:I usually don't bother with getting credit for helping out with articles. Don't worry about that. I haven't gone through everything yet (I've been working on the article late this afternoon and this evening in between yard work and kids), but do you mean that you linked to the wrong siege? [[User:ACP2011|Anne]] ([[User talk:ACP2011#top|talk]]) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
:I usually don't bother with getting credit for helping out with articles. Don't worry about that. I haven't gone through everything yet (I've been working on the article late this afternoon and this evening in between yard work and kids), but do you mean that you linked to the wrong siege? [[User:ACP2011|Anne]] ([[User talk:ACP2011#top|talk]]) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Siege of Kandahar to which is wikilinked is not the Siege of 1880, which I haven't found on Wikipedia. Excuse me, but I must insist that you get credit for helping me out. I highly appreciate your help. Hope you're doing well. Wish you the best. [[User:Iowafromiowa|Iowafromiowa]] ([[User talk:Iowafromiowa|talk]]) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Siege of Kandahar to which is wikilinked is not the Siege of 1880, which I haven't found on Wikipedia. Excuse me, but I must insist that you get credit for helping me out. I highly appreciate your help. Hope you're doing well. Wish you the best. [[User:Iowafromiowa|Iowafromiowa]] ([[User talk:Iowafromiowa|talk]]) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
:I'm now going to bed, hope you understand a 77 year old (laughter). But the 18 year old who listened to this person's death on the radio is still pretty active and will try to get him to the main page with the invaluable help of yours. Thank you indeed. [[User:Iowafromiowa|Iowafromiowa]] ([[User talk:Iowafromiowa|talk]]) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm now going to bed, hope you understand a 77 year old (laughter). But the 18 year old who listened to this person's death on the radio is still pretty active and will try to get him to the main page with the invaluable help of yours. Thank you indeed. [[User:Iowafromiowa|Iowafromiowa]] ([[User talk:Iowafromiowa|talk]]) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Replace "nameoffile" with the name you saved your file under (and change the .png to .jpg or whatever file extension is appropriate), replace "descriptionofimage" with a brief description of the image (this will only be visible if someone mouse-hovers over the image), and replace "caption" with - you got it - a caption
Frankly, if all new contributors were as thorough, enthusiastic and conscientious as you, this place would be damn near perfect. You're doing a sterling job; you're a real asset to the project. Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Yunshui雲水23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the remarkable progress you have been making on the article on Lionel Ashfield. I note that you found proof of six aerial victories by him. I double-verified one of those on the article Discussion page, and added a seventh.
At some point, I will relist him onto the list of aces with seven victories. However, I do not want to disrupt your editing. If you could drop me a line on my Talk page advising when I could do this without disrupting you, it would be appreciated.
Incidentally, you may wish to both correct and extend the lede paragraph in the article.
Thank you. I didn't want to change the lead paragraph until I received some feedback. It certainly does seem convincing that he had more than 5 victories. Any time you want to contact me is just fine. I just started contributing to Wikipedia two days ago and I really don't know my way around yet. Talk pages are just a mystery to me still. However, I am starting to get comfortable with references. Photos are still somewhat of a mystery, too, although I've made a little progress there. I've been working on two articles-the Lionel Ashfield article and the Ramscappelle Road Military Cemetery one. They're coming along. Thanks again. ACP2011 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let this weirdness scare you off. You are the most promising new contributor I have yet seen. Please keep up the great work.
You have listed six victories in the article. I confirmed one of them (18 May 1918) from my source text, and added one more on 31 May 1918. Whether you realize it or not, you have made an important contribution here. The text I used for a source is written by some of the world's most eminent aviation historians, and they were only able to give specifics for those two victories, and add that he had three others.
If you look down the left side of the article on the Ashfield article (or any other article), you will see a black header that reads "toolbox". The first link under that, as in "what links here", shows all the other WP articles linked to this one. One of them is List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories. I am going to move Ashfield to List of World War I aces credited with 7 victories as soon as you straighten out the lede. It's not a big deal, and will take me about two minutes.
The lede (or lead) is a precis of the main body of the article. As such, it establishes the reason for the article, as well giving an overview of the more detailed contents. Ledes are seldom sourced, as the same info is sourced in the body. I say seldom, because occasionally there is a highly controversial fact in the lede that just cries out for a citation, just to ward off the wowsers. In this case, just claim the seven victories for Ashfield and be done with it. No shillyshallying required.
While we are at it...I realize you are already ear-deep in new information here on WP, and probably running on sensory overload. However, I recommend that at first opportunity, you check out Flying ace and Aerial victory standards of World War I. They are two short articles, but they are key to understanding the niche of World War I aviation.
Hope this helps. I might add, you are on my watchlist, so I am riding herd on you, with the aim of pitching in if you need me.
Hi George. I actually already had the May 31 kill. The way I originally listed it was that there were six from the auction website: Feb 27 (2), Mar 18, May 18, and May 21 (2). Then, there were two from Aerodrome that had specific details (out of a total of 5 that they claim): (1) The May 18 Aerodrome matched the May 18 from the auction. (2) A seventh (May 31) from Aerodrome that wasn't listed on the auction site. I wasn't sure what to make of that fact that it didn't match the auction. I wanted to see what people thought. I'm glad you agree. I did a temporary alteration of the lead paragraph (not too emphatic) until I had a chance to discuss it with you again. I'll get rid of the shilly-shallying. And by the way, I've only used Macs at home since Christmas 1995. I never had a virus until now, and I had three! I investigated and found out the Apple is trying to keep the problem (which is known) hush-hush. The absence of viruses on Macs has always been a big draw for people and one of the reasons that they're willing to shell out more bucks. But Norton came out with a version for Mac a couple of years ago because Macs have been having problems. I had never heard about it until last night. My Mac is brand new - December!!! Thanks again for all your help. ACP2011 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC personnel
Incidentally if you're after picture of pilots like Ashfield and have an Ancestry account - one of the collections available to search is "Great Britain, Royal Aero Club Aviators’ Certificates, 1910-1950" which includes photographs of the men. There don't seem toi be any problems in using the photos on here as they tend not to be attributed to a photographerand being over 70 years old are out of copyright - see File:Euan Dickson.jpg for an example I used. I hope you'v got Safari/Firefox sorted out. NtheP (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole picture thing seems a little overwhelming. Let's start off with a single photo. I have an Ancestry account and I actually found one (so far) photo that I need for a WWI aviator article that I started today. It's in the file that you mentioned: Great Britain, Royal Aero Club Aviators' Certificates, 1910-1950. Since it's in public domain, I guess it makes sense to put it on Wikimedia for everyone. So, how do I start the process? Thanks. ACP2011 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone says that at first :-)
If you haven't already download the photo off Ancestry and save it on your Mac, it's useful to take a note of the date of the photo (year only is fine) and what number album it is in in the collection.
Now from here we can either use the upload wizard or the plain form. I think the wizard is actually harder and I usggest you use the plain form.
Destination file - what you want the file to be called. Something sensible so if it's a photo of a person use his or her name and the filetype (probably either .png or .jpg)
Summary. Enter the following information (make sure you get the formatting right, all the pipes and curly brackets)
{{Information
|Description=Flight Sub-Lieutenant Euan Dickson RN
|Source=Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates Album 11
|Date=1916
|Author=Not known
|Permission={{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}
|other_versions=
}}
This is the information I used for another file File:Euan Dickson.jpg from the same source. Change the fields as you need but to briefly explain what they all are. First of all this is a template {{Information}} desinged specifically to capture all the essential information about images.
Description - what/who is the photo of. I could have been fuller here and you don't need to write an essay (that's the point of the article the image is going into) but enough to identify the subject.
Source - where is the image from. Note it's the Royal Aero Club not Ancestry and I've added which volume. This is so if anyone wants to go and verify the source they have more information about where to look. If you want to add the Ancestry URL fine.
Date - of the image. If you only have year that's enough, if you have month and/or date put those in to.
Author - i.e. who took the photo, not your own name :-). If the identity of the photgrapher is known include their name and death year. If it's unknown put Not Known.
Permission - leave these as above. This is the really important bit as it establishes that the photo is out of copyright and is where most people go wrong. What we are saying here is that under EU copyright rules the photo was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication (thats the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} bit) and secondly that under US copyright rules the image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1923 (thats the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}part). With other photos different licences will apply for example for a photo you took yourself you would use {{pd-self}} but for now the two quoted are the correct ones to use
Other versions - leave blank
Licencing - you can leave this because we have put the information in using {{information}} but if we hadn't we can use this drop down list to find the appropriate licence - if we needed it here we would use First published in the United States before 1923.
Now you can click Upload File and away it will go. Job Done
Step 2a - give it a sensible name. If it's a person just use his name and the photo type probably .png or .jpg
Step 2b - description of the photo e.g. "Lt X photgraphed for the Royal Aero Club records when awarded his pilot's licence" - you don't have to go to town on this but enough for the photgraph to be understood. Certtainly you can use links to relate to the article on X
Step 3 - click on the button that says "This is a free work" (This is assuming the photo in the album isn't credited to a photographer i.e. author unknown)
This brings up several more options. Choose the one that says "This work is so old its copyright has expired"
More drop down boxes
Author - unknown
Lifetime - unknown
Original publication - Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates Album "#N" dated 191X
Date of publication - 191X
Immediate source - the Ancestry page you downloaded from
Next bit "Public Domain status"
Chose the second option It was first published outside the USA, and it was in the Public Domain in its country of origin by the URAA date
Having done all that select Upload (not Upload on Commons) to upload the file.
I think the wizard is good in that it forces you to put the permission etc in but poor because it's more long winded and doesn't allow as the plain form does the nuances of the licence tags. However it's your shout. What it comes down to is confidence in understanding and using the |permissions= field in {{information}}. Once you start to find your way round that I think the plain form is faster and easier. To move on a bit depending on how we get the consent of IWPP the permission field may either be |{{OTRS-pending}}= or |{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}=.
Hope this helps. If you don't understand any of it, give me a shout and I'll try and explain it better. Also don't worry if you get it wrong. Like anything else it can be edited after it's been saved. NtheP (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ACP2011! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 04:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I replied again at the teahouse. I would like you to get due credit for your hard work. I had written quite a few articles before I found out about this. You got your watchlist set up so you can quickly see when articles and talk pages have been edited?--Charles (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You click"my preferences" at the top of the page then watchlist. You can set it to automatically add anything you edit. Click "watchlist" at the top regularly to keep up with what everybody is doing. You will soon see if your articles get vandalised as sadly they often do.--Charles (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to give up right now on the nomination process because I'm just getting lost. However, I will try to go ahead and create a watch list. If I understand correctly, a watch list is a list of the articles you've created or edited and you want to keep tabs on to make sure that they're not vandalized? ACP2011 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can put any page on your watchlist. For example this page, your talk page is on my watchlist because we've had several conversations and I wanted to know when you had responded without having to keep looking at the page. As well as articles I've had direct involvement in (and maintain an interest) I've got project pages, other articles that interest me as well as wikipedia admin pages e.g. Teahouse. There's almost 200 pages on my watchlist and my list is probably small compared to some people's. One you might be interested in watching is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or rather the talk page (watch either, you get both). Currently there is a long discussion going on about whether medal ribbons should be displayed in articles. NtheP (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cup of tea for you!
I'm so delighted and pleased with your progress on Wikipeida! You really seem to be getting comfortable with the whole setup. The Teahouse is here to help, we're so glad you are here :) Sarah (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarah. I just learned about a watch list this afternoon, so I just tried to indicate my preferences for it. Hopefully, I didn't mess it up too badly. Do you have any suggestions on the process for requesting feedback on articles? I created several of them in the past two weeks. I'm unclear on how the pages are rated. While I keep trying to improve all of them, I'd particularly like to improve the ones that have been rated as start class. When I put a message on one of my articles' talk page, I received a message to the effect that it was unlikely that anyone would see my request for specific feedback. Is there someplace that I should be looking for criticisms that were made at the time of article ratings? Thank you. Anne (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne! Ah yes, feedback for an article. Well, one great tool is to look at WikiProjects which revolve around the subjects you are writing about. Looks like military biographies and UK related subjects would be good - so you can always visit the talk page for those projects and ping folks to look at your articles. You can perhaps also try asking at the Teahouse. So far we haven't had any requests for article review - and perhaps one of your articles can be a test run :) And if the hosts decline to provide feedback, maybe they can point you in the right direction that I'm failing to point you in. Sarah (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ideas, Sarah. So feedback at WikiProjects or the Teahouse. Sorry for the delay in response. I initially didn't find your message. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ACP! User:Charlesdrakew has pointed out your new article Arras Flying Services Memorial, which is eligible for Wikipedia's Did You Know? section. I see you have made a start on setting up a nomination. It's not the easiest system in the world, but I'll guide you through it if you like. (I'm an experienced user of the Did You Know section.) I'm just looking over the article at the moment, and will make some suggestions here in a few minutes; then I'll set up the nomination for you. Kind regards, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, an article that will qualify for DYK is one that is new (written within the last few days), reasonably long (there is a specific minimum length, but anything above about four paragraphs should be OK), suitably referenced with inline referencing using reliable sources, and that can have an interesting, funny, curious or noteworthy statement written about it in a short sentence: this is the "hook" that will "hook" readers into exploring the article. (The hook appears on Wikipedia's main page for eight hours; readers will then click on the article name and will be taken to your article.) Anyway, both Pruett Mullens Dennett and Arras Flying Services Memorial fulfil all of these criteria, so they are certainly eligible.
The next thing is to set up the nomination template. Having read the articles, I can see that a good hook incorporating both articles could be something like this:
Did you know ... that nearly 1,000 airmen killed on the Western Front who have no known grave, such as Pruett Mullens Dennett, are commemorated on the Arras Flying Services Memorial?
If that looks like a good way of "hooking" potential readers into the articles, I will go ahead and edit the template you have created and add it to the nominations page. I'll describe the whole process as I do it! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent. And that's how I've been learning--watching how other people are going about the process. Thank you so much. Anne (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I've now completed the nomination template. To explain what I did: first, I added the text of the "hook" as above, following various DYK conventions such as marking the relevant articles in bold (three apostrophes on each side) and linking them; then I added an image (it's more difficult to do when the template has already been created, but if you are at the template creation stage you would just need to enter the image file name, exclusive of the File: prefix) and some explanatory text for the image; and I just added a note explaining that the nomination is yours but I will oversee it. The template, i.e. the "page" called Template:Did you know nominations/Arras Flying Services Memorial, then has to be added to the main "Did You Know?" nominations page under the date heading relating to the date on which you started the article(s). For DYK purposes, an article "starts" when it first goes live into the main body of the encyclopaedia. So although you started writing Arras on 3rd March in the "Articles for Creation" area (I can see that by going to the revision history and selecting "earliest" to see the earliest edit), the point at which it actually went live into the encyclopaedia was today, when User:Ktr101 moved it out of the "Articles for Creation" area. (To see this, go to the Arras Flying Services Memorial article, click on the "History" tab at the top and look for the line near the top showing the time 04:35, 7 March 2012 and the summary Ktr101 moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arras Flying Services Memorial to Arras Flying Services Memorial: Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!)) So Arras went live on 7th, Pruett Mullens Dennett went live on 6th, and I have added the nomination under the 6th March heading. This can be seen here.
A bit more info on the DYK process. The stage where I placed the link on the nominations page was important (and easily forgotten!): it allows the contents of the nomination template to be displayed in full on the nominations page, allowing anybody looking at that page to see your nomination. (In technical terms, this is called transcluding a template, which you will no doubt see being used all around Wikipedia!)
At some point in the next few days (maybe longer, maybe shorter), another user will undertake a review of your nomination, to assess its suitability for appearing on Wikipedia's Main Page. The Main Page is seen by millions of people every day, so anything that appears there (even a single-sentence "hook") must pass certain standards of accuracy, verifiability, grammatical quality and so on. Likewise, because many people could potentially navigate their way to the article(s) linked from a hook, the article must be checked against various criteria. Assuming it passes, it will be "ticked off", and the hook sentence will later be moved to a holding area from where it will be placed on the Main Page for 8 hours alongside about 6 other hooks. Only one hook per set is allocated the "image slot" at the top, where it will appear alongside a small version of one of the images from the article; this is considered the most prestigious position! (This is why I added the image of the memorial to the nomination template.)
