User talk:Ykraps/Archive 2

Sorry, I just thought that when a tag says, "This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator", that that is what it means. I am fast learning that what 'wiki says' isn't always what 'wiki means'.--Ykraps (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that was sarcasm... <sigh> No, that actually still applies, especially if it was placed by another user. It's not about the rules, it's the principles behind the rules. Understand why we have them, don't just follow them blindly. Again please read and understand Wikipedia:Autopatrolled.

Because this userright bypasses one of our human-based screening programs, the community needs to trust that you're creating good-quality articles on notable topics. If you have little experience, or if your experience suggests only a partial understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, then you do not qualify for this userright.

Also take a quick look again at the article in question (or any of the articles Gildir has written recently really) and notice how it's very well written and abides by the policies and guidelines. This is the reason why he was granted the AP userright, and this is the reason why his new pages aren't anymore required to be checked (although you're free to do so, if you wish). Think about it, what's the use of doing so really? Ceremonial? It's completely unnecessary red tape, you're better off looking out for the really bad pages that still somehow slip the net for months. Distrust? Wikipedia operates on

WP:AGF

, and there's a certain threshold when you're trusted enough to do the right thing.

If you think the article is problematic according to the guidelines in Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrolling new pages, by all means, restore the tag. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The rules are just for us divvies whereas greater mortals like you are free to ignore them. It's just like the real world!--Ykraps (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ. Whut?! This convo has definitely taken a hostile turn now. Everything I've told you have all been within the rules. The tag was misplaced by the creator. AP users are perfectly within the rules if they remove it themselves. And what gives you the idea that not being patrolled is a luxury? It's a necessity, so other users can focus their energies more efficiently.

Have you taken a look at my userpage? See a userbox there? I voluntarily vowed to actively avoid any kind of special user rights precisely because people like you somehow view it as a 'rank'. Like Gildir, the only userright I have is AP. A virtually inconsequential userright only a little better than Autoconfirmed.

I accepted AP (note: it was given to me, I did not want it nor ask for it) simply because it does not benefit me. It benefits new page patrollers. AP gives you absolutely nothing. It does not affect my editing (or Gildir, or anyone else for that matter) whatsoever, much less give me special tools. Nor does it make me superior to you. With your edit history, I'm pretty sure you can request for one if you really wanted it that badly.

This discussion has been very weird, I should've known people who add 'respectfully' to their posts have anything but. Go complain to NPP volunteers for having the audacity to give out such tags (they're more like tags than rights, the tags veterinarians put on cattle ears to tell that they've been checked for disease). Good day.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the last comment which seems to have caused you some distress but it seemed to me that that was what, in essence, you were telling me. When I made the intial enquiry I meant it with respect and signed my post to indicate that. I did not feel that you replied in a very friendly tone nor did it seem you were extending any kind of respect to me. It appeared to me that you were intent on browbeating me with your opinion and made no effort to understand what I was saying which was merely that, I thought the tag could only be removed by another editor (and nothing more). I apologise if that irritated you.--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do my posts really sound that unfriendly? Sheesh. Must be why I keep getting into arguments. *sigh* Note that I'm not a native English speaker. I overexplain things and I do tend to use italics way too much to emphasize words. All my replies to you until the last two, where if I'm wrong, you did employ sarcasm, were done without any hostile feelings whatsoever. Anyway, I apologize as well. Sorry for that, hope all's well.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everything is okay now thanks. I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I did notice you weren't a native speaker and wondered if the misunderstanding was due to some cultural differences but also I am new to communicating in this fashion and I don't always remember that things like tone and pitch are missing (hope I'm making sense). Anyway apologies again.--Ykraps (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, :) I'm relieved that this didn't erode further. Thanks for the level-headedness. I'll try to be more careful with how I word my posts in the future, I guess. I seem to be getting into things like this frequently. Coupled with my fairly short temper even minor preceding misunderstandings can escalate pretty quickly. Anyway sorry again and cheers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm sorry this misunderstanding arose over a discussion about me, guys. Anyway, it would never have occurred to me to remove the "New unreviewed article" template myself because, as Ykraps said, it includes the words "This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator". But that's just my opinion; I can understand that other editors might view the matter differently. Gildir (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Your involvement was purely incidental and no lasting harm was done. All's well that ends well.--Ykraps (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ykraps. I also forgot to thank you and ObsidianSoul for your positive and helpful feedback. Thanks again. Gildir (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Charles Bullen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoghourt is a minor variant, as most easily visually displayed using ngram: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=yogurt%2Cyoghourt&year_start=1965&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

