I'm trying to start a taskforce on Sub-Roman Britain, and noticed you edited some stuff on the Hen Ogledd and after looking over your page, I thought I'd invite you to join. We could always use someone who actually speaks Welsh! ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 03:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invite, Gladius. You can count me as being willing to participate, however I should warn you that I do most of my wikipedia work over on
Neodruid brigade (!). So my contributions are likely to be corrections and so forth, for the most part. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's great! I've actually got an account on Wicipedia Cymraeg, not that I can really use it. I'm trying to learn Welsh so that I can contribute eventually, as well as pick up what real welshmen know. My username's Aprydein. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cumbric
Thanks for the correction to the entry for lum at
Cumbric language. The aditional figurative meaning of "beacon" for llumon was taken from W. J. Watson's "The Celtic Placenames of Scotland", but I agree that this is a single source and may be speculative only. -- Picapica (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. My source was Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, which also records the secondary meaning "ashes, embers" (hence Watson's idea of "beacon" perhaps?). There is a third possible meaning of "bat", or at least some sort of nocturnal creature. Enaidmawr (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some info
Hello Enaidmawr, we've been editing the same files recently. I agree that "Novant" should not be on the list in the Hen Ogledd article, but it is mentioned as a region (eg, the map on the page, Image:Y Gogledd.jpg, the Mull of Galloway, lower left, is called "Novant"). Also on the same map is the town of Calchfynyd, located at modern Kelso, but not spelled that way nor spelled with 'dd' at the end (hard to read, looks like they combined the 2 words without changing 'm' to 'f'). I may be partly responsible for some of the confusion on that article, as I was trying to quickly help a newbie article without doing any background checking ... thank you for setting things straight. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for your message. The problem with that map is it's just not very reliable. It's obviously old (source=?) and some of the info included can be regarded as "speculative" at best. I think the "town" of Calchfynydd is a case in point: we certainly have no evidence it was a town and even its status as a kingdom is merely an "informed guess" really, as the evidence is so slender (a single reference - which could be interpreted several ways - in a poem attributed to Taliesin, and the presumed rulers found in later medieval genealogies). Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wales
Hi, I added UK to a number of Wales related articles, for a worldwide perspective since many people in other parts of the world would not know where Wales is. It was not intended to give a unionist slant to the articles. Please accept my apologies if any offence was felt, I didn't mean it any any anti-Welsh way whatsoever. I will leave these articles as they are now.
Separately, I don't think it's a good idea to link settlements to areas like South Wales, West Wales, Mid Wales and North Wales in most cases. These areas are very loosely defined and are subject to POV. It would be better to say they are simply in Wales, or in one of the counties in Wales. Weisinger (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for being so understanding. I offer my apologies for the unionist bit - similar edits, which go against our consensus on Project Wales, have happened before and are usually for that reason. I agree with you entirely regarding having South Wales etc but not Wales and usually try to remedy that (probably missed a few this time round) by replacing it with plain "Wales", when the county is clearly given, or the compromise "southWales" etc, which gives a link to both "South Wales" and "Wales". If people aren't sure exactly where Wales is, "UK" occurs twice in most info boxes (usually with a huge map of the UK, without the national boundaries, and a vague red blob to show "the location of Miniscule Hamlet X in the United Kingdom"!). Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geaugagrrll, tnx for the message. I only removed the link as it led to something unrelated (supposed to be a book on your favourite Ceredigion parish!). Guessed it must be a mistake. Feel free to put the new one in. Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Enaidmawr, I noticed that the link looked rather long (and ref'd my favorite Parish :->), but forgot to test it. Shame on me! The link I intended leads to the poem and more about Prince Cynddylan.