DYK is only a small part of Wikipedia, and many Wikipedia users (even the most experienced) never use it. It is an ideal venue for quality new articles to be showcased to the wider world, though, hence Charles's suggestion above that you nominate these two articles (and my involvement; we have worked together several times on Sussex-related and church-related articles, and he knows of my interest in the DYK process). I can say from long experience with DYK-nominated articles that military-related articles are very popular in terms of the number of people who will typically "click through" from the hook to read the article. Probably the best thing about DYK is how an article on a potentially obscure or small topic, which ordinarily would not be found or read by many people, is given the chance to grab the attention of millions on the Main Page. The number of hits on a particular Wikipedia article can be measured by an external website which was created by a Wikipedian and which can be found via a link from each article's "History" tab; a typical article might receive 10-50 hits a day, rising to several thousand on the day its hook is run on the Main Page! Furthermore, those extra readers may well bring something extra to the article: new information, more references, formatting, or suggestions for further improvements. Off the back of my last successful DYK nomination (two days ago; St Margaret's Church, West Hoathly was the article), a user who is knowledgeable about church bells added a great deal of up-to-date information on the church bells using a specialist source he has access to. In this respect, it can be the perfect demonstration of Wikipedia's collaborative demonstration in action!
Incidentally, by bizarre coincidence, I noticed that the photo of the Brighton war memorial was one that I took! As well as contributing to Wikipedia, I have uploaded several thousand photos (with a Public Domain licence, making them freely usable on Wikipedia and elsewhere) to Wikimedia Commons, the image-hosting sister project of Wikipedia. My specialisms are churches and listed buildings in Sussex, and the war memorial is a Grade II-listed building. (If you click on the image, you will see some information about the photo; it was uploaded by "The Voice of Hassocks", which is my Wikimedia Commons username.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)08:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC comes under Army. Collins is a really interesting case and it's a pity there isn't more about him. He's an observer who was an ace rather than a pilot and they are a lot rarer. Incidentally the top observer ace of the war also served in 22 Squadron - Charles George Gass. We just have to accept that if sources are scarce then we aren't going to be able to develop much of an article. NtheP (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New articles
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your significant efforts to improve Wikipedia with your creation of the following articles:
The next article that I've been working on again has a connection to World War I. However, I decided to try something new for me: an article with more than one subject. I'm working on a park that has four monuments. I wasn't convinced that I had enough material for five separate articles. So, I put everything in one article to create a nice size page and have all the related information together. My question is: what kind of code do I employ so that if someone searches for one of the monuments, it redirects them to the park? Thank you. Anne (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, as an example if your article is X Park with monuments 1-4 then create for each monument a page with the code #REDIRECT [[X Park]] Anyone navigating to one of the monument pages will be redirected to X Park. If within you article X Park you have a section called Monument 1 you can be extra clever and create the redirect directly to that section by using the code #REDIRECT [[X Park#Monument 1]] Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I finished my article on Old Steine Gardens and I sent it to the main page so that it is an article now. I also tried my hand at a redirect. I attempted the second variation that you mentioned, for redirecting exactly to the section in mind. However, it doesn't appear to have worked. Specifically, I tried to redirect Brighton War Memorial to the correct section of Old Steine Gardens. I used the code [[#REDIRECT Old Steine Gardens#Brighton War Memorial. Where did I go wrong? Thank you Anne (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. So, no brackets before #REDIRECT. Got it. Anne (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I successfully did a redirect for "Statue of Sir John Cordy Burrows." I'm coming up against a little difficulty now though, with two issues (the second to be addressed a little later). For "Egyptian Campaign Memorial," there is no actual article in Wikipedia. However, someone else has already done a redirect. The redirect is to a page by the title of "Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: E-H." On that page, the Egyptian Campaign Memorial is listed as one out of 129 "buildings." Two sentences accompany it. Do I have any way of addressing this? Thank you Anne (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I got a little confused about where to find the existing redirect for Egyptian Campaign Memorial, so I thought I'd start with the second part first, the editing of the Grade II listing buildings with the link. However, when I went to edit the page, I found the words "Egyptian Campaign Memorial" twice in the first line. First, it comes after "|{{sort|024|" and the second time after "|name=" - Which one should I replace with the above code? Thank you Anne (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the one after sort|024 but to check it didn't break I've made the edit. I think someone has gone a bit OTT on the coding in this table . The use of the template {{sort}} is to enforce a default order on the items in the table - i.e. 024 ensures that on a default sort of the table this will be the 24th entry. The use after |name= is in the template {{coord}}, one of the clever things you can do with this template is generate a list of the co-ordinates in the article in for example Google Maps. The name parameter is to tag a label to the pin in Google Maps rather than just a bare set of co-ordinates. NtheP (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My head starting swimming a little bit on that last one, but thank you! I looked at what you did and I get it. Also, I figured out how to find the redirect page for Egyptian Campaign Memorial and I successfully changed the redirect! On to the second issue to which I alluded in one of the above paragraphs. It's a related but slightly different problem. The last section that I need to redirect is "Victoria Fountain." In an article entitled "The Plain, Oxford" there is a small section "Victoria Fountain." When I input Victoria Fountain, it redirects to that section of "The Plain, Oxford." How does one deal with with two different structures with the exact same name? I've seen many disambiguation pages in Wikipedia. Do I go that way? Or is this more like the last problem, with a small section that doesn't take priority over a larger one? If it's the former, do I create a disambiguation page? Thank you Anne (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're really getting down to some stuff today; Redirects, piped links and now disambiguation pages :-) There are pages and pages dedicated to disambig pages (WP:DISAMBIG is the place to start) but we'll just address this instance.
Is there a primary topic? No we're talking about two fountains in different places. If one was a primary topic we would be looking at hat notes instead
As it's No to 1 then we need to turn the existing page Victoria Fountain into a disambiguation page. Easy to do, for the layout follow the guidance at MOS:DABINT and the following section MOS:DABENTRY. Normally piped links aren't used in disambig pages but here because you want to to disambig between sections on two separate pages you can use piped links. As there isn't any other way of distinguishing between the two, list them alphabetically by town, so Brighton first, then Oxford. If there are any more Victoria Fountains (I bet there must be) they can be slotted in as appropriate.
So you should end up with something like
Victoria Fountain may refer to:
Victoria Fountain, a fountain in Old Steine Gardens, Brighton, England
Hello, ACP2011. You have new messages at Talk:Diamond War Memorial. Message added 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Someone today thoughtfully tried to help me finish creating the only category I've ever tried to create, Sculptures by Vernon March.
However, even after I saved the page again, I received the same notice, that no such category existed. Where am I going wrong? I last tried this more than a week ago, and it still doesn't seem any easier. It doesn't seem that it should be this difficult. Anne (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that worked (thankfully!). Creating a category is a bit different from creating an article because there are really two stages. You can add a category to an article even if that category has not been created yet, and it will appear as a redlink. (This is what you were seeing with the Vernon March category.) Then the confusing thing is (and I think this is illogical!) that you can enter the category name in the search box (e.g. Category:Sculptures by Vernon March), and it will bring up the message you saw (that no such category exists), but you can see listed underneath it all the articles to which you added ! The last stage of the process, to actually finish creating the category, is done like this:
Type the category name in the search box: say for example Category:Monuments in Brighton
Under search results, it will say something like There were no results matching the query. You may create the page Category:Monuments in Brighton, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
Click on the redlink Category:Monuments in Brighton. You will see Editing Category:Monuments in Brighton. If there are already articles which have that not-yet-completely-created category attached to them, they will appear below this.
Below this is an edit window, just like when editing an article. To create the category, you must enter in the edit window at least one parent category to which your new category will be attached. So in this example, you might type Category:Monuments in England and Category:Buildings in Brighton (as wikilinks, i.e. with the square brackets round them). (You might need to spend a few minutes finding the most suitable parent categories for it. There is no limit to the number of parents a category can have.)
If you wish, you can put a brief sentence or two as well, indicating what the scope of the category is.
So for Vernon March, I could see that although the category was on two articles, that last stage had not been done; so I found a couple of appropriate parent categories, added a description above it, and saved. That put the category live, and now on Diamond War Memorial and National War Memorial (Canada) you can see that "Category:Sculptures by Vernon March" is a bluelink. In a couple of days time, once the database has fully refreshed itself, you will be able to enter "Category:Sculptures by Vernon March" in the search box and it will appear as an option; clicking "Go" will then take you straight to it! Hope that helps; sorry it's a bit of a long-winded explanation, but it is a bit of a tricky process. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was starting to wonder whether perhaps the process was intentionally difficult, to prevent people from creating categories willy-nilly. It makes some sense, since there are supposed to be links in continuity. It does seem odd, though, that the process takes a couple of days. I'm definitely a list person, so my inability to create something which seemed rather simple was frustrating me. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of the category will in fact be immediate; the bit that can take (up to) a couple of days is the title auto-completing in the search box when you start to type it in. (I'm not sure all browsers even have this function, but mine does.) So if you typed "Category:Sculptures by Vern", it would automatically find "Category:Sculptures by Vernon March", but only after 24 hours or so. My explanation wasn't very clear above; it was getting late! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)09:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to upgrade my photography skills on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. So far, I've been limiting myself to an occasional aero club aviator photo that is clearly in the public domain. I'd like to learn a new category and I think I have a good example. In keeping with my WWI theme, recently I've started looking at sculptors whose work included WWI memorials. I finished an article on Elsie March yesterday and now I'm looking for more photos for both her and her brother Sydney. I found a photo at "geograph"
I've seen some of their photos on Wikipedia/Wikimedia before. On their website and specifically for this photo, the organization indicates that the photo may be used, as long as it is under a creative commons license, the wording of which I've seen before on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I would I go about uploading that type of image? Thank you. Anne (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the geograph photos have already been copied to Wikimedia Commons but many have not yet been given a category. It is worth searching Commons to see what is there. Otherwise it is quite OK to copy Goegraph photos to Commons and somewhere on the Geograph page you will find a template just for that purpose. Have to go to bed now or I would look it up.--Charles (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm trying to do what you suggest and just follow the rules on geograph for the Bromley War Memorial. On the geograph page, it indicates that one should use the Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0 license, but I only found the 3.0 license in the Wikipedia list. However, I did find this under attribution on geograph:
I'm not sure where to put this. I put it after Permission=. I'm using the summary page that I did for aero club aviator pictures. Thank you. Anne (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the Bromley War Memorial photo. Description, Source, Date, and Author all look fine. However, permission is a mess. I don't know the code or at least what part of the code to use that was on the geograph website. Also, you mentioned something about categorization of photos. How do I go about doing that? Is it different from article categories? I'm starting to feel somewhat comfortable with Wikipedia categories. Thank you. Anne (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne. Categories work just the same on Commons as here. I spend quite a lot of time sorting images that have been uploaded en masse from Geograph into categories. If you created a category for War memorials in Bromley for instance you would need to add Category:War memorials in Greater London to it to add it to the hierarchy of categories.--Charles (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I still have to figure out how to officially be part of Wikimedia, and how to find the categories for images. Anne (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are officially part of all the various language wikis, commons and other projects by default. Your username is reserved for you on all of them. If you are logged in here this will be activated when you first visit them. Image categories are at the foot of the page or there may be a note saying the photo is an uncategorised upload from Geograph. Categories do not show on a preview, which can be a nuisance. You have to save before you see what you have added.--Charles (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.
License tagging for File:Bromley War Memorial - geograph.org.uk - 2561383.jpg
Anne, I've added the appropriate licence tag. The only thing you had wrong was the syntax. You were trying to use HTML rather than wiki code. If you look at this link which is the how to reuse this photo page from Geograph and scroll down about 3/4 of the way you'll see suggested code for the {{information}} template on the Wikipedia page you upload the photo to. All I've done slightly different is use the template {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} rather than just the words in the permission field.
As this image is licenced under a CC licence you could have uploaded it directly to Wikimedia Commons where it can be usd by all wikis rather than just en-wiki, hence me adding the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} tag. This last bit isn't desperatly important but something to consider if you are going to upload any more Geograph images i.e. straight to commons. The process is the same, just a different site. NtheP (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is getting quite large, currently it's about 125kb in size - to put that into context were it an article it would be a candidate for splitting into separate articles. I see you've deleted a lot of notice which is fine but the rest you might want to archive. An easy way is create an archive page e.g. User talk:ACP2011/Archive 1 and then cut and paste to it everything from this page that you want to. Add at the top of your newly created archive page {{Template:UserTalkArchive}} which enables easy navigation back to this page and between archive pages and add to the top of this page {{UserTalkArchiveBox|auto=long}} which enables navigation to your archive page.
What you choose to archive is up to you so for example any barnstars I've been presented with I keep on my talk page even though they are getting old (call it narcissism) and you might decide to keep open discussion threads like the one on Vernon March on this page for the time being. The archive page is like any other you can edit it at any time. NtheP (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do that. I started deleting sections a day or two ago when I noticed that my talk page was getting a bit unwieldy. Anne (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne. I have a robot called Cluebot III do my talk page archiving so I never need to bother with it. It can be set to leave however many threads you like on the page. If you are interested the code to instruct it is near the top of my page when opened for editing in tha archive box template.--Charles (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the theme from above, I assume that we cannot request photos from South Africa for the Cape Town War Memorial. However, we do have a photo of one section of the Samuel de Champlain Monument in Orillia, Ontario. Who/how would I contact to determine whether it was possible for someone to obtain photos of the Champlain Monument? Thank you. Anne (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole freedom of panorama thing is a complete nightmare as each countries copyright laws are different. It's all to do with are buildings, statues, monuments etc works that the images of can be copyrighted. If they are, as monuments are in South Africa, then panoramic or outdoor shots can't be used of monuments. In Canada it's different and shots of 3D works in public places (including monuments) are fine but photos of 2D works e.g. paintings aren't. So there is no problem in using photos of Canadian monuments. Also don't worry about using refs where the website contains no public domain photos, that's not the issue as you're not making the direct link to the image but to the text. If there aren't any suitable photos on Commons, try posting at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board to see if anyone has any. NtheP (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's easy to understand why people can make mistakes about posting photos that they've taken when the rules are so different from country to country. I think it's really weird that you can't post a photo of a building in South Africa legally. But good to know. I'll look some more on Commons for Champlain, but I've only found the one so far. Thanks for the info about the notice board. I'll take a look at that today. Anne (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
response to citations
I thought I would answer you here since it could get lengthy:
I thought I'd start with #6, since you used it as an example. I didn't know what ref name and ref group referred to, so I left them blank. you make up your own ref name, usually the authors last name, but if you use the same author more than once it could get tricky. The ref name ends up looking like this on the edit page "ref name=Smith" :Then if you want to cite that source again you click "cite" then the little clip board next to "named referenced" and a drop down appears and you see "Smith" and it insert it where your cursor it. When there is no author you can use the name of the newspaper or some detail in the source, something that you attach to the source.
Also, I left location blank because I couldn't find a location for Osprey Publishing on the book page. There was a box for pages. I was uncertain as to whether that referred to the length of the book, or the page that I used. I assumed it meant the page used. If you go to get your article reviewed for "good article " (GA) or "feature article" (FA) a reviewer will want you to be consistent with whether or no you put locations. So either put them all in, or leave them all out, but best came, put them in. By page they mean the page(s) you used.
Also, there were boxes for only one author, so I only included Guttman. At the bottom of the form there is an selection "show hide extra fields" click on that to add additional authors.
I noticed that there's no provision for access date for a book.no, that is just for websites.
Also, I just did my third, which was ref #1 for Ancestry. There was an access date, but it didn't show up in the citation. Also, I can't give the URL's for any of my Ancestry refs, because it would bring someone right into my private Ancestry family tree. Remember that you need to use reliable sources, your private family tree will not cut the mustard. I have not looked at you specific case, but google books has a lot of published genealogies from the 19th century that I have found useful in writing about my New England ancestry.
I notice that on these web templates, there's a box for "Work?" work would be "www.nytimes" while publisher is New York Times, for example. You the name of the web page for the work and there absolutely has to be a publisher for it to be consider reliable. That is usually at the very bottom of the webpage in small print. If it is no there is is probably someone personal work and will not be considered reliable.