Hello, Ykraps/Archive 2! WikiProject British Empire, an outreach effort supporting development of British Empire related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in British Empire related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the British Empire. If you are interested please add your Username, date and time, and area of interest to the members page here.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I recently created the article HMS Cambrian (1797). I appreciate that all previous red links to HMS Cambrian (1797) will now become blue but how do I locate unlinked or wrongly linked HMS Cambrians in other articles. Trying to conduct a search in the normal fashion just brings up the dab page (obviously).--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{

Google wikipedia}} to search Wikipedia - {{Google wikipedia|HMS Cambrian}} produces this list. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, glad to help, and there is more to come re Cambrian as time permits. Am pleased to see new editors in the Age of Sail realm as much remains to be done. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading it.--Ykraps (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited British colonisation of Tasmania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ykraps. Myself and another editor disagree over which is the better image of the above subject matter, with respect to the Gold Hill article itself and also the Shaftesbury article. The recent history of both those articles reveals the images involved; if you wish to express an opinion, you may do so at my talk page, where the other editor has opened a dialogue. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

I am deeply saddened by Wipedia's decision to allow itself to be used in this fashion and this does little to ammend that.--Ykraps (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps. I've just noticed a new Dorset article which in my view should be deleted, though as I've never undertaken the process of deleting an article before, I'm not sure which should be the preferred route. The article is Hollyhurst, and it should be deleted because it is a complete fiction; there is no village of Hollyhurst. The original entry of the article's creation is quite informative. It may well class as a hoax, or it may just be a strange form of spam (click on the sole reference link), I'm not sure. Any suggestions? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same probably also applies to Hollyhurst Times, created by the same editor. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at Hollyhurst Times myself. I have never heard of a village called Hollyhurst in Dorset and cannot find any information on the web other than what's recentley been added to Wikipedia (that's not to say it doesn't exist however). Only administrators can delete articles so you need to make a request to have it deleted. If it is a hoax, it meets the criteria for speedy deletion; if it doesn't, a discussion should be opened. Even if the village exists, you can argue for deletion on the grounds that it isn't notable. I am no expert on deletion either, tending to be more of an inclusionist. I'm going to see if I can't find it on an OS map.--Ykraps (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely doesn't exist as described - the article states it has a population of 4,500, which is about the same as Lyme Regis; there is no settlement of that size in southwest Dorset called Hollyhurst. There might be a solitary farm called Hollyhurst Farm, I'd have to have a thorough map perusal to check. I suppose there might be a farm in southeast Dorset called Hollyhurst - they might have got their east and west muddled up - but judging by the nature of the initial edit, I think this is vandalism. I've got to go to work now - I'll have to continue later. Might it be worth contacting Barret? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought 'Hollyhurst' might be a locale, an area covering several small settlements. Typically I don't have an OS map covering the whole of SW Dorset so I can neither confirm nor deny that. The article appears to be a hoax or wildly inaccurate at best and I would support deletion but I will notify Barret first as you suggest.--Ykraps (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with every hamlet/village in west Dorset but I have never heard of Hollyhurst. I can't find anything online about a settlement named Hollyhurst in Dorset and Google brings zero results outside of Wikipedia for the Hollyhurst Times. It's probably either vandalism or someone testing Wikipedia's ability to detect hoax articles so I've proposed deletion for both.

