Hi, I replied on my talk page. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important that you read the procedures that have to be taken in order to move an article. I already fixed the movement of Governorate of the Río de la Plata, which you only copied and pasted the hole article into a new one instead of moving it. There are a lot of reasons not to do that, mainly the impossibility of following the article's history. If the article you need to move to already exists, contact an Administrator to delete it. (You can contact me).

Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but Wikipedia:Move says there should be a "Move" tab on the page, and while there are no images to direct attention to the proper part of the page, I'm pretty sure that regardless there just isn't one on my browser yet. Maybe it'll show up later. -LlywelynII (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the fifth tab from the left on the top of the page, the other four are "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history". Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Nothin'. Maybe after chrysalis or something... -LlywelynII (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Maté has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. StaticGull  Talk  14:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus hasn't been reached on the matter; I suggest you start a discussion in the relevant talk page and await the decision pending on your requested move. You cannot achieve things in Wikipedia by bullying or edit-warring. BTW, maté and yerba-maté refer to the plant, while mate is an article strictly about the beverage. Rsazevedo ^msg 10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one bullying and edit-warring here is you. Maté refers to the drink as well in English, which is not pronounced the same as in Spanish. Please see all the English-language sources at Talk:Yerba maté. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your work on this article. Those transfers need to be cited, and the proper way to present ship names is to italicize them ({{USS}} helps out with that). -MBK₀₀₄ 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your commitment to Wiki-wide regularity, I was just quickly correcting for in-article regularity. The transfers are already documented on Wiki, and none of the other transfers are documented on that page; so that request seems rather specious. Further discussion at your talk page. -LlywelynII (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LlywelynII, on the German wiki you asked for updating the English list of Makurian rulers. However, the German list contains all Nubian rulers. The English list is just the list of the kings of Makuria, so I am not sure whether this makes sense. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your edit summary that said that it was "important to note early that in English the term is often aapplied to a large church." and the removal of my word "mistakenly", replacing it with "by analogy".

I find this problematic, particularly in the article that is not about architecture but about function. When a large church is referred to as a cathedral, it is almost always done erroneously, and it doesn't really happen all that often.

Within England a big church is not often mistakenly called a cathedral by anyone who knows anything about churches, because of all the thousands of parish churches in England there are few that could possibly be mistaken for cathedrals. It is a characteristic of English ecclesiastical architecture that the cathedrals tend to be enormous and that parish churches are very much smaller and simpler, so that the one could hardly be mistaken for the other, unless through ignorance. The only exceptions to this are the remaining handful of intact but non-cathedral abbey churches, of which one, Westminster Abbey, served for a time as a cathedral.

The error occurs primarily with English speakers referring to buildings in Europe that are well-known and are mistakenly thought of as cathedrals, in particular St Mark's Venice (often mistakenly called St Mark's Cathedral) and St Peter's Basilica, which people (not surprisingly) presume is the pope's cathedral. In the case of St Mark's, the tourist might well ask "Well, if it isn't the cathedral, where is the cathedral of Venice, then?" It is characteristic of Italy that the major pilgrimages/tourist churches are not cathedrals. It is not simply the size that fools English speaking tourists into thinking these churches are cathedrals. It is also their apparent status.

One of the few examples that I can think of where there is clearly an analogous (rather than an erroneous) calling of a church a cathedral is at Tideswell where the church is proudly called "the Cathedral of the Peak" and has been given the name not in error but deliberately on account of the beauty of its architecture. This sort of use of the term is uncommon, which is why Tideswell comes immediately to mind.

The Shorter Oxford gives the first meaning as the principal church of a diocese, seat of the bishop. - Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of words to get around the point that you're ignoring the other meaning listed directly below that. I get your point, but it's a disservice to other readers to impose it on them at the expense of their understanding of how the language is actually used. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about bias. In the article about architecture, your edit remains. Whatismore, as the writer of that article, I am perfectly well aware that there is little to distinguish some very large churches from cathedrals. For that reason a number of those "cathedral type" buildings are included in the article, with an explanation to that effect. Their exact function is not particularly important within that context.

However, in the article which is most specifically about the function of a cathedral, it is hardly appropriate to inform the public that an erroneous use of the word is an equally valid use, regardless of how frequently that error may be made by people that don't understand the difference. This is an encyclopedia. Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an erroneous use. It's passed into common, accepted usage. Furthermore, even if it were erroneous, note should be taken of it. Honestly, I'm not involved enough to fight about it all night. I've brought your POV to your attention; you don't acknowledge it; meh. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why you are being so rude, accusing me of POV-pushing. The erroneous calling of a large church a "cathedral" is dealt with, a little further down the introduction, or haven't you read that far?

In common speech people often call a locomotive a "steam train". Any railway buff will immediately correct them and say that the thing at the front is a locomotive, and the "train" is what it pulls. The uninformed will continue to call it a "train".

I am quite interested to know what churches, other than those I have cited, are commonly referred to as "cathedral". You tell me that it's in common parlance. But I am left wondering where. A few interesting specific instances, like Ulm Minster have been discussed. - Amandajm (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this nonsense about the "primary reference" being "a large grand church" (or some such) come from? The primary reference in everything I have checked out, including Websters, which you have cited, gives its correct meaning first.

The correct meaning of the word has never been replaced, and has never ceased to be the meaning that is in most prevalent use. People who concern themselves with churches and cathedrals every day of the week probably account for far more usages of the word, than the average English speaker, who uses the word very occasionally, and then wrongly. I might use the word in spoken or written English fifty times a week, correctly. How often do you use it?

You have made it clear, on my page, that this is really about your POV. You are somehow (inexplicably, to me) offended by the Catholic (and C of E apparently) use of the term in an episcopal sense and would prefer to see it (is bowderlised the right word here?) watered down in some way to a very general meaning. Why?

