User talk:Wfm495

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Formatting citations[edit]

Read these instructions. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have not formatted what I presume you intend to be footnotes, according to the instructions to which I linked you above. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Mike, I am working with the user on this one -- will need a little time to get the refs in order. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

John Ordronaux[edit]

Further to our off-wiki e-mail exchange, I have investigated the apparent existence of two articles with the same name. Even though a search shows two hits, they are both to the same article - I even checked the edit histories to make sure. I don't understand why it shows two hits - it may be something to so with Wikipedia's servers being a little out of synch with each other. I will investigate further. – ukexpat (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike's point is that there is a system for footnoting in Wikpedia using <ref>reference goes here</ref> tags and a references section with the {{Reflist}} template which pulls together all the references in a numbered list. I am going to take a crack at fixing that - will post an in use tag on the article while I am working on it. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
OK I have fixed the refs in accordance with Wikipedia's named ref formatting. I think I caught them all, but I saved the original list in my clipboard just in case. The order of the list is pretty much determined by where they appear in the article, so the new list in the References section is in a different order from the original list. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel, you have done a really great job. I will check details to see if all the connections to refs are correct. I am sure they are. In relation to the request for images, I don't think that a picture of him exists. There may be a picture of the Prince de Neufchatel, but I do have a nice vessel registration certifcate which has a nice large Eagle at the top (US Navy) copied for the UK National Archies (copyright?). Also the extract from the ships log printed in the Baltimore Patriot might be a nice addition of colour. hat do w do next? William Wfm495 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be careful with images, to make sure that they are not subject to copyright. (You thought the guidelines to footnote formatting were bad? Trying doing copyright clearance on images for use in Wikipedia!!!!) You could check with the U.S. national archives as to whether an image of Ordronaux exists. Otherwise, looks like a solid article right now. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)No problem. I have not copy-edited the article at all so I guess that is the next stage. Also, if you have any relevant external links that we could add to an External link section, let me know and we can add them. As for images, copyright can be a problem. US government images are usually public domain, that however is not true of British government images, which are usually Crown copyright. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I just added an infobox and persondata - persondata is metadata so you won't be able to see it unless the article is in edit mode. You can also tweak your monobook.css file to display persondata by default, let me know if you need help with that. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is really good thanks. I am having a bit of a rest as I have been researching this quite intensively over the last few days. Wfm495 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I will copy-edit when I have a little more time. – ukexpat (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure I can add the external links, but I may not be able to get to it until tomorrow. Thanks for the congrats - barnstars are just bit of fun IMHO, you can read about them at WP:BARNSTAR. – ukexpat (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel Wfm495 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Section headings etc[edit]

I will take a crack at adding headings as you suggest. I will admit that the length of the quotation has been bothering me a little but I am not sure how we could cut it down without losing valuable stuff. Let me do the heading first and then we can see where we are. – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Headings  Done. – ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
External links  Done. – ukexpat (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done I added a sub-heading for "Battle with HMS Endymion", as a subsection of the "Second command" section. I can easily be promoted up a level if that works better. We can of course add further levels of subsubheadings to deal with the long quotation as you suggest. – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks Nigel, Wfm495 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just made the most recent change that you requested - changing the battle with the Endymion ref just after "Martha's Vineyard" to the Mcclay book. Because the Coggleshall reference was not used elsewhere it has now dropped out of the list of references and the rest renumbered accordingly. Of course, it still appears as an external link. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Nigel. Essentially the same text appears in ref 6 anyway so nothing is lost. Thanks again, Wfm495 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr John Ordronaux[edit]

Will, yes I did see a lot of Google hits for this guy. Certainly the time frame fits for him to be the son and he certainly seems to be notable. I guess it would need a disambiguating title such as John Ordronaux (doctor). I suggest that a user subpage may be the best place to write the article first - User:Wfm495/John Ordronaux (doctor) probably - where you can work on it without fear of deletion. Let me know if you need help setting up that subpage. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I put a link to User:Wfm495/John Ordronaux (doctor) on your user page - it had been a redlink for way too long! – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, a day or so ago I happened to see a message on one of the Wikipedia pages about a custom Google reference search engine that another user has created. You will find it at . Searching for John Ordronaux brings up many hits for both men, including a large number for the son. I am not sure if they are any different from the standard Google hits, but may be of use. I just looked at the draft in your subpage and it's a great start. Doing the arithmetic he would be about 10 when JO senior died, so could have been adopted at that age. The question remains though, what happened to his mother? Did she die around that time too or did she marry the adopting father? Interesting stuff! – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki ref search looks very useful for Dr Ordronaux, thanks Wfm495 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On 18 and 19 February 2009 I researched the outline of this article on the basis of twenty four primary source references. I have now asked ukxpat to link up the refs in Wiki fashion and generally look over the article prior to full publication on Wiki. Wfm495 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel (ukexpat) for look over/copy edit - good work. Wfm495 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Will, excellent detective work on the parentage stuff. You convinced me! I will work on the refs soon when I have a little more time - it is a little complicated and I want to get it right. As soon as that's done, I will add an ibox etc and we can move it to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel! Wfm495 (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Will, I should be able to work on the references today. I agree that the bracketed stuff can be moved to a footnote. We also need to be careful about original research and that's why I have removed or edited some of the stuff on the will and his motivations for writing some of his books. – ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen what you have done and have accepted it. - thanks. I have read Wiki policy on original research. Will Wfm495 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

