User talk:Enaidmawr/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Have you seen the discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom? -- Maelor  18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A Taskforce you may be interested in[edit]

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)

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 Wicipedia Cymraeg as we really need the manpower over there. Although I've contributed my share of articles here I usually concentrate on interwiki links and "patrolling" certain pages, mainly Wales/Celtic-related, especially the ones that seem to attract the Middle Earth/Celtic Mist/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)
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)


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)

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)

Some info[edit]

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)

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)


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)

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 "south Wales" 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)

Powys-Land in the time of Prince Cynddylan[edit]

See if this link works please: Powys-Land in the time of Prince Cynddylan Cheers. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
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. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 00:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Twin towns/sister cities[edit]

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)

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
Done some more editing there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
Referenced. The Welsh Eudaf is Octavius in Geoffrey's Latin text. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)


Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, I'd missed that (over-flowing watchlist!). I've found some useful stuff on 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)

Cross of Neith[edit]

Thanks for the help with Cross of Neith. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
Sounds like time for a scavenger hunt-har har. Let know know if I can help with further work. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 03:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about this page? ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

A note[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Cadair Idris[edit]

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)

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)


Hello Enaid, I put up 3 maps (Image:Wales.pre-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)

Messianic returns[edit]

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)

Alterations of articles to refer to "historic counties"[edit]

Hello, I saw that you had (correctly, IMHO) reverted User:Owain's changes to 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)

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)
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)
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 Robert Henderson (cricketer), Laurie Macmillan, and Isaac Hayward seem to be using Monmouthshire (historic) when simply Monmouthshire should be used according to WP:PLACE. The changes to Explosive ROF may also ruin foul of 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)
User:Owain is Owain Vaughan of Monmouthshire Newport, Chairman (or equivalent) of the Association of British Counties. A Google search throws up some interesting sites, and forum contributions made by him on the matter of counties. Given his position with an outsider pressure group, I've raised it with him that his distruption is a breach of WP:COI (and WP:SOAPBOX), and I'm willing to take this to mediation if he doesn't desist. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I only say it is distruptive in the sense that Owain's edits breach Wikipedia:PLACE#Counties_of_Britain - a formal naming convention backed by the community - as well as WP:COI and 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)
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)
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 in Caernarfonshire (or indeed the former Gwynedd), and change the category to boot? Clearly not. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Disney Vandal[edit]

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)

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)
He's hitting the Latin one, in addition to his usual work here twice today :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yep...I found their responses to be less than helpful. For here, some big range blocks have been implemented per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bambifan101 and his socks -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks once again. I've just applied a 3 month block on the same three ranges -,, and - 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)

Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc[edit]

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.  Geaugagrrl  ☎ 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)
Found a few suitable options for possible plaigery and redesign at a later date. iechyd da, ~ Geaugagrrl talk 03:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

River Marteg[edit]

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)

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)
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)



Thanks for the help with Cwmystwyth ~ Geaugagrrl talk 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wel, diolch yn fawr iawn - and such a lovely flower too! Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR warming on Gomer[edit]


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gomer. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Well, you could at least have added your signature! Is this a joke? For a start I have only made two actual reverts in the last 24 hours: learn your terminology. This dispute has not been my choice, but yours. If you don't like mainstream academic views then I suggest you go publish on a fringe-theory website, rather than here. Goodnight. Enaidmawr (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Good to hear from you, Enaidmawr. I will definitely take a look at that. I've run into that individual before, and I must say I found dealing with him extremely unpleasant. The first step will be engaging on the talk page (whether or not he cooperates, it'll be good to have that as a base). I'll go over everything and see what I can do. Hopefully he will listen to reason and we can resolve this amiably; if not, there are a few more simple forms of dispute resolution that won't involve a huge amount of work, such as Requests for Comment.--Cúchullain t/c 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr, Cuchullain. It's getting rather late even for me, accustomed as I am to burning the proverbial midnight oil, but I'll get back tomorrow. Why should we give in to this sort of behaviour? Cofion cynnes, Enaidmawr (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All Things Japhetic and other Nonsense Tales[edit]

