User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ghmyrtle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages

I love this article, so I hope you don't mind me going through your work every so often picking up typos and so on. Let me know if you're not happy with my (very minor) inputs, and I'll refrain from editing there. I've been thinking about how best to phrase the opening paragraph, given that, in terms of good grammar, "Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages" is not a period, it's a place (in a period). What would you say to :-

Gwynedd is an area in the north of Wales. Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages covers a period of Welsh, British, and European history spanning the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries (AD 1000–1300). The High Middle Ages were preceded by the Early Middle Ages and followed by the Late Middle Ages.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto and agree with suggestion Ehrenkater (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be very happy to have your help and input. I had placed the one sentence "Gwynedd is in the north of Wales" at the bottom of the opening paragraph, because the following paragraph gives a more detailed location of Gwynedd and it seemed to match better. However, if you feel strongly that the location is best served as the first line, I do not see it as an issue.

I greatly thank you for catching my many many spelling errors! lol. I wish we had spell checker inside or part of Wikipedia. Additionally, as an American, you will notice certin verbage that is completly American, and I would wish that to be "translated" into British English.

May I ask how you discovered the artical? Initially I had started to rewrite the Kingdom of Gwynedd page, but it did become too verbose, and I realized that this period needs special attention. Welsh history and Welsh interests are so neglected in Wikipedia, in my opinion. Currently there are a few gaps in the history narration, and also I need to really rewrite the government and complete the Latin or Roman Christian traditions, so please bare with me and have patience, hehe.

I plan on doing simular treatment for Powys and Deheubarth, and for Glamorgan and Gwent. Then pull the most important features of all of them together for an artical "Wales in the High Middle Ages".♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Drachenfyre, for your comments. I'm happy to "translate" parts of the article into "British English" if that's what you want - personally it doesn't matter either way to me. I'm also happy to go through it for typos, grammar etc. (though I think Ehrenkater picked up more than I did!) One thing I have noticed is that - for reasons I fully understand - you often use Welsh names such as Môn where English equivalents (Anglesey) exist and are conventionally used on English Wikipedia. I suspect that, if you were wanting to go down the GA route, they would need to be "Anglicised" - what would your feelings be about that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely opposed to using Anglicised versions of names. If using the native names would keep the artical from becoming a Good Artical, then I do not wish it to be a Good Artical. The native name of the place should be used in all occasions, and for clarity the location should be referenced in paranthesis, noting the modern location where appropriate and in the first reference. We are writting of a time in which these locations would have been known almost exclusively in their native language. If there there is another name that is appropriate for that particular century, then that name is used but within context. For instance, in the 11th century it is appropriate to speak of Dyfed, while in the 13th century you would use Pembroke. If using the native language draws opposition to good artical status, then the rules would be too strict in my opinion. Pre Edwaredian Conquest you would reference Arfon, post Conquest you would reference Carnarvonshire. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gibsonbrothers.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gibsonbrothers.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wasnotwas.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wasnotwas.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On the deleter of Welsh placenames

The latest IP to delete Welsh placenames has earned itself a 31-hour vacation from Wikipedia. Another that popped up to continue this unexplained campaign would earn itself a 48-hour vacation, I think. And so on, upwards.

In the meantime, I'm open to rational arguments for the deletion of Welsh placenames. This doesn't mean that I'd immediately agree to them (indeed, I might well argue back), but I'd certainly consider them. I hope that's true for all of us. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I can chime in here, there is no rational argument to delete Welsh placenames. It is a great article, so please do what it takes (do you need help?) so it stays. Cheers. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't about that article - just about the Welsh names of places where they exist now on the English side of the border, eg Herefordshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Our little friend struck again, twice, from a new IP. He got a warning from somebody else. -- Hoary (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

See Talk:Kilpeck and what links to it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is it with those nitwits on the placenames page, Ghmyrtle? It reminds me of why I rarely if ever bother with any argument on any of the MoS page: they're such a bunch of ninnies, earnestly grinding down other writers who are otherwise bright and sane.