Why don't you go to the disambig page and leave an additional meaning of "large grand church". Not as the primary meaning, because that would not be appropriate in light of what the dictionaries say.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James E.B. Austin, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/fau8.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Paraphrase. -LlywelynII (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your thoughts on something I think you have had some involvement in. There seems to be some confusion about the translations that define the distinction between Captain General of the Church and Gonfalonier of the Church. There are a number of referenced sources (usually translations of original Italian to English) that seem to describe both posts as Commander of the Papal Army. On this basis I tried to fill in some gaps at Gonfalonier of the Church which could be obviously filled using the varying translations (there are corresponding gaps in the list into which variously described Commanders fit).

I noticed, though, that Taddeo Barberini is already listed as a Captain General of the Church. Most evidence suggests his appointment was purely nepotistic (thanks to his uncle) and that there was little consideration of military leadership talent. His only real ‘military’ endeavour was the Wars of Castro and the use of the term ‘Wars’ is generous – more accurately neighbourhood spats between families. Given that his role was almost certainly ceremonial, and given the seeming uncertainty over the English translation, is it not more likely he held the ceremonial role rather than the military one? Are you aware of anyone being appointed to both?

I'm not sure others would think it particularly important but I think it would be nice to have as close to a complete list of each as possible.

Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Talk:Gonfalonier of the Church. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. I will go back through the sources and see if they can't be cleaned up a bit. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that if you are experiencing problems with the stress marks in the Russian words, it means a problem with the fonts support on your side. I have restored the marks where they belong—per previous consensus, they should only be removed where an IPA transcription is present. In other cases, where the stress marks are introduced properly, they do not create problems in compliant browsers. Hope this helps. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 14:02 (UTC)

[Reply on Ezhiki's talk page.]

Hi, Llewelyn. I did not provide a link because I honestly don't recall where the discussion took place—last time total removal of the stress marks was seriously considered was, if I am not mistaken, in 2006, if not before that. You are probably going to be better off starting a new thread; just remember that browser support for stress marks in 2006 was much more abysmal than it it now, and the consensus was still to retain them (it was worded something to the effect of "technology will catch up with proper support, as long as we use proper standards to implement the stress mark"). The Russian stress mark is Unicode symbol 769.

What's more, the problems you are experiencing are problems on your side, not on Wikipedia's side. I can't tell whether you have a browser problem, or a font problem, or something else entirely, but for majority of readers these stress marks display correctly. For example, out of six different computing platforms I myself am using, only IE on my smartphone has trouble with rendering the stress marks (and it just shows a blank square instead; nothing like the problem you are describing). All in all, I'd recommend you check for bugs on your side first; perhaps post a message at WP:VPT to see if this problem came up before. As for the way Wikipedia chose to display those stress marks, I am pretty confident there is nothing wrong with it. I am not well-versed in how Unicode works myself, but I've seen quite a few outside opinions, often in relation to bug reports similar to yours. Once again, you'd be better off seeking an expert opinion. In this case, I am merely a keeper of the previous consensus :) Hope this helps. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:49 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Russian browser". The computer I am currently using is issued by my US employer and it is overall pretty horrible at supporting Cyrillic, yet even in IE6 I can see the stress marks just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:56 (UTC)

[Again.]

I get your point, too, but one can make an equal argument than a non-negligible population of English language users exists who are unable to see Russian at all, stress marks or no stress marks. Same can be said about any other language utilizing a non-Latin script. Heck, on the computer I am currently on I can't read Dravidian scripts, such as Tamil, and loading the Tamil Wikipedia crashes my browser. Yet it doesn't mean we should rid en_wiki of Tamil spellings or close the Tamil Wikipedia altogether.

Also, the argument about the stress marks being "non-standard orthography" is simply false. They are rarely used, that much is true, but they are quite standard and are actually supposed to be used in certain cases, such as when one need to distinguish between identically spelled but differently stressed words, or to hint at the correct pronunciation of an obscure word, or in dictionaries and encyclopedias. It it were truly non-standard, then we wouldn't expect Unicode to support it, yet a separate symbol for the stress mark exists. And if by "non-standard" you mean that it is not used in the English reference works, then including Russian in the first place would be non-standard, too. Same goes for pretty much any diacritics other than relatively common acute and grave accent marks. Once you say it's OK for the English Wikipedia to include spellings in languages other than English (which is a de facto situation), you are automatically accepting that the rules governing the spellings in those languages automatically apply, too.

The overall philosophy of Wikipedia is not to make sure everything works on everyone's computer—which is a laudable goal, but, unfortunately, impossible to reach. The best thing we can do is to avail ourselves of the existing standards to implement features. With this approach, if a user has a non-standard browser or lacks support, studying applicable standards would be a starting point to remedy that situation. If you have problems with stress marks displaying correctly, start with the Unicode support for your browser. Ditto for my Tamil problem—I'm sure if a proper font is installed or something, I'd be able to see the text just fine. But ridding the encyclopedia from a useful feature just because some people might have a problem with it is not a solution, and abandoning standards in favor of non-standard solutions (like a plain-text stress mark you proposed) is worse yet. Sure, that'll fix the problem for you, but what about those who rely on us to follow the proper standards?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2010; 13:54 (UTC)

You wrote at Talk:Chihuahua#The_dog... and mentioned policy appropriateness. Is there any way to enforce the policy other than by voting? If people vote without brining evidence, then the policy is of no value if it cannot be enforced. 2011 Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) shows two votes claiming primary topic without showing evidence. TopoChecker (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to please reconsider your rejection of mediation here. Alinor certainly isn't the only editor who is pushing this issue. Please see the archives here: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Discussion_of_criteria/Archive_1, and all subsequent pages up to 6, of the extensive discussion we've had on this issue. We've been discussing this for over a year now, and have yet to find a compromise. Mediation is a good way for us to focus our discussion on finding a solution. As you can see on the current setup of the list, we can't agree on whether "widely recognized" includes states like Palestine and Kosovo or not. Currently they are listed with the widely unrecognized states, so clearly not everyone agrees with your definition of "widely recognized" as "more recognition than a rebel client state". Palestine is recognized by a majority of states and still listed with the widely unrecognized states. This is why we need a more precise definition. I'd ask you to please allow the mediation to go forward so we can discuss these issues in a structured way. Of course, you are welcome to contribute to the process and help us find a compromise! Thanks. TDL (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reconsidering! Hopefully we can get this thing going and find a solution.

