User talk:Aetheling1125

Welcome!

Hello, I'm Aetheling1125, and welcome to my discussion page. This is the place where you can have a go, show off and basically bully me about adding content to Wikipedia while you were still at school and learning to read. Go on, bore me to death with your ornate pedantism and clever policies.

Heya!

Good Lord, is everyone on here? :o)

If you wanna hit edit on my user page, you can see how to do the Latin infobox thing; feel free to nick any of the wikicode on there, of course. Hope to see you again soon, mate! — OwenBlacker 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Trying to reach you! Where did you get your source re: Gruffudd and Maredudd ap Cynan fighting against Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd? if you're on twitter you can reach me at @welshficwitch if not, please reply here, I'll check back! Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.132.23 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

redirect

The articles Maredudd ap Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd and Maredudd ab Owain Gwynedd appeared to be identical. I have merged them. I assume you know to use #redirect if you want an alternative title. If there are any other duplicates lurking among your long list of Foo ap Bar titles, please merge them! -- RHaworth 07:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The long name is the proper one - so move the article then. -- RHaworth 07:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Aww

Sweetie Petie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Sweetie Petie 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Boris of montenegro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boris of montenegro.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried to return your email...

...and it bounced as undeliverable. In any case, per the discussion above you had with Curps... don't worry about it. If you do find yourself blocked, you can email admins and give them the text of the block message so we can try go get you unblocked. BTW - the notice where you saw my name was an old old vandalism from December 2005. There was something newish on that page, but it wasn't my notice. Cheers! Syrthiss 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Küçüm

Nice (ongoing) work on the Siberia Khanate entry. I noticed you created a new entry for Küçüm, but there is an existing entry for Kuchum. Perhaps they should be merged. -- Takwish 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Got your email (I should check that account more often). Tried to reply, but it bounced--so I'm replying here. As you no doubt noticed, I added some more material from your Kucham page and the Siberia Khanate page to the Kuchum page, then converted the Kucham page to a redirect. I think the Kuchum page would benefit from some additional attention from you, though. -- Takwish 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

FBSC

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article FBSC, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:FBSC. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Kingdom of Bohemia.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

White Dragon of Mercia

On Flags of the World you wrote:

"There is a medieval map of the English "heptarchy", a period where there were seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms at war with each other. This map, made I believe in the 12th Century after the heptarchy period is illustrated with banners of the kingdoms. Those shown for Essex, Kent and Sussex appear to be very similar to their "county standards" today, while East Anglia has three crowns on a white background, Mercia appears to have a white dragon of some kind. James Frankcom, 30 July 2001"

Do you have any more information about this map? Thanks. TharkunColl 09:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The map can be viewed here - however I was wrong about the white dragon. Mercia is indicated by a banner rather like the scottish saltire except yellow on blue. See this link: http://www.antiquemaps.com/uk/examples/blaeu/saxon.jpg

License tagging for Image:DaudiCwa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DaudiCwa.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gwynedd - correct.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Gwynedd - correct.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Banners and Coats of Arms for Wales

Hello James, I wanted to commend you on the coats of arms you drew for for Gwynedd, Gruffydd ap Cynan, Deheubarth and for Mathrafal. I have a link to other coats of arms if you could redraw them and make them larger, they are retro-actively assigned to a few dynasties/lordships in Wales. Drachenfyre 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cunedda ap Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd

Cunedda ap Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this person might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" template, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Howys de la Pole

Howys de la Pole, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Howys de la Pole satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howys de la Pole and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Howys de la Pole during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Phgao 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr

The article Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr, created by you, has been tagged as a hoax (not by me). If it had been created by an anonymous user I'd readily agree with the tag as I've never come across any reference to him (see Talk:Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr). I'm sure you are not a hoaxer, however, the article makes such a surprising claim that it really must have a reliable and verifiable source. If you can't provide one it will almost definitely be deleted (rules of the game and all that). Just thought you should know, in case you were not aware of the situation. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Bartrum and University of Wales (Aberystwyth)

For those unfamiliar the work of Peter Bartrum is being put on to a data base by fellows of the College of Aberystwyth (University of Wales). I refer you to this;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/6106074.stm

This process is ongoing. Peter Bartrum has researched Welsh genealogies since 1929. I was personally emailed some scanned copies of parts of his manuscripts which I am interested in by Dr. Gwen Gruffudd of the University of Wales at Aberystwyth which mention the sons of Owain Glyndwr. Please if you doubt you may get in touch with the college and ask to speak to her. Among the sons detailed in Bartrum's work is Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr, referred to as a bastard son, who had children of his own and grand children. That is where Peter Bartrums research appears to end, so therefore, it is entirely possible that their are male line descendants of the sons or grandsons of Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr and therefore heirs to the line of Glyndwr and by extension that of Rhodri Mawr waiting to be discovered. If anyone has any further doubts I would happily forward them a scanned copy of the page from Bartrums original manuscript. Furthermore, according to tradition it was this Ieuan who proclaimed a free state in Abergavenney in 1404. This page on Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr is not a hoax page, it is potentially of significant importance to Welsh royal research, so please do not delete it. If Enaidmawr would like me to email him/her the pages of Bartrum's work that I have please email me at [email protected] James Frankcom 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi James, and thanks for your message and the information provided. I've just written an article on Peter Bartrum, if you are interested you may be able to fill it out a bit. I'm glad to hear he's still with us - I wasn't sure as he was born way back in 1907! Of course his work is well known to me and he is a respected scholar, I'd just not heard about the Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr material. I'm still not sure I quite understand if the references to Ieuan are in his published works (voluminous though they are I'd have expected someone like R. R. Davies to have found it) or in his unpublished notes/copies of texts. I'll take you up on your kind offer and email you shortly. I'm afraid some people may well still insist on some solid reference though; have you anything? The BBC article doesn't help much as it doesn't mention Ieuan. As I said, it was not me that tagged the article as a hoax and I'd be delighted if this can be properly substantiated (you can't blame people for being dubious if no verifiable reference is given). Hwyl am rwan, Enaidmawr 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

please note [1] Abtract (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

please note the article has now been referenced to the source material; Welsh Genealogies A.D. 300 - 1500, P. C. Bartrum; Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 5; Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 5 (A) (pages 32 and 67)

Welsh Triads

Wikipedia is not a collection of texts, so please do not reproduce the text of the Welsh Triads in the article. They are already collected at Wikisource, which is the appropriate place for them. Besides, your text appears to have been lifted from this site, which would be a copyright violation. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

k.o Gwynedd

Thank you James for adding to the Kingdom of Gwynedd page. I am still adding more, working on info on Owain Gwynedd's reign, and working my way down. I added further info of the 1136-37 Great Revolt as well. Do you know how we can get some more maps? Of particular importance are maps of Gwynedd showing the various cantrefi and commotes,... preferably in the reigns of Gruffydd and Owain. Also, a map showing the advance of the Normans in the first invasions of Gwynedd between 1081-1098. Then on the principality page we will need maps there too. I have maps in front of me, but clearly can not scan and add them per copyright.

Hi - whats your username? I have some maps of the old Cantrefi which can be found in the book Llywelyn Ap Gruffudd: Prince of Wales by J.Beverley Smith. I could trace them and then scan them and then recolour them. I think that would make them acceptable as material suitable for wikipedia. I am a little anxious about even doing that because as you can see I keep falling foul of some of these rules and am trying to avoid getting involved with graphics!! James Frankcom (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Doh! That was myself! Lol. I do not think creating a map is in and of itself against anything... even displaying political boundries and advancing armies shouldnt be an issue. Humm...♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Drachenfyre nice to speak to you again. A while back you mentioned you had some family arms of some of the old Welsh families and regions which you thought could be "back engineered" like the work done on Powys and Deheubarth... care to share them with me? Email me at [email protected] ... I will find that book my J. Beverley Smith (I think it is down the back of the sofa or something) and trace those maps... James Frankcom (talk)

Yes, Ill email them to you tonight or tomorrow (I hope I still have the link for them, I uncoverned them for a game I play called Crusader Kings by Paradox, have you heard of it?) More then likely you have seen them before. Also, I noticed that there is a discrepancy between the map of the cantrefs and the cantrefs listed on the Administrative section. To be honest I do not know the correct cantrefs, but if you could correct the list to the one we have a source for, then that would be best. Can you source the map outline too? What I mean is, we will need some sources from where we get the administrative districts from... you already have the source with the author you listed. It is fine to credit her with the origional research, because you yourself created the artwork it does not break any copyrights.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: what do you think on the border color? I am working with Wikid77 on borders for Wales, and also the historic kingdoms as well. What two colors would you recommend for Gwynedd? I was thinking a purple background with a golden name border. And then on the Principality page to have a green border with golden name border.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - okay the map outline comes from [2] and the source of the borders and the cantrefs I have illustrated is from here: [[3]] which is the only map (However basic) online which I can find. I had a better map in the book I was talking about but I cannot find it and I wanted to get something up to hopefully encourage someone else to contribute something superior. I am aware that the map I have done does not include the Cantref of Dunoding (but over the period Cantrefs did come and go with some which were former kingdoms being renamed after they were granted to someone else. The map shows only Cantrefi not Commotes. I think my instincts for the Principality of Wales page would be red and green (as in the flag). Why not red and gold for Gwynedd which were the colours of its banner? I'll leave it happily to your judgement, whatever aesthetically looks most appropriate should win really! By the way - one thing that alarms me - is that sometimes you can revisit a page where you know there has been a lot of evolution from various contributers to find it suddenly totally re-arranged and large parts even deleted by just one user, is there a way of locking some things down so large scale changes by new users can't happen? Finally - it is nice to meet someone online I seem to have so much in common with! James Frankcom (talk)

Indeed, it is great that we have so much in common! I know it is difficult sometimes when it seems that you are the sole contributor to a subject. My first artical on Wikipedia was Melisende of Jerusalem, which hasnt changed much since. I redid the series from her father to her granddaughter Sibylla of Jerusalem. Then I migrated (in Wikipedia) to Wales... because Wales has my heart, lol. I rewrote the Kingdom of Powys as at the time (thats when we first 'met' I believe) so few were concerned with Powys. Now that I have learned far more, I need to revisit Powys and touch it up, and list my sources for various sections there. But that is after a few other pages (Gwynedd, Prinicipality of Wales, and Deheubarth. Also, I wish to work on the Mideival Church in Wales which I feel is always neglected.) Ive also written the History of Plaid Cymru, and the History of the Welsh language (at least since the 20th century), and touched up on the Welsh people artical. Now, I hope to rewrite the Wales page... make it more professional.

