User talk:Enaidmawr/Archive 3

Independence

Hi, couldn't help noticing your useboxes. So do you really think Wales will be an independent state within 10 years or are you just being optimistc? Would the Welsh language suddenly increase if Wales became independent? Selvstendighet (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message, Selvstendighet. I guess you could say I'm being optimistic perhaps but a lot depends on what happens in Scotland. If the Scots vote for full independence I think many more Welsh people than at present will be for 'independence' as they will find it difficult to accept being an unequal partner in a future 'United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland'. If Scotland leaves the union - and it is by now a very definite probability rather than a possibility - the whole ball game changes. I certainly look forward to the day that Wales, one of the oldest countries in Europe, finally takes her place as a full member of the European Union and the UN; despite the scaremongering of the pro-unionists the great majority of Welsh "nationalists" are liberal internationalists, not "narrow-minded separatists" (we don't want to be "seperate" but included in the rest of the world community). As for the Welsh language, there are some positive signs at present and I can't see that being an independent country with two official languages would harm that at all, quite the contrary. Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball, but hope that goes some way to answer your questions. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

After crossing swords a couple of weeks ago, it may surprise you to know I, as an Englishman, hope you are successful in your wishes. I have long supported an independent Cymru, hopefully within the European Union, and was even a member of Plaid Cymru in my student days. As you say, if Scotland opts for independence the United Kingdom's future looks untenable. The big question is what happens to Northern Ireland if Scotland and Wales opt out. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. "What happens to NI?" is the $60,000 dollar question for which I have no answer. 'United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland' would seem to be scraping the barrel. Some form of semi-autonomy which recognises both republican and unionist allegiances, perhaps? The Good Friday Agreement could be argued as having opened that possibility but I think it would take several generations to fully realise it. By the way, I hope I need hardly add that I support an independent England, also firmly in Europe. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would opt for an independent federal England, with the English regions having roughly the same powers as the German länder. As to Northern Ireland, I am not sure that a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland would be acceptable to most English people, who tend to view the loyalist community in the north as having ties to Scotland rather than England. In theory independence for the province within the European Union should safeguard both communities' traditions and maintain links with England and Scotland for ther loyalists, and with Ireland for the republicans. But logic rarely has much chance when it comes to Northern Ireland as both communities get themselves entrenched in non-negotiable positions. I cannot see the loyalist side ever accepting a united Ireland, but on the other hand they have to be aware of the demographic timebomb. In a couple of decades they are likely to be a minority in the North. I'm not sure, in any case, that the loyalist community has ever seriously considered what they should do if the United Kingdom disintegrates under them. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Principal area of Wales templates

WikiThanks

Thanks for the help with the Principal area of Wales templates

Hi Enaidmawr. A big thank you for your guidance and leadership with the principal area of Wales templates. When I first tossed out these templates, I hoped someone with much more knowledge than me would do a "buff and polish" to make sure they were accurate. You've done that and much more, per usual--see above on your talk page for my other many thanks to you. Best wishes! ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Geaugagrrl. Nice to hear from you. Thanks for your appreciation - just hope it meets with everybody else's approval as well. I had a "binge" on the Wales counties/county boroughs categories and found a lot of inconsistencies. Don't know if you noticed but I've also created and populated the Category:Counties of Wales. It seemed incredible to me that whereas the Category:Counties of the United Kingdom contained Category:Counties of England/Northern Ireland/Scotland, Wales was represented by Category:Historic counties of Wales only! Our present counties and the preserved counties, which already have a category, were ignored: as if to say 'yes, but those aren't "real" counties'! I'd like to get to grips with this whole so-called 'principal areas' issue as well. Absolutely nobody, including the local councils themselves, uses the term and most people have never even heard of it and yet we see it again and again in Wales articles and have loads of categories based on the term. Seems pretty much ludicrous to me. Would you be in agreement if I brought this up at the Welsh wikipedians' talk page? English wikipedia is way out on a limb here (and why just Wales: they have 'principal areas' for local government in England too but always refer to counties etc...). Cofion cynnes (warm regards), Enaidmawr (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Just noticed the colour change: much more pleasing to the eye! Thanks to you too for all your good work, as always. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means, get to the bottom of what is correct in the, "is it unitarian authority, principal area, or counties/cities/borough, etc.! It took me a bit of digging to even start the nav templates in the first place, and I could not find any clear indication on Google or anywhere else as to what was correct. I did notice the lack of Cat:Counties in Wales. There are a few here in Wikiville that are still very hung up on historic counties instead of present day designation, so I'd decided not to go there-call me a chicken *bGOCK*. Have you seen the nav template for Swansea? Now that is a scary thing indeed! Come this way for a "bender" anytime. We need the help. Wish I could get my Welsh learning on track so I could assist your way, but the program I chose is not working *big frown* Glad you like the color change...I'd been meaning to figure out some change, then User:Ham chose the theme for Cardiff. Voila! Take care. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 02:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RCT move

Sh'w mae Enaidmawr, amending Rhondda Cynon Taff to Rhondda Cynon Taf in individual town's infoboxes has caused the names of the Police and Fire service authorities to disappear e.g. Llantrisant. Do you know how to remedy this please? Hwyl, Daicaregos (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sut mae Dai? I'm afraid I've no idea. There must be some subsidiary template involved, I guess, but which? Finding these things can be well-nigh impossible! I'd like to change 'principle area' to 'unitary authority' on the Welsh place info boxes but can't figure that one out either. Clearly there's a template or note somewhere in both cases, but where? Enaidmawr (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Iawn, O wel. Any idea how one goes about finding out? It's a mystery to me. Daicaregos (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just left a note at Template talk:Infobox UK place asking for help. God knows where they hide these things! Enaidmawr (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's hope someone at Template talk:Infobox UK place knows where they hide these things too. :) Daicaregos (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good news. Warofdreams has fixed it (haven't checked yet): see Template talk:Infobox UK place. Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've checked a few town/village pages (Llantrisant, Pontypridd, Tonyrefail, Llanharan and Penygraig) and they all seem to be OK now. Thanks for doing that. I'll mention it on the RCT talk page, so if anyone's still trying to find a way to fix it they'll know it's been sorted. Hwyl. Daicaregos (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Newport

Will you just try and keep that "Welsh nationalist PoV" under control :-) (See Talk:Newport). I hadn't realised there were still those who claimed Monmouthshire for England! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely reprimand :-) As you probably know, those few who still suffer from that particular delusion also do their best to give the impression that the so-called "historic counties" still exist and are more important or 'real' than the present ones, delete references to the preserved counties (and even the present ones on occasion!), omit or remove Wales itself from article leads (especially articles in the Newport and Monmouthshire categories), and seem hell-bent on timewarping the geography of Wales. There can't be many of them. Perhaps if they were all to move to one small ward of Newport, right on the border, we could consider ceding that to England (assuming the good people of England would actually want them!)? Failing that there's always South Georgia... Enaidmawr (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of us see merit in both the "nationalist POV" (sometimes) and the "historic counties" (sometimes)... just to confuse everyone! And don't ask where I stand re the history of "Monmouthshire"...  :-} Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't! A neutral point of view - or is it a divided one(?!) - is much appreciated. To confuse things further I might add that from my own personal POV I'm not that enthusiastic about some of our contemporary subdivisions either, foisted upon us by Westminster as they were in the days of the Tory Governor Generals. I'd prefer Gwynedd to mean Gwynedd; it's always included Anglesey and the territory to the west of the River Conwy and arguably still does. Just because some ignoramus of a civil servant took places like the Carneddau and Arllechwedd out of Gwynedd does not mean that they are no longer in the real Gwynedd, as a cultural-geographical entity (cf. Morgannwg, and the "much-hated" Gwent for that matter...). Doesn't change the fact that I now live in the county (borough) of Conwy though and it certainly doesn't give me the right to doctor articles to reflect my POV by making Conwy "a town in Conwy County Borough, within the historical area of Gwynedd". Enaidmawr (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you need any evidence to report sock puppetry? This is beginning to get a bit tedious. Daicaregos (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this message now. I'd been thinking the same thing myself. True you don't have to sign in, but signing off and then resuming with a series of controversial edits just a few minutes later under the anonymity of an IP address is pushing it a bit, I'd have thought. The edits and the IP addy's record make it pretty clear who it is. Don't know about the precise rules though. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Counties of Wales

