User talk:Werdna Yrneh Yarg

Dear Sir,

My editing is never to vandalise current information, but to guide readers to the truth of facts. Currently, the inclusions of geomorphologists elsewhere, not only millitate against the credibility of the following sites: Helston history, The Loe and River Cober, to me but also to other Helstonians. This is a pity, because some references are exceedingly valuable that I have always seen, namely that there was a previous castle to that rebuilt in the 1270s, of a Motte and Bailey structure in Helston. There would have been no reason to have rebuilt one otherwise, since Helston ceased to be a navigable port by 1260 when the Helstonians bought in shipping rites from Gweek. Since, according to a Saxon chronicle, Mounts Bay was inundated in 1014 and many people drowned,^[1] and the same type of forest trees were found under Helston moors, it is evident that the Loe Bar must have been formed subsequently and is no hard worn legend. Also Hazelnuts and leaves were seen under the sea there (Mounts Bay) in around 1883 when the 'sea went back as far as anyone can remember'. Other proofs have also been witnessed as to these facts.

16th August 2014: Dear Jowan-in-Pensans,

I am waiting for the exact year from someone reliable as to when the excavation under St. John's Road, Helston, took place, so that I can check the microfiches of the records in Truro library. Regarding the sentence that you reinstated, my reason for its deletion was not because it was irrelevant, but because it was completely untrue. I think that you need to speak to me about these issues on 01326 572251, because those last two inclusions on the site of Helston history, wilfully setting aside other evidences of Helston having been a limited port, is effectively discrediting the reliability of the sites of 'Helston, Loe Bar and the river Cober'. Just because valid citation as far as Wikipedia allow may not be available does not mean that the facts are less reliable than the opinions on this subject of the Geomorphologists. It is more humiliating to realise that governmentally, Helston's limited port was dammed up by the later stages of the Loe Bar, than for it never to have been a port at all. You must accept that not I, but those who live around the site of the port know more about the history and evidences seen than those not living in the area. However, as far as I am concerned, for your own sake, I must state that I would rather you discount my editing and the rubbish about human evolution that has been proved false, than the other way round! By this, I meant that the proof of Helston having been a limited port - I found further evidence of this at the weekend (16th August) from an iron hook sticking out of two mediaeval walls beside two rear gardens - is considerably less important than what Charles Darwin came to before his end as to the abolition of his previous theories on evolution. I shall soon have time to research any further records. Neither Toy nor Stephanie Russell exploited Helston's mediaeval history, only very usefully highlighted the area of its growth during that period. I have had it confirmed that Defoe's fictitious idea of ships at the bottom of Helston was NOT the basis of the talk among Helstonians of the pre-1260 port. So the sooner that sentence is removed the better, because it is totally unfounded.

Kind regards,

I am pleased that you removed the reference to Helston as the second oldest town in Cornwall because that was not true; both Launceston and Lostwithiel have 12th century charters, ie. before 1201. Regarding the citation of the excavation under St. Johns Road, I have been given the name to contact for this. Other archaeological evidence of a shipping passage below Helston was demolished within the past 200 years and was not readily visible anyway. Mr. Neil Wood has completed his research on the practicalities of a port below Helston related to the Loe Pool. I am still waiting on another archaeologist to confirm the original name for the Loe; I read that it was the "Lo", but I reckon that there might have been an older name. Regarding the clarification required as to Helston having had jurisdiction over Helston and Gweek for their shipping, the records of shipping only were in 1302 after the bar (that was only a beach towards the end of the seventeenth century - I have seen that engraving myself in Helston museum) and Patrick Carroll himself does not believe in a port at Helston, so therefore he must have acquired that sentence from a reliable source. I have just met three others that do not believe in the existence of a port there. I shall access the record of the excavations under St. John's road as soon as I get a suitable opportunity, but have not the internet at home yet and my day is usually filled out with bus journeys to different voluntary tasks. Regarding the formation of the Loe Bar, it is absolutely definite that it did not surface above the sea before the 13th century. In an engraving before 1727 it is little more than a continuation of the beach line, with a small central jut towards the pool. Before the construction of Helston lower swimming pool (now car park for the amenity area), that area was just marsh, with ancient boulders and newer sections of walls beside where the Cober ran under the sea at one time. The DVD cites that that would have been necessary for Helston to have been a port. Also, there could have been no buildings from the 1014 - 1260 period underneath Helston marshes; if any remains were found, or the proved silting up of the St. Johns end of Helston, were absent it would invalidate the proof that Helston had its shipping passage during that period. I cannot believe that ships came into Helston before 1014, since a c1576 map of Helston depicts only one wide arm of the sea penetrating the western side of Mount's Bay. Reference to the report of land around St. Michael's Mount being inundated and many people being drowned is on page 36 of the 1957 edition of "The Fortunate Islands", by E. L. Bowley. Early mediaeval names such as 'Mount Amopus' in Mount's Bay are not without chance, and certainly do NOT relate merely to fishing grounds. Compared with these facts the Geomorphologists' normally correct ideas are not proven in these instances. There is a marked difference between the end of the forest that is petrified in the Portreath area than that under the Cober valley where 34 feet under the ground or (19 feet below sea level), where the trees are more like those in the Irish marshes. A healthy looking branch from a tree of the mid 19th century near the Greeb is in my shed at home. Regarding Daniel Defoe - he does not state that the ships came from the sea; they could have just traversed between Lowertown and Helston, and from thence transferring the freight to Gweek that became its port after 1260.