I'm tempted to go rouge and hand 24-hour vacations to all. But for now I shall instead piss off and edit some page utterly irrelevant to blighted Blighty. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Zodiac

If you were anticipating the reason of "no assertion of notability sufficient to pass the relevant criteria" then you win. In answer to your question, I have restored it and moved it to a sub-page of your userspace - User:Ghmyrtle/The Zodiac - if you wish to work on it there. When you're ready to, feel free to move it back, or ask myself or another administrator if you're unsure how. Thanks. _GB^T/C 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're (not) paid for...! _GB^T/C 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, well played. _GB^T/C 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Zodiac : Cosmic Sounds

Discussion moved to here

Monmouthshire

Thanks for your comments on my misguided contribution to the Talk:Monmouthshire_(historic) page. Although I have edited articles this was my first entry on a talk page - I'll know better in future! I hope you agree that the edits I have made to the article make it a little more factual and less subjective. Jongleur100 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilcrick

Thanks for the mesasage. I certainly don't think that sea levels were any higher at that time, it's probably just, as you suggest, that the Gwent Levels had not been drained/ reclaimed as much by then. In fact the archaeo evidence in the Severn Estuary is that in Neolithic times there was habitation/ farming going on in what is now tidal forshore. So, if anything, Iron Age sea levels may have been lower than now. It is generally agreed that sea defences and drainage began with the Romans (e.g. the Roman inscribed stone found at Goldcliff). If I find any useful refs I'll let you know, but please feel free to amend any of my edits to something less contentious if you see fit. Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd have thought that "British Archaeology" would get the name of the farm right, wouldn't you? Thanks for correcting. I see that Martin Locock and colleauges have done a lot of work in this area. I only have one publication. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Caldicot and Wentloog Levels

Your last edit a great improvement, Ghmyrtle, but having trouble with the last two external links. Any ideas? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now corrected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Also, unfotunately, the Geograph image you have added (with the "Farmer's Arms" at Goldcliff in the background) is not a traditional "reen" at all but is a new bund ditch created as part of the construction of the Newport Wetlands Reserve (about four years ago). The link to Ruth Sharville's Geograph photo shows a real one (about 300 years older!) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn! Thanks for that - I've changed the image now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. The giveaway (unless you know the area really well) were the shallow sides and the newly sprouting sedge grasses. Ruth Sharvilles' Chapel Lane reen is s much better choice, the only better probably being Monksditch itself aka "The Pill". Incidentaly, the period between Henry VI and the 1884 Caldicot and Wentlooge Levels Act, when the land was owned by Eton College was a fascinating and troubled one, as testified in the records kept at the Eton College Archives (http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=274). I will try and add some detail when I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Welsh People

You made an edit to the article Welsh People, changing the emphasis from the percentage of people in Wales who consider themselves to be Welsh, to the percentage of people born in Wales who consider themselves to be Welsh. The casual reader browsing the article would see that a massive majority of people in Wales (87%) and would be likely to see what they expect and move on (as in an article on French People, for example, they would expect to see a majority of people in France considering themselves to be French). Without seeing the 'small print' that says that a large minority of imigrants don't consider themselves to be Welsh at all. Incomers are an ongoing problem in Wales. The English colonists (the vast majority are from England) don't tend to integrate or learn the Welsh language and are obviously far more likely to be unionist, voting in favour of so called British issues rather than Welsh ones and further eroding the Welsh culture and way of life. Such issues need to be publicised. Would you mind having another look at your edit please? Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Without seeing the above comment, I've modified the text - your edit was very confusing. To an international readership, it seems to me that the fact that 87% of Welsh-born people living in Wales identify as Welsh (why isn't it 100%?) is much less interesting and important than the fact that 67% of all people living in Wales identify as Welsh. (And PS, note to Daicaregos - not all, or even perhaps most, English-born people living in Wales regard ourselves as "colonists", "unionists", or "eroding Welsh culture". In a lot of cases, our forefathers were born here anyway.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you Ghmyrtle and Daicaregos! Well, my reasoning is simple. The artical is about Welsh people, that is, the ethinic group and nation of those who consider themselves Welsh. From this perspective, even for an international reader, the primary percentage is the 87% of those born in Wales considering themselves as Welsh. The second figure is just that, secondary. If this was an artical about the Demography of Wales, then prehaps I would agree. The Demography of Wales page does need attention by the way, to bring it up to the Demography of Scotland, which is different from the Scottish people page.