Hi, I'm writing this on the offchance that you might be able to help me or direct me to others who might (this is based on your editing of the pseudohistory category). I recently added a perfectly logical explanation for the association of the Biblical Gomer with the Welsh only to find out today it had been reverted as "unreferenced OR and POV" etc by User:Til Eulenspiegel (who never seems to reference his own stuff, but that's by the way). Anyway, that contribution is now tidily referenced and will hopefully not be reverted again. But the experience led me on an interesting trail around connected articles (most of which have also been edited by that user), and I have come across some truly bizarre stuff. The main article is Japhetic. Here is an example, given at the opening of the section 'Lineage of Gomer':

Gomer "complete" (sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) - also Gamir, Gommer, Gomeri, Gomeria, Gomery, Goth, Guth, Gutar, Götar, Gadelas, Galic, Gallic, Galicia, Galica, Galatia, Gael, Getae, Galatae, Galatoi, Gaul, Galls, Goar, Celt, Celtae, Celticae, Kelt, Keltoi, Gimmer, Gimmerai, Gimirra, Gimirrai, Gimirraya, Kimmer, Kimmeroi, Kimirraa, Kumri, Umbri, Cimmer, Cimmeria, Cimbri, Cimbris, Crimea, Chomari, Cymric, Cymry, Cymru, Cymbry, Cumber.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? (I happen to know what most of the names mean, of course, but that's a different matter). Variations on the name "Gomer", derivations from it, descendants? It gives the impression that the first assumption is correct. This is completely unencyclopedic and bordering on the insane! If I start deleting such nonsense I'm sure there will be an instant edit war, so I'd like other editors who have an interest in making sure that pseudohistory and traditional history is presented as such to take a look and maybe do something about this: including yourself, perhaps? If you've got better things to do I quite understand. Sincerely, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what that list is supposed to represent, or what the source is. Since you pointed it out, I tagged the section and asked for clarification on the talk page. It might be helpful to track down the user who added that list and ask them personally for clarification, or check the translation of the "Book of Jasher" and see if that clears things up. You're right to be concerned about context; the intro to the "Jasher" section should probably be rewritten to mark these lists as claims from a single source, rather than as established fact. [4] provides policy and social guidance on how to remove dubious unreferenced claims, if you determine that would be more appropriate than attempting to repair the claims that are made by adding citations and context. Good luck! -- Beland (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Whatever the source the whole section is unclear, misleading (and I'm being kind) and unreferenced. The discussions below are related. It's just MHOP, of course, but this kind of thing, left unchecked for so long, seriously degrades wikipedia's credibility. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued harrassment[edit]

Even if you are new to wikipedia, you should have figured out by now, that posting on here is the ultimate transparent process. It's impossible to disparage and backbite another editor's contributions, without the distinct possibility of that editor reading what you supposedly said about him "behind his back". When you spread your insinuations to an even larger number of talkpages, the likelier it becomes that the party you are attacking will get wind of it. So in other words, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If you have any problem with my contributions, just come to my talkpage and talk to me there. In response to your accusation above, I do have references for every word I add to wikipedia, and I do indeed add them frequently, if there is ever the slightest reason to do so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Continued harassment"? To be frank you were the one that trolled my innocent contribution to Gomer, accusing me of "original research" and "pushing my POV" when I had merely done a simple edit setting out the accepted academic view. And I was not "spreading insinuations", merely trying to get some advice from fellow-editors. It seemed patently clear from your remarks accompanying your reverts that your mind was already made up. And if you have references "for every word you add to wikipedia" how come you rarely - if ever - provide them (I can only judge by the articles related to Japhetic etc, but that seems a fair sample)? You are extremely quick to revert other people's well-intentioned edits as unreferenced when they go against your POV, yet don't seem to think that is neccessary for you.
So - and I admit I don't know if you are responsible for the material but you have edited the page frequently without questioning them or asking for a reference - maybe you would care to enlighten us as to the meaning of this (see also above):
"Gomer "complete" (sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) - also Gamir, Gommer, Gomeri, Gomeria, Gomery, Goth, Guth, Gutar, Götar, Gadelas, Galic, Gallic, Galicia, Galica, Galatia, Gael, Getae, Galatae, Galatoi, Gaul, Galls, Goar, Celt, Celtae, Celticae, Kelt, Keltoi, Gimmer, Gimmerai, Gimirra, Gimirrai, Gimirraya, Kimmer, Kimmeroi, Kimirraa, Kumri, Umbri, Cimmer, Cimmeria, Cimbri, Cimbris, Crimea, Chomari, Cymric, Cymry, Cymru, Cymbry, Cumber."
I look forward to your reply, which may perhaps be more appropriate on the article's talk page (I'll watch it) than here. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't help you with what that info means; I did not add it. In fact, as I recall, I was against that particular section being added to Japheth in the first place, but I resigned myself to its inclusion when it kept on getting added, and I figured it should be self-evident as it is, that it's not a very informative section anyway, so I gave up and decided to leave it alone on its own, er, merits. However, from what I can tell, I think the section has grown (through a series of mostly anon editors) to encompass a great deal more besides "Jasher". In fact, I really don't know why so much attention is payed to "Jasher" (which to me is clearly a mediaeval document, and not at all what it purports to be), when there are many far older-attested, classical-era primary sources that don't get treated on enough, such as Pseudo-Philo. I think all the special fuss paid to "Jasher" has something to do with certain Mormon scholars, who apparently take it at face value. Anyway, if you had me confused with whoever had first added that junk, you've got the wrong fellow. My main contributions to these articles are in the area of valid historiography, and in trying to ensure that neutrality is preserved without biasing any one significant pov on the subject. I love to help out in referencing the topic of historiography; it is what I research, and I believe it makes for the most informative encyclopedia articles, and helps to keep original research down to a minimum. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Enaid the Great![edit]