Please stop reverting UK flags on twin town/sister city sections of articles. WP:FLAG is very clear on the subject: In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right.Owain (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the same guideline: "Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements"; "many editors, however, feel that the UK's subnations in particular are an exception". (The use of the POV bureaucratspeak "subnation" in that statement is ludicrous, insulting and incorrect - Wales, Scotland and England are countries and NI is a province or region; none of them are nations, but the Welsh, Scots, Irish and English are; the UK is a polity - by the way). Using the Union Jack to represent the country of Wales rather than our national flag is obviously a political statement. You have your opinion and a clearly Unionist and anti-Welsh agenda, I have mine. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just picked up on the edits you made the other day, and (having done a little bit more reading since the time I started the article) agree with the need for better sources to give a more balanced picture. I'd be more than happy for you to have a go at rewriting the offending paragraphs as I suspect you have more knowledge of the subject than I do - I'd like to get rid of all the unsightly (but justified) tags as soon as we can. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you understand why I tagged much of the first two sections. Problem is we have so little reliable historical information about early Ewyas/Ewias (I've no problem with the medieval and later sections - good work there). I checked out the History Files page and found it riddled with flaws and suppositions presented as accepted facts. Truth is we know next to nothing with certainty about the pre-Norman history. This is a problem for most of the smaller kingdoms/territorial units in Wales and the borders. A lot of the reconstructed history you find on sites like History Files and the Nash Ford site (Early British Kingdoms) is based on a speculative reading of much later Welsh genealogies and - in the case of SE Wales - the Book of Llandaf, which is a positive minefield (see Wendy Davies' study The Llandaff Charters if you can, to get an idea of the complexity of the material and difficulty of interpretation). Add to that a fair dollop of imagination and OR! Certainly I'd say that most historians of early medieval Wales would at best describe it as a possible early kingdom but some would not even go that far; as for starting its history with a fifth-century foundation and tracing its successive rulers well, that really is speculative and misleading. So I'm not sure I'd be able to add much to the early section, but if I find something reliable I'll add it. My own opinion is that the stuff about early rulers etc should go into a section about genealogical sources for the area, referenced and with a strong caveat. Sorry I can't help more just now, but hope that helps. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS As an example of the reliability of the History Files (think it was the source), take the possible etymology of Ewyas to mean "sheep country" or something like that. Surely they must be thinking of English (ewe?!) rather than Welsh? Don't know of any word in Welsh, ancient or modern, which would support that. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right - it's difficult to find a consensus view. I'll look for some more sources as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done some more editing there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite improvement. Sorry I've not had the time to do anything so far; I've been busy with one thing or another (Welsh wicipedia, Life...!). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. It just occurs to me that the changes you're making (which I have no problem with at all) will themselves need to be as fully referenced as possible, particularly for when someone else comes along in future armed with the info from the unreliable sites. Just a thought. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Problem is my references are in Welsh: I have a well-annotated edition of Brut Dingestow, the best known of the Welsh translations/adaptations of the Historia, but long ago lent my Penguin edition of Thorpe's English translation to someone - you know the old adage, "better to give..."! All it needs is for one of us with an English translation to quote it. If you like, I'll provide the Welsh ref. for now (the edition itself, not just the Middle Welsh text, is in Welsh). Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, some time ago you changed a category on Bryan Orritt from Category:People from Caernarfonshire to Category:People from Gwynedd. I was merging information from a semi-duplicate article today and inadvertently changed it back. I have no knowledge of whether people's native counties should be categorised under the name at the time of birth or the modern name, and was wondering if you could point me to where the relevant conventions are set out, so I can get it right in future :-) thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a matter of some dispute and can be a complicated issue - the territory of the former Caerns now lies in three modern counties, for instance (although largely in Gwynedd). Some argue that the former administrative counties - from the second half of the 19th century, forget the exact date, to their abolition, should be used for people born in them at that period but not before, others that the modern counties are more relevant (traditionalists would record people born before the creation of the so-called historical counties as having been born in those counties, for instance, which in my view is quite absurd). Certainly people born after their abolition should not be placed there. Must be a guideline somewhere, but a guideline is just that and it seems not everybody is in agreement. Sorry I can't be of more help just now. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway, I'll leave him how he is then, as it was Caernarfonshire at time of birth. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd missed that (over-flowing watchlist!). I've found some useful stuff on archive.org in the past, but hadn't thought of checking for the Transactions there. Diolch i chi unwais eto,
BencherliteTalk 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
Croeso, no problem. I'm sure I've got material lurking somewhere that could be added but can't get my hands on it (especially the various "conspiracy theories" as to it's possible existence today). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like time for a scavenger hunt-har har. Let know know if I can help with further work.