John Ordronaux re-assessed[edit]

Will, check out the talk page. The article has been re-assessed as B class -- great job! – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing - couldn't have done it without your help!! Wfm495 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

John Yates Beall[edit]

Will, thought you may be interested in the above article that I came across while patrolling the Help Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doc John[edit]

Will, I think I have all the references correct. Please review. I also slightly reworded a couple of sections and removed the final sentence, as I think it was original research. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel - Good work thanks. I think it is ready for open publication - would you please action? Thanks again Wfm495 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I assume that John Ordronaux (doctor) is the most appropriate title? If not we can always move it later. – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I will also create a disambiguation page at John Ordronaux (disambiguation). – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Doc John comes up in the suggested items drop down list if I enter John Ordronaux in the search box, but not if I click the "Search" button. My guess is that the search functions are housed on a separate set of servers and that they need to be periodically updated when new articles are created. Suggest we wait a while and see what happens. I have taken the liberty of changing a few things on your user page, hope you don't mind. One other thing, we can either leave the old subpage/sandbox in place with the redirect on it, or we can tag it for deletion by an admin as it is no longer really necessary. Let me know and I will tag if you want it deleted. So what's our next project?! Oh one more thing, you should think about participating in the Military History project, you will find the project page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, I have nominated the article for a Main Page "Did you know?" spot. FYI the nomination is at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 20. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, Thanks very much for the nomination. I don' understand about the tag, or not, for the sub page. Do what you think appropriate. Have another look at my user page. I have redone it. We may be under-rating Dr JO because he was actually a lawyer as well, in fact he was a Prof of medical jurisprudence before he was called up in the Civil War to be a surgeon. How can we get an expert (from the law portal?) on the history of medical jurisprudence to expand the legal/medical aspect of this amazing man's story? Fo my ext project I would like to write about Dr David Bannerman who was a relative of mine and a very famous ornithologist and wrote a huge number of bird handbooks for the BM Nat Hist. But I enjoy working with you and perhaps we can think of another military hist article to improve/write together. I would like to keep in touch with you. Wfm495 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will leave messages at the Law and Mil hist project pages and ask the folks there if they have any ideas. I will nom the subpage for deletion. I would be happy to work with you on your next project - it is a pleasure to work with someone who is committed to this Project. I get so fed up dealing with vandalism. Is David Armitage Bannerman your relative?  – ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I reworked the intro as you suggested and I think it's much better. Added the ref for the estate too. Adding citations is one of the more challenging aspects of Wikipedia wonkery. I figured it out by looking at how it is done in other articles. You will see that for the NYT refs I have used the {{citeweb}} template - it looks a little messy when in edit mode, but looks fine in read mode. There is a similar template for books - {{citebook}}, so we could use that for the book refs, but that's for another day!
The assessment should be done by someone associated with the MilHist Project. I'll wander over there and ask. – ukexpat (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked the list of external links a little. They need a little more reformatting, but I will do that later. Just a point on the DYK nomination page - you need to be very careful when editing project pages like that one. I am sure you didn't intend to, but you deleted my Alt hook section (I put it back). Just add any comments below the existing ones. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for tweaking. Where have the numbers gone? I apologise for removing your hook. I felt it would cause a dichotomy of choice for the judge, and as it is principally my article, I felt I should write the hook? Wfm495 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Will, external links are listed in a bulleted list according to the MOS. Eventually I will tie the online version of the book to the specific reference using the {{citebook}} or {{citeweb}} templates, but for now the list is MOS compliant. Don't worry about he hook thing, the DYK reviewers will pick among them or even come up with their own if they decide to accept the article for a DYK spot. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Nigel Wfm495 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm finding all this very interesting as I am a descendant of John Ordronaux. I'm finding more and more information about him on the Web. I'm totally new to Wikipedia and don't even know if I can write this here, but could see no other way to communicate. I wanted to thank all of you for the work you've been doing on Captain Ordronaux, my great-great-great-great grandfather, and his son, John Ordronaux. Iwlear (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

David Armitage Bannerman[edit]

Just a quick caveat on this one. Referencing from your own experience and knowledge, and from an unpublished autobiography, will be a problem, because of verification issues. Happy to help you figure out what can and cannot be done. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I will consult you before I start. In fact there is much more published about him that I can quote and anyway I cannot find his autobio at present!! The intro of Dr JO looks really good now. goodnight! Having an early night tonite! Wfm495 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Search engines[edit]