I was curious if you could help me with translating the copywrite from the Welsh wiki image. I wish to use this image this image on the Welsh version of Wikipedia found on their version of Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd may be transfered over to the English language version? I would like to use the image for Hywel page and on Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages: The Gwynedd Interregnum. I do not speak Welsh so do not know if the author authorized it for use on the English Wiki. Any help you may be able to give would be great. Thanks for any insight!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tân y Ddraig! I've just seen this and checked the image file on cy. The picture was taken by Rhion and I'm sure there will be no problem at all with using it here. He doesn't give a copyright waiver on the file page, but I'm sure it's just an oversight on his part (I'll admit we're a bit slack about such things!). Perhaps the best thing would be for me to drop him a line on his talk page with your details? He usually contributes daily so he would probably get in touch with you tomorrow (Friday), if he's not back on tonight. That way you can get the confirmation from him personally, in case someone should query it here (I sometimes think "en" invented bureaucracy!). Good to hear from you. Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Rhion has uploaded the file 'HywelabOwain.JPG' on to Commons so you can use it here now. Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Diolch yn fawr! Ill get right to it! I didnt even have time to message Rhion! For some reason, I was under the impression he had left Wikipedia. Humm. I am always so excited to get images of Wales for Wikipedia, and this is an exciting pic for me. lol. Ill let Rhion know too!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Rhion's no longer on "en" - he just had a bellyfull of the constant disagreements and edit wars, I think - but I've thanked him on your behalf on "cy". Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

South Britain[edit]

Helo Enaidmawr, I received some advice re South Britain here. Doesn't look like the process has worked, though. There's probably something else I needed to do, but I guess you need an IQ over 50 to work it out, 'cause I couldn't. Could you take a look please. Hwyl, Daicaregos (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'n not too sure what Mais oui means by "redirect" here. There's no mention of that on the template page he directs you to. I'd have thought the placing of it on wictionary would take some time although there's nothing to stop one of us doing so, I guess. Maybe that's what he means? Redirect the page to the wiktionary article once it gets created? Sorry I can't be of more help. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Penmaenmawr_Prom_001.JPG[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Penmaenmawr_Prom_001.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost settlements/Hill forts[edit]