talk) 18:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks guys! Nice for me to come back from work and find it's all been sorted - good to see a bit of teamwork (I see Mahahahaneapneap chipped in at Hollyhurst as well). The talk page of the editor who created both articles reveals that this editor has a habit of creating non-notable (and hence deleted) articles. As an aside, seeing as there seems to be a cluster of us who are currently active in Dorset-related topics, I wonder if it might be worth trying to get discussions like this to take place on the Dorset WikiProject's talk page (the last time I posted a note there I got zero response, but if there's more of a swell of interest at the moment, it'd be nice to get the "semi-active" tag taken off the Project's page)? Do people have the Project's page on their watchlists? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievably I didn't but I've fixed that now.--Ykraps (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist. The project lost momentum after its founder (User:MasterOfHisOwnDomain) became less active. It would be good to see it pick up again. Back to Hollyhurst - a new editor has removed the proposed deletion tag. This editor claims to be a resident so I've asked him/her to provide coordinates but if they're unable do you agree that we should take the article to AfD?

talk) 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Or which county council it comes under, or what the postal town is; Royal Mail only comes up with Hollyhurst, Leebotwood, Church Stretton and Hollyhurst, Marbury, Whitchurch. I suggest we tag as a possible hoax and give it a day or two before going to AFD.--Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but my view is that this new editor is just playing a game - I don't think it's just coincidence that suddenly, within a few hours of the proposed deletion tag being placed, a "brand new" editor pops up (with a somewhat irreverent username), makes editing Hollyhurst their very first port of call, and claims to be a resident but that "Oh, the population was wrong" (the population of course being one of the indications that it's a hoax). A population of 250 would give a village of reasonable size; there are no villages in southwest Dorset called "Hollyhurst". I have for years been more knowledgeable than most on the minor settlements in Dorset, and this straightaway for me rang alarm bells. Not a single one of all my reference books even mentions "Hollyhurst" (and my books include "Dorset Villages" by Roland Gant, "Portrait Of Dorset" by Dorset native Ralph Wightman, "Highways and Byways in Dorset" by Sir Frederick Treves, and, rather tellingly, West Dorset District Council's tourist guide of c.1983, which includes a comprehensive gazetteer of all the district's towns and villages). Then of course there is the complete absence on google.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also had a look at the 'brand new' editor's contributions and think it's a bit fishy. I don't intend to give the population of Hollyhurst too much time to prove their existance before taking it to AFD. I have left a message on the articles talk page.--Ykraps (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ykraps. A proposed deletion template can only be added once to an article so I've removed yours and started a new