I've revised references 1-12 for Ralph Curtis so far using the above templates. Thank you. Anne (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC) I have revised all 21 in-line citations! Let me know what you would like me to work on next and whether the references pass muster. Thank you. Anne (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC) I probably will not get a chance to look tonight. Will try in the new 24 hours.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS, look at the citations on this article to see how they should look Steamtown, USA
Thank you. I'll take a look. I think you misunderstood what I meant when I talked about my private family tree. I'm a member of Ancestry. Ralph Curtis is not part of my family tree. All of the Ancestry sources are directly from the Ancestry website. But any URL that I give for one of my Ancestry sources will give someone access to my family tree on the Ancestry website. I guess that I could test that by putting one of the Ancestry URL's on the article and then accessing it from my daughter's computer. Anne (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it turns out my concerns about privacy were unfounded. I conducted a test by putting in the Ancestry URL for the 1901 England Census from my desktop computer. Then, I switched to my daughter's laptop computer and found my Ralph Curtis article. When I clicked on reference #2, the 1901 England Census, access was denied and instead there was just the generic Ancestry site inviting (my daughter) to join. Ancestry is a paid subscription. Ancestry won't allow just anyone access by clicking on a link in a reference. Anne (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a little familiar with Ancestry.com. I have two suggestions for that 1. Try going to the original source if possible, for example if information on Ancestry was taken from the National Archives, then go there to see if you can get the info. 2. If not, make it very clear in your citation what the information is so that people do not confuse it with a users family tree. For example, if it is a census record then put in parenthesis: "Publisher= U.S. Census Bureau(as re-printed on Ancestry.com)". Ancestry may be where you found the info, but they are not the originators of it, so you have to lead the reader back to the original source. If that source is an arm chair genealogist (like me) it will not be considered reliable.--Ishtar456 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your Hays article was very helpful. I'll use it as a model. I think I have a better feel now for how to do the citations. I'll revise all the references again today. Hopefully the third time will be the charm. This is ending up being the hardest part of writing an article. Anne (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to put you through it. The first article I referred you to is currently under FA review. I had put all the citations in by hand, so for the review I had to make a few hundred edits to past the citations. I know it is a drudge, but it will make the article better.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's just before noon here, and I've finished revising all 21 citations for Ralph Curtis again. I think they're looking much better. I've certainly learned a lot about citations the past two days. Thank you. Anne (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information connections
Ann,
I saw your plaint about the scarcity of info on WWI pilots. I have been ratholing bookmarks since I started writing on the subject. Some sources which may prove useful for researching British pilots:
The London Gazette at http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search is the official posting for promotions, awards, and honors. The Edinburgh Gazette at http://www.edinburgh-gazette.co.uk/ can be occasionally helpful in this respect. Their Optical Character Readers aren't the greatest, and you may have to search variations on a name–i.e., initials and family name instead of complete name, Wilson instead of Willson, etc.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission at http://www.cwgc.org/ can yield some basic info besides the death date of those killed in action.
Biographies of senior commanders in the RAF can be found at http://www.rafweb.org/Cdrs_Alp_ind.htm. While they may have risen to command during WWII, they began their careers in WWI; each subject's military career is covered in extensive detail.
I find the aviation historians' website at http://www.theaerodrome.com/index.php quite useful. Although the WP community consensus (from which I dissent) is that it is not a reliable source, my crosschecks over four years have shown about a two percent error rate. However, to quiet the wowsers, I take note of the aircraft the ace used, and pop over to http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Search-Books/b/ref=sv_b_0?ie=UTF8&node=241582011 or to http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search. It is often possible to peek inside a book or books that cover that type of airplane, and winkle out info about your ace. Ironically enough, the author(s) of these books are often the same historians who are on the Aerodrome site.
I also have some folders of bookmarks for sources on Australian, Canadian, Austro-Hungarian, and German aces, if you want them.
Hi George! Addressing your recommendations: 1. I've occasionally found a London Gazette or Edinburgh Gazette article, but it was hit or miss, because I didn't have the formal web address. Thank you. 2. Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I use it religiously. It's invaluable. 3. Aviators certificates. I have the aero club on Ancestry. However, that's been hit and miss. Those graces guide websites should come in handy. Wonderful. 4. Biographies of senior commanders. Excellent. 5. Aerodrome. I use this religiously, too. Like you, though, I like to verify. My verification has been using a variety of web sources, including the "peeks" at books. Thank you for the amazon and google web addresses. So far, I've found two cases where my results were different from the Aerodrome: One was Lionel Ashfield and involved also having info from an auction site so that the number went from 5 to 7. The other is Ralph Curtis, on whom I have been laboriously revising references today in an attempt to qualify for DYK. In that case, one of the books I found online gave me two additional victories, so the number went from the Aerodrome 13 to our 15. I'll let you know if I need those other bookmarks. Thank you very much. Anne (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne,
You are quite welcome. In turn, I would like to thank you for the article on the Arras Flying Services Memorial,
I have been redlinking to that for years, in hope that someone would create an article on it.
P.S. I also have a few random links to well-known individual aces, if you turn your hand to that and need some help.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You are quite welcome as well. I've been enjoying doing the combination of WWI related topics: aces, their memorials, and the memorial designers/sculptors. It looks like I'm going to be taking a brief hiatus from writing articles the next few days while I revise citations. I just spent the last three days revising the articles for Ralph Curtis and Desmond Uniacke for DYK, with attention to citations. I just looked below your message and I've received some more DYK notices. So, I have a future of revising more references. I find it laborious, but I think it will get easier as I become more experienced. Thanks for all your help. Anne (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in doing an article on the Lancaster Monument at East Sheen Cemetery in Richmond, Surrey, England. I haven't been able to find any photos on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or Geograph. Do you think there's any chance of using the photo at: [1] or is that a lost cause? It's the best one I've found, both by quality of image and the possibility of reusing. It mentions using by crediting and linking. But it leaves the impression (without actually specifying) that it might not be able to be used for commercial purposes. What do you think? Should I give up and maybe see if there's some group on Wikipedia or Wikimedia that could arrange to take a photo? Thank you. Anne (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll contact them now. Anne (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Well, the answer was no. I'm going to place a request. I just read up on the request process. It looks like you have to write the article before you can request a photo. Anne (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne! I wanted to come by and award you with the grandest barnstar of them all - the Original Barnstar - for all of your awesome work on Wikipedia!! I love checking out your contributions, and your tireless effort to help share history, culture and knowledge on the world's biggest Wikipedia is wonderful. THANK YOU! Sarah (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Lancaster Monument in East Sheen Cemetery, see Commons:Commons:Geograph Britain and Ireland — a database of nearly two million images from throughout the UK has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, so there's a decent chance that this monument would be included in a photograph in the collection. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip. I was able to register with geograph. I found East Sheen Cemetery. There weren't any photos of the Lancaster Monument but geograph will be a wonderful resource in the future. And I already found a photo that I can use in one of the articles that I wrote last week! Anne (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read this morning, I believe somewhere in the DYK pages, that information written in list form is not counted as "prose." A large portion of my article for Sydney March, the majority of his career section, is written in list form. Is this unwise? I wanted to give an adequate representation of the prolific nature of his work, but still keep things tidy and easy to read. Each entry is anywhere from a sentence to a paragraph in length, and the entries are listed in chronological order where I've been able to find the date of the piece. There are a few pieces of his work, such as the Bromley War Memorial and the Bromley Parish Church Memorial, where, as I keep digging, I'm able to find enough information to create an article in its own right. Should I rewrite the career section for Sydney? If so, what format should I use? Thank you. (Right now I'm in the middle of finishing revising all the references for Elsie and Sydney March, but I'd be happy to rewrite Sydney's article.) Anne (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on Elsie, Sydney and Vernon March, but not on any of the other March artistic siblings, and I have not found any information on them here at the Free Library of Philadelphia, but perhaps you may have found information about them elsewhere. I must admit that I have not checked all the references in the existing articles. My very first creation on Wikipedia was March (surname), and ever since I have been very alert for more people to add to that disambiguation page. Please let me know if you or I could create articles on the other siblings, or alternatively, a family page if the information available is brief.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning. I first became interested in the March family last month, when I created the article on the Diamond War Memorial. I eventually realized that I had enough material to create articles for Elsie and Sydney. After that, I figured I might as well expand the stub on Vernon March that someone else had already started; so now it's article length and I finished all three articles just a few days ago, although I'm still upgrading the references for Elsie and Sydney to conform with Wikipedia standards. (I'm still pretty new.) With all this research, I'm still having a hard time finding information on the rest of the brothers. However, I could probably create a family page. I like your idea. I haven't seen a family page on Wikipedia before, but I've never looked. What do you think of the idea of including all nine siblings, with brief references to the articles on Sydney, Elsie, and Vernon, and concentrating on the remaining siblings? I'll bet I could put together a paragraph on each, maybe even make each of the other siblings a separate section. Thank you. Anne (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be new, but you are doing very good work, in proper Wikipedia style and format, and with very good inline citations, which is not an easy skill to acquire. I can provide a number of family article references, but they may not be very helpful. Consider Clayton family or Biddle family as examples. I know I have seen family articles starting with a description of perhaps the parents or grandparents, followed by short paragraphs on the less well known, and links to full articles on the better known. Let me have some time to look for better examples for what we might accomplish, and meanwhile you can research the artistic Marches. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, someone recommended a few weeks ago that I do that with all the articles that I create. Apparently, one is less likely to be interrupted if you write in sandbox or user space. The other trick that was recommended, and that I sometimes forget, is to use the template for inuse. Anne (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you create a polished article with inline citations in your user talk space and then move it to the mainspace, you are far less likely to draw unwanted and sometimes unfriendly attention. In this case, I can comment on the article before you move it. Sometimes I even create an article with a text editor, and then put it in my user space. This is especially good for a series of articles on like subjects, such as Speakers of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, which share a common format. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at User talk:Dthomsen8/March family as a very preliminary first draft, created in my talk space. It was necessary to put (artist) after some names to prevent a Wikilink to an unrelated March. The eight sections below the introduction provide either an opportunity to add a brief item on the artist, or a link to an article in full, such as you already created for the three sculptors. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page conventions
It is conventional to answer talk page entries with indenting, done by adding a colon (":") or multiple colons. If the discussion gets too far to the right, then the outdent can be used to bring it back to the left, with an arrow. {{Outdent|:::::::}} is an example of the outdent template. I added indenting to the section above for you, and an outdent just for illustration, normally it would be five or six indents in, not just three. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm sure there's a number of basic conventions that I'm not following, but hopefully people will keep bringing them to my attention. Anne (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Anne. In that case I wiil point out that it is Wikipedia house style to use capitals for proper nouns only in section headings. Over at the dark side (Conservapedia) they like to use capitals for every word and we would not want to be confused with them.--Charles (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I wonder whether that's a European convention. As I've been researching, I've occasionally noticed recently a book or article from Europe with only the first word capitalized. And I didn't even realize that there was such a thing as Conservapedia. Thank you. Anne (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tea Leaf - Issue Two
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allegiance of Canadian aces
Hello, Anne,
Given the fact that Canadian citizenship did not become a matter of law until 1947, the determination of Canadian allegiance during World War I is a complex and nebulous one. I have yet to see a Canadian contributor tackle this question, so here goes. I will share my best understanding of the subject, but keep in mind, a Canadian contributor may be able to contribute more exact information.
Some aces from Canada declared themselves to be British citizens; they may have been recent immigrants. If you find that in the records, your choice is simple; they are British.
Otherwise, as part of the enlistment process, Canadians were required to swear allegiance to King George V and his heirs and successors. Examples of these Attestation Papers abound on the aerodrome; I enclose the link to a random selectee as an example: http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/attestation/carter1.php. If you click to enlarge on this on the left hand sheet, then click again on the four-arrowed widget in the lower right corner, you will be able to see the oath for yourself.
The Canadians apparently did this because they felt allegiance to the British Empire. Therefore, as I see it, there are actually three possible correct answers to your question: King George V; the British Empire; or King George V of the British Empire. I must confess I have used all three on occasion, and thus I am probably the source of your confusion.
Just to make the situation even murkier and trickier, there are three other considerations.
First, a sizeable number of Americans sneaked across the border to join the Canadian military. They were not usually required to swear allegiance to the King because American law said that by so doing, it would cost them their American citizenship. Some few of them, like Frederick Libby, ignored that rule and swore allegiance to the King anyhow. It does not seem to have affected their citizenship, as the law does not seem to have been enforced.
Secondly, a sizeable minority of Canadians relocated to the USA postwar. Some became naturalized Americans; some did not. I always gone with the sources and have designated them as Canadians unless I found proof they naturalized.
Thirdly, some few Canadians were born in the US to Canadian parents. Again, I have depended upon the sources.
By now, your head is probably whirling, so let me end with the only simple observation I can make on this subject. Wikipedia is self-correcting. If you are wrong, some other editor–probably Canadian–will straighten it out.
I hope this has been of help to you. I would like to end by thanking you for creating Arras Flying Services Memorial; this article has been needed for years.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
George, thanks so much for the answer. I had a feeling that the matter wasn't going to be simple. And you're very welcome for the Arras Flying Services Memorial. With a number of aces commemorated on it, I agree that it needed to be done. Anne (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Victory list template.
Hello, Anne,
I have a template I sometimes use for victory lists. If you should want a copy, let me know. An example may be viewed at Thomas Traill.
Someone left me a message a couple of days ago that I need to review an article. How does one learn to review articles? Is there a specific type of article to review? Is it only articles that have been submitted for DYK? Thank you. Anne (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a convention, nothing more than that, that once you have submitted a certain number of DYK nominations (I think it's five) that subsequently every time you submit a nomination you review an existing nomination that somebody else has made. That way the queue of nominations doesn't get (too) out of hand. If you want to give it a go the reviewing guide can be found at WP:DYKR. NtheP (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the criteria that some reviewers use to determine whether a source is reliable. I come from a science background and I am very familiar with the concept of evaluating sources. I worked very hard on the three articles of the sculptors of the March family-Sydney, Elsie, and Vernon-and I meticulously sourced the articles. In the case of Sydney and Elsie, I didn't know about the Wikipedia citation template until after I wrote the articles, so I went back and laboriously revised all the citations for both articles. Yet my sources are being casually dismissed as unreliable. How is the Local History and Archives Centre of Lewisham Library an unreliable source? How is British Listed Buildings which works hand in hand with English Heritage and the National Heritage List for England an unreliable source? This makes absolutely no sense. Anne (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I can't see any edits that have questioned the reliability of either source. BLB first, there's no reason why this shouldn't be considered reliable but if you have the NHLE entry use that instead, it's far less likely to be questioned as it's directly maintained by English Heritage. Lewisham Local History & Archives Centre - the issue is probably that it's user generated content, so who vouches for it's accuracy? That's my guess but you need to ask those who are questioning the reliability to get their opinion. You can always raise specific cases at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get more opinions. NtheP (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. It's not on the talk pages for the articles themselves. Because the three are family members, many of the sources are listed in common for the three articles. It's on the nomination page for Sydney and Elsie March, with attention to Sydney. The reviewer didn't even bother with Elsie. Whenever possible I give both the English Heritage National Heritage List for England and the British Listed Building and, if I can find it, the Images of England site (also part of English Heritage). I don't understand the thinking. Sometimes a fact can be substantiated fully by one or more references individually. Sometimes by putting two or more references together. If anything, I had been worrying that I've been giving too many references. Anne (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anne,
As I come to WP from a military intelligence and journalism background, I also have a differing view of source reliability from the WP norm. I have been informed that if the source is reliable, the information must be accurate. Author credibility is the big deal, they say. By that standard, Stephen Ambrose was gold-plated–up until he was convicted of plagairism. How that changed the accuracy of his facts, I don't know.
I've always worked from the other end of reliability, as you probably have. Cross-check any given information in any way you can to find out if it is accurate and current; if so, the source is accurate. By this standard, the Aerodrome website is highly accurate. It ought to be; it was/is compiled by such leading aviation historians as Greg Vanwyngarden and Dan-San Abbot. Those same authors, in print, are considered immaculate sources. Transfer the content of their books and/or articles to the Aerodrome website, and somehow, according to the reliability "mavens" of WP, those same facts become suspect. Go figure.
Let's face it. WP runs by consensus, which means it runs via self-appointed committees. Wrong decisions sometimes get made, and we have to accommodate them somehow. If it's any consolation to you, my experience has been that as the WP community becomes accustomed to you and you establish your reputation here, the number of folks peeking over your shoulder will taper off. Please don't become discouraged because you have to deal with vagaries of human nature in here. Your contributions are valuable and valued.