I saw your comments. I was under the impression, having read the article Hill forts, that they were either fortified settlements or refuges for local inhabitants (ie, not the possession of a local "lord"). Is this incorrect? Folks at 137 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. The term 'hill fort' covers a wide range of ancient defensive structures. Some, such as the oppidum, could indeed be termed "fortified settlements" or citadels, others were places of temporary refuge as you say, some smaller ones were purely defensive (like a castle or keep; are abandoned medieval castles to be included in the category as well?) and not settlements as such, and others were probably used as the need arose to keep livestock secure. In Wales at least, the majority of the country's c. 500 hill forts are quite small and likely to have served as simple refuges rather than as permanently manned forts or fortified settlements. My objection to including them in the category was not merely based on the use of the term "settlement", however. As I noted, the term "lost" itself is very misleading: whether or not hill forts are included, and I've given my reasons against that, wouldn't "former settlements" be better? A "lost settlement" implies a place which was formerly inhabited and whose location is now unknown.
Also, to quote my original post on the talk page, "the category 'Lost settlements in Ireland' (not ' the Republic of Ireland') clearly implies that Northern Ireland is included there, any renamed category - whatever is chosen for "lost", retain or replace, - should be '...of Britain': this would then match the other historical categories for Britain (as opposed to the UK: there is a difference)". Hope that clarifies my position on this. Please understand that I'm not questioning your motives at all, but in my opinion the category's name and potential contents does create more problems than it solves. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
As a coincidence, I'm watching a Time Team special about hill forts.(It's on a digital channel More4 so might be available on the net.) The thrust is that they were usually defended settlements (the word "towns" was used), particularly the large ones, but there's also the smaller ones, including a Pembrokeshire example. Other reasons for ramparts suggested are to express ownership,status, power, for decoration, to mark a sacred enclosure, etc. They contradict Mortimer Wheeler's view of Maiden Castle as solely a fortification. Given the mixed purposes of hill forts, however, I'll remove the cat from "Lost settlements" aand include individual articles to regional cats, where appropriate, eg Maiden Castle..
As regards your criticisms, I agree. The lack of clarity over Irish classifications is sloppy and my fault. A subject such as this probaby sits better with a geographical split - GB/Ireland. There's a suggestion to change cat names from "ost settlements" to "Extinct settlements" using a protocol and a bot. (I was unawre of this procedure.)
Where we may differ is that I still maintain that the concept is valid and that pre-existing cats of this type need to be coherently linked. Out of interest, what do you understand by the description "ghost town"? Back to the telly. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was advised to propose renaming the "Lost settlement" categories. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 20#Category:Lost settlements. I hope that you will contribute. I will also propose changing the UK sub-cat to GB. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, which is much appreciated. Like a lot of people I'm pretty busy with the pre-Christmas rush at the moment but I'll certainly get around to that over the next couple of days. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Creuddyn (Ceredigion)[edit]

Hi Enaidmawr, could you please translate the following for me? Thanks. p.s. I might be at the end of my fixation with this place name! ~Geaugagrrl talk 10:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Y cri oedd yn y Creuddyn

Ag wylo tost glowed hyn. —E. Ddu.

Car iddynt wyf o'r Creuddyn,

Llyna haid o'r llin, i hyn.

Hello there, Geaugagrrl, good to here from you. Two interesting couplets. The first one definitely rings a bell - what does the "E." yn "E. Ddu" stand for, do you know? Translating poetry is an art so I venture with some trepidation. The context helps as well - not sure what the hyn ('this') of the second couplet refers to, for instance. But here goes:
Y cri oedd yn y Creuddyn / ag wylo tost glowed hyn.: 'The cry was in the Creuddyn[;] / with bitter weeping was this heard.'
Car iddynt wyf o'r Creuddyn, / llyna haid o'r llin, i hyn.: 'One of their kin from the Creuddyn am I / - there's a swarm of this race! - [and one who belongs] to this [place].'
Sorry that's the best I can do for now. Second one is more literal than poetic. Do you have a source? I've less time than usual here at the moment, with Christmas coming up, so in case our paths don't cross beforehand I'll wish you Nadolig Llawen! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I will post the link here to the exact source. Thanks for taking a stab. Very busy here too with preparations for next week; add a severe snowy/windy storm Pacific northwest arriving as I type. We might even be out of power. Yikes. A merry and blessed Nadolig Llawen to you too! ~Geaugagrrl talk 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Diolch. Sounds like you're in for a White Christmas! BTW, I corrected your amendment to the commotes list and moved the related stub I found buried away (now Penweddig (cantref)). Also made a few minor corrections to the Creuddyn article. That article on the commotes is awful, by the way. See the talk page and also that for the cantrefs list for my comments, which have largely been ignored. Needs a really thorough revision and I'd humbly suggest following my list on the Welsh wikipedia (cy:Cantrefi a chymydau Cymru). Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help with Creuddyn. I will spy upon your commote comments after the corn chowder is further along on our stovetop. White Christmas here indeed! The Nutcracker performances in Seattle were canceled today, which will probably happen for our scheduled attendance tomorrow. So let the nesting begin as even more snow accumulates. This why we left the Western Reserve. Christmas cheers! ~Geaugagrrl talk 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, as ever. I checked the googlebooks page but can't get more than a couple of lines, no context. If the Creuddyn referred to is indeed in the cantref of Rhos, however, it refers to the one in north Wales (there's another cantref Rhos in Dyfed/Pembrokeshire but it doesn't include the Ceredigion Creuddyn, of course). So the Creuddyn here would appear to be the commote represented today by the area around Llandudno, still known as Y Creuddyn (a local Welsh-medium school is named 'Ysgol Y Creuddyn').
Sounds like you left the fridge for the freezer! Weather here is rather mild but wet, although the forecast for Christmas is "turning cold and windy", if you can believe them... Corn chowder sounds good. Get a large coffee pot on the stove as well and you'll survive! Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen![edit]

