User talk:Ykraps/Archive 1

Images
You'll probably find this discussion more helpful on your talk page so I've moved it here and added your talk page to my watchlist. Firstly, you need to add licensing tags to the two images you have uploaded otherwise they will be deleted. If you wish to release your images to the public domain add but if you would like attribution add something like

In future it might be a better idea to upload images over at the Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. The Commons is an online repository of images and allows each uploaded file to be used across all the Wiki projects in any language. You'll have to create an account first which is free and will only take a few seconds. Once that's done and you are logged in, go to the menu on the left hand side of the screen and click on "Upload file". You will then be presented with a step-by-step guide on how to upload the image which is a fairly easy process to follow.

To keep the images at a manageable size use the thumbnail setting which will display the image on the right with a border and a width of 220 pixels. For example: will produce this image displayed on the right. If you would like to make the image larger or left aligned try this:. I hope this helps. --Barret (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, very helpful, thank you. Sometimes there is too much information and you can't see the wood for the trees.

I think I have been struggling because I haven't remembered or I haven't been accurate with the file names. I am currently inserting images by searching for them on 'commons', noting the file name, returning to Wikipedia and embedding the file name. Is this the correct way to do it? It seems rather convoluted. I am used to inserting files into emails etc. where one just clicks insert and then double clicks the file.

With regards to the licensing, can this be done retrospectively or will I need to upload the images again? If so, I will probably just upload them to 'commons'. My rational for not putting them there in the first place was that I didn't think there would be much 'world wide' interest. With hindsight I can see that was a bit insular.--Ykraps (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that sounds correct. Becoming familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be overwhelming at first but once you've been editing for a while they start to sink in. You can find your uploads here. If the images are your own work then I recommend copy-pasting either one of the license template examples I gave above – or  – to the image description pages here and here. Barret (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. Ykraps (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Christchurch Castle Keep and Motte.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Christchurch Castle Keep and Motte.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Christchurch Castle - Constable's House.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Christchurch Castle - Constable's House.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Copyright tags
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Nelson Touch
Hi Ykraps, yes people's talkpages are good places to butt in and raise issues or questions that you might have. New sections are commonly placed at the bottom of the page rather than the top, but this is a minor point (you can use the 'new section' button at the top of the editing page, next to 'edit this page' to make it even easier if you want!) The idea of an article on the 'Nelson Touch' is an interesting one. The main issue I can think of is the interpretation of the term, which is not very clear cut. The Nelson Touch can refer to two things, either Nelson's particular brand of tactics, or his leadership skills and abilities, especially in regard to fostering relations with his subordinates (the 'Band of Brothers' approach). Both have their genesis much earlier than Trafalgar, as shown in the events at and after the Nile, and even as early as Cape St Vincent. You could add elements to the Naval tactics in the Age of Sail, which would contextualise the importance of breaking the line, signals, and so on. The interpretation of the Nelson Touch as relating to his charisma and inspiring his men might then be better placed in Nelson's article. This is not to say that an article solely on the 'Nelson Touch' would be not be feasible, but it should probably include all the interpretations attached to the term. Alternatively an article on Nelson's tactics might also be possible, but should I imagine be a lot more wideranging (and come to think of it, might be problematic with wikipolicies). Andrew Lambert's book is a very good place to get more of the personality interpretation, if you have not already read it. There are a few others as well, but I'm away from my main collection of books, so I'm not sure what other aspects to recommend. Btw, the sexual interpretation was one I'd not read before! I'll have more of a think on it, but feel free to ask if there's anything I can clarify or help with. Best, Benea (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Barret (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on external links placeholders
Hi, just to say that I replied to your query on external link placeholders at the Feedback forum. Thanks! Chevy monte  carlo  12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request
I moved The Nelson Touch per your request. Please note, if you try to search for it using the search option, it always takes some time, a few hours to a day, for it to show up in search. -- SPhilbrick  T  02:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in case it gets lost, as there's some clean up in progress at Requests for feedback, here's what I added:

''Looks much better now. Could use a little more in terms of reference structure - bet some of the citations could be found at Google Scholar - e.g this I'll move it.'' -- SPhilbrick  T  02:08, 29 May 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 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. Best,  Chzz  ►  03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
That's okay - you just spelled it wrong. PS:I've never heard the word "moniker" before - luckily there's an article on it!  ~  Qwerty  Qwerpus   (A.K.A.  Qwerp   Qwertus  )  ·  _Talk_ · _Contribs_ ·  20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

