User talk:Mertbiol/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Mertbiol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Simply south 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the pictures on the locks pages where there are, as they are structured to supp0rt the article. Losing them in a gallery devalues them. The articles are not too long Thanks Motmit (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Motmit. I'm not sure which browser you are using, but in IE, Mozilla and Safari, the photos on the Iffley Lock page end up as in two columns right at the bottom of the page. Their position in no way relates to the paragraphs which they are supposed to be associated with. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol - I can now understand your reasoning and it must be annoying. For me, however, using IE the images come up prefectly placed. No one else on the Thames project has identified a problem and they are no different from any other articles as far as I can see. I wonder if there is anything on your preferences. I set my own image size there, and so the images I load are all default with no px (as that as I understand it is the way they should be). Let me know how you get on. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again- I raised a query on this issue and someone has fiddled about with Osney Lock a bit. The suggestion is that the infobox, template etc interact somehow and may be this causes problems. It doesnt seem to affect me as I spent ages trying to get things to line up which they did. The changes mean the pics are a bit all over the place now and the text is overcompressed but let me know if you still have the problem you had before. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:River Coln.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:River Coln.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mertbiol (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled by your two Beeching references. First, the report that most people have heard of was titled "The Reshaping of British Railways", and not "The Reshaping of Britain's Railways"; and it was published in 1963, not 1962. The second report, "The Development of the Major Trunk Routes", followed in 1965 - again, not in 1962.

The titles and years now being dealt with, do you have page numbers? If you have, we can get those refs to look more like the others in the article; it uses the {{sfn}} template in the main body, with {{cite book}} later on. Thus we would have:

• {{sfn|Beeching|1963|p=nn}}
• {{sfn|Beeching|1965|p=nn}}

in the article text, where "nn" is the page number; and

• {{cite book |last=Beeching |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Beeching |year=1963 |title=The Reshaping of British Railways |publisher=[[Office of Public Sector Information|HMSO]] |ref=harv }}
• {{cite book |last=Beeching |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Beeching |year=1965 |title=The Development of the Major Trunk Routes |publisher=[[Office of Public Sector Information|HMSO]] |ref=harv }}

in the "References" section. It's always best to give a page ref, so that somebody else can find the information in the relevant document. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose, thanks for your message. I'm sorry for getting the dates of publication of the two reports wrong, I don't usually make mistakes like that! To be very pedantic the 1965 report is correctly titled The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes. Leaving that aside, the page refs you need are pp 107-121 and Map 9 in Reshaping plus pp 74-80 in Development. Congratulations on an excellent article for Reading Southern. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was going by the title shown in Michael R. Bonavia's "British Rail: The First 25 Years". This BBC news item gives the same title that you do, and also implies the full date of publication - 16 February 1965. I have also found the text as a pdf at The Railways Archive. It's got 104 pages, so thanks for narrowing down my search! --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you now look at Reading Southern railway station, references ^{[32][33] [34]}, you'll see how these have been expanded and made fully linkable. Since there are three documents, there are now three refs. In particular consider how the {{sfn}} template is used (slightly different from above), and within {{cite book}} the parameters |date= (on all three) and |year= (on only two). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hi, re this edit; Mitchell and Smith don't use page numbers, but they do use figure (picture) numbers; these are usually Roman numerals for the maps, and Arabic numerals for photographs. What was the figure number for the caption from which the information was obtained? This can go in the |at= parameter of the {{cite book}}, ie |at=fig. 42. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol

Thank you for your work on Stane Street. I feel however that you are introducing material into the lead section that is not in the body of the article,contrary to Wikipedia policy, e.g. there is already a section on dating. I propose moving the section titled Construction up the page, and including the second paragraph of the lead into it under the heading Design and construction. How does this sound?--Charles (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. Thanks for your message. I'm aware that there is now material in the lede which isn't present elsewhere, but my concern was to correct the misleading part about the road being primarily on the direct London-Chichester alignment with only "subtle local variations". I'm planning to contribute more to the article in the next few hours and my plan is to expand on the lede section elsewhere in the article. Could I suggest that you wait a few hours to allow me to put some more detail in please? Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. I think I'm finished for the moment. I hope the lede is closer to how you imagined it in the post above. There's still some work to do to the Surverying and Construction section and I hope to be able to add another map at some point over the weekend. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had finished too but we just had an edit clash. I was saying that the road passes east of Leigh Hill and does not pass through the Arun gap in the South Downs, instead climbing over the Downs on a fine terraceway at Bignor. The top end of this has recently been cleared of trees and can be seen clearly.--Charles (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. Thanks for your message. I did struggle over the precise wording of this earlier this afternoon. Whilst I'd agree with you that Stane Street doesn't run along the whole length of the Arun Gap from Pulborough to Amberley, I don't think it's unreasonable to state (as I did in the lede) that "the road was designed to exploit the two natural gaps in the Downs cut by the River Mole and River Arun". As I see it the crossing of the South Downs isn't too unlike the situation for the Mole Gap, where the road starts to climb out of the river valley approximately half way between Dorking and Leatherhead. The aim was to find a way of climbing the downs which didn't involve tackling the scarp slope and to use the side a combe instead. I think that the relevant sentence in the Surveying and Construction section probably does need reworking to make this clearer. Would you like to have a go at redrafting it, or would you prefer me to? (You sound like you have better local knowledge that me!) Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Arun Gap in the chalk ridge does not begin until Amberley and Houghton going south. There was a Roman road through the gap as indicated by the remains of a ford at South Stoke, presumably only usable at low tide and in the absense of much rain. It may have linked to the Greensand Way near Hardham but this is not proven. There is no modern road through there as it is a difficult route prone to flooding. Stane Street however heads southwest away from the river well north of the gap and climbs the escarpment using at first a spur of chalk rather than a combe, then crossing the steep slope on a terrace with a reasonable gradient at Bignor Hill (better than the modern track to the hill top car park). I will clarify this.--Charles (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. Thanks for your message and for your corrections to the article. Could I suggest that some of the material posted above could be incorporated into the Pulborough to Chichester section? (There's very little detail on the ascent of the Downs in there at present. Thanks again. Mertbiol (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol. My personal observations would be original research. It depends on finding published material. I have now added more detail on the ascent. I believe this is covered in one of Margary's books, but I do not have those to hand.--Charles (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:BSicon FLYe.svg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. a×p_de^Hello! 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BSicon FLYe.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pipp Brook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westcott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited River Eden, Kent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edenbridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the hasty revert on Watling Street, there, and good to see Roman roads being tracked properly now!

What's the thinking behind putting "Roman road" in the "alternate_name" field? Is it just to get the phrase at the top of the infobox, or is it reasonable to say that "Roman road" is an identifying name that a local might give to any and all of these roads? If it's the former, I'd expect it to be possible to update the template so that "type=Roman" does that automatically. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and sorry for not responding sooner. I've put in a request on the talk page of Template:Infobox road asking for this change to be made. Mertbiol (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stane Street (Chichester) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stane Street (Chichester) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stane Street (Chichester) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stane Street (Chichester) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stane Street (Chichester) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mertbiol:. Just sending thanks and congratulations on seeing Stane Street (Chichester) promoted to GA status! Well done, great effort. I've been watching it from afar and am very pleased to see your dedication to this article. What's next? Zakhx150 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zakhx150: Thanks for your message and all your encouragement! I hadn’t really thought about putting the article forward to GAN until you suggested it. I think I was lucky with Stane Street (Chichester), in that a lot of recent work on the road was freely available online - particularly important with access to libraries being restricted over the past year. (I also had a fair bit of time in late summer/early autumn to focus on the article.) Thanks again for your support and I hope we get an opportunity to interact again in the future! Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dorking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dorking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wild cherry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dorking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dorking you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve struck lucky. A good reviewer. KJP1 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorking you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dorking for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dorking you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dorking for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this being nominated for DYK! It was a very enjoyable read. You have done well to find such a good range of sources; did you go to the Surrey County Archives at Woking at any point? I have been going to Dorking fairly frequently since 1996, and I'm certainly looking forward to being able to visit again when things start opening up again. My last trip involved going to Box Hill and Westhumble by train, walking up through Westhumble village and across Ranmore Common, then down across the North Downs Line to Westcott, then into Dorking from the west: a decent but not too strenuous walk with some excellent views. At some point before lockdown ends I might get round to uploading some of the many photos I haven't yet sorted out! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hassocks5489: The Dorking article has been a labour of love for the past three months - the perfect way to wile away the long, dark hours of winter lockdown!!

I have visited the Surrey History Centre in the past and was planning to do so again, but I didn't get the chance to do so before restrictions came back in. I was fortunate to be able to borrow many of the books from neighbours - it's amazing what people have hidden on their bookshelves! The Surrey Archaeological Society has recently made most past articles from its journal available online at the Archaeology Data Service which is a fantastic resource. I was able to access other online material through the subscriptions that my university holds. There were a few surprises along the way - the biggest was probably the 1830s scheme to enable poorer residents to emigrate to Upper Canada, which I hadn't been aware of before starting my research.

It would be great to have some of your photos of the town uploaded to Commons - I'm looking forward to seeing your images. I wondered if you had a photo of the caves or of the cockerel statue being yarn-bombed? I'm planning to move on to Leatherhead next, so would welcome your input there too.

