User talk:Pratj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pratj, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Channel Tunnel rail link

By all means mention this under Strood and Rochester. You might also like to check River Medway and Medway Towns, in case there are other references to crossings which now need updating. Has the bridge opened yet? A newspaper reference would be great if so.

Btw, if you type "~~~~" after your posts, your signature and the time will magically appear. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again, welcome

What I forgot to say among the above was "Welcome!" Glad to have you on board, and looking forward to seeing your work around! JackyR | Talk 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


i have already done quite a bit of editing to medway article. i plan to do some more too. 80.193.17.244 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s thx for the welcome

[edit] Stuff

Wow, I hadn't seen the trains actually running. i ain't holding my breath about the Canterbury link, tho...

The pipe character "|" is SHIFT-\ on my keyboard, but of course keyboards vary. If you're stuck for this, or any other character, scroll down to the box full of characters below the editing box: leave the cursor in the text where you want the character inserted, and click on that character in the list. How clever is that?!

Looks like you weren't logged in when you signed your name above - that keeps happening to me at the moment. Dunno what's up, but it's probably some temporary techie prob. Just keep logging in every time you don't see your own name at the top of the page (makes it easier for people to ask questions about any of your contributions, as your username will be recorded in the page History).

If you want to customize your signature, by the way, go to "My preferences".

Hope that helps - I'm just off to admire your work at Medway! Cheers, JackyR | Talk 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i see them whenever i go up cobham woods. they don't look like they r going 150+ mph where i am but i found out why. the "v" shape pillars on the rail bridge r to stop the bridge toppling over in the case of an emergency break on the bridge. if the train was going too fast and had to break hard, despite the "v" shape pillars the force of the train could still cause damage to the bridge. just a pointless piece of knowledge.

btw i have found the key with the sign, but there is 3 signs on the key, so when i press normally i get this ` and with Alt i get ¬ . what else can i do?

Pratj 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ufff, big apologies for not noticing your posts above - accidentally "unwatch"ed your page. Looks like your sig is now working, tho. That's a cool piece of info about the bridge. If you have a ref, it could go under River Medway as trivia about that bridge. JackyR | Talk 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medway Forts

ANY INFO ON THIS SUBJECT USE THIS PAGE User:Pratj/Fortifications of Medway

So, apparently today is now over. And I haven't done anything on Medway Forts. But I have Saved the Universe in the real world (well, a friend's part of it). Will get there tomorrow. Which is now Today anyway (early night? What early night?). ;-) JackyR | Talk 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, anyway, i may be on here today but im having a piss up tonight so i don't know

anyway, what information have u got already

Pratj 12:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dug it out: was a table showing what articles existed and what was linked where. Probably better if I start again.

[edit] Chatham Defences

My suggestion would be to start an article called Chatham Defences (click the red link, and start typing!) This would cover the defences specifially known as such, in chronological order of development, and include links to existing indvidual articles (you can decide if the redlinked forts need their own articles, too). It would include:

Sources:


Other Wikilinks:

[edit] Medway

Having done that article, you can then refer to both it and Chatham Dockyard in the Medway article. This will leave Rochester Castle, Cliffe Fort and Cooling Castle to have a brief piece of context each in the Meway article, and links to their own articles. (I'm supposedly working on Cooling - don't hold your breath...) Oh, and then comes the WWII stuff, I suppose (pill boxes: what else?).

Sources:

Other Wikilinks:

[edit] North Kent

Then either expand to North Kent Forts (talk to User:Nuttah68 about this) and refer to Medway and the Chatham Defences, plus New Tavern Fort, Shornemead Fort, etc; or have an article on the Thames Defences (ie Kent and Essex).

[edit] Pictures

Start at Wikimedia Commons, Wiki's central library, to see what already exists. I'll show you how to put images in, it's really easy whether they come from Commons or en.wiki.

[edit] overall

As you can see, it's all a bit of a hodge podge - so organising this lot would be a good idea. Perhaps talk to some of the people who have worked on other articles, and now I think of it there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Obviously it's good if whatever we do for Medway fits what other people have done elsewhere.

I'm not sure whether the topic warrants its own template, or just a load of "See also"s, and I don't know how to do a template. I'll ponder both, and perhaps you could get advice on this?

Overall, don't be too worried about getting stuff briefly wrong in articles (ref it and I will chk it - see WP:CITE for help on referencing what you write.) But only create an article when you're sure of the title, cos changing them is a pain.

Phew. Well, you asked :-) JackyR | Talk 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


damn thats alot.

what do u reckon i should call the article, Fortifications of Medway?

I've asked User:Nuttah68 to drop in here, as he can probably advise better on that. One Q is, are we looking at the fortifications from the point of view of Medway folk ("I live here, this is what I what I see around me"), or from the point of view of military strategy (Defence of Chatham dockyard, Defence of the thames and London, etc.) That would decide what the articles are called how the articles are grouped.
My own feeling is that the separate articles should be on military lines; the Medway perspective should be part of the Medway article until it gets too big and is spun off. JackyR | Talk 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

thx, thats alot of info and i am yet undecided on what i am going to do, but i got an idea.

just a question

what articles r there already on the forts around chatham, north kent etc that i may need to see?