QwertyQwerpus
Hi - just thought that you'd be interested to that I made another (alternative) account under that username - thanks for the good username idea! |:-)  ~  Qwerty  Qwerpus   05:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. :)--Ykraps (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nofeed Template
Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus  ·  _Contact Me_ · Get Adopted!   04:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--Senra (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford
Little Thetford was awarded GA status today. Thank you for your support helping a new user (erm, me) through the process. --Senra (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and congratulations!--Ykraps (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch
Great work, the article is developing nicely. If you're planning to continue your development of the page I have few more suggestions you might find useful. On a side note, perhaps you would be interested in adding yourself to the participants at WikiProject Dorset? Barret (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the history section is comprehensive in its coverage it might need to be trimmed down once you've added all the info you intend to add. It looks like it's starting to grow to a point where it could be summarised and split off into a separate article (Manual of Style (summary style), Article size). I had a similar problem when I worked on the Poole article; I rewrote most of the history section but it became too bloated and overwhelmed the page so I cut it down and moved the more detailed content to History of Poole.
 * Single sentence paragraphs and sections usually need to be avoided -- try and join these up where possible (Manual of Style (layout)).
 * When adding inline citations I recommend using citation templates (for example and ).


 * Draft lead and infobox uk place for you to play with - have fun --Senra (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you do not mind. Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. I modified the lead with a draft and replaced the infobox with   as per WP:UKCITIES. I am perfectly happy for you to undo these changes. If you want to keep the changes, I left the comments in the infobox. I did not add all the parameters. I do not know the area well enough. In my opinion, I would encourage you to put this article up for review now. Get some solid opinion behind the article, before you put in too much more work. It's a good article --Senra (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you applied for a peer review? I think you should. It is looking nice. --Senra (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Senra, No, not yet, I got sidetracked here. I think I have some sort of OCD as I can't seem to leave an article alone if I know I can improve it!


 * I have a few more things to add to Christchurch and then it will be ready.--Ykraps (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nelson
Hello Ykraps. The reason i changed the IP's edit back was that i thought as it states Nelsons nationality in the info box to the left i didn't think there was any need to mention it twice. He was an ethnic Englishman and a British national. Kind regards --English Bobby (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again English Bobby,


 * I understand what you are saying but feel you have missed my point. Referring to Nelson as an 'English' flag officer to my mind infers that the Navy was English but at this time, as I'm sure you are aware, the Royal Navy was British.


 * Having said all that, I notice that John Elliot is referred to as a Scottish officer so may be you are right :).--Ykraps (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