My origional source for the coats of arms is offline now. Unfortunatly, however I did find these secondary sources someone drew up for me a few years ago:

http://www.fulcho.com/shields/ceredigion.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/deheubarth.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/gruffydd-ap-cynan.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/Gruff...or-I-ap-Mad.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/gwynedd.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/gwynfardd-dyfed.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/morgannwg.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/olwain-glyn-dwr.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/powys-fadog.png http://www.fulcho.com/shields/powys-wenwynwyn.png

I do not know where he based this information from. The source I had that is now off line included many northern Welsh families. I will try and find out why the site is now off line. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it!!!

By Rhodri ap Dafydd,

http://www.rhodriapdafydd.ukonline.co.uk/

Of particular interest is the '15 tribes' or clans (families) which became established in these realms. He lists his sources, though I certin the coats of arms are latter day attributions, as coats of arms was not adopted in Wales until the norman conquest.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have come across that site by "rhodri ap dafydd" myself but I am very sceptical about the shields attributed to each of those fifteen royal tribes. There are good sources for at least four of the main "royal tribes" though. I LOVE the shields you have posted for Ceredigion etc however the shield attributed to Gruffydd ap Cynan I think is a mistake because there is a contemporary painting of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd showing that shield as his own arms, where as a shield the reverse of what you have posted (three white leopards on a red field) seems more frequently attributed to him James Frankcom (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way - one thing that alarms me - is that sometimes you can revisit a page where you know there has been a lot of evolution from various contributers to find it suddenly totally re-arranged and large parts even deleted by just one user, is there a way of locking some things down so large scale changes by new users can't happen?

Per your last point, I do not know of any way to lock down a page unles it is via a moderator, who would lock down the complete page. But to get them to do this, you would have to show why you and your editor can not work together on that.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwynedd maps

Cantrefi lordship/administrative maps:
I think your map is great! Two things: I think we should add the cantref's of Maelor (Wrexham area) and Iâl (Yale) ... and also prehaps shade upper Gwynedd different from lower Gwynedd. The shading should be within the same colour family too.

For the Info box:

For the info box, can you create something simular to this French language map on Gwynedd? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaume_de_Gwynedd

With the French language map they do not have as precise cantrefi names. And if you notice, they give Dogfeiling and Ederynion to Powys... which may or may not be correct in the early dark ages of Powys/Gwynedd history... but post Owain Gwynedd was not this region under Gwynedd's control? So I think we should add them to Gwynedd's map, or shade them in a way to show that they sometimes were part of Powys. You will also notice that the French language map omits Tegeingle as well. This should be your map.

For the info box, I do think we will need the whole of Wales represented here, but as of 1101 ... the start of the Welsh march. The French language map shows pre-Norman Wales... which would be correct for a map before 1081.. and we should have that map too... but not in the info box.

I do like how the French info box has the cantref's listed for the principalities in question, and shows them in the context of the other Welsh principalities.

What are your comments on the above?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a definitive source is the map in the bloody book I cannot find... however Gwynedd is "between the Dyfi and the Dee". I know that Iâl and Maelor were both cantrefs traditionally considered to be within Powys, as was Edeirnion (there is a poem I have seen somewhere where the "men of Powys" lament the fact that forces from Gwynedd are encamped in Edeirnion. The boundaries were fluid but if we remain fixed to a Gwynedd "between the Dyfi and Dee" this should remove any points of serious contention. Tegeingl was one of the disputed "four cantrefs" and considered part of the Perfeddwlad and thus a traditional part of Gwynedd. Note that on the French map "dogfeiling" appears to be an alternative name for Ardudwy. I say keep the map at the moment until a better original source comes to light and then amend it. I agree that "disputed" areas between Powys and Gwynedd could be shaded differently but retain the key point of "traditional" Gwynedd being between those two rivers James Frankcom (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just revised the cantref map for Gwynedd and replaced "Ardudwy" and "Eifionydd" (which appear to be Commotes) with Dunoding to reflect the text on the page James Frankcom (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

William de la Pole the Elder

I think you should be aware that I have nominated the above for WP:AFD on the grounds that the is no evidcne that the father of William de la Pole (of Hull), formerly called "William de la Pole the Younger", was related to the princes of Powys Wenwynwyn. I base this on reputable published historical works. If you have reason to believe that the relationship that you allege did exist, you need to cite your sources - preferably academci works. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Site your works, if you are right, then the page should be removed. The information came from a genealogical website online ([4] and may be incorrect James Frankcom (talk)

I have voted on the subject on the page in question♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for all the amazing work you have done to document Welsh history. Please let me know if I can help with referencing Bye for now. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Map Update

Great Map update! Great work. Two observations... prehaps the cities should be shown in yellow/gold to contrast better with the darker green? Also, I think we should add Bangor, St. Alseph, Rhuddlan, Chester (though it is outside, it was an important location) and possibly Ruthin. Lastly, I think we should shade the rest of Wales (here, mostly Powys) to distinguish it from England. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am working on Version II which will be uploaded in the next couple of days - thanks for all the nice comments! James Frankcom (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

An Award!!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For tireless contributions towards maps and banners of Medieval Wales! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work! Your maps have helped me understand mideival Wales better!, and your Banners are first rate! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry but I reverted your edit to Godalming about Chris Evans. Partly because I wasn't sure which Chris Evans so I couldn't check it and partly because you said it was Hascombe anyway. PS Nice barnstar Regards SuzanneKn (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Here is a gift for you: shortcuts for your user page-if you want to use them.

∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross of Neith

Hi. I was reading the Wales Herald page and saw this image Shouldn't this image be on the Cross of Neith page? ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Large Hadron Collider. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ^Khukri 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Deheubarth1.JPG

Image:Deheubarth1.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Bilhorod Dnistrovskyi.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Bilhorod Dnistrovskyi.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:thanks for the heraldry

Thank you for your kind words and the advice on Deheubarth, I've changed the colour on the flag and shield and at some point will correct the spelling mistake. I'd be more than happy to try and re-work the arms for the Welsh Princes. I'm not sure what would be easier on you in terms of typing/ scanning the descriptions in. I've created a page on my wikicommons where you might like to type them or put the scanned images in if that's convenient for you. Alex [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.119.98 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back - i can email you the arms and the literal description..they're on pdf and i am no techno wizzard so cannot "post" them or whatever :0 James Frankcom (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First Draft of the Shield below, not sure whether it's all right. I've also rendered the individual sections and the ought to be on my wikicommons page81.111.119.98 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great - I think it is fascinating to see how the process of quartering has taken place over the centuries with the Hughes of Gwerclas Arms. Well done!

Hughes of Gwerclas page added...work ongoing

Thanks for the comment. It is quite interesting with regards to the quartering. Recently I've also done the following if they are of any use on wikipedia:

• Hwfa ap Cynddelw
• Sir Aron
• Ednowain ap Bradwen
• Sir Rhys ap Thomas
• LLewellyn ap Gwilym
• Collwyn ap Tango
• Urien Glodrydd

The program used to draw them is called inkscape (free to download) and is basically an advanced version of paint, there's a good tutorial on wiki, Wikipedia:How_to_Draw_a_Diagram_with_Inkscape, and a gallery of common images is available on wikicommons [6]. If you have any more that you want done then feel free to say so. Alex, 81.111.119.98 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales in 1269

I see you've added a map of north Wales in 1269 to the Wales article. I'm no expert, but a few points about the map concern me. Firstly, you say you created it yourself, but what were your sources? Furthermore, it seems to conflict in some details with a map I have in John Davies' "History of Wales" (p.143 in the Penguin edition), which shows significantly different boundaries - in particular, that the Hawarden area of Flintshire was at that time part of Cheshire, and there were also boundary differences in Montgomeryshire. As I say, I'm no expert, but others may also have a view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've used the cantref maps in J. Beverley Hughes Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales as a guide. I should note that the lordship of Hawarden was centred on Ewloe Castle, which was taken by Llywelyn in 1257 and remained that way until awarded to his brother Dafydd in 1277 (lost in 1282). The boundary differences in Montgomeryshire are concerning Cydewain which was normally considered a part of Powys Wenwynwyn but had been awarded to Llywelyn in 1267 (a decision which was disputed by Powys Wenwynwyn). I am going to amend the map so Cydewain is outside Powys-Wenwynwyn. James Frankcom (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I'm learning more all the time! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lordship of Creuddyn

Hi James. I am hoping to get your help in locating information on the Lordship of Creuddyn. Have you read about or heard of it? While researching the ownership of Hafod Uchtryd I found several references to it in legal documents related to a long dispute instigated by the Crown against owners post-Thomas Johnes, but cannot seem to find any other source material. Could you possibly point me in the right direction? Thank you.  Geaugagrrl  ☎ 21:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I've not heard of it but I'm prepared to have a look James Frankcom (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial searches suggest there is more than one Creuddyn. There is a village called Llanfihangel-y-Creuddyn in Ceredigion which means "The Church of (Saint) Michael the Creuddyn". I think he must have come from the Creuddyn peninsula a commote in the cantref of Rhôs (now part of Denbighshire). There is also a Creuddyn Bridge near Lampeter. James Frankcom (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have started Creuddyn (Ceredigion) and linked it to the commote list. Thanks for your help. Cheers. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wales-England border

Thanks for your edits. I've re-edited some of them, mainly for style - hope you don't mind. One thing that always annoys me - not your fault - is the references elsewhere to Deorham, Chester etc. "severing the links" between the Welsh and other areas - surely not true, as the maritime links with Cornwall, Brittany etc. certainly continued. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be qualified by stating that the land links between the Britons of Cambria with their kin in the Old north and Dumnonia/Cernyw were severed. Although communications were impaired the maritime links certainly continued. The fact that the Battles of Chester and Deorham divided Wales from the Brythonic areas of northern and south-western Britain is certainly significant and worth stating James Frankcom (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my last lot of edits cover that point - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwynedd: Civil war and usurpation

Hello James! Long time no see! Question about recent edits on the Gwynedd dynastic civil war. Primarily, where are you getting that information specifically? I have John Davies History of Wales and Lloyd History of Wales from the Norman Invasion to Edwardian Conquest. But neither hint at any pro-Irish connection or faction in Gwynedd's court (but clearly there may have been given the closeness of the Aberffraw family since Gruffydd ap Cynan), and neither hint that Iorwerth Drwyndwn had anything to do with the usurption. Rather, Davies and Lloyd both point to Cristen and Dafydd as the instigators of the usurption. If you could give in text citations that would be greatly appreciative. If you do not know how to do that then I can do it for you, just give me the source information. I think it intriguing that Hywel represented a pro-Irish faction at court, it was something that I had not thought of before. But I am cautious that Iorwerth was involved in his death or revelot against Hywel. Llywelyn's claim as Prince of Gwynedd was based on primogeniture, according to Davies and Lloyd, so any usurption would make his claim invalid.

