The way i had it, i had the full description in Stanpit and a shortened description in Christchurch Harbour with {{Main|Stanpit Marsh}}. However you are expanding the shortened version in Christchurch Harbour. I have no problem with switching things round and having the short version in Stanpit but check and see if there is any text on Stanpit marsh in Stanpit not in Christchurch Harbour. you can reply here as i have this page on "watch".--Penbat (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat, I was just about to leave a message on your talk page about the exact same thing. I have no strong feelings as to where the main article should go.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could go either way, it doesnt matter a great deal - the reason why i made Stanpit the main version was that Stanpit didnt have much else in it.--Penbat (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) When I started to edit Christchurch Harbour, I didn't realise the Stanpit Marsh article was so brief. I think probably the new additions should be added to the main article and the main article kept in Stanpit, which would be little more than a stub without it.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be in agreement. Do you want to move it, or should I?--Ykraps (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK feel free to move it to Stanpit--Penbat (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx--Penbat (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had a quick look at the recent revisions to the phrases section in British slang but my first impression is that it's a big improvement on what was there before. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll continue to work on it inbetween other projects.--Ykraps (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the 3rd edition of CED (1991) states that Blighty refers to England. I must say however that I agree with your source, and that it is more commonly used to refer to Britain as a whole. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see the sterling work continuing (and, off-topic, couldn't agree more about putting the milk in with the tea bag). Noting the colossal numbers of refs the article now has and that they are overwhelmingly from Collins, could I suggest going over to using shortened footnotes, to avoid repeating the same info for each ref but to highlight the one thing which is different, i.e. the page number? All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It's something I wish I'd done from the start. Thanks for making a start.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've expanded the intro to Dorset. I've done a bit of minor copyediting to it, and noticed that you'd taken all the links out. I agree that it was previously rather overlinked, but wondered why you'd taken them all out - is it Wikipedia policy not to have links in introductions? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. I copied and pasted from my sandbox and must have neglected to click the edit link first. 'Policy' is a strong word but it is 'customary' that a word is only linked the first time it is used. Also it is unusual for an introduction to contain references as everything therein should be mentioned and referenced in the main text. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made my initial review of Dorset's GA nomination and have put it on hold. There are some points at Talk:Dorset/GA1 that need to be addressed. Most of those points are copyediting issues which are not really a big deal! Other than that, the article looks great. Please feel free to contact me if you need any questions and I will take another look at the article. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this article, and your initial comments which I aim to address soon.--Ykraps (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for all your work and congratulations. It's been passed. Not only has Dorset achieved a very good GA review, but I think it could go on to FA again! If, one day, you or any other members of Dorset's WikiProject are interested in bringing the main article to FA, give me a shout and I'll take a look at the article. With that out of the way, I'll be happy to take a look at Sopley. Regards Jaguar (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, once again. There is a short message here if you haven't seen it already.--Ykraps (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Dorset a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. (Pictured: Corscombe, in Dorset.) In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Hi Quadell, Thanks for your message. Although I would love to help, I am somewhat lacking in both confidence and experience. I will however help out at WP:Requests for feedback, where the level of feedback required is not so great and where I believe there is also a big backlog. Thanks once again for your message and sorry I couldn't help this time. Maybe when I am more experienced? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out at WP:Requests for feedback would be quite helpful, and would probably be a great experience for you as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 10:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on Will Yeatman, Ykraps. Your points are well taken (I was concerned about the issue of the charges being dropped myself), and I will endeavor to address them in the article. I am not sure, however, which claims in the article lack inline citations; is the problem with my use of multiple citations at the ends of paragraphs? Anyway, thanks again! Gildir (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the claims that requires an inline citation is, "His father played lacrosse for the navy". I can see where that information has come from, but because the source is at the end of a paragraph it looks unreferenced. A good rule of thumb is that: every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a reference. If you ever ask for a peer review or have any aspirations to get the article to GA, you will be picked up on this. It will also have an impact on the assessment grade. If you like, I can tag the sentences that I believe need an inline citation. The changes you've made so far are a big improvement. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having made further revisions to the article, I would indeed appreciate it if you could tag any further sentences that need inline citations. Once again, I greatly appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Gildir (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have anything else to add, the article looks in good shape and I see it has been assessed as a 'start class'. This is probably as much due to its length than anything else but that's okay, you can always add to the article as Yeatman's career progresses. Be wary of adding trivial information just to expand the article though, it is better to keep it short and encyclopaedic. A picture would be good if you can find a free use one. I have had a quick look on commons but couldn't find anything. Lastly, you might want to consider joining a wikiproject where you can find people who share your interest. You will find a links to three related projects in the assessment section on the article's talk page. Good luck and happy editing--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here, as you're right, I shouldn't give other newer editors the wrong idea. Also started writing this before your second message, so I'll keep this here, I guess.