Thank you for leaving the other edits. However, regarding the spelling of 'Dynsol' as the oldest name for St. Michael's Mount, that citation was actually from a c1738 replica postcard and NOT from Padel, but the rest of the citation is from O. J. Padel; the spelling 'Dinsul' was from a library book - not Taylor - and is the most likely to be accurate, as relating to a late Celtic name. The other names on the postcard: Cara Conze yn Clonz, are a corruption of Carrek Los yn Cos, that is the antiquarian name of the mount, before 1014. The present formation of Mount's Bay is evidenced by the 1755 tsunami, as someone else cited, destroying the port of Porth Plement; but the original forest was inundated in 1014; not 1099 tsunami that related to Mont Michel. Hence, I did not include that part of the paragraph when inserting this earlier piece. Also, there is no connection between the land inundated in 1014 to Lyonesse that was confused, according to the general more recent concensus of historians, with the land beyond Mont Michel in France that was six miles inland. The Geomorphogist's reckoning of St. Michael's mount being up to five kilometres inland is, I believe, the most accurate assessment. One of the most lucritive mines, according to the father of someone from the Camborne school of mines who was responsible for sinking a mine in Thompson America, was sunk in Mounts Bay, just at the seaward point beyond the Long Rock (that was mediaeval gardens before that part of the bay was inundated) where the pole has been erected. Therefore when the area was dyked off to protect it from inundation, the sea must have approached gradually in that area. Just one arm of the sea is depicted in a mediaeval map of Mounts Bay. The date of the first main inundation according to http://www.slideshare.net/ProfSimonHaslett/the-hell-of-high-water-tsunami-and-the-cornish-coast 21 Apr 2011 ... the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that “on the eve of St. Michael's Day [28th ... Mount's Bay – arrival of 4 tsunami over 2 hours (<3m high). was 28th September, 1014. If it did not include the Lizard side then Helston could not have been a port until after 1099, however it is mentioned in the Domesday book for the area as a port; but the top of an ancient wall beneath a newer mediaeval stone wall, about two inches above the present ground level in St. Johns has been photographed with hooks sticking out of it, that links with the fact that this part of Helston was silted up some 15 to 30 feet, from the mining waste.

Sorry, but any counter evidence that you keep inserting to these facts is only coming back against the validity of your insertions on The Loe site, so you are not achieving anything, because any allegations of the Bar being superficially,(not foundationally) being formed before the 13th century have been proved false. I am to lecture on the port of Helston as to which, Mr. Stephen Tyrrell has already confirmed as to its existence before 1200 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.136.6 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; that edit as to Loe Bar being deeper than the sea beyond, (which is total nonsense) should have read "part of Loe pool is deeper than the sea beyond." Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Andrew Gray Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Regards,

Andrew 195.59.118.106 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Andrew Henry Gray195.59.118.106 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you cannot address these issues on the relevant talk pages. Below are my observations on some of the above points.

