User talk:Senra/Archive 1

Frustration
One challenge we have at Wikipedia is that it is considered acceptable to add a template to an article noting a requirement for an improvement, and to never check back. While some editors do this, many do not (and I'm probably guilty of this at times). Many new editors assume that is a template is added, and they address the problems, the template will go away. A very reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, false.

In some specific cases, such as a request for a specific citation, this doe occur, but if the request is general cleanup, another editor looking at it may not know what the first editor had in mind.

In my early days at Wikipedia, I saw an article with a note that it needed more references. So I added a few. No change in message. I added a few more. Still no change. I added seventeen references, and when the message didn't change, i asked someone, and found out I had the right to remove it when I thought there were enough.

Frankly, I'd like to see a better system, but I haven't come up with a good alternative.

I think Little Thetford looks quite nice, so I removed the template. No article is ever perfect, so don't hesitate to continue editing if you can improve it, but my apologies for the frustration you felt—I've been there.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above is most welcome to me. Thank you for clearing that up. You are now monitoring a very relieved editor! --Senra (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unable to resolve Webchecklinks script results
Using the automated external links checker on Little Thetford gives three errors
 * 1) ERROR:Redirect perserves id number: BBC News
 * 2) ERROR:Redirect perserves id number: BBC News
 * 3) ERROR:Excessed redirect limit (8): Vision of Britain census data

I have read through the help file and searched wikipedia for help on this issue without success. I am obviously looking in the wrong place. My suspicion is that errors (1) and (2) are due to the BBC showing a different URL to the internet outside the UK meaning that those outside the UK may see only a 404 error. I suspect that the particular subset of data that the Vision of Britain link is accessing requires access from UK only too. I may be wrong in my analysis. In any case, right or wrong, I do not know how to fix the errors.

--Senra (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Senra - it looks like these are not serious errors, but the link checker simply telling you that (in the case of the first two) you are getting redirected somewhere else instead of being taken directly to the final page. In the case of the third one the script simply can't tell if it is getting to the final page number (probably due to the map controls on the page).  Rest assured all of the links appear to be working fine, and all should be visible outside the UK (I am in Japan and I can see them no problem).  Regards.   7  00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated talk:7. Thank you for your rapid response.--Senra (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob's your uncle.   7  00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Parameter INFOBOX-->civil_parish
Little Thetford is a parish in the ward of Stretham. That being said, I suspect that the parameter infobox-->civil_parish should not be present for this village. Could that be confirmed please?--Senra (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to try asking at WT:WikiProject United Kingdom or at the article's talk page.  — fetch ·  comms   19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. As suggest above, I have posted the query on |WT:WikiProject United Kingdom--Senra (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford peer review
Little Thetford I've struck some of the comments which have been dealt with & added some further comments/explanations. Nothing came across as defensive & you are welcome to reject/ignore anything I suggest - often there is no right & wrong & we develop these things by working towards consensus. Let mke know if you'd like further help (particularly with notes & references) but I don't want to interfere too much.&mdash; Rod talk 08:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged Any help is really appreciated as this is my first article. I am just feeling my way around. --Senra (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some more strikes. I think you've done really well on this but the edit history suggests you might be suffering sleep deprivation (or becoming a Wikipediholic - the two are closely related). I've asked a copy editor to take a look if he has the time.&mdash; Rod talk 15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done for continued improvements. Don't worry about early expectations - we should aim high, but I believe you are now well aware of the work which is involved in getting the article to a high standard. If you feel it has run its course you could close the peer review & continue the work on the talk page.&mdash; Rod talk 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your choice to close review, not mine. I feel that the review is teaching me a great deal. I would not want it to close at the moment. I know my editing has slowed down. I predicted this would happen, due outside commitments anyway. I am trying to keep article talk page updated for my own benefit but also in case other editors wanted something to do! As you know, I am seeing the local historian tomorrow which should resolve a few more issues. In addition, I believe Malleus Fatuorum is still copy editing the article. I am learning a lot from what he is doing too. --Senra (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. There is no deadline on wikipedia. I'm not sure what else I can offer on the review page & the Peer review says "nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed" but happy to leave it open in case others wish to contribute.&mdash; Rod talk 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your first GA (? of many). You have put a lot of work into the article & massively improved it. Well done.&mdash; Rod talk 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Little Thetford
In response to your request, I have restored the version of this page as you left it at 20:19 last night. I'll tell you how later - no time at the moment! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To undo a mistaken edit, click on "View history". Each version has a line, and at the right of each line is a link (undo). To revert the most recent edit, just click on (undo), add a reason (such as "RV mistake") to the edit summary, and click "Save page".


 * If you want to revert a single edit which is not the most recent, try clicking (undo) at the end of its line in the history; sometimes it's possible, but sometimes the system may say "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits."


