User talk:Ykraps

Invitation to Wikiproject British Empire

Hello, Ykraps! 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.

Please help

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)

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

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

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)

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

Disambiguation link notification

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)

Gold Hill pictures

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)

Barnstar

		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)

Hollyhurst

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Geology of Dorset

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Peer review limits changed

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)

Indented line

Disambiguation link notification

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)

Help!

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)

"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)

Talkback

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.

mabdul 11:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: Darzet

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.

Geology of Dorset re-write

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)

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)

Talkback: GOD merger

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.

Geology map

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)

Geology of Dorset

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)

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)

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

Dorset culture

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

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)

Barnstar

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)

		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)

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)

Dorset FA

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)

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)

Thank you

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

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

Talkback

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)

DYK for Geology of Dorset

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

Charles Gray (actor)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

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)

Dorset

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

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)

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

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)

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)

DYK for Absolution (1978 film)

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

Great Work!

		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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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)

Congrats to Ykraps as we award this standard triple crown for great work on improving Dorset-related content on wikipedia. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)