xchurch anti tank island / old Christchurch Railway station
Hi I got round to checking out the line of concrete posts and pillbox you told me about. Thanks. Anyway i picked a few bits of useful info from the geezer who runs he Electric Museum place - he said the old Xchurch railway station site that used to run up to Ringwood is now occupied by he new Royal Mail sorting office. Also if you head down Marsh Lane off Fairmile Road you can pick up the disused railway line to Ringwood - there were 2 stops - 1 Avon (which was just for the benefit of a stately home owner and 2 Hurn Station. One of those stations is now apparently a Hotel. Old XChurch Railway station closed in 1935.--Penbat (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Penbat,
 * I know the old railway line well. The Hurn station is now the Avon Causeway Hotel and the other as you say was just for the benefit of the land owner in exchange for letting the railway cross his land. I don't think your friend is right about the old Christchurch station. I have not been that way for a while now but if leave xch via Bargates cross the railway bridge and turn first right (not Clarendon Road, before that) there is a service road running parallel to the railway line. Walk down here and on the right there is a building which is quite clearly a station and platform. Thanks anyway for the info. All the best--Ykraps (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do more exploration. I notice there already is Hurn railway station, Avon Lodge railway station, Ringwood, Christchurch and Bournemouth Railway. Original Christchurch railway station gets redirected to Christchurch railway station which says nothing about the original. It would be interesting dig up some reliable sources on the original Christchurch railway station so it can be covered on Wikipedia. Might Christchurch Library be any use ? Any ideas ? You have confused me a bit, Clarendon Rd is on the left from the start of Fairmile Rd just passed the railway line. I bet your service road was part of the old Ringwood to Bmouth line but not sure if it was old station as well. --Penbat (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant turn first left! I put a little bit about the railway lines and the two stations into the history section of the Christchurch page. There was a little bit of info in the library but not much. I have just always known it as the old station and what little I could find on the subject seems to confirm that it is. Also, until 1883, the main line (from London) went to Ringwood and the branch line served Xch where it terminated. It was not until Bournemouth started to develop that they brought the mainline to Christchurch (and beyond) and Ringwood was left being served by the branch line from Xch! That was when they built the new station. When I first came to Xch there was a signal box by the Bargates bridge (on the LHS of the tracks, looking towards the station), I have no idea what happened to it. I suppose it wasn't needed after the line to Ringwood closed. The tracks of the branch line were still there as far as the waterworks (where there were some level crossing gates and another signal box) until about 1976 and were used as a siding.--Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Britmax is working on this subject. I have ordered a book via Amazon on this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0906287936/ref=oss_product --Penbat (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Penbat, I have just been to take a look and your friend was right in as far as the old station was on the opposite side of the bridge. There was a road on the right before Clarendon Road (which is on the Left) but this has gone and I can see no trace of it nor any other landmarks I remember (there was a scout hut there but that's gone too, rebuilt further over) so I can only guess as to where the station was. There was a big engine shed there too but that's been demolished and the sorting office appears to cover some of that plot. The station, I believe, was a little way beyond that but as I said nothing remains of the tracks or buildings so it is difficult to gauge.--Ykraps (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx. does what User:Britmax says make sense ? "Having closed to passengers the buildings remained open as a freight depot and the station masters house retained the original use for many years, the last building on the site standing. The site is now covered by reservoirs built by the local water company." --Penbat (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the mainline arrived from Sway at Christchurch in 1883, the line to Ringwood remained open until 1935 (I can reference that much). Part of the track was taken up at some point (I don't know when) but the goods yard remained open into the 70s (sorry to be vague but my memory's not so good, as we've established!). The line used to cut across the bottom of Mill Rd. and the track was still there up to that point until 1976? It was used as a siding and was always full of goods trucks. We used to play in the yard around this time but no-one was around so I am assuming it was shut at that time. Beyond Mill Rd. the line disappeared, although there were signs such as a crossing gate and a signal box. There was a path through Knapp farm (past a brick pillbox) behind the Bronte Ave estate but I couldn't be sure that this was the old railway line. It did however join up with the old railway line at Marsh Lane. I need to go there and walk the route then things will probably come back to me. I think Britmax is more or less correct but his information has a lot of holes. May be I'll have a chat with him.--Ykraps (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Old Christchurch Railway Station.
You are of course right that this article shell on my talk page needs work. I recall that the line curved away to the north almost immediately east of the Bargates bridge so the station site is probably under the industrial estate rather than the covered reservoir next door. The last building idea was always to be verified, but as to the tracks being there until 1976, quite possible: it was a siding and full of goods trucks (possibly from the sweeping abandonment of wagonload traffic that followed the publication of B******g and apologies for profanity on your talk page). Another thought is that the line did indeed stay open to passengers until 1935 but the station closed earlier, replaced by the current one on the direct line via Sway. When I worked on the line to Ringwood's article I did not include an article for Christchurch old station then wandered off on to other things as I did not think anyone would be interested in a station that closed in 1886. Obviously I was wrong: thanks for encouraging further work. Britmax (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

PR
Glad my comments were useful. The peer review stays there forever, though after 2 weeks with no edits it becomes an archived version (a bot takes care of this) though that basically means it is no longer listed at WP:PR. It will still be accessible from the Talk Page. Thanks for your comments on Jeffrey Street. You might be interested in Little Thetford, which is currently at WP:FAC as a model article. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review To Do List
Ruhrfisch comments: Thank you for your work on this article - sounds like a very interesting place. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest issues with the article as it currently exists is a lack of references. For example the whole Notable Residents section has no refs, and much of the Town Centre and Outskirts sections lack refs, as do many other places in the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. - Done
 * Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - Sort of Done (not sure if appropriate in 3 cases).
 * Many of the refs lack needed information - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. - Hope that's sorted!
 * The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interrupt its flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible. There are also some very short sections that could be combined with others - Ethnicity is one sentence and could part of another Demographics section. - Done. Short sentences deleted, moved or expanded.
 * The disambiguation links finder (in the toolbox in the upper right corner here) finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
 * Article needs to follow WP:HEAD better - for example capitalization - I think someone else has done this?!
 * Watch images - for example WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between images, but the first two images in Industrial history form a sandwich on my monitor, as do two images in Town centre. - Sorted. All sandwiches have been eaten!
 * There are also several places without images, so perhaps some of the images from the gallery could be moved to these - for example the Town Hall image could be in the Governance section.- Fixed
 * I would also avoid having two images of the same thing in the article - the image of the castle in the article is striking, so why is another one needed in the gallery? -Removed
 * You could use the "pipe trick" on links like There was a Saxon mint (coin) in "Twynam" until just before the Norman Conquest. so type mint (coin) and this will show up as mint in the article. - Corrected
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on cities at Featured_articles which may be useful models.

Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals
Im developing stubs for Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals in my sandbox User:Penbat/Royal Bournemouth Hospital User:Penbat/Christchurch Hospital (UK). I will probably unleash it in a day or two. Feel free to tweak my sandbox versions. Incidentally where exactly is that Saxon Wall illustrated in the Xchurch article ? --Penbat (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Penbat, good work! I take it you couldn't find a picture of xch hospital? If I get an opportunity, I will take one and upload it. The eye hospital moved from Westbourne to the Bournemouth Hospital site sometime after 1995 (I think). And I believe Bmth has a landing pad for helicopters. These things need to be checked out but might be interesting additions?
 * I haven't been to look yet but I believe that photo (I didn't take it) is a bit of wall in Druitt Gardens, just the other side of the Bank Close car park. If you're going to check it out, don't go in flip-flops and shorts because you might have to beat about in some stinging nettles. The bank of earth in the gardens is also rumoured to be part of the wall but I have only seen one reference to this and I can't make it line up with either the position of the Bargate, or the archealogical digs in the car park. But it might be my memory that is out of kilter. I have tried to play down this part of the article because documented evidence is hard to come by. I seem to recall that at one time there was a map of the old town wall displayed somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it now! I will continue to investigate this part of the town's history but in the meantime I would be delighted to hear any info you come across.--Ykraps (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Were you aware that in 1885 there was a plan to have a railway line to Hengistbury Head? The station would have been called Christchurch Harbour and the line would have run from Wimborne (for some reason) crossing the Christchurch-Bournemouth line near Iford, crossing and recrossing the Stour to Tuckton, passing Wick on the river side, across Wick Hams and Barn Bight on an embankment and along the north side of the head. A quay was also going to be built at the station where boats could be taken to Cherbourg. There is a bit of info in 'Christchurch Harbour' by Mike Powell in the library (ref 387.10942) pp 65-68. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks mate for the useful info! I think User:Penbat/Royal Bournemouth Hospital User:Penbat/Christchurch Hospital (UK) are in fairly good shape. I will set them up as live articles tomorrow morning. But if you can expand them feel free whenever you can. Incidentally let me know if you can dig up a good source on Boscombe Royal Victoria Hospital. --Penbat (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * incidentally does "Images of Christchurch - Sue Newman" have a publication date and any other publishing info. I just used it on User:Penbat/Christchurch Hospital (UK).--Penbat (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wimborne and Christchurch railway project is mentioned on page 30 of J. H. Lucking's book "Railways of Dorset", as a last gasp attempt at a direct Bournemouth railway before the Brockenhurst to Christchurch link was built. The paragraph ends *the established companies would naturally have opposed such a line and no more was heard of it". Britmax (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally Ykraps this old OS map shows route of old Ringwood to Bmouth track. http://www.ponies.me.uk/maps/osmap.html?z=14&x=-1.8126&y=50.7856 --Penbat (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont have a Christchurch hospital piccy,--Penbat (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem about the piccy, I'll get one next time I'm passing.
 * I don't know about the publishing info for Sue Newman's book as I've taken it back to the library. Are you trying to use the 'cite book' tool? I'm struggling with that myself and at some point I need to redo all the refs in the Xch article. I'm not planning on going to the library for a while but if you tell me exactly what you need, I'll copy it out next time I'm there.
 * Thanks for the map link. The path past the pillbox that I was unsure about, was almost certainly part of the line.
 * Thanks for your info too, Britmax. I'll look out for the book.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch Hospital, Dorset, Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch original railway station
The Christchurch Hospital, Dorset, Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch original railway station articles are now all live. --Penbat (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Images of Christchurch - Sue Newman"
its just that for the other sources you have used in the Christchurch article, you have given more info:
 * Stannard, Michael (1999). The Makers of Christchurch: A Thousand Year story. Natula Publications. ISBN 978-1897887226
 * Hodges, Michael A. (2003). Christchurch: The Golden Years. Dorset Books. ISBN 978-1871164381