Also, why does your signature link to another user's talk page? If this is a previous account or something, it's a good idea to put a notice on both user's pages that stats that they are both owned by the same person. Otherwise someone might accuse you of sock puppetry. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. TDL (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I edited my signature to get the shadow effect. I must've muffed the link. I'll fix it. -LlywelynII 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK...no problems. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything improper, I was just confused when I followed the link in your signature and found a stale account. TDL (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I see that. And like I said on your namespace, thanks for the heads-up. — LlywelynII 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think any official cites about TL "use" the pound sign? As from Turkey, WE DON'T USE IT! OnurT 00:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not recent ones. If you didn't already, I'll edit it out and make a note on the talk page. If you can find any official source, that would be great, although obviously it's an informal practice and the banks use the three-letter codes. — LlywelynII 01:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reopen the discussion Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Example_convention regarding bibliographic references because I think Unicode changes the game somewhat. Since you have participated in the same talk page, I hope you will visit the discussion and give me your opinions. Thanks! LADave (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know, you have been pushing your Point of View on the Republic of Macedonia page. You have overriden by reverts twice, and keep in mind that any further edits of the sort may constitute a violation of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule which could get you blocked. The changes you are making to the article are incorrect. The "Republic of Macedonia" is not for domestic use, and "FYROM" is most certainly not for "international" use. The term FYROM is a UN provisional designation, and the Republic of Macedonia is not obliged to call itself FYROM. I suggest before making such edits again you read the Interim Accord in its entirety. If you are stil interested in making the change, please discuss it on the article's talk page first. Thanks --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk:Republic of Macedonia page. You were reverting so quickly between my edits, they didn't even appear on the conflict page. Plus, of course, you're wrong: 20 years is neither provisional nor temporary and they are obliged to be called that by international organizations. — LlywelynII 14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please both of you keep in mind that edits affecting the "Macedonia" naming issues are subject to an Arbcom-imposed "one revert rule", so please cease reverting. On the merits of the issue, describing "former Yugoslav..." as the state's "official name for international purposes" is in fact wrong, because the state itself doesn't use that term for itself, not even in those international contexts were other parties refer to it in that way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties referring to it that way = international use. Feel free to rephrase to suit your terminology, but it's an official international designation of long standing. As for the reverts, again, they were unintented, but thanks for the heads up. — LlywelynII 16:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue on the article talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LlywelynII. Do you have any sources for Sanjak of Valpuva. I couldn't find any source for that naming. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took that from Nagykanizsa which seemed to have the correct names for the other sanjaks. If you have a source that disagrees or Valpovo is the normal form in modern Turkish, there's no need not to correct it. — LlywelynII 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We must provide information with reliable sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that should be added by people who have them. In the meantime, WP:DISRUPT applies unless you have a good reason to think it's incorrect. [Naturally, if you do, simply correct it.] — LlywelynII 04:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always have good reason :) P.S. Do you know where is Zane ? Takabeg (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, haven't been able to find it. Sometimes Ottoman Turkish would be transcribed arbitrarily, so it could be Zane or Sane but I don't see anything that looks that way. As for the Kanije Eyalet being under the Crimean Khan, it looks like the map on the Crimean Khan page is simply bad and the Ottomans held a sliver of the coast free and clear (that being the eyalet). That was pieced together from websites as I was looking for Zane, though, so no WP:SOURCE. — LlywelynII 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment. Seriously. See:

• "Ottoman language" -Llc 394 results.
• "Ottoman Turkish language" -Llc 365 results

Stereotyping and prejudice are always harmful. See you. Takabeg (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Personally I like usage of Ottoman language, because it's short and economic :)) Takabeg (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish is shorter, Ottoman Turkish is shorter, and Ottoman is shorter. It's like saying "English language" instead of English. Was being light-hearted and sorry if I caused any offense, but it's poor English language to add language after the name of language. — LlywelynII 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comparison with your 394, "Ottoman Turkish" produces 38000 results. So please do stop using it. [NB. I do know the Ottomans' language employed many Arabic and Persian terms and the effort to increase its native Turkish content was political. That said, it was still a species of (albeit literary) Turkish.] — LlywelynII 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there's a template (lang-ota) and a consensus to use templates for lede translations. If you have serious evidence to present about not calling the language of the Ottomans "Turkish," you should present it over there. Then all the uses of the (lang-ota) template will automatically shift. But you shouldn't push POV over the normal English. — LlywelynII 14:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You counted also "Ottoman Turkish Army", "Ottoman Turkish authorities", " Ottoman Turkish reform", "Ottoman Turkish art", "Ottoman Turkish music", "Ottoman Turkish architecture" etc.... Takabeg (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment them out and you'll still have vastly more than you get for "Ottoman language" as a phrase unto itself. Using the awkward "Ottoman Turkish language" is a false dichotomy that still shows it's nearly as common as what you're claiming is standard. It just isn't how English language works, except possibly among Russian language expats. — LlywelynII 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try building your consensus by trying to move Ottoman Turkish language. I'd oppose (if we're not going to call it Ottoman Turkish, we should call it Ottoman; the "language" is simply superfluous for anything except disambiguating the namespace) and the searches seem to be against you, but in the meantime really should still use the template. — LlywelynII 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Wikipedia:Requested moves? I recommend you to use requested moves, instead of changing titles with only your POV. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a. What did I move? b. Given the policies and numbers above, it's really you pushing POV. The only thing I can recall doing was including information from another page that wasn't sourced. You edited that, and it's fine. Really not sure what your problem is. — LlywelynII 15:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aaaaa I'm sorry. I confused you with this user :)) But I don't have any POV. Because I only transfer information from sources. You don't edit without showing sources. In this situation, other users can think you edit by your own POV. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howevermuch POV you displayed right above this ;), no prob. Have a question that I'll leave in your talk space. — LlywelynII 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Province of Van (disambiguation) ? Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The point I was making at Talk:Adrianople Eyalet was that the current nomenclature is actually OR neologisms. The English common name is simply "Province of X" (although in Van's case we'd obviously need to use (Ottoman Empire) to distinguish the page).