Thanks again for your feedback on the DYK! Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I am a Did You Know expert let me know if you need any ideas along these lines. If you need any of your DYKs reviewed, just ping me and I will be glad to do. I accumulate done DYK reviews for future QPQs. Here is a list of my 500 Did You Knows by subject. Notice the fastest Did You Knows done Wiki-speed records under the pictures in the captions. I work up my articles off-line and then when my draft is done I make it a new article on one edit and immediately nominate for Did You Know. This method makes for fast approvals and it turns out over my 15 years that I have been creating Wikipedia articles this way 97% have become a Did You Know article = 500. An example of this is my latest article I created on Language Integrator, and as you can see it makes for a fast approval (7 hours). The difference between my 539 DYK credits and the 500 DYK I created myself are articles that other editors created and asked me to help them develop into a Did You Know article. Many of those were librarians and some of those librarians were from the Library of Congress.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, The DYK approved article on Language Integrator has just been promoted to Preparation area 7 and will be on the main page in a few days. I suspect it will be one of those high hitters of over 5,000 views and then put into the Hall of Fame for February 2021.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Did You Know article on Language Integrator {click check views) received 19,919 views. Normally an article NOT in the picture slot gets around 2,000 views, so as you can see this is about 10 times normal. The article that was in the picture slot in the same queue on the same day these articles came out on the Main Page received only 2,413 views. It turns out that the 2 dozen articles I created that got very high amounts and have been entered into the DYK Hall of Fame received an average of 13,888 views or in other words a third of a million viewers total have read these articles that I created, just on these articles alone. Of the 500 articles I created that became Did You Know articles have been read by over a million people worldwide.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, as you can see here under the Benjamin Franklin picture in the caption, an article I created from scratch became an official Did You Know article on the Main Page 36 hours later = Wiki-Record. Normally an article takes about 36 days to become an official Did You Know article from creation as a new article and sometimes as long as 36 weeks. Dorking is taking 19 years from when it was created as a new article to when it ultimately will become a Did You Know article on the Main Page. I understand that each editor has their own way of doing things, but my methods and techniques produce results quicker and smoother. Here is a list of my multiple article Did You Knows--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I also upgrade many of my Did You Knows off-line to Good Article quality and just drop in the final draft when I am done. Then I submit GAN and that makes for a quick Good Article. An example here is Austin Church that had the review on 23 August 2020 and became a Good Article on 24 August 2020. It's just a technique that happens to work for me that I am throwing out. I'm not saying you should do it the same way I do, as you may prefer other ways and I understand. To me it's a short-cut to fast, quick, and easy Did you Knows and Good Articles. Using this technique last October I made 34 Good Articles for the month. That can be verified by going to my User Page and checking the history - look for added top green GA icon for..... and you can count the 34 Good Articles I made for the month. I would venture to say this is a Wiki-record. The question becomes- what is the most amount of Good Articles an editor has ever done in a month's time? I will be surprised if it is over ten. A good research project for you. Another Wiki-record I made in my 15 year Wikipedia career is that out of all the articles I created it so happens that 97% became Did You Knows = 500. I'll bet the farm that no other editor that has created at least 100 articles has made over 90% of them into Did You Knows. Of course you don't have to use my techniques, but I am saying what has worked for me for 15 years. Each editor has their own techniques and I understand that - mileage may vary from person to person depending on how much petrol is used.