User talk:Merteuil

Hello
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for writing the article. Unfortunately it doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles. However, please do not be disheartened by what may happen to your first article, if indeed it is deleted. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and add articles which conform with the inclusion criteria. For help, see Help:Contents. To find out what will probably be deleted, see Criteria for speedy deletion and What Wikipedia is not. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my user talk page. To do this, click on my name (just after this sentence) and click discussion at the top and then the (+) button at the top. FirefoxMan 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Etchers & printmakers
Hi, Have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts ? Probably not - few have! I want to re-organize the printmakers, but by period, then nationality, rather than by technique. Relatively few of them only used one technique - most pre-1800 etchers engraved did at least some engraving, often on the same plate - Rembrandt etc. When you come to Picasso, Munch etc, classifying by technique is hopeless.

Plus, although categories are not my strong point, I think adding "etcher" to someone who already has "French etcher" (a sub-category of "etcher") is not the correct Wikiway to do it. User:Goldenrowley might know. anyway I would welcome your comments on that page. Johnbod 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Printmakers
is now live - thanks again for your help. Lets hope we attract some more elves. Btw, I've been doing some of the so-called "engravers" today & it's amazing how many were actually pure etchers, according to Hind. This I think means they might have engraved some passages, but left no prints that were not mainly etchings. Or they never trained in engraving at all. I have been correcting some pages & recategorising as P'makers as I go. Johnbod 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what was that article of yours he deleted - he deleted some of my edits also through not looking, or not knowing. Did you get it back? Johnbod 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response! I think that the page looks good and it should be a help in the category!  Vis a vis my deleted page - it was the Paúel Benecke page - it was my first Wiki contribution and I started out by saving it live with just a few comments.  I intended on fleshing it out but wasn't fast enough which was why it was nominated for deletion - ultimately I added a bit more description and a reference so it was saved! I chose him as my first page because I had just read a book in which he was mentioned but couldn't find him on Wikipedia - I figured the page wouldn't be too long so it was a good place to start learning the ropes.  On a final note - just a line to say that I appreciate your patience in working with a new contributor - it has been a pleasure helping you to organize the Printmakers a bit more!  I will try to check in on the page periodically.  Meantime though - thanks again! :)  Merteuil 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all - it's been a pleasure. Glad you got the article back - the same thing has happened to me. I'm glad there is now a notice link or whatever on the project page for these deletion discussions - I think there has been a rising resistance to too many over-hasty deletions. Cheers  Johnbod 01:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Enderby Island, New Zealand
I was really pleased to see your excellent work on this article. It is a wonderful place and I was "shipwrecked" there! When did you take the photos? Albatross2147 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I took the photos there last January - I passed Enderby on a trip to Antarctica.  Unfortunately all of the photos were taken from a zodiac - we didn't actually get to land so I am a bit envious of your "shipwreck" experience!  How did that happen and how long did you end up there?! Merteuil 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. I saw that you changed Falmouth - I was wondering about that too! I thought that they must have gotten blown quite a ways off course due to a storm or something but Falmouth, Cornwall probably makes more sense!  :)


 * Yes, great photos - I am reading a book on Scott's last expedition and it was great to be able to see some pictures of this wretched place. I added a great quote from Levick and some other details.Zatoichi26 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Glad the photos were helpful and it's great to see more contributions on the page! :) Merteuil 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Number of edits
Hi - I got your user id from the 'adopters' list where you indicated that you might be willing to help answer questions from new contributors? I was just wondering how 'edits' are counted? The reason I ask is that I am interested in voting on the Commons picture of the year but when I ran one of the edit counters, it indicated that I had made a total of 13 edits (and I need a minimum of 100 to vote). Is it only minor edits that count? I have started a couple of pages and have continued to add to them so I thought I would have more than 13 at this point. Not complaining - just hoping to understand! Many thanks for any help you are able to offer! :) --Merteuil 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome!
 * I think it depends on which edit counter you use- the one that I use (Interiot's Wannabe Kate) counts all the edits, minor or not. I imagine that the minimum of 100 at Commons Picture of the Year also includes minor edits- the majority of my edits are reverting vandalism, and that's automatically marked as minor.
 * If you use this link, you can see that you're well over 100 edits- as of now 210- which means that you're perfectly eligible to vote.
 * I hope that helped you- cheers,  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons voting
I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Merteuil. Merteuil 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UK Antarctic Heritage Trust
Ok, I removed the tags. Nice job with the references! It's always good to include a few references or external links on a new article so people checking the new articles can verify the notability (also, for biographies, companies, and organization, independent sources are even better). In this case I guess I probably didn't need to tag it as "advertising"... that was my mistake. What i've seen a few times is people copy and paste things from promotional material that comes in bullet lists like "statements of principals" etc. In this case, however, the bullet list works nice to summarize the organization. Thanks again, and I hope you enjoy editing. Danski14 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh one more thing.. don't be afraid to be bold and remove tags if you feel it's appropriate. Danski14 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)