I moved the conversation to the Ottoman Wikiproject, though. — LlywelynII 02:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You may be interested in the discussion on page Talk:Eyalet of the Archipelago Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on River Odysses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Aviation^Expert ✈ (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm writing this reply for your question. According to this article Darendeli Topal İzzet Mehmed Paşa was Grand Vizier between 1828-1829 and 1841-1842. According to this article Topal İzzet Paşa is a completly another person. He was Kapudan Pasha between 1827-1829. I hope this helps you. Regards.--Rapsar (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm not sure you read that article you linked to.

A) I wrote it, leading to the original question;

B) it currently precisely says that they are the same person;

C) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially the unsourced pages.

Even if you were trying to use the Turkish pages, they're unclear stubs. We really need something (English is better, Turkish is workable) saying that they are different people, who just happen to be very very similarly named, very similarly ranked statesmen at very similar times. — LlywelynII 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you wrong links, sorry about that. I fixed links now.--Rapsar (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned the Turkish pages already, but will double check to make sure no one added better, sourced info explaining the difference. [Edit: Nope.] — LlywelynII 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Belarus is the original state of the article. No idea who combined the history and the etymology sections but they are supposed to be separate. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 12:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. — LlywelynII 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus 'twas User:FinnishDriver on 17 Jan. Part of their attempts to redesign country articles the way they wanted. European articles are a mess. Anyway, I came here Llywelyn to ask where all these sections are linked from? Can you include that in the hidden notes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just there to discourage random renaming, but you can pick it up from the Linked here. — LlywelynII 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My linked here won't show me links to specific sections, just articles. Any hints? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both usages can be considered pov. Do you know about WP:ERA? As Yellow Emperor started with BC and I see no consensus to change it, I've not reverted you on that. Hopefully just a minor point and thanks for the edits there. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although given wp:english wp:commonname – and, yknow, the whole issue of what BCE is dating its "Common Era" from – protecting BCE is always the Wrong Version, yeah, I know and abide by wp:era.

My point at Yellow Emperor was that it had been POINTy to change it, given both ERA and the discussion on the talk page. — LlywelynII 05:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now. Dougweller (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a response to your question concerning the etymology of the word on the talk page of that article.Beepsie (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LlywelynII, I see that you added the sentence "Shanghai fell to the Taiping Rebellion in 1851 but was recovered by the Qing in February 1853" to Shanghai#History. As far as I know Shanghai never fell to the Taiping, and I couldn't find it in the source you provided, or other sources about the Taiping Rebellion. Are you sure about this? Zanhe (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me: were you referring to the Small Swords Society instead? They occupied Shanghai's old town, but not the foreign concessions. Zanhe (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not and, with respect, if you didn't find it in the source, you weren't looking. The cite included the page number.

Granted, it's an old source and he might have confused/conflated it with the Small Swords esp. given that they apparently proclaimed their affiliation to the Taipings. But if you can find out whether it was The Taipings or Rebels who Affiliated Themselves with the Taiping Cause, feel free to clarify with a cite. The page should certainly mention the Small Swords (it doesn't right now) and whether they held the city (the Chinese city was the city) alone or as Taiping ally/proxy. — LlywelynII 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in a map making week / month right now ? I'm not (and quite busy), but I may give you indications for the QGIS cropping issue. Yug (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could just run it through Photoshop before putting it in QGIS. I just figured there had to be some easier way I was just missing somehow. — LlywelynII 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equating Sinocentrism with Chinese nationalism is factually wrong. Chinese nationalism is called Chinese nationalism, and is located at Chinese nationalism. Sinocentrism =/= Chinese nationalism, and refers specifically to Han Chinese ethnocentrism, and is used in that sense in most English sources on the subject. Western sources don't distinguish between "Han chauvinism" and Sinocentrism, and having two articles on the same topic is redundant. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page.--Ross Monroe (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this one? — LlywelynII 10:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm contacting all the editors who have commented on whether we should un-capitalize "dynasty" in wiki titles. I have just proposed a new and simple way to make a final decision on this issue. Could you go to this new section to say whether you support my proposal? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ""Texan" versus "Texian"". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywelynll, what do you think should be done with the Kingdom of Germany article? I think it would be best to rename it to Regnum Teutonicum. Do you think that would solve things? Machinarium (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:East_Francia#Merger_proposal Thanks! Mootros (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My work at List of township-level divisions of ____ comes entirely from ZH-wiki, which, as you point out, is not 100% correct in this regard. As tedious translating and disambiguating may already be, confirming at XZQH, which has many holes, or local gov't pages is unbelievably time-consuming. If you could (even occasionally) verify the entries, the strength of this partnership will be undeniable. GotR ^Talk 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast. If I notice anything, I'll point it out, sure. And thanks for your hard work slugging through over there. — LlywelynII 23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note WP:NC-ZH for Place names, which closely mirrors ZH-wiki's practise; the current guideline is that township-level divisions are disambiguated by the prefecture-level city (if part of a district) and by the county-level city or county otherwise, never by the province. You are however of course free to ask that this guideline be changed (at WT:NC-ZH), and I have no particular preference for neither the status quo nor a change. GotR ^Talk 01:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Names are disambiguated from homonyms regardless of their level. Are you saying that the township-level pages should not mention what province they're in (which is insane)? or that province pages should not list every township (which is sensible, but has nothing to do with my edits as far as I know)? — LlywelynII 12:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the conventions concern only article titles, and currently state that township-level divisions are to be disambiguated at the prefecture- or county-level. GotR ^Talk 15:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That does seem unhelpful, unless there are multiple similarly-named townships within a single province. — LlywelynII 03:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you should bring this up at WT:NC-ZH if you feel the guideline needs to be changed. I feel there are pros and cons to both a simplification of DAB-ing and the current guideline. GotR ^Talk 03:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as no one has changed the links I created to something less helpful, I don't really care and I certainly have no interest in going through and revising previous entries by hand: someone should script up a bot, but I can't. Nonetheless, fine, in the interest of civic discourse, I'll post something and get the hidebound to defend their current policy. Cheers. — LlywelynII 04:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there, and could do with a clarification from you. GotR ^Talk 19:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that important? The current policy is nonsensical and goes against the standard in any number of other countries, but it's no skin off my nose since it concerns pages maybe a few dozen people will see before the heat death of the universe. I only reply here to make the page banner disappear.