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You probably already know this - you don't have to review another's DYK article for the first 5 Did You Know articles you do. But after that you do and that is called QPQ (Quid pro quo). My method along these lines is that I do a bunch of reviews at one time and keep track of them in a list. Then when I nominate one of my articles for DYK nomination, I just take one off the list. As long as you never used the review before, you can use it anytime in the future. Of course there is a way to check this, and I assume you know how. In case you need a QPQ in the future, ask me and I will give you one of mine - I have plenty. Most editors do the QPQ AFTER they have nominated their DYK article and that then trips them up to have their article qualify, as it is missing a part required. Better management (IMHO) is to do the review BEFORE you submit your article for DYK and life works out a lot better. In multiple article hooks a QPQ is required for each article - so for example if you have 3 articles in the same hook line, THEN you need 3 QPQs. The only way I can see multiple article hooks being done is if you have already done the articles off-line and make them new articles at the same time. Just some ideas about QPQs, I am throwing out - but like I say, I understand you may want to do it different. Whatever method you chose, just be careful that it doesn't trip you up at the time of your DYK nomination (as it does with most editors).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, always put the DYK nomination template on the article Talk Page - it is part of the instructions when you self-nominate your article for DYK. I can help here also. This way then it automatically notifies you of any activity on your nomination since your article is on your Watch list. Also then you can check out your view amount that happened when it became a Did You Know on the main page. Usually the average amount of views of an article not in the picture slot is 2K-3K. Having your article in the picture slot increases your view amount considerably (at least double). Most of my DYK articles are put into the picture slot (80%).- I have a special technique to make that happen. That then makes many of your articles submitted into the DYK Hall of Fame for the high view count (over 5,000 views) = I have several there! The view count is calculated a day after it is on the main page and can be seen at check views on the notification that your DYK was put on the main page. Just some ideas 4U.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, Certain college professors have written history reference books based on the Wikipedia article I created originally. Just shows the value of my in-depth research and the importance of getting your DYK article in the picture slot for worldwide recognition. The technique I have of getting your DYK article in the picture slot is very easy and works most of the time - I have proof! Many of my articles have then received over 10,000 views on the day it hit the main page, just because it was in the picture slot of the queue of the Preparation. But then again, maybe you don't want worldwide recognition. Each to their own.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, the article I created off-line and made as a new article in 1 edit (15,450 characters) of Meteor III and nominated for DYK right away was approved 12 and a half hours after I officially created it. Just shows how fast an article can be approved after creating it IF it is developed with all the DYK parameters when created as a new article in the first edit. I understand others may not like my techniques and have their own techniques they prefer, but do they produce as fast a results as my techniques do? Just giving you some ideas that work for me, but you can chose whichever techniques that you are comfortable with. I am aiming for quick and smooth results with my techniques - and that is the way most of my 500 articles I created in the last 15 years have come out, with 97% becoming DYKs and 20% of those becoming Good Articles. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Operation Sahayogi Haat is an example of a librarian from the Library of Congress that asked me to help her make her article into a Did You Know article. Justus Smith Stearns is an example of my article I created on 24 October 2010 (11,101 characters ) that a college professor wrote a history reference book on in 2015. I'm not saying that you should use my techniques, but this is typical of the results I get from the way I do things on Wikipedia. I learned a lot of these techniques from the top Did You Know producer, that is from Wales (James Anderson). I also learned a lot of good techniques from the number two DYK producer that happens to be from India (with 46 letters to his name, but I call him Char through the email communications). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a typical email from my India friend, who happens to be the number 2 Did You Know producer that I have worked with a lot over the years. James Anderson from Wales (#1 DYK producer) I have worked with for many years and have learned a lot of good Did You Know techniques from.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Confession My picture on my User Page shows I have 4 PCs. One of the PCs stopped working, so now I am down to 3 laptops that I work at the same time. I use a lot of ILL books and the state of Michigan where I am from has a lot of Universities and Colleges, so I am able to get most any reference book I am looking for. I often use what is called Ask A Librarian service - maybe there is such a thing at the Bod. Do you use?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: PLEASE STOP. This is becoming harassment. "Dorking is taking 19 years from when it was created as a new article to when it ultimately will become a Did You Know article on the Main Page." - SO WHAT???? Why does it matter? You are the only person that cares.