• I find the following sentence a little strange as I feel your edits seem to be opinions and not based on facts. "My editing is never to vandalise current information, but to guide readers to the truth of facts."
• A geomorphologist studies landforms in the same way, for example, that a paleontologist studies fossils i.e. based on evidence. Geomorphologists "elsewhere" is immaterial.
• Just because a castle existed is not evidence that there was a harbour; it could, for example, have been to protect an important land route.
• Could you give a citation on which "Saxon chronicle" gives information on the inundation of Mount's Bay, because I can not find one.
• Are you sure the Fortunate Islands actually says that Mount's Bay was inundated in 1014, and if so why has it been left out of later editons of the Fortunate Islands. Possibly because it is not true? We have been over this one before. Look up the chronicle online and have a look at the translations. I find it hard to see how stormy weather (no matter how extreme) in the western area of these islands is evidence of the formation of Mount's Bay.
• I cannot follow your logic with regards to the c. 1883 observations of a low tide being proof of the formation of Loe Bar.
• I would have thought that the excavations at St John's Road would have had an archaeological report. Helston library may hold copies, if not try the library in Redruth. Such important finds (if true) would have had a mention in the annual reports (or newsletters) of the Cornwall Archaeological Society. Some are available online.
  • On 20 August 2014 you added the name Patrick Carroll, which you seem to be using as a reference. It is not really a reference just someones name!
• The line you deleted in the Helston page (which was referenced) is in the report available online; and it is relevant (in my view) to the story of Helston's alleged harbour. As I keep saying, there does not seem to be any evidence for a harbour. It seems, to me, to be a deeply held belief.
  • We all know Defoe made a mistake, but the report on Helston (see the reference, which is available online) gives a reason why people may have thought Helston had a harbour, which is why the sentence needs to stay. It goes on to say – "There is no evidence to support Defoe's account and no archaeological evidence for a port at Helston".
• I do not understand what the evidences are in the following sentence or what a limited port is, "wilfully setting aside other evidences of Helston having been a limited port,".
• I am at a loss as to what the following sentence means. "However, as far as I am concerned, for your own sake, I must state that I would rather you discount my editing and the rubbish about human evolution that has been proved false, than the other way round! Jowaninpensans (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing on two accounts User talk:195.59.118.106 and User talk:Werdna Yrneh Yarg? Jowaninpensans (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This page – please do not write within what I have written.
• Helston – the sentence you are complaining about in the article is not unfounded, it may be the reason for the myth that is Helston harbour; and it is referenced. Jowaninpensans (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just reverted your edit, because you did not provide any reliable sources for your change. If you find such a source, you are welcome to reinstate it.If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

.

• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

j⚛e decker^talk 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading my talk page; however, you really must accept that if notable people state that Defoe's idea of Helston port was NOT any basis for what they know as to Helston port. Such inclusions are certainly not enhancing the reputation of the Helston site and will not be believed by the initiated.

Kind regards Andrew

Regarding the original name for the Loe pool, I am waiting to see an archaelogist to check the reference in about 1327: it was in 1337; but someone stated that it had an older name of what sounded like 'Dossier?' If there was an earlier name, he would know; and I will have to correct that detail ASAP. [I think he meant, "Dowr Kohar", that could have reference to the alluvial section of the Cober.] However, as to Helston having been a port, the evidences are increasing, not decreasing. So no one who is initiated can accept that line as to being based on Defoe.

4th August 2015 Your last edit reversion discredits you, since emboldened text to anyone that does not know you, gives one of two impressions upon a reader: either that anyone using the emboldened style on a public site is pressing their views upon readers, without looking into the facts; or simply rudeness. By changing it into the normal style, it shows the reader that it may be relevant, however misguided it may be. Regarding Stephanie Russell, as before stated, she has compiled an excellent treatise on Helston, but in two or three instances she is misguided. She considers the Angel inn as the oldest edifice instead of the Blue Anchor, and sites the chapel and coinagehall as to the left of the Gryll's memorial, whereas the painting at the turn of the eighteenth century clearly shows them in the centre of Coinagehall Street where the leats branched out around them, and is the basis for the width of the bottom of the street. When it comes to the port of Helston, I would have to admit, Stephanie Russell is no point of reference, as she has not had the time to explore the mediaeval archaeology of Helston that was definitely a port during a limited period well before 1300 AD. Formation (albeit low) of the Bar by 1235 AD, has been ascertained by the name of Chyvarloe being recorded as 'Tywarlo' at that time. It appears that only on high tides could ships enter the estuary up to Helston, and this became too infrequent by 1260 AD. When this low 'Lo', as it was called was initially formed is a matter of contraversy, but it would certainly have been after 1014 AD!

Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Andrew[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! —Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 10:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Werdna Yrneh Yarg. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Werdna Yrneh Yarg/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of superficial formation of Loe Bar before the 13th century^[2]

Edit summary (Ref. added to show that in no way could the bar have been visible before 1014.)

Above is your revision to River Cober on 28 April 2015, about the formation of Loe Bar, followed by your edit summary. Where exactly in this reference is your claim? Why don't geologists agree with your claim? Jowaninpensans (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my due apologies for only today having seen your question. The facts as to Mount's Bay being inundated on 28th September 1014 have been documented in another site to that referenced; but that the bay was drowned in historical times is evident by the condition of the trees (how ever old they may be), compared to those of the petrified forest north of Portreath. I have also witnessed remains of habitation walls beyond Jubilee pool in Penzance as well as reading about the trees that were still visible above low tides (probably near the Greeb) in the mid-nineteenth century. Geologists in Helston museum of which I am a researching volunteer, realise that Helston was a port, partly due to the evidences that they have seen. Had I not seen them myself I would have believed the geomorphologists' reports, although obviously conjectured based upon other areas of the coast. The proof of the Loe Bar formation after the 12th century is no proof of Helston port; but both have been attested separately. Someone while crossing the Loe pool last century actually witnessed a submerged quay, that answers to the time that Mr. Stephen Tyrrell stated Helston to be a port. I am scared that your edit from Stephanie Russell who never researched explorations that were seen in 1980 when Helston's subterranian port was confirmed, is discrediting the Loe Bar site, as her information does not directly bear upon that site. For me to add to that in what I have found would just exacerbate confusion. It was better left as it was. At this point I need to thank you for changing the unfounded edits in 2009 where someone for months was deceiving the public into believing that the earliest edits as the Bar being thrown up during storms in the 13th century was a misconception. The Bar was formed gradually until it was visible and cut off the sea. I now shall explore any assumed basis for the sign to Loe Bar alleging that it was formed five thousand years ago.194.60.136.6 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Andrew194.60.136.6 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards,

Andrew

Your statements about a recent formation for Loe Bar are not ″proven″ they are your opinion. You seem to be using a reference which is basically a list of possible tsunamis as proof for the formation of Loe Bar. Where are the chaotic deposits in nearby cliffs, or in the Cober valley?

A quay is not proof of a link to the sea – lakes can have boats on them!

If ″Helston's subterranian port″ is confirmed (by who?) where is the published report. Why hasn't Cornwall Archaeological Society reported it in their journal or newsletters? You never answer these points. Jowaninpensans (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your piece, however, I do not build any statements upon opinion - if mine it would be worthless - but upon substanciated evidence; and there is no substanciated evidence provided to rightly convince the public that Loe Bar was formed before the 13th century. It built up over the centuries to its present position. The tsunamis listed were not directly responsible for its formation, and the chaotic deposits would have long been washed out to sea. Further: a quay has to be built, and I believe that you would appreciate that it is not an easy task to try and build a quay about 20 feet or more under the pool surface! If Mr. Tyrrell's allegation of Helston being a port in Roman times be true, that quay is the most likely position, (although THAT IS UNATTESTED), being lower than under St. Johns road, where investigations were not actually intended, but when the water tanks for flood resolution were inserted there, it was then the excavations took place in 1982, I was told by the ex-curator of Helston museum and President of the Helston Old Cornwall Society. This, as I stated in an edit summary was put to C.C.C.'s archaelogist orally, but not in printed form: I shall go to the Record's office this month to find such documentation. I have a photograph of the top 3 inches of a subterranean wall with a couple of hooks projecting from it above ground. The centuries of silting up under St. Johns has been confirmed in other instances, particularly when the foundation for the gasometer was dug in the 1930s about 32 feet deep, when water from a subterranean lake gushed out of it and above the surface.