 * If you want to revert a recent series of edits, so as to go back to an earlier version of the page, click on the time and date for that version, towards the left of its line on the history page. That will produce that version, with a note at the top "This is an old revision of this page". Click on "Edit"; you will get a warning: "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." Add an edit summary like "Revert to version by Senra at 20:19, 13 June" which will make clear what you have done, and click "Save page".


 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you also asked for a link on how to avoid such errors: I'm not sure what you did to delete some parts, so the best I can say is, always use "Show preview" and check that the result is what you intended before clicking "Save page". JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Acknowleded and thank you. In main articles, I use the inuse template but not for talk pages. Anyway, I will be more careful in future. --Senra (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Senra, Just dropping in to say that just because you are new to Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that you can't feedback on other peoples' articles. The feedback you left for Frangipani (file system) was really good and I am sure the author will find it helpful. BTW, are you the author of 'Little Thetford'? I think I may have reviewed it. I thought it was really interesting. --Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your comment is useful. I was a little concerned I may have been too harsh. --Senra (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford
Just in case you don't see the reply on my talk page, I think this is a nice article that could easily be worked up to become a GA during the review period, so don't withdraw its nomination. I sense how how keen you are to improve this article, so let me know if it's not picked up for review within a couple of days, and I'll do it myself. Good luck. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A nice article (and now a GA); but I would never have guessed that you are a new user. Well done. Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback archived
Hi there.

A while ago, you requested feedback in WP:FEED. Because it has been a while, and you'd received at least some response there, I have now archived the replies in Requests for feedback/Archive/27. Please do not edit that page though; if you require further feedback, add a new request on WP:FEED.

I am trying to clear the backlogs; it would help us a lot if you could look at the requests from other users on WP:FEED and add any comments to help them out. Anyone can respond there, so please do take a look, and comment on the articles from other people.

If you want help with anything at all, you could either;


 * Leave a message on my main account's talk page;
 * Use a - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put , and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~ at the end;
 * Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. I am often in there, but if I am not another person will be avaliable to help. Thanks! Chevy monte  carlo  12:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

John W. R. Taylor
Was taking a look at John W. R. Taylor. I think it is WP:COPYVIO. Would someone 2nd opinion for me please. Compare article with Jane's editors. --Senra (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a copyvio, though I'm not sure. incorporates also some content from The Guardian . I tagged it for speedy deletion. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * we could consider building a infoxbox biography or whatever and deleting the content but leaving the bio info in place? --Senra (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be at least one reliable reference and one phrase that explains why he is notable. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, someone has declined the speedy so content isn't copyrighted. Cheers! Maashatra11 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I like to keep conversations together, but wasn't sure whether you had watchlisted my page.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal help
helpme I need help to propose a merge of two articles. Suggestbot recently visited my page and left me a (far too long!) list of articles that it thought I might be interested in. I worked on a few articles including Swaffham Prior Chalk escarpment. After some reflection, I feel that the article should be merged with Swaffham Prior. My rationale for the merge would be Swaffham Prior Chalk escarpment should be merged into Swaffham Prior as part of the [new] geography section or geology subsection of geography. I have had a look in Help:Merging. I do not feel confident I can carry out the procedure correctly.
 * As an aside, I hope you didn't feel any responsibility to address all the items from Suggestbot—as the name implies, it is just a robot looking at pages you have edited and identifying some that you might not know about and want to edit. Sounds like it did a good job in this case.

Merging is not a trivial exercise - don't feel bad if you aren't ready to do it yourself.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend you boldly go ahead, and try to merge the pages. If you need any specific help, like, "how do I add the template thingy on the talk page about where I merged from?" or something, then ask, of course. But aprat from that... why not have a go? It's a wiki; you can't 'break' it; there is an 'undo' feature.


 * If you really don't want to try, then try asking in Proposed mergers - it's possible someone might do it, although it is rather backlogged.


 * Or, perhaps more productively, ask me to do it. I'm happy to help any and all users; mostly I like to explain how to do things, and let the user give it a go - and I cheerfully fix any problems. But I am also more than happy to just do the entire merger for you - as time permits.


 * For more help, you can either;


 * Leave a message on my own talk page;
 * Use a - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put , and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~ at the end;
 * Talk to us live, with this or this.


 * The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ► 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Be bold you said. So I did it. I checked the view-history of the source=Swaffham Prior Chalk escarpment. Last edit (before mine today) was 10 July 2009. I therefore became bold and decided not to just propose a merge, but to simply go ahead and do a merge. I followed the instructions in Merging#Full-content paste merger. I would feel happier if someone checked my work. --Senra (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks great to me; nice work.  Chzz  ► 01:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA!
Your feedback is more welcome that you may realize. I spend a fair amount of time at Requests for feedback (although I've been a bit deficient lately.) It can sometimes be discouraging to spend time reviewing a draft, making suggestions, then never hearing again. Your decision to reach out and thank me helps make up for a least a dozen who don't remember.