Let me know of your sources my friend. I have no intention on changing anything, but want to know more so that I can add it to History of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages page.

By the by, were you able to work on that other coat of arms that we spoke about with our emails?

David Llewellyn ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A few maps for you

Hello, the Hughes of Gwerclas page is coming along quite nicely. I noticed on wikicommons that the historical maps for Wales seem to stop around 1217 so I've been working on the following for a while (and re-drew one of yours so the maps looked similar) just to bring the set up to the Statute of Rhuddlan. I've put some on wiki already, and also thought might be worth bringing them to your attention just encase you could use them on any articles. Alex81.111.119.98 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Wales in 878
• 
  Wales in 950
• 
  Wales in 999
• 
  Wales in 1063
• 
  Wales in 1234
• 
  Wales in 1267
• 
  Gwynedd in 1277
• 
  Wales in 1284
• 
  Wales in 1535-1542
• 
  Rhwng Gwy a Hafren

Alex - thank you once again for your fabulous work. I'd like to collaborate with you in the creation of maps from some other historic periods, namely;

• Laws in Wales Acts (c.1535 - 1542)
• Wales on the eve of the Glyndwr Revolt (c.1399)

The maps completed a/a

• The Ascendancy of Gwynedd; Wales at the death of Owain Gwynedd (1170)
• The Norman Conquests in Wales (c.1070)
• Wales at the death of Hywel Dda (950)
• The Kingdom of the Britons; Wales at the death of Rhodri Mawr (878)
• The Conquests of Cadwallon ap Cadfan (c.633)
• The Territories of the Britons at the death of Maelgwn Hir (548)
• The Territories of the Britons at the death of Vortigern (c.455)

Your maps are excellent and a great improvement on the ones I had created. What is important is substance as well as style, thus the maps I mentioned above will require much research into creating the most accurate representation available for the borders and territories at those times. I think that range should adequately illustrate the gradual process of conquest and occupation of the British Isles by the English from the Adventus Saxonum (449AD) to the Wales Acts in the 16th Century James Frankcom (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi James, hope you've had a good holiday and apologies for the delay in replying. I've been having an extended break over the holiday for all things wiki related. I've added the last few remaining maps for which I have a source for, some of them cover the periods above, along with a map of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. I'll have a look over at wikicommons to see if there are any earlier maps as I remember seeing some a while back. Have you got any copies of the maps that haven't been done yet as well. Alex 81.111.119.98 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex - yes I can send you a number - what is your email address? BTW the maps are excellent..I have not had the time to properly scrutinze the frontiers you have done but on the face of it they look accurarte (and the borders were not accurate at the time) and visually they are very concise which is what this initiative needs. A key indicating what the colours mean would be useful but I am sure you have thought of this. One other thing, prior to as late as 1016AD there is really no realm of "England" so on the 878AD map you ought to have Wessex and the seperately "Mercia (under Danish occupation)" and on the 950AD you should have "Wessex and English Mercia". In 999AD I think it is probably time to call it "England" James Frankcom (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at inserting some of the maps but i'm struggling to resize them properly i'm not familiar with the coding on the graphics you have done...I tried to insert the "Treaty of Aberconwy" map but it ended up filling the page! So this doesn't happen and they remain a consistent size what should i put in front of the code/link>

By the way maybe you'd like to work these armorial descriptions using your shield/widget programme if you have the time...

• Sable a Lion rampant reguardant Or The black lion on gold is based on the arms of Gwaithfoed, a medieval Prince of Ceredigion

• Argent on a Cross engrailed fleury Sable between four Cornish Choughs proper a Mascle of the field between four Plates The arms of Edwin of Tegeingl. Edwin is said to have been King of Tegeingl. He founded one of the Fifteen Royal Tribes of North Wales

• Per pale Azure and Sable three Fleurs-de-Lis Or The gold fleurs-de-lis upon blue and black are the arms of the ancient Kingdom of Gwent.

• Gules three Chevronels Argent three white chevronels on red attributed to Iestyn ap Gwrgant, ruler of Glamorgan

I got these from a civic heraldry site...James Frankcom (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just about to send you an e-mail about the maps. I've added the shields above that have been done already. To resize the diagrams just add File:name of file.svg|120px and change the px number until it's the right size, so for example. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

image at 150px

image at 300px

Shaftesbury

Not that I object but could you please explain why you added the Welsh version of Shaftesbury's name? Shaftesbury is in Dorset.........in England? I am just a little confused :) --Curuxz (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At one stage almost all of Britain was Welsh speaking (or rather, "Old Welsh" which is sometimes called "Brythonic"). It was only following the end of the Roman Occupation (410AD) that the Anglo-Saxons began invading eastern Britain and forming "English" colonies, a violent process which over the next 500 years drove the Britons or "Welsh" into the Cambrian Mountains, the Cornish Peninsular, Cumberland etc. I have been going through some very old manuscripts, in particular recently Brut y Bryttaniait (a chronicle of orally recorded events preceding and during the Roman occupation and following it up to about 700AD when they began being written down). In this book the former names of many of the oldest English towns before they were English speaking are revealed. Shaftesbury, interestingly, in Welsh is "Caer Vynnydd y Paladr" which means "[the] Fort [of the] Mound of Spears" which clearly has an etymological connection with Shaftes-bury. I think it would be of legimitate interest, where a forgotten former name exists, to reveal it when discussing old towns, even those which are now deep in England, what do you think? James Frankcom (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that this issue has been discussed before, here. Some editors have expressed strong views on this matter! Personally, I'm afraid I think the Shaftesbury article is so weak it doesn't make much difference either way in that case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see your point, I will revert my edit since I find that rather interesting but I am still a little unclear weather it should be next to the main title (implying an alternate name) I have restored the hsitory section and put the name there in brackets around the line "it may have been the Celtic Caer Palladur (Caer Vynnydd y Paladris)." Does this make more sense? --Curuxz (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes etc. for former Welsh kingdoms

I've noticed you've been adding "former country" infoboxes to Kingdom of Gwent, Glywysing, and elsewhere. In principle, that would seem fine (although I suspect that some of the areas covered could barely be described as "countries" at any time). However, I'm concerned, firstly, that you haven't provided any references for the information you've included - for example, on dates, locations, coat of arms, kings, etc. - and, secondly, in some cases the information you've included conflicts with existing information in the text. For example, at Kingdom of Gwent, you give an end date of 942 when the text refers to continuing existence post-1066; you state that the capital was Caerleon when other sources refer to Caerwent and Portskewett; you refer to Erb who is not mentioned in the article text; etc. I'm not suggesting that you are wrong and the existing articles are correct - I am suggesting that, if you can't reconcile the information in the infoboxes and text yourself, you should have raised the questions first on the talk pages, so that there can be the opportunity for discussion with other editors before changes are made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. The dates I have taken mostly from the articles, or from EBK [7]. In 942 the King of Gwent and Glywysing became one and the same, although the territory consisting of Gwent was not annexed by England until following the Norman Conquest in 1066. Caerleon appears to have been the first capital following the withdrawal of the legions, based as it was on a significant Roman military base, later on it was transferred to other places. The details on the arms come primarily from Civic Heraldry of England and Wales [8] where the armorial bearings of the former kingdoms are contained within modern civic arms. I think the infoboxes are consistant with those found for Powys and Gwynedd elsewhere, and yes some tweaking should be done to harmonize the information with the article text - please edit! James Frankcom (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you not involved in earlier discussions that concluded that EBK is a highly unreliable source, and should be discounted? If not, I'll track down the discussion. I also know that there are different views on when and how Gwent and Glywysing came together - I'll try and piece something together. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I wasn't party to the discussion about EBK. If you can find an consistent date for when Gwent and Glywysing came together I would be grateful. Thank you James Frankcom (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was here - it convinced me (with experience on other pages) that EBK is a site best avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the crest for Kingdom of Gwent, the civic heraldry site simply says "The gold fleurs-de-lis upon blue and black are the arms of the ancient Kingdom of Gwent", with no explanation or reference. Do you have any further references, and is the image you created simply based on that statement or is there other evidence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a reference to an external published source which I have no reason not to trust. The site I have referred to have obtained copies of the Civic Arms of the various local authorities in good faith from those authorities with a description of the arms attached. The Royal College of Heralds would have been commissioned to create the arms in 1974 and as the highest authority on heraldry in the world (after all, we created it) I would consider them to be a reasonable source. I do have my doubts that the Kingdom of Gwent actually used the arms during its existence, and that the arms are attributed to the kingdom at a later date, probably in the Middle Ages, but nonetheless the arms are those of the "ancient kingdom of Gwent" according to medieval sources, which the College would have referred to, and as such are the only graphical symbol that the former kingdom has James Frankcom (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt that the source itself is fine - what I'm questioning is what source it has for the statement about the Gwent arms. You say that you have your doubts that those arms were actually used - can this be best got round by stating that the arms are those attributed to the kingdom of Gwent? It's one of those areas - like the "boundaries" of the area covered by Gwent, and the genealogy of the kings - where, in my view, it's better to avoid a spurious impression of certainty, by saying simply that there are a lot of aspects of these ancient kingdoms that we don't know, but are attributed to them from sources that are not necessarily reliable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, they are the attributed arms for the kingdom. At the time they certainly didn't have arms and probably used a head on a spike for all we know! The arms were created using the heraldic description by a fellow wikipedian with some expertise in these matters. James Frankcom (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Evan Vaughan Anwyl Did You Know