Hi, 84.92.28.92 (talk · contribs) has undone your edits, removing the above category from other categories and some county borough articles. I'm not certain whether the county borough are counties (although I would have thought they are), so I've taken your lead and reverted the IPs edits. Rather than leaving a warning template on the user's page, I;d prefer to leave an explanation of why county boroughs are considered counties (prefereably with a reliable source as evidence), but since I'm not familiar with the issue, could you take care of it? Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The IP editor is known to me and others at wikiproject Wales and is an ardent promoter of the so-called "historical counties", hence his reaction to this. I've added two references to the BBC referring to them as counties to the Local government in Wales article. I'd have no objection to the county boroughs being a sub-cat in the Counties of Wales category but it seemed a bit pointless creating an extra sub-cat when an explanatory note in the category would, I had hoped, suffice. Prior to my creating the category only the historical counties category represented Wales in the UK counties category, even though we already had the Preserved counties category. But then the said editor is vehemently opposed to the preserved counties as well (see Talk:Newport) so consistency was not to be expected. In fact his edits show a distinct aversion to referring to the existing [non-borough] counties by that name as well. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PS If you're interested I've just opened a discussion on this and related matters at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we certain this is Owain's IP? If so, this falls foul of wikipedia's sock puppetry rules and is not allowed. Using different accounts or logging out to engage in discussions can give the false inpression of more people supporting a particular point of view. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there can be any doubt about it. Just check the IP addy's log and Owain's contributions: timing plus comments etc. I don't want to instigate anything as we regularly cross swords. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

PS See above, comment by Daicaregos. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brut

God, what people can come up with when they don't take care about the kinds of sources they use. I'll try to get on it and see what I can do (it seems to me that it's pointless to have an article on this and not on Brut y Brenhinedd). For now it's worth at least a "disputed" tag.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What's this I see, a miracle? Incredible transformation. I wasn't trying to offload the work, but then I'm not complaining either: many thanks to yourself and fellow editors for turning an essay in fantasy into a solid article, well-written and well-sourced. Brilliant! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, I can't believe what I see on that talk page! Deb (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, worthy of being recorded for posterity! I steered clear of the second installment as it seemed obvious that a reasoned argument was a non-starter. Unfortunately this is just one example of the work of an editor who seems to go out of his way to use discredited sources and accept them uncritically. Ho hum...

BTW Deb, if you're popping over to cy: today could you have a look at my comment on Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Xxglennxx? Seems to be an (innocent) case of having two user accounts. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Welsh castle categories

Can you please reinstate my changes, as your objection has been resolved. Vicarage (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, but if you were aware of the problem why did you leave the categories like that in the first place? I couldn't believe my eyes when I read 'former Welsh county of Ceredigion' etc. For all I knew it might have been days before you came to Wikipedia again, which is why I reverted the edits. With respect, you should have been more careful and normally it would be your responsibility to do the work rather than asking me to do so. Please be more careful in future. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem was in place for perhaps 20 minutes. Alerting me was good, undoing 10 edits without giving me any window to the fix the problem just generates more work for both of us. If I have to make restructuring changes while looking over my shoulder all the time, I'm inclined not to contribute the project at all. Vicarage (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel like that. It's up to you. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Carnoban

Well, I rewrote it based on the one or two things it is possible to legitimately say about "Carnoban". It probably still should be deleted, or merged somewhere (but where?) It seems more and more of my and others time is being taken up in correcting misinformation introduced by that editor.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure it was worth editing and didn't want you to spend your valuable time doing so, but thanks. Problem with keeping it is that it could set a precedent. As far as I know there is only that single reference by Iolo (and other refs deriving from it, possibly, e.g. John Rhys), so does it merit an article? Can't think where to merge it to, unless we have a 'List of people and places apparently invented by Iolo Morganwg'?! As you say though, this is getting tedious. I have precious little time here anyway because of my commitments on cy:, but between this and other nonsense/POV-pushing I find most of my time here being wasted (see Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board for another example, also from said editor). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dim sockpuppetry

Ummm......not sure about that. I suppose it depends if he wants all his contributions to be counted. If not, we can just delete the account and forget about it. Deb (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe we could use this - Template:User Alternate Acct ? Deb (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

He seemed concerned about losing his contributions record. Maybe the template would solve the problem (just hope it's easy to "translate" to cy:). Bit late at night to sort it out now so I'll get back to it tommorrow. Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"'Ynys Prydain"

Can you help resolve an issue at "British Isles"? There is a reference in the Etymology section there to the isles (plural) being termed, in Welsh, "Ynys Prydain". I don't speak Welsh, but I would have thought that ynys refers to only one island, Great Britain. Am I right? There is a reference in the infobox there to "Ynysoedd Prydain" (plural), but no-one on that article seems to be convinced that the ref in the etymology section is wrong. Or am I wrong? A definitive answer would be helpful there! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The nomenclature of Britain/GB etc is as potentially misleading in Welsh as in English, however one would never use 'Ynys Prydain' (lit. 'The Island of Britain') for "British Isles". 'Prydain Fawr' ('Great Britain') is also widely used for the island and, as in English and just as incorrectly, strictly speaking, for "Great Britain" as in "UK of GB and NI". Historically, Ynys Prydain had the principal meaning of 'territory of the Brythons', roughly equivalent to Roman Britannia (for this use of Welsh ynys in the sense "land, realm", compare Latin insula). Similarly, 'Prydain' ("Britain") was interchangeable for 'Ynys Prydain' and had the same meaning, and in modern usage should really only refer to the island of Britain itself and, at most, its offlying islands, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales = 'gwledydd Prydain' (a popular modern term meaning "the countries of Britain"; note it doesn't include NI). For "Britain and Ireland" in the geographical sense one would normally say 'Prydain ac Iwerddon', quite logically. 'Ynysoedd Prydain' should, strictly speaking, only be used for the territories of England, Scotland and Wales: does not include Ireland, north or south. Of course, just as in English - and largely thanks to the influence of that language and Anglo-American culture - you will find examples in everyday usage which might appear to contradict some of these definitions! Hope that helps. I'll copy this and add it to the talk page for "British Isles", but I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted and pointless debate (hey, the summer's here, just about!). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

PS Having just spent five minutes browsing the intolerably long Talk:British Isles, I'm damned if I can work out where you'd like me to add this (!). Feel free to copy and paste this where you would like it to be, if it helps clarify things. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added an edited version of the above, referenced, to the Etymology section. A bit rushed, but it's Saturday night and I'm going to put my feet up for a while. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll copy your reply into the talk page, and then edit the changes you've made to the main page if that's OK - I think the explanation you've added to the text goes beyond what's needed. Hope that's OK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dai Splash

Sh'w mai Enaidmawr, oes barnau 'da ti am y newyd? Wi'n meddwl WP:OWN. Y fanerau Undeb am Yr Alban a LLoegr hefyd. Hwyl Daicaregos (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sôn am David Davies (swimmer) wyt ti, Dai? Dwi wedi newid 'nationality' yn ôl i 'Welsh' yn lle "British / Welsh" (!) ond dwi ddim yn siwr am y faner - os ydyw'n wir fod pob infobox am nofwyr o wledydd Prydain heb faner mae'n debyg fod rhaid i ni dderbyn hynny, ond ydy hynny'n wir, dyna'r cwestiwn? Basa'n rhaid siecio pob un! Ond dwi ddim yn deall "Y fanerau Undeb am Yr Alban a LLoegr hefyd": oes rhywbeth arall wedi digwydd hefyd? Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the 'Personal bests and records held' section. there are flags for the location of each meeting. Seems they are all in the United Kingdom, whether in England or Scotland, despite the template asking the question: 'country'. Seems extremely POV to me, which would explain the editor's insistance that the Wales flag is not shown. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Should have scrolled down the page! Personally I think that's highly POV. Thank God Cardiff isn't on the list, but I know what my reaction would be if I were Scots and saw Glasgow represented with 'United Kingdom' and the Union Jack. If it says 'country' then in my opinion it should show the country in question - the UK is a polity or state. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that the editor in question and others of his ilk have their own political agenda. Should we accept it? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Daicaregos (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems to be a one-man crusade. Here's another example. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And another, Welsh this time. Corrected now. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems it's not just individuals (who all appear to be British, God bless them). See List of Commonwealth records in swimming as an example. Do you have a strategy? Daicaregos (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I've corrected some of the Welsh examples (Category:Welsh swimmers), which had the contributor's fingerprints all over them. You know what these arguments can be like. Got a flak jacket to spare? In the case of team events I suppose that "GB" (i.e. UK) competes at the Olympics, but the Commonwealth games are another matter: Welsh atheltes compete under the Welsh flag (roll on the day that is true for the Olympics as well...). That being the case, I'd have thought we had a watertight case. Might be an idea to get a few others on borad though or it will just degenerate into a famous wiki edit war. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the Thomas Haffield page. He has a Union flag in the nationality part of the info box! Daicaregos (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Had. Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Same person is responsible for the Commonwealth list as well. That's good news as far as changing it goes. And as I said, athletes compete under their own national flags in the teams of their (true) countries, not GB/UK. As far as places go, there seems to be a clear consensus in articles to use Wales/Scotland/England, not UK. Anyway, this is all Brit Nat propaganda, that's all. Why should we accept it? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