In any case, if you have a question here, you may freely copy the answer to that discussion for other interested participants. — LlywelynII 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LlywelynnII! I took notice of this edit. I am reverting it immediately. Keeping the entire section in the Chinese name article is necessary and vital.

You said "needless editorializing & japan bashing, without adding any information not contained elsewhere in the article" That is an incorrect summary of the section.

• 1. There is no information elsewhere in the article that states that names from the Mainland switched to Hanyu Pinyin after normalization, and the information about Chinese names in Western publications is not present elsewhere in the article.
  • If you try to point to unsourced information elsewhere in the article, that does not count. Information on Wikipedia needs to be sourced.
• 2. The comparison of Chinese names to Japanese names was made in a reliable source, so it is in our interest to post this comparison in the article about Chinese names.
• 3. The characterization of the section as "Japanese bashing" is highly inaccurate. The woman's quote represents a "reliable source" interpretation that needs to be included.

The Chinese names in English section is the equivalent of this section in the article about Japanese names.

Thank you for your understanding, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's badly written, sourced, POVy, and needless. I'll delete it again later. But thanks for the heads up! =)

More seriously, I'm working on going through the list of common Chinese surnames article — sourcing it with actual comprehensive surveys instead of the partial ones from before, and including data about Taiwan, America, and Canada — so I took a break in the middle of redoing the Chinese name, given name, and surname articles (the surname one is particularly awful). If I deleted a section without having already included better, more sourced, and more comprehensive discussion elsewhere in the article, it may have been a mistake or ahead of schedule. Apologies. — LlywelynII 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. How is it "POVy"? How is it "badly written"?

Firstly, remember that opinions do belong in Wikipedia articles. Opinions that do not come from reliable sources aren't included, but opinions that are printed from reliable sources are included. If somebody writes in a book that "it was one of the ironies of the late twentieth century that Japan remained stranded in the formal devices underlining its historical quest for equality with the West, while China set its own terms, in language as in big-power politics", we include that opinion in the article. It is not "POVy" to include an opinion attributed to someone.

One thing is that I strictly stick to what's in the sources, and that's how it should be. WP:V makes it clear that it's a core principle to only include what's sourced. If you want to make the section better written, you should find more sources that discuss the matter in further detail.

2. In any event, the topic of "Chinese names in English" is worthy of having its own section. The way names are used in English should be addressed by the article.

3. If you "delete it again later" I will go to a talk page of the China WikiProject and ask the userbase their thoughts on the matter (that is unless you want it discussed by them right now) - There was a previous discussion you might want to read, where a user believed that the section content was inaccurate, but he had not read it closely enough: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive_19#Chinese_names_in_English

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're the one pushing for opinion; I'm the one who was gunning for encyclopedic content.

Second, your second point was partially right: opinions recorded in reliable sources are sometimes perfectly appropriate. Of course, it was also partially wrong: sometimes opinions are needless POV regardless of sourcing. Getting the Godwinning out of the way early, the Mein Kampf's theories on Jews are perfectly appropriate for an article on antisemitism or Hitler, not so appropriate for an article on, say, Jews. I'm sure your intentions are good, but one encyclopedic fact is that Japanese and Chinese names typically have different orderings in English; another is that the Japanese ordering became much more common under the American military occupation following WWII; but claims that this distinction involved some superior Chinese resistence to imperialism is needlessly POVy, even ignoring the way the 19th and early 20th centuries make the point demonstrably false. (Or to be charitable, too contentious and POVy for inclusion on a tangentially related article instead of, e.g., on one specifically interested in name order.)

Potentially there should be a section on Chinese names in English beyond the material already covered in other sections like romanization. But like I said, I haven't looked at that material in a few days and am in the middle of something else. I'll look at it again in a few days, be sure to include any relevant sourced material somewhere, and if you're feeling particularly ownery or unpersuaded by my masterful arguments, when we hit WP:3RR we'll take it up with the community and higher-ups.

And again, absolutely apologies if I blanked any encyclopedic content without having included the other edits maintaining them in other sections. I'll look over it again in a few days. — LlywelynII 03:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About "First off, you're the one pushing for opinion; I'm the one who was gunning for encyclopedic content." - My argument is that I am, in fact, pushing for the inclusion of an encyclopedic, noteworthy, significant opinion, which is "gunning for encyclopedic content" - I argue that trying to delete it is removing an encyclopedic opinion, which is the opposite of "gunning for encyclopedic content" - Hopefully you now understand my point of view.