Dorking is a town of 11k residents, with a history spanning over 10,000 years - researching the settlement has taken a lot of time - there are a lot of sources to read. I started working on the article in earnest in mid-November and I nominated it for GA (after receiving feedback from three other editors) in early February. In that time, it went from an article of roughly 3000 words to a length of 9500 words. I added 300 citations and referenced 38 books. It is a great article and several people have said that it is close to FA status. Producing one article like that in under three months, when I have a full-time job and family commitments is a tremendous achievement.

I don't have the luxury of being able to edit Wikipedia for 12 hours a day every day - you do - you enjoy it and I am happy for you. You see collecting GA icons and getting articles into DYK as your raison d'être - good for you. I am delighted that this gives you satisfaction. You have proved this to me many times. I don't understand what you are trying to prove to me. You can churn out several short articles a week, get them nominated and then move on to new projects. If that's what you want to do, then great. But that's not what I want to do - why are trying to convince me otherwise?

Mertbiol (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Glad to help anytime - as you can see I am an expert in producing Did You Know articles. So IF you have any DYK questions, just ping me. FYI, the first Good Article I did was Carl Edgar Myers and it is over 30,000 characters. Good Luck on the Dorking Did You Know - it should now get over 5,000 views and I will be glad to enter it into the DYK Hall of Fame if you want me to. Yes, researching ancient items is fun as you can see I have created several ancient articles. My favorite ancient person is Petrarch and I am sure you know about him. An article I created was the English words first attested in Chaucer and I am pretty sure you know a lot about Geoffrey Chaucer. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that the Dorking article is a labor of love for you and that's why I am helping you on the Did You Know nomination so that it will be viewed by a high number of people. With the village picture you submitted it would have never been picked for the picture slot and would not have been viewed by very many people (probably only a few hundred times at best) when it came out as an official Did You Know article on the main page (with the village picture). It so happens that I negotiated many times back and forth with the picture taker of the Dorking cockerel picture, as he didn't want to lower his copyright license at first. He is a professional photographer and always has on all of his 8500 Flickr pictures the license of "All Rights Reserved" (to protect his pictures) and as you know that is NOT acceptable for Wikipedia. I ultimately had him lower his license to "Attribution" only and taught him the Flickr method to do it - which allowed you to make that crop. Having ANY OTHER copyright license on the picture does NOT allow for modifications (as you did with the crop). So keep that in mind for the future, that you always want to get ONLY the "Attribution" license, so you can make modification (or at least keep that option open for future modifications). I am a Flickr Pro and have uploaded over 60,000 pictures in some 600 picture albums. I recommend that you get a free Flickr account - as that is where there is an excellent source of pictures for your articles. I will be glad to help you further if you need any future help on any of your Did You Know articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an ALT7a and it should be approved by User:Hassocks5489 (who approved ALT7), which he probably will do soon. Notice also that (pictured) is placed AFTER the word statue. I have also corrected in the main page image/DYK with this updated Flickr picture. Keep in mind that I am in Michigan (United States) and the Flickr picture taker is in England somewhere. His original Flickr image was with "All Right Reserved", however I got him to lower his copyright so it could be used on your article. This picture will attract a high amount of views. I have a little trick for getting a person to lower their copyright. The Flickr picture taker sent me an email today that says -Hello Sorry for the delay in response to your request. I have changed the licence as requested.. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Doug Coldwell: this is a much better photo of the statue than the one we had before. As I'm sure you're now aware, the Cockerel is wearing a gold medal, because the photo was taken during the 2012 Olympic Games in London. Thank you for contacting the photographer to request the license change!! I have produced a cropped version so that the statue fills the picture more completely. Let's hope for a quick approval and appearance on the DYK!!

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the wording I use to send Flick email to request to lower the copyright license. It works about 80% of the time I have experienced over the last 15 years.

--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug for sorting out this good new photo. I have marked the DYK as verified. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice I made a "Comment to the Promoter". These words (without a question mark) have worked well for me in getting the DYK nomination in the #1 slot position. Not guaranteed, but it sure does increase your odds - as the Promoter notices this request and attempts to do it. If it does come on the main page in the picture slot the odds are real good it will get over 5,000 views that day. Then it gets put into the Did You Know Hall of Fame. If your DYK gets over 5,000 views I will be glad to enter it into the DYK Hall of Fame where many of mine are. The article I created on Westinghouse Time Capsules got 25,000 views when it came out as a Did You Know back in in 2008 and it was a request for the #1 slot.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the Commons template to the Dorking article as I think readers would enjoy pictures of the village. I received another Flickr email today of a person that lowered their copyright license as I requested. It is a better picture of the Dorking cockerel and at higher resolution. It shows more of the yarn and shows better the metal. I'll leave it up to you IF you want to use in the article. I suggest getting advice from an experienced DYK editor on this one. Perhaps consult User:Encyclopædius (#1 DYK producer from Wales, UK) and say I suggested that and he will be glad to help you. Use his advice! If you do just replace the existing picture File name of the Dorking cockerel with "Dorking cock with XXX Olympiad metal". Used my 7 categories in Commons, as I don't know this Peter Parkinson person and I don't think he took the picture. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Doug Coldwell: Peter Parkinson is the sculptor. I have added the new image to the DYK template. I am not sure which is the better photo. I will let the promoter decide. Mertbiol (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I get it about Peter Parkinson. That's fine about adding the image to the DYK template, except the image MUST BE used in the article as well. In this case you can not have both and you have to choose one picture or the other. I would recommend that you consult with User:Encyclopædius on this. With his advice your chances of getting your Did You Know through properly will increase dramatically. Personally I would choose this latest picture because it represents the yarn bombing idea better, it is a higher resolution picture, and the medal shows better. I would replace the existing picture with my latest picture - but then I am biased, so that's why I am suggesting you get advice on this one.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_6