Should the info on the 30 percent of those not born in Wales be included? Yes, but that is secondary and should be treated as secondary info. And explained why there is such a high percentage of non-Welsh born residents residing in Wales. This would be a secondary paragraph, though in the opening paragraph I can see it as a secondary portion of the sentence or a second qualifying sentence.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion at Talk:Welsh people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

South Wales

I hope that none of the former coal miners and steelworkers from the Sirhowy and Ebbw valleys read your comment (made elsewhere) that they are a 'spill over' from Glamorgan!
Cheers. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now corrected (my excuse is that I was under time pressure at that moment!). Apologies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivanhoe (1958 TV series), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royal broil 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic Counties of England

Hi, thanks for explaining.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Marches/March of Wales

I agree with the sentiments expressed on my talk page. I must get a copy of the book that you refer to. I am not entirely happy with the idea of having an article combining lords (presumably both English and Scottish) of the Scottish march, with those of the Welsh march and German margraves, except perhaps as a general article, linking a series of more detailed ones, but the present artcile which seems to link the English border counties that were formerly subject to the Council of the Marches (1536-Civil War) with the March of Wales is unsatisfactory. I would encourage you to go ahead with what you propsoed. I will monitor your work and intervene as necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bold Marcher Lords

My apologies. I had it in my head that all occurrences of title words should be bolded but now I check WP:MOS I find that this is no longer so.Cutler (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Llŷn Peninsula

Done.... just wondering, have you thought about going for adminship yourself? You seem to need the tools, and I'm confident you're well capable of using them. Might be worth considering in the not so distant future. :) --Jza84 | Talk 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

9/13/08 DYK

On 13 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wye Valley Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for noticing my misjudgment. I've returned the remaining articles to their former state. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - do you think that the images should be explicitly referenced in the article (seems obtrusive if applied to every image or map)? The images I added are all referenced with the text that accompanies the image (click on an image to see it); or do you mean that the images (especially maps) should be referenced beyond mere citation (I would support that especially in regard to the use of maps in articles)? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle, sorry I didn't get back sooner - you should download any of those images that you want to keep - I dislike the use of maps for pet theories and other similar such, and was chagrined to think that my additions could be used in that capacity, so I immediately marked the images for deletion.

However, don't worry if they're gone - if you can't upload them (and any others from Ashton's book) that you might want in order to discuss outdated theories, let me know and I'll upload them for you.

My angle in the original upload was the topic of changing geography over the centuries and millenia, an under-discussed consideration in history; I should have dug deeper to avoid injecting myself into a "theory of ancient history", which is likely the perspective I left by simply adding the maps to those articles. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mel tim.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mel tim.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

USA album

Hi! I'm doing some research on some off time now. I'll look into it to find for certain that it was released. Hard to find discographies on these sort of things for bands that generally only had one full LP. I'll look around though. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! thanks! I was sort of on a wiki-sugar rush with that article. Thanks for correcting my awful grammar. I don't know if that's the same one. And I've yet to find much about it's british release, as it didn't sell well in the UK. Curses. Thanks noticing! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't referring specifically to the idea that people didn't like the album in the UK. I'm sure it has it's audience I was just saying to it's popularity in comparison to how it charted in the US. I haven't found citable information about singles in other countries except with an interview with Dorothy Moskowitz saying that she thinks there were some singles in other countries, which isn't really a strong enough thing to state I think...Thanks for your concern though. I'm glad you like The USA as much as I do, if not more. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for taking such an interest in the album and article. It's a good point, but considering the group is American I think the original American cover is better for historical context. The other cover should definitely be shown as well though. I kind of wanted to add it to the infobox, but I didn't want to the article to become ridiculously huge. That's just my idea on it. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks for being supportive on my idea about it too. Good call on editing the text. Thanks again! Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK 24/9

On 24 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penterry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff

I suspect the return of our banned user on Tongwynlais and South Wales pages --Snowded TALK 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet

Great work polishing up my start - collaboration pays off, I must say thanks for your hard work and enthusiasm, attention to detail and what would have been a rather isolated peice could lead on to much greater articles now I feel. Much appreciated old mucker. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Great work on Llangybi, Monmouthshire also! Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I came across this chap Sir Thomas Morgan, 1st Baronet - a man known to Sir Trevor Williams Im sure during the seige of Raglan and another prominent Monmouthshire English Civil War figure, but on the wider stage. Im on the trail of more. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great, content great, worthy subject, packed with interesting facts reflecting an interesting life and a great collaboration - thanks Ghmyrtle for your vision there. Thanks to all with something useful to contribute (the key word as far as Wiki is concerned). Here's to more! Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tewdrig

Hello Ghmyrtle, thanks for the kind words. I got into the habit of "bolding" the article's subject person by imitation, and have gotten used to it by habit, not intent; I missed the objection of the MOS, could you point out where to find it? But I don't have a strong opinion in any case, so go ahead and be bold by removing the "bolding". I've been tossing over in mind what to do about those articles you mentioned, and similar others; many are in sorry condition, and I'm not sure where I want to jump in. I have a problem regarding a lot of the "junk history" that is extant (which is not to say that those particular articles fall into the category, they do not); and there are a lot of good faith (but mistaken) descriptions — one might spend forever doing cleanup, and never get to the true area of interest (knowledge of history, based on research and reliable/high quality sources). By the way, I have a usable topo map of the whole island, with rivers/names, cities/names, etc (a subregion was used to show the places mentioned in the Tewdrig article) ... am also unsure where I want to jump in here, as wikipedia is over-populated with quasi-accurate and inaccurate maps, which lend false credibility and often mislead. At any rate, thanks for the kind words, and sorry to go off on a rant. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there it is, right in front of me. I just missed it, but at least I now know it for the future. Thanks much. When that kind of thing happens, feel free to go ahead and fix, no need to worry about hurt feelings. For myself, I don't really agree with the "constant and ongoing small modifications" approach to article development, but perhaps that's only personal preference, and reasonable people may disagree. I'm not sure how someone would know if an article is incorrect without having done some research on it (and failing that, then a change is little better than substituting one person's OR for another person's OR — we're better off copying an EB article and leaving it as-is until a full job can be done, IMHO). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle, the account is from the Book of Llandaff, including the name of the crossing (Rhyd Tintern – I presume that there was one major crossing point and this is where it all happened. As for other, lesser crossing points that existed in the 6th century, I simply don't know); I saw Pont y Saeson somewhere when I was doing research, and didn't know if that was a later re-naming, or a reference to a different place ... it was unlikely to be called Pont y Saeson in the 6th century, of course. Also, I don't know if Tintern has a 6th century provenance, nor whether it got that name because of King Tewdrig or some other highly regarded individual. I believe that Tewdrig was at the now-long-gone abbey near the crossing, not precisely at the crossing ... if I implied otherwise, it is my error. As to the etymology, I picked that up both from the previous article incarnation and from references, but I would certainly welcome improvement here, as any efforts by myself concerning the Welsh language might rightly be considered as less than authoritative :-) ... use your best judgement. BTW, the etymologies that I've read of Merthyr Tewdrig state that Merthyr connotes Martyr, which is not inconsistent with "place of a king" (? but are you saying it has different origins, such as Maes Teyrn, or similar such?) – ie, "burial place of a martyred king". A simple "place of a king" sounds (to non-Welsh-speaking ears) more generic, and might be used to describe his primary residence, etc. Again, use your best judgement. As to pictures, the one I used was as close as I could get when I was writing ... better or more accurately descriptive ones would certainly be an article improvement, not only of Tintern, but also of the crossing and of Mathern. Did I hit all the high points? If not, continuation of the discussion is welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for scowles

On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article scowle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

cool article, bit different and much appreciated Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: England and Wales

"In cultural and ethnic terms Wales is a separate country."

Who writes this stuff? What does this even mean? Whose cultural and ethnic terms? What terms are they?