I also see an inconsistent treatment of new editors. Some regulars are very helpful, but this is a Byzantine place to newcomers, and we need to do more. I think we need to work harder with new editors—you may be the perfect example of an editors who is turning into a treasure, but might easily have been turned off.

Finally, a tad of jealously - I've been here for some time now and don't yet have a GA. To be fair, I haven't tried, and it is on my list of things to do, but I view a GA as a significant accomplishment, so major kudos to you. (I just checked, and it is quite a nice article). I seriously am interested in helping people, especially someone as promising as you, so don't hesitate to ask if you find policies frustrating. I may not have the immediate answer, but I've seen enough to know where to look. (I normally like to keep conversation together, so I started to post on my page and link to you, but I want the kudos on your page.)-- SPhilbrick  T  17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reaching out is what I do. Seasoned editors can get frustrated at new editors. So anyone who provides a useful welcome like you did deserves seeking out and thanking. I encourage you to continue such work. It really helps.


 * Treasure? Now now. Go easy. Anyway, I do not get turned off easily. I made early mistakes. They were my fault. I learned how to correct them. I have been around enough boards in my time to learn a new one quickly enough.


 * Each to their own. I am truly sorry a GA has not come your way yet. It will. In the meantime, helping people the way you do needs to be treasured. Keep it up. --Senra (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Wow, you really have been busy and you deserve the GA status. May be you could drop in on Christchurch, Dorset and give me some feedback! It is a project I've been working on for a while now and would eventually like to see it go GA. Congratulations once again.--Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you and try to stop me dropping by! --Senra (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch, Dorset
Hi, Did an editor ask for a review of Christchurch, Dorset? if so where? I would agree with all your comments but would have more to make (about unsourced paragraphs etc). If they hadn't asked for a review & I was just looking at the page I would probably just go & do some of the edits (eg the broken link found by wildbot). You could up the start to a C to reward the development they have put in.&mdash; Rod talk 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a review - just feedback. (See congratulations above - he he) --Senra (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Had a crack at the lead - draft here. --Senra (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on Christchurch
Hi Senra, thanks for the feedback and as I said before, just because you are new it doesn't mean you don't have anything valuable to say.

I have only been editing for 3 months so I think I am new too.

I started because there was a dispute on the Nelson talk page and so I created the article 'The Nelson Touch'. It is this area of history that really interests me but when I saw the article on Christchurch I was disappointed. The town has a rich history and deserved more than the few lines given it.

I have not long finished (not really, I could add more) the history section and have just started to look at other areas so it is very much a work in progress. I didn't mean to give the impression that it was finished.

Anyway with regards to your feedback:


 * 1) I don't know why this is either. I haven't really looked at it yet as I am still getting to grips with tables and boxes etc.
 * 2) Again this is historic and I will have a crack at a better lead when I have time.
 * 3) Point taken I will add to my to do list. I think that was some feedback I gave to you! :)
 * 4) Others have said much the same thing but I can't make up my mind which bits to lose!
 * 5) Again something that was already there. Personally I don't find the pictures very inspiring (apart from the ones I took of course :))
 * 6) Not looked at yet but I think you're right, that whole section is pretty messy.
 * 7) Good point. I will put on the list.
 * 8) Not only am I new to Wikipedia, I am also new to computers so I don't always understand what people are talking about. This is one of those occasions! Someone else mentioned Firefox but I thought they were talking about a Clint Eastwood film. :) Someone got there before me so  --Senra (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback.--Ykraps (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You saw I had a crack at a new lead paragraph? Use it. It may be a start at least. Also, I can easily fix the infobox to make it same as Bournemouth, Poole, etc. if you like. Just say the word ('puters are my thing!). --Senra (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Senra,

Thanks for doing the info box and lead. I like the picture you chose. Out of the ones there it would have been my choice. I'll probably play around with the lead a bit but it's a very good start. I didn't get your other messages for some reason, they didn't appear as 'new message' on my user page. Thanks again for your input.--Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Images from British Museum
I am interested in obtaining the image flesh-hook] to go along with the new page, currently in my user space at Little Thetford flesh hook. Does anyone know if wikipedia qualifies for the free non-commercial use of British Museum images? --Senra (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the bottom of the web page is marked quite clearly with © Trustees of the British Museum, I would think not. But you might like to post the question at WP:IMAGEHELP - where more specialist advice can be obtained.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Senra, the more I learn about image use, the more I realize how much there is to know. However, you mention "qualifies for the free non-commercial use" which sounds like there is such a policy of the museum. However, the policy of Wikipedia is to allow broad use, including commercial use, so even if there is such a policy, use on Wikipedia would not qualify.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree, image use is a minefield. You are correct about the "non-commercial" bit - the most restrictive normally allowed for an image is CC-BY-SA - so non commercial is out, and no derivative is out. But then, of course, there's always fair use which is one picture of low resolution (note never in user space, even when starting an article there!), when an image cannot be obtained any other way.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, based upon this page, it is clear that there is some co-operation between the British Museum and Wikipedia. I haven't poked around very far, but perhaps you could look into the One on one collaborations-- SPhilbrick  T  01:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved your request (diff) to the more appropriate project page WP:GLAM/BM/Photos requested. Fæ (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford flesh-hook
I made a mistake. I am not certain how to fix it correctly.