Your DYK has been put into the #1 picture slot with your original picture. It will appear on the main page in 10-14 days. Check the views and if it is over 5,000 (which I suspect it will be) I will be glad to put it into the DYK Hall of Fame. Good Luck.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the top DYK editors responded when I asked for advice on the choice of the pictures. That's because I have worked with them all over the last 15 years in creating over 500 Did You Knows and they all know who I am since I have submitted so many DYK nominations. If you have any questions on DYKs feel free to ask me since I am an expert at that. Good Luck on your Dorking nomination. Remember, that IF you want the #1 picture slot -> ask for it!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Dorking received 5,774 views on the day it became a Did You Know on the main page. It has been entered into the DYK Hall of Fame (as having over 5,000 views). I thought maybe a picture of the chicken statue with yarn bombing would attract many viewers. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that User:SovalValtos has reverted my placements of the pictures on Dorking. IMHO from my experience of creating a few articles the pictures look better IF they are across (next to) the section that talks about the picture representation. The way they are now that is not true - which could lead to confusion to some. I have a 15 inch PC and a 17 inch PC and at 100% resolution the pictures looked good (next to the descriptive text section), where I had placed them. Since this is your Labor of Love I'll leave it to you where you want the pictures. The article I am most proud of that is my Labor of Love is Conclusion of the American Civil War (33,000 characters).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's good to add "upright" to the picture template. The next advance would be to add size. To do that just add an equal sign after that word, followed by a number. Start out with 1.0 as the number. Preview and if the picture is to big, give the number a lesser value. This number could be 0.5 or 0.25 or 0.1 or any number between 1.0 and the lowest number. Test with Preview until it looks good for size, then Publish. The opposite is true - if the picture is to small at 1.0 then increase to 2.0 doubling size, etc. Of course you can use any number for size of 1.0 to FIVE. In the case of the Stone Lion picture I would set at 0.875 and move up a bit above the Header. I would suggest also to move up a bit the Meadowbank picture just above the Header for better picture flow, etc. You probably want the picture next to the text description - especially for the first time reader, to lead to less confusion. Most of your readers will be first time readers. There is now about a 300 per day view count and I suspect it will be over 5,000 views on the day it becomes an official Did You Know on the main page. Keep in mind that they are all (99 and 44/100s %) new readers at that time. With my suggestion of picture placement, the Dorking Halls picture is next to its text description and the Pippbrook House picture is next to its text description, etc, etc.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If you haven't already, could you put your approval on ALT7c at the template, so the Promoter can promote your DYK hook and put it into the number 1 slot - so it can get a lot of views.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since User:Hassocks5489 has already given a green tick for ALT7c and other editors like the Dorking cockerel picture already in the Dorking article, I suggest you just give your approval of this ALT7C just above User:Hassocks5489's latest green tick, so the Promoter can put it into the picture slot. It should get some 5000 views. Check on article Talk Page (24 hours later) after it officially becomes a Did You Know article on the main page and click on where it talks about pageviews. If it gets over 5,000 (which I suspect it will) then I will be glad to enter in into the DYK Hall of Fame for March 2021. Good luck.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend that you get a free Flickr account. This is a major source for potential pictures for future articles. Just make sure you get the correct copyright license ("Attribution"), which allows for commercial use and modifications. I have uploaded all my 60,000 Flickr pictures this way and many others do also - so its not that difficult to find the perfect picture for your new article. By default then, digital photography becomes a new hobby. Then you can become a Flickr Pro with unlimited storage of pictures and videos.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a spin-off article from upgrading this above article I created Language Integrator which got 19,919 views when it became a DYK. Below is the message I received about it today. One thing leads to another.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Congratulations ==

Your DYK hook about the Language Integrator and its intended use as a peep show for inhabitants of the 82nd century drew 19,919 page views (830 per hour) while on the Main Page. It was one of the most viewed hooks during the month of February and earned a place near the top of the Best of February list. Even more impressive, it qualifies for the all-time list of best non-lead hooks. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mertbiol,

I'm reaching out to invite you to participate in a research session because you're an English Wikipedia editor who works with media files—either regularly or occasionally. If you (or any other media editors who see this!) are interested in participating in an anonymous interview—for which you will be compensated—please first fill out this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.

You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.

Thank you!

(MRaish (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement. Of course, please feel free to remove this message.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about Dorking drew 5,774 page views (481 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. (There were also 11,917 page views for the yarn bombers. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashtead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rector.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol. Thanks for your message; I have been on holiday (taking pix for Wikipedia!), so apologies for the delay in replying. I will take a proper look in the next few days and leave notes on the appropriate section of the talk page. Unfortunately I'm likely to be too busy for the foreseeable future (mostly with off-Wiki commitments) to be able to commit time to GA reviewing. I'm moderately familiar with Ashtead, although I haven't been since I took the photos in 2013. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hassocks5489: I've also been taking a few photos this week - the weather has been perfect! Thanks for agreeing to cast your eye over the Ashtead article - I look forward to your feedback. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashtead you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a few minor quibbles on the review page. Have a look and let me know your thoughts, and we can wrap this up fairly briskly, I think. Tim riley talk 12:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now passed GA. Congratulations – smashing job! Tim riley talk 14:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ashtead you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashtead for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Copthorne Hundred, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pollard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epsom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol, I lived in Borough of Epsom & Ewell for many years as a child and teenager and my Mother still lives in the borough so I know Epsom well and would be pleased to read through your article and make some suggestions. Now live in West Sussex near Horsham. I went to school at Dorking County Grammar School and played for Dorking FC in my distant youth' so your article on Dorking was of particular interest. Dorkinglad (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Dorkinglad:. I look forward to your feedback. Please leave any comments that you would like to make on the talk page, so that others can join in the discussion as well.

Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Sorry it's taken me awhile but personal circumstances have been fraught. An excellent article and I can see no obvious errors. Well done. It's remarkable how Emily Davison's reputation in Epsom has changed in one hundred years. I would add some information on Epsom Public Houses and under notable buildings mention the Amato Inn, one of the oldest pubs in Surrey approaching 350 years. There is a legend attached to the Pub which can be read about in the wiki article Amato (horse). Epsom's racing heritage was more obvious when I was a child with several pubs named after Derby winners (The Ladas and Eclipse, both buildings stand but not as pubs I recall). The naming of the roads of the Longmead Estate built in the 60s and 70s used Derby and Oaks winners. Few people realise this now. The old LSBC railway station Epsom Town still survives hidden behind a parade of shops.--Dorkinglad (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dorkinglad: This is very helpful. I will keep my eye out for some reliable sources for the Amato Inn and the Longmead Estate. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Epsom that you recently nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. ––FormalDude talk 22:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·

The article Epsom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Epsom for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FormalDude -- FormalDude (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haslemere, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mertbiol!! May I thank you sincerely for your excellent contributions to the article Rockfield Lake, an article which I created. Thank you so much for the way you saved the online references to the Wayback Machine project. That was a truly inspired thing to do.

I am, alas, a not very 'technical' editor on Wikipedia, so far anyhow. I don't really know how to do what you so excellently did with the online references on the Rockfield Lake article. I would absolutely love it if you could do the same with the online references for the article about Belfast Castle. Sorry to trouble you in this way, but I haven't figured out just yet how to save the online references to the Wayback Machine project. It would be absolutely great if the online references for the Belfast Castle article could be 'archived' to the Wayback Machine for posterity.

Over the past year, I have done my best to 'whip' the Belfast Castle article into shape, especially its History section. However, I think I need a wee bit of help as regards saving the online references for posterity, if that is the correct word. I really hope you can help me with this, Mertbiol. Once again, apologies for bothering you like this. And thanks once again. 😁 Laggan Boy (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laggan Boy: Thanks for your message. Running the archiving bot (IABot) is very straightforward, but the instructions on how to do it are well hidden. The easiest way is:

• make sure you are logged in to your Wikipedia account;
• click on the "View history" tab of the article that you would like to archive;
• at the top of the page history screen, under the box that says "Filter revisions", you’ll see a list of "External tools";
• click on "Fix dead links" on the right hand side (it's next to "Pageviews");
• You'll be taken to iabot.toolforge.org/ and you should see a white screen with a message saying "Login required";
• Click on the grey "Not logged in" link in the top right hand corner;
• You are sent back to Wikipedia to authorise IABot (follow the prompts to set up OAuth if you haven't done this before) - you may need to type in your Wikipedia username and password again;
• Click the blue "Allow" button to allow IABot to make edits on Wikipedia through your account;
• You are sent back to IABot and you should see a white screen with the title "Analyze a page";
• Type in the page title of the article whose links you want to archive;
• Tick the optional check box that says "Add archives to all non-dead references";
• Click "Analyze";
• IABot will run and when it's finished you'll see a green horizontal banner at the top of the browser screen;
• Go back to the article page on Wikipedia to check that IABot has correctly archived the references and that it hasn't generated any errors.

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and many thanks again. Appreciate the advice. 😁 Laggan Boy (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol, Thank you so much for your help with the Henry Winkler article re: formatting the references (my least favorite activity on the WP!). I do have a "help" question as a follow up. If I (or other editors) add references to the article in the future, how do I maintain the formatting with the archival link? Is there a tool that I can use each time, or is there some aspect to the wiki mark-up that I'm not familiar with? Thank you again for your help with the references!! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Classicfilms: Thanks for your message. Running the archiving bot (IABot) is very straightforward, but the instructions on how to do it are well hidden. The easiest way is:

• make sure you are logged in to your Wikipedia account;
• click on the "View history" tab of the article that you would like to archive;
• at the top of the page history screen, under the box that says "Filter revisions", you’ll see a list of "External tools";
• click on "Fix dead links" on the right hand side (it's next to "Pageviews");
• You'll be taken to iabot.toolforge.org/ and you should see a white screen with a message saying "Login required";
• Click on the grey "Not logged in" link in the top right hand corner;
• You are sent back to Wikipedia to authorise IABot (follow the prompts to set up OAuth if you haven't done this before) - you may need to type in your Wikipedia username and password again;
• Click the blue "Allow" button to allow IABot to make edits on Wikipedia through your account;
• You are sent back to IABot and you should see a white screen with the title "Analyze a page";
• Type in the page title of the article whose links you want to archive;
• Tick the optional check box that says "Add archives to all non-dead references";
• Click "Analyze";
• IABot will run and when it's finished you'll see a green horizontal banner at the top of the browser screen;
• Go back to the article page on Wikipedia to check that IABot has correctly archived the references and that it hasn't generated any errors.