e/c We shouldn't, wrth gwrs. We seem to have one rogue British Nationalist editor hiding behind 'well, the template police say ...' & a hypocrite too (re this article, which he had just edited. Two points. 1: He seems to be very active and does a lot of good work (as well as the propaganda). 2. He doesn't WP:OWN the articles, so changing them on the basis that WP:FAs are a better style guide than some template is quite feasible. Daicaregos (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: the Commonwealth list: shall we change it anyway or bring it up on talk page first? At least explain why there and then change it, perhaps the best tactic (too long to explain in edit comment)? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cf. Category:Commonwealth Games medallists for Wales in Category:Commonwealth Games medallists by nation. Can't argue with that. Having said that, there's a heck of a lot to change there. Maybe tomorrow? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Duw, Duw. Tan 'fory, te. Daicaregos (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting it. I absolutely assure you that I have no particular POV regards to nationalism. As you will see from my edit history, my interest is in swimming, and being a resident of the UK, I have concerned myself with the upkeep of articles of all swimmers who have represented this land and it's constituent parts. I have spent much time ensuring that each and every article contains accurate information regarding the swimming element of their careers, including rolling out the Infobox swimmer template (whilst ensuring the guidelines are stuck to) and "Personal bests and records held" section to articles. With the exception of the Commonwealth Games, the sport of swimming on the international stage is represented by "Great Britain", and hence I feel it is appropriate that "United Kingdom" and the Union flag appear as part of location names. I quite agree that perhaps the List of Commonwealth records in swimming should be listed as Wales, Scotland, England etc., though perhaps take note that List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations shows "United Kingdom" as the Commonwealth member - the politics of this is not my concern, though I suggest mentioning this potential edit (and any others) on the relevant talk pages first. Thanks. Yboy83 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations is not entirely relevant here. It is not the governments that compete in the Commonwealth Games, but the commonwealth games federations (see Commonwealth Games#List of nations/dependencies to compete). The United Kingdom has four such federations : England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each of these competes as a commonwealth nation in its own right. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, your phrase "this land and it's constituent parts" speaks for itself. And if you agree with the Commonwealth situation why leave it unchanged through your numerous edits there? This needs changing and will be changed, with the reasons for that noted on the Talk page. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put a note on the Template talk:Infobox swimmer Talk page. Awaiting response shouldn't mean we have to be inactive on the country flags, though. We could probably use some help. Any idea how to set a Bot up? Daicaregos (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Yboy83. Thank you for your assurance that you are apolitical in this regard. I hope you can understand why we may not have drawn that conclusion originally. I'm pleased you have decided to engage in discussion. The countries of the United Kingdom are just that - countries - and it is appropriate to note that in their location, for example, Sheffield, England and Glasgow, Scotland. Using flag icons helps, by making it more visual. Is this something you think you would want to help with, so that all the UK swimmers are shown consistently? Daicaregos (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the first item on the list - List of Commonwealth records in swimming - but have found others. Every athlete on that first list is recorded as of British nationality in their articles, some of which include lists of records which also need amending. Then there is List of British records in swimming. Presumably there must be others. All are notable for the use of the Union Jack and UK for nationality and locations, all have edits by the same editor. This is a great deal of work to be done. Maybe we need a bot after all! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would help. Do you know how to get one? Daicaregos (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea, Dai, to be honest. I've never had to do so but presume it involves finding an amenable bot owner and making a request? Btw, I had a look at the section you started in the template talk. Seems my input there isn't needed? Maybe I'd better keep clear anyway as that arrogant, demeaning, pig-ignorant and insulting term "sub-nation" doesn't do much for my blood pressure! (Apart from the fact that we can not be "sub-nations" of the UK as the UK itself is not a nation, unless they've invented a breed of people called 'UKers' or 'Unitedkingdomers' or even 'Unitedkingdomofgreatbritainandnorthernirelanders'!?). Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sh'w mae Enaid, it's just ignorance (I hope), & Wikipedia is here to educate. Paid a becso. Do you have a view as to whether the nationality should be given as the nation or the demonym? Given the choice I would go for the answer to the question 'What is your nationality?' Hwyl, Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyna ni: WP:BOTREQ. What do you think we should ask for? Daicaregos (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to 'What is your nationality?' is obvious and is what is needed here, i.e. 'Welsh' etc. I'm very wary of this neologism "demonym"; if I understand it correctly it just means 'name of (a) people' (demos), i.e. not neccesarily a 'nation' (natio) such as Welsh, Scottish (so 'Londoners' is a demonym for the 'people of London', for instance). It's Saturday evening and the sun's come out at last, so I'm not sure I feel like doing much here today, but we'll have to work out exactly what needs doing by the bot. Maybe that's going to mean checking out the nationality of every UK-born swimmer we have? But I'm beginning to think 'Hold on now, who created this situation in the first place and why should we have to spend hours of our time trying to rectify it?'. Somebody (cough) who knows "who's who" and the relevant articles would be far better placed for that... Enaidmawr (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be only the decent thing to do. Daicaregos (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwyddyl

Btw, here's a fascinating quote from Humphrey Llwyd about the term Gwyddyl:

“That the Scots are descended from the Irish is well known to themselves as to everybody else, and they are referred to by the same name by our people, that is Gwyddyl. That they came from there seems to be well proven by the fact that they share the same language and customs with the Irish, and are given the same name by British speakers. For the southern Scots are not true Scots, but are descended from the English, of whom a great multitude arrived in Scotland whilst fleeing from William Duke of Normandy. And to this day they glory in their English origin; at the same time both they and the English look upon the true Scots as barbarians and uncivilised people

. It of course tells you more about the 16th century than any previous era, but interesting nonetheless. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting quote. That was pretty much the traditional view in Wales. Did you know we also have Gwyddyl Iwerddon for the Irish in Ireland (in contrast with Gwyddyl Dulyn, the Norse-Irish of Dublin) in Armes Prydain. Also common in Middle Welsh is the term Gwyddyl Ffichti[aid] for the Picts. Especially like the latter! Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More fascinating than that ... few scholars had picked up on the fact that the Welsh translation of the biography of Gruffydd ap Cynan translates Scotia as Prydyn (or some variation, can't remember exact spelling and don't have the text to hand). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't find 'Prydyn' in Historia Gruffud vab Kenan (ed. D. Simon Evans, UWP 1977), but Prydein (=Prydain) is given on page 2 in the lineage of Gruffudd ap Cynan on his mother's side for Avloed (=Afloedd) father of Ragnell, G's mother, who was [b]renhin Dulyn a phymhet ran Ywerdon ac enys Vanav, a hanoed gynt o deyrnas Prydein ('king of Dublin and the fifth part of Ireland and the Isle of Man, who hailed before that from the realm of Prydain'). Normally 'Prydain' (or 'Ynys Brydain') means the territory/'realm' of the Brythons, but clearly stands here for Scotia ('Prydyn' usually refers to the land of the Picts, but just as in the case of the use of Gwyddyl/Gwyddel its precise meaning in a given context is often unclear. To confuse the picture further, [Y]sgotiaid or Ysgot etc (Scotti) is often used for Gwyddel (i.e. 'Irish' in general), although it appears to be a later term and is sometimes used, correctly, for the Scotti in Scotland; I know of references to the 'Gwyddyl' 'Sgotiaid' and 'Ffichtiaid' together. Furthermore, Gwyddyl can also mean simply 'foreigners' and is used at least once to refer to the 'Germanwyr' (English!). Many more examples could be added. There's a useful section in the intro to Evans' edition of HGK (above), especially pp. lxxvii-lxxi; it's in Welsh but may still be of interest to you for the quotes and references. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just imagine the edit war that would have created if Wikipedia had been going at the time! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You know your stuff. This is the standard way of referring to the Picts. In the Roman period the Picts and Britons under Roman rule got distinguished, so that the Picts were proper Britons and the Romanised Britons saw themselves as different. While the B replaced the P for Briton under the influence of British Romance, the P- version (Prydain, Prydyn, and so on) got used either as a archaic name for the island or the word for Picts. The same thing happened in Irish. Irish borrowed Bretan from British Romance and the original Irish word for Britons, cognate with Prydain, Cruithen (Cruithne, and so on) fossilized as the word for the Picts. The Irish word for Pictland, and perhaps the Pictish word, was Alba (originally meaning Britain), the modern Gaelic word for Scotland. The Latin word for Pictland changed c. 900 from Pictavia to Scotia (mirrored by English use of the word Scotland) creating a false sense that Scotland and Pictland are distinct concepts ... the Welsh translation of that biography is an illustration of how slowly this became the case in Celtic languages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Criccieth / Cricieth