James, there is a question about the coat of arms on the article. Do you know the source of the image? Should it be a different license? Here is the link, scroll down to the March 29 section. Let me know what I can do to help. The article will post at the top of the DYK section if it has an image. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I copied the arms from the Owain Gwynedd page...there is a guy called Alex who makes a lot of the arms for wiki it may have been one of his... James Frankcom (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Evan Vaughan Anwyl

On April 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evan Vaughan Anwyl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn Family‎

I am not sure what is going on here, but there seem to be a series of claims on several articles about this family. I have raised it on Project:Wales, can we please have one discussion/presentation of evidence on this? For the moment I have reverted changes that seem linked to the claim. --Snowded (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, gladly. Please post a working link to where this discussion is taking place and I will participate James Frankcom (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he means here where a new section should be started. I found another book to quote stating the families direct decent from Owain Gwnyedd. I will add the cite/reference to the article. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I have stated my case to the and they are happy with it. As soon as we can get that end paragraph cited appropriately it can go back up James Frankcom (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Aetheling1125. You have new messages at Geaugagrrl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello -- I am a new and so totally inexperienced Wikipedia User (as opposed to occasional reader), so apologies in advance if I get some of the conventions wrong. I was brought to the Anwyl of Tywyn article by Google and found it very interesting.

Forgive my natural curiosity, but apart from your clearly deep interest in Welsh history, were you also drawn to writing the article by any blood or other connection of your own with the Anwyls?

My main purpose in making this post is to ask what you think about the two volume work entitled "The Anwyl Families" written by Margery M Anwyl and Philip H Lawson. Given the very detailed references to primary sources to be found there, do you not think it merits citation -- or at least some passing comment, if you believe that it has little worth? I shall be fascinated to learn what you think of it!

Rol12 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Brenin Llwyd

If you'd like to have the deletion of Brenin Llwyd reviewed, please do so at WP:DRV. Please do not use a talk page of a deleted article for such requests. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that other page. Many of these things are only apparent to administrators. Us poor editors are often blissfully unaware of them. Subsequently I am glad I commented on the talk page about this because otherwise I would not have been directed to the right place. Thank you for your assistance James Frankcom (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger/Richard de Pulesdon

Hi James, could you take a look at my note at Talk:Richard de Pulesdon, please? There seems to be some serious confusion there. Thanks. Enaidmawr (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Cynllibiwg

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wessex

Hi, James; glad to have another Anglo-Saxon editor around. I am a bit inactive right now, having moved house this year; I was stapling plastic sheeting to the basement ceiling today, instead of working on some of the A-S kings as I'd have preferred. I do plan to get back to it, though I haven't figured out what the next one will be. Perhaps Beorhtric would be a good one to work on next -- there's enough material to make a decent article there. However, I don't think I'll be back to it till Christmas or maybe afterwards.

If you decide to work on any of them, I'll chip in if I have something to contribute; and please ask me for a review if you'd like another pair of eyes on anything. I look forward to seeing you around the Wessex articles! Mike Christie (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make some starts! James Frankcom (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradwell as capital of Kingdom of Essex

For the moment I have reverted your addition of Bradwell as the capital of the Kingdom of Essex. Do you have a source? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason I identified Ithancester (the old name of Bradwell-on-Sea) is that it is cited as the earliest Bishopric of the county, and these places usually functioned as administrative centres for the kingdom, take Canterbury as an example. It seems highly likely that London would have been a great prize and too important for the relatively weak East Saxons to retain. In the 8th Century it certainly came under the control of Mercia and the Kings of the East Saxons would have had to have moved the administrative centre of their realm to a more secure location, Ithancester appears the obvious choice. The source I can cite is: The Fifth Booke of the Historie of England (1577) by Raphael Holinshed (p.621) where Saint Cedd performed the ministrie of baptism "specially" in that city. Another source, The Early English Church (1887) by Edward Churton (p.65) states that "London was at this time in the hands of the Mercians; so that the king of Essex could not restore him the see of Mellitus at St. Paul s, but gave him two other seats in the present county of Essex; Tilbury on the Thames, and Ithancester, a town which stood near Maldon, but has since been destroyed.". This hints Ithancester was a "town" and the larger place, it was also a former Roman "castrum"...so on this basis I deduced Ithancester was a likely administrative centre of the kingdom once London fell to Mercia.James Frankcom (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well argued, but I'm not yet convinced. Sue Hirst argues that (East) Tilbury was at least comparable in status to Ithancester. Jennifer Ward regards East Tilbury as a "town" and it appears on the Gough Map. In any case, did Essex really have an "administrative centre"? Presumably the capital of the Kingdom of Essex was the royal residence, and a case can be made that this was at Prittlewell - which was also (probably) a 7th century minster. Incidentally, I'm not aware of a source that places Cedd's see at Bradwell rather than Tilbury or one of the other minsters he founded and I am therefore proposing to remove it from the List of former cathedrals in the United Kingdom. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cadwgan ap Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rhirid ab Owain Gwynedd

I'm 100% sure you didn't make this person up... it's been a long time since you created the article, but do you recall what your source was for the information? I would hate to delete an article about a person of historical significance just because of my own ignorance of medieval Welsh history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a bit more information? The article sites three sources including the Dictionary of National Biography and Brut y Tywysogion. Which particular piece of information within the wiki do you require source information on? James Frankcom (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Those sources weren't there when I asked. I'm glad someone else found them... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglo saxon jute 575ad

Thank you for the map File:Anglo saxon jute 575ad.jpg! I have a few comments: The caption for Aquae Sulis looks like it got an additional "i". The red dots for Cantwarebyrig and Hrofaescaestre are hard to see on the red background; maybe you could just use black dots, or draw a black circle around them. Are you sure "Hrofaescaestre" is the correct historical name? According to Rochester, Kent#Toponymy, it appears that that name only originated in 730. — Sebastian 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings

Hello James Frankcom. I recently opposed your RfA, and I believe you deserve an explanation. Please don't take my opposition to be a reflection of my perceptions of your editing abilities or temperament, as this simply isn't the case. As I said on your RfA, from what I see, you're an editor, not an admin. As you've undoubtedly heard before, adminship is little more than a glorified mop. To make a skilled and accomplished editor such as yourself an admin would be akin to asking a university professor to fill in for Rusty the Janitor, at least in my eyes. If for whatever reason you still wish to obtain adminship, I have no intentions of standing in your way a second time, should you decide to run again. Angrysockhop ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 07:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tu'i Manu'a Elisala

Hi James, I saw you edited this article back in September. Much information seems to have been taken out and returned, and again removed with little explanation. This old version seems to have relevant text that the current version was lacking. Are you knowledgeable enough to sort this out? The history is littered with vandalising IPs and blocked users. It's hard to work out what's going on. Could you be of any help at all? Cheers, Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 10:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My talk

Hey James, I've (finally) responded to your comment on my talk page. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Undercover Princesses

A tag has been placed on Undercover Princesses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MaenK.A._Talk 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Celtic nations

Hi James, while I agree with the information you have added to this article recently, I am concerned that much of it is uncited. The subject is highly controversial, with a number of editors (not just IPs) who are hostile to the concept, ready and able to take pot-shots at every opportunity (and some, no doubt, who are just biding their time). Please don't provide them with any ammunition that would allow them to shoot it down. You are obviously well read on the subject. But, I can tell you from experience, that it is far easier to add citations while you add content, than it is to find the references after you have finished working on the article. Good luck & cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daicaregos. Yes I have lots of run-ins with the edit-nazis over the years. Please be more explicit about which parts of the edit I did on Celtic Nations you have anxieties about. The parts concerning Gwynedd Township and the Welsh settlements in Patagonia and the far early one by Prince Madoc are directly connected to other wikis where the references exist... is that not sufficient anymore? James Frankcom (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with any of the edits you made today. Absolutely any additions on anything to do with Celts and/or things Celtic need to be cited on the page they are added to. It is fine to use the same refs as the ones used on different pages, but they need to be added to the end of the sentence or paragraph if it is on another article. Or indeed, on a different part of the same article. Any information likely to be challenged must be referenced to allow readers to check sources. That would include anything Celt related, as some editors don't believe such a things exists (only they know why). I see Akerbeltz had the same thought and added a ref to the Prince Madoc info. Please let me know if you need any help formatting refs. I'll be only too pleased to help. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally some recognition at last!¨James Frankcom (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Evan Vaughan Anwyl

I have nominated Evan Vaughan Anwyl, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Evan Vaughn Anwyl