Now, you say "sometimes opinions are needless POV regardless of sourcing" - That depends on their prevalence, related to the subject at hand. Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight covers it. Problem is, it's the only opinion we know of related to the subject. We can't say it's undue, because there is no other opinion more prevalent than Terry's! You use Mein Kampf as an example of an opinion which cannot be taken at face value. The problem is that Mein Kampf has been analyzed by many sources, and its views on Jewish people has been demonstrated as false. There are many other sources which have higher quality/more prevalent opinions than Mein Kampf in relation to Jewish people. Therefore taking Mein Kampf at face value would be violating UNDUE. Edith Terry's opinion has not received the analysis, dissection, and negative reception that Hitler's has. And I have not yet found any other analysis/interpretations of the differences between Chinese and Japanese names. It stands alone. It's the only opinion about the comparison of Japanese names to Chinese names that has been recorded in reliable sources that we know of.

" but one encyclopedic fact is that Japanese and Chinese names typically have different orderings in English" - Yes - that comparison is part of the section.

"another is that the Japanese ordering became much more common under the American military occupation following WWII" - Is there a source saying this?

"but claims that this distinction involved some superior Chinese resistence to imperialism is needlessly POVy" - I do not believe that is what Terry is saying. The quote says, exactly "it was one of the ironies of the late twentieth century that Japan remained stranded in the formal devices underlining its historical quest for equality with the West, while China set its own terms, in language as in big-power politics." - While she argued that China had dealt with the west "on its own terms" while Japan didn't, she isn't saying that China has an innate resistance to imperialism that makes it superior.

"even ignoring the way the 19th and early 20th centuries make the point demonstrably false. (Or to be charitable, too contentious and POVy for inclusion on a tangentially related article instead of, e.g., on one specifically interested in name order.)" - How is this the case? In which ways?

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to hit Google books and see if I can find any more opinions and facts related to the contrasting of Japanese and Chinese names. (If I can source the bit about prevalence of western order of Japanese names increasing after WWII, that would be a bonus)

Lu, David John. Japan: A Documentary History, Volume 1. M.E. Sharpe, 1997. xv. ISBN 1563249073, 9781563249075 - No opinions or new facts, just a note on what order the author chooses

Chan, Wing-tsit. Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy. Greenwood Publishing Group, March 1, 2002. xii. ISBN 1400809649, 9781400809646.

"Except for some contemporaries who put their personal names before their family names (as I do), Chinese and Japanese names are given in the Chinese order, that is, with the family name first. Chinese and Japanese scholars are not consistent in using the various names of Chinese writers. Here the private names of philosophers, rather than their courtesy or literary names, are used, except in the cases of Lu Hsiang-shan and Wang Yang-ming, who are generally known in China, Japan, and the West by their honorific names." - Information added to Chinese_name#Alternative_names, Lu Jiuyuan, and Wang Yangming

Beasley, William G. The Rise of Modern Japan, 3rd Edition (January 2000). Palgrave Macmillan, June 27, 2000. xi. Retrieved from Google Books on April 1, 2012. 0312233736, 9780312233730. -- First edition is dated London May 1989, from the Acknowledgements section on Page viii.

Gives preferences used in book, in terms of name order and Japanese romanization system. It also says "Chinese words and names are romanized according to the Wade-Giles system, which is more often to be found in books relevant to Japanese history. Alternatives to the Pinyin system, now becoming standard for references to contemporary China, are given in the index." - Information added to Chinese_name#Chinese_names_in_English WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you missed the three or four times I already said I'd get back to this later.

In the meantime, save your arguments in text file somewhere for later use and post article source material like this on its talk page. =D — LlywelynII 07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to move it to a new talk page later. But, I don't see a problem in posting stuff now, knowing that you'll get to it later :) - I knew you would get to things later, but I decided to respond now, knowing my content will still be up when you return WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have pointed out deficiencies in Thai name, and I hope that your chosen name reflects that you have the chops to straighten me out — mine merely reflects that I have a sense of humor, and don't take myself too seriously.--Pawyilee (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

No. I just fixed one deficiency in the page.

I'm not sure what you need straightening out with, but those services cost extra. — LlywelynII 08:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thai name and Thai Chinese need attention again.

How do you mean? — LlywelynII 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance related to Llywelyn the Last? (If so, I'll be more respectful.) --Pawyilee (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, your upbringing was such that you can be respectful regardless. — LlywelynII 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"With respect to," as a phrase, hints as to different kinds.

WRT Thai Chinese, your having spotted a deficiency re a surname by a Thai family of Chinese extraction, extracted from Sanskrit for "Does Good Routinely," led me to invite you to spot any I may have added in my recent changes to that, and Thai name, as well.

WRT The Last Leader, my interest is in the Last Leader of the Vientiane kingdom, a rump state of Lan Xang, who led the Laotian Rebellion of 1826-1829, and met much the same fate. If there is a category for failed heroes of failed kingdoms, then they belong in it.

WRT the Treaty of Montgomery, I'd like to know what Montgomery was involved. --Pawyilee (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello LlywelynII. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LlywelynII, I noticed you are active in creating Greenland related articles. I am wondering if you have access to a publication about Greenland I would like to obtain. I am, from time to time, working on creating lists of Lepidoptera species by country. A lot are done (see my sandbox User:Ruigeroeland/Sandbox3 if you are interested). To make a list for Greenland, I am looking for access to a publication from "Meddelelser om Grønland". I thought you might be able to get your hands on it for me? I would only need the names of the species (including the species authority):

• "The Lepidoptera of Greenland", Wolff, N.L., Meddelelser om Grønland. 159 : 11, C.A.Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen. 1964. 74 pp plus b/w 21 plates, distribution maps to all species.