Prynhawn dda. Could do with a little help here if you are willing. Please see Talk:Criccieth#Name dispute. Have you any further information that could be used? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Skinsmoke, sut mae? Left this on the talk page:

Although the controversy is familiar enough, I can't seem to find anything about it right now - annoyingly! The original Welsh name as found in Brut y Tywysogion was 'Cruceith' (MW Kruceith) and the form 'Cruciaith' is found in a famous poem by Iolo Goch (late 14th century). The etymology is not as straightforward as some sources suggest, but the most common is crug ('hillock' etc) + caeth (which could mean either 'serfs' or 'captives' here). 'Cricieth' is undoubtedly the correct form in Welsh (with all due respect to past burghers!). Perhaps an etymology section would be an idea? This could then include the c/cc "controversy". You might find these useful as well - Cricieth, Criccieth - as far as they go, although the second has some inaccuracies and the first doesn't really tell you much. I can give refs for the early forms, of course. Good work on the article: great improvement!

Let me know if I can be of help. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Enaidmawr. Da iawn, diolch. The stuff above is great, and I'll try and incorporate much of it into the article. Not sure how soon it will be, but I think a section on the origins of the name (and the controversy that has surrounded the spelling) is a must. There's a lot to do on the article, which was in a pretty poor state (and really wasn't much more than a stub that had been fleshed out) and I suspect it's going to take a few weeks to do it justice, so any help would always be appreciated if you find yourself at a bit of a loose end. Despite our somewhat rocky start a couple of weeks back, I quite like what I've seen of your way of working on Wikipedia. I still intend to get back to working on List of communities in Wales, but to be honest I was getting a bit bored with it and fancied a bit of a change, so thought I would see what I could do with Criccieth, for no other reason than I spent a couple of very enjoyable days in the town over Easter. Hwyl Skinsmoke (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's taken a few days but the Criccieth piece has been taken about as far as I can go. Just the section on Etymology to do, so if you can help out with those references for the early forms of the name I'd be grateful. You may like to take a look over the article as a whole and see if I've got anything wrong or if you have any other suggestions. I did think of adding a little about bathing and surfing to the Sports section (may still do so, as I think the Blue Flag status needs a mention), but I am not sure I understood most of what I found on surfing, and am also not certain just how popular this is in the town. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather late in the day to be thinking about it now, but I'll get on to this in the near future, inshallah and all that. Missed your earlier message somehow; diolch am y canmoliaeth! Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I promise! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Promise fulfilled... I'll have to dig around for possible sources on the c/cc controversy. Let you know if I find anything. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

redirects

The various UK related redirects are not obviously speedyable to me as implausible misnomers. Please use RfD for them and the community will decide. DGG (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, some of them don't fall directly in that category I guess, but if you had the misfortune to be familiar with Mr Taz's "contributions" you'd appreciate the frustration felt by myself and other editors at his constant stream of nonsense. A couple of months ago I had about eighty (80) of his spurious and mischievous redirects speedily deleted. Please also take a look at his Talk page - not a pretty sight! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Enaidmawr. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TNXMan 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wales, North and South"

Hello. I wonder if you have any insight into the use of the term "Wales, North and South". It was invariably used in the annual list of high sheriffs appointed and published in the London Gazette and The Times all the way up to 1973. I wonder why they felt the need to add "North and South". It seems to imply some sort of legal distinction between North and South Wales and by extension a formal definition of each. At the moment the North Wales and South Wales articles aren't great: especially the latter which uses defunct counties in its definition. Any ideas? Lozleader (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Lozleader. Been busy for a few days and just seen this. I'll have to look up the legal usage. Rather odd term! Of course, strictly speaking there are indeed only two regions of Wales, i.e. North and South, with the dividing line running across from Aberystwyth, roughly. Makes sense in linguistic (major vowel shift) and cultural terms as well, not to mention geography. We now have this penchant for various vaguely-defined "regions", which is bad enough, but even worse when they shoulder out counties in the Welsh media (can you imagine a national paper in England referring to "a South England man" or "from Penrith, Northern England"?!). Reductio ad absurdo Cambria est! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Nationalism

Sh'w mae Enaidmawr, I would be interested to hear your views on the recent changes on Welsh Nationalism. Diolch, Daicaregos (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nefi wen! Just seen this. I know and respect both of you. Maybe I should steer clear of this one? Too late tonight, anyway. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chwarae teg. You don't have to take sides, just give your opinion. I understand if you decide not to though. Pob hwyl. Daicaregos (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping clear, Dai. I usually come here after a longish session on cy: and don't always have the energy to do everything I'd like to do. Your request came in the middle of one of those spells where I look at my watchlist and think "oh bugger it, not tonight!" If you still feel my 'intervention'/'arbitration' would be of benefit just ask and I promise to do something about it this time round, although I'm not sure what that could be. Wedi blino braidd oeddwn i, Dai - mae'n ddrwg gen i. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

River Glaslyn / Afon Glaslyn

It has been proposed that River Glaslyn be moved to Afon Glaslyn. Please feel free to comment at Talk:River Glaslyn. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will tomorrow (been busy of late - ditto for long-promised refs!). Cofion cynnes, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of windmills in Wales

I've replied on the talk page as to reasons for listing by historic counties. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Second Homes

FYI the campaign against second homes is being used elsewhere (Anglophobia) to argue for a quasi form of facism by the welsh against the english --Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see your concern and appreciate it, Snowded. I hope you accept at the same time that stating that most of the incomers to Gwynedd are in fact English is neither racist or controversial, just a statement of fact, a question of demographics. Can't see what's wrong with that. And people in north Wales - and elsewhere - are well-aware of that; why should English Wikipedia avoid mentioning it? Do we not mention the fact that we have people of "ethnic origin" living in Wales? Is that racist? Of course not. And talking of racism, maybe we should have an article on Cambrophobia to match Anglophobia? As this is a talk page rather than an article, I can say quite categorically from my own experience and that of others, as well as reports in the local media, that the English incomers in north Wales include, regrettably, a significant number who treat Wales as an extension of England and who are nothing less than anti-Welsh (language and people). 25% of the population of Wales was born outside the country: a quarter of the population (just imagine the reaction if that were the case in England... ). It could well be that about 20% of the population of Wales consists of people who have moved here from England in the last 20 years or so; many of them chose to settle in rural north Wales, in the Welsh-speaking heartlands.

Now, I don't mind where people come from or what the colour of their skin is, but I do expect them to respect the culture and identity of Wales if they come here to live. Many English incomers do. Some learn Welsh. Far too many have just the opposite attitude. So as far as the language and second homes situation in Llŷn, Gwynedd and elsewhere - not to mention the politics of Wales and the hopes of further devolution etc - this is a significant factor and should not be ignored in an encylopedia. It's an issue which needs treating carefully, of course, but to ignore it completely and airbrush it out of the picture is not right. (PS If you want to read the experiences of Welsh-speakers who are seeing their communities turned into "Little Englands" in Wales, take a look at the lower half of this page. I for one found it extremely sad and disturbing reading.) Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would get rid of the Anglophobia article altogether (I couldn't muster support for that), its a cobbled together set of material that seems to explain legitimate resentment as a phobia or form of racism and I don't want to feed it. I remember vividly go, ing round to drinks at a neighbour's house in Moelfre (my parents house) and encountering incredibly colonialist attitudes ("hire one of the taffys to do that they come cheap", "they should be grateful to us for bringing money to their village" etc. ) for being from people who didn't realise I was Welsh. I've campaigned against second homes and it one of my points for a lecture today in Singapore on Government - they have a policy that prevents property speculation and preserves housing for people born locally. I've also supported campaigns in the lake district and the Cotswolds (near to where I now live) which also see their culture being destroyed by incomers. My grandmother remembered being thrashed for speaking Welsh in school. I work with indiginouse people in Australia and Canada who have identical experiences of their language and culture being destroyed. I've seen a lot of English incomers who spread the "they only speak Welsh when we walk into the pubs" myth, I agree that many simply see Wales as a scenic adjunct to Wales, some respect the traditions, most are indifferent. OK so we agree on all that, and we are probably equally passionate about it. My point however is that the campaign against second homes and for sustaining and developing Welsh indigenous culture is a campaign for something, its not a campaign against the English. We shouldn't fuel the distortion of the campaigns in this area as "anti-English" hence my edit. --Snowded ^TALK 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARCHAEO

Dodo sounds about right. A lot of the supposed members seem inactive even away from the project talk page. In fact, the project seems to have been inactive since at least 2007 when I remember someone from WP:CHES asking for guidance on Deva Victrix. It is, quite frankly, disgraceful that such an important project is inactive (under few other projects can you find articles such as Warwick Castle, the Great Sphinx of Giza, Offa's Dyke, Stonehenge, and the Great Zimbabwe National Monument grouped together). I'm not too surprised as the members probably have specific interests with little overlap. It's a real shame. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredible. I had the feeling I was lecturing to an empty auditorium! I can understand the overlap business, but surely we must have at least a handful of people here who regard themselves as being primarily archaeologists, if only from their armchairs? I've already got more irons in the fire than I can cope with really, being an admin and regular contributor on cy: as well, otherwise I'd be tempted to act. Still, if there are signs of resuscitation let me know. I'm mainly concerned with weeding out the pseudo- stuff, like the bull**** that was Zorats Karer (bracing myself for some righteous fury from the Faithful on that one!). Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites is at least active but it doesn't covering overarching articles such as Iron Age Britain; it does seem very American biased though. Reviving WP:ARCHAEO is something worth doing, but I too have fingers in a lot of pies (lots of articles relating to northwest England) and the amount of articles I want to sort out never gets any smaller. I've had the page on my watchlist in case something happens, but it's been there for a couple of years and nothing has. If I find time towards the end of the summer I might make an effort to restart the project, perhaps by sending out a message to everyone on the membership list (although I'm not on there). If it happens I'll let you know. I'll keep an eye on the Zorats Karer article in case you run into any trouble. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nev1. Always nice to know you're not alone. I might only be of limited use for the WP:ARCHAEO project, for reasons stated rather than lack of interest, but I'd be happy to help out now and again. 'Happy editing' (or is that 'hunting'?) and all that, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Working in tandem?

That is freaky. Not as freaky other things that happen on our fair Wikipedia... I just came back across Talk:Taliesin, and read over the discussion from the guy who wanted Taliesin moved to Taliesin (poet) for the emminently sensible reason that something else was later named after him. Never a dull moment around here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Too true! You should have seen what the article on Zorats Karer looked like before I got fed up of waiting for someone from WP:ARCHAEO (see above) to take a look at it! Be warned: one of the websites sourced for the nonsense seems to believe that Britain was settled by.... the Armenians (see Talk:Zorats Karer for a joke which may well have been a prophecy - freaky again, or what!?). Cofion cynnes, as always, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dumnonia

I'm doing some work on a possible merged article covering Dumnonia, Kingdom of.., etc., at User:Ghmyrtle/sandbox6. I'd welcome your thoughts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's brave of you! I'll take a look but it's a bit outside my area - might be able to help with correcting names and etymology and a few other things, but that's probably all. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing, really, is cobbling together text from the different articles, ignoring (or questioning) the more dubious references, adding some of my own, and trying to put it into a coherent shape. I'm doing it as a non-expert, so there will be bound to be mistakes - and it's very much work in progress at the moment. But any comments would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not read it all but I've made a few minor corrections. The Arthurian stuff needs a rewrite; I feel it might be best in a seperate section as it's basically all tradition and legend rather than history, of course (perhaps the Galfridian material - later and much elaborated/invented - needs seperating from the earlier material within that section?). Anyway, it's Friday night so I'll get back to it in more detail later. Good start. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That bloody place on Anglesey

I've replied on my talk page. Confused, England, otherwise known as Skinsmoke (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Diolch, they are confusing, so don't worry about it! I'll get over there now... Enaidmawr (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lewys Daron

Sut mae? I'm just about wrapping up Aberdaron but noticed something on the Welsh Wikipedia about Lewys Daron having some connection with the village (I think it says he was born there). Are you able to tell me anything about him and a reference (in Welsh if that's all there is). I gather he was a 16th century Welsh poet and that he wrote an elegy to Tudur Aled (poets praising poets, all very incestuous), but can find no other references to him in English, despite an extensive Google search (all the hits are either book titles or are in Welsh). Sorry to mither again, but I thought 2 or 3 lines on him and his connection with the village ought to go in the Culture section.

PS, if you get a chance to look over Aberdaron I'd appreciate any comments. It's been an interesting experience! Will probably cut down the section on Bardsey Island and hive most of it off to the article on the island, so it finishes up like Y Rhiw, but apart from that I think it's more or less done apart from a good copy edit. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well blow me down with a cywydd, Lewys Daron's turned up on English Wikipedia! I'll have a look at the Aberdaron article later on, as dinner is calling. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange how these things happen, isn't it? You're a seren! Have butchered the Bardsey Island section, by the way: it's still quite large, but I think its significance justifies it. Have reduced it to (1) historical and religious significance; (2) wildlife, especially birdlife, significance; and (3) recent ownership.

Skinsmoke (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Glastonbury

Hey Enaidmawr, I thought you might be interested in the latest find: Saint Patrick, also known as the first Abbot of Glastonbury, presided over an interfaith workshop between pagans and Christians on the Tor! At least according to this. Good thing for the anchorites, or we might know nothing about Joseph of Arimathea founding the British Church. --Cúchullain ^t/c 00:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Diolch, Cuchullain. Most entertaining. It's really amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia, isn't it? Why, just yesterday I discovered that I had been grossly misled in my understanding of the Tale of Taliesin and the role of Ceridwen. I'd been led to believe, by the testimony of my own eyes and research and by the scholarship of others, that the earliest text(s) date from the sixteenth century, although probably based on a late medieval source or sources. How wrong I was! It seems that the text can be dated on linguistic evidence to the 9th century. This evidence is used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ceridwen, a simple witch - and devout Wiccan, no doubt - was horribly metamorphosed by those wretched Gogynfeirdd into a Goddess of Poetry, poor lass, for what ends I care not to contemplate, but she is said to have been rather pretty and they seem to have been besotted by her. The shining knight who has rescued this innocent Wiccan damsel in distress is none other than that renowned Celtic scholar Ronald Hutton.

Btw, I hope the Glastonbury Abbey article records that the anchorites there included a delegation from the Carahunge International Pagan-Christian University, who had recently discovered the resting place of Noah's Ark, right on their very doorstep, would you believe? It is said that they too were enamoured of a lovely pagan witch called Ceridwen but that she fled their embraces for the Wilds of Wales - alas, poor girl! - were she set up shop on the shores of Llyn Tegid: and that's when her tribulations really began, in the shape of a cunning and lecherous old bard called Taliesin who had somehow managed to convince her that he was just a young lad called Gwion Bach, looking for gainful employment as a Tender of Cauldrons... Enaidmawr (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(But I see you've already seen the allegation.) Enaidmawr (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sothach llwyr ydy hwnna. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ia, dwi'n gwybod, Geaugagrrl, mae'n drist ond dyma beth sy'n gallu digwydd pan fo rhywun yn treulio gormod o amser ar y Wikipedia Saesneg, mae gen i ofn (Yes, I know, it's sad but this is what can happen when you spend too much time on English Wikipedia, I'm afraid). Llongyfarchiadau ar dy Gymraeg, gyda llaw - mae wedi gwella yn rhyfeddol! Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wales