I could do with the publication date for the Newman book, and publishers and ISBN number if possible.--Penbat (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Penbat. It's true that these references were originally my doing but someone else came along later and added that info using the cite book tool which I am still struggling to get to grips with (it may have been BarretBonden). I will certainly try and get that information when I'm next in the library. In the meantime......--Ykraps (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool ! And let me know if you can dig up stuff on Boscombe Royal Victoria Hospital. It could be an article if there is enough material.--Penbat (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Two of my children were born there, it was filthy and infested with cockroaches!--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously though, I will see what I can find out.--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Old maps of Hampshire
I am sure you have found these maps, but just in case you have not, check out HantsMap. I discovered these looking for old maps of Britain, such as Christopher Saxton, engraved by Augustine Ryther, published in an atlas of counties, London, 1579. Whilst I am here, consider also 's maps at Maproom.org. He has a lot of copyright free maps, not all of which he has digitised yet. ps Christchurch, Dorset is looking good --Senra (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! Little Thetford is a featured article. I have been so pre-occupied with my projects, I didn't even realise it had been nominated. Congratulations, your hard work has obviously paid dividends. Thanks for the useful links, it would be good to squeeze a map in somewhere. At the moment I'm giving 'Christchurch' a bit of a polish, making sure all the links and references are right etc. To be honest it isn't my favourite thing to do and I can't wait to get back to adding stuff.


 * Well done again with the FA!


 * Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I did think at one stage Little Thetford was not going to pass. Those nice people at FA know their stuff and are quite ruthless with it. I am glad it is over to be honest; I now know what it takes --Senra (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you understand what I meant with the maps. If you have not seen them before, primarily I thought they may help with researching the old town layout; the roads or tracks as they were; the old river courses; the old significant buildings, expecially public houses (old coach routes), all particularly in the 17–18 century. As an aside, one or two maps may be useful as images, but in this case, you need to check copyright --Senra (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I get you now. Yes, they will be very useful for that purpose; thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
Peer review/Christchurch, Dorset/archive1 has been archived, which just means it is no longer listed at WP:PR. It is still accessible via the wikilink and if you want to keep editing it to note your progress, that is OK (but don't blank it please). If you would rather copy my comments to the article's talk page as a checklist of sorts and work on them there, that would be fine too. Glad my comments were useful, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have copied your comments to my talk page above and I am slowly working my way through each one. I did not think it was acceptable to edit the peer review page, so I am keeping note of my progress here. Is that not the customary thing to do?--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Peer reviews are linked from the article talk pages, so anyone interested in the article can see what the comments were. Archiving just means the individual peer reviews are no longer also linked from the main peer review page. I do not think anyone minds if you want to note the changes in the peer review (despite its being closed / archived), but there is also no need to do so. Keeping track of changes in the PR or article talk page has the advantage that someone else can see what is being done / has been done, but again if youare the main editor working on the article, do what works best for you. Hope this is clearer, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to look at it again, though it may take me a few days. Do you want me to post on the article talk page or is there an open peer review? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just replied on the Christchurch, Dorest talk page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch Signal Box
In your comments about Christchurch signal box you say you cannot remember what happened to it. I remember seeing it demolished at about the time I left school or shortly after, the between 1972 and 1974. The box at Pokesdown went at about the same time. Britmax (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Britmax. That seems to fit with what I remember too although I only recall it being there (around '72) and then it not being there (around '76). I assume that it was no longer needed when the goods yard and sidings closed, which must've been around the same time, or perhaps a little earlier?--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ducking stool
you might want to mention the ducking stool. The image here could be used for Wikipedia (as it states): http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/647679 it also shows the millstream. --Penbat (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Penbat. I am trying to put together a short piece about convent walk and the millstream and the ducking stool will fit in perfectly. Do you remember when it was put there? I vaguely recall some sort of local celebration/anniversary going on around that time.--Ykraps (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. There is also a big imposing historical building nearby on Milham Street which i think was some sort of religious college. Must be worth a mention. --Penbat (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know to what you are referring. There was a factory in Millhams Street but that was demolished a long time ago. Are you talking about Millhams Street or is it around the corner in what is now known as Ducking Stool Lane (at the back of what was the King's Arms car park)?--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A section of millham St is parallel to the High St and a section at right angles and is a right turning off the high street. If you take a right turning off the high street into Millham Street there is this religious college place on the left hand side. This is before you get to Ducking Stool Lane.--Penbat (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a church on the left (URC I think) and various buildings attached to that. I don't know what they are used for now but at one time there was a school there (up until 1926). They used to have coffee mornings and jumble sales there and possibly boys/girls brigade. Past there, still on the left, in the corner, there was a car park with a large wooden hut (actually, I think that was the boys brigade HQ), a tiny little derelict house (which I think belonged to the school mistress) and another much larger building which was used for many years as a youth club (The Lighthouse). I seem to remember being told this was originally a clinic of sorts. Other than that......?--Ykraps (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been down to Millhams Street and the clinic / youth club has been demolished. The whole site is now housing. The only building that remains is the school mistress's house which has been renovated and is now occupied. There is a large interesting building on this site but this is new. I think you must be referring church buildings? I also popped into the library and the clinic was a clinic, and before that it was the part of the church school where the infants were taught. I had a look at a book about xch hospital when I was there but it wasn't very inspiring. :( --Ykraps (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. I hadnt been down Millham St for a long time although i may go down soon which will refresh my memory. --Penbat (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:BarretBonden
Feel free to comment at User_talk:BarretBonden My idea was that it might be a 3way discussion. --Penbat (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mudeford continued
I meant the big new Bmouth Central Library on one side of the Triangle. Funnily enough somebody recently told me about the square pillbox at the end of Wilverley Rd by the refuse place and i went to see it a few days ago. It is right on the edge of Mudeford Woods on the opposite side of the woods to the hexagonal one. Incidentally, close to the square pillbox are artificial lakes created by monks hundreds of years ago so they could fish. --Penbat (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Penbat. One of the lakes was constructed by the monks but I think the others are far more recent. This area has changed beyond all recognition over the last 30 years and unfortunately I was not a frequent visitor, so memory of it is quite poor. Something that needs more research perhaps? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am intending to contribute more to the Mudeford page but I'm having difficulty defining the area. For example, where exactly does Somerford, Highcliffe, Friars Cliff, Stanpit etc. end and Mudeford begin. I don't have a map that shows those boundaries but I imagine Mudeford to be the area South of Somerford Road, West of Bure Lane and East of Pauntley Road. This would include Smuggler's Reach, the quay and Sandhills but not the recreation ground you have mentioned, Fisherman's Bank nor the Ship in Distress (more's the pity) which in my mind are all in Stanpit. Looking at an A-Z, the situation becomes worse as this seems to suggest Stanpit stretches as far as Mudeford Lane. Stanpit is an 'inconvenient truth' that is preventing me from writing what I want to! Any suggestions?--Ykraps (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S The article also mentions Mudeford Spit which I'm almost certain is in Bournemouth despite its name.--Ykraps (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for your work on the page. I think the basic problem is that the boundary of Mudeford has constantly changed over the years so if you refer to a historic event it is a different Mudeford to now. For example Mudeford Woods used to be called Somerford Woods and probably still is by some. I am not sure what the current day boundaries are but I will try to find out. I suggest anything that explicitly says Somerford ought to go into a separate Somerford article but Fishermans Walk and Friars Cliff are more problematic. I think Friars Cliff might now be a district of Highcliffe. Actually I checked yesterday and there is a sign up in the recreation ground calling itself "Mudeford recreation ground". I think it best to have Stanpit as a separate section within the Mudeford article for now at least and describe it as a part of Mudeford. --Penbat (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally it would be best to continue Mudeford discussion on Talk:Mudeford. page.--Penbat (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed--Ykraps (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback - large increase in requests


The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.

Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.

The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.

I suggest discussion in this WT:FEED section. Cheers!