I started a new article, which is currently in draft form at Little Thetford flesh-hook. The article, after review, is intended to be put into wikipedia (main-space?) at Little Thetford flesh-hook as a similar article to Dunaverney flesh-hook. I do not want to put the draft article into main-space (is that the right term?) yet, until it is ready. For example, I am waiting for clearance for an image amongst other things. However, when I do, I want to preserve links and edit history etc.

Now, I have just realised today that I have created the draft in talk-space (is that the right term?) instead of user-space (again, is this correct?). There is a complication (there always is). I have referenced  User_talk:Senra/Flesh-hook  in a few places, whilst constructing the article; not only within the en.wikipedia.org/ universe (erm, just talk pages though), but also outside it—such as in emails to the British Museum.

Therefore, how do I move the draft article to user-space, preserving links and edit history, and then eventually (though not yet), move it to main-space, again, preserving links and edit history? As an aside, am I correct in thinking in future, I should produce draft articles within user-space not talk-space? Is space the final frontier? --Senra (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just moving it to userspace normally should be fine. A redirect is left at the talk page (User talk:Senra/Flesh-hook) to lead to the userspace. If you move it into mainspace, be sure to change the redirect at the talk page so a double redirect does not result with the move. Cheers, — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * erm. If I move it to user space, what do I call it? If I call it User Senra/Flesh-hook and have a redirect from User_talk:Senra/Flesh-hook wont the talk page of the new User Senra/Flesh-hook redirect to User Senra/Flesh-hook causing, amongst other things, my head to explode? I am confused here. --Senra (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do that for you in a few minutes. I've forgotten where the "move" button is for most people as i moved mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234r00t (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 June 2010

(edit conflict)

The 'prefix' part, "User:Serna/..." or "User talk:Serna..." means it's in your userspace, whereas live articles have no such prefix.

To avoid exploding heads, I've done it for you; I moved it to Little Thetford flesh-hook. It's live. I'll make a 'disambiguation page' called Flesh-hook in a sec too, and fix redirects and things.

For more help, you can either;


 * Leave a message on my own talk page;
 * Use a - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put , and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~ at the end;
 * Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ► 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm...did I do that wrong? You didn't want it live yet? Let me know, if so; we could move it back. Looks OK to me though? Sorry if that wasn't what you were after. I'll help fix it, if needed, ask on my talk.  Chzz  ► 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, yes, my bad. Now, moved to User:Senra/Little Thetford flesh-hook. Redirects will be sorted out.


 * Yes, usually, userspace articles should be in "User:NAME/WHATEVER", not "User talk:NAME/WHATEVER", but it doesn't really matter. Both works, the only problem being that when you move a "User:" page, it will move the associated talk page too, unless you uncheck the thingy.


 * Again, I'm really sorry for any confusion. I hope it's now OK. It's in your userspace, and it you need any more help, please ask.  Chzz  ► 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - thanks for sorting it --Senra (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

erm Little Thetford flesh-hook live?
Not wishing to be ungrateful but erm Little Thetford flesh-hook is live? Not what I really wanted. The issue is I was trying to create an article suitable for DYK and they have limtis for new articles of 5 days and I do not yet have an inage for the article but am working on getting an image via the british museum and it is dinner time now and I have to go but I am really grateful and all but can it be moved back its talk page or more acurately moved to my user space instead of my talk page and thanks but got ot go --Senra (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved it to User:Senra/Little Thetford flesh-hook.  Mr. R00t    Talk  18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks for your help --Senra (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Senra, just two notes, in-case you didn't know;


 * DYK does not require an image - although, admittedly, if you have one it does make it likely to get more attention - so perfectly understandable if you want to wait.
 * We have a "Wikipedian in residence" at the British Museum, .  Chzz  ► 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * noted thank you. I think an image helps the article in this case. Didn't know about the wikipedian in residence :) --Senra (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did (sort of). The wikipedian in residence is the same person listed in the link I gave you above. I agree with you that it would be nice to have an image for the DYK nomination. As noted it isn't required. I think that what happens is that they select six or so DYKs for each queue, and pick one to have an image. I haven't had one with an image selected yet - but the one with the image is listed first, and probably gets more hits, so that makes it a plus. In addition, if people are going to go to see it, then it sure would be nice to have a picture. I hope the BM connection works out. SPhilbrick  T  19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