Had to try out my new template Cheers! ~Geaugagrrl talk 08:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are the WikiWales Faeries?[edit]

Eniadmawr, love your expansion of Welsh Children writers, I thought I'd built a dead end. On an another note, where do you think WikiWales should expend in the next twelve months? Not where it should expand, but where YOU want it to grow? FruitMonkey (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FruitMonkey. There may be more to add - just went through the "usual suspects" in the Welsh-language writers cat. Where to go? Good question! I'd like to see more done with Welsh literature, which has far too many stubs, also more "modern" history (i.e. post-medieval, although that happens to be one of my main interests). As for the rest, I'll have to think about it. I spend most of my wiki time over on "cy" so perhaps don't do as much as I'd like to here, forced for time between keeping an eye on articles and tying in categories between "en" and "cy", etc. Food for thought! Thanks for the note and Blwyddyn Newydd Dda! Enaidmawr (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to butt in here, it would certainly be extremely useful if some of the articles which exist on :cy could be translated over onto this side - presumably it would be a relatively simple job to identify which :cy articles do not have an :en equivalent, prioritise them and start a translation process. No doubt there are also many more where the :cy articles are more thorough and/or accurate than the :en ones as well, especially if they cite Welsh language sources. Just a thought. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
In an ideal world that would be great. However, as I noted above, I already have my work cut out on :cy both as a contributor and administrator/bureaucrat. I do expand and correct articles here and sometimes create new ones when I have the time, but it's impossible to do everything, unfortunately. I should also point out that there are quite a few Wales-related articles here on :en which are fuller than the Welsh ones or don't exist over there yet (and on :cy, of course, it's also a case of a small group of regulars trying to cover 'Life, the Universe and Everything'). Otherwise, as a long-term aim, I agree with you. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Re: corrections you made to Montgomeryshire (district) and others. I see the error of my ways in using the word "principality" in the modern context... laziness in following common but incorrect usage. I think the distinction I was trying to make in avoiding the use of the word "country" was to avoid ambiguity: I felt that many readers, rightly or wrongly, seeing "country" would think UK rather than Wales. Looking at the sentence now:

On 1 April 1996 the two-tier system of councils introduced in Wales in 1974 was replaced, and the country was divided into twenty-two unitary "principal areas" by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. mentions Wales enough times to be readily understood. If only someone would tell the weather forecasters as I frequently hear about them describing conditions in the "Principality"... :-)

Lozleader (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lozleader, and thanks for your message. No problem, glad you understand. In Wales these days the term "the principality" tends to conjure up the building society of the same name for most people! "Country" is the term quite correctly used by BBC Wales, the Assembly Government and just about everybody else. Somebody should have a quiet word with the boys at the Met Office... :-) Enaidmawr (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Enaidmawr. Yes, totally happy with your edits on Penmaenmawr, of course. I spent some time going back to see when the Railway cat had appeared, and having found that it was added by User:Gwernol, a narrow-gauge expert, decided that it must be there for a good reason! Then after I had shut the PC down I realised that the cat would have been better on the quarry page, rather than the town one. Regards, Hogyn Lleol (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hogyn Lleol. I think it makes more sense that way, especially as the railway - which was a very small one anyway - no longer actually exists (I know the town well and it took me a while to realise it referred to the old quarry line, now just a gravel track!). Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Foundation Day of Great Britain[edit]

This day exists thanks to the Act of Union 1707 on 1 May but is not celebrated like May Day Mr Taz (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain just who celebrates New Year's Day as a "UK National Day", apart from yourself perhaps? This is not encyclopedic, just pushing a minority POV (of one?) NO, NOT OF ONE!!!