(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)

 Chzz  ► 00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left comments at WT:FEED --Ykraps (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RAF Christchurch and Christchurch Airfield
RAF Christchurch and Christchurch Airfield are now created as separate articles. Feel free to tweak and adjust.--Penbat (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work! I'm sorry I didn't get around to helping with them. Maybe I can add some stuff later, although they look to be in pretty good shape.--Ykraps (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful historical source for Christchurch
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42055 --Penbat (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New article
I will be glad to look at it, but it will likely take me several days. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

talkback coding
Hi, when I add a talkback, I try to include the link to the exact section. Most of these editors are newbies, and have enough trouble learning wikicode. I'd like to make it easier for them to find their feedback,

You can see an example at User_talk:Zanejobe. Both of us left a talkback message, but yours leads to the main page, and it isn't obvious how to find the comments. Mine looks ugly as heck (yes, I could clean it up, but there too much to do to bother with such niceties).

After I review an article, I go to the top of the feedback page, then click on the article in the table of contents. That created a link to the specific section in the url box. Then I copy and paste the portion after "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" and paste that into the talkback template, replacing both the page and the section. There may be a better way to do it, but it works for me.

Thanks for your help. With Chzz away, we are drowning. I've made some stabs at solving the problem, but nothing is working so far.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice re the talkback template. To be frank I haven't really got to grips with it yet. I thought I'd done the right thing leaving a link to the page and it's taken a while to work out how to do that (it's all trial and error with me). I will endeavour to do as you suggest and hope I can come back to you if I need extra instruction.--Ykraps (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just taken a look at the templates at User_talk:Zanejobe and mine doesn't even go to the correct date. I don't know what I did wrong there. I think all my other ones at least go to the right page. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think get it now!--Ykraps (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good! It's one of those things that it easy once you know it, but not immediately obvious at first, like so many things here. I'm making progress - knocked off ten requests, but we need to get additional reviewers.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left pleas for help at User:Senra and User:Karenjc talk pages as they have helped in the past and may do so again.--Ykraps (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of them are quite good. I left a plea at the help desk. -- SPhilbrick  T  17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You probably don't need this, but it can't hurt.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Austin
Hello Ykraps,

You asked for some stats for Austin, following my efforts at Stroud. The short answer is that I'm still figuring out how to do this myself. For Stroud, I manually copied every link from the disambiguation page into Special:WhatLinksHere, selected the article namespace, view 500 links (none of the pages I was interested in had >500 links), copied the result into a text editor (notepad or similar) and counted the lines. I've since discovered backlinkscount, which helps a bit, but the whole process is still a bit tedious, and Austin has a lot more entries than Stroud! Clearly this is better done by a computer than a human, so I've almost written a script to count for me. Here's the output for Austin:

Feel free to copy this to the Austin disambig talk page if it is useful. I might develop my script to the point where it's worth releasing, or maybe I'll just keep it handy in case I ever get involved in one of these sticky disambig discussions again! Anyway, if you need similar stats for another page, it only takes me a few clicks now, so feel free to ask if you'd like more. You probably know this already, but I should give the standard disclaimer: Whatlinkshere does not give the whole story. It gives an indication of how important a page is, but these numbers should be combined with search engine hit rates, and good old-fashioned discussion. Whatlinkshere numbers are particularly distorted if some of the pages appear as part of a template - this will significantly increase the page hit count (Stone Cold Steve may be an example of this). I also haven't tested these numbers very thoroughly - you might want to check a couple of them for accuracy. If I've really messed up, let me know and I'll try to fix it ;-)