[[
 * I corrected what I thought was an incorrect redirect in User_talk:Senra/Flesh-hook - it was redirecting to Little Thetford flesh-hook and should, for the moment at least, redirect to User:Senra/Little Thetford flesh-hook --Senra (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Heya, a little fairy by the name of Chzz informed be about a particular flesh hook.... As far as I can tell, the object is not currently on display and therefore you can't take your own photographs of it. Equally, as already described (and I can go into elaborately boring detail about if requested) we cannot use the British Museum's own images. For a DYK you don't need a pic so that's fine. Ultimately you might have to resort to using a freely-available image of a "similar object" which would be your last resort. I've gone in and changed a couple of things to do with database links, categories and project tagging in the article. Looking forward to seeing this at DYK and please do add it to the list of other DYKs at GLAM/BM :-) Witty Lama 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I suspect I cannot use BM images but I sent an email to BMImages earlier today anyway. See what happens. In the meantime, I am just about to put this up for peer review before I do much more work on it (if I can find the right [active] place to put it - he he. --Senra (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems I cannot put it up for peer review until it is in main space. Oh well, this can wait until tomorrow when I have toime to move it to main space and nominate for DYK --Senra (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe me, the BM Image people will not approve your request. I'm working in-house at a policy level on the issue of being able to use their images in Wikipedia but it is currently against the BM policy. Witty Lama 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw your reply. My apologies once again. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Let me know how can rectify my error. --Senra (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Little Theford flesh-hook and redirects
Really sorry about another helpme. As usual, I am trying to do things correctly without messing up wikipedia. Respondents please note. I am willing, and (once I read the relevant help pages) able, to carry out the below myself. I am simply asking for advice on names and redirects.

I am about to move User:Little Thetford flesh-hook to Little Thetford flesh-hook. However I thought I had better explore the names and redirects that might be associated with this page once it gets to main-space. Note the following:
 * a quick google search (ignoring dubious images) reveals Bronze flesh-hook and Dunaverney flesh-hook both of which are the Dunaverney artefact. In both of the above cases flesh-hook is hyphenated
 * The article reveals there are 36 bronze flesh-hooks known world-wide

I am thus inclined to Does the above sound reasonable? Have I missed anything? --Senra (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * name the article Little Thetford flesh-hook; the affix Little Thetford to use the accepted archaeological practice of naming artefacts after their place of discovery and the suffix flesh-hook with a hyphen as this seems to be the practice of the find in the British Museum, journal references (in the article) and the OED
 * redirect flesh-hook to a disambiguation-page which would have two items to start with, Dunaverney_flesh-hook and Little Thetford flesh-hook
 * redirect flesh hook to the above mentioned disambiguation page. Rationale: OED allows search for flesh hook and returns the flesh-hook definition
 * redirect Little Thetford flesh hook to Little Thetford flesh-hook. Same rationale as flesh hook above
 * not redirect Bronze flesh-hook even though google reveals a large number of iron flesh-hooks. Still thinking about this but also thinking too many redirects noted above already
 * erm, as I write this someone is creating flesh-hook - he he --Senra (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I gone and done it. Page moved and I think all double redirects are covered --Senra (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of Little Thetford flesh-hook 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!

Looks like someone changed a spelling,creating an inconsistency. I'm agnostic regarding which spelling is used, but I think you'll agree that the spelling in the article should match the spelling in the DYK hook. If you are fine with the editor's change, either edit the nomination, or tell me and I will.If you disagree with the author's chge please resolve it with the editor so it doesn't create a mismatch while the hook is on the front page. -- SPhilbrick  T  16:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Resolved I think. Left message on and got a reply. Still looking into though as I am certain I used artefact throughou --Senra (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yay! ;-)  APK  whisper in my ear  17:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Resolved with too here. Although he has been back and changed all the level 3 headings to level 2, which I guess is correct, but now looks more messy. Ho hum. Anyway, resolved. --Senra (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

big edit conflict?
something bad has happend here above me from DYK downwards


 * Resolved, when using the user template, be sure to format it like this - . Benea (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what happened here. It is a common misconception that 'artefact' is a misspelling. I see users trying to change it in good faith in maritime archaeology articles that I work on. If this happens, it should be reverted, with a polite note to the user in question that it is in fact the correct spelling in British English. Benea (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - I know how to spell (well, I do with an UK English spell checker in firefox anyway). Thank you for helping. It seems I do not know how to use the user template though. Oops - thanks for helping --Senra (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ælfwaru
Hello! Your submission of Ælfwaru 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! BencherliteTalk 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Prose expanded as per requirements and is now 1606 according to Dr PDA's magic page size thingy --Senra (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

berewick
As an aside, I saw something you wrote that used the word "berewick". I grew up in a town called Berwick, which I assume is named after the English town Berwick, which itself was named after somebody. But I hadn't thought through where it originally came form. I see here that berewick is related to barley farm, I wonder if that is the source of Berwick. Seems likely.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hum. Where did I use "berewick"? I will try and track down what it means (in context) --Senra (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here-- SPhilbrick  T  11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OED berewick OE. brewíc, in Ingulphus (Secretary to William the Conqueror) 1030-1109 berewike; in Domesday Bk. bereuuicus, -uuica, -uuichus, -uuicha; f. OE. bre barley + wíc dwelling, habitation, village, place.
 * Thus (in context) The Victoria County History of Cambridgeshire (VCH) says "Little Thetford was described in the Domesday Book as a berewick of Ely, Cambridgeshire."