talk) 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops sorry, must have missed that bit.--Ykraps (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up about the signature. I'm going a mile a minute at the moment dealing with a couple sockpuppet investigations as well...making me lose my mind. ^_^ Happy editing and keep up the good work! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps. I notice you've been adding references to the above article recently. I don't know if you continued to follow the recent discussion at the article's talk page, but it was decided eventually to create a new Geography of Dorset article, and split off much of what is currently in the geology article into that. Anyway, although I haven't got very far with it, I have created a basic layout of the geography article at my sandbox. As it stands, it's just a basic skeleton of intro plus bullet points; it needs a lot of filling-in before it can go 'live'. My next move is to move the non-geological stuff out of the geology article and into the gestating geography article, leaving the geology article remaining as more pure geology. If you wish to start adding stuff straight to the geography article, that's fine by me - references in particular are something I might struggle to find (apart from pinching them from other articles, of course.. ) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCW. Yes I had followed the discussion but nothing much seemed to be happening so I thought I'd add some references while I was waiting for Dorset to undergo a peer review. I figured the stuff would still need referencing even if it was split up. I hadn't seen your sandbox then of course :). I've found this web site [[1]]and this document [[2]] which might be good sources. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I 've just got to go and attend to another matter for a while, but I did quickly have a look at the Natural England site - I think that could be quite useful, particularly for some of the basics in the geology article, as we might not be able to count on a lot of help from bona fide geologists. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work fishing those out Ykraps - I think they'll both be useful (the Envt Agency one is quite large; might take a while to read through it all) I didn't realise it was possible to access Brit Geol Survey stuff without paying for it. Last night was interesting - the whole Hollyhurst escapade. I kept trying to get away from my pc to go and attend to other matters, but couldn't resist engaging in the pursuit as it unfolded. I'm glad it's all been resolved (at least for now...) I wonder why the article's creator was so persistent in maintaining the fraud - maybe it was part of a wager of some sort...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was all quite bizarre, particularly the police officer (AKA Inspector Bottle?) who created an account just to tell us that Hollyhurst was actually called Churchill but neglected to mention it was in Devon not Dorset. I suppose if he hadn't gone to the trouble of creating an account his IP address might have given him away. If the place did exist, the simplest thing to do would be to list the co-ordinates and we could all have had a look at Google earth. The fact that no-one did this speaks volumes to me. Anyway I'm glad you like the sources. The EA report is quite large and is only concerned with the chalk areas due to their interest in possible water sources but nevertheless contains some in depth and interesting stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. The Natural England site is particularly useful as you say. I think a reasonable overview of the geology of Dorset could be written using this article alone. I was intending to put something together in my sandbox but as you have already made a start I am quite happy for you to take the lead. As I've already said I'm just flitting about while I wait to see what Dorset requires to bring it up to FA standard.--Ykraps (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am going away for a day or two now and probably won't have access to a computer but I'll be back on line early next week.--Ykraps (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps. Bit of an update - I've noticed you've been quite busy on Dorset recently. As part of trying to write 'Geography of Dorset' in my sandbox (it's slowly taking shape), I've been reading around trying to get to grips with the geological aspects, and realise as a result that certain aspects of the 'Physical geography' section of the Dorset article will also have to be re-written. I have already amended a couple of sentences, though I think that that means that the sentences' assertions may have become divorced from the citations attached to them. It's also probable that even my amendments may need amending, as I'm finding out more. Unfortunately my reading around has been on Wikipedia, hence I'm not well-connected with suitable sources for references at the moment, so that may take a bit of time. I just thought I'd let you know where I'm at - I wouldn't want you to put in lots of effort archiving geographical references and links, if later they're likely to get removed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCW, thanks for the update. I have already archived the references for that section so for what little extra work it involves, I'll insert them anyway. At least they'll be there if you need them. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps. I notice that in one of your sandboxes you've started writing a more structural overview of Dorset's geological history (nothing is private on Wikipedia!). I think such an approach is indeed needed. I had been thinking of trying to do something similar myself, so let me know if you feel an extra pair of hands might be of assistance. You might have already discovered it, but I think this page is the most definitive and up-to-date resource for determining which stratigraphic terms are approved (could be handy considering that the terms used have changed quite a bit recently, making even quite recent publications out of date on such matters). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, initially I was hoping to use the Ensom's book to expand and reference the existing article but, because of the way it's set out, this proved a bit of a challenge. I thought therefore, if I could summarise it in my sandbox, we could perhaps merge the two at a later date. You are more than welcome to chip in anytime.--Ykraps (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to chip in. I haven't got access to Ensom's book, nor indeed any book which is sufficiently authoritative on such matters, though I can search the web to try and check things. That Natural England page which you fished out a while back is quite useful (though I notice it uses the dreaded term "Tertiary" haha...). If you find that the link I inserted above doesn't work, try the actual address (http://www.stratigraphy.org/column.php?id=Chart/Time%20Scale) - I think it'll be useful for checking things. As regards merging the new structure into the existing article, I think that if we can get the new structure done satisfactorily, then that will comprise the bulk of the article - what's there at the moment is, although interesting, a bit peripheral to the subject, and is more suitable for elsewhere (some bits could go in the geography article, especially when that has got its section on land use and habitats, which I'm planning to do). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought some of it might go in the geography article too but I don't yet have a clear idea of what I'm doing so I'm just trying to pick out interesting and salient points.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on what you've done so far, Ykraps. I've started tweaking bits here and there. Apologies for the lack of input from me so far - I have my Wikifingers in many pies, and tend to flit about a bit! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No need to apologise, I appreciate this isn't your main area of interest. I will probably need quite a bit of help when it comes to integrating it into the existing article though.--Ykraps (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dorset—thanks for the beer! I have been flat out copyediting and forgot to thank you, or even drink it. Aaah! Just what I needed after a long editing session! --Greenmaven (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries (as you Aussies like to say). Keep up the good work!--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at