Would welcome your view on the content of the Wales infobox (being discussed on Talk:Wales). Best, Daicaregos (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess it was about time I did, Dai. Funnily enough, we've been discussing this lately on cy: as well, but without reaching a decision yet. Can't help feeling that the prominent position of Mrs W and G.B. in the infobox has more to do with "keeping Wales in its place" than any practical reason. All the constitutional niceties can be explained in the article itself, after all. Hwyl i ti, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Hwyl i ti, hefyd. Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS Did you notice that the Politics of Wales template was reverted? I rectified it but it might be worth keeping an eye on it. I'm not here every day and it might slip down my overlong watchlist and be overlooked. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, spotted that. It's on my watchlist, 'sdim problem, byt :) . Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Talk  00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Secifically, this edit is precluded in our policy of no personal attacks and remaining civil and good spirited. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, and this block has nothing to do with the fact that the edit shown includes the statement "I'm reverting to the original wording and bringing this up at the Welsh wikipedians' talk page", by any chance? Your conduct here could be called into question as well, Jza84. "Harrasment"? That's a good one. And what exactly is this action, if not harrasment? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|User:Jza84 has a thinner skin than I thought. We have known each other here on en: for some time and I never thought he would do this, even though we clearly have radical differences of opinion. If I truly did cause him offense then I apologise unreservedly, but this block is not justified. No warning at all, and it happens just as I'm writing to bring this matter to the attention of fellow editors at Welsh wikipedians' talk page, as Jza84 must have been aware as I say so in my edit. This is not the way for an administrator to behave, and I speak as a sysop and bureaucrat with thousands of articles and over 50,000 edits to my credit on cy:. In my 8,000 plus edits here I've always strived to stay within the rules and have worked persistently to protect wikipdia from vandalism, sockpuppetry and other abuses. That's all I have to say, as its very late in the day.}}

(edit conflict)By all means, feel free to report the incident if you feel aggrieved. But I'm less than impressed with your conduct in that diff, and it speaks for itself. Your comments are hurtful, stressful, uncalled for, dramatic and against several policies. Re-read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Re the content (which you've not been blocked for) you're welcome to contact WP:WALES - of course! You, they or I don't own that template though and "Welsh" content is allowed to be editted by non-Welsh people - don't get so hot under the collar, and be more caring for your fellow editor next time please. I'm here to help make WP a better place (of course - what do you think I'm here for?); accusations of anti-Welsh sentiment, ignorance to Welsh history and POV adgendas are never going to help your own reputation and never help foster a collaborative atmosphere. Infact, I would like an apology and an assurance that you'll never conduct yourself that way with any other editor again. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Enaidmawr. Enaidmawr: your comment was a little punchy, and I hope you will try to keep the rhetoric down in the future, but it was clearly out of line to issue a block given that (1) Jza84 is in no position to judge whether a block should be issued for a borderline comment made against him, and (2) you have never been warned. Mangojuice^talk 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I would have done it if I'd been around. An inappropriate block for several reasons (although keeping the rhetoric down is a good idea, anyone reading ANI can see for the last day or so can see some real PAs and civility problems that aren't getting editors blocked). The block was bad because there was no warning, the comment was only a bit too punchy, and the blocking Admin was involved - this should have been taken to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In which case, Enaidmawr, consider the following a formal, friendly warning and reminder:

• Comment on content, not on the contributor.
• Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible.
• Users may be blocked from editing by an administrator to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm.

I expect you from hereon to edit and converse within the bounds of these rules like everybody else does. If you do not, the impact of your actions is that you risk increasing an atmosphere of stress, harm, division and disdain for Wikipedia, distruption for which you may be blocked. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ManjoJuice do you consider these border line comments? [1] [2] the second is a clear personal attack and i think an over reaction because the person doesnt know what a "Petty Kingdom" is, although i agree with the point about no warnings, those should always be given first. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they're disgraceful. Bully-boy tactics, ethnocentricm and a breach of WP:GANG in my eyes. Qualities not welcome on my watch. I hadn't seen the first diff til now. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As one who sometimes agrees, and sometimes disagrees, with one or both of these editors (Jza84 and Enaidmawr), this episode raises more concerns for me about Jza84's attitude towards other editors, and behaviour as an admin, than about Enaidmawr's - whose comments, though intemperate and undesirable, were of the sort that most of us just learn to shrug off from time to time, from whoever they come. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

--WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is non-negotiable. I don't get paid for my hard work and effort on Wikipedia, and so certainly don't think I should be attacked for it. As I've said elsewhere, if this is how he treats admins, what is he doing to newbies? Have concerns by all means, but don't attack others on my watch.

Enaidmawr's an established editor with, before this, a clean block record. 'Don't template the regulars' implies to me that you certainly don't block them for something like this, you discuss it with them. The result of this is certainly going to be worse feelings between the two and there's some fallout as well that could have been avoided. I also have to ask if "Bully-boy tactics, ethnocentricm and a breach of WP:GANG" is acceptable as a comment here? I don't think it would have even have been acceptable as a block reason. And it seems to have been aimed not just at Enaidmawr. Shouldn't Daircegos be made aware of these comments since they seem aimed at him (the meat puppet bit)? Have I misunderstood something? Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hes made comments about the block on Jza84s talk page so im sure he will have seen this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's aimed squarely at Enaidmawr. It's a stupid comment for him to have made about me. I wouldn't dream of conducting myself in that way. He's gone straight to someone who share's ideological lines over what - a simple suggestion on a talk page. The fact of the matter is that all Enaidmawr needed to do here is be more respectful. Why couldn't he have said "X is based on source Y and is commonplace on Z. Therefore I have reverted your changes, but thanks for raising it", on Template:Welsh kingdoms? Normal, respectful, collaborative conduct, like everyone else has to. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me first of all set the record straight about the history of the relationship between myself and User:Jza84. On his talk page Jza84 states 'I hardly know the editor bar an passing in a discussion from time to time'. As Mangojuice notes on that same page, 'Jza clearly knows Enaidmawr is a long-time established editor here; Jza interacted with Enaidmawr as early as November 2007, over 6 months before Jza became an admin.' That interaction was courteous and constructive and repeated on a number of occasions. I wouldn't claim that we were regular collaborators, but collaborate we did, and if somebody had aske me, before this incident, 'do you know this editor and do you have a good working relationship with him?' I would have replied in the affirmative, without hesitation. The only real "edit conflict" I had with him prior to this was in February of this year, at British Day. This was resolved civilly and without rancour, although I have to admit that I found his attitude at the time patronising - "A lesson would be it took all of five minutes to strengthen the article up with a few references." - and felt that the zealousy with which he reacted to my edits - an effort to bring balance to a biased account, in my opinion, for what it's worth - whilst ignoring a number of dubious and unsourced statements and peacock terms for the opposing view of the subject, was unbalanced. However, I refrained from comment (see Brit Day in his talk page archive). 'Everybody is entitled to their views', I said to myself, and moved on. I'll admit that I tended to avoid him after that as I had no wish to get embroiled in anything: I've got better things to do. I could have responded to this comment on Talk:Newport which I found to be deeply insulting to all Welsh people: saying that Daicaregos was 'an advocate of "Welsh nationality" (which doesn't exist, verifiabily)([3]). That statement left me with the indelible impression that Jza84 denied the nationality of myself and all Welsh people. I thought that was a very hurtful comment and completely unnecessary and I am sure that most Welsh people would feel the same way. However, once again I did not respond even though I was part of that discussion and was sorely tempted to do so: 'Ignore it', I told myself. Shortly later I became aware of a series of edits by Jza84 removing Welsh nationality and replacing it with 'British' on a number of articles on my watchlist; amongst them was the article on Dafydd Wigley, Plaid Cymru's senior statesman. Rightly or wrongly, I was by then convinced that Jza84 had a personal agenda on this matter. I reverted some edits and ignored others not on my watchlist as I genuinely did not want to get involved in a dispute (and no, it had nothing to do with his admin status). However, when I saw his edit to Template:Welsh kingdoms, also on my watchlist, I will admit that I was incensed. I reacted with less tact than I should have done, I admit. I reverted his edit. Changing 'Welsh kingdoms' to the woefully incorrect and insulting 'Brittonic petty kingdoms of Wales' seemed to me to confirm my impression of him: it basically de-Cymricised the major kingdoms of medieval Wales, which have a central place in our history and identity, used a term which is both incorrect and open to misinterpretation by the general reader (not everyone is aware of the meaning of the rather obsolete and affected term 'petty kingdom'). He than undid my edit and came up with the wording 'Ancient kingdoms of Wales', which is again quite simply incorrect ('medieval' is not 'ancient'). Then I read his "explanation" on the talk page. Quite frankly I thought he was taking the mickey. It also confirmed me in my opinion that he had an agenda of denying the Welsh people their identity (quote: 'What exactly are the Welsh kingdoms? Kingdoms inhabited by the Welsh? -- Well, no, the Welsh are a modern nation who live in Wales. Are they subdivisions of Wales? -- Well, also no, these kingdoms pre-date Wales by centuries (Wales was a concept of the future!'). 'What fools historians, Welsh and others, have been to refer to such icons of Welsh history as Llywelyn the Great as Welsh (and his court poets who praised him as 'King of the Welsh' etc.)', I said to myself. At that point I should have taken a deep breath and walked away to make a coffee, count to several thousand and then respond. But I did not, and the result is this. That sets the record straight. I've already apologised for any offense I may have caused and given my opinion of Jza84's decision. I write this to let my peers who have commented and acted on the matter get the 'history' behind this incident from my point of view. I do not intend to respond here to other things which have been said or implied here and at Jza84's page about myself and others as a result of his decision: I merely wish to give my side of what is otherwise a one-sided story, inevitably so given my absence from the discussion. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Enaidmawr. Can I suggest that everyone involved draws a line under this now? We all have different agendas here. Some editors have strong personal views on politics or nationality which occasionally emerge in discussions, others do not. Some editors have strong views over the importance of WP guidance or past precedents, others do not. Some editors show skill in writing comprehensive articles of high quality, others more in influencing debate. In my experience, we're all very different here - but in the real world we'd probably all work together pretty much as a team and resolve differences through discussion - without anyone exerting undue pressure on anyone else, and without too much of the nastiness that can sometimes seem to exist when anger is put into writing. So, let's draw a line and move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tea anyone?