Yet another example of the same small group of editors circumventing basic editorial standards of citing any sources to appease the perspective of a couple of vocal editors, usually members of WP:WALES.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
— Wikipedia:Verifiability

This is pretty basic stuff, and if people think this is so obvious a truth then there should be a bredth of references they could use - but they're chosing not to. --Jza84 | Talk 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If something tighter, that has sources, can be written then of course my objections would be quashed. I'm not entirely sure it needs to be in the lead mind, but whatever works best. :) --Jza84 | Talk 15:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Using references that exist in another article that is linked is something of a myth of preference: try taking an article that has that approach through WP:GA or WP:FA (which is what we should be striving for) and it becomes apparent that "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source [...] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then it should not be in a Wikipedia article". Reviewers do not click into other article to hunt for references.

I have absolutely no idea if "the Principality of Wales correctly refers only to the northern and western parts of Wales during the period between the 13th and 16th centuries", but it does sound like an exceptional claim that requires careful sourcing. One man's truth is another's cause for concern.

In short, I'd just copy the source over from the other article (if it exists). It only takes a second, and makes for a more verifiable encyclopedia on the whole. --Jza84 | Talk 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet

On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

William Wroth

Thank you so much for your wonderful additions. They have transformed a rather humdrum article into a really good and lively one. Thank you ever so much. Martinevans123 (talk)

DYK for Carson Parks

On 14 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carson Parks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barbara Brennan

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Barbara Brennan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — Scientizzle 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock music

Hi, Yes, you improved on my initial, yet flawed attempts to improve the lede. Rock music articles are among the most problem-plagued articles in Wikipedia, because so many people play rock, play in bands, hang out with friends, and watch videos and rock documentaries, we all feel that we understand rock music/ rock history etc. As well, because we all spend a lot of time listening to different albums, we get a sense that we "understand" the connections between bands/genres. This causes a lot of Original Research, because people want to contribute their theory on how "Led Zeppelin's guitar soloing style led to the development of blues rock" and other creative--yet untrue--theories. And people really come to believe the urban legends and stories told at jam sessions, that XXX band invented the guitar solo, or YYY band invented the drum solo, to the point that people feel that these stories are more true than a citation from a music expert published in Encyclopedia Britannica and in the Rolling Stone encyclopedia. And the POV-pushing, weasel wording, and praising in rock articles....we hear that XXXX band's guitarist was the most "legendary, brilliant guitarist in the history of rock", and that "many critics consider XXXX's third album to be one of the greatest masterworks in the history of rock"...etc. Many rock articles (on bands, singers, etc) need to be "de-weasel worded", de-POVed, and have all the dubious Original Research removed. The main rock music article should be the "flagship" for strong Wikipedia writing...in the future, i'd like to work towards having all major claims cited, removing all dubious stuff, etc. Thanks for your letter. Sorry for the chaotic rambling...it is late here! OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, The great thing about rock music is that because it is popular and makes a lot of $$$, it is financially worthwhile for rock magazines to put their articles online for free (to attract advertising revenue). I have gotten many Rolling Stone articles free off the Internet. Also, AllMusic's encyclopedia is free online. As well, the entire New York Times is searchable on the Internet for free. I have free access to the Encyclopedia Brittanica online from where I work, so that is a good source, too. I don't think we have to worry about having the "PERFECT" source for now. Any printed, reputable magazine or newspaper is better than unsourced Original Reasearch. I will look at the Rock Music article this week to see if there are some good parts to work on. Thanks OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for William Wroth

On 19 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Wroth, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Lots of DYK lately, keep up the great work! Royal broil 04:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversions

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I guess that's the price we pay for reverting racism. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 23:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Psych Folk

well said. I was in the process of making the same amendment for the same reason! AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking. I feel sure there are sources out there, but this will never be a decent article until someone puts a few of them on the page! It's not really my field of interest at all, but I'm watching the page and I'll help out if its writers need my support. AndyJones (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shirleyand lee.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shirleyand lee.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wales

You don't understand, I know Gruffydd ap Llywelyn united all of current Wales under one king, but he also had territories currently in England. So by this logic any country which once had all its current territory united under a previous empire has its origins there. Which means that actually Wales and England both have there origins with the Romans... as do France and Italy. Do you see why such logic is ludicrous? To ascertain the origin of a country involves verifying as early as possible when it was completely united AND identified with its current nationality.

