: Lord Hothfield (London, 1888), p. 83 I will put this the page.Unoquha (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unoquha! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mary, Queen of Scots that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. The addition or removal of references is not a minor edit. DrKay (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unoquha. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "George Wandesford".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]