Pratj 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the blue links in the above, and particularly Palmerston Forts, Chatham. I've already found a spelling mistake in one list, so maybe search Wikipedia (and Google!) for "Chatham fort" or similar.
Btw, if you want to move this stuff onto a separate page for working on, you could create your own subpage User:Pratj/Fortifications of Medway. This would be part of your user-space, not the main encyclopedia, so it's no big deal. Hats off to you for being willing to try all this! JackyR | Talk 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

thx, u gotta start somewhere. i was just surprised when i didnt find any articles about it.

ill start a new page for it then. btw 1 quick question, how do i do that?

Pratj 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Click on this: Fortifications in the Medway area (if this title is OK). It will offer to create an article for you: just start typing! JackyR | Talk 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

im back now so i can start the article sometime soon.

im currently working on a transport section for the medway article at the moment so i may be a few days.

Pratj 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

You might be interested in the articles The Medway Poets and Medway groups. Tyrenius 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

thx for the info, ill add it soon.

Pratj 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pratj 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Such praise!

Thanks! I'm not sure if I'm more flattered or flattened by that description! There's info about Thamesport here, but it's well since my time: I have to admit researching for Wiki was the first I'd ever heard of it. (Back in my day it was the BP refinery: a noticeable local presence, partly because they sprayed the marshes against mosquitoes (hallelujah!), and partly cos my friend's dad worked there so we used to swim in the really nice pool at the social club!) JackyR | Talk 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Understeer.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Understeer.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Understeer diagram1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Understeer diagram1.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism in the United Kingdom

Thanks for fixing the date on Terrorism in the United Kingdom. KazakhPol 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

no probs Pratj 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranscombe Farm

24 years living in Strood, and I had always planned to investigate 'the bit the other side of the motorway' I expected the bluebells- but not the superb view up the Nashenden valley. I have put two categories on commons Category:North Downs Category:Medway that you may find useful. ClemRutter 09:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where to start. I have now got a fairly established technique for putting up photographs. I always load onto Commons. I use the Commonist program and geotag the images as I go along. It is fairly easy to do- but takes an age to describe. It may be quicker if we get together and I show you in person, as we must be near neighbours. I can be phoned on 715473 as you probably have already discovered. ClemRutter (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

well, i could upload the pictures, mark out where i took them on google maps and then you could take it from there (of course assuming you do not mind). Pratj (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price tag for Gripen

Hi, Pratj. Can you provide a verifiable reference for your rather exact unit cost for Gripen? LarRan (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

hi, sure. well it is an estimate. it is the unit cost (swedish domestic version) based on procurement with research and development thrown into the equation too...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

the methodology and sourcing can be seen in that link...

Gripen International AB state the flyaway cost as between $35 and 40 million. however the methodology on the website seems pretty sound, and is probably the best actual estimates we have. they are estimates nevertheless...

i will add one thing though. that price includes a 25% VAT. This was because Defense-Aerospace.com decided to factor in tax too in all of their comparisons. however, in regards to comparison with american aircraft the US authorities do not include taxes... Pratj (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's relevant information - the VAT, I mean. It means that - since no buyer will have to pay Swedish VAT - the price is really 60.88 million. If you agree, I will put that in the article, along with your link. Ok? LarRan (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well that is true. but since Sweden is the largest operator i believe we should list the price for Swedish Gripens. Also, i doubt that export partners will have to pay less than sweden for their Gripens? Anyhow, VAT is factored into the Unit Costs of the Eurofighter Typhoons and Rafale, so i think it is only correct that the Gripen also includes VAT in its unit cost. Pratj (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Sweden pays VAT to itself. To the buyer, in this case either Försvarets Materielverk (Swedish Defence Material Administration) or the Swedish Air Force itself, VAT is not a cost. As for most businesses in Sweden, any charged VAT is deductible against VAT from outgoing invoices, which means that private citizens are the only ones carrying the 'end burden' of the VAT. LarRan (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
well, it is the odd case that the swedish government could be considered as purchasing the Gripen off Saab. anyhow, the study included VAT, which european nations usually include in their budgets anyhow. therefore in the interests of fairness, the eurofighter, rafale and yes, the gripen all had VAT included in the study. however, i guess we could provide more details on the methodology within the article itself including the VAT issue (and the necessary amendments to the eurofighter and rafale articles) Pratj (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just some detailing: If the Swedish government (or one its agencies) pays VAT on the incoming invoices from Saab, pro primo it's deductible from the VAT the government itself charges in its outgoing invoices in terms of declaring the VAT to the tax authority. Pro secundo, Saab naturally also has incoming invoices, the VAT of which is deductible for Saab, when they in turn declare to the tax authority. That's how value added tax works (see article) - meaning VAT is not really a cost for businesses. I think, for the sake of unambiguity and comparability, the VAT should be stated in the articles, like in the Gripen article now. Anyway, a really good reference/link. Thanks. LarRan (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, u r 110% correct, it depends how u factor cost. the swedish government may not actually be paying VAT, but it is VAT that they are not receivingif u understand me? but i think for the sake of comparability the VAT figure should be kept. i am trying to include their figures on the F-22 page, i never believed it but occasionally there seems to be some pro F-22 bias on that page... they basically used the cheapest figures they could find. i suppose i should be pro eurofighter, being british, but i have never really been that fond of it Pratj (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)