It would be great if you could help me out! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Shanghai's English-language library is very limited; I've been doing all of my work with internet-available sources, so I'm afraid I can't help. My suggestion (fwiw) is to look around for a wikiproject:scholarship or something, a community of people with access to LEXUS/NEXUS & the scholarship databases & American university libraries. They might be able to rustle something up for you. — LlywelynII 11:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the info. I already made a request at the "Resource request" project, but nobody seems to have access to it over there either. I might try the Danish wikipedia if all else fails. Cheers and thanks again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether your creation is the same place as the town of Lutai (芦台镇) in Ninghe County, modern-day Tianjin? GotR ^Talk 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a citation for this? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. Two, in fact. — LlywelynII 10:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this notice here to advise that on the talk page of an article to which you have made substantial edits I have asked a question concerning the validity of the article. The question has been there for some time but received no replies so I am giving my question wider distribution by notifying selected editors who have been involved with the article and giving them an opportunity to respond. Please do not reply here on your talk page or on my talk page but on the talk page of the article where other editors can easily see your comments so that hopefully we can have a constructive debate. The article is List of English monarchs. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 07:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you responded to this, but your response does not answer the question. On the article's talk page I have asked you to please put aside your incorrect assumptions, review the question, and then try to answer the question that was actually asked. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found Cocomes which is new and was sourced to Lewis Spence, not an RS. Searching for sources I found that Cocomes has more than Cocom, esp when you look at Google scholar. I sources Cocomes with one reliable sources, and redirected your article. Then I thought - rather late - that maybe I should have discussed this with you first. Apologies. I was really only interested in finding better sources than Spence for articles - didn't plan to do this, sorry! Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LlywelynII. Would you please reply at Talk:Etiquette and Rites#Uncommon title? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LlywelynII,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FEDIMA for deletion, because it seems to be an promotion, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, atnair (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No question, but reread the article. It's a stub, sure, since I'm not in the field; but it's unambiguously an encyclopedia article about a notable organization and not a promotion. This is not an article about a "garage company": it's about a trade union for an entire sector of the European economy. Chill. — LlywelynII 11:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted only those portions of your edits that explicitly changed era styling from BCE/CE to BC/AD. I do not believe you are justified under WP:ERA in making this change at this time. Please see my comments at the talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, given the pre-existing discussion. Kind of you to keep the other edits. — LlywelynII 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, always try to be kind. Thank you. But it is not hard to be kind when the other is kind, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet? You must be new here.

LOL

Regardless, a blessing on your house (mazel tov, mazel tov). — LlywelynII 14:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only have sons to marry off, not daughters. Doesn't mean they don't bring their own challenges. (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There is a whole big question as to exactly what the correct Hebrew behind "yasher koach" (definitely with an r) is. It's something that's become a little sloppy through Yiddishization. But I'll take the compliment anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have an interest in this discussion on the very topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of style#rfc_ABCA17E StevenJ81 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LlywelynII, I've recently returned from a long break and I noticed some of your improvements to several Welsh history-related articles. They are certainly to the good, at Maelgwn Gwynedd and Merfyn Frych, for example.

I support your efforts to improve/correct anything I once wrote, but also please don't be too hasty in some conclusions as to the origins of their current state, which is a result of multiple editors and the contentions of several years ago, in addition to any shortcomings that I may have introduced. Your comments on Maelgwn's name apply to an article prior to my involvement, and I later added Rhys' etymology because I couldn't stand the same "popular" etymology about which you complain (I'm not Welsh-speaking, and in the absence of anyone else's correction of the text, I picked a respected individual who was); the literary "misinformation" and "record" sections were in reaction to then-common efforts to present traditions as historical facts. Your improved "focus" at Merfyn Frych certainly improved my update of that article, but I was not the origin of much that you changed.

Maps are useful if referenced with the same rigor as article text (eg, a map of Roman-era civitates rather than a list), though they also seem to give weight of authority when that should not be the case; and they can be misued (the OR map I removed from Cunedda was stolen from my workspace without my knowledge or permission; I've since erased it from wikipedia, so that cannot happen again). Esthetics vary (this map of Gwynedd is crowded and needs improvement, else it can be erased, in my own opinion).

Again, you recent efforts are a great improvement, and most welcome to see! For myself, please assume that if I wrote it, it bears improvement and should probably be shortened with better focus. That applies to maps as well as article text, and your critique and criticism and complaint will be well received. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find your edits and points so generally well taken, I'm still not sure I understand. Did you came here in response to this? I was addressing an overstatement on the other editor's part and clarifying (I assume) yours. I just phrased it the way I did for parallelism's sake. Or was there something else?

Anyway, thanks for the kind words and constructive approach. Let's raid the Welsh Wikiproject sometime and give each other barnstars before they notice.  — LlywelynII 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I tried to instantly absorb all that had changed since I semi-retired, then saw that that stolen map had actually been inserted into an article, and quick-skimmed some of the talk pages without taking time to digest ... looking at what I wrote, it does sound weirdly defensive. Maybe I can start over ...

Mostly I wanted to say that it's good to see your well-written and well-referenced material, and I'll be glad to have knowledgeable eyes lurking about. Agreed on raiding the wikiproject! And if I see a copy of that new TCE history of Britain lying about, I'll swipe that, too ... I see that you already have a copy. Looking forward to crossing paths in the future! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two replies, thanks for your work on the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Fyi, though: that template doesn't really work for article talk pages.  — LlywelynII 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a statement on this page which was supported by a source. You shouldn't do that; if you disagree with what it says, open a discussion on the talk page. Or find a source that agrees with your point of view and re-write it as controversial. But your opinion on the matter, by itself, carries no weight. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horsepucky. It's not controversial; it's patently false and thus unreliable.

Also, kind of you to stop by and point out your edit so I can undo it, but you should learn to take a less snotty tone. — LlywelynII 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LlywelynII, some of your recent edits have included changing the names of Welsh princes to “son of” from “ap” e.g. Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, Llywelyn ap Seisyl etc. All the sources I've read refer to them by their Welsh name. These changes are a major departure from the accepted precedent on Wikipedia and should be discussed at a central point to gain consensus before embarking on wholesale changes. Please take this somewhere like Wikiproject Wales for discussion before making any similar changes. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not a "departure from accepted precedent"–the English commonname is X ap Y and that's exactly what the article name should be and where it should stay. However, formatting "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)"

(a) is actually fine.