This day exists thanks to the Act of Union 1800 on 1 January but is not celebrated like New Year's Day, Just like "GB National Day" Mr Taz (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I will assume that your edits are made in good faith and have no wish for this to become a personal matter, but would you please stop your unencyclopedic additions to British Day, National Day and the disambiguation page Foundation Day? You have also created dozens of inappropriate and misleading redirects. What on earth is "Welsh Day" (redirects to Welsh culture, which is nonsensical) supposed to mean, for instance? You will probably have noticed that I'm Welsh so you can take my word for it that there is no such thing. The same can be said for "Foundation Day (Great Britain)" and "Foundation Day (United Kingdom)" (which you have created as redirects to the article on the proposed British Day). You say above that it 'is not celebrated like New Year's Day, Just like "GB National Day"', but what grounds have you for asserting that? As a Welshman living in Wales I'm also a UK citizen and I can assure you of two things:
  1. Nobody has heard of this day - whether you choose to call it "Foundation Day" or "GB National Day".
  2. Nobody celebrates this imaginary "holiday", for the very good reason that it does not exist.
I do not intend to go on reverting or amending edits like this for ever. If they continue the only way forward is to bring the situation to the attention of the wider wikipedia community as they clearly contradict a number of wikipedia policies. Please let us resolve this without having recourse to that. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


I see User:Bencherlite got in first! Deb (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow - impressive work! Went down to make a panad and now all is resolved. Thanks anyway! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Croeso. BencherliteTalk 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, frustrating though it may be, the "honour" of being an admin involves a lot of thankless drudgery. And applying for it is such an ordeal that I'd never let myself in for it now. Having said that, if you want to be nominated... Deb (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest it's only on occasions like this that I wish I were an admin here as well. I really wouldn't be able to devote even a fraction of the time to en: that I spend on wicipedia. As for the "ordeal", that sounds rather typical of the bureaucracy which is rampant over here, understandably perhaps (ah, for the pioneer days, rather like on cy: now I imagine...). All the same, I'll think about it (just how much of an ordeal is it?!). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way, it's gone from finding a couple of friends who agree you ought to be an admin to running the gauntlet of hundreds of contributors who can't wait to get the knife/boot in - not to mention having to respond to a set of quiz questions no one could be expected to get "right". The thing I like least about wikipedia is the amount of petty quarrelling - and the thing I like most about wicipedia is the lack of friction between contributors. Deb (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds depressingly close to what I'd expected, only worse. I think I'll pass the offer by for now, all things considered. At least I have several colleagues and friends like yourself with admin status whose aid I can seek when the occasion arises. Cofion cynnes, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you ever change your mind, here's one more editor who would gladly support your bid and do what I could to help it along. You've made such a hugely positive impact on and beyond our Welsh articles that I have no doubt you'd use the admin tools effectivelly and responsibly. This comes from someone who has willfully avoided (with statistically negligible exceptions) becoming involved in RfAs, for the very reasons brought up by Deb.--Cúchullain t/c 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to unduly interrupt the spirit of self-congratulation (and commensurate commiserating) going on here, but I do wish to attend to the more practical matter at hand and very briefly discuss the empirical merits of making the rather Euro-centric assumption that it is more practical and convenient for users of Wikipedia to learn about the poet Taliesin before discovering what [the user] is really after. In short, my argument is that it is much more unbiased to go to a disambiguation page than straight to the poet. This seems rather obvious to me, but I will try to explain my reasoning briefly here (as I've also done on Bencherlite's Talk page).
Enaidmawr, I can see (by your name alone) that you are quite a fan of Wales, and apparently the poet Taliesin also. However, I must freely assert, in all honesty and perfect dignity, that most people -- American or not -- are simply not necessarily looking for the poet Taliesin when they are seeking this term. This can be proven by any number of factors: from a quick Google search (on the term "Taliesin"), to recent New York Times bestsellers documenting Taliesin (without once referencing the poet), to common sense, to simply wanting to reduce the number of clicks people have to suffer on Wikipedia (when seeking relevant material).
It is rather obvious to me that your decisions here may be rather unduly biased in favour of coverage of the poet Taliesin, whereas I am simply trying to take the much more neutral approach that Taliesin should be made instead into a simple disambiguation page. What could possibly be so controversial about that? I elaborate my comments here on Bencherlite's Talk page, and I am most curious (if not positively anxious) to hear why the poet Taliesin trumps all other concerns going by that name. Mr manilow (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Enaidmawr, I've replied to a similar point at Mr manilow's talk page already (which may save you some typing if you agree).
  • Mr manilow, instead of moaning on talk pages about whose bias wins, why not set up the discussion at WP:RM? You're not going to convince Enaidmawr like this, are you? BencherliteTalk 17:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Bencherlite: Done. I hope I did this right, please correct and/or forgive if I've done anything wrong here. I really do believe it would be more helpful to users if this simply went to a disambiguation page. What could be so biased or harmful about that? It's not as if I'm proposing to go directly to the studio page(s) -- after all, there are two of them! And Taliesin actually represents far more than that, when it comes to discussing FLW's estate: his schools, foundations, etc. Mr manilow (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Bencherlite, many thanks.
  • Mr manilow, For the moment I will only add this to Bencherlite's remarks. You say "I am most curious (if not positively anxious) to hear why the poet Taliesin trumps all other concerns going by that name." Is it perhaps because HE IS TALIESIN and therefore every other usage ultimately derives from him? He's as central to Welsh culture as say Abraham Lincoln is in the States. Pursuing your logic I take it you'll have no objection at all if I move the article on him to Abraham Lincoln (US president) and rename Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) to "Abraham Lincoln"? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Enaidmawr: In all seriousness, I would never have known that Taliesin was as notable of a figure as Abraham Lincoln. I would never have gleaned that, even from this Taliesin article (and certainly not the intro)...which (from my point of view at least) starts off with a bunch of weird names I know next to nothing about (self-admitted, self-professed ignorance).
  • Furthermore, I would suspect that Frank Lloyd Wright's various Taliesins -- derived as they are from the famed welsh bard -- are much more familiar to the American (and even world) public than much of Welsh history, including that described by the existing Taliesin (poet) article. Popular novels are being written about the man today, whereas I do not see much of a popular culture impact -- American or otherwise -- for "your" beloved Taliesin (admittedly, other than that stemming from FLW's usage of the term). With all due respect and certainly WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Yours sincerely, Mr manilow (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC).
That doesn't change the fact that Taliesin is Taliesin, pure and simple. And I should note that I hold this as a general principle, even if the context here is Welsh. Leaving aside Lincoln and our respective national cultures, as I noted on Talk:Taliesin the fact that Homer Simpson is very likely better known than the ancient poet does not justify moving Homer to Homer (poet). Furthermore I think Wright himself would have been dismayed at this attitude. Why do you think he chose the name "Taliesin"? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Radiant Brow[edit]