It can take several days for Google's web crawlers to catch up with new pages, so there is not much we can do there except wait. As for the Wikipedia search engine, I will ask at the Technical section of the Village Pump. – ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He is showing up for me in Wikipedia search: my search results. – ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We cannot drop the doctor part of the article title, because John Ordronaux already exists. It is Wikipedia practice in cases like this to use a disambiguating title as we have done here. I have also created a disambiguation page at John Ordronaux (disambiguation) pointing to both articles with USS Ordronaux (DD-617) in the see also section. – ukexpat (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, it is usual practice for the first page that exists with a name -- in our case John Ordronaux -- to keep the name and for all other "conflicting" pages to have disambiguating titles, like John Ordronaux (doctor). Even if we made John Ordronaux the disambiguation page (and we would need admin help to do that) the "main" article pages will still have to have disambiguating titles. The fact is that all three pages show up in a Wikipedia search and even if a reader clicks on the wrong one, the hatnote at the top of the main articles takes them to the other one. – ukexpat (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK let me contact one of the admins whom I know is good at this type of page move stuff - non-admins don't have the rights that are needed - and see if we can get it done. So we will end up with John Ordronaux as the disambiguation page, John Ordronaux (doctor) as is now, and John Ordronaux (privateer). – ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel. Wfm495 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have seen that the moves have been made, all looks good. I left a thank you for the admin who did it, User:Anthony Appleyard. Also the Mil Hist project has assessed Dr John as B class -- great work Will!
That's the standard formatting for disam pages, actually all pages. Users can increase font size using their browser settings. – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I also asked for reviews by the Law, Medicine, and Psychology projects, but they don't seem to be as on-the-ball as the Mil Hist folks. May take a little while. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I made the initial C ratings for these, as the article is clearly not a stub or Start level. I don't know enough about their criteria to asses any higher, hence my requests. – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tag[edit]

Will, it's not a rating, it's just an informational tag indicating that few other articles link to it. It has been applied by a bot (an automatic programme running on WP) and frankly the indiscriminate application of tags like this by bots is pretty annoying. I will see if there are any other articles where we can add links to this one. – ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fixed the orphan tag, and added the refs to the other two articles you mentioned on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Will please don't reinsert the stuff on American Civil War. I have added Dr Ordonaux to List of people associated with the American Civil War - I think that's an acceptable compromise. The orphan tag is not added pursuant to any rule or admin request. It just seeks to engender additional links, but they have to be in accordance with policy and guidelines. nbsp;– ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • OK I will self-revert Wfm495 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr Ordronaux re[edit]

I don't really see how he merits mentioning in the civil war, or any of the other pages mentioned. It seems to be violating WP:UNDUE Soxwon (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have only two weeks experience of Wiki so please don't judge me too harshly. When a more extensive article is produced about the Civil War there would clearly be a place for the signifcance of medis as there is in the history of the Crimea or war. I have accepted that since it is a very short article, that mentioning a single dr is not appropriate and i have apologised. But I don't think that there is a need for you to comment negatively about (and undo) everything that I do, especiailly as I am trying to implement Wiki policy. Wfm495 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the addition to the Diocese article probably does violate WP:UNDUE. As for the Regimen article, I think a shorter section on JO's translation may be appropriate. Before adding it back, I will raise it on the article's talk page. Even without those links back to the article, I think we have done enough to deal with the orphan tag. – ukexpat (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it would have been better if soxwon had said "why not do it this way instead/" rather than just undoing our well intentioned suggestions. I have found this very off-putting indeed. It seems to me that we could add a "History of he Diocese" heading and put Dr 's endowment in there, possibly? But I agree with you about his translation of Regimen. It was probably the first Amercican translation and probably the most medically accurate and possibly the first to be done by a doctor. Wfm495 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, unfortunately some regulars can be a little bitey towards new editors. Best just to brush it off and move on! Been a little busy in real life today, but will get to my suggestion for the Regimen article in the nest day or so. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • OK thanks Nigel, Wfm495 (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Will, oh yes I am fine thanks, just an insanely busy week. No time to do much here except minor stuff. – ukexpat (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Ordronaux (doctor)[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Ordronaux (doctor), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! No prize, but we do get this banner on our talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Will

How's things? Just wondering whether you have any new projects in the pipeline that we can work on?  – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Will, so sorry to hear about your wife's health issues. I hope all is progressing well. Look forward to working with you when you're ready. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

John Ordronaux ancestors in France[edit]

I am trying to find the ancestors of John Ordronaux, who is said to be born on the 16 of December 1778 at Nantes, Brittany, France. I was unable to find a corresponding record. Could you tell me how to find the source of this information? Thank you in advance. Best regards, Dominique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domlab (talkcontribs) 18:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)