Thanks, George. I'm with you. I am very much into cross-checking. If everything is consistent, it makes it easier. However, sometimes there are inconsistencies. Then you have to figure out what, if any, sources are accurate. Case in point: John Herbert Hedley. I started working on him yesterday and it quickly became evident that the man had a real problem with giving an accurate DOB. While day and month were always consistent, year was rarely the same twice in two documents. However, by putting it all together, I was able to confidently state that he was born in 1887. My skill set, both professionally (medical) and on an amateur basis (genealogic) involves taking a set of facts that I've uncovered and putting together a medical profile (diagnosis) or ancestral profile (family tree). I guess I'm just not accustomed to people disbelieving me, although I don't have a problem with constructive criticism. It's just that it's frustrating when you know you have good facts and you've assembled them into a credible result, and you're still not believed! Thanks for the pep talk! Anne (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I both agree and disagree with you. The principles of triangulation and cross checking I wholeheartedly agree with (like both of you I have to do it professionally) and there are sources that are generally reliable but I would never take anything as "gospel" unless it is cross checked by at least one other source. Where I disagree with you, solely in Wikiepdia terms, is in what to do when the sources don't agree. I think you are "wrong" in making your own deduction as that is either (or both) original research and synthesis. I appreciate it's what we would all do in "real life" but here I would express both views and give both sources. If there is a third that points towards one or other but without being conclusive then quote that to. It's all verifiable and points out the reality of the situation i.e. that the truth isn't confirmed. It's very frustrating that "common sense" has to go out of the window at times but as George says WP runs by consensus with all the vagaries that can bring. DYK for one seems to have got a lot tougher on the standard of references and by the look of it a bit over zealous and/or failing to investigate for themselves before commenting adversely. NtheP (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Where there is disagreement, I'm trying to mention it more often. I think I did that at least twice in the most recent article, John Herbert Hedley. Sometimes, though, there can be so many minor disagreements (example: Hedley's DOB) that it's just not worth going into detail because it could be the subject of an entire page. There's another area of disagreement, though, for Hedley, that I haven't mentioned and probably should put in the article, so I'll get going on that. Thank you.Anne (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I have been able to figure, such markings as 28K 5C were markings drawn on clear or translucent overlays to maps of the battle area (or directly on the maps). The markings do not conform to any cartographic system with which I am familiar, and I was trained as a cartographic draftsman at one time. These non-standard markings would serve as a code, thus denying information to the enemy if intelligence reports should leak. As part of my military intelligence duties, I sometimes prepared such overlays for use in Vietnam and other places.
At any rate, I would render that location as "Map grid 28K 5C". An alternative, if you are not comfortable with this solution, is to simply leave the entry out.
Best regards,
George
Ah, secret code! I love it! I just took your advice
Thank you,
Anne
The talk page for the aviator indicates that the article requires immediate attention and needs a photograph. I have found two since yesterday afternoon. One is promotional material that is likely from the 1928 to 1930 period. The second is a newspaper photo from 1930. I would appreciate it if someone would look at the external links I put in the article and let me know whether one or both photos could be utilized. Thank you. Anne (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I didn't see a link to the newspaper photo so can't comment on that (could you post the link here?) The publcity photo is superb - what a find! I think it might be elligible for commons using the licence {{PD-US-no notice}} - failing that I think the fair use rationale could all be met.
I think Franks has got his unit names a bit mixed up. 17th Labour Company of the Labour Corps was the name bestowed upon 12th (Labour) Battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment when it transferred to the Labour Corps in 1917, so if he did serve with the Lincs the correct description would be that he served in 12th (Labour) Battalion, Lincolnshire Regt (later 17th Labour Company, Labour Corps). I haven't had a look at the London Gazette yet to find his original commission but it could be that he was commissioned in the the Northumberland Fusilers but transferred to the Lincs at some time - hence his MIC. NtheP (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Comcast internet went down in the middle of the night in my area, very soon after I posted on the talk page. So, when I went ahead and saved my work on the article for Hedley, the internet was down, and the Milwaukee Sentinel link and references didn't show up. I was able to save them a few minutes ago so you can take a look. I would love to be able to use all three items in the article: 1) Page one of the two page brochure, 2) photo from Milwaukee Sentinel, 3) sketch from Milwaukee Sentinel. I had one concern: the information from the University of Iowa Libraries made a reference to "educational use only." I found a ton of Hedleys in the London Gazette and was unable to find our Hedley. Should I go ahead and change the service info to what you indicated above, or wait until we've found more info? Take a look at the external links again. I think all three items (above) would be great in the article. Thanks. Anne (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, found the Milwaukee article. This could only be used, I think, under non free use and I'm not sure it adds to the article (NFCC criterion 8) as it's only reciting what you've written in the article. You could however use it as a reference to the article showing how he went on the lecture tour and how he was received etc. The brochure, I read what the UofI site said but as they don't appear to know who the copyright holder is either I still think PD-US-no notice is valid - the upload can still attibute UofI as the source.
During my lunchtime had a quick glance at the Gazette and found his original commission which was into the 26th (3rd Tyneside Irish) Battalion, Northumberland Fusiliers. I haven't found his transfer to the Lincolnshire Regt yet but for a short period in 1915 he was transferred to the Army Cyclist Corps - I don't know which battalion 8th would be the obvious one but that's a complete guess on my part. This period was so hsort I'm not sure it's even worth mentioning in the article but if I dig the references out I'll leave that decision to you. I've also found his transfer to the RFC. I'll have a deeper look tonight for his Croix de Guerre or if the Milwaukee Sentinel is correct his two CCdeG as it say he was awarded both the French and the Belgian versions. Those should both be in the Gazette - quite possibly post war as some of these decorations didn't get gazetted until as late as 1921/2.
His birth date - I've seen discussion elsewhere about his DoB and he won't have been the only one to alter it for the purposes of enlistment. The whys and wherefores of doing this are as you say, almost an article in itself. NtheP (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the secret of searching the Gazette? I'm great at finding things on Ancestry and Genealogy Bank, but not so good at the Gazette. Even with your clues above, I still couldn't find the notices. So, next I used the search builder for beginners and for some reason that worked! I believe I found two issues of the Gazette, both in 1915, for 3rd Tyneside Irish and the Cyclist Corps. I put corresponding text in my article and added the two additional references. I'll keep looking for the others, after I finish up my work this afternoon. With regard to the photo issues, I want to make sure I understand. You don't think that I can use the photo and sketch (above the text) from the Milwaukee newspaper article? I thought they were pretty good. Are the photo and sketch too recent? But you do think the 1920-1930 brochure is OK with a PD-US-no notice. Thanks for your help. Anne (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Milwaukee newspaper is obviously copyright to the paper so unless they have released their back issues under a Creative Commons licence it's at best non free use and I think it will fail to meet all the NFCC criteria because it's replaceable (criteria 1) - the phot of hedley can be found free of copyright, and it doesn't add to the context (criteria 8) as it's repeating what you say in the article as the report of a lecture. Reference it but don't use the images. The brochure is different because the copyright is less clear if there is one at all - it might lie with the Redpath Chautauqua Collection (?), if there is a copyright there isn't a free equivalent and it adds to the context because it demonstrates how he was marketing himself.
The Gazette. You need to try a lot of variations and because it's OCR text it can misread things so "John Herbert Hedley", "John H Hedley", "John H. Hedley" (note the fullstop after H). "J.H. Hedley" are all valid searches as is "J.H.Hedley" (no space). Because the OCR is sometimes flaky try the Edinburgh Gazette as well (same website) as it duplicates a lot of the info especially if there is a Scottish connection and the print quality might be good enough for something that is missed in one to be recognised in the other. This is his return to the Northumberland Fusiliers from the Cyclist Corps http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/29376/supplements/11578 This one is his promotion to temporary Captain http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/29184/supplements/5482 and this one http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30504/supplements/1522 is his transfer to the RFC. I'm still looking for the CdeG citations. NtheP (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll take a look at the gazettes in a few minutes. I just finished uploading brochure photos for Hedley. The first was a minimally cropped photo of the brochure for the main article. The second was a severely cropped photo, a head shot, for the infobox. However, I ran into a little snag with both photos. I tried the template you suggested Template:PD-US-no, but the public domain notice didn't come up. Then I tried Template:PD-US-no author disclosure for both, but still no public domain notice. Where did I go wrong? Anne (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anne,
I read your rendition of the article on Hedley. It is brilliant! I created a huge number of articles on aces, in hopes that they would be fleshed out by later editors. Your work makes me feel I did not labor in vain.
My strengths in WP lie in my researching and writing. I am a notoriously poor wiki-editor, and have never had much success dealing with photos and illustrations. Therefore, I cannot offer you any help on the photos.
The comments by NtheP are quite true. However, I can add some other additional little wrinkles to researching on the London Gazette.
1. Try a common misspelling of the name(s)–in this case, try "Headley".
2. If a RFC/RNAS/RAF ace won a domestic decoration, the "Gazette" was meticulous about including the honor in post-award notices. This does not seem to apply in Hedley's case. However, (to posit a hypothetical case for example), if you are searching for info on someone with a name like John Smith, knowing that he won the DSO could really cut through the bumf. Entering "John Smith DSO" in the advanced search page could sort through the John Smiths, for instance. In the case of more complex names, say (again hypothetically) "Hubert Cecil Ricketts-Jones", entering "Ricketts-Jones DSO" may bring up pages otherwise not available.
3. If you have a subject's regimental number, you may occasionally be able to turn up pages otherwise not available. However, you have to be cautious with this, as the British and Commonwealth armed forces issued duplicate numbers and/or recycled numbers.
4. Flight magazine sometimes reprinted notices from the Gazette. It may be found at http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/index.html. Dealing with this site can be a whole other set of problems; if and when you wish advice on searching this site, I shall happily share what I know. It has its own little quirks.
5. Google search occasionally gives access to Gazette articles that otherwise do not show up elsewhere.
I add one more concern that behooves caution. Although Hedley does not seem to fall into this category because he was transferred to the RFC, many officers kept their commissions in their ground units while picking up a second commission while seconded to the RFC. Thus, (another hypo here) John Jones might be a lieutenant in the Welch Regiment seconded to the RFC as a second lieutenant; if he had been appointed as a flight commander there, he would be a temporary captain!
Thanks for the compliment! I think I've enjoyed writing this article the most since I started with Wikipedia in February. The more I looked, the more I found. I apparently had developed amnesia and forgotten for a couple of days that I had a Genealogy Bank subscription. I hadn't used it recently because, until Hedley, everyone lived and died in Europe. When I looked for Hedley on Genealogy Bank, I ended up with more newspaper articles than I even needed! This guy was quite a character! I rewrote the first paragraph of military career early this morning when I had a few minutes, to make it flow better. Thanks for all your tips on the Gazette and FlightGlobal. I've been wondering: Why do so many of the Gazette notices indicate that a rank is temporary? Sometimes a whole page will be temporary ranks. Thank you. Anne (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go into the route that is British army ranks! You have substantive, war substantive (Second World War mostly), temporary, acting and brevet (see Military rank#Types of rank). Take Peter Young the historian and founder of the Sealed Knot. He ended the Second World War as a substantive Lieutenant, a war substantive Lt Colonel and a temporary Brigadier and he wasn't an unusual case. You will see loads of temporary and acting gazette entries either because of the nature of the appointment or dead men's shoes and frequent notifications of "Lt (A/Capt) X to be T/Capt while . . ." During the war there won't be many brevet appointments but the acting and temporary were very common. NtheP (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, sorry should have said PD-US-no notice is a Commons licence tag not an en:WP one, on the basis that free files are better uploaded to Commons. If you want to upload to WP only the appropriate template would probably be {{PD-Pre1978}}. On the Gazette front "e" is often poorly intepretted throught the OCR so try "Hadley" or "Hodley". The other tip I'd offer up at the momment is that the Gazette's use of English is very, very formal so you will see punctuation like D.S.O., and that can affect search results so sometimes it's worth trying to search for "Hedley," as well as "Hedley". NtheP (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't realize that it was a Wikimedia license, not a Wikipedia. I've only uploaded a few photos, and only to Wikipedia, because I still haven't figure out how to upload to Wikimedia. Thanks again for all your help on the Gazette and Hedley's appointments. I've included it all in the article. I think this one could be fun for a DYK nom, although with the way it's been the last week, it'll probably get turned down! Anne (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne,
I must join the chorus of non-comprehension when it comes to the rats nest of British military rank designations. I am used to the brute simplicity of the American rank structure. Even at our most complex, we never progressed beyond the use of brevet ranks, a la "General" George Armstrong Custer. The only things I cling to in my articles about British/Commonwealth aces are these:
2. The related fact that appointment to the position of flight commander in either the RFC or the RAF was accompanied by a promotion to the rank of captain, usually on a provisional basis.
Thank you. It really does seem incomprehensible. And I have noticed the probationary designation as well. I don't know how anyone make sense of all this! Anne (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination
I have reviewed the DYK nomination for your Bromley war memorial articles and though in general they are good articles, there are certain problems regarding close paraphrasing which you need to deal with. A useful essay on the subject can be found here. It is always difficult striking a balance between giving as much information as possible in an article and copying the original source too closely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. It's early here in the Chicago area, so I'll be able to immediately go ahead and review both articles and rewrite any sentences or sections with wording that is too close to my original sources. Anne (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Melville Waddington
Your Melville Waddington article needs templates on the talk page. Perhaps you can cut and paste from earlier flyer talk pages for this one, while I go off to my Saturday breakfast date. I will mark the article reviewed after lunch. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm not sure what "templates on the talk page" means. However, as soon as I'm finished revising my Bromley memorial articles, I'll try to figure it out. I had thought that those little notices on article talk pages were put there by reviewers. Thank you. Anne (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the first article that I worked on in late Feb, also an ace, Lionel Ashfield. There were three WikiProject notices, for Biography, Military History, and Aviation. I assumed that those were the templates to which you were referring, and I was able to create them. I also tried to duplicate the little "banner" above the three templates, but was less successful. Please let me know whether there's another template that I should add. Thank you. Anne (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please check it now please?? the DYK... thank you and sorry if I'm bothering you. I now put the blog as the source and modified the lifeboat thing. And as for source 4 there could be an ALT, I'll put it right now. Nienk (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to MonmouthpediA ! I'm guessing you have found the article that lists all the War Memorials for Monmouth on wiki. That one is currently in the queue for the front page so I'm hoping you will cross link your articles? Did you know we are giving out points and prizes? See Charles Rolls Challenge on MonmouthpediA pages. Welcome and thx again 10:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I did a mini review of the article yesterday, nothing formal, because of my interest in World War I. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and I've been writing articles related to WWI flying aces, their cemeteries and monuments, and the designers/sculptors of those cemeteries and monuments. I realized yesterday that before the War Memorials in Monmouth article, there was very little on Wikipedia relating to Monmouth memorials. So, I chose two that I thought would lend themselves to individual articles and proceeded. What surprised me, however, was the small amount of information on the internet related to Monmouth monuments. In England, the National Heritage List for England facilitates research. While British Listed Buildings is available for Wales, there is actually very little information on the BLB site for Wales monuments. I'll be happy to cross link the articles. I didn't know there was any such thing as points and prizes on Wikipedia. I'm still learning my way around the site. I'll try to find the Charles Rolls Challenge today. Right now I'm writing an article on the Livesey Hall War Memorial. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Geograph-2611172-by-David-Anstiss.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, sorted. I know you used the reuse information from Geograph but that is slightly wrong as it doesn't link the |permission= to a template. I've replaced Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0 with {{Cc-by-sa-2.0|Copyright David Anstiss and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence}} to give the template and suggested attribution. NtheP (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I initially tried to upload it to Wikimedia this morning, but I couldn't find a section to transfer the entire set of info from Geograph that I was trying to copy and paste. So, I went back to Wikipedia and copied and pasted, initially forgetting two little brackets. After I took care of that, I thought it was OK. This photo thing still confuses me. Anne (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does me too, so I'm always double and triple checking every upload I make very carefully. One day I'll get one right first time! NtheP (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I am participating in the MonmouthpediA project. I have been requested to provide some links to other Monmouth articles. I am of course familiar with internal links and external links. And I'll be able to take care of some of the links with just routine internal links. However, where on the page does one link to other articles that wouldn't naturally be part of the text? Is there a convention something along the lines of "please see the articles on ....?" Thank you. Anne (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain photo
This photo of John Browning seems that it would qualify as public domain. He's listed on the page as being born in 1835, but he may have been born as early as 1830. Therefore, this image was from the mid to late 1800's. There's no information on the photographer. Would you agree that this would be public domain? Thank you. Anne (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for File:John Browning 1.png
Thanks for uploading File:John Browning 1.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I'm aware that the photos for WWI aces are public domain. Those I obtained through Ancestry. As a corollary to that, would original apprenticeship papers from the 1700's, also found on Ancestry, also be considered public domain? Thank you. Anne (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
And, if public domain, what type of license template would I use? Thank you Anne (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright in the United States is 75 years after the death of the author or photographer. Public records are sometimes public domain (all US Government), and sometimes not. The apprenticeship papers of more than two centuries ago must be public domain by now, but perhaps someone else has a different interpretation. Obviously Ancestry.com is publishing this material by making electronic copies of the original papers. Any others have an idea?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would definitely be interested in what anyone else has to say about the matter. I think these apprenticeship papers from the 1700's are a great find and I'd love to be able to use them in some articles, one of which I've just been writing the past couple of days. Anne (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Another question associated with my last two articles on instrument makers: What is the secret of having a logo show up in the info box? I already uploaded the logo. (Apparently, the special upload for logos is only for those still with copyright issues and where use is limited.) I've tried several ways to code the info, but the logo won't show up in the info box. Thanks Anne (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I agree that the indentures are out of copyright. The only issue might be who owns the copyright on the image.