Thank you Enaid. This change was so major that I weighed in as soon as I could. It's not hard to believe, though, this is just a case of one user who is very interested and knowledgeable in one field, and doesn't see past that, despite all the other editors who disagree with him. It looks like everything is sorting itself out at any rate.--Cúchullain t/c 02:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


hello enaidmawr - wow you are really serious about your poetry innit! (I just looked at your contributions.) Just called to say thanks for your careful editing and sensible views, and I'd be happy to give a hand now and then if you have need. Redheylin (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Redheylin, and thanks for the kind remarks. I've been busy elsewhere today so I've only just seen your message. Thanks for the offer of help - if anything comes along I'll certainly let you know. Forgive me for being a bit abrupt but it's kinda late at night (innit!); just got here after dealing with a load of vandalism over on the Welsh wikipedia after 'popping in for five minutes' at the end of the evening... Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Fraid the old Welsh is not good enough to help there! Or rather, the Old Welsh is a bit better than the modern because I only learned it to read the poetry and have never spoken it. Good luck. Redheylin (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


I know this may seem a very strange question, but were you by any chance in Mumbles this morning? Deb (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, no! I've been in Sunny North Wales all day. Was it my doppelganger, perhaps?  :-) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably. I'm in celebrity-spotting mode after seeing the Kinnocks in Tesco yesterday. Deb (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thought they shopped in Sainsburys? Just don't tell anybody that my companion with the dark glasses was Catherine Zeta Jones! Enaidmawr (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, a friend of mine once spotted her in the bank in Wind St, wearing dark glasses and an enormous hat - which of course drew attention to her all the more! Deb (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Brenin Llwyd[edit]