There has certainly been a lot of words passed back and forth over what I think is a storm in a tea cup. Anyone for a friendly hand shake and a cuppa? My shout. Jack forbes (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love a good panad (cuppa) right now, Jack. Thanks for the offer. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea for Enaidmawr

And one for Jz

Many thanks, Jack. So soothing and refreshing! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a cuppa, whilst you give me some indication on this Celtic race, people? Perhaps this will help remove this strange Anglo-Britannic glow that seems to endure around me, and show, again, that Celtic history and culture is on my to-do list. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jza84, I hope you enjoyed your virtual panad as well. Shall we agree that we both have learnt a lesson perhaps and that this is now history? Speaking of history, I will take a deeper look at your sandbox article over the next few days and see if I can suggest anything: too much there for me to be able to do it justice tonight, and there are several other requests below as well. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Glywysing, Penychen, Glywys etc

More stuff from EBK it seems. I've done some editing, feel free to change, etc. but these articles are a bit of a mess. I've got Dark's From Civitas to Kingdom which discusses Glywysing, do you? Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone's feeling energetic, a (probably partial) list of the articles which reference the EBK website is here. Good luck! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This tool shows all the links to the site. 276 pages, although some of them are talk pages. Nev1 (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish the task force was more official - if it was part of the European history template, we could be on the talk page banner I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces and then take advantage of this Wikipedia:Article alerts. We need a cleanup list. Light dawns - do we even have a category? Nope, anyone mind if I create one? It would be nice to try and get more members if we see any other editors active on relevant pages. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously looked at uncategorised articles, we do have Category:Sub-Roman Britain, we just need to put more articles in it, starting I guess with those on the task force page. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, EBK! I've already cleared out several dozen articles based on what came up in Search, but as Dougweller notes the list[s] produced may not be complete. Cuchullain has also been busy in that field. Let's not forget the so-called HistoryFiles and others.

@Dougweller Re: Glywysing, Penychen, Glywys etc, I'll have a look over the next couple of days. The south-east Wales kingdoms, cantrefi and cymydau are not the easiest to describe for a number of reasons and there's also a real problem with the historical sources. I've done a lot of work on the cantrefi and cymydau on cy: but the south-east is easily the most complicated and daunting and has the most gaps. I don't have Dark's book, unfortunately. Wendy Davies' study Wales in the Early Middle Ages is good and gives a clear idea of the problems involved. Her study of the Llandaf Charters, one of our major (and flawed!) sources, is also essential but is not exactly light reading! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cynan and Hywel

Hello Enaid, when you get a few spare moments, could you have a quick look at Cynan Dindaethwy ap Rhodri and Hywel ap Rhodri Molwynog, both of which I've revised. The issue is whether they were brothers. Unless I'm mistaken or have missed something, the article on Hywel should be moved to correctly reflect his ancestry, and both should be revised so as not to imply that they were brothers. btw, both the articles on Cynan and Merfyn Frych now include particulars on when/where they were mentioned as "K of B". Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it in the near future. As you can see from the above, requests seem to be flooding in at the moment. I've also been pretty tied up in 'real life' for the last few days and am likely to be for the next week or so - nothing onerous in the least, but it has meant I've not been available to do much either here or on cy: until rather late in the day, like tonight! I'll just have to burn some more midnight oil! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no rush on that, only when you feel like it ... it's not an emergency, merely a detail, so it should be low on the list of things to get around to doing. (and as for things piling up, it serves you right for being highly regarded :) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to every source book I'd like to have, but judging by what I can find and the refs given in those articles I think the best we can do is give the general scholarly opinion and note the conflicting genealogies. We know so little else about them that we can do no more than that, perhaps. Sorry I can't be of more help on this one. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and revising, and I agree with your suggested approach. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn Family

I've just been looking at this - its creator has been using this web page whose author also wrote a page on the "descent-line from Ancient Egypt to Modern Britain". The Anwyl article makes the claim that "Evan Vaughan Anwyl of Ty-Mawr, Tywyn, Merionethshire (1943-extant) educated at Tywyn Grammar School and University of Wales Aberystwyth (BSc 1967, DipEd 1968). He is the current Head of the House of Aberffraw and de jure Prince of Gwynedd as the senior direct male line" - does this make sense? Looking at some of the other edits by the same editor recently, there may be some problems. Also, do you know anything about Tribes of Wales, Philip Yorke, Esquire of Erthig, 1799? Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of the claims made in that and related articles are rather dubious. There is a general problem with genealogies brought down from 1000 years ago to the modern age, of course - Ronald Reagan visited Ireland and found out he was descended from Brian Boru, for instance (along with n-thousand others, no doubt!). The Annwyls of Tywyn are a genuine Welsh gentry family, but it must be remembered that many family genealogies were altered in Tudor and Stuart times or are at least less than cast-iron (old Sir John Wynn of Gwydir is a well-known example). Yorke was a good scholar for his time and his tome Royal Tribes of Wales is still a useful source, but it should be remembered that he made the best of what was available and that the further back you go the more problems arise. I'm not an expert on genealogy though. The best sources by far are the massive volumes of the late P. C. Bartrum, but they're very expensive and not easy to get hold of. As for the claim "current Head of the House of Aberffraw and de jure Prince of Gwynedd", well, that depends how you interpret the evidence, I suppose. If I remember rightly, the Anwyl family article - or a related one - says they don't exhibit this claim publicly. Certainly they are not much referred to and the line - if verifiable - must be very "diluted" by now, I'd have thought. Such a striking claim, even if it can be backed by a reading of the Anwyl family genealogies, needs supporting by something more than a book published in 1799 (Yorke). If the principal source is the lunatic work you mention above ([4]) then the article needs a serious reappraisal. I'm afraid the latter is typical of the creator's less than critical use of sources, unfortunately (see Talk:Brut y Brenhinedd!). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly the editor's contributions to the pages on my watchlist have been I think all reverted. Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we talk? I've just found a lot of discussion about my wiki work which was going on behind my back. It is strange because I know I had long correspondence with Enaid Mawr (I believe it's David..) on many issues where we had full agreement. I accept that sometimes I have not referenced work as well as I ought but it has only ever been placed on this site through a desire to give content to wikipedia. For the record I have been researching Welsh royal lines for years, first tracing the sons of Owain Gwynedd and then Wynn family and finally the descendants which became Anwyl - of the Anwyl this was via Heraldic Visitations of Wales by L.Dwnn, a copy of which I possess. When I came upon that name I soon understood (from researched online) that I was not the first and other people had also concluded the same thing. James Frankcom (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