If the article was Spencer, Browning & Rust, I've moved the logo into the infobox. One of the things I've found over the years in inconsistency in templates about how to format images within them. The template page itself should give guidance but sometimes it can be trial error to find out if it's filename foo.png or linked filename [[foo.png]] or linked filename with file prefix [[file:foo.png]] , let alone is the size included in this line or as a separate line. NtheP (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images can be in English Wikipedia, but it is better to put them in Wikimedia Commons, especially if they might be used in other language Wikis. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Thanks so much. I though that I had tried that combo, but I must have missed it. It looks great. I also added a logo caption. I started uploading to Wikipedia in March and last week started uploading to Wikimedia. But I've been scared off from Wikimedia because several times I've received the message "internal error" when I'm on the very last step of a Wikimedia upload, after already doing the initial upload and putting in all the photo information. At that point, when I try to upload again it won't let me and keeps giving me the message that there is a duplicate image. Somewhat annoying. I've never received one of those messages when uploading to Wikipedia. Is that a known problem with Wikimedia? How do people deal with it?
(b) With regard to #1 above, are you indicating that Ancestry might own the copyright to the apprenticeship papers images? Is it different from the images the company has taken of the photos of flying aces? Thank you. Anne (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a) have you checked you commons contribution commons contribution list to check that the image hasn't uploaded before you got the error message? This would probably explain a subsequent duplicate image message (incidentally I typed this before I saw a reply to you comment at commons:Commons:Upload Wizard feedback which says the same, the error comes after the file has uploaded).
b) No I've thought about it, no I'm not. We know Ancestry didn't take the photos for the RAeroClub, just scanned them for reproduction on the net, so why should a photo of some indentures be any different? NtheP (talk)
Thank you. The internal error message always comes at the very last step, after initial upload, after the first page of info is typed, and after the second page of final description is typed, right before one is supposed to receive the URL and name of the photo. With regard to the other issue, I'm leaning toward thinking that the images are public domain. How do you think I should handle it? I wouldn't even know what kind of license template to use. Anne (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years.
This DYK nomination dates back to March! I cannot find a sentence with a citation in this article to back up the DYK hook. Perhaps I have missed it. I have suggested an alternative hook. Many more DYK nominations are made with images than can be included on the front page, which is restricted to one image per batch. In the articles which I write and nominate, I only include an image with the hook if it looks good when small and is relevant to the main thrust of the article. In this nomination, the image is good but is peripheral to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting a notice on my talk page. It makes it much easier to answer quickly. Your suggestion is fine. I'm putting a more detailed answer on the nom page. Anne (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be not easily disheartened
Hello, Anne,
I note that on a couple of occasions, you have found the criticism of other contributors to be disheartening. I hope that I may lend you some perspective on criticism.
In the case of Bruce Digby-Worsley, the editor critiquing you seemed to have valid concerns but turned out to have less knowledge of the subject than yourself. This sometimes happens here on WP. In this particular case, I hope that you learned more about parrying this sort of criticism. I also hope that my reply educated the other party without offense. Certainly, I learned about how articles about World War I aces can give the deceptive appearance of copyright violations, despite our earnest efforts to be original.
Do not be dismayed when WP contributors "senior" to you critique you. As in the above example, the appearance of knowledgeability can be a false front. Even if it is not, it is an opportunity for you both to learn and to educate another. Best of all, you can make an even better contribution to this cathedral of information that we are building.
I would agree with Georgejdorner. I think you have done very well and achieved a lot since you started editing, - which was in February I think. "Daliwch ati", as we say in Wales. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. Yes, it was Feb 22. I expanded George's stub on Lionel Ashfield, on a lark. It was only because I was a Find A Grave contributor and the day before, on Feb 21, I had researched and written a memorial for Lionel. I found the stub and thought I could use my research material for Lionel on Wikipedia. And, now, I'm addicted. Anne (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK advice
Hi, and thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination for me - I hope you don't mind if I ask for some further help with the process. Do I need to do anything else myself now, or do I just leave it and will clerks (or someone) see to the process? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you very much. Are you sure I'm not going to get some frowns from others on Wikipedia for ranking my own article? I'm happy to do it though for this article. I'm trying to learn how to do the coding on article talk pages, to make it easier for people rating my articles. Anne (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, there is no problem with assessing you own work for C/Start/Stub class even B as long as you've read and understood the criteria. As commented it's much easier if people do some of their own assessments, I handle a lot of assessments for one project and having to assess 3000+ articles when the project first started was a labour of love. It's only GA/A/FA assessments that need to be independently run. Which leads me onto have you considered pushing any of your articles forward for GA the next level of assessment? It can be easy, it can be quite hard and at times it might seem quite petty but having had the experience it has made me a better editor as I know what is being looked for. NtheP (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what GA/A/FA assessments are. Does it refer to reassessing articles that have already been rated? Wait, I just realized. Does GA mean good article and FA mean featured article? Off the Wikipedia site, I keep my own list of the articles that I've written. Intermittently, I go back and work on an "old" article. How does one start the GA assessment process? Thank you. Anne (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct :-) To start a nomination you follow the process at WP:GAN but make sure you read the criteria first - I think there are several of your articles that could make it with a bit of work. NtheP (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll do it. Can you give me a hint which articles might be candidates? I know that I can't just go by initial ratings, because sometimes I move a piece to article space when I'm not quite finished, or I later find some great material to incorporate. For example, right now I'm working on John Browning again because I located new material which qualifies as from a reliable source. That's been one issue with these inventors and manufacturers. So much of the material I can't use because it's from or related to a site which sells their now antique goods. Anne (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my Peer review suggestion below. I will read over your articles and suggest one for the peer review. I would say wait until the peer review is done before making a nomination. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment and the help with editing. I appreciate your efforts. Those edit conflicts happen occasionally. I just have to shorten the time between saving pages. Anne (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have reverted some of my edits where I have deleted England or a county from a statement about where someone was born. Ask yourself whether this looks as ridiculous to you as those statements I've amended look to me: "Mr X was born in Dallas, Texas, USA" or "Miss Y was born in Portland, Oregon, USA" or "Herr Z was born in Berlin, Germany". Sometimes you can give too much information and the effect is exhaustion; one thinks, "Yes, but please just get to the point." Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. This gets confusing. When there's an edit conflict, I try to copy and paste and try to save most of the other person's edits, even though it's tedious. At other times, I can't see the other person's edits, because I've rearranged sections and/or sentences, so that an entire section is highlighted and not just edits. Then, of course, there's the issue of conflicting advice. I've had some editors admonish me for not including the name of the country, particularly if it's a location in the United States. It almost seems as though the advice depends on the person's country of origin. For example, if someone lives in the British Isles, they don't seem to find it necessary to include England or Wales in text. Whereas, someone like me, who lives in the United States, sometimes omits the USA in the text. Example: You've deleted the geographic info for Bristol in the lead and I've left it as you wish. But, if someone didn't live in Britain, I don't think that the average person would know exactly where that was. The other reason I've tried to keep some geographic info in the article is that this family was continually moving from England to Wales and back again, so it can get confusing for the reader. I do appreciate your help. Anne (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I agree, it's a bit confusing if you get conflicting advice. There's probably a policy document somewhere that would clarify it all. My feeling is that if you are talking about a country in consecutive paras – it could be the UK, but equally it could be Germany, Benin or Chile – it's tidier not to keep repeating the country name. Re Bristol, I don't think putting Gloucestershire after it is very helpful or indeed very usual. It's just Bristol. A big, historic place needing no qualification. Stroud, on the other hand, probably would so benefit. But these nuances are perhaps only obvious to someone from the UK. You carry on with the good work and ignore grumpy old curmudgeons like me... Ericoides (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help. And I definitely agree that if someone is in the same country from paragraph to paragraph, then there's no need to repeat the name of the country, even if the cities change. Anne (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you've added a link to the Clifton Antiquarian Club on the Tuckett page that I started (thanks!) and repeated this "Bristol, Gloucestershire" thing on the Clifton work-in-progress page. Apart from being unnecessary detail as I tried to explain above, "Bristol, Gloucestershire" is not at all accurate. Have a look at the Bristol, Gloucestershire and Avon (county) pages for the reasons why. Ericoides (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning. Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think I understood what you meant previously. After I read up, the light dawned. I'm going to correct it right now. Anne (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right off the bat I notice that you take no credit for the article. That has to change. You also made a comment about cutting down the photo. I wasn't sure what that meant. However, there is a second photo of Monnow Bridge that is available if you want to use that. Also, a hook photo has to be in the article. I think I'm going to track down that other photo. Let me know what you think. I'm going to just make some minor changes to the hook. I'm still working on the article, but it's really coming along. This is the first article on which I've done substantial collaboration with another person. It was kind of fun. Anne (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, you said you were new to wiki so I feel I can say this. Be bolder! If you don't like whats on DYK then just change it! I think thats what Mary Ellen would have done. She seems to be a hell of a lady and deserves the article you have written for her. More info coming on articles required and next competition Victuallers (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. She was an amazing woman. All of her accomplishments and she managed to have at least nine children, too! Anne (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought DYK etiquette was that you weren't allowed to touch the original nomination. I've gone ahead and deleted most of my comments and made changes directly on the original nomination. It looks much tidier now. Thanks. Anne (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Others may have diff views Anne but I think that if you can't stand someone else changing your stuff cos they think its better then we are in the wrong place! "My?" article on Mary Ellen is transformed! I showed it to Andrew Helme the curator at the museum and he was very impressed. As for Bees for Development .... yes please! There is also W.A.Wall who might appeal. If you look below the Monmouth Museum page then you will see some of his pix but like Mary Ellen he had quite a few strings on his bow. Not a celeb ..... but a solid member of the community. Victuallers (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a lot more progress on the article on Mary Ellen yesterday and today. I'm trying to make it fairly comprehensive. Maybe we can eventually get it up to a "B." I'm going to work on the Bees refs this afternoon, to try to take that objection out of the equation. Anne (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your worried about the review then you could post on DYK talk but I don't think there is a reason for concern. There is 10 days for a review to take place. Actually I might be able to review it as I can't remember making a significant edit. The 2nd challenge is "Geoffrey of Monmouth" challenge. Details are being unveiled. Of and Bees for Development - they go their QRpedia code up today! I'll post a pic Victuallers (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase meant. "they go their QRpedia code up today" Does that have something to do with MonmouthpediA? There's still so much Wiki lingo I don't know. On the plus side, I just (5 minutes ago) finished adding a paragraph to Bees for Development and included a "Telegraph" reference, since notability seemed to be an issue with the reviewer. I'm hoping that I can move the review along. I already did an extensive edit last week of the references. If you can do a review of Monmouth Regimental Museum, go for it! Thanks. Anne (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the template above states, I haven't reviewed your article, the problem is with its title. It is also usual to use lower case for all but the first word of an article's title (except for proper names). Have a look at the Manual of Style. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't exactly sure what the Wiki rule was for this. I'm aware of the rule you mentioned above with regard to title. However, it's a scheduled monument with the same words capitalized in the record. So, does one change the name to lower case in that instance? The word house isn't normally capitalized, but if it's part of a title, then it is. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you write articles and want to use "English" English, if you leave a note on my talk page I will be happy to check the spelling for you. As for the capitalisation, it is a matter of judgement. WikiProject Birds has decided to capitalise all its bird names which I find quite awkward. It means you get sentences like "The Western Flutterby is larger than any other flutterby." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would appreciate that. The person below thinks that Monmouth Town Walls and Defenses needs to be written in British English. My familiarity with British English is limited to an awareness that the use of c, s, and z appears to be different from American English. I notice that occasionally when I read an article, for example, the word organize is spelled organise. I'll leave this message on your talk page, too. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you won't need to change it to British English because Victuallers very kindly already did so! Anne (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also have a go at copy editing the article when I get a chance. Basically it's fine, but it needs to be written in British English, so there are a few spellings that I would change. If the article is about Monmouth's defences (with a "c" !!), it should at least mention the role of the rivers themselves, which were fundamental to the town's defences. The fact that organisations capitalise some words in their descriptions doesn't necessarily mean that we should, as our article should take a wider view in which the official recognition of the structures' importance is just one part. The multiple references to Kissack's book should be tidied up as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Victuallers has changed it to British English already, which is fantastic. The article might have gained a couple of capitals along the way! I'm fine with copyediting the article and changing the capitals with which you had concerns. My only concern is how to change the capitals in the title. A minor change was made to the title of Mary Ellen Bagnall Oakeley and now I can no longer access that nomination. I don't want to be the one who makes the nomination disappear, so if someone else could change the title, I'll take care of any capitals that are objectionable elsewhere. You mentioned the rivers. I'll be happy to include a paragraph referring to the role of the river in the town's defense. You mentioned Kissack as well. I'm not exactly sure to what you refer, but when I take a close look, it will presumably become evident. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was new for me. I checked out the Kissack references and all the pages were gone! I had been wondering why other contributors Kissack refs were offline. Now I guess I know. I wasn't able to use my previous search terms either. I consolidated the three Kissack refs all into one offline ref. Thanks. Anne (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition to the article! I went ahead and per your suggestion added a section on the rivers, also mentioning the ditches that were made in connection with the walls. Anne (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've cut out a lot of the material that is duplicated from other articles and which is unnecessary in this article. I was within a whisker of proposing the article for a merge with Whitecross Street, Monmouth - I would refer to it as a bog-standard Grade II listed building, of which there tens if not hundreds of thousands in the UK, but I accept that it may have some special interest. But there's no need to bloat the article by including every marginally relevant fact that can be found out about it, or its neighbo(u)rhood. I'm finding it increasingly vexing to have to deal with the masses of non-encyclopedic material that the Monmouthpedia initiative seems to be generating - the emphasis should be on quality articles, not just more and more articles for the sake of it! End of rant and time for bed. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry (again). I'm trying to track down sources to create an article about plague crosses, which I think would be needed for your DYK hook to make any real sense. But, I also think that any reference to the origins of the street name should be in the article on Whitecross Street, rather than in the article on the building itself. If getting a DYK credit is important to you, perhaps a reference could be reintroduced to the article - though changing article text simply to make it suitable for gaining personal credits in that way is not a course of action I'm personally comfortable with. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monmouth Alms Houses, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that new Monmouth Alms Houses are to be provided by the charity established nearly four hundred years ago to build the original dwellings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monmouth Alms Houses.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I must not understand the purpose of orphan tags. At least two of my new articles just received orphan tags this week. How would a new article be expected to have been linked by multiple other articles? Is it perhaps the anticipation of few links, and, therefore, the attempt to ward it off? Thanks Anne (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One way of doing this is to enter the new article name into the Search box, click "Search" (not "Go"), and see where the article title has been included in the text of other articles. Then, go to those articles, and add the wikilinks to the new article. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've actually done that in the past for a couple of my articles. I'm thinking that maybe I should do it routinely. I think I'll start at the top of the list of my articles and work my way down. Anne (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are your views on the proposal to rename that article, as discussed on its talk page? If you agree, it can be moved easily, but if there is a need to discuss it further I will propose it formally at WP:RM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong feelings on the subject, primarily because at the time of writing the article I had seriously considered "Mesolithic Monmouth." Anne (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this question a number of weeks ago and never received an answer. However, a DYK reviewer inadvertently just answered my question. I have been placing bullets in front of the paragraph for each building when I compose an article about a street, to make the article easier to read. The reviewer just indicated that in doing so, I've converted the article into one that just passes for length, with the bulk of the article now a "list." Personally, I think that it is a crazy Wikipedia rule. Should I remove all the bullets on my street articles? What is the convention when buildings and their descriptions are included in an article? Thank you. Anne (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg, which you've sourced to ww2museums.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I indicated the source and the author with all the information. When you click on the source, it brings you right to the image with the license that appears to match the license that I used. What is meant by proof or evidence of permission? Is there some type of special tag other than a license? I don't understand. Anne (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You queried my references in Saccostrea cucullata at the DYK nomination here. I will explain:
I wrote the article because there was a red link in Bivalvia which I have been working on. I could see this rock oyster was used to help control pollution in the Persian Gulf. I started with WoRMS as I always do so as to be sure I have the correct scientific name. I needed information on distribution and WoRMS gave a common name of Natal rock oyster and some locations in East Africa, but also mentioned the "United Kingdom Exclusive Economic Zone". This seemed strange. So then I google the species and come across the Kenya mangroves site. That seemed it then, East Africa. But I needed a better description so I searched some more. ARKive had little information but had an image of a whelk that fed on the oyster. I looked up the whelk and find it is endemic to eastern Australia. Another mention of the oyster is on a useless New Zealand site. By now I am thoroughly confused. Where is this bivalve found? Then I found the CIESM site with a good description and other information. It seems to have invaded the Mediterranean in 1999. Finally I found the site with reference 7 which mentioned an Indo-Pacific distribution. Thank goodness, a bit of useful information on the distribution at last. But it attributed the information to Mitra and Choudhury, 1993. So I searched for that research paper and found the rather unsatisfactory url I used for reference 4.