(b) looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" as though it weren't the English name and

(c) keeps people from thinking "ap Y" is some kind of surname.

If you're paying attention to these pages, you obviously have seen people formatting the {{persondata}} to read things like "Farfog, Triffyn" and "Ap Llywelyn, Gruffydd". This gets things across very easily and cleanly.

In any case, despite the schoolmarmish tone, you're quite kind (stopping by & not just reverting the edits) and obviously a force for good around here and nice to meet you. Your Welsh articles seem to be more the current stuff, but if you're into the history as well, kindly look over/add more to Synod of Chester or some of the kings I've been adding in to have something to link to from the Annales Cambria Wikisource.

Particularly like your take on "Taffy was a Welshman". Just learned about that awful tune the other day. — LlywelynII 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was an hour out my life, but proposal is up. Since you seem to disapprove, it's ok if you want to sit out the conversation; but thought you'd be cheered I got the ball rolling like you asked. — LlywelynII 15:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LlywelynII, nice to meet you too. I enjoyed your Synod of Chester. I'm sure I've seen that story about Augustine before (possibly here), though I couldn't find it in John Davies' A History of Wales. Davies says (p 61) that Bede says Aethelfrith ordered the slaughter of 1,200 monks at Bangor-Is-Coed, because they fought against them wth prayers, which met with Bede's approval (p 76). Nice! Sorry you dislike my tone. I find feeling quite difficult to convey here. I mean no ill-will towards you. Nevertheless, whether "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)" looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" is irrelevant. We should go with the sources, and the sources use “ap”. Thank you for posting your proposal. I look forward to the response. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's a mistake of wp:COMMONNAME (regarding the page titles) and WP:LEADSENTENCE (regarding this and which explicitly makes exceptions for cases like this where the meaning and use of ap is unclear to normal readers). — LlywelynII 15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for tone, don't beat yourself up about it. You didn't bite the nooB very hard – it's just that I'm not a newbie at all. ;)  — LlywelynII 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an english-only reader, I support your proposal :) GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank y'kindly, but be sure to note that here, if you didn't already. — LlywelynII 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this afternoon I noticed you copied my Buellt material from my userspace to the mainspace. I certainly don't mind it being used, but copy-pasting broke the edit history necessary for attribution. It also would have been nice to know you were using it, as I would have liked to submit it to WP:DYK. At any rate I merged the histories and added a bit; in the future just please let folks know if you're using userspace material. Thanks, --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if userspace material is not covered under Wiki's relevant licenses and, more to the point, if you were keeping it hidden for personal reasons til it was well-polished.

For myself, I was building a Buallt article regardless, found it via Google, and made the obviously inappropriate assumption that Wiki material is always intended for public consumption and that you'd rather I employed your words than my own lesser ones. But I will definitely post a message to its talk page and, again, apologies. — LlywelynII 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly happy to see it in the mainspace; I'd more or less forgotten about it for over 3 years. All material is covered by the licenses, but preserving the edit history is necessary for attribution. It's also nice to let folks know when you're copying their material to the mainspace. At any rate, it's fixed now, no harm done. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, It appears that you moved the page previously at this title to Owain ap Hywel Dda, and then created the dab page at this title. There are a lot of incoming links which were intended for the moved page and now lead to a dab page: it is your responsibility to fix them, as is explained on the message you got on screen when you made the Move. Please fix them. Thanks. PamD 23:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you create a disambiguation page, please add a disambiguation template {{dab}} or {{hndis}} (human name disambiguation), rather than adding Category:Disambiguation pages. Various bots expect to see a template to recognise dab pages, and it adds a useful message to the bottom of the article. See WP:MOSDAB for more about dab pages. Thanks. PamD 23:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did fix most of them (as a courtesy, not a responsibility – my edits were constructive & it's a collaborative project). You're welcome to get the rest (Mostly a long line of 'ruler in X year' links that can handle the dab page just fine). Cheers. — LlywelynII 09:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for overly-picky issues related to which template or if any template should be added, again, knock yourself out. I only added a template at all because another user was moronically calling the dab pages {{name-stub}} and I was attempting to preëmpt him. But I will try to keep the MOS guidelines in mind in the future, thanks. — LlywelynII 10:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I found your comments at the merge discussion to be very thoughtful and well-stated. They reflected the fact that you put some time and thought into them. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the other side felt they were overstated and off-point, but thanks for the kind words. My apologies that they're so used to the way it was written when they were growing up that they ignored the perfectly valid sources and points you had already given them. — LlywelynII 08:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywelynll, I noticed the new article Synod of Chester ... I'm not aware that such a thing happened; did I miss something, or is there a mixup somewhere? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, it's II.

And yes, of course it did (or at least was described that way by the annals). Did I not include references? or you were just pointing out that we should polish it up for a DidYouKnow? — LlywelynII 23:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be Caerleon Upon Usk (not Chester), held under the auspices of St David's (Moni Judeorum being ultimately from the Irish form for Hen Meneu = St David's), and likely in preparation for (or somehow conflated with) the 2nd Augustinian meeting at Augustine's Oak. Several articles go into some detail (not all details and characterizations of which I buy), such as at Gregorian mission and Augustine of Canterbury.

btw, as to the massacre ... it's a good thing that those British Christians were so unChristianlike, else it would be a story of a Northumbrian (Bede) justifying the massacre of defenseless Christians by pagan Northumbrians by placing words in the mouth of someone who had died a century earlier ... how often do Christian sources really justify the massacre of Christians by pagans? Regards, Notuncurious