In case you were unaware of it, Gildir is actually an Autopatrolled user. It's a userright created specifically for reducing the workload of new page patrollers of which the people responding in RFF can be regarded as some of. Backlog is a huge problem, and giving AP rights to prolific new page creators who are already very experienced reduces that problem. It enables them (and us) to focus on other newer inexperienced editors. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol for info.

And seriously Gildir doesn't need anymore of his new articles reviewed, hence the comment. Doesn't look like it, because Gildir doesn't participate in talkpage discussions that much, but he has been editing since 2005 and all of his contributions have been good. This is where AGF and common sense applies.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and P.S. this doesn't mean Gildir can't request for feedback of course. He can, he just doesn't need us anymore to remove the "new article" template, as he stated in his RFF post. He can remove it himself and then request for feedback.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply/explanation. Just a few points:

1. If being an autopatrolled user is relevant here, why is the autopatrol bot not set up to remove the tag from new pages? 2. I don't see how no longer needing feedback is relevant. I have been told that I have 'outgrown' RFF but I don't go removing the new unreviewed article tag from my articles. 3. Removing the tag yourself will show up as such in the edit history and it is likely that someone will just put it back. 4. If someone wishes to shortcut the system, they can just ask someone they know to remove the tag. Anyone is allowed to patrol new pages.

Telling people they can remove the tag themselves seems like a very bad idea to me. Yours, with respect,--Ykraps (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused... what 'autropatrol bot'? The only bot used by NPP is the bot which tags articles which have not been marked as patrolled after 30 days, and only those which did not come from a user with AP rights (which automatically comes with other 'higher' user rights as well) with the {{New unreviewed article}} tag. So with or without the "new article" tag, every new page is listed in Special:NewPages, and unpatrolled ones (articles by users with AP excluded) will eventually get listed in Category:Unreviewed new articles. Also note that the tag on Gildir's pages were placed by him, not by anyone else. It's the result of moving an article with a {{Userspace draft}} template from userspace into mainspace. It is not automatically placed on every new article.

• It is actually relevant, sorry. Even the page on Category:Unreviewed new articles says that. The tag is part of the NPP process, a process by which Autopatrolled editors have already been excluded specifically to make the jobs of NP patrollers easier.

• Not really. Unless you've proven yourself to be maliciously removing said tags on problematic articles (in which case you'd have AP revoked, I guess), no one will object to you removing it yourself. In the same way that users are encouraged to remove the tags like {{POV}} or {{Unreferenced}} themselves when they've dealt with the issues brought up. If a user removes the tags before the issues have been fixed, it will be replaced promptly and they will be warned. A user removing the new unreviewed article on a badly written or nonsense page will have the page deleted anyway once NPP or someone else sees it. They aren't exactly hiding it by doing so, as again, with or without the tag, every new page gets listed at Special:NewPages.

• Do note that reviewing a new article is not like WP:GAR. New page patrollers look out for simple things (See Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrolling new pages), like obvious nonsense, copyvio, vandalism, misinformation, unreferenced BLPs etc. Things most experienced users don't commit anymore. It's a first line of defense, not a bureaucratic necessity. Any problems to the article can be addressed in the normal process of peer review experienced editors do with other pages - talk page discussions and specific tags.

• Lastly, do consider the amount of volunteers responding to such requests (the WP:RFF page is an excellent example of that, too many requests, not enough volunteers). They don't magically go away after all, a human editor has to go and remove them. By sticking to the process intended for inexperienced editors, you are not helping at all, you are merely doubling the workload of other volunteers unnecessarily. It's exactly the reason why we have an Autopatrolled user right after all. Do look around and see how many admins, for example, still dutifully place {{New unreviewed article}} on every page they create. The tag is not necessary for new pages, and doubly so for users granted AP or higher rights. Please see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Barret (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? Barret (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 discussion at articles for deletion. Barret (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 Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

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 Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line

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]

I have been using Webcite to archive sources and for most of the time this has been satisfactory, but I am at a loss to understand how to archive the document found here [[3]]. When I open it, there is no address to copy and paste. Is it possible to archive such documents?--Ykraps (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

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

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]

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 Dorset back up to 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]