When I write an article I add the citations as I go, so I wouldn't really muddle them up. I'm just explaining this so that you know what went on in this instance, which I remember well because it was only yesterday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well usually I have to look and see what people do but it this case I know your work from MonmouthpediA where from so far away you create such well researched articles. And I know that you have quite a few more in the queue. is so valuable. Do remember that there is one for 50 too! Thank you on behalf of the wiki, from Bromley and most of all Monmouth. Victuallers (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I wanted to make sure all of your concerns were addressed on this review. Could you please stop by and either approve it or let Rosiestep know if there are other problems to be addressed? (And whether ALT1 is okay, since it's just been added.) Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I left a message the other day, because I wasn't sure whether the nomination was being pursued. Anne (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.
Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.
Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been doing many new fine quality articles, but I do wish you would create talk pages with the appropriate templates on them. See Talk:Wye Bridge Ward, Monmouth as an example. Yes, you can provide the quality and importance ratings of articles you do yourself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll be happy to do that. What would you recommend as the best resource for determining the rating to assign to an article? Anne (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Particular projects may have specific guidance, but in general, articles with no or only one inline citation are class=stub, with three or more, class=start, and most articles are importance=low unless there is a good reason for a higher importance. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ACP2011, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I'm hoping I didnt lose your nights work by renaming an article. If so then I do apologise. However you should always be able to save your edits if it is only an edit conflict. If you press cnth A, cntl c and then paste into a text editor then you can paste it all back once the situation has calmed. Actually I'm surprised to find that many modern browsers will remember the page if you just use "back" to get back to when you last saw you improved version. Anyway - sorry for your loss. whatever the cause Victuallers (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's OK. Edit conflicts happen. I panicked late last night when I thought that I had lost all my work. I had seen edit conflicts before, but not with a redirect. So, I ended up taking my work from before the edit conflict and pasting it into a brand new user draft, Sarah Coysh. Then, I deleted my old James James article. It's my fault. If I'm going to be working on an article for a substantial length of time, I should consistently utilize an "in use" banner. Anne (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Coysh, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elisha Coysh, great-grandfather of Sarah Coysh, was a physician renowned for his care of victims of the Great Plague of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Coysh. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks. I let the author of the article know that the gizmag source needs to be read again. The head of the Atkins team updated that source in late June to reflect some of the changes that were made since April. The Wikipedia article should reflect those changes. Anne (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for joining us from practically the other side of the world! Great to have seen a pic of the Europa Point Lighthouse on the front page; I think it's the first time we litereally show Gibraltar on the front page, well done! :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And, I thought it was a great picture of the lighthouse! That picture was also recommended by the publisher of The Lighthouse Directory. By the way, thank you for your edits on Lighthouses in Gibraltar last night. I don't remember ever doing the categories or article review. I think I must have fallen asleep after moving it to article space. And thanks for removing those 4 Spanish lighthouses. The names were Spanish, but Publication 113 of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency indicated that they were in Gibraltar, United Kingdom. I thought it somewhat odd. Do you happen to know whether anyone who lives in the Gibraltar area is taking pictures as part of GibraltarpediA? It would be so great to have more lighthouse pictures! Is there a specific person that I should contact? Anne (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. User:AquilaGib is providing photos, of caves, fortifications, wildlife and historical images from the Gibraltar Museum's collections (I've asked him to dig out a photo of the construction of the Europa Point Lighthouse :)). I'm also providing photos on diverse topics from my archives but finding it difficult to find time to go out for a specific shoot. By all means ask me if you feel we could do with a specific photo and if I can't provide it I'll try to ask someone who can. I'm working on getting some people together who can concentrate on uplaoding photos which other contributors request in a wishlist. I'll keep you posted... --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me13:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it'd be a waste for it just to be deleted since you've already done the groundwork :). Would you mind having a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltarpedia please? I nominated it but don't want to get involved in editing the article because of the obvious WP:COI... I think it needs attention by tomorrow before it gets dropped. It would be a shame as this should attract more contributors to the project were it to appear on the main page... Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me23:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take a look later tonight. I was going to contact you again for another reason: what we mentioned above. I've never clicked on the "undo" tab on an article revision. If I click on it for the lighthouse article to retrieve the lighthouse info for Linea, can I then click it again so that the article looks like it does now? I don't want to mess up the article. Anne (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw that an hour or two ago and was unable to access it. So, I went from your link and still had no success, receiving messages about inability to load, etc. I'll try a third time a little later in case it's a temporary problem. Or maybe it's because I'm in Chicago. I just finished my copy edits and have requested another review. Hopefully, we're closer along. Thank you. Anne (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And, no, I didn't realize that my articles were showing up on unreviewed lists. That seems like a glitch that, theoretically at least, should be easy to fix. Anne (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I read the discussion. I like using the wizard; it's just convenient. It's not a big deal, though. I've been manually removing the unreviewed banner as soon as I review my article. Should I be removing the banner before I review the article? I usually review one of my articles within an hour of moving it to article space. The user space draft template indicated in the discussion switches to a new unreviewed article template after I move a draft to article space. If there is still a "hidden" user space draft template after the move to article space, I'll be happy to remove it. Where would I find it? Anne (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is a little depressing, though. In order to do that article, I did articles on five lighthouses in the preceding week. Anne (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteer who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
If you look at the Gibraltar Museum pictures list then you'll see I've loaded some 1850 pictures of a model the harbour (and the rest of the rock). Lots of new material from DiscoverGibraltar as they have given us a whole website. Do feel free to change or add to my hook. Thanks for your help! Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nomination! My computer went a little crazy yesterday, so I wasn't able to do the nomination after I finished the article. Early this morning, I spent time trying to retrieve some of my tabs. When I retrieved the GibraltarpediA tab, I noticed that there was an entire website that we were allowed to use, the DiscoverGibraltar that you mentioned. I haven't had a chance to do any other computer work since early this morning, but I'll check out the site tonight. Thanks for the heads up about the website and the photos. I'll take a look at those, too! Anne (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the GibraltarpediA page and used the links there to review the available Gibraltar photos. Lots of great images! However, I wasn't able to find the Gibraltar Museum harbour model images from 1850 that you loaded. Should I be looking on another page? Anne (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're a doll! I've been so busy getting my kids ready to go back to school (sports already started in early August), I haven't had time to do DYK. I've only been able to squeeze in writing the articles. Thank you! Anne (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made minor changes to the hook. However, while I can change the hook, I can't "find" it in the nomination list. Do you have any idea of its location? Thanks. Anne (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! I've even learnt a thing or two from Anne. I can see the south and detached moles in the harbour from home and didn't even know the lights were actually considered lighthouses, and I've lived here all my life... Well done Anne! :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me22:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for help on the G'pedia article - there are some Welsh refs here if you think they are useful - and they also refer to M'pedia. link Have you noticed that I've been adding your articles to Openstreetmap as you do them? cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I politely pointed out to you already, I finished my copy edit portion of my review at 13:04, twelve minutes before you signed off on your review. As I finished my review of this article and in subsequent discussion with you this morning, I have received a series of edit conflict warnings. That is because we were working concurrently. Not only do reviewers occasionally review an article concurrently, but it is not uncommon for a series of reviewers to work on an article to prepare it for DYK. I don't understand why you attempted to hide my review and subsequent comments. Nor do I understand why you persist at this. No one is attempting to take away your credit for performing a review. Anne (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you go into edit conflict at 13:04 (must be 14:04 for me), when I didn't press save until 14:16? And how can you be put into a series of edit conflicts when I only clicked save once? I don't get it. Then how did it take you a further 16 minutes to save your review at 14:32? It couldn't have take you 30/35 minutes to do the review. Aaron • You Da One
Thanks for reviewing Kosmos 2481. You didn't need to add page 15 to the book citation template - it was already given in the reference. Adding it to the template means that the book template cannot be used to refer to to other pages in the book. I use list defined references and give page numbers using Template:R, an example is {{r|Podvig_book2|page1=15}} in the Strela-3 para.This gives the reference [7], with a colon and the page number after. It's how you refer to multiple pages in the same book - see Help:References_and_page_numbers. Quick question - hy did you change the order of the references after the sentence about the GRAU index here? People do this and I don't understand why. Thanks Secretlondon (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kosmos
Oops! Sorry. I thought I was helping by putting in the page. The only reason I changed the order of the references is that it's customary for them to appear in numerical order. It's just a tidying up thing. No biggie! Anne (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, sorry for the delayed reply. I can only echo what Victuallers said, some people just can't see the bigger picture... I have no idea what the reviewer possibly means by "local and vary internetty". Wikipedia itself is very internetty, is it not? Besides, there are no guidlines as far as I'm aware that tells us we should discredit local newspapers, etc. I'm sorry I cannot get involved in this one. Maybe you can request another reviewer to look into it?
Anyway, I have to say that I am absolutely amazed by what you have acheived so far. My articles spend months in my sandbox and you just keep churning them out! Absolutely wonderful, well done! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Wikipedia is based on the internet, with well more than 95% of the sources that I use coming from the internet. I occasionally visit the library for sources or buy a book, but that is the exception rather than the rule. And, a couple of days ago it struck me that for some reason we have not been using Gibraltarpedia and Monmouthpedia themselves as sources. Which really makes no sense. In the course of writing an article on any other company or organization, we would have no hesitation to utilize the company website(s). I'm going to use that approach. One reviewer thought there wasn't enough information in the article, the other thought there was too much. It sounds like one reviewer wants a total rewrite. Ugh! Anne (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with Gibraltarpedia is that technically it's not a website in its own right so it would be like referencing another Wikipedia article and I'm pretty sure that's not allowed... Do let me know if you can find a way round it though! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's got to be some way around it. We're so limited if we can't access any of the information available there. Anne (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nono, I know you've done some brilliant work for Gibraltarpedia and thought you might speak Spanish and help translate. Its a big article so could use a collaborative team.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I'll do is copy chunks to gradually translate I think and add both the Spanish text and the google translate version, bes to work off the translated version and proof read against the Spanish. I'll start with the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It will be quicker to google translate and then add the original Spanish underneath and then proof read, save typing a lot of it out.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to invite you to contribute to the GibraltarpediA project, the world's first WIkipedia City. The project needs writers, photographers, translators and others to help build the first wiki city which bridges Europe and Africa. We are going to transform Gibraltar and the surrounding areas in Morocco and Spain into areas rich with encyclopedic content immediately accessible using QR codes and NFC on plaques for visitors and local people.
Hi Anne, as you see, your name appears in this template :-) We will be updating the template with who is in the lead and being as we have no entries so far we thought we'd put Anne down (it should say ACP2011 I know). I see you have written an article about the Harbour Master which Ive nommed for DYK. Would you add this article to here?. This will start us off we hope in inviting lots more to help. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the DYK nomination for Roy Stanbrook. Cute hook! And I just found out the other day that you were responsible for tracking down that Flicker photo for Gibraltar Diamond Jubilee Flotilla. Excellent! I've signed up for the current challenge. Can I use any of my other Gibraltar articles, or were they written before the start date? Now that the formal challenge has started, you should be flooded with articles! Anne (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: I noticed that the nom for Roy Stanbrook is listed under Aug 25, but it should really be under Aug 27, because that's when it was moved to article space. How do I go about the process of changing the date? (I know it seems like a minor issue, but I've found that the most recent nominations are more likely to be reviewed promptly.) Thanks! Anne (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the article too Anne but it's not a problem. As it stands it's a very short stub so I would just replace it with your draft. Something similar happened to me with Grand Casemates Square! Even if a longer article had been created by someone else you could still incorporate your work. Anyway, go for it! :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me06:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I replace it? I don't think I've ever replaced an article. (I have to admit, I'm a little annoyed. If you look at the second reference, it's page 13 from a 64 page handbook that I've used extensively in my articles. The reference, however, has almost nothing to do with the short paragraph written by the author.) Thank you. Anne (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be annoyed Anne, these things happen all the time and I'm sure the editor in question did not realise you were working on the article. Red links don't necessarily mean someone is working on that article but rather that the article is yet to be created. Some people don't like them but I favour red links as they tell us the work that's yet to be done and an editor may see it and want to start work on it. I also favour drafts being developed in a sandbox before release but others prefer creating stubs for other to expand. Anyway, it's easy, you just click on edit at the top and copy/paste your article in. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me06:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What will happen to the "revision history" for my article? And will I have to delete my user draft? Can I switch his stub back to a user draft? I would like to continue to make a comprehensive article. I was basically planning on having my harbour article be my "main" article for GibraltarpediA, with many of my smaller articles contributing and linking to it. If my draft goes to article space, I'll never have a chance to make it comprehensive or submit it for DYK, before everyone descends on it and starts critiquing it and saying, for example, that there's nothing about history. Well, that's because I haven't gotten to it yet. There's been so much to write about the present. There's that pesky five day limit for DYK. The other author submitted it on the 29th, so I've already lost 2 days. I feel like either his stub should be deleted or I should rename my draft "Gibraltar Harbour, Gibraltar" and go back and redo all the (numerous) links from my articles to Gibraltar Harbour. (And, yes, I understand the meaning of the red links, but the pale red ones usually indicate that someone is in the middle of writing a draft. Before I write an article, I check two ways, if it's a Wikipedia project. I use the box in the upper right corner, but I also go to all the project pages and check for the status (written, being written, or not written) and whether there are images available. Anne (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The revision history can be merged by an admin. See here. I wouldn't worry about any of this now. You can copy your draft into Gibraltar Harbour once you're happy with it. Don't worry about the DYK time limit either. DYK is either for a new article or one which has been expanded at least five-fold. As the current article is so short, once you copy your draft in it will count as a five-fold expansion at which point you'll have 5 days to submit a nom. However, if you're still worried, then it may be prudent if you leave a comment on the article's talk page telling editors you're working on a major overhaul of the article and also notify its creator as a precaution so no one expands that article for the moment.
As for the pale red links, this just means it's a link that you have recently viewed (no one else will see it as pale red unless they too have recently clicked on it). In the same manner blue links are displayed as dark blue if you've recently viewed them. I hope this helps to clarify your concerns, but believe me, you have nothing to worry about. By all means, if you're still concerned about anything, you know where to find me... :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Once more, well done on all those quality articles you're contributing! Maybe we can nominate them for Good Article status in the near future...