Not at all. It's a long time since I had anything to do with it, but fire away. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note
Hello Enaidmawr, I saw the AfD discussion on some of the recent additions of trash articles, and thought I'd mention that Mynyw appears on this image, which we would be better off without, as the name of the Isle of Arran; and that Menevia is an old name for Anglesey and/or Man as mentioned by Orosius, about AD 416. On a completely different topic, would be interested in comments (if any) on this site as a preliminary source of information. I'm reluctant to quote a website in articles, but perhaps a site that cites its references might be a starting point for research, if the information is of good quality. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you about the image Y_Gogledd.jpg; it's come up before (by me at least, on the Hen Ogledd talk page, I think). It comes from a dated antiquarian book and is very misleading and/or simply wrong; we should get rid of it, in my opinion. As for Orosius, although the information is new to me, as far as I can recall, it doesn't prove too much as he can't decide between Môn/Mona (the latter being the well-attested Latin form since Roman times, of course) and Manann/Manaw. Ancient geographers like Orosius relied on a variety of sources, inlcuding traveller's tales, and he could simply have misplaced the Menevia we're familiar with; hard to see on linguistic grounds how the Latin form Menevia could possibly derive from Môn/Mona. Interesting though.
I've had a quick look at several articles on the website and I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. The references are meticulous and the articles well-researched. My only quibble is that they rely heavily on late medieval genealogies. The existence of some of the earlier characters, obscure as they are, might be contested; the further back you go the deeper you get into the realm of traditional history, eponymous rulers and dynastic founders and so forth. I think it would also count as Original Research/Self-publishing - i.e. not a suitable primary source - and most of the early characters would definitely need some other source, preferably in print. You'll see one example of how problematic this sort of research can be in the article MEIRION MEIRIONYDD, "GRANDSON" OF CUNEDDA. In the first place, he is never referred to in any source, ancient or modern, as "Meirion Meirionydd" and, secondly, many historians suspect that as the eponymous founder of Meirionydd he quite probably belongs to legend/traditional history - i.e. he "exists" in answer to the question "who founded Meirionnydd?". The latter possibility is never once mentioned in the article. However, as you say, it could be used as a starting point for research, perhaps by following up some of their references.
Hope you don't think I'm being too critical, just that old habits die hard! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all too critical, and I appreciate the comments. I like to think that an honest telling is welcome here. I'm not sure that his work is necessarily OR (any more than someone who paper-publishes), and it's certainly better than some of the "popular history" genre, in paper or on the web; but OR won't matter since I don't intend to cite a web site as a hard reference ... however, I wonder if it might be included in a few external links sections, with annotations and critique, and noting that he cites his sources — that might be a nice argument when someone wants to use a web site as a hard reference, when the site does not cite its sources.
I found the Orosius quote, here, with English/Latin (starts on the previous page) – he wasn't confusing Man/Anglesey, I had merely forgotten the particulars when I mentioned it (other versions have Mevania or Menavia); just to be complete:
The name enters recorded history as Mona (Caesar, 54 BC), and is also recorded as Monapia or Monabia (Pliny the Elder, AD 77), Monœda (Ptolemy, AD 150), Mevania or Mænavia (Paulus Orosius, 416), and Eubonia or Eumonia by Irish writers. In Welsh records it is Manaw, and in the Icelandic sagas it is Mön.