P.S. The mediaeval map, depicting just one arm of the sea entering Mounts Bay, that was donated to Bodmin museum before closure, has yet to be retrieved from Truro's archives. Thank you for your prolonged patience in this; because, as you know, I am concerned that none of these sites present misleading evidence to the public. The early ones were most accurate, but no one seemed to come forward with the necessary research; this particulary includes Zangar, who does not appear to have researched the facts as to Mounts Bay, by an older message that he sent you, on one of these pages. Regarding the nearest offshore deposits being about 120 miles away, that is not being refuted, nor as far as I know contested; but Spencer Toy's statement as a suggestion that the flint shingle of the Bar represents the destruction of a deposit lying not far distant below the waters of Mount's Bay, is from a member of the Geological Survey - Explanation of Sheet 359, page 234 - not Mr. Toy's opinion, but ties in with the other discoveries of the Bay and its 1014 inundation that is clearly recorded. Helston was by no means the only port of its time in South Cornwall; Tregony was another similar port and possibly much older, where the beach cut it off. The main wall with rings in Helston is facing the sea; were it to face Lowertown it could have been simply used for shipping up the Cober after the Bar had formed. Regarding the post card: John Whale's painting of the ships of that period is excellent, otherwise the church is correct; but everything else is pure imagination, and I hope no one founds belief of the limited port period on that, because there certainly was no shipping to sea on any regular basis for nearly 200 years before c1450 date presented there. Defoe's record is plausible inasmuch as he states nothing of shipping to the sea; and Carew's is clearly accurate.

No one should contradict what you have just added, because it is perfectly true and links with information that follows. However, the sentence cited belongs to the end of the third paragraph and has been confirmed by others. I have not removed the 'citation needed' statement yet, until I have found either mention in the Helston Council's minutes or from a newspaper edit of either 1980 or 1982 when water storage tanks were inserted. I actually clearly remember not being able to see the bottom of the excavation along a considerable section of St. Johns Road, but the pavements were inaccessible, so it was not possible to see what locals living beside it could have done; nor regrettably do I remember the date, otherwise I could have clarified the evidence long ago. The evidence, however, of the port's existence in early mediaeval days does not rely upon such information, nor of the inclusion about Godric of Helleston being fined 10 marks, et cetera. The wall at the rear of Castle Green car park is all that is left of a solid wall depicted in a pre-1810 painting of the Cober valley below Helston. That wall bounded an area of small trees and shrubs that were difficultly accessible according to the painting in Helston museum; so the 12 hooks (one of which is broken out) containing but 7 mooring rings that were confirmed by a neighbour opposite not to have been used for tethering cattle, were probably not visible to the public. The type of granite and the rings were pointed to out to an archaeologist and her husband, a geologist, who could both see that they were primitive and of considerable antiquity. The hooks for the larger rings particularly demonstrate this. Two of the smaller rings are missing and three of the larger rings. The tar that gradually wore off from these would have worn off much more rapidly on those now missing - possibly the only ones used, having eventually disintegrated. The tapered ancient coarse granite peg inserted against the much more recent cattle market granite square post at the entrance to the Garage there was at the same visit confirmed to be the victim of water erosion, distinct from every other post there.

Reference to an archaeologist is mentioned above who confirmed my findings and citation has been given to the proof that a record in the 13th century did exist. I must add that everything presented that disputes these facts is simply regarded as ignorance by those initiated in them. Initial facts as to the port in Helston - not Gweek - have been confirmed by Henderson. I have read nothing from any Wikipedian to in any way substantiate doubt as to an early mediaeval existence of a port at Helston, to provide any reason for Helston not being a port, particularly with those who have seen the evidences discovered recently. To continue to attempt to falsify what has for years been presented in Wikipedia what is known on Helston, The Cober and The Loe sites, is totally reprehensible to me. If I cannot find any old port rings at Tregony, am I to refute that it was ever a port? It was a port for much longer and more recent than Helston, without dispute. It is, or should be, a humiliating matter that it has been closed at Helston - so Helston has no pride attached to it that it should at one time have been a port.

Thank you in anticipation for accepting these facts.194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Andrew194.60.136.6 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Regards.

All the above needs to be verified by archaeologists, as what you write is unproven and controversial. And for the umpteenth time – lakes can have boats on them! Jowaninpensans (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Environment Service at Cornwall Council and Cornwall Archaeological Society do not agree with your views! Jowaninpensans (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Dear Mr. Jowan, I must thank you for your last reply here, however discouraging it may be, because I can now begin to make contact with those sources to identify any basis for their views; or if evidences, then I need to take them into consideration urgently, in order to make any necessary amendments. You would surely by now recognise by my tone of responses that I deplore ideas that are simply views on a site like this. So far, most who have seen my photographs accept the evidences. If your named contacts do not realise that St Johns area - not the main road by the boating lake that leads to Sithney Common hill - was built up by layers of mining silt (manifested also by only the section under the arch of the c1260 section of St Johns bridge, being completely built up by this silt mud two to three feet higher than the Cober bed that changed its course after 1700), this would explain their disagreement. However, in the meantime I should appreciate it if the relevant sites of Helston, the Cober and The Loe were left as they are, since I am opposed to any imagination left on those sites.[reply]

Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Werdna Yrneh Yarg/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Werdna Yrneh Yarg, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Michael's Mount, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman. 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) 09:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you for pointing this out; I shall endeavour to rectify this ASAP. Anyway, I have learned never to save an old page without checking that any of the necessary new edits would have been missing. Duncan rightly pointed out also that by correcting a date and distance from the sea, I should have not changed that under the same citation - that was a glaring error! I do not access the net on Sundays, but will sort this out later.[reply]

Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you disputing C14 dates based on them being "antediluvian"? It makes no sense. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6 August 2015Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your message. I am not trying to dispute dates as such, still less branding them as being "antediluvian". My edit summary reasons need to be considerably clearer than they are! From other time lines I have noticed that carbon fourteen dating is most accurate in recent history; but pressure of water and heat do upset its accuracy, causing the time span to appear much longer than it really is. The pressure of water in the past in the Grand Canyon is one example of this, where the flora and vegetation is quite different near the base as a result of this. The other example that comes to mind is that of the African city, Zimbabwe that was initially reputed to be built in the Dark Ages, but was found to be built in the fifteenth century or even later. This was part of an edit deleted by another Wikipedian, hence my deliberation about including a date that may sound scientifically correct but exaggerated by the effects of heat et cetera.[reply]

Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for your contentions about C14 dating? DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Dear Mr. Hill, One htm. that answers to what I was already aware of is: davelivingston.com/flooddate.htm; Although the equipment used to date radioactive materials has become more sophisticated, basic problems originally discovered by Willard Libby, inventor of the C14 dating method, still pertain. Radiocarbon (C14) dating, calibrated using known dates of Egyptian artifacts, has proved accurate back to only about 2000 BC, according to the discoverer (Libby 1965:ix; for an application to Mesopotamia, see Mallowan 1968:7-8). This has created problems for radio carbon dating older than 4000 BP (Before Present). Please do not copy this article publicly without mine obtaining permission from its author, since it is word for word. Thanks in anticipation. Kind regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewWerdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flood date website is not in any way whatsoever a reliable source for Wikipedia, it appears to be promoting a particular set of religious beliefs. C14 dates published in reliable scientific or archaeological journals will have been corrected according to accepted, scientific methodology, and on Wikipedia we do not then change them and misrepresent what those sources say. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RIVER COBER Talk

Apparently, around three hundred years ago the River Cober was known as the River Loe or Looe, from the existence of the lake. This separates the period when it was known as the 'COFFAR' in the late 13th century. Incidentally, this in no way implies that the Loe pool had not yet been formed by then, but seems to derive from Cornish 'GOVER', meaning 'stream'. The meaning of the older form, 'CHOHOR' is very dubious - hardly from 'COGER', 'winding stream' - although that is the nearest I can find. Under W.F. Ivey's introduction on the River Cober, the name 'COBRA', was cited as a possible derivation of the present name before 1870, signifying 'serpentine' or 'sinuous'. If this be so, it must have come into use after late 17th century when 'cobra', the snake, first appeared in the English language; and therefore not derived from 'COFFAR'. There is certainly no evidence of any connection with 'COBER', Old Cornish for 'copper', as that word is archaic and is not represented by any of the earlier spellings.

Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Werdna Yrneh Yarg/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Werdna Yrneh Yarg, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 00:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persenche, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyacinth. 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) 16:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Persenche has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is what Wikitionary is for.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyacinth (plant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyacinth. 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) 10:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I need to get that sorted promptly - my due apologies! Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Andrew[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Persenche is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persenche until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eeekster (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I don't currently have access to Spencer Toy's History of Helston (1936) but if you live in Helston your local library is bound to have a copy so I suggest you have a look at it. I'll try and look at it in the British Library but it won't be before next week. It may well have much earlier evidence than his other two pieces that I have - the 1912 brief history and 1934 Geographical Journal article. He was a scientist with an interest in history and it may have more evidence than elsewhere of the early port history. e.g. his 1912 history which you can read here translates the 1200 charter which contains a faschinating clause about freedom from Lestage (i.e. custom exacted on a ship's lading). One would need to compare this with other charters to be sure that inland towns didn't have a similar clause, though your local librarian might know. Chris55 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris55 (talk) Thank you so much for your message. I had found one or two inaccuracies in his 1912 edition; but I have checked the Helston museum copy of Spencer Toy's and it is more comprehensive than the reference on the DVD, whose sentence I copied precisely as it stated. I realise that DVDs are not the reliable evidence as compared to a reliable book; but that DVD is more reliable than any book I have seen and than the notions of Geomorphologists in this particular area. Also, in April this year, the master degree lecturer from Camborne School of Mines actually undertook sonar investigations in Loe Pool and found submerged caves as well as remnants of a harbour wall. I accessed this information under the April 2015 archives. I had found the reference to Lestage, that I tried to include on my section towards the end of the Loe Talk page. Thank you again so much for your piece - you present your views in a logical and reasonable manner. All my initial contributions were because of the refutations of what had been witnessed to by the Victorians. What appears like cliffs behind the new housing complex just beyond Castle Green car park, is, in fact, the 1815 quarry; the late or post-mediaeval quarry was behind Lanjowan in St. John's road. Only half of the original harbour wall is left that bounds the part of St. John's road at the angle to the main road. It was one solid wall in 1800, with small trees and shrubs inside of it, according to the 1800 painting in the museum. You can still see the hooks for the rings in the car park side of the wall: 6 for the smaller rings and 6 for the larger, (one of which is broken off, to use the ring elsewhere). The gentleman who has lived opposite for around 80+ years, that is 20 years during the site of the Old Cattle market there, stated that none of those rings were used for cattle - the cattle rings were solid into the front wall and then extracted when rendering that wall. What I found so intriguing is that every alternate ring towards the corner is missing, as if they were the ones used and disintigrated, because they were all pitched like the wall! Pitch would have worn off the used ones; and so all that is left is 4 smaller rings in recesses in the rugged granite wall, plus 3 larger ones on primitively forged hooks. That is the only known small harbour. Under the 1932 gasometer would have been part of the port where ship's timber was found deep underground. I have been told that the sea once reached to Five Wells Lane. If that be true in the 13th century, when the sea was alleged to have risen significantly compared to now, then that links with the legend of Ponsanooth stream having been alluvial, and explains the reason for rebuilding the Henliston Norman Castle in around 1280, with the caved in distingrating brass anchorage dalek-like peg in the 1960s where the circular asphalt patch just three feet before the steps there! I need to read reliable literature on that to believe it, I am afraid.

What you state about reliable books being regarded as 'truth' in contrast to finds, is of course Wikipedia's policy; but should the references be false, then this is the main weakness that I have, for one, had to combat. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Andrew, thanks for all you've said. You haven't quite got how Wikipedia regards 'Reliable Sources': it only suggests that they get a fair hearing but certainly doesn't think that RS = the truth. I notice you haven't been 'welcomed' to Wikipedia, so I'll add the welcome after this message as the links are very informative.

The other thing one needs to do on WP is to sort out the rather arcane referencing system. The easiest way to do this is using the Reftoolbar which provides a fill-in dialogue and does all the formatting for you. Would you like some help with setting that up? e.g. a DVD can be a good source if sufficient details are given that someone can follow it up.

I haven't been in Helston for some time so I can't picture the Castle Green car park. What stimulated my current interest was following up the family history of one of my ggg grandparents, a copper miner in Sithney, close by. But as you realise, personal experience can't be used in WP. It divides sources into primary, secondary and tertiary and only secondary (properly published) are valid. Encyclopedias are tertiary which is why I've been cautious about using Encyclopedia Britannica (although some articles in WP are lifted straight from old versions of EB). So until the stuff (say) from the Camborne S of M is properly published one can't use it in WP.

There does seem to be historical material pre-1260 so I'd suggest that we concentrate first on getting that properly sourced. You obviously have had access to Toy's 1936 History: does he have any useful material there or does he not deal with the river pre-1300? Once we've done that, we can retire, for instance, the views of the archeologist on the Loe page who thinks that Defoe was the source of all the confusion. Chris55 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Werdna Yrneh Yarg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your offer; I shall look into this and consider it should it be an asset for Wikimedia, to vote. Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 21:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Hello, Werdna Yrneh Yarg. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Werdna Yrneh Yarg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Werdna Yrneh Yarg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Werdna Yrneh Yarg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]