Since Gruffydd ap Llywelyn didn't officially merge the kingdoms into one with an affinity with today's Wales, just continued to rule them separately he didn't unite Wales. However I'm not going to change it again, it's clear there are some zealous nationalists immune to argument whom are trying to bend the history to fit the mythology. Though I don't think Wales first united in 1216 as the Principality of Wales should weaken any patriotic feeling... and actually support the break up of the UK including the independence of Wales - I guess some people just get one idea in their head and stick with it regardless of contradiction.--Supertask (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

West Country

Do me a favour and keep an eye on West Country. The rather abrasive contributor who claimed on the talk page that Gloucs/Wilts aren't part of the region has been removing content. I don't want to risk 3RR so would appreciate your input both on the talk page and in making sure the article is kept intact. --TimTay (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - he seems to have been blocked for the moment for over-aggressive comments elsewhere (calling Americans stupid....). Will keep monitoring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Screamo

In the big picture of rock music history, it hasn't really made a significant impact. Zazaban (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Traditional counties things

Aye, but its the extremism of editors which gets me. Not extreme opinions, which are quite legitimate either way, but extreme reactions and edits.

Out in the real world, if anyone were to talk of "Eyemouth in Scottish Borders" he would be deemed a nutter (or a journalist or a civil servant, which might be worse). Eyemouth is Berwickshire as everyone who lives there knows. In Wikiworld we do things differently. We cannot though expect the world to change the way it speaks around Wikipedia conventions.

I read the standing policy of course (you could caricature it as "describe towns by local government areas except in England, where cermonial counties can be used as long as you don't use ceremonial counties in Wales...."). It has a more balanced approach than one might think from edits I have seen. That balance is damaged by what look like assumptions of ill-will. If someone writes in a way that seems natural to them "Pontypridd in Glamorgan" then someone else might jump on them and accuse them of vandalism. Others seem to run through articles trying to eliminate all reference to traditional counties, which is not the policy at all.

Thus one user is accused of violating "NPOV" in referring to traditional counties, but his accusers see no irony in the accusation while they go to the other point of view extreme! Why change "is" to "was"? That is turning a neutral word to a POV word. I suspect that those who pointedly remove county references feel provoked, or intend to reverse what they have convinced themselves is vandalism, but that is to be led astray by misunderstanding the other man's point of view.

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881

On 8 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Williamson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Williamson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Chepstow Bridge

...it's the Road bridge. Thanks for the pointerMark Wheaver (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bold title

You may not think it looks good, but I think that having a more descriptive title is much more important than aesthetics. – Pee Jay 11:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback

I've done that. I'm wondering if you might need some other tools as well. Pedro : Chat 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.... dunno. Thanks anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you

... For continued spell checking on Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages. I was curious though, could you see if this image on the Welsh version of Wikipedia found on their version of Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd may be transfered over to the English language version? I would like to use the image for Hywel. I do not speak Welsh so do not know if the author authorized it for use on the English Wiki.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales-England border

This article is nearly up for DYK, but I can't find a source mentioned after the statement "that the border between Wales and England (The River Dee pictured) has followed broadly the line of Offa's Dyke since the 8th century, but was only finally determined in law in 1972?" That is was finally determined by law in '72 is confirmable, but for the first statement, the source is a bit hidden. Can you solve this as soon as possible, so I can put it up? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Wales-England border

On 30 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wales-England border, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on another great article! ~Geaugagrrl^talk 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales Map

I wouldn't go as far as saying you were a nuisance just picky, which we're all guilty of at times. I see we share a common education in geography, quite sad that these days cartography isn't a feature of most degrees and tends to be covered if at all in GIS modules. I was registered at one point, however, I found that it starts to consume a lot of my time and most of what I like to do I can do unregistered and without the various added extra that result in one staying on longer than planned. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the map a bit, still a few thing to do, but it's looking a little better now!81.111.119.98 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also have done a very rough elevation map of height above 600 feet. I've placed both below so its easier to see. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done a few minor updates and added the severn in along with moving Newport. I tried to add St David's but it just didn't sit very well in the map as it either went all over the national park section or was left floating of the end. I'll re-draw snowdonia in a few days time as I'm a tad busy for the next two/three weeks.81.111.119.98 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Literature of Wales (Welsh language)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Literature of Wales (Welsh language), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Welsh literature. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry issue

Hello! Your submission of Alexander Cannon (psychiatrist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost/ extinct settlements

Thanks for your comment and interest. Huwmanbeing has been supportive and, from a purist point of view, I agree. Have a look at my response, however. There was already a cat "Lost settlements in Northamptonshire" which included abandoned villages, so that meaning of "lost" (no longer in occupation, location known or unknown) was already was already understood. Also, Dunwich is lost in any sense, although we know its location - as with various Dutch former settlrments.

