User talk:LlywelynII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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

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

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

Thanks, but Wikipedia:Move says there should be a "Move" tab on the page, and while there are no images to direct attention to the proper part of the page, I'm pretty sure that regardless there just isn't one on my browser yet. Maybe it'll show up later. -LlywelynII (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be the fifth tab from the left on the top of the page, the other four are "article", "discussion", "edit this page" and "history". Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Nothin'. Maybe after chrysalis or something... -LlywelynII (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2008[edit]

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

Maté / Mate[edit]

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

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

Merge proposal[edit]

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

Cannon class destroyer escort[edit]

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

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



Nubian Kings[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a lot of words to get around the point that you're ignoring the other meaning listed directly below that. I get your point, but it's a disservice to other readers to impose it on them at the expense of their understanding of how the language is actually used. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not about bias. In the article about architecture, your edit remains. Whatismore, as the writer of that article, I am perfectly well aware that there is little to distinguish some very large churches from cathedrals. For that reason a number of those "cathedral type" buildings are included in the article, with an explanation to that effect. Their exact function is not particularly important within that context.
However, in the article which is most specifically about the function of a cathedral, it is hardly appropriate to inform the public that an erroneous use of the word is an equally valid use, regardless of how frequently that error may be made by people that don't understand the difference. This is an encyclopedia. Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't an erroneous use. It's passed into common, accepted usage. Furthermore, even if it were erroneous, note should be taken of it. Honestly, I'm not involved enough to fight about it all night. I've brought your POV to your attention; you don't acknowledge it; meh. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't imagine why you are being so rude, accusing me of POV-pushing. The erroneous calling of a large church a "cathedral" is dealt with, a little further down the introduction, or haven't you read that far?
In common speech people often call a locomotive a "steam train". Any railway buff will immediately correct them and say that the thing at the front is a locomotive, and the "train" is what it pulls. The uninformed will continue to call it a "train".
I am quite interested to know what churches, other than those I have cited, are commonly referred to as "cathedral". You tell me that it's in common parlance. But I am left wondering where. A few interesting specific instances, like Ulm Minster have been discussed. - Amandajm (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did this nonsense about the "primary reference" being "a large grand church" (or some such) come from? The primary reference in everything I have checked out, including Websters, which you have cited, gives its correct meaning first.
The correct meaning of the word has never been replaced, and has never ceased to be the meaning that is in most prevalent use. People who concern themselves with churches and cathedrals every day of the week probably account for far more usages of the word, than the average English speaker, who uses the word very occasionally, and then wrongly. I might use the word in spoken or written English fifty times a week, correctly. How often do you use it?
You have made it clear, on my page, that this is really about your POV. You are somehow (inexplicably, to me) offended by the Catholic (and C of E apparently) use of the term in an episcopal sense and would prefer to see it (is bowderlised the right word here?) watered down in some way to a very general meaning. Why?
Why don't you go to the disambig page and leave an additional meaning of "large grand church". Not as the primary meaning, because that would not be appropriate in light of what the dictionaries say.

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

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

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



Your advice[edit]

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

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

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

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

Replied on Talk:Gonfalonier of the Church. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. I will go back through the sources and see if they can't be cleaned up a bit. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Stress marks[edit]