 * ...meaning Little Thetford was described in a nice big, fat, tax-collectors book (1086), as a village belonging to Ely, Cambridgeshire. As Little Thetford is only 3 miles south of Ely, this is not surprising. Also, see Ælfwaru (d. 1007). It was this noble lady who granted Little Thetford to Ely in the first place!
 * --Senra (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Little Thetford flesh-hook
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your first DYK. First of many, I'll bet.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you

Etymology of Ælfwaru
At Template_talk:Did_you_know I am struggling to discover the etymology of Ælfwaru. Where is the most appropriate place to find a reasonably rapid response to such a query? --Senra (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "helpme" template is only intended for questions about editing Wikipedia. For questions like this, you could try the WP:Reference desk. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Query posted at Reference desk:Etymology of Ælfwaru. Thank you for your help. --Senra (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford towards FAC
Thanks for the message. I wasn't aware of the "FA Team" & looking at it I doubt if it is still active. I would suggest going back to Peer Review & make it clear that this time you are aiming towards FAC. Eventually you get to a point where you just have to nominate it & take the flak that comes from the reviewers.&mdash; Rod talk 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. As usual your input is concise and useful. Thank you. --Senra (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know I need to archive this page - when I can work out how I will :)
Honest! --Senra (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't rush. I didn't archive my page for the first time until over a year here. I still prefer to have several months on my talk page - I set my archiving to be more than 120 days - I realize many have shorter periods. this is a link to a popular archive tool, but I'm not sure I even have mine working correctly, so I'm not a good model.
 * Minor note while I'm kibitzing—user boxes normally go on user pages, not user talk pages.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User box on user page --Senra (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of Little Thetford flesh-hook
First off, please understand that I know almost nothing about European archaeology; what little I know of archaeology is almost all eastern North America.

The reason that I added it to the Britain category is that obviously an artefact found in the UK is British archaeology. Removing the European category and removing the overall Archaeology category were both for the same reason — an article should almost never be in both Category A and Category B if one of the two is a subcategory of the other; Bronze Age Britain is obviously in Bronze Age Europe, and Archaeological artefacts is likewise in Archaeology. Since categories are meant to help readers find related pages, we split categories such as Bronze Age Europe into Greece, Britain, and Scotland for multiple reasons: among other things, we thereby help readers interested specifically in Scotland to find Scottish sites and we help readers not at all interested in Greece to find the non-Greek sites that they want. If we put all the British sites in the European category as well, it wouldn't really help to have the British category, because all of them are also in the European category. That all being said, there might be a good reason for putting it in both that I'm not understanding. You might want to try to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology, but be aware that I left a note there in late April that never got a response. Another way you could get advice is to ask professional archaeologist Dr. William Whittaker; while he's an American archaeologist, he might be able to point you to users who are more familiar with European archaeology.

Finally, let me say thanks for a great article! I often write about American archaeology, but my topics are archaeological sites such as the Moar Mound and Village Site; I'm amazed that you were able to find enough information to write an article about a single artefact. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I really appreciate the time you have taken to provide an explanation. I am not an archaeologist. As I said on your talk page, my reason for putting the Little Thetford flesh-hook article in category:Bronze Age Europe was due to the references; two of which categorically (hum!) put the artefact (sic) in a European, not British context. I am quite happy to concede, in this case, that the article could be in both categories - i.e. category:Bronze Age Europe AND category:Bronze Age Britain. However, I am not happy for this article to be in Bronze Age Britain only. Readers should be drawn to the fact that this article is part of the Atlantic Bronze Age. See also Dunaverney flesh-hook which predates my article. Whilst I am here, I should mention my deliberate choice to use the wikilink Bronze Age within the article, rather than Atlantic Bronze Age. Readers not too familiar with the topic can click Bronze Age, and get a nice simple over-view. More informed readers can use the Bronze Age template, provided in the article, to research deeper. QED