Anyway, I think this table answers your question - Texas wins hands-down in this case. Let me know if I can help any further. GyroMagician (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Gyro, thanks for the info and the whatlinkshere link. Since posting on your talk page I've discovered that typing in Austin(space)Texas returns wildly different results to Austin(comma)Texas. I was entering Austin(space)Texas which gets about 2000 views a month (about 1/5 of Austin Motor Company). I've since put in Austin(comma)Texas which, as I'm sure you know, gives around 100,000 views a month. It just goes to show the importance of inputting things correctly. Anyway thanks once again--Ykraps (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In short, I agree with you.
(In short, I agree with you.)-- SPhilbrick  T  17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your intervention. I didn't know whether to edit the article myself, open a discussion on the talk page or have the article tagged.--Ykraps (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your message at Requests for feedback
MonoALT (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Help me please.
How do I delete a user page that I no longer require? I created User:Ykraps/Admiral Sir Phillip Durham GCB because initial searches suggested that there was no such article but have since found it (by searching for "died 1845"). ‎I can delete content from the page but not delete the page itself. Also I am concerned that I wasn't able to find the person easily. How can that be rectified?--Ykraps (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use to delete a page in your userspace. To rectify a title, you can either move the page if it's appropriate, or you can create a redirect by creating a new page with an easier title to find. Here is the wiki syntax for creating a redirect : #REDIRECT target page here . Cheers -  [CharlieEchoTango]  09:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas capel
Just something I didn't delete when creating the link to the London gazette. Sorry. Corneredmouse (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More help needed
I started an article William Gordon Rutherford then discovered it existed as William Gordon Rutherfurd (same person but different spelling). Both spellings are used so I tried to change my article into a redirect. Something has gone wrong. Can you tell me what, so I can correct it? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * excuse me for butting in but if you just delete "" in William Gordon Rutherford all should be well. --Penbat (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Penbat.--Ykraps (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir John Orde, 1st Baronet
In regard to Sir John Orde, there is a section in Jervis' biography that I think more thoroughly describes the circumstances of the "almost" duel between the two. It can be found []. I did not however want to replace or alter your edits without your thoughts. Regards, Corneredmouse (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your consideration, but feel free to make any edits you think necessary. So long as it adds to or improves the article, and I think this does, I'm happy.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories
What you do is add to the article — from a technical standpoint, it doesn't really matter where in the article you put it, because it'll work no matter what, but for clarity's sake it's generally considered best to put it immediately above the category links themselves, right after the persondata template. (And also, just so you know, you've added enough categories that you can remove the template as well.) Hope that helps. Bearcat (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

John Scott (naval officer) and John Weatherhead (naval officer)
Hi there, I'm afraid I'm not much of a reviewer. I edit when I can and add when I can but feel that my current skills don't extend to reviewing. I have however taken a look at: John Scott (naval officer) and John Weatherhead (naval officer) and editted and added. Good articles. I think they may not have been reviewed or seen because they are almost orphaned articles with nothing linking to them. If you can add details of them to other pages people will see and review them. All the best, Ian Corneredmouse (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, not to worry, I understand. Thanks for taking a look anyway. I see you have been involved with William Hoste; I found a section of the article a bit confusing and have left a message on talk page. If you have any thoughts on that, I'd be interested to hear them.--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I assessed John Weatherhead (naval officer) per your request and it is a good start. I also formatted the article and populated it with some public domain images. I recommend looking at Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson as an example of a well-developed article of similar subject matter. KimChee (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello KimChee, Thanks for your assessment and your contributions. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. I would have assessed it as "B", if it were not that the last sentences of a few of the paragraphs were missing citations. That said, I was able to find one of the references online through Google books to conduct a somewhat more thorough review. There are a few uncomfortably long phrases taken verbatim (e.g. "was one of a number of Norfolk boys who went to sea") to raise concern that there may be similar clauses taken from other offline sources which I am unable to verify. I highly recommend you familiarise yourself with the guidelines at WP:PARAPHRASE and make sure the text has been sufficiently rephrased or better yet, thoroughly rewritten, to avoid any issues of copyright, especially if you have ambitions to take the article to GA review later. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that was a phrase that just got 'stuck in my head'. It is used a lot in a number of books by various authors. However, I have now rewritten it and added the missing references. I will look at the article again later but I am pretty sure it's okay. I am happy to receive any other comments you may have. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has improved and I have reassessed it. For further improvement, the article is light on Weatherhead's biographical background before his naval career -- I have gathered some of the sentences into a new section to cover this. The lead could also use some expansion to properly summarise the article; I recommend 2-3 paragraphs (see WP:Lead). I think the article is at a point where you could take it to WP:Peer review for guidance towards GA standards. KimChee (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch, Dorset
As it appears that TeacherA has abandoned the review, I am taking over. Full review should be posted within 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have placed the nomination on hold for seven days. Review at Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review this article and your constructive comments.--Ykraps (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Exceedingly well done on raising Christchurch, Dorset from its early roots to the very interesting and readable article it is today. Impressive tenacity my friend. Well done again --Senra (Talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although other editors have also contributed and given me much needed guidance and support.--Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My congratulations too - great work! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Greatly appreciated, thanks, but I couldn't have done it without your invaluable assistance.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)