There's already cats that cover various sub-groups of "lost" or "extinct" settlements: Sunken cities, Ghost towns, Hill forts, etc, and it seems appropriate to draw these together, so I disagree that the family of cats is "not very useful". But is your criticism of purpose or of name? Huwmanbeing's diagreement is over the name - yours extends to purpose.

Trellech is marginal here, IMO. The abandonment of a settlement and its resettlement nearby, eg Verulamium/ St Albans, leaves a lost settlement on the original site; the destruction of a settlement and its resettlement some time after, eg, Medeshamstede/Peterborough, also means that there was a "lost" settlement. An important settlement that implodes into a small one is debatable; there's continuity on site, but not in essence. Trellech sounds like this.

I'll copy this ramble to the the original location. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying there Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Cannon (psychiatrist)

On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Cannon (psychiatrist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah and Alexandra Burke

Since there is an ongoing discussion in the talk pages of Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song), I wondered why you'd chosen to go ahead and take action to add the section about Alexandra Burke and her singing of it. There seem to be fairly compelling reasons not to have the section (lack of useful information, unfair to other covers, not valid constitution of recognition) and I so I ask you why you chose to reinstate it without consulting the editing community. ggt500 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of getting the right balance, which is difficult at this stage with the X Factor show just completed and the single not yet physically released. Your edit downplayed the winner's version, and other edits overplayed it. I tried to find an appropriate balance - but the chances of stability at this point in time are zero. Good for Cohen's bank balance anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can remove it now since I see you've removed the chart positions. I still think the infobox seems to make her version more notable than the others, but when this calms down in a few weeks the article can be cleaned up properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hallelujah (disambiguation)

Okay, i've watchlisted the page and will now keep a close eye on it! You should'nt need to worry about the 3RR though. Vandalism reverts are exempt from it. JS (chat) 21:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats a fair point. Happy to help :-) JS (chat) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Silures

"If you wish to propose or make substantial changes, please raise them on the talk page for agreement first. But any changes you make to verbatim quotes will be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)" Would this be the citation which mentions that the Britons rather than simply the Scots, the Welsh and Irish? Or would this be the citation which claims that the Britons the Irish , the Scots and the Welsh are not Celtic, but probably the original inhabitants of Europe?. Read Sykes and Oppenheimers work/books regards genetic origins. And get back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 December 2008

Butt Rock

Uh, thanks. I saw that on the article and brilliant old me removed bias and added a fact tag. I don't know why it didn't occur to me it was crap, I'm usually sharper than that. Thanks for catching that. Zazaban (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwynllwg, Wentloog, Gwent, Caerwent?

Owain's explanation for Wentloog seems to be different? I had thought it was from Gwent llwych Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha! No, I think that theory's been disproved - I'll search out the references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this and this - I suspect that I've read a fuller explanation in a book rather than online. By the way, I'm sure I read that Gwynllŵg was originally part of Glamorgan, not Gwent, anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And we'll see what Owain says. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry christmas!

Merry christmas Ghmyrtle! Hope you have a happy new year and an all round great 2009 :-) JS (chat) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination issue

Hello! Your submission of Cortelia Clark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Expresso (film)

Since Wisdom is in a care home and suffering from dementia, it's near impossible for him to return to acting. His family and official news sources have called it his final role (and he even came out of retirement to play that one). Perhaps you can agree on a different hook? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cortelia Clark

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortelia Clark, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky 09:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barbara Brennan

I have nominated Barbara Brennan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Brennan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

~Geaugagrrl^talk has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks again for all your help swith Cors Caron :) ~Geaugagrrl^talk 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Barbara_Brennan maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara_Brennan.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)