Thank you. I always thought that everyone else saw the pale red links, too. I like your idea of a note on the talk page. Anne (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, I see you've met "Bill" - nice guy. I can see that Gib Harbour was going to be the centre of your recent effort. I think this just means that you can be assured of getting a version in Hindi (which Bill is fluent in). As for DYKk, remember that they have 5x expansion rule - which I'm guessing you will pass. Hopefully Bill will assist you and maybe supply translations? cheers Victuallers (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, a move away from maritime-related articles? Anyway, an excellent choice of topic to write about! I'll see if I can find anyone who has some pics to contribute. I think the consensus for naming these overview articles is to use the List of X in Gibraltar as you did for the Lighthouses article... --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had a question about that. In this case, there's no list or chart. It's more like my Old Steine Gardens article than my List of lighthouses in Gibraltar article. Instead, I'm tackling all four synagogues comprehensively in one article. Would one still use the name "List" then in the title? (And it's just a quick departure from maritime, although a bit of a challenge for this Roman Catholic.) It would be great if we could come up with some photos. I spent some time looking last night, but I couldn't find any in Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I only found that one Ark of the Law for Torah scrolls photo, which is an interior shot. Thank you. Anne (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just had a minor edit conflict and I saw that we added the exact same three categories! I bet that doesn't happen very often. I added an in use banner because I'm going to work on the article some more this evening, but if you find something that you really want to add, just go for it. I'm going to add some details, including about current operations. I did an external link to a web site that had the approximate locations of all 4 synagogues on a map. I then used those to get the coordinates and added them to the article. Is there such a thing as a map of Gibraltar (similar to what I used for the naval hospital) where I could indicate the sites of all 4 hospitals? Also, I just saw that you added a photo for the hospital. Thank you! Anne (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, good choice of categories! I'll give it a rest now, it's almost 02:00am here and it's high time I went to bed! I'm sure there's a way of adding more than one location pin to the map, I just have no idea how to... Maybe Roger can point you in the right direction. Regarding the Naval Hospital, no probs, I knew I'd seen old postcards somewhere! How come the location map isn't appearing on the page? --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me23:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, you did a review on this nomination last month. Orlady has just done a bit of work on the article, and I was wondering if you could revisit the discussion there to see which of her ideas seems feasible. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, thanks for your extensive additions. The last thing you posted on the 7th seemed to indicate that you felt the article needed more, and you'd be coming back to add it. Where does the article stand now, and is it ready for DYK or does it need more? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
King's Bastion
Hi Anne, saw your draft on this which is looking good but thought I'd let you know I'd already started this one too. Was hoping to release it within the week so shall we put our heads together on this one? :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me19:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A double DYK is when you submit an article that one or more people have worked on together. Your sandbox page-how did you create that? It would be so nice to have one page where I could keep track of what I'm working on. For that matter, how do you see what I'm working on? It would be nice to know, because sometimes I start articles, and then forget about them, because I "lose" them! Anne (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, sounds good!
You should be able to see a My sandbox link in the top right corner of your screen between My talk and My preferences, no? It's essentialy another subpage...
I can see what you're working on from your contributions page. If you go to the bottom of this page you can see your subpages, you have lots. Once you no longer need a subpage you can request for it to be deleted by blanking it and adding {{db|self}}. Hope this helps! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, thanks for your review and help with this article. I'm going to be away from internet access for a few days, so can't fix it straight away. Meantime I have a question about the sentence derived from flickr: do I remove the reference and leave the statement assuming it is in good faith until a ref can be found, or do I delete the words entirely? That's the only one I can't sort without finding an original source which I'm not in a position to do right now. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just going to be away for a few days, I wouldn't worry about the flickr text and ref. Between the two of us, we might be able to find another source or sources for at least parts of the sentence. When you have internet access, you can work on it again. I can look over the weekend for you, too. If I find something, I'll just go ahead and substitute the reference(s). Have a good weekend. Anne (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne. The problem is nothing to do with your article itself - it's just that you've inadvertently been caught up in a furore about the Gibraltarpedia initiative as a whole, and about what some people see as User:Victuallers' conflict of interest in being reimbursed for services by the Gibraltar government at the same time as editing (or promoting) articles. Hopefully the fuss will die down and normal service will be resumed, but there's masses of very animated discussion about all this on various talk pages if you want to search it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I feel kind of foolish. I had absolutely no idea that anything was going on with Gibraltarpedia or Victuallers. When I first received the notice this afternoon, I actually thought that there was some sort of antisemitism in play. I saw the notice about Roger resigning. I'm so sorry. Anne (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Politics
Hi Anne. I'm in a rush, but just to let you know that I'm doing my best to explain on all discussion pages that what we're trying to achieve is just that, improve notable encyclopaedic content on Gibraltar (Roger's COI aside). To discredit the efforts of so many volunteers who spend so many hours to serve Wikipedia’s cause is senseless. I’m sure though that the whole COI issue they have with Roger will settle soon and people will be able to see past this and realise what great work you, me and so many other are doing. Will get back to you later this evening, have a nice day and try not to stress! :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, please don't quit. You are doing exactly what you thought, improving wikipedia's content for Gibraltar and doing a fantastic job which a lot of people here respect you for. However, every now and then "scandals" crop up which are dealt with heavy handedly out of excessive fear about something wihether its BLPs, editors found to be serial copyrighters or paid editors with a purpose. In this case this is exactly what has happened, your articles have been pulled not because of the quality of your edits but out a perhaps irrational fear that you're also a paid editor who is promoting Gibraltar and making it pro-tourism. Please be patient and when the articles have been checked and this blows over you will be able to continue to wonderful work you've been doing. I beg you not to quit DYK or wikipedia but please understand why this is being done.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally concur with the comments above. Furores like this blow up here every so often, and then they're resolved or subside again - in the mean time, those who fan the flames have little idea of the collateral damage they do to unbiased, good faith and excellent content editors like yourself. Hang in there - maybe identify an area of interest yourself, or link in to another Wikiproject where you can just improve and establish articles without the competitive element. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne... I don't have strong enough words to say how much we don't want to see you leave this project. You've been inadvertently caught up in the whole "Bamkin's consultancy business" mess, but nobody believes you are to blame in any way. As so many folks have said, you do good work, and there are lots of subject matters that can use your touch and are not tainted with suspicions in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Anne, I have to join those who are saying how sorry we are :-( Please don't give up on this place or on Did You Know. I assume your synagogues article will be run again after this is all dealt with, and I do apologize for your not having been notified. (I learned the hard way to look at that unpleasant project talk page every once in a while, but in this case it's a particularly unpleasant read.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to respond, I think, would be to produce as many high-quality new Gibraltar-related articles as possible and shame the idiots who've ginned up this faux controversy into backing down. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too Anne. But please see that there are many more people who haven't commented here who've noticed your articles and been deeply grateful that you are contributing so well. We love your work here more than I think you realise, keep it coming! This should blow over soon enough and hopefully it will become enjoyable for you again. I agree completely P-man, if we could get a set of Good articles on Gibraltar to shove in their face.. In fact if Tourism in Gibraltar was brought up to FA level we'd be laughing. Can you find anything on Flat Bastion Road, Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar or The Rock Hotel? The first two are at AFD; Bristol should be safe but Flat Bastion's future is dubious, I suppose we could create a Roads in Gibraltar article? I think 'll make a start later. Anne are you living in Gibraltar? We could use some photos of the hotels and road. I think its the road with the monkeys on the wall which having visited Gibraltar myself is definitely notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually doing this as a hobby from Chicago, Illinois. Before this week it was fun (although my children don't like it when I spend time on the computer--they want more time online!) If there are any articles that are up for deletion, I'll be happy to help with them. For the time being, I'm out of DYK, though. I'm very disappointed with how political it is. I also like your idea of bringing up some of the Gibraltar articles to a higher level, although I've never tried to do it and I really don't know what's involved. Maybe one or more of you could take a look and see whether any of my articles are candidates. In addition to the 14 that are listed under the Gibraltarpedia competition here, I wrote Gibraltar articles earlier in the summer, before the contest, trying to be helpful because I'd heard that the project was working on Gibraltar next. They include: Europa Point Lighthouse, Gibraltar North Mole Lighthouse, Gibraltar South Mole Lighthouse, Gibraltar North Mole Elbow Lighthouse, Gibraltar Aerobeacon, Lighthouses in Gibraltar, South Mole, Gibraltar Harbour, Gibraltar Detached Mole ("B" Head) Lighthouse, Gibraltar Detached Mole ("C" Head) Lighthouse, Detached Mole, Gibraltar Harbour, North Mole, Gibraltar Harbour, Marina Bay, Gibraltar, Queensway Quay Marina, Gibraltar, Ocean Village Marina, Gibraltar, and Gibraltar Diamond Jubilee Flotilla. Also, I would suggest that if we're going to make this a collaborative effort, that we work first on any articles that are up for deletion. Just let me know where to start and I'll go for it. Also, while I obviously can't take any photos, I have been able to find a few old Gibraltar photos and upload them to Wikimedia. Perhaps we can find more photos that way for both types of articles, up for deletion and general upgrading. Also, Gibmetal77 has been wonderfully helpful and may be able to connect us with needed photos. My children are home from school today and finally got out of bed. Teenagers are high maintenance. In between chauffeuring gigs today, I'll see what I can find for Flat Bastion Road. Anne (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for collaboration. I worked on Flat Bastion Road this afternoon and it was going really well. Added a substantial amount of text and refs. Then, I just started getting edit conflicts. I've given up. I'm not sure what the point is of adding long names to references that have already been completely formatted. Is it to make it look like someone is contributing to the article substantially? How does it improve an article to do that? I was never able to even add my final text and references. My lead was completely eliminated. Anne (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Edit conflicts were almost certainly me. I was trying to source dump newspaper and book sources into the article to help with WP:GNG issue on the AfD. --LauraHale (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think people are still working on it this evening. I managed to get another reference in there in between other people's edits! Anne (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My writing has issues. : / I tend to write to prove notability, includes random details that need additional sources to frame the information better, and the prose tends to be clunky. Most of the articles I edit have few editors so I tend to not think about edit conflicts. The work you did was good. :) I just thought a few more newspaper sources, television sources, book sources, government publications which were more specifically about the road would make a better case at AfD. --LauraHale (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right: when an article's up for deletion, the more info the better. It can always be edited out later. I'm having a bit of a hard time keeping up with all the edits. It's still very active. It looks like someone already did some editing out of information from the history section this evening, because the section suddenly got smaller. I went ahead in the past hour and moved the school back into the history section because while I suspect the building itself isn't notable and, for all I know, may be gone, its history is notable. It was nice of you to help out with the article today. We're trying to save some of these Gibraltar articles, because apparently they're being targeted for deletion, at least that's my understanding. Anne (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had DYKs turned down because the prose was less than ideal. :( I've been pretty much put off the process because some of these comments end up appearing sexist and able-ist in terms of the content that doesn't get the pass. On writing style, Wikipedia can kind of force FACT.[CITE] FACT.[CITE] FACT.[CITE] style writing, because it is really hard to end up with workable prose when you're drawing from about 10 sources to write one paragraph. My academic supervisors think my prose writing has been... made worse because of Wikipedia. (It is why I prefer to write for Wikinews.) Your afternoon writing took place around 7am my time. Got up and decided to work on that article as the hotel one seems like it has enough sources now. --LauraHale (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Superb work both of you on Flat Bastion Road. I'll ask for some photos. In regards to better articles, Anne pick any of those articles and try to make it as good as possible, find as many sources and content as possible. Once you can find no more give me a bell and I'll make a recommndation on whether or not to propose it for a Good article. I'd be happy to review it for you or help you get articles up to GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld07:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Road Good aRticles are a pain in the ass. I've asked some one involved with the project what needs to be done with the article to take it to GA. The history needs to be there, especially the early history which is missing. It also needs more information on the road features, such as intersections, road width, road markings, etc. The few sources I've looked at haven't included this, and the roads people tend to use Google Maps as a source for the major intersections part. --LauraHale (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that it would be fairly difficult to find substantial information on the early history of most roads. As for maps, which I really like to use, I've been shot down more than once for using them in DYK, which I just don't understand. Anne (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I just took a look at the article. Apparently, collaboration can be very effective. It looks great! Also, I didn't know about the maps for free website. The maps are a nice addition to the article. Since inline citations were used for the first paragraph of the lead, I'll add some for the second paragraph. The contributor who cleaned up the references did a nice job. Does anyone know whether there's an actual rule limiting use of maps as a source? Anne (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Anne they were made on mapsforfree based on Open Street Map , google either one. nope you can make a map of anything you want. Quality is not the best but its better than nothing.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. That's what I was talking about a week ago. I sometimes lose track of what I'm supposed to be working on. We had talked about translating the Algeciras article. I'm more fluent with French than Spanish, but if I sit down with a dictionary, I should be able to make some progress. Anne (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on the Flat Bastion Road article. Found something else this morning that I think we can use. Is the Flat Bastion which is a listed building under the Gibraltar Heritage Trust the same as the Flat Bastion Barracks that have been converted to housing? Anne (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up being able to answer my own question with more research. The Flat Bastion includes both the Flat Bastion Magazine and the Flat Bastion Barracks. The Bastion and the Magazine are listed separately with the Trust, which I understand. What's confusing is why St. Jago's Bastion has a separate listing, when it is supposedly the same as the Flat Bastion. I just sent Flat Bastion to article space, although I'm still working on it. I'm still going to research the St. Jago's Bastion issue, too, because it doesn't make sense. Anne (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
War memorial articles
I've just been reading some of the war memorial articles you've written, and wanted to thank you for those. The Arras Flying Services Memorial article in particular. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit that memorial in 2010. The photos I took are the other five in commons:Category:Arras Royal Flying Corps Memorial (the ones with the longer names). I'm not quite sure why the other pictures of the memorial that you used aren't in that category, but they probably should be. And the category could be added to the article (I'll do that in a moment). I'm also particularly pleased that this article was done because it fills in a gap in List of Commonwealth War Graves Commission World War I memorials to the missing in Belgium and France (a list I did a long time ago now). I had left that one unlinked, as I was unsure if it should be a separate article or a section of the Arras Memorial article, but it is really good to see that one done as a separate article. If you want pointers to more war memorial topics (there are WikiProjects on the topic), or any other help, please let me know, as I (and others) have a number of books on the topic and there are a few online resources it is useful to know about. There is one request on your talk page that I may be able to help with - the one about the Lancaster Memorial, in East Sheen Cemetery. That is within travelling distance of where I live in London, so I'd be happy to try and photograph that memorial unless someone else manages to do that before me (I won't be able to do so until early October). I'll leave you with a link to World War I memorials, not something I wrote (I wish!), but an excellent article that I think you might appreciate (if you haven't seen it already). Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you so much for your message. When I started contributing to Wikipedia earlier this year, I picked a theme for which I didn't feel I had enough knowledge and that I thought it would be fun to learn about: World War I--primarily flying aces, monuments, and their sculptors. More recently, I've been helping with the Monmouth and Gibraltar projects. I would love to do more articles on memorials. I went to my local library and local bookstores months ago, but got nowhere on memorials, although I did have limited luck with planes and pilots. Any suggestions that you have for sources would be appreciated. Also, if you could get a photo of the Lancaster Memorial, that would be wonderful. I found some great photos of the memorial online but at the time I didn't think that the licensing would allow me to upload to Wikimedia (not that I'm any photo licensing expert)! I was intrigued by the March family of sculptors and it would be great to do another article related to them. Thanks for the link to the WWI memorials article; I'll read it today. Neither was I aware of the list article that you had done of the CWGC WWI memorials. I'm looking at it right now-it's great! I would definitely be interested in researching some of your unlinked memorials from that list. Anne (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I noticed that there are several other monuments in Gibraltar. I'll try to research them and come up with some articles. Anne (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, thanks for your work on this one too. DiscoverGibraltar is still a source we can freely use, it was just removed by someone from the project page because it was seen as advertising. The mind boggles... Anyway, check out this image I uploaded from the site, you should use the same licence. John took some pictures yesterday and I'll take a few more some time this week including the cast iron road name sign and the end of the road where it merges with Gardiner's Road. Mind however, if you're going to add stuff on Flat Bastion Magazine that it's actually at the beginning of Gardiner's Road so careful how you report on it. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me17:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly where Gardener's Road begins, on google maps it looks like the same road. The main map is incorrect if this is so, I've included Gardiner's road.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence that you're talking about maps right now. I'd been looking at maps intermittently this morning, trying to trace the original Flat Bastion and Flat Bastion Magazine. (I've decided to do separate articles on both of them.) It just struck me around noon Chicago time where everything is, including the Charles V Wall. So, I have the same question: Where does Gardiner's begin? My (iTouch) map that I use to find coordinates labels the road Flat Bastion above and below the bastion. Thanks! Anne (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I live on Flat Bastion Road and can tell you that it ends at Charles V Wall where Gardiner's Road begins :). Google maps is wrong but I think Open Street Map is accurate. Google maps has various inaccuracies when it comes to street names in Gib (e.g. it calls Town Range "Range Town" for some reason...). --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me18:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that clears it up. Very helpful, because right now I'm "penning" a preliminary description of the location of the bastion and its relation to streets and other landmarks. Thank you! Anne (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what term is used for the portion of the road that goes through the bastion? At the Discover site, the text indicates that: "South Bastion Road now cuts through King Charles V Wall as well as the south wall of the bastion and is a relatively modern feature." Have you heard the South Bastion term formally used? Anne (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I've just check the DiscoverGibraltar site and this is most definitely a typo. It should read "Flat Bastion Road now cuts through...". South Bastion is another fortification at the western end of Charles V Wall (36°08′05″N5°21′14″W / 36.134693°N 5.353818°W / 36.134693; -5.353818). Flat Bastion is hardly recognisable as such as only some portions of its walls are left. Most people confuse the magazine to be the entire bastion. An arch was cut into Charles V Wall and as you can see from one of the site's photos (5th down on the left) a section of the bastion's southern wall was demolished to give access from Flat Bastion Road to Europa Road (via Gardiner's Road). --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all starting to make sense. It took a while for me to find Flat Bastion on the map today and, when I finally settled on where it had to be, it was with the acknowledgment that parts had to be missing. Going back to what you said about the Discover Gibraltar site. How can someone delete a link to a site that's trying to help us with text and photos? And does this mean that the information that we're obtaining from the site has now been deemed unreliable? This is getting ridiculous. Anne (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltar-related deletion discussions