James, please don't take this personally. I was contacted for my opinion - there's certainly no 'conspiracy' on my part! - and I do add "unfortunately" to my comment above about some of the sources used. I also explain that "I'm no genealogist". However I do know something about the question of historical sources, particularly for Wales, and my advice on that is my only real contribution to this debate. By all means let's discuss this. I'm not doubting the evidence of Lewis Dwnn as such - and I wish I had a copy of his book on my shelves! But I had the impression above that the source was Philip Yorke's 1799 volume, and pointed out that he was a dedicated but amateur researcher with less information available to him than a modern scholar would have (ditto for Dwnn). Has the late Peter Bartrum anything on this? That would be a great help. Another problem is the interpretation of the evidence. That's why a reliable modern reference is essential for what is, you must admit, an exceptional claim. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It just seems to me to be a demonstration of the growing problems that many editors have been reporting, that some editors are seeking to dominate the site and bully other editors into submission. I have noticed that Cuchullain [sic] has particular views about British history and likes to push the work of a few revisionist authors, in particular David Dumville. Doug watches my pages and then reverts them automatically without entertaining debate or dissent. I think this is cliquey and a bit wrong really. Are they any more or less qualified than I to edit the site on this subject? Yes, I concede that some older works have had the findings demonstrated to be flawed by modern methods but there is also a great deal within them that has been shown to be true and plenty more content that is neglected. These different interpretations should be equally presented and explored with a view to maximising the content on this site, not the hacks and constant edit wars deleting parts of pages. That is my view. The Anwyl wiki uses Philip Yorke as one of many supporting sources. What's important about Philip Yorke is his anecdotes about the Anwyl family as he was doing his research, particularly that they were known in his time as the "family of Owain Gwynedd". He is a primary source, an actual witness to people calling them the family of Owain Gwynedd in the 18th Century. The wiki is primarily based on the genealogy assembled by Lewys Dwnn (which P C Bartram used and as far as I know is reliable, or as reliable as it can be) and which has recently been re-published (It is in two volumes, heavy and costs around $200. I have it, it's lovely). The modern genealogy (c.1650 onwards) comes from Burke's Peerage and picks up precisely where Lewys Dwnn leaves off. Lewys Dwnn is an interesting fellow, think about who he was; a Welshman employed at court in the last years of the Tudor Dynasty and at the time when the last rebellions had been snuffed out in Wales. He records collecting and confirming old manuscripts containing records of ancestry presented to him by Noble families across Wales, the documents are "attested" each by numerous witnesses, tested and then counter-signed to be true. Remember, it was the custom of every man in Wales in the Middle Ages to know their ancestors back through as many as nine generations and it was therefore quite difficult for a family to invent ancestors because those ancestors would have been acknowledged with every generation in Welsh society and would be shared by many. I presume David Hughes also used Lewys Dwnn and Burkes and concluded the same thing. Hughes may well have some pretty outlandish family trees on his site, but the one on Anwyl is correct as far as the records go. In defence of David Hughes, everyone knows the world did not start with just one man; Adam. So family trees stating descent from Adam are obviously based on a founding myth. He is recording those myths not saying Adam was real. A great deal of work by many editors has gone into that wiki and I think it is an interesting and well written piece about a topic of merit. It is noteworthy that the Anwyl family have as their motto a declaration of their claim, it is also borne on the family arms, an assertion of the lineage. They have been acknowledged at various times in the past as the sons of Owain Gwynedd and by definition therefore also those of Rhodri Mawr, however in the past they were not the only family that could claim that distinction, whereas in the present day it seems quite likely that are. They list themselves on Burke's Peerage so they aren't covering their heritage up but at the same time they are not making any legal or political claims.James Frankcom (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on Dai’s talk page.

Well, its clear you have some kind of sad resentment against English people based on what a few unionist twits think. Stop being so damn Anglophobic! Your baseless hatred is, based on-What? A few incidents-Events that happened 100s of years ago? I don’t hate the Welsh in the same way you hate the English, I love the Welsh, And the Scottish and, of coarse, the Irish. Does that Shock you that some one from England thinks that way? I bet it does. Yeah I’m pissed. Rubbishing English culture is a truly low thing to do. Perhaps I could point out the lack of Welsh innovations and discoveries, but I wont stoop that low. Anyway, keep up the Anglophobic statements and thinking, even though you feel that way my general opinion of Wales and Welsh people hasn’t lessened!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I assume you are referring to this (context: the BBC's well-nigh racist treatment of Alex Salmond):

Typically arrogant and patronising bunch of EBC prats. Sums up the UK really; created by the English, run for the English: as "British" as Wimbledon, Ascot, the God-Damn-Awful Last Night of the Imperial Jamboree the Proms etc (Dad's Army with a token Scot - "...If you think old England's done" with the Union Jack arrow - but at least the show itself was funny). Still, at least they acknowledge that Scotland exists. They usually just ignore Wales, a prime example being the oh-so impartial BBC coverage of the devolution debate when Wales was either ignored or mentioned once, sotto voce, in passing.

I was clearly referring to the BBC and the attitudes of the English/British establishment which it represents. You might like to know that I have English friends in Wales and elsewhere (strange that, for an "Anglophobe", isn't it?) who would agree with me. And I didn't "rubbish" English culture as you allege - OK, with the understandable exception of that truly "God-Damn-Awful" Last Night of the Proms, but then I'm sure many English people would say the same thing about that embarassing jingoistic imperial relic - and if I "hated" the English and their culture so much I'd have to remove the works of that most English of authors Laurence Sterne, the inimitable Thomas Love Peacock and others from my bookshelves. 'Anyway..., even though you feel that way my general opinion of England and English people hasn’t lessened' and I look forward to the day when England sheds its imperial shackles and becomes a self-governing country, an equal partner with Wales, Scotland and Ireland in Europe. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes its last night of the proms tonight isnt it. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland united in song, god it must drive some of the separatists mad. Its worth loving and watching just for that reason. Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. God save our Queen =) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

God save your queen? Ever thought about English republicans who find that dross equally revolting? 'Long live the republics of Wales, Scotland and England: however, should you decide to retain your monarchy - or sell it to the Yanks - that's your affair. Enjoy the show. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes God save our Queen. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No i have no problems offending or saying something a republican would find revolting. lol @ sell it to the yanks :) Have a good evening. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, maybe if Texas secedes we can give them a slice of the monarchal pie! I always thought it curious that a lot of yanks seem to like the monarchy, when they usurped the fantastically reactionary George III. In any case, we must recognise the staunch and valliant attempts of our dear Welsh cousins in maintaning the monarchal institution. Without the imperialism and gall of the power hungry Welsh Tudor invaders at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the two countries may never have been merged. And again, we must applaud the fact that the Welsh so bravely defended the monarchal insitution in the English Civil War, despite their kinsman Oliver ap Williams (Mr Cromwell) trying to destroy it. God save Enaidmawr's Queen indeed. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's this, a troll-fest? Help yourselves to my talk page whilst you're at it, why don't you? "Enaidmawr's Queen" is called Cymru and he serves her as a free man, not a subject. End of story: move on. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa-Calm down! I was just testing you... You never can tell what people mean behind those words... And I hate the proms, just a bunch of toffs and socialites pretending they like Classical Music. Admittedly I enjoy the Music but not the scene. I think you have proven me wrong about you, and, I back down and retract those comments. Also I messed up your talk page a bit by accidentally sending two loads of Info at once...Sorry! And on the subject of Welsh independence, Plaid have just come out and admitted they need to ditch the belief that some people think there only interested in Welsh speakers. They need to take a leaf out of the SNP’s book. And I think there doing it!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, Frank. Nice to meet you! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Cynllibiwg

Hey Enaid, I see you've done some work on Cynllibiwg before, so I thought I'd let you know I've nominated it for deletion. Your comments will be welcome.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuchullain. Saw this just now. I've left a brief note at the article talk page. As you'll see there, I'm off on a "wiki break" to the wilds of the Maghreb for a while and won't be back till mid-January. Catch you later! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I think a reasonable solution is at hand. I just loathed the idea of using one guy's novel and not-widely-accepted theory as the basis for an article, but that's been largely taken care of. But more importantly, have a good time in Morocco! I don't know if you saw, but it looks like Cavila's taken your demands for new articles on medieval Welsh subjects to heart, and has given us a shiny new article on Englynion y Beddau.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuchullain. Got back from Morocco a week ago but Christmas - where did that spring from?! - has taken up much of my time since. I share your scepticism regarding Cynllibiwg other than as a region or placename, as you know. Worth noting the negative evidence of the Welsh bards as well - I've got dozens of editions of their works on my shelves including some from that part of Powys and not once is Cynllibiwg mentioned: seems the remembrancers of Welsh tradition were blissfully unaware of Mr Remfry's "medieval kingdom of Cynllibiwg". As it "rivalled Gwynedd, Powys and Deheubarth" it seems rather odd that none of the Poets of the Princes noticed it was there either. Bet they'd have a few questions to ask him! Just had a look over Englynion y Beddau. Excellent work: puts my hasty sketch over on cy to shame! Here's wishing a belated Nadolig Llawen to you and Blwyddyn Newydd Dda. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cynllibiwg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cynllibiwg. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynllibiwg. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)