Ia wir, unwaith eto!! "Speedy delete" sy isio. Cofion, Flapdragon (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anhygoel! Ond byr fu ei atgyfodiad - "Digwyddodd, darfu, megis seren wib"! Pwy greodd o, tybed - wyt ti'n cofio? Rhag ofn bod rhagor o rwts yma... Cofion, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Got it: Special:Contributions/ Dwi wedi dileu'r ddolen goch o'r erthygl The Grey King hefyd (rhoddwyd yno gan Enaidmawr (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Agree with you about Tibet and Palestine independence. Not about Wales and Quebec independence. -- (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you're half way there. Hope you get the chance to visit the Republic of Wales, when one of the oldest countries in Europe has regained its independence, in the next ten years or so.... Enaidmawr (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never understood why people think that only some nationalities should have the right to self-determination and not others. Quite bizarre. Here's to ten years time. Iechyd, Daicaregos (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Diolch Dai. As you say, it seems that "all nationalities are equal but some are more equal than others". Scotland's almost there already and we certainly don't want to be left in the "United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales"! (which would become the "United Kingdom of England and a corner of Ireland" minus us and the Scots?) Enaidmawr (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Welsh county page moves[edit]

Per your comment on User talk:Skinsmoke, what is the problem with moving Conwy (county borough) to Conwy County Borough? The later is the official name, and while common usage may have been worth considering when moving St David's, Conwy (county borough)" is not as common as the official name. Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. If the move had indeed been to Conwy County Borough I would not mind, although I still think moves of important articles should be discussed first on the Talk page. However, the page was moved to County Borough of Conwy, a style that is not used by the county borough council nor the Welsh media. Similar moves have been made for other counties, again without prior discussion. I've just been accused of being "racist" for objecting to this, an accusation which I find deeply insulting as I've been an anti-racist all my life. This move is unencyclopedic: quite simply it is not called 'County Borough of Conwy' (and you can check out the council's website and look at Welsh media sites like the north Wales paper the 'Daily Post' or BBC Wales for further confirmation). As you say 'Conwy County Borough' is the official name, not "County Borough of Conwy". Enaidmawr (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone's got to be cautious what they type as it's easily misconstrued without context given by facial expressions and tones of voice. Nothing you said was racist, but it did come across as aggressive ownership, while this may not have been your intention it sent Skinsmoke onto the defensive. It would probably have been best to ask why Skinsmoke moved the article to "County Borough of Conwy" rather than "Conwy County Borough" (which I would support per this, and you're correct I had misunderstood the move) rather than why he thought he knew best as it sounds condescending. It looks like he's trying to achieve some uniformity with articles such as Metropolitan Borough of Oldham (completely different entities, but similar naming pattern and part of the administrative structure). Per WP:BRD, there's nothing wrong as such with bold moves such as page moves (or other bold actions) but discussing it becomes important when objections are raised. It might be worth raising the issue at WP:WALES or WP:UKGEO. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I should have stopped for reflection after typing, as you say, but I've been hopping about both here and between here and Welsh wicipedia and was overhasty. I've left a further comment at Talk:County Borough of Conwy questioning just how widely this was discussed as well: as far as I am aware none of us at the Wales project knew anything of this. If I myself was "defensive" (of the articles) it's because they are major ones with many links etc. Is somebody now going to volunteer to rename the numerous categories (i.e. delete the old and create new ones), for instance? With respect, I have no intention of doing so and would rather see these articles renamed (requires an admin here to do so...). Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well we all appear to be back on speaking terms, and I accept your assurance that you're not racist in the least. The truth is, I didn't think the move was in the least bit controversial. As I said before, personally I prefer Conwy County Borough and would be quite happy to set that as the term for Welsh authorities where they need distinguishing from a settlement (we're only talking about four authorities :Bridgend, Caerphilly, Conwy and Wrexham). How about we take it to the Wales project page and see if we can get agreement on that as the form. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd support that. I too wouldn't have thought the moves were controversial but evidently that's not the case. The moves might be a pain in the arse because of all the recategorising, but I would have thought that's about the limit of it. I'm an admin and will be happy to do what's necessary when consensus is reached. I've messed around with categories before and once you've redirected the old categories to the new ones, a bot can take care of it so admin tools won't be needed there, but I'll happily get stuck in there anyway. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd been meaning to do so anyway but found myself replying here and elsewhere instead, but there is now a discussion, hopefully, at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Historic counties of Wales[edit]

Quite right - it's useful for all of us to remember that there have been big differences in the history of different parts of Wales! So far as Gwent's concerned, the English under Harold Godwinson were repulsed by Caradog ap Gruffudd in 1065, and the Normans under William fitzOsbern seem to have been - initially - welcomed by the Welsh as their allies against the English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)