As you're a member of WikiProject GibraltarpediA, I thought you might wish to know that there are a number of deletion requests currently ongoing relating to articles and assets involving Gibraltar. They are:
Hi Anne, I'd like to offer my unreserved apologies that you have been given a slice of grief over the articles you have written for DYK. As you know I have agreed to excuse myself from any Gibraltar related DYKs. It was an error but one that crept up on me. I had avoided promoting DYK articles for Gibraltar but I should have done more. As it was it was seen that I had created all the Gibraltar DYKs and that was far from the truth. (I have nominated over 200 articles that other people have written for DYK.) I have really enjoyed working with you and I hope that we will still be able to in the future. I'm pleased to see that new articles are still being written. We had our first in Bulgarian today. Best 95.151.66.92 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping that this blows over for you and everyone. It's really a shame. I've enjoyed working with you and I'm sure we'll be able to do so in the future. I'm still writing articles; I'm just staying away from DYK. Too toxic. My articles have been quarantined like they're contagious and they all require a second "doctor's" examination now; even then they don't go to the front page. One was even pulled right off the front page. Nice! The last couple days I've been trying to help with things that are slated for deletion, primarily Flat Bastion Road. If it was a road anywhere else, it wouldn't even be considered for deletion. Thanks for all of your help. You've been great. Anne (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, your page is getting quite long. Might I suggest setting up an archive system? All you have to do is copy and paste the following code into the top of your talk page and Miszabot will automatically start making archive subpages and moving threads from here over there after they've sat for a certain number of days. It's all automated and a good way to keep your talk page organized. Code:
Thank you. I think it's time. I starting deleting some items the other day, but it's time to archive. Hopefully, I won't mess it all up. I'll try it this weekend. Anne (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it ever starts acting wonky, please let me know and i'll do my best to fix it. And, hey, there's nothing much to mess up. Just add that code to the top of the page and it'll all be done automatically. :3 SilverserenC04:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Flat Bastion
OK Anne, I'll answer all your questions as best I can... The magazine is at the eastern limit of Flat Bastion - my mistake. Must have got cofused from looking at the map where it shows the magazine at the top. Flat Bastion Barracks (now renamed Flat Bastion Mews) are here (I live there!) and St. Jago's Barracks (commonly reffered to as St. Jago's Stone Block, which now houses the Income Tax Office) are here. Not sure what the building on the western end of Flat Bastion is but it's definitely not Flat Bastion Barracks as I've pointed out above. From the description in the Heritage Trust Act ("Above and East of Trafalgar Cemetery"), I'm pretty sure the western wall of the bastion is what is listed as St. Jago's Bastion (see here) just before you enter Prince Edward's Road through Prince Edward's Gate (here). Finally, this building with the green roof is Godley Mansions, Government housing. Hope this helps! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me12:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
Gibraltar Barnstar of National Merit
For your work on the Flat Bastion article in particular, great start! But you've put a tremendous amount of work into articles and a generally a much needed editor on here. Keep up the great work, and let's see many GAs on your articles in the future! ♦ Dr. Blofeld15:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. Thanks for the tip! Good timing! I was planning on just doing a tiny stub for orillon, but decided this afternoon to take it to start class. I'm just winding it up now. Anne (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anne. Let me first congratulate you on all the wonderful work you've been doing on Gibraltar. I have also appreciated your very sensible comments in discussions, last but not least in connection with the witch hunt on Flat Bastion Road. May I simply suggest that you implement your proposal to improve the article by deleting irrelevant information, perhaps also expanding on the basis of the authorative sources you seem to have identified. Maybe a tie up with the article you have written on Flat Bastion would also be in order. In so doing, you will probably take the wind out of the sails of those who would like to see the article deleted. Keep up the good work! --Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Flat Bastion
Hi Anne. I've never come across a name for the archway/gate in Charles V Wall at the end of Flat Bastion Road, so it's either unnamed or the name has gone into disuse. Indeed, a section of the southern wall of Flat Bastion was cut/demolished to make way for Gardiner's Road which connects Flat Bastion Road to Europa Road. You can see a photo of the cross-section of the cut wall on DiscoverGibraltar. Been wanting to take some photos but I've had my one year old in hospital so not had much time. I've started reading up on the deletion review but I'll have to finish reading in the morning. Remember to take everything you read in these discussions with a handful of salt! If you feel you can improve the article in the meantime, please go ahead. Any points you need clarifying, as always, please ask. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me21:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that your baby has been in the hospital. It can very frightening as a parent. One of the scariest times for me was the day that both my infant and my toddler were in the operating room. Later, when I brought the children home from the hospital, both in their car seats and swaddled in bandages, I was stopped by a traffic policeman for some trivial reason! I explained that I was returning home from the hospital with my post-operative children and he didn't believe me. However, just one look at the pathetic sight in the back seat and he sheepishly backed away! So, at least it ended with a little comic relief. I hope your baby is doing better. Get some sleep. Doctor's orders! Anne (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the photo on the Discover page. That was one of the reasons that I was asking. I was preparing to upload it to Wikimedia and I couldn't find a formal name for the gate. Anne (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it must have been really scary to have had them both been operated on at the same time! Hope they're OK now. Definitely trying to catch up on sleep over the weekend. You're a Doc? --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me09:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Nun's Well and it's definitely notable enough to have it's own article. So, if you're up for it why not start a new article and replace the section in Europa Point with a summary of the new article? Here are some more sources: [3][4][5]. Toromedia is new to wiki and still getting to grips with everything, so maybe just leave him a quick message informing him of the copyvio issue and how he should reflect info from sources to Wikipedia. He's a nice guy, just needs a little guidance. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me21:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Aren't babies great? When my children drive me insane, I try to remember their days as babies and toddlers. Enjoy! Anne (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remember that tip in fifteen years time! :)
I think it's safe to say that sentence should read: "Nuns' Well is acknowledged by consensus to be the only remaining pre-British construction for water storage in Gibraltar." There are massive reservoirs cut into tunnels within The Rock but these are of British construction. They used to be filled from natural water catchments on the western slopes of The Rock and later a huge artificial one constructed on the Great Sand Dune on the east side. They are still in use but are now filled with fresh water produced at a desalination on the North Mole. Hope this helps. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a chance to shine as most of the roads, especially those mentioned should have a few sources about the roads themselves. If you want more roads look on google maps or see the list hidden in Template:Streets in Gibraltar. I think I've mentioned most of the most notable ones to start with anyway. Superb work on Flat Bastion Magazine too, love some of the photos of it too!♦ Dr. Blofeld13:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. When you have a chance, could you take a look at Streets in Gibraltar, section Devil's Tower Road? I finished it yesterday evening, after completing the main article and now someone (Nvvchar) has added misspellings, incorrect information-tower dismantled 2004, a tunnel which doesn't belong in this section, and one source, which doesn't back up the claims and is named (Ha! Ha!) "Gibralatarpedia". Is this a joke??? I assume its vandalism. Any thoughts??? I plan on reversing the edit today. Anne (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Section also has inserts like "noinclude" with < and >. Anne (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at DYK for the first time in a week. Wow! Major change for the girl relegated to the back of the bus! Thank you. Anne (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's Tower Road
Hi Anne, just noticed your draft and thought you may find these pictures of the actual Devil's Tower Child fossil and reconstruction (Gibraltar 2) useful:
No problem. I'll take a look this evening and tomorrow and play around with it. I'll move some info from Devil's Tower Road to Devil's Tower and start Gibraltar 2, also. I'm just starting a little separate article on what we discussed a few weeks ago, Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice (and later, Gibraltar Memorial). Just finished Devil's Tower Road and corresponding section for Streets in Gibraltar today. Busy, busy, busy. Anne (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne did you know about the google book ref maker http://reftag.appspot.com/ . paste in a google book url to it and it'll make citations, just click last name to reverse authors and sometimes you might have to enter in the page number if missing. I can show you to put google book and google ref maker into your itinary at the top of the page if you want it, just tell me what browser and what wiki skin you use. I find it much quicker for finding sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd never heard about it previously. I have Safari for Mac OS X. I'm not very wiki-savvy; so, I don't know what a wiki skin is. Anne (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go into your preferences. Click appearance. you have the choice to change wiki skin, I'd imagine you're using standard vector. You should try monobook (the old one), Modern or Cologne Blue, those are the best ones. Click whatever skin and press save. Anyway you decide and tell me which skin you are using and I'll show you then how to put it in your itinery for easy access when you write articles. BTW the DYK deadline for Streets is today, we might get a few extra days to work on it...♦ Dr. Blofeld12:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to say thanks very much for all the amazing articles you're creating and working on. If you need any photos for anything please ask, I'm organising some photography days but I or a local can always take them. :)
Thank you. And I'd love to arrange for some photos. I've been trying to use what we have or upload them myself from old sources or from DiscoverGibraltar.com, which has been a great source of both info and images! This week, I'll go through all of my Gibraltar articles and make a list of those that could benefit from a photo. Anne (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Sunday is the Battle of Trafalgar commemoration day - there will be an annual commemoration event in Trafalgar Cemetery in Gib. It would be great if we could get a 5x expansion done in time for the article to be ready for DYK for that day. Could you see what you can do with it? Prioryman (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Let me make it my project for tomorrow and then you can take a look at it and see what you'd like to change or add. By the way, when I first saw your note a couple of minutes ago, I thought you were referring to the Battle of Trafalgar, which I quickly learned was already a huge article. I had already been contemplating a week or two ago an expansion of the cemetery, not aware of the timing. This will work out great. I finished an article a few minutes ago. I'm just about to add categories to Princess Amelia's Battery. Anne (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great job once again! You're well past 5x now (closer to 9x, I would say). I've nominated the article and requested a fast-track review so that, hopefully, it'll appear on Trafalgar Day. Prioryman (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back in the system with a new password. But it appears that somehow I'm being logged out of both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. It started more than 48 hours ago and is occurring on a regular basis. Very odd. Anne (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very strange indeed. Silly question, but when you login do you tick the box that says "Remember my login on this browser" or words to that effect? --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it, but the system seemed to ignore it (the way aol has been ignoring that tick mark for months). I just woke up less than an hour ago and the system hasn't thrown me out yet. Maybe (fingers crossed) the problem has resolved itself. Anne (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In your comment you mentioned infoboxes. I am familiar with the more common infoboxes - schools, people, etc. - but I can't think what kind of infobox to use for a historic trail. Any suggestions? --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at a number of templates, including various "road" and "historic" templates, but none seems like it would add much to the article. I notice that other historic trails such as Silk Road and El Camino Real (California) don't use an infobox. Apparently nobody has developed one that would be very helpful in describing historic routes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne. It seems the template is using different conversion rates depending on whether it's converting metres to feet or vice versa. I'm no good with the coding of these things but if you notify people on the template's talk page I'm sure someone will look into it.
This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us with that achievement. We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. Gibraltarpedia.org is now showing the list of about 100 plaques - do take a look and see the languages we will be featuring. Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I'd let you know that I'm planning to start a piece on the Fortifications of Gibraltar – they were really my main focus of interest when I visited, with Clive Finlayson's eponymous book serving as a guide. Hopefully I won't be treading on any toes as the article is still a red link. I'd definitely like to draw on your awesome research skills, so be warned. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you were planning on doing one, because of the red links in info boxes. Accordingly, I've been putting that red link in my info boxes, too, and have even put some in the text in the occasional article. So, you should be good. That'll be a great article. Probably very big. I'll be happy to help. I'll also keep plugging away on the individual fortifications, which should be helpful with the big article. Anne (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prioryman, see here for something I started a while back. It would be great if we could work together on this. Also, I've seen your comment on John's page and would like to point out that Anne is also working on the Royal Calpe Hunt. Cheers, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I passed out early yesterday evening after a busy day, and thought I was speaking to you when it was really Prioryman. Do either of you know how far the other contributor is with regard to his Hunt article? I'm about 80% complete. (I'm aiming for a C level article.) Also, as I mentioned above, I'll keep plugging away on individual fortifications and then I can help with your big article by composing summaries of my small ones. If you'd like, I can start doing that this week. Thanks. Anne (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just left him a message. Give me a holler when you want to actually start the process of writing text for the fortifications article. I'll start writing little summaries of my articles when you're ready to start the text of the main article. Anne (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, but I'm 77 and don't understand Wikipedia very well yet. I don't understand how it works and I have a very hard time when it comes to references and expanding articles since I don't know what's and what's not relevant to the article. I read the letter and I don't think it's relevant to the article. You may ask why I'm so enthusiast about this person, I tell you. I was 18 years old when I heard on the radio about this person's death, and now that I've come to know Wikipedia, I stumbled upon him and created his article. Hope you understand the why behind my enthusiasm for him. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I just started myself this year. I live in the Midwest, too, Chicago, although I'm from the East Coast. I remember very vividly getting lost in Wikipedia, trying to navigate from page to page. I learned how to use the Wikipedia citation template in April. It looks to me like you're doing great. I'll work with you tomorrow on finding more references and developing your article. Anne (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll highly appreciate your help. Who would've said that the 18 year old listening to the radio that night would be creating the article of that person's death almost 60 years later. It's moving for me. Brings about memories. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, upon reading this thread, I left a welcome and another greeting for Iowafromiowa (talk).
I usually don't bother with getting credit for helping out with articles. Don't worry about that. I haven't gone through everything yet (I've been working on the article late this afternoon and this evening in between yard work and kids), but do you mean that you linked to the wrong siege? Anne (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Siege of Kandahar to which is wikilinked is not the Siege of 1880, which I haven't found on Wikipedia. Excuse me, but I must insist that you get credit for helping me out. I highly appreciate your help. Hope you're doing well. Wish you the best. Iowafromiowa (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm now going to bed, hope you understand a 77 year old (laughter). But the 18 year old who listened to this person's death on the radio is still pretty active and will try to get him to the main page with the invaluable help of yours. Thank you indeed. Iowafromiowa (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Main Guard
On 26 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Main Guard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the early 19th century, if you were out on the streets of Gibraltar after midnight without a permit you risked being sent to the Main Guard? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Main Guard. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Vernon March at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll check the template. Anne (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of James Scaramanga at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
Hello. You have a new message at Template:Did you know nominations/Equidissection's talk page.
_by_Ron.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