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

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

Charles Gray (actor) was a notable Bournemouth resident and it looks like Benny Hill was as well as a child. --Penbat (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat, good to see you're still about. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try to find some reliable sources for them. It is more acceptable to have this section as prose though. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people. Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bournemouth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jerusalem (song) (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) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly nominate Dorset, for an unspecific date slot?Lucky102 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucky, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are asking. Are you wanting to nominate the article as a feature for the the main page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests? If so, yes of course, you don't need my permission or anyone else's. If you're meaning something different then please get back to me. Best Regards --Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is, I think it will have no points. Would you be able to tally them?--Lucky102 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You weren't asking permission, you were asking if it qualifies. I would say it probably has minus points as a similar article has been featured recently but I don't think that's an issue unless you are usurping another nomination. There is still a slot available for an unspecific date. I believe Dorset has already appeared on the main page, albeit in a very different guise, so you might run into trouble there. I have never nominated an article for the main page so it might be a good idea to find someone who has and ask their advice.--Ykraps (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Wow. You are an excellent editor and I just wanted to say a big "thank you"! George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We obviously share a dislike of uncited articles. :) --Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bournemouth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Bourne (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) 11:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean-Baptiste Nicolas Roch de Ramezay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beauharnois (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) 11:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bournemouth, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Westbourne and St Stephen's Church (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) 13:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Knox (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (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) 09:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to your userspace at User:Ykraps/JK to sort it out. Please look through the history and tell me the date and time of the earliest revision that you want to be part of the new article. We'd better do it quickly if it's in the DYK queue, or there will be a panic there. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my panic over, I see now it was on DYK yesterday. Reply below here and I will sort it out. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, thanks for your prompt reply. I guess the revision history should start at 08:12, 1 March 2013‎ with the edit summary "(Start John Knox (British Army officer))". --Ykraps (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. Yes, I waited until it had featured at DYK.[reply]

Nyttend has split the histories and moved the article back while I slept. The earlier content of your sandbox is still at User:Ykraps/JK in case you want any of it - if not, put {{db-user}} on the top. A quick way to make an individual sandbox for a draft article is to click on Help:Userspace draft and fill in the title there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, yes, I noticed the issue had been 'magically' resolved when I awoke this morning. I think Nyttend operates in a different time zone to you and me. I have thanked Nyttend on his/her talk page but would like to extend my thanks to you also, for the contribution you made. All the best,--Ykraps (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bournemouth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AS-levels (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) 12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 ^talk 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still plugging away at Wiki. I'm still here but trying to keep a low profile. Anyway I was motivated enough to get Somerford, Dorset created. As part of my research I found something extraordinary which I describe at Somerford,_Dorset#Ashrama_Hall_and_Christchurch_Garden_Theatre - a demolished theatre on Somerford Way funded by a group involved with pagan religion and witchcraft! I've had a walk along Somerford Way and there is a section of about a 100 yards of relatively modern flats at the Somerford Road end while the rest of the road is conventional 30s bungalows. Quite a few districts of Christchurch and Bournemouth remain to be done on Wiki I notice. Feel free to tweak Somerford, Dorset if you wish. Incidentally I spotted 2 new good sources for Christchurch history: http://www.historychristchurch.org/category/the-journal-articles http://www.royhodges.co.uk --Penbat (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penbat, yep I’m still here plugging away. I was hoping to raise Bournemouth to Good article but I find myself running out of steam. The article seems to get more traffic than either Christchurch or Dorset, and this can sometimes disrupt my train of thought. Finding reliable sources, work commitments and the fine weather are also conspiring against me. Your Somerford article is a great addition. If you are planning to develop it further you could add:

• The housing estate built in the 1950s
• The bypass, constructed in 1958, which diverted traffic away from Somerford road (then the main road for westbound traffic from Southampton).
• Something about John Draper (last prior of Christchurch). Didn’t he live at the Grange?
• The electronics industry including Gardener’s.
• Bit more about the airfield?

I am on holiday shortly but when I return, I’ll see what I can dig out in the way of sources. There was some old building on the corner of Somerford Way and Somerford Road, where those modern flats are now but whether it was your theatre or not, I don't know. When I'm next in the library, I'll see what I can find out. All the Best,--Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Why are you trying to keep a low profile?

I'm keeping a low profile in Wiki because I've been doing it for ages. I've done all the "must do" things I set out to do. Wiki is generally enjoyable but its often hard work digging out sources and can be frustrating at times. Also (not so much on the local history side, more on the bullying side) you occasionally get involved with unsavoury editors and sock-puppets which can be very stressful - see the 5th, 6th and 7th barnstars at the top of User:Penbat. I still plan to stay around tho but just to keep things ticking over etc.--Penbat (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand entirely. One becomes an editor because there is a particular article one is interested in improving and once that is done, its very difficult to focus. Digging out references is undoubtedly the hardest part, which is why so many editors don't bother, but it can also be rewarding and in the process, one often stumbles upon something they weren't previously aware off (like your pagan theatre). But Wikipedia should be enjoyable so it's better to "keep a low profile" or take a break, rather than burn out! As for the 'unsavoury' editors, I find it best to remain polite and not let them get to you. The internet is a great place for bullies because they are invisible and safe. You can't be bullied if you don't feel bullied however, so just ignore them and remember they wouldn't dare talk to you like that if you were face to face.

Regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

old building on corner was house of Catherine Emily Chalk who organised building of theatre which was about 50 yards further along Somerford Way. Do you think you saw it before 1975 ? Current building on corner is called "Francesca Lodge" and looks fairly modern. Ive just copied over your Gardiner stuff into the article. --Penbat (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was living in Christchurch in '75 but wasn't paying much attention to that particular spot. The current buildings on the corner were built at a time when I wasn't resident but look to be typically 90s. The other buildings in Somerford Way, with one or two more modern exceptions look to be late 20s and early 30s, so I can't think where else it could've been.--Ykraps (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre burnt down in 1975 but house on corner (with Ashrama Hall in its garden) no doubt survived to more recent times.--Penbat (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think it's Ashrama Hall I'm recalling and I'm confusing it with the theatre. I didn't realise they were different things. I've just been on Google Earth and the modern flats stretch for some way along the road, so the theatre could have been on the same side of the road further on as you suggest.--Ykraps (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back from your hols i notice ! Just an interesting little detail on Somerford Way, The hundred yards of rebuilt property (circa early 1980s i guess) are all named Francesca Grange, Francesca Lodge and Francesca Court. There was a prominent member of the "fraternity" called Francesca Keen http://www.traditionalwitch.net/forums/topic/9893-further-research-in-pre-wicca-gerald-gardner/ which is more than a coincidence - obviously its a nod to the past. Its common to call a block of flats a "Court", but to call 1 block a "Lodge" and another a "Grange" i think is taking a fanciful liberty. Francesca wasnt 1 of the very top people in the "fraternity" - perhaps someone in the 1980s thought it sounded a nice name and had at least some historical credibility. Or maybe Francesca Keens descendants bought up the entire 100 yards of land in the early 1980s prior to redevelopment and insisted it was named after her in her honour ? --Penbat (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would have made more sense to call them Catherine Court, Lodge and Grange but I suppose it's feasible they were named after Francesca (Veronica) Keen. Blogs of course aren't reliable sources and I can't find anything on the 'net but it's all very interesting never-the-less. Did you notice the bit about Rushford Warren? I wonder if that's the same Rushford Warren where the flats stand today.--Ykraps (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That blog claims to quote from the authoritative source on the subject "Wiccan Roots: Gerald Gardner and the Modern Witchcraft". Yes im sure its the same Rushford Warren - incredibly bad luck to have it hit by a bomb. I think it was Gardener who moved down here originally because he was scared of London bombs. Also a few Highcliffe refs but i havent checked them out. I read somewhere that the "fraternity" had a naked ceremony around 1942 in the new forest - supposedly creating spiritual energy to block Hitler from invading the UK - hey it worked, but some participants died shortly afterit was thought from the cold.--Penbat (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Google books for "Wiccan Roots" hoping to find a readable version but no such luck. I too recall reading about the ritual to foil Hitler but like you can't remember where. The Gardner website has a few essays including this one [[4]] but it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. Perhaps there is something in the library.--Ykraps (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked it down on Wikipedia ! see New_Forest_Coven#Operation_Cone_of_Power, Gerald_Gardner_(Wiccan) and Gardnerian Wicca.--Penbat (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow there's actually a TV prog on Gardner and Wicca etc starting right now on More 4. !--Penbat (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just got in so I guess I've missed it. Thanks for trying to let me know though. When I said earlier that I'd read about the ritual, I think it was in a newspaper or magazine. I tried searching the Bournemouth Echo archives but drew a blank. I hope the programme was interesting.--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was called "A Very British Witchcraft" - i'll let u know if it is repeated or if i spot it on Channel 4s On demand service. Anyway see New_Forest_Coven#Operation_Cone_of_Power, Gerald_Gardner_(Wiccan) and Gardnerian Wicca--Penbat (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah its repeated at 1:10 am this morning and also available on demand at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-witchcraft --Penbat (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not able to get 4od. Something to do with a digital rights error (3338) or something. Never mind, I'm sure it will be repeated on TV soon.--Ykraps (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 233, excluding "(pictured)" which doesn't count. The hook will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandarax, I have left a question at the template talk page. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading rules again, I see the 200 character hook length includes spaces. Have decided to go with Zeete's suggestion, Alt 1.--Ykraps (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Superb (1710), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatham (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) 11:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]