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

[Reply on Ezhiki's talk page.]
Hi, Llewelyn. I did not provide a link because I honestly don't recall where the discussion took place—last time total removal of the stress marks was seriously considered was, if I am not mistaken, in 2006, if not before that. You are probably going to be better off starting a new thread; just remember that browser support for stress marks in 2006 was much more abysmal than it it now, and the consensus was still to retain them (it was worded something to the effect of "technology will catch up with proper support, as long as we use proper standards to implement the stress mark"). The Russian stress mark is Unicode symbol 769.
What's more, the problems you are experiencing are problems on your side, not on Wikipedia's side. I can't tell whether you have a browser problem, or a font problem, or something else entirely, but for majority of readers these stress marks display correctly. For example, out of six different computing platforms I myself am using, only IE on my smartphone has trouble with rendering the stress marks (and it just shows a blank square instead; nothing like the problem you are describing). All in all, I'd recommend you check for bugs on your side first; perhaps post a message at WP:VPT to see if this problem came up before. As for the way Wikipedia chose to display those stress marks, I am pretty confident there is nothing wrong with it. I am not well-versed in how Unicode works myself, but I've seen quite a few outside opinions, often in relation to bug reports similar to yours. Once again, you'd be better off seeking an expert opinion. In this case, I am merely a keeper of the previous consensus :) Hope this helps. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:49 (UTC)
P.S. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Russian browser". The computer I am currently using is issued by my US employer and it is overall pretty horrible at supporting Cyrillic, yet even in IE6 I can see the stress marks just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:56 (UTC)
I get your point, too, but one can make an equal argument than a non-negligible population of English language users exists who are unable to see Russian at all, stress marks or no stress marks. Same can be said about any other language utilizing a non-Latin script. Heck, on the computer I am currently on I can't read Dravidian scripts, such as Tamil, and loading the Tamil Wikipedia crashes my browser. Yet it doesn't mean we should rid en_wiki of Tamil spellings or close the Tamil Wikipedia altogether.
Also, the argument about the stress marks being "non-standard orthography" is simply false. They are rarely used, that much is true, but they are quite standard and are actually supposed to be used in certain cases, such as when one need to distinguish between identically spelled but differently stressed words, or to hint at the correct pronunciation of an obscure word, or in dictionaries and encyclopedias. It it were truly non-standard, then we wouldn't expect Unicode to support it, yet a separate symbol for the stress mark exists. And if by "non-standard" you mean that it is not used in the English reference works, then including Russian in the first place would be non-standard, too. Same goes for pretty much any diacritics other than relatively common acute and grave accent marks. Once you say it's OK for the English Wikipedia to include spellings in languages other than English (which is a de facto situation), you are automatically accepting that the rules governing the spellings in those languages automatically apply, too.
The overall philosophy of Wikipedia is not to make sure everything works on everyone's computer—which is a laudable goal, but, unfortunately, impossible to reach. The best thing we can do is to avail ourselves of the existing standards to implement features. With this approach, if a user has a non-standard browser or lacks support, studying applicable standards would be a starting point to remedy that situation. If you have problems with stress marks displaying correctly, start with the Unicode support for your browser. Ditto for my Tamil problem—I'm sure if a proper font is installed or something, I'd be able to see the text just fine. But ridding the encyclopedia from a useful feature just because some people might have a problem with it is not a solution, and abandoning standards in favor of non-standard solutions (like a plain-text stress mark you proposed) is worse yet. Sure, that'll fix the problem for you, but what about those who rely on us to follow the proper standards?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2010; 13:54 (UTC)



Chihuahua (state)[edit]

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

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

Hey, thanks for reconsidering! Hopefully we can get this thing going and find a solution.
Also, why does your signature link to another user's talk page? If this is a previous account or something, it's a good idea to put a notice on both user's pages that stats that they are both owned by the same person. Otherwise someone might accuse you of sock puppetry. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. TDL (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not. I edited my signature to get the shadow effect. I must've muffed the link. I'll fix it. -LlywelynII 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah problems. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything improper, I was just confused when I followed the link in your signature and found a stale account. TDL (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I see that. And like I said on your namespace, thanks for the heads-up. — LlywelynII 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of sovereign states - sorting criteria[edit]

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

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

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

Reopening a discussion[edit]

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

Republic of Macedonia[edit]

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

See the talk:Republic of Macedonia page. You were reverting so quickly between my edits, they didn't even appear on the conflict page. Plus, of course, you're wrong: 20 years is neither provisional nor temporary and they are obliged to be called that by international organizations. — LlywelynII 14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please both of you keep in mind that edits affecting the "Macedonia" naming issues are subject to an Arbcom-imposed "one revert rule", so please cease reverting. On the merits of the issue, describing "former Yugoslav..." as the state's "official name for international purposes" is in fact wrong, because the state itself doesn't use that term for itself, not even in those international contexts were other parties refer to it in that way. Fut.Perf. 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other parties referring to it that way = international use. Feel free to rephrase to suit your terminology, but it's an official international designation of long standing. As for the reverts, again, they were unintented, but thanks for the heads up. — LlywelynII 16:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's continue on the article talk page. Fut.Perf. 16:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

I took that from Nagykanizsa which seemed to have the correct names for the other sanjaks. If you have a source that disagrees or Valpovo is the normal form in modern Turkish, there's no need not to correct it. — LlywelynII 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We must provide information with reliable sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that should be added by people who have them. In the meantime, WP:DISRUPT applies unless you have a good reason to think it's incorrect. [Naturally, if you do, simply correct it.] — LlywelynII 04:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always have good reason :) P.S. Do you know where is Zane ? Takabeg (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, haven't been able to find it. Sometimes Ottoman Turkish would be transcribed arbitrarily, so it could be Zane or Sane but I don't see anything that looks that way. As for the Kanije Eyalet being under the Crimean Khan, it looks like the map on the Crimean Khan page is simply bad and the Ottomans held a sliver of the coast free and clear (that being the eyalet). That was pieced together from websites as I was looking for Zane, though, so no WP:SOURCE. — LlywelynII 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ottoman language[edit]

About your comment. Seriously. See:

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

P.S. Personally I like usage of Ottoman language, because it's short and economic :)) Takabeg (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turkish is shorter, Ottoman Turkish is shorter, and Ottoman is shorter. It's like saying "English language" instead of English. Was being light-hearted and sorry if I caused any offense, but it's poor English language to add language after the name of language. — LlywelynII 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By way of comparison with your 394, "Ottoman Turkish" produces 38000 results. So please do stop using it. [NB. I do know the Ottomans' language employed many Arabic and Persian terms and the effort to increase its native Turkish content was political. That said, it was still a species of (albeit literary) Turkish.] — LlywelynII 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, there's a template (lang-ota) and a consensus to use templates for lede translations. If you have serious evidence to present about not calling the language of the Ottomans "Turkish," you should present it over there. Then all the uses of the (lang-ota) template will automatically shift. But you shouldn't push POV over the normal English. — LlywelynII 14:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You counted also "Ottoman Turkish Army", "Ottoman Turkish authorities", " Ottoman Turkish reform", "Ottoman Turkish art", "Ottoman Turkish music", "Ottoman Turkish architecture" etc.... Takabeg (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment them out and you'll still have vastly more than you get for "Ottoman language" as a phrase unto itself. Using the awkward "Ottoman Turkish language" is a false dichotomy that still shows it's nearly as common as what you're claiming is standard. It just isn't how English language works, except possibly among Russian language expats. — LlywelynII 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could also try building your consensus by trying to move Ottoman Turkish language. I'd oppose (if we're not going to call it Ottoman Turkish, we should call it Ottoman; the "language" is simply superfluous for anything except disambiguating the namespace) and the searches seem to be against you, but in the meantime really should still use the template. — LlywelynII 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

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

a. What did I move? b. Given the policies and numbers above, it's really you pushing POV. The only thing I can recall doing was including information from another page that wasn't sourced. You edited that, and it's fine. Really not sure what your problem is.LlywelynII 15:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
aaaaa I'm sorry. I confused you with this user :)) But I don't have any POV. Because I only transfer information from sources. You don't edit without showing sources. In this situation, other users can think you edit by your own POV. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Howevermuch POV you displayed right above this ;), no prob. Have a question that I'll leave in your talk space. — LlywelynII 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Not really. The point I was making at Talk:Adrianople Eyalet was that the current nomenclature is actually OR neologisms. The English common name is simply "Province of X" (although in Van's case we'd obviously need to use (Ottoman Empire) to distinguish the page).
I moved the conversation to the Ottoman Wikiproject, though. — LlywelynII 02:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page[edit]

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

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

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

Topal İzzet Paşa[edit]

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

Thank you, but I'm not sure you read that article you linked to.
A) I wrote it, leading to the original question;
B) it currently precisely says that they are the same person;
C) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially the unsourced pages.
Even if you were trying to use the Turkish pages, they're unclear stubs. We really need something (English is better, Turkish is workable) saying that they are different people, who just happen to be very very similarly named, very similarly ranked statesmen at very similar times. — LlywelynII 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave you wrong links, sorry about that. I fixed links now.--Rapsar (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioned the Turkish pages already, but will double check to make sure no one added better, sourced info explaining the difference. [Edit: Nope.] — LlywelynII 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Glad to be of service. — LlywelynII 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belarus 'twas User:FinnishDriver on 17 Jan. Part of their attempts to redesign country articles the way they wanted. European articles are a mess. Anyway, I came here Llywelyn to ask where all these sections are linked from? Can you include that in the hidden notes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just there to discourage random renaming, but you can pick it up from the Linked here. — LlywelynII 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My linked here won't show me links to specific sections, just articles. Any hints? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BC/BCE @ Yellow Emperor[edit]

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

Although given wp:english wp:commonname – and, yknow, the whole issue of what BCE is dating its "Common Era" from – protecting BCE is always the Wrong Version, yeah, I know and abide by wp:era.
My point at Yellow Emperor was that it had been POINTy to change it, given both ERA and the discussion on the talk page. — LlywelynII 05:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I see now. Dougweller (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about etymology of word "Kongo" in Kongo People[edit]

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

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

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

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

Qgis ?[edit]

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

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

Nationalism and ethnocentrism[edit]

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

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

More on "dynasty" vs. "Dynasty"[edit]

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



Help with Texan/Texian consensus[edit]

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

Medieval Germany[edit]

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

Please see here[edit]