Thanks for the feedback, it is most welcome! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, of course. As I said, I don't see any problem with citing the website as a secondary source. By the way, "In Welsh records it is Manaw" (above) is simply not true. (Ynys) Manaw is Welsh for the Isle of Man from the earliest times: Môn (Anglesey) is "Môn" in the earliest Welsh records, as it is today, never "Manaw". Enaidmawr (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cadair Idris
Hi Enaid,
I've noticed that you've removed my edits on the Cadair Idris page regarding Idris ap Gwyddno and an alternative meaning for the word Cader. Being local to the area I have grown up with the legend of Idris and his chair and would be interested to know of any info. you have that these alternative theories are not true (there's very little I can find on the internet on the subject). Anyway, here's another link I've found about it which refers to Annales Cambriae and some other book.[1] Diolch Y ddafad gorniog (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diolch am eich neges. I'm 99% certain that "Idris ap Gwyddno" is one of Iolo Morganwg's fantasies (he invented a great deal of tradition, as you probably know), presumably from the notorious "Third series" of Triads written by him and included in the Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales. Either way, I'm positive he's not a figure of genuine tradition. Just in case, I checked a number of reliable academic books on medieval Welsh literature and tradition, e.g. the notes on Gwyddno Garanhir by Rachel Bromwich in her edition of Trioedd Ynys Prydain, and can find no mention of a tradition for Idris Gawr as a son of Gwyddno (his son in medieval Welsh literature is Elffin ap Gwyddno). As for cader as "fort", I was surprised when I saw it as I'd never heard of that as a secondary meaning - to be safe I checked Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru and there's no mention there either. The source you gave was an edition of the Edinburgh Review from the 1820s, so is just the speculation of whichever antiquary wrote the article.
Gyda llaw, if you want to read a good account of the folklore and traditions of Meirionnydd, try to get hold of a copy of the large collection (about 200 pages) in the transactions of Blaenau Ffestiniog National Eisteddfod 1898: it's not easy to find second-hand (probably cost you about £20) but somewhere like Dolgellau library should have a copy. (No, there's no mention of "Idris ap Gwyddno" there either!). As for the web reference you give here, it's to John Koch's dictionary of Celtic myth but only the contents pages are available on-line (book's recent, still in print), but I know there is absolutely no mention of either Idris Gawr or "Idris ap Gwyddno" in the Annales Cambriae. Hope that helps you and clears up the reason for my edit (not much space in the edit comment to explain properly - think I also made a typo as well - I meant of course that cader/cadair meaning "fort etc" isn't found in GPC, and they should know). Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
maps
Hello Enaid, I put up 3 maps (Image:Wales.pre-Roman.jpg, Image:Wales.post-Roman.jpg, Image:Wales.medieval.jpg) and a navbar ({{Welsh kingdoms}}) - criticisms, improvements, suggestions, and especially corrections are welcome (I'll hope to alter the maps in "batch mode", rather than one-thing-at-a-time, for the sake of my sanity). The maps should have better labelling (eg, islands) so long as it doesn't clutter the image to distraction. Also, this discussion may (or not) be of interest. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Messianic returns
Hi Enaidmawr,
I've just had a chance to drop back in on wiki, saw your post on the talk on Arthur's return, and decided to drop you a quick note. I just wanted to assure you that I had no intention to deliberately misconstrue; it seems, reading through it, that we all misunderstood what each other was trying to do! Incidentally, on the Taliesin prophetic poetry I don't know if you've seen that Marged Haycock will soon be bringing out an edited and analytical version of these (like her 2007 edition of the legendary poems)... I am intrigued by the references you make to pre-1485 prophetic poetry that features Arthur; are you planning to publish anything on this, as I'd be interested to read more about it...?! All the very best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alterations of articles to refer to "historic counties"
Hello, I saw that you had (correctly, IMHO) reverted
Wrexham (county borough). I've had dealings with this editor before concerning his "historic counties" attentions, and I've noticed he's changed many articles about places in Wales recently to make use of historic county articles and so on. I don't know too much about the det up in Wales, but I wonder if you are aware of these changes and whether Owain has been doing one of his wave of edits again which need reverting? You can view his contributions history quite easily and these show his edits in this area. I've reverted some of his unhelpful changes in various articles dealing with English issues recently which also have a historic counties bias. Best wishes DDStretch (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Owain has a long history of edits which reflect his minority POV obsession with the so-called "historic counties" and in particular the old Monmouthshire. Contrary to our agreed policies on geographical locations, he has even gone so far as to replace modern area categories with those of the old counties (I still have a sample record of diffs to prove it). He has also attempted to place Monmouthsire (historic) in England! I've come across some of your edits in the past and am glad to see that someone else is aware of this and prepared to edit accordingly. I patrol a fair number of obvious targets and try to keep an eye on his edits (usually marked as "Minor" and without comment). Seems indeed that he's off on another spree. Perhaps we can work together on this? I just don't see how he can continue to edit like this, against the general consensus, but it seems we're stuck with it for now: he has been warned in the past but carries on regardless with his mission to revert UK-geo articles to the pre-1974 situation. Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also aware of Owain's recent edits regarding Monmouthshire, although the changes he has made recently which I've looked at don't cause me any concern. Although some of his past edits may well have been beyond the pale, I have no objection to the accurate use of [[Monmouthshire (historic)|Monmouthshire]] when it concerns historic matters - though I would object to any changes which would delete the current administrative arrangements (the current Monmouthshire covering a much smaller area than the historic county), and I certainly haven't checked every edit he has made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not all of his edits are problematic, but some of his recent changes to articles about people may cause some problems. If one looks at
WP:PLACES#Counties of Britain
, this would suggest that, for example, some of the changes to state just that people came from Momouthshire (historic) (to take that county as an exmaple) is slightly misleading: We have three situations that need to be considered:
County of Place of Birth
Current County of Place of Birth
What
WP:PLACE
seems to suggest
Monmouthshire (historic)
Monmouthshire
Just say the person was born in Monmouthshire
Monmouthshire (historic)
not Monmouthshire
Mention primarily current county and Monmouthshire (historic)
not Monmouthshire (historic)
Monmouthshire
Mention primarily Monmouthshire and previous county
Now, I haven't been through them all, but
WP:PLACE. Newport has been firmly placed in England, when I believe it was was (up to 1974) of uncertain status. So, perhaps there is some justification in thinking a bit more about his recent edits? DDStretch (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SOAPBOX), and I'm willing to take this to mediation if he doesn't desist. --Jza84 | Talk 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for all this feedback. This is not the first time that this user's "historic counties" edits have been discussed, as pointed out above. I'm glad I can't be accused of being a one-man band in patrolling pages and reverting edits, when appropriate, even if at times it has felt that way. I can think of better things to do, here and elsewhere, and so would gladly support any formal move to make User:Owain desist from his attempts to distort the contemporary geography of Wales, and indeed England and Scotland. I wish I'd kept more diffs, but the score or so I have may be of use should additional evidence be required. Given the additional information provided above by Jza84, it should be clear that User:Owain is pursuing a covert agenda (he practically never explains these edits) on behalf of a pressure group and is undermining the credibility of wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly reluctant to comment here as I know that some of my recent comments haven't gone down too well with some experienced editors who I greatly respect and who contribute - and have contributed for a long time - huge amounts of work to this. However, I am growing concerned that some editors, whether IPs or not, are being labelled as being "disruptive" or "trolls" without fair consideration being to the content of their contributions. Clearly, if people have hidden agendas, then they need to be kept an eye on; but not all their contributions may necessarily be disruptive. I also know that the issue of "historic counties" has been an issue of long standing (mostly, I think, before I became an editor) and I'm reluctant to question a hard-won consensus. But I would question the need to warn Owain specifically at this point as, in my view, most of his recent contributions do not warrant further intervention even if a few may (and I stress may) infringe guidelines to a very modest degree. I could give examples, but I really don't want to pick an argument with anyone, and my suggestion at this point is for everyone to stand back and consider whether a dispute over this is really worthwhile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only say it is distruptive in the sense that Owain's edits breach
WP:SOAPBOX. Owain has been warned about this for several years now, and I'm pretty shocked this is still going on. His continual misuse and avoidance of edit summaries, and taking his locale out of line with the rest of the country, is problematic IMHO. He does some good work, but, in short, he knows better. --Jza84 | Talk 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