 * Thank you for the compliment. There are 32 other finds within this two square mile village, so watch this space. Additionally, may I say how much I respect your use of British English (Artefact) when talking to a, er, I guess, Britisher. --Senra (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I prefer to use British usage anyway, although I often make mistakes; until encountering this article, I never knew that archaeological objects were spelled in any way other than "artifacts".  I'm somewhat confused by your reasoning; if I understand you rightly, you're saying that "Bronze Age Europe" is somehow a different sort of archaeological culture than "Bronze Age Britain".  Is this what you mean, or do I misunderstand you?  If that's what you mean, it would be a good reason to place the article in the Europe category.  I took the Britain category to be nothing more than a geographical subset of the Europe category, like how my Moar Mound article is in an Ohio category rather than in a United States category.  Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, if both Britain and Europe categories are appropriate here, this is a clear case of going against the categorisation standard. We're free to ignore standards such as this if necessary, because one of Wikipedia's oldest policies is "Ignore all rules" — we should always ignore a rule that gets in the way of accuracy or other sorts of improvements.  Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am too new to wikipedia to be ignoring rules. As I said, I am not an archaeologist. I am aware that quoting from within wikipedia is frowned upon. However, in this case, from Atlantic Bronze Age—The so called Atlantic Bronze Age is a cultural complex of the period of approximately 1300–700 BC that includes different cultures in Portugal, Andalusia, Galicia and the British Isles.. Needham and Bowman clearly classify the Little Thetford flesh-hook as one of only 36 such artefacts in the European Bronze Age zone. By categorising this flesh-hook as the Atlantic Bronze Age I am simply following their expertise. Yes, I agree. The artefact was discovered in Little Thetford, Cambridgeshire, England. Someone searching for artefacts discovered in Britain by category would need for this artefact to be categorised as Bronze Age Britain. Thus, my suggestion that this artefact is put into both categroies. i.e. category:Bronze Age Europe AND category:Bronze Age Britain. QED? --Senra (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though you're no archaeologist, you understand this situation a lot better than I do. There's nothing wrong with quoting Wikipedia here — you're thinking of the fact that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used for sources for other Wikipedia articles.  I had read the passage you quote, but I misunderstood its meaning.  I've restored the category, together with a hidden comment telling editors not to remove it, and I'm going to explain on the article's talk page why I've restored it.  Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I recognise we have both had a very clear idea of what we each meant. We have both gone out of our way (in my opinion of course) to both state our own case, and to understand the other point of view. I am happy that we have been able to have this debate in such a civilised manner. I look forward to meeting you again. Now, where did I put that article I was writing on the middle Bronze-age Britain Gold Torque from Grunty Fen? "... In Grunty Fen, near Ely, a gold torque, weighing 4 oz. and 3 grains, and 42 inches long exclusive of the solid ends, was found in 1845, ..."


 * ps—I hope my spelling has not offended you too much --Senra (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ælfwaru
I've now taken a look at the article and have searched around for other sources, but I can't find anything more, and your work on it looks great. Warofdreams talk 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking. I appreciate your help. There is work-in-progress here. I have written to Prof. S Keynes at Trinity College, Cambridge, asking if I can take a photo of the original Liber Eliensis page. I thought it would be a nice image for our Ælfwaru. I also gave him the information we have, hoping that, as a side-effect, he may add to our store of knowledge. --Senra (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No reply from Trinity yet. Perhaps he is on holiday --Senra (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your copy of a note sent to another editor, regarding an article you tagged
Thanks for your note. (regarding Hosa Technology)

The notice was placed by another edit. I’m going to write some comment, and place a copy with you, and with the editor who placed the notice. In many cases, an editor who places a notice doesn’t take care to monitor to see if the improvements occur; I have reason to believe this particular editor cares enough to follow up.

I’m concerned I may have left a false impression. First, Wikipedia is an odd place – it is ”staffed” by volunteers, each of whom has some freedom to made their own judgments. While there are policies and guidelines, seemingly to cover anything, there’s still a fair bit of leeway for individual judgment.

The creation of the article Wizard to help new editors start an article is new. It automatically places a draft article in user space, and in some circumstances, such as your case, someone else has to make the judgment on whether it is ready for main space. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has articulated rules on what requirements should be met to move such an article, so I have my own, which I think are reasonable. In short, I apply a very low threshold, which means I am often willing to move an article that I personally think has some problems. I don’t move an article if I think it is in such bad shape that it is likely to get a speedy deletion, which might happen if, for example, it were a biography with no references. However, I would be willing to move it if I think the number of references is marginal, on the chance that the community might decide it is fine.

I’m taking a long time to explain that my decision to move is not my considered opinion that the article is fine, just that it is good enough to meet minimum requirements, and good enough that editors will respond to it with either suggestions for improvements, or, even better, actual improvements, instead of proposing that it simply be deleted.

Enough with the generalities, let’s talk specifics:


 * 1) The second sentence calls the company an “evolving producer” Who says this? What does it mean. Why does this phrase apply to this company? If it is YOUR considered opinion, then it doesn’t belong here. This is an encyclopedia, specifically intended to provide secondary coverage, not primary. We want to repeat and summarize (buy not synthesize) what others are saying.
 * 2) “Hosa Technology is the place to go” is a classic example of advertising. Not appropriate in an encyclopedia.
 * 3) “quality cables” See point 1
 * 4) “They continue to develop their …website” Why should a Wikipedia reader care that they are developing their website? Isn’t everyone? Unless they’ve won some major award for their website, this is not encyclopedia content.
 * 5) ” Notable Products” there are five bullet points, but only one has a reference. It isn’t notable unless someone ELSE has noted it. (And the someone else has to be a WP:RS. Some editors would disagree that a mere review even qualifies to make a product notable. That doesn’t mean the reference should be removed, it simply means some feel more is needed.
 * 6) Warranty – virtually all physical products have warranties. Is this warranty so special that it deserves mention? I suspect that lifetime warranties are longer than usual, but is it unusual or interesting enough to be discussed in independent sources? If not, it probably doesn’t belong.