Give it a try and if you've got any questions, let me know and I'll do my best to help out!

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... One more question - it looks like this bot works after the reference is already added. So that means that each time I add references, I should then run this bot?

Also, a barnstar for you!-Classicfilms (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I'd like to award this Barnstar to Mertbiol for clarifying what has often been a mysterious process (to me at least)...Thank you! Classicfilms (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Classicfilms: Thanks very much for the barnstar!!
Yes, you can only archive the reference after you've added it through the normal editing process.
The bot has a couple of quirks:

• it seems to scan through a cached version of the article, rather than the current version, which means that new references sometimes aren't picked up. I tend to wait a couple of hours after adding a reference before I attempt to archive it.
• it prefers you to use the |access-date parameter rather than the |accessdate parameter (i.e. without the hyphen) in the citation templates.
  

Hope this helps Mertbiol (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome... A much-deserved barnstar indeed! Ok, it's crystal clear now. I can't wait to try this out! If I run into any issues, I will let you know.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly controversial regardless of the level of scrutiny an article has had. It meets WP:V to count up in this way from maps. There doesn't have to be a published work especially focussed on that ending. Take it to adjudication if you feel you don't agree, it's just highminded to assume otherwise even about any European country. It's really easy to prove its veracity and really doesn't breach original research if you care to swot up on the current policy on public domain general reference.- Adam37 Talk 17:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adam37:. If it's "really easy to prove its veracity", then please go ahead and prove its veracity with a reliable source. (A dictionary of place names would be best - there are several that cover Surrey and one is cited in the article.) As an experienced editor, you will appreciate the importance of providing a high-quality reliable source for any claim that you add to Wikipedia. Since the Ashtead article is a good article, particular care should be taken and edits made should be well thought out. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wasn't aiming for an exhaustive account, but since like William the Conqueror you would like one...https://gazetteer.org.uk/results.php?type=co&place=stead&loc=set says there is also Ansteadbrook and Munstead Heath, Chipstead and Sanderstead. And that is it. Of course there would well be more. But I would rather we didn't allow lazy "Number of" which I see features twice, once, here, rather jarringly with the rest.- Adam37 Talk 17:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Adam37: In fact three examples is plenty - no need to add more. See WP:VNOT. In any event, Sanderstead is now in Greater London. No action needed - the article can stay as it is. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Haxted, one of 15 "xted" all of which are interestingly in Surrey, Suffolk, Essex and Kent.

There are 50 sted in the UK, per that source, 0 in Surrey.

174 steads are in the UK, per source.

Harry Rich, Douglas Bader or another great said “rules are for the obeyance of fools, and the guidance of wise men” and surely that particularly applies to the policy "everything even vaguely contestable in a Good Article must have a citation alongside". If not then wikipedia is simply not for the wise. I do appreciate several admins are a far cry from such wisdom. And stead is a far stronger sense than mere 'place'. But I won't even go there. Only half of Sanderstead is in London. I don't find Oxted a reliable example it seems no-one will agree it is certainly related unless you give its alternate spellings.

Applying your own rigid fear of rules, which again can be countered with pure longer views.- Adam37 Talk 18:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adam37: I am not afraid of rules! You were the one to start quoting WP policies - in your edit summaries as well as here. Yes it's interesting that the -stead or -sted or -xted suffices are common in the south east, but not something that we need to derail the Ashtead article with. (Oxted is explicitly mentioned in the source I cited. And "stead" does simply mean "place" - again that is stated clearly in the sources cited.) Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You now know some suffixed "-sted" is in the present orthography wrong. Also "xted" many people would not count (those not at all versed in any such etymology). So why not improve the web refs of this proposal, free idea, {{refn|The suffix {{Non breaking hyphen}}''stead'' or {{Non breaking hyphen}}''xted'' occurs also in Surrey settlements [[Banstead]], [[Elstead]] and [[Oxted]],<ref name=Davies_1881_p15>{{harvnb|Davies|1881|p=15}}</ref> in the part still in Surrey of [[Sanderstead]] and in Ansteadbrook, [[Chipstead, Surrey|Chipstead]],<ref>https://gazetteer.org.uk/search?type=co&place=stead</ref> Haxted<ref>https://gazetteer.org.uk/search?type=co&place=sted</ref> and Munstead Heath.|group=note}} you then have a logically true sentence as well as one well-researched, indeed so much so it even cites places that are no more than hamlets and doesn't purport to be necessarily exhaustative in case any old fields come to light.- Adam37 Talk 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adam37: Thank you for your proposal. Your suggested change overcomplicates a simple footnote and you will confuse the readers. Remember what I have previously said to you about making sure that your writing is clear, precise and concise in equal measure. The article should stay as it is. I regard this matter as closed and will not respond again. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]