James, I think you're coming on way too strong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl. I understand you're frustrated, but personal comments like that only serve to escalate the tension and undermine your own case. I've only been able to give it a cursory look, but it appears to me to be just a sincere concern regarding sources.
My advice whenever this kind of thing arises is always for people to pull back, take a breather, and have a beer. I find it works at least 90% of the time. Afterward I think the best thing will be to redact the part of your comment directed at Dougweller, in the spirit of commenting on the content, not on the contributor. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cuchullain I really appreciate it.James Frankcom (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you didn't do it, so I've responded to it at the AfD. Please either follow the advice above or take a complaint about me to WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way around. I finally responded at the AfD to you and another editor, then found this. Look, I am definitely irritated, but there is no reason for this to continue. You know I have concerns about some of the sources you use, the way you use them, and WP:OR, but that isn't harassment or bullying. I think you are trying to edit in good faith but I also don't think you understand completely our guidelines and policies. For instance, I replaced the word 'dynasty' with 'family' - that wasn't personal, it was following our policy about sources - the sources don't use the word dynasty (so far as I can see), so you shouldn't add it no matter what your opinion is. It's important to keep our opinions out of our editing, although it isn't always easy at times. Our guidelines on what are reliable sources have also been tightened up since you began editing. Working with other people is much more satisfying than working against them, although at times it's impossible to reach consensus/agreement. If you redact your attacks on me (and remember, we both agree that the subject of the article isn't notable, my AfD wasn't personal), then I will make sure I thank you on the AfD and make it clear that it's sorted. I should add that I really don't think that it is appropriate to list everyone in a genealogical article, even if the family is notable. If you want to discuss this, we could discuss it at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• this was unnecessary. Please ratchet down the temperature. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know what you are referring to.James Frankcom (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just on the point of the merger though, anyone may do it. You yourself could if you have the time so you can ensure that all the notable material is transferred across to the other article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate that.James Frankcom (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Evan Vaughan Anwyl. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. It's quite possible you don't realise that this sort of post to talk pages, asking people to !vote a particular way, isn't allowed. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Look Doug I and the wiki in question don't stand a chance. I am not as seasoned at this as you. You want to delete it. Go on, delete it. There's no stopping you. You will be able to get people, as I bet you already have, who you know are interested in this wiki to be made aware of this debate and take part. The difference is you can do it without it being tracked and made public. I don't have the technical skills to do that. I give up. Delete that wiki, delete all the ones I have produced if you like. Then delete my account. I have had it. James Frankcom (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You should not accuse someone of trying to rig an AFD without proof. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not personally. I am criticising the whole process as skewed towards an increasingly limited number of people within this website who have built up bastions of power. My struggle is quite futile.James Frankcom (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Aetheling1125. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This last attack is just too much. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC) James, please see my comment at [9].--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, sorry I've been taking a wiki break else I would have voted. Clearly I appreciated your friendly reminder.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. You missed the ritual blood letting. It was fun. No really....James Frankcom (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Update on pretenders list

Hey James! Thanks for your contribution to the List of current pretenders. Could you please provide a reliable source to stick at the end of it? Also, do you know of any other claimants from the various Gaelic clans? I did look at Ireland when compiling the main list, but there were so many clans and conflicting claims, and I was unsure whether any of them were legitimate or relevant. You seem to be incredibly familiar with the subject; it'd be great if you could provide some further details and expand the section if you think it relevant. Thanks, mate! Nightw 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The three I have put up represent the three of the four main kingdoms in pre-conquest Ireland, that is Connaught (the O'Connor's), Munster (the O'Brien's) and Ulster (the O'Neil's). I will now add Leinster as well to make it the full four. I was thinking about just putting on a brief summary there and link to their respective main pages. On the original list of pretenders page I had put this information (but significantly more detail) then it disappeared and I presumed it had been wholesale deleted by some of my "old friends". This time I thought I would play it safe and just put a tiny summary up so if it did suddenly vanish I would not have wasted any time unnecessarily. Incidentally, I think this article would be a worthy place for a mention of the pretender to the Welsh crown of Aberffraw (see: Anwyl of Tywyn).James Frankcom (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! You might find your earlier additions on the talk page of the current list, where I've preserved entries that I have found difficult to source. Should you consider re-adding them, I would first ask that they be adequately referenced. It was also a concern whether they met the related criteria (detailed at the top of the list). What were the reasons behind their earlier removal? Are their claims disputable? Nightw 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are. They are no more contraverial than many of the others on the page. They are recognised as Chiefs of the Name by the Herald of Ireland. They have proven ancestral pedigrees and refer to each other with princely titles. They give each other mutual recognition. The main pages for these people are packed full of references and information.James Frankcom (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard the preamble, viz:

"This is a list of current pretenders, containing the heirs and claimants to thrones that either have been abolished or are presently occupied by another. Entries in this list are governed with respect to their relevant succession laws. Claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person himself actually stakes an active claim, providing the person possesses a legitimate link to the line of succession. Pretenders with no legitimate right to inheritance are not listed."

In this case the various chiefs of Ireland as well as the Aberfraw pretender (Ieuan ab Ieuan) are all suitable for this list. I guess you just need references transferred from the main articles to the list?James Frankcom (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I will look into it further shortly. Nightw 23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Aberfraw entry, although references are a little lacking. You wouldn't happen to know the date of death of the current's predecessor would you? Nightw 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was 1968 but as for the precise date I am having to look through lots of notes for that...a renewed subscription to Burkes would do it quickly [10] but I cannot justify the money at the moment just for that one date. Also, the abolition was in 1284, formally.James Frankcom (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sod it! I paid my £9.50 and the date of death of the predecessor is 27 April 1968 James Frankcom (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While I am subscribed (I have until 18th September) I have found the following. Regarding the Royal House of Connaught the current head is;

DESMOND RODERIC O'CONOR, O'CONOR DON , Chief of the Name [O'Conor Don, Horsegrove House, Rotherfield, E Sussex TN6 3LU]; born 22 Sept 1938; educated Sherborne; gp dir Kleinwort Wasserstein (ret), non-exec dir Foreign and Colonial Latin American Investment Tst, chm: Regnl Advsry Gp Latin America of Internat Fin Servs London, Br Chilean Chamber of Commerce, Sailors' and Soldiers' Homes Eastbourne; married 23 May 1964 •Virginia Anne, eldest daughter of Sir Michael Sanigear Williams, KCMG, and has:

1a +PHILIP HUGH; born 17 Feb 1967; married 3 April 1993 •Rebecca, daughter of Michael Francis Eagan, and has two sons:

1b •Eochy Jack; born 28 Dec 1993 2b •Piers Montgomery; born 28 Aug 1995

His predeccessor died: 10 July 2000.James Frankcom (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the Royal House of Munster (they used to rule this part of Ireland but were once high kings) has a great page here of their current prince here: [11].James Frankcom (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Thank you so much! I've updated the list, and, given the sources you've provided, I'll make sure it stays there. Any info on Burke's about the main dynasty from Leinster? Nightw 09:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Irish lot appear to be boycotting Burkes.... nothing on the O'Neill or the O'Brien dynasts on that site (perhaps its because they actually live in Ireland?). But the MacMurragh-Kavanagh's who are descendants of the Kings of Leinster are present, this is what it says;

WILLIAM BUTLER KAVANAGH, THE MacMORROUGH KAVANAGH , Chief of the Name [The MacMorrough Kavanagh, Ferndale, Holyland Rd, Pembroke SA71 4BJ]; born 9 Feb 1944; married 31 July 1965 •Margaret Joy Phillips, and had: 1a +SIMON MacMORROUGH; born 14 May 1967; married 4 Dec 1999 •Alison Barnett 2a •William MacMorrough; born 23 May 1974

Lineage: The MacMORROUGH (Gaelic: Mac Murchadha Caomhánach) is from MURCHADH KING OF LEINSTER (died 1070).

Predeccessor: WILLIAM BUTLER KAVANAGH, THE MacMORROUGH KAVANAGH, of Borris House, Pembroke Dock, Wales, so recognized by Chief Herald of Ireland 1959; Chartered Civil Engr; born Springfield, Mass. 27 Feb 1914; married 9 March 1939 •Elsie Violet Ada, daughter of William Edward Addis, and died 29 May 1962, leaving: 1a WILLIAM BUTLER, present Chief

James Frankcom (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please confirm for me the name of the clan he represents, and what we should be linking to? I'm confused between Caomhánach and Uí Cheinnselaig (and its redirects MacMurrough dynasty and MacMurrough-Kavanagh dynasty). Also, I found the O'Neills and O'Briens on Burke's, here and here respectively, and linked to them as references. Although, I can't go beyond the preview; would you please retrieve the date of death for the previous O'Neill? Nightw 07:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you have found them. Don't know why when I searched it didn't come up. Sorry but my temporary subscription has expired and I cannot afford to renew it again. It's your turn. Will cost you about £10.James Frankcom (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest for the native Irish royalties you use the respective arms/banners of their respective kingdoms, e.g. Ulster (O'Neill), Connaught (O'Conor Don), Munster (O'Brien) and Leinster (MacMurrough-Kavanagh) James Frankcom (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about these, or these? Nightw 07:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To be in the same context as the other banners you have on the site it would be the latter. The former are the "personal arms" the latter are the arms of the realm they used to rule. James Frankcom (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Extensive copying

Hello. The extensive content you copied to Talk:Anwyl of Tywyn Family and User talk:Dougweller has been removed pending some verification that this material is public domain or compatibly licensed. Wikipedia's copyright policies do permit brief quotations of copyrighted cotnent, but extensive quotations of non-free content are forbidden. If the material can be verified to be free, the content can be restored. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to prove the information is sourced? I am exasperated. Any other way and he just won't believe me...James Frankcom (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed not to believe? All I've said is that you have to make your citations more specific so readers can easily check them. We require page numbers from books, for instance, so no one has to read a whole book to find the source for a claim. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay then take your finger off the delete trigger. Back off. Go and look at some archaeology. Allow the other, neutral, editors to identify specifically which lines need better references and I will provide as it is all able to be referenced because, and I know you hate to hear this, it is not the figment of my imagination. I am not "another" of the person your totally unfairly compared me with. I would like you to revert your rash and hasty edits (which are tantamount to vandalism as there had not been a proper discussion and you had not notified me) and allow me and other interested editors experienced in this sort of genealogy to review it and provide references. Unfortunately the Burke's information does not have a page, it is an online source to which you must subscribe. The other sources have got page references.James Frankcom (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern technology is great, but I'm surprised if there aren't paper copies. Still, there must be a better way to reference it, I'll see what I can find to help with that. But there are two issues. One is clarifying the Burke's citation, but the major one is find reliable sources stating that there is an existing House of Aberffraw and naming its head. It isn't our job to do that. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where a paper copy is. They do publish books but I have used their online sources. I provided the Burkes reference (Landed Gentry, Wales, 19th Edition. (Ref. 100057) so anyone could find it. As for the House of Aberffraw I think you are being disingenuous. You accept, of course, that there was a House of Aberffraw. And you accept, I presume, the ways someone would be a member of a noble or princely house; through inheritance. I do not know if you have heard of someone called Sir John Wynn, 1st Baronet who claimed to be a descendant of Owain Gwynedd through the same branch the Anwyl family are descended. He won a court case to prove it so. He thus claimed to be a member of the House of Aberffraw in c.1620. His descendants in the male line died out in the eighteenth century, and the Anwyl then became the surviving male line. Others have claimed they are descendants of Rhodri Mawr and thus members of the House of Aberffraw, most importantly Thomas Nicholas and Philip Yorke. I note you have deleted several key elements of this article - presumably to undermine it. Importantly you have changed it to say that Evan Vaughan Anwyl is only a descendant of William Lewis Anwyl when, in fact, as the sources (William Dwnn, Philip Yorke and Thomas Nicholas) state he is a descendant of Owain Gwynedd. You also removed reference to John Wynn, which is key. I ask you to revert these.James Frankcom (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate. Please revert this back to how it was. Allow me and other neutral editors who are familiar with this particular subject to review it as it stood before your involvement. Then we can go through it properly in the best interests of this site rather than what it is... you and me again. It is unnecessary so please back off.James Frankcom (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You've done a good job of sourcing most of it. I've removed your claim about Anwyl being a member of the House of Aberffraw - as I've said, this appears to be original research on your part. It's been discussed on various talk pages and no sources, reliable or not, have been brought forward stating this claim. Any such claims must be backed by reliable sources making the exact claim. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When did logic become "original research"? Clearly and obviously they are a cadet branch of that house by virtue of ancestry. I would like it put back. 13:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

When our policies were written I guess. But I'll tell you what. I'll take the issue to the NOR board. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind. You should do that so you can be sure to present your case in your own words. It's at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. If you are convinced you are right and I am wrong, you really need to discuss it there. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Hi James, I'm afraid I don't have any special powers with which to help you out, I am just a normal editor like yourself. I haven't taken any close look at the newest dispute between you and Dougweller, but if you really feel like you are being wikistalked, have you considered opening up a request for comments about it, or perhaps posting at WP:ANI? Again, I take no side particularly as I haven't evaluated the situation, but just wanted you to know that there's not much I could do to help you in any case, beyond trying to steer you in the right direction. — e. ripley\^talk 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do feel like that and I believe my circumstances match the criteria, viz; "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" and I have evidence enough to demonstrate it's true. If it happens again I will make a formal complaint. James Frankcom (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop making such accusations unless you are going to do something about them. I treat you no differently than I do any other editor - if your edits are original research, then you should expect them to be deleted sooner or later, that's our policy. You've already made one formal complaint about me and as you know the resolution was that "General consensus that James Frankcom was uncivil. Falsely accusing other editors of bullying, harassment, etc... is a breach of WP:CIVIL and the editor should desist and reconsider his actions. Further complaints can be brought to AN/I". Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

yawn.James Frankcom (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller

James, your personal comments about Dougweller really need to stop. Please recall that the last time this came up, your behavior, in particular your repeated unsubstantiated claims about Doug's conduct, were found to be inappropriate by several uninvolved editors, and you were asked to stop and reconsider your own behavior. If you have actual evidence that you're being bullied or hounded, by all means bring it up. However, making serious claims like this without serious evidence is considered a personal attack, and if you continue to do this it's going to have to go to WP:AN/I, which will certainly be an unpleasant experience for all involved.
As always, feel free to drop me a line if you want to talk about anything. I'm sorry the situation has developed the way it has. I firmly believe that nearly any dispute on Wikipedia can reach a reasonable conclusion if we remove the personal element.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:O'conor don.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:O'conor don.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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.

Orphaned non-free image File:O'conor don.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 14:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francesco Nicola Roberto Paternó Castello e Guttadauro Ayerbe Aragona

The article Francesco Nicola Roberto Paternó Castello e Guttadauro Ayerbe Aragona has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kimon^talk 20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Nikola II of Montenegro resize.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Nikola II of Montenegro resize.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of King Nikola II of Montenegro COPYRIGHT issue

[12]

I have written to the king's representatives regarding the picture of him. I have received this reply from them:

COPYRIGHT STATUS RESOLVED THANKS TO ROYAL INTERVENTION!

"Thank you for your email.

For the purposes of copyright law, this image is the property of the Order of Danilo and has been in the public domain. For the purposes of the Wikipedia entry to which it is attached, the Order of Danilo is happy to grant permission for the use of the picture in this context.

Grand Chancellery Order of Danilo [email protected]"

I'm glad this has cleared things up.James Frankcom (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Nikola II of Montenegro resize.JPG

Please send the email to [email protected] so we can have a permanent copy of it on file. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that we need a license that explicitly allows free use by everybody, not just by Wikipedia. I'm afraid the person who sent you the permission mail was also not very knowledgeable about copyright, because what they are saying ("is the property of the Order of Danilo and has been in the public domain") is self-contradictory: if it's their property, it's not in the public domain. If we ignore the "public domain" statement, where the author evidently didn't really mean what we understand by that term, the e-mail text you quoted seems to contain only a license for Wikipedia alone, which is unfortunately not enough for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed the palace again and asked them to confirm that the image in question has been released by the Order of Danilo into the public domain and, as such, can be used by anyone (including Wikipedia). Please wait for the reply.James Frankcom (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your efforts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I don't feel comfortable questioning the contents of a letter sent to me by a king...the things I do for wikipedia....James Frankcom (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Libya's 'crown prince' makes appeal

Hi James, you might be interested to watch this. Libya's 'crown prince' makes appeal. - dwc lr (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Idris al-Senussi

Hello. Looking at your recent comments on Talk:Idris al-Senussi, I thought you might like to take a look at a discussion on Talk:List of current pretenders. Nightw 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EDL logo.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hundreds.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Hundreds.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I copied the image to Commons under the name File:SurreyHundreds.gif, which is where the above user spotted it. I tagged the original on English Wikipedia accordingly and it has already been deleted from there. On the Commons version I included the usual codes referring to the original as the source but somewhere along the line someone checked back and spotted a problem; hence the above message. I can only presume this is because you referred to a source webpage which has since come off the web so no one can see if you simply lifted it from there and whether the page gave permission to reuse the image.

It is a super image and I cannot see an alternative, so if you can rescue it, many would be grateful. Hogweard (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one can be drawn by someone.... I'll have a go ætheling1125 12:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Wessex Cerdic 1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Wessex Cerdic 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I created "Wessex Cerdic 1" so please put it back where it was. I bet you don't bother and would much prefer to delete it... is anyone listening? Jimmy? Help...Aetheling1125 00:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nikola II of Montenegro resize.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Nikola II of Montenegro resize.JPG, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Glyndwr.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Glyndwr.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Aetheling1125}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Glyndwr.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glyndwr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. Sreejith K (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Godalming.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Godalming.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your questions on my talk page: Editors are constantly going through images especially ones that are not used in association with articles. I listed it for deletion because it does not have a source. (ie where did you get the image from). On the link listed in the summary is a slightly different image and underneath it is says "All Rights Reserved" (ie copywritten). If it is in the public domain that is fine, but it needs to have a source. Also, in response to your question as to why people who are identifying them as needing description or sources, this is because it is the burden of the uploader (you in this case) to prove that it can be successfully used on Wikipedia. I am saddened that you feel that Wikipedia is becoming pedantic and irritating, but no one is forcing you to be here. You do not have to change the descriptions on your images, they can just be deleted. I think that very few people are getting images deleted just for the fun of it. There are reasons there are policies in place. If you would like assistance with these or anything else, I am more than happy to help. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave the source. It is clearly in the public domain, being civic arms which I thought were "fair use". I don't understand enough about it. Is the image safe now or will this process be dragged out for as long as possible? Aetheling1125 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source is where you got the image from. Did you take a photo of it? Did you get it from a website? Where did it come from. The website listed on the summary links to a slightly different image. Also, that image is listed as copywritten in two locations, on that website, and on the Flickr page that it originates it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care any more. Delete it. Whatever.Aetheling1125 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Source?

Hi Aetheling. Do you have a source for this date? I don't know the history myself, but without a reference it'll likely eventually get changed back to the date in the source provided. Nightw 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Nightw 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Lucha Britannia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Interlude, Time Out and Risqué (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you my Robotic friend. I have changed the link to Time Out so it now goes to Time Out (company). Otherwise both Risqué and Interlude can stay as they are.Aetheling1125 11:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Kent Arms.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kent Arms.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Liberty of Norton Folgate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Byron Khun de Prorok. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but the nomination process is far too complicated for an ordinary human being like me to be able to complete without confusion, frustration or upset. Perhaps you can do it for me.Aetheling1125 11:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The page can be a bit overwhelming at first (to say the least), I agree. Here's a handy how-to:

• since it's your fist self-nom, you don't have to review another nom (and you won't have for a few more, till you get a hang of things), so skipping step 1
• go to the day of creation of your article section (I presume you are familiar with Wikipedia:Article history and can find out such information by yourself); anyway, in our case it is T:TDYK#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_April_7
• open this section for future editing in a new browser tab;
• go to the top of the page where the yellowish T:TDYK#How_to_post_a_new_nomination section is
• paste your article name into the YOUR ARTICLE TITLE box, press create nomination
• fill in the hook and your name, save
• go back to the tab for April 7, add a line for your article, save
• you should be done.