This article does have potential, but I think it will take a bit of work to make it good enough to remove the tag, but the tag can be removed by any other editor who feels it has met the standards so that it is not viewed as an advertisement. (Note a corollary, one editor might come along and decide it is fine, and then another editor might decide to re-tag it. That’s the way things work here.)-- SPhilbrick  T  11:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * removed advert hat --Senra (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking. I wondered why you had sent me this note. I have now had time to check the logs. Here is what I think happened
 * moved article to main space on 02:31 3 June 2010
 * I suspect the move created a hat as the article had been produced using a wizard
 * wrote on your page on 22:10 7 July 2010 asking about the Userspace hat
 * saw response on  talk page (whilst seeing if there had been a response to Litte Thetford (2). In an attempt to be helpful, I removed the Userspace draft hat. However, whilst I was there, I reviewed the article and applied the advert hat here 00:34 8 July 2010
 * responded to (with a copy to ) explaining why an editor had place the advert hat. In actual fact of course,  had been complaining about the Userspace draft hat.
 * saw the response. In an effort to continue to be helpful, edited the article up to 13:43 8 July 2010 removing the peacock terms, and generally making it less advert-like whilst removing the advert hat.
 * left messages on own and talk pages saying done!
 * Now I was not interferring. I was simply trying to be helpful. I hope you are not offended. Sorry for confusing you. --Senra (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm easily confused, but then, I'm older than you, so I must be forgiven :)


 * Actually, I thought new editor Jmlnarik01 was confused about which tag s/he saw. I now realize the sequence of events.


 * On the merits of the article, I think you have been too kind. While you removed some of the problems, I'm not entirely happy with it as it is. Part of me notes that if I did something about every article which falls short of standards, I could be busy for a long time, but I d feel a little more responsible when I've been involved. One possibility is to leave my list on the talk page (after removing any that you may have addressed).


 * As for why I copied you, I was remembering our first interaction in which I let you know that some people leave tags and don't check back to see if the problems are remedied, but at the time, I thought the question was about the advert tag you left. I was basically agreeing with you, that the tag was justified, and that together, we should remove the tag if the original editor addressed the issues.


 * Hmm, I'm now looking at my list, and you addressed more than I had realized; if I read correctly you addressed the first four of the six points. I'm leaning toward adding a note on the talk page about the last two, or I could just move on. What do you think?-- SPhilbrick  T  23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would leave a watch on the article, but otherwise drop it. It is not a perfect article, but it is no longer a blatant advert. --Senra (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ælfwaru
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * wow! Erm, I had forgotten about this. I though it had failed DYK selection. Wow again. Thank you.

Polite note to all editors
I have just read about minor editing. Soon after I started editing in late May 2010, I have been incorrectly marking my edits as minor. From this point on, I will be marking edits as minor or major more appropriately. Sorry if this error has caused more work for others. --Senra (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Image uploads
Sorry to (sort of) out you at FAC. If you upload images under your wiki tag, both the copyright and RL issues are avoided. In fact, the presence of metadata on the image page makes it clear that the photographer and uploader are one and the same; also at littlethetford.org you state explicitly that you (JM) edit as Senra, so no great harm done I think. Good luck with the tornado. Incidentally, I hope you don't think I'm giving you too hard a time at FAC &mdash; it's much tougher than GAN. Just hope the professional copyeditors don't show an interest!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not be sorry. I am new to wikipedia editing. Well relatively new – first major edits 30 May 2010. I am not aware of what a wiki tag is, let alone that it avoids copyright and RL issues, or even what metadata is. I had thought I had done the correct thing by uploading to wikimedia commons, not wikipedia. Also, I had sent an email as I said elsewhere. Anyway, that said, I hope that putting my real name on my user page (as I said, reluctantly) solves the issue. --Senra (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not be concerned about giving me a hard time. I am not expecting to pass my first ever FAC. If anyone makes a comment that I disagree with, I have shown elsewhere I can defend my actions, so no worries. Of course, I am working hard to answer everyone's FAC queries speedily. I am learning from the process all the time. I also believe I am providing a contribution elsewhere. So bring it on, I can take it. --Senra (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch, Dorset
Someone will get around to the peer review on Christchurch, Dorset but these things always take a while.&mdash; Rod talk 19:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Senra,

Just to say, I saw your comments on peer review/Christchurch. Thanks for your support. :)--Ykraps (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought
I cannot help ponder at the thought that upwards of 3k collaborative words in 24 hours is much better than I can achieve—337 words in five days.