My only concern is that there is no need to act where there may only have been a minor infringement of guidance such as this: We should mention historic (or ancient) counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote. If a place is a unitary authority and not administered by a county council, it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage. For example, here, where I and other editors on the article (here) felt his approach was acceptable. I'm not even sure that, in that case, it does contravene guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I appreciate your concern, Jza84 is quite right to say that this is a case of persistently ignoring a formal naming convention over a period of several years - involving hundreds of edits - knowing full well what the situation is and choosing to ignore all reasoning. And we are not talking about "minor infringements", although some may fall in that category, but a deliberate attempt to rewrite the contemporary geography of Wales and elsewhere: see for instance this, this, this, this and this. It is indeed unfortunate it should come to this, but why should I and other editors have to waste so much of our time keeping track of his edits and reverting them when necessary? Would it be acceptable for me to change the article on Llandudno to say it is a town inCaernarfonshire (or indeed the former Gwynedd), and change the category to boot? Clearly not. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the first two of the edits you highlight are clearly misleading, but the last three are not. So long as the current administrative area is included as well as the "historic" area, I really can't see that there is a problem worth pursuing on those, as readers of the article (the people who are important in this, not editors) would not be misled. Incidentally, it may be the case that this is more of an issue in Wales than in England, because of the greater mismatch between the historic and current administrative areas over large parts of the country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what, if anything, is being done about this now, but for the record here's another edit, made today, which is typical of his edits: [2]. I think you are far too lenient, Ghmyrtle. Readers of the article with no knowledge of Wales will "be misled" as a result of such edits (and worse). Furthermore, Owain knows full well what he is doing and why. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping an eye on it when I can and reverting some of his changes. In the Rhayader case I agree with you, Enaidmawr, but mainly because of the confusion that would arise from having different senses of "historic" - "historic market town" and "historic county" - in the same sentence. A common sense approach is fine with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Vandal
Well, I hope the folks at the Global blocking page are happy/proud of themselves. The Disney vandal is now hitting yet another language Wiki. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to hear that, but maybe if he keeps it up we can reapply for a global ban. Where has he started to hit now? Been quiet over on Welsh wikipedia for a while until today when we got some minor amendments to a couple of Disney article interwikis - valid, I checked - from an IP addy within his range. Trouble is you have to check everything suspicious, just in case. Thanks for keeping me informed. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's hitting the Latin one, in addition to his usual work here twice today :( -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to request a global block, yet again, as he is also hitting the Russian and Albanian wikis (at the minimum).[3] -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I'm too late - been away for a couple of days - to be of help. They sure don't give much time for people to respond! I'm also surprised they don't have a global block for vandal user names : it's true that the same name can be used by different people on different wikipedia editions (which is why I can't use my main name here, as it happens), but the software is in place to match user names and passwords/email addresses. But what's the use? We're not going to get a change of general policy because of this one case, although I'm sure there have been thousands of similar ones. Back to the drawing board and keep the defences up. Sure would be good to have the parents' email address though! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again. I've just applied a 3 month block on the same three ranges - 68.220.160.0/19, 65.0.160.0/19, and 70.146.240.0/20 - on Welsh wikipedia (we can easily afford the very hypothetical collateral damage). Hope that will at least be a major inconvenience. He seems to have realised that using his known socks over on Welsh results in an immediate block as sock puppets so seems to be switching to IP contributions. Fortunately they still stand out a mile! Perhaps the other affected editions could do the same? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc
Hi Enaidmawr. Thanks for your help with Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc deleting the infobox and refining cat. Is there a different infobox that would work better or leave as is? Bye for now.
Sut mae/Hi Geuagagrrl. Problem with the infobox was that it, and similar ones, should only ever be used for settlements, and never anything else. I'm not sure what is available here that would be suitable - have you tried looking in the archaeology sub-categories? Also maybe there is a general one that could be adapted? Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a few suitable options for possible plaigery and redesign at a later date. iechyd da, ~
I was all set to PROD this article which you tagged as a hoax, but to my surprise I find there really is an Afon Marteg which flows roughly SW to join the Wye at Pont Marteg (grid reference SN952714) about 4 km above Rhayader. Its length is more like 12 km than the 2 km in the article, but the last stretch before joining the Wye looks from the OS map as though it flows through a steep-sided valley which might qualify as a "gorge." So I think the article can maybe be saved; I have taken the "hoax" tag off and will see if I can find sources. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd been meaning to get back to it. The text of the article is a clear copy violation though (see the Talk page, giving the source). Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the work on this. The article has been moved as you suggested (see Talk:Afon Marteg). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]