Let me know if any of the steps above is not clear! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Piotr - thanks for the instructions. I think I have done it now. Can you check? Aetheling1125 11:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I did add some formatting to the hook. See the discussion there for more info. Also, if you'd like me to reply more promptly, please leave/copy any reply from here to my talk page. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited Byron Khun de Prorok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited Silvia Carrera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indigenous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Glyndwr2.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glyndwr2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Glyn Dwr.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glyn Dwr.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Northwales.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Northwales.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Northwales1.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Northwales1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I created ALL the above listed files entirely by myself. I need constructive assistance to complete the bureaucracy required to make 'editors' like ТимофейЛееСуда happy. Perhaps ТимофейЛееСуда can assist me? I am sick of the way Wikipedia is going with creative people who add content being constantly pilloried by those who don't. Aetheling1125 08:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aetheling1125. You have new messages at ТимофейЛееСуда's talk page.
Message added 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Byron Khun de Prorok

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:CymruMap2.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:CymruMap2.PNG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aetheling1125. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Port au Prince (Privateer)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Port au Prince (Privateer), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://finsnflukes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/dive-at-port-au-prince-anchor-site.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Port au Prince (Privateer) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Port au Prince (Privateer), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Port au Prince (Privateer) with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Port au Prince (Privateer). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Port au Prince (Privateer) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Brad (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: I understand you copied from another WP article which was an apparent copyvio from a year or more ago. Just posting this here as an FYI; not a warning. Brad (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brad, you will find that the blog actually copied its content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. The Wikipedia article was meant as a starting point for others to work on. If Wikipedia is now in the business of simply deleting content and not allowing for it to be improved then that is very sad thing and the bad situation within wikipedia has become even worse than I thought with more administrators than editors.

Once again the Wikipedia content was written first. The original content in the William Mariner (writer) article was written 10 April 2010 by user "Mrbheagney". The blog posting which had this content was created on 4 September 2011.

The approach to this whole issue by administrators has been clumsy, heavy handed and over zealous and there is now no detailed information available about the voyage of the Port au Prince which is rather like Nazis burning books to be quite honest and this is really sad and surely counter to the whole point of wikipedia which should be to act as a repository of information rather than just a platform for pedantry and meanness. Articles start and articles evolve and improve. Sadly this can not be the case with this article now it has been killed.

So as I said, the William Mariner article was written first. The blog then copied from wikipedia, second. I then copied from the same wikipedia, third, and foolishly referenced the blog, but I did that only because it provided additional information about the wreck site and the people who found it not for the historic content which I had said in the edit write up was from the other wikipedia article, which you acknowledge. The historical information about the journey was written by the other editor whom I previously mentioned.

This is all so TEDIOUS and so very, very depressing. I don't have the time for it. Editors no longer have time for it. There are too many chiefs and not enough indians. When is Wikipedia going to learn to be proactive again and not just destructive?? Why not re-word the article sufficiently so it is different rather than simply press "delete". It is just wrong and totally against the spirit of the project.

I request that you restore the pages or provide me with what was deleted so this can be taken in stages. Aetheling1125 10:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Port au Prince (Privateer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kotu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alternative successions of the English crown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avdat, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sodom, Tom Holland and Vines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celia Imrie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whig and Who Do You Think You Are? (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:O'conor don.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principality of Bidache, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Basque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File:WALES BANNER 2.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WALES BANNER 2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:WALES BANNER.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WALES BANNER.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Powys 1190.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Powys 1190.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Moravia.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moravia.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Rabbit1.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rabbit1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Essex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old St. Paul's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serbian Royal Regalia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miccosukee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creeks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sir Owen Wynn, 3rd Baronet

Way back in 2005 you created an article called Sir Owen Wynn, 3rd Baronet.

During that creation you added the {{1911}} template stating that you copied some of the text from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed.). I have just been to look for the text in EB1911 and started to search using Google for it using the string "Like his elder brother, he took no active part in the Civil Wars". To my surprise one of the first articles to be returned was:

• Professor Glyn Roberts, M.A., (1904-1962), Bangor. "Welsh Biography Online". {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

It is clear that this this is the origin of the text that you added to the article and that it is a copyrighted source.You also copied text from this sources into Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet

1. Did you then and have you since copied any other text from copyright sources into any other Wikipedia article?
2. Why did you state that the text was copied from EB1911 if it did not come from there (and have you added that template to any other article where the text was not a direct copy of an EB1911 article?

-- PBS (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The quick answer is (a) No, not so far as I recall, and (b) I cannot remember. I presume it must have been an honest mistake. There was no "ulterior motive"...Aetheling1125 07:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Aetheling1125. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. PBS (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Alternative successions of the English crown page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Ironside, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert of Normandy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bernicia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gospatric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English flags, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William de Warenne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tudors of Penmynydd may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Welsh tradition maintains that Marchudd ap Cynan was himself a descendant (7th in descent)<ref>[http://fabpedigree.com/s096/f417000.htm|Pedigree Marchudd ap CYNAN (Lord) of RHOS</ref> of King [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to the Roy Harper page

"The original reason for deleting the entry was because it gave undue weight to one song within the (BLP) article.

There was no source or citation given for any notable controversy about the song, there was no reference given to support the statement that the song had been 'omitted from many online sources' and, when a reference was later provided it was to an upload of a concert video on YouTube (which I attended). The uploader simply stated the song was omitted due to the "wishes of the artist" (for which we have no other reference or source).

Most of the other references were from one self published blog by the artist - which can be used in certain circumstances to support facts - but not 'facts' that have not themselves been sourced correctly. I believe there may be cause to add some detail about the song to the album page, but any alleged controversy needs to be cited and referenced correctly... not created here." Stephenjh (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the reference to the song in The Daily Telegraph? You don't mention that. That reference to the artist seeking to remove the track online corresponds to the lengthy explanation on his own blog. If someone is talking about THEMSELVES the surely their own blog is a reliable source for their own opinion?? The issue here is whether the track is "contraversial". When the artist says on his blog that he was "red flagged" and lost much of his following because of it, surely that implies it was contraversial. We do not need the precise word to infer meaning, do we? This smacks of censorship and I would prefer it if a neutral third party looked into this and you did not keep undoing a referenced edit.Aetheling1125 19:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do whatever I think is necessary and according to the rules. I'm fine with others looking into this too. As for the Telegraph, I didn't mention it because it's mostly irrelevant to that which you have written - it mentions no controversy at all, just that Harper has at times tried to remove the song from certain sites to prevent it being abused, anyway more than enough reasons have been given already. Self published blogs are permitted as references and sources but only under certain circumstances and I don't believe the way in which the text is written now justifies its use. This has nothing to do with censorship, it's more about following the rules.

If the entry didn't sound so sensationalist, was written according to the references given, located on the correct page I might no be so opposed to it. I would suggest that the impact of the song on SOME of Harper's fans - at the time - be the angle from which the subject matter is tackled and I can envisage the use of his blog to support that. Further, the situation today could be mentioned and supported with the references given. But using terms like "provoked controversy" is a broad generalisation and unsupported, he never 'released the track' that reads as if it was a single but it was only ever an album track. "eponymous "Black Cloud" ? "Criticism... from some political quarters" - What political quarters? - again, unsourced and unreferenced. I'd prefer it if you were less sensationalist, improved the text and supported it with correctly sourced and valid references - then I wont need to edit it. Stephenjh (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured response. Sorry I feel a bit bruised by Wikipedia sometimes... it evokes negative memories... I have amended the edit and reposted. Let me know what you think.Aetheling1125 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I can tell! Wikipedia can be frustrating at times and we all have our struggles. You've probably broken the three-revert rule too! but we'll let that slide. I think what's written now is a vast improvement. I'm not convinced there was much of a 'controversy' per se at the time, other than the fact that a few fans did take issue with the lyrics. Fast forward 25 years later and the circumstances are different (prophetic?) but still there's no "controversy", just an artist trying to prevent the song from being 'hijacked' and utilised in ways and for ends that were never intended. I would still prefer to see the detail on the album page though! I think a couple of sentences about the track, and it's impact on some fans on the Bio page is enough. At present there is almost as much page space given to this song as to the 'Early Life' or Eighties sections. Stephenjh (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principality of Bengal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Rabina Khan page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sussex old arms.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Sussex old arms.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Gwynedd Cantrefi2.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gwynedd Cantrefi2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Gwynedd Cantrefi.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gwynedd Cantrefi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Gwynedd Cantrefi 2.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gwynedd Cantrefi 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spitalfields Neighbourhood Planning Forum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Biggs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aetheling1125. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Watson

It has nothing to do with his political views. The title has been protected against recreation because articles about this person have been repeatedly deleted, including twice at AfD, on the grounds that he doesn't meet the notability criteria for people. YouTube views and subscribers have nothing to do with this - you need actual reliable sources discussing the person in detail, not just links to things the subject has written, his YouTube channel, etc. Being a published author also means nothing - anyone can publish a book about anything. Publishing a book which people actually read, and which gets reviews, is another matter, but you haven't said that. If he really did have a significant impact on the recent presidential election then it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with reliable sources documenting that fact, until then I'm going to have to take that claim with a rather large dose of salt.

If you do want Wikipedia to have an article about this person then I suggest you try writing a draft version somewhere and submit it to deletion review. If the people commenting there (many of whom aren't administrators) think your draft would have a fighting chance at AfD then it will be moved to mainspace. This is just because a number of unsuitable articles about this person have been written over the years.