Hi. When you recently edited Dorset, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been using

"Thank you for your submission. Your request to archive the content of http://www.swtourismalliance.org.uk/files/download.php?m=documents&f=100419151051-4Dorsetdistricts08.pdf has been entered into the archival queue. An archive of this page should shortly be available at http://www.webcitation.org/65t586FjB "

Feel free to use the link I created ;)

mabdul 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ykraps. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

mabdul 11:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ykraps. You have new messages at PaleCloudedWhite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Ykraps

I started tinkering around doing some copyediting of your re-write of the Geology of Dorset article, specifically changing a date format to make it consistent with the others, but then I realised that no one format is currently particularly dominant. I decided it would be preferable to let you decide on a preferred format, and then all the dates could be made consistent with that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCW. I assume you are talking about the use of 'Ma.' versus 'million years ago'? I think probably using Ma is the most appropriate thing to do (numerals, not written amounts preceeding as per MOS dates and numbers). For more recent periods ie. those less than a million years ago, numerals with commas as delimiters.--Ykraps (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ykraps. You have new messages at PaleCloudedWhite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Ykraps

Over at the geology talk page, Mikenorton has asked a question about the timescale for producing a revised map. I think you know more about this than myself - are you able to respond? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, I've written a short section on the structure for the revised/expanded article - here. Mikenorton (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. Looks good with good referencing too. I'm currently concentrating on getting the Dorset article to FA but that is drawing to a close and I will then be making Geology of ... a priority. Geology isn't something I know a lot about so I will really need your help when it comes to stitching all the bits together. Look forward to working with you very soon.--Ykraps (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just let me know when you need my input. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on keeping this entry brief, but would prefer the names of novels to vague reference to several novel, especially where the two titles selected have an obvious Dorset connection. Rwood128 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a supporting reference and partially reverted to include the two novels, although I'm not entirely sold on the idea for the reasons I've already outlined. In the interests of harmonious editing I feel I should make you aware that adding unsupported statements to Good Articles often leads to them being reverted out of hand and without discussion. Not all editors are inclined to open up a discussion about such things. Anyway, happy editing.--Ykraps (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Geology of Dorset, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portland, Roman and West Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you'll have to settle for one of these instead of that extra pay I hoped for (and this isn't just because you awarded me a barnstar). Dorset's FA promotion was due mainly to your diligence and perseverance. Barret (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Dorset Barnstar
		For your continued efforts to raise the quality of the project's articles—in particular your work to bring FA standard. Barret (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi Barret. Sorry for my belated reply, I have been away again. Thanks for the Barnstar, I appreciate you don't give them away lightly so it means a lot. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry and disappointed that I missed the FAC review. I would have been the first to put down some comments, but I couldn't do it because real life was taking me away from Wikipedia. I've only just come back after three weeks of absence! I'm very happy that this article has finally been promoted to FA, and I saw that last year the GA review went as smoothly as the FA review did. I'm still going to be away from Wikipedia from time to time as I just got my GSCE results today. Going to be a very hectic month! Anyway, very well done on getting Dorset to GA! Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and don't worry about missing the review. Much more important to concentrate on your exams I think.--Ykraps (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your DYK review of Gibraltar Diamond Jubilee Flotilla. Anne (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been of service, and thanks for your acknowledgement.--Ykraps (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ykraps. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Pemberton-Billing P.B.1.
Message added 08:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply