User talk:EricPolymath

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitz Stage 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitz Stage 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitz Stage 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitz Stage 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitz Stage 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitz Stage 3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitz Stage 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitz Stage 4.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitz Stage 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitz Stage 5.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitz Stage 6.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitz Stage 6.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fitznells 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fitznells 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Please don't be discouraged. I had my first couple of attempts at writing articles deleted -- it's part of the learning process. So I can understand your reaction to the comments on Dry rot treatment. However, your article on Fitznells Manor looks good and I think we can tweak it even more. In view of its historic significance, I think it is well worth a nomination for a DYK spot on the main page. Let me take a look at it. Sound like a plan? – ukexpat (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dry rot treatment
Please note that the article you drafted (I don't say "your" article because no one here "owns" any article) has not been deleted. It can currently be found at Dry rot treatment, and a link to it is at Dry rot. Note that redirection can be done by any editor, and can also be undone by any editor at any time, although it is sueful to discuss the reasons for either action at the proepr talk page.

I am sorry if you have found your initial encounter with Wikipedia frustrating. i hope you will nonetheless stay around and contribute. DES (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I undid the blanking (they were right, technically it wasn't "deleted") of your Dry rot treatment article. It looks good enough to me that I'd like to see a little more process before it turns into just a redirect. It might end up getting cut apart and merged back, it might end up being an article completely different than the one you started, we'll see. ;) If there's one bit of advice I could give you if you want to edit Wikipedia, it's to not get too upset when things don't seem to be going the way you think they should. Here's a few more thoughts: Those are all very minor issues, just suggestions really. You seem to put a lot of effort into your work here, so I'm afraid I won't hear any talk of you quitting just yet. :) :) Wikipedia is a great place to help the world but it does take some getting used to, stay cool. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Get your new articles de-WP:ORPHANned! Add some categories, do some Wikipedia searches to be sure they're linked from appropriate articles. There must be at least one category for historic British manor houses and probably a List of historic British manor houses-type article too.
 * Use the Edit summary box on your edit screen. You don't have to and it's no big deal, just I try personally to type in a description of what my edit is doing every single time. It helps other people review your edits and I find it helps me too when I look back over my own work.
 * Do you know about Wikiprojects? They're good places to find topic area-specific information, somewhere in there will be a project that Fitznells would fit into. Dry rot treatment, I'm not sure we have a project for that, we're not that strong on building-trade areas.
 * And I would suggest that you ask for review while the proposed article is still in your userspace, wait 5 days or so to see what you get, then move the page into mainspace rather than copy-pasting in the text to a new edit window. This preserves the entire history of the new article, including when it was in your userspace. One of your buttons up-top should be "Move". If the content ever does get deleted, I can always restore it for you somewhere.

OK. Thanks for the help and suggestions. EricPolymath (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fitznells Manor
I have done a little work on the article, take a look and see what you think. I'll add an infobox then I think it's ready for a DYK nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nominated it for a DYK, see Template talk:Did you know. That was the best hook I could come up with - I would like to have used "the last surviving manor house" as the hook, but it does not have a reference. Do you have one for that? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference 1 is meant to refer to the whole of the first paragraph i.e. English Heritage say that it is the last surviving manor house in the area. The additions have improved things - I didn't think of putting in links to articles about timber framed buildings, WWII, etc. EricPolymath (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. With great help from User:Rodw I have added an infobox and a location map. I think it's looking good for  the DYK review. The wikilinking is something that you just get a feel  for after a while ("there must be a page  on that to link to"). I use the  Wikipedia Firefox's search engine to check whether links actually exist.   – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a big blank space in the middle of the article now! Can you get rid of it? EricPolymath (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me take a look at that. – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see it -- maybe it's a screen resolution issue. Where do you see the space - between the lead section and "Development" or somewhere else? – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I think I nailed it - I moved one of the images to the gallery, did that fix it? – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The blank space is smaller but it's still there. EricPolymath (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you drag your browser window wider, you will see that eventually the space disappears. The problem is that an infobox on the right-side of the screen is competing for space with the left-anchored image gallery (first row of diagrams). I think you will need enough text before the building layouts to get past the infobox at whatever screen width you use, or you will need to cut up the infobox so at least the map image floats freely. Franamax (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cutting up the infobox isn't an option as it is a single block of code. I guess we could figure out a way to rearrange the diagrams. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you'd be surprised what I can cut up. :) I was thinking of leaving the map part of the infobox blank and finding another place to put the map as a separate element, although I can't think of where it would go. I spent an hour last night trying to tweak the image formats to reduce the whitespace, without much success. It looks like making the building-plan images two-up instead of three-up might be the only way to do it. Franamax (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If I look at the page on my PC at work I don't get the blank space but if I look at it on my PC at home I do get a space. Looks like it's something to do with how individual computers are set up. And that, I am afraid, is the limit of my technical input to this problem!!! EricPolymath (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eric, if you click on the right edge of your browser window, you should be able to drag it back and forth to make the window wider or narrower. When you do this, you'll see all the text-wrapping and image placement change. Even on your PC at home, if you drag the window wide enough it will all fit in. Don't make it full-screen (in Windows, toggle from "Maximize" to "Restore"), then you can drag the window borders. Yes it is to do with individual computers, mostly the screen size of the monitor (1280x1024, 768x640, etc.), obviously you have a better screen at work than you do at home. If you drag the window at work narrower, you will be able to get the blank space, honest! :) It's all about how the browser fits everything in so it doesn't overlap and yes, it gets tricky... :( Franamax (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New articles
Hi, I have just spotted the articles Granary Buildings, Leeds and St Pauls House, Leeds that you created. I have tagged them for WikiProject Yorkshire but have not done any changes to them. Can I suggest you have a look at this on lead section as the articles need some form of lead in to give readers some sort of understanding of what the article is about and where it is located. You may like to try and categorise the article by adding categories to the end of the article, see similar articles such as Leeds Town Hall to give you an idea of suitable categories for these articles. If you have problems then drop me a note and I will see if I can help out. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi from me as well. Hope you don't mind the Texas Chainsaw Massacre that I've done on your The Leeds Look - I discovered that it was there from your note on Talk:Architecture of Leeds.  I've only just seen KeithD's note above (and he may not agree with what I've done!) but if you want to see what alterations I've made, click the "View history" tab up above and check the diff and the edit summary - complaints welcome.  Incidentally, there's no reason why you yourself shouldn't insert some text and a link to the Leeds Look article in Architecture of Leeds.  BTW, I've also created a redirect:  Leeds Look.  Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fitznells Manor

 * Congrats on the DYK! – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bugger! Missed it!!! :-( EricPolymath (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can at least from the archives how it looked: Recent additions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry it took so long to review. ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of files
Well done on your addition of images of Leeds. I rarely edit Wikipedia these days as the edit wars/talk page disdcusions become too time consuming and tiresome if you edit a page that is either contentious or popular, however I do still add files to Commons regularly. Your picures may be better placed there as they can be used on any Wikipedia project and can also be put towards the database we are building of such images. I would recommend you take a look around the database and add them to that. They can still be used on Wikipedia (in all languages). Don't worry if your not familiar with the categorisation protocol as there are many users who can ammend any errors. Don't hesitate to ask any questions of me.

Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fitznells Manor
I've added a, very minor, Pevsner reference which I hope contributes something to the article. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"a modest house with an iron verandah" Is that all he says about the house???!!!! To be fair it's much more interesting following the investigation and renovation in the late 1980s. EricPolymath (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is all he says. But he did have a lot to cover in a single volume. Surrey is due for revision in the Buildings of England series so maybe that will have more. KJP1 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

William Burges
Had a first stab at something on his drug addiction. You're quite right that there's more about it than I recalled. Would much appreciate the Lewis reference. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)