Finally, if you want to talk to a stranger here, might I suggest you speak to them politely instead of insulting them just because they happen to be administrators. Hut 8.5 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am glad you have responded to inquiry. When I type his name into Google there are 1.4 million results. There are literally dozens of newspaper articles about him. The way an article being created was specifically blocked by Wikipedia admins smacked of political bias; something Wikipedia has been accused of in the past and is the one thing which could destroy its reputation. I am glad to see that since March an article has been created Paul Joseph Watson. I am sorry if I offended you; I care about this site, have been working on it a long time.Aetheling1125 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Per WP:SIGLINK: Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive. That being the case, please modify your signature so that it contains at least one of those three links. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

i dont how to do this 2A02:C7D:BF1:D300:70FE:741B:71A2:68E6 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the thing with that is, you could only 'have a signature without those links if you deliberately modified it in the first place to what it is now. The default sig, e.g. mine, has links in it. It's in your preferences under "signature". WP:SIG has more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think your attitude outrageous, insulting, slanderous and rude. It is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Your accusations are tantamount to bullying and unworthy of an "administrator". How dare you accuse me of deliberately doing something. I have been an editor of this site for SEVENTEEN YEARS. I changed my username several years ago and after I did that the signature thing changed to something without a link. I tried to fix it but could not. I have asked for help to fix it and have not received it. If I could be bothered continuing with this "conversation" with such a rude upstart I would go and look and find those messages from years ago asking for someone to help me fix it. Now then, why don't you do something helpful and advise me precisely HOW I fix the link on my signature rather than insult me, accuse me of intentionally being "obstructive" we might get somewhere. I am really am astonished, surpised and appalled at your outrageous casual rudeness. How dare you come on here and talk to me like this? Aetheling1125 06:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you fel that way, and have asked for the information you need. [13]. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Uncheck the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup ..." in the user profile section of your preferences. Graham87 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Graham thank you for your help. I have made the change. I now insist that Beeblebrox apologises to me, not because I "feel like that" but specifically for what he said to me; for the untrue and insulting allegation that I had "deliberately modified" my signature so as to be "obstructive". I want an apology and I deserve an apology for this accusation.Aetheling1125 (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you misread. Beeblebrox was just quoting the policy page which says that a "lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive" (emphasis added). He has not accused you of doing something to be obstructive but merely pointed out that you had to have changed the signature yourself to create the result he saw (which is true). It was a simple misunderstanding that has now been resolved. Regards SoWhy 07:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I came here via the request for help at the village pump.) Please take a deep breath here, this is very much the wrong issue to turn into a big thing, in my opinion. Saying that it can be viewed as obstrutive is accurate and reasonable, and just a part of explaining the problem. It is also just a direct quote of the applicable guideline. Later saying that it's deliberately modified is also accurate, as only you could have gone into your preferences and made that change (presumably with good intentions, but unaware of this issue). Taking the best possible interpretation of it, it's not saying that you deliberately set out to contravene policies and guidelines, and can easily be interpreted as making an honest mistake. It's a bit of a stretch, open to interpretation, to combine those two messages into "deliberately obstructive". Please remember that certain activities involving the Reichstag are discouraged. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but that Reichstag thing only means anything to a very bizarre in-group... It was very rude to come on here and accuse me of doing things. There was no effort made to ASK me - there was just a nasty accusation. People must take responsibility for the way they come across and the way that administrator did was unprofessional and counter-productive because it offended me. All I want is a simple apology for the words the administrator used. It is not too much to ask. Aetheling1125 (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You are combining two posts from a week apart to conclude that Beeblebrox accused you of intentionally being obstructive. In mainspace we would call that synthesis and disallow it for good reasons. I don't think Beeblebrox meant that at all. Their formulation could have been more clear but they made around 170 other edits in the week between those two and probably didn't consider how they might be interpreted in combination. It's unfortunate they didn't guess your only signature change was to make a checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup", but they did say "WP:SIG has more information". The solution can be found there but it may take some time. When you got upset Beeblebrox asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Help with custom sig settings. That's why Graham87 came, guessed the cause, and posted the solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lucha Britannia

The article Lucha Britannia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable wrestling promotion. Relies on primary and dubious sources such as social media.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Lucha Britannia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucha Britannia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucha Britannia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks

Hello Aetheling1125, Thanks for your interesting Burmese Lost Royal, :') I also interesting Bumese Royal Family. Please help explanding it.

Cheer 楊過007 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aetheling1125. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ifan ap Robert for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ifan ap Robert is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ifan ap Robert until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Maredudd ap Ifan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maredudd ap Ifan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maredudd ap Ifan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/s-WYNN-GWY-1300.html?query=robert+roberts&field=content, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Sir Richard Wynn, 4th Baronet saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! PBS (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Two more with issues

1. Sir Richard Wynn, 2nd Baronet
2. Sir Owen Wynn, 3rd Baronet

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 August 16

-- PBS (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi PBS you will forgive me if I do not remember what exactly was typed 14 years ago. Back in those days Wikipedia had far less content than it did today and many articles were created quickly in order to build the site as a source of information. Without us back then Wikipedia would not be what it is today. Those days were fun and yet over the years the editorial standards of Wikipedia have increased a lot - which is good - but it is somewhat unfair to be too critical of people who contributed to the site in those early days and please note we did everything with the best intentions. I would suggest you re-word things rather than just delete but who am I... mere editors don't stand a chance.

Also, looking at the article, how exactly does it fail to have an 'encyclopaedic tone'... it seems very encyclopaedic and well referenced. Rather than just quote wikipolicy would you mind stooping to me lowly level and explaining what exactly you mean? Aetheling1125 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see, what's left is after you deleted some content. Oh well, if you prefer it like it is now, good for you. Aetheling1125 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My first edit to Wikipedia using a user name rather than an IP address was 20 October 2003, so yes the "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there". I asked for the content to be deleted as a copyright cleanup (by another editor under the ) and then I tided up what was left. It is not that I prefer the text that is there now, but text copied from none free content websites sites (or from hard-copies), that is not adequately cited, is either plagiarism or a copyright violation (it depends on the quantity copied I suggest you read up on copyright and acceptable inclusion of limited text into a Wikipedia article from a copyright source).

It was not until I looked at our edit history interaction that I noticed that I had already raised this with you, and that there is an outstanding Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Aetheling1125.

The initial message in this section was generated via {{Welcome-copyright}}, if I had realised that I had already brought this to you attention before I would have used {{Uw-copyright}} or written a stronger comment.

In you comment on the copyright investigation page you wrote " I have not committed a crime.". Copyright violation is a crime in the United States, if it is for financial gain. In the pages I have seen where you have copied text from a copyright source, I do not think it a crime, but you have opened up Wikipedia to possible civil penalties, this is explained in the article Wikipedia "Criminal Copyright Law in the United States", and is the reason why there is a whole team of volunteers who spent their time cleaning up violations of copyright on Wikipedia.

Copyright is one of the areas where Wikipedia is vulnerable to a hostile attack pointing out the moral issues and more importantly an area of attack that could bankrupt Wikipedia. Your copyright violations that have been spotted, until corrected added to the problem. How many more have you created?

As a show of good faith I suggest that you spend time going through your early edits (see the long list in the investigation) and fix any copyright issues that still exist. Marking off the checks and changes to the source in the investigation, until the community can be confident that you past errors have been corrected.

You do sound a bit patronising really... I am absolutely sure its unintended. There may be some errors in early edits. I suspect they are few and far between...Aetheling1125 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look through the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations you will quickly see how often editors complain bitterly that they only did it a few times (all of which have been found and corrected), but when other editors investigate, it turns out that the editors have a history of including copyright material into articles and even if they are still active on Wikipedia they do nothing to rectify the situation (showing bad faith). If an editor continues to include copyright material into Wikipedia after they have been warned (as you have been) then they are often blocked indefinitely. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"If an editor continues to include copyright material into Wikipedia after they have been warned (as you have been) then they are often blocked indefinitely." well there is no need to get so high handed. This is so tiresome and irritating. I hardly ever add anything these days so the chances of me "continuing to" do anything are nil.Aetheling1125 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aetheling1125. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aetheling1125. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Powys.GIF

The file File:Powys.GIF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Norton Folgate 1819.JPG

The file File:Norton Folgate 1819.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Kakheti (1).png

The file File:Kakheti (1).png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I've moved some (or all) of your files uploaded here to Wikimedia Commons. What files are those exactly? See here. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Cornwall shield.JPG

The file File:Cornwall shield.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Arms of the Duchy of Cornwall (Variant 1).svg

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Montenegro royal2.JPG

The file File:Montenegro royal2.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Image not used anywhere and is redundant to File:Royal Standard of Nicholas II, Crown Prince of Montenegro.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 15:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Welsh Royal Houses

Hi, I've been working on the House of Aberffraw (please see) article, and have some more input still (tbc). I also helped complete (almost) the Kingdom of Gwynedd with references and additional work. But I'm confused as to the details regarding House of Gwynedd, and where the House of Cunedda fits into the picture. I saw you created House of Gwynedd, and I was wondering about your work. To clarify, could the article be adapted, merged, or even deleted? There are no references specifically regarding a Royal House of Gwynedd in the article. Gwynedd surely was only a Kingdom and the same goes for Cunedda's so-called house. Furthermore, I believe the House of Gwynedd was Aberffraw (again House of Cunedda) unless there's work I missed. Otherwise, if there was a House of Gwynedd, then why isn't there a House of Cunedda separate article, as per se. Any ideas? Please talk... Also please read Talk:House of Gwynedd and Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd#Houses of Wales as literally no one else seems to have taken an interest in the conversation. Thanks. Cltjames (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I think the so-called House of Gwynedd is a piece of original research by the author. He seems to be saying that between 825 and 844 during the reign of one king - Merfyn Frych - there was a separate royal house from that of his son. I think this is bogus. Merfyn can be considered the founder or progenitor of the House of Aberffraw even though he may not have called it that in his lifetime. He ruled from Aberffraw and supplanted the previous dynasty of direct descent from Cunedda. Aetheling1125 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If you look at the List of rulers of Gwynedd article, then Merfyn comes in under the House of Manaw, supposedly Isle of Man. Maybe article redirect for House of Gwynedd? Cltjames (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Iefan ab Owain Gwynedd

The article Iefan ab Owain Gwynedd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no information about this person either in this Wikipedia article or in any reliable sources. This article also lacks sources or citations.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Might there be other ways to spell this person's name? I've seen this with other old names. To save it from deletion, I'm going to redirect it for now to Owain Gwynedd#Heirs and successors--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)