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


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

That was fast. If I notice anything, I'll point it out, sure. And thanks for your hard work slugging through over there. — LlywelynII 23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, please note WP:NC-ZH for Place names, which closely mirrors ZH-wiki's practise; the current guideline is that township-level divisions are disambiguated by the prefecture-level city (if part of a district) and by the county-level city or county otherwise, never by the province. You are however of course free to ask that this guideline be changed (at WT:NC-ZH), and I have no particular preference for neither the status quo nor a change. GotR Talk 01:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Names are disambiguated from homonyms regardless of their level. Are you saying that the township-level pages should not mention what province they're in (which is insane)? or that province pages should not list every township (which is sensible, but has nothing to do with my edits as far as I know)? — LlywelynII 12:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the conventions concern only article titles, and currently state that township-level divisions are to be disambiguated at the prefecture- or county-level. GotR Talk 15:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. That does seem unhelpful, unless there are multiple similarly-named townships within a single province. — LlywelynII 03:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, you should bring this up at WT:NC-ZH if you feel the guideline needs to be changed. I feel there are pros and cons to both a simplification of DAB-ing and the current guideline. GotR Talk 03:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inasmuch as no one has changed the links I created to something less helpful, I don't really care and I certainly have no interest in going through and revising previous entries by hand: someone should script up a bot, but I can't. Nonetheless, fine, in the interest of civic discourse, I'll post something and get the hidebound to defend their current policy. Cheers. — LlywelynII 04:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've responded there, and could do with a clarification from you. GotR Talk 19:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it really that important? The current policy is nonsensical and goes against the standard in any number of other countries, but it's no skin off my nose since it concerns pages maybe a few dozen people will see before the heat death of the universe. I only reply here to make the page banner disappear.
In any case, if you have a question here, you may freely copy the answer to that discussion for other interested participants. — LlywelynII 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese names in English[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

It's badly written, sourced, POVy, and needless. I'll delete it again later. But thanks for the heads up! =)
More seriously, I'm working on going through the list of common Chinese surnames article — sourcing it with actual comprehensive surveys instead of the partial ones from before, and including data about Taiwan, America, and Canada — so I took a break in the middle of redoing the Chinese name, given name, and surname articles (the surname one is particularly awful). If I deleted a section without having already included better, more sourced, and more comprehensive discussion elsewhere in the article, it may have been a mistake or ahead of schedule. Apologies. — LlywelynII 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. How is it "POVy"? How is it "badly written"?
Firstly, remember that opinions do belong in Wikipedia articles. Opinions that do not come from reliable sources aren't included, but opinions that are printed from reliable sources are included. If somebody writes in a book that "it was one of the ironies of the late twentieth century that Japan remained stranded in the formal devices underlining its historical quest for equality with the West, while China set its own terms, in language as in big-power politics", we include that opinion in the article. It is not "POVy" to include an opinion attributed to someone.
One thing is that I strictly stick to what's in the sources, and that's how it should be. WP:V makes it clear that it's a core principle to only include what's sourced. If you want to make the section better written, you should find more sources that discuss the matter in further detail.
2. In any event, the topic of "Chinese names in English" is worthy of having its own section. The way names are used in English should be addressed by the article.
3. If you "delete it again later" I will go to a talk page of the China WikiProject and ask the userbase their thoughts on the matter (that is unless you want it discussed by them right now) - There was a previous discussion you might want to read, where a user believed that the section content was inaccurate, but he had not read it closely enough: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive_19#Chinese_names_in_English
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off, you're the one pushing for opinion; I'm the one who was gunning for encyclopedic content.
Second, your second point was partially right: opinions recorded in reliable sources are sometimes perfectly appropriate. Of course, it was also partially wrong: sometimes opinions are needless POV regardless of sourcing. Getting the Godwinning out of the way early, the Mein Kampf's theories on Jews are perfectly appropriate for an article on antisemitism or Hitler, not so appropriate for an article on, say, Jews. I'm sure your intentions are good, but one encyclopedic fact is that Japanese and Chinese names typically have different orderings in English; another is that the Japanese ordering became much more common under the American military occupation following WWII; but claims that this distinction involved some superior Chinese resistence to imperialism is needlessly POVy, even ignoring the way the 19th and early 20th centuries make the point demonstrably false. (Or to be charitable, too contentious and POVy for inclusion on a tangentially related article instead of, e.g., on one specifically interested in name order.)
Potentially there should be a section on Chinese names in English beyond the material already covered in other sections like romanization. But like I said, I haven't looked at that material in a few days and am in the middle of something else. I'll look at it again in a few days, be sure to include any relevant sourced material somewhere, and if you're feeling particularly ownery or unpersuaded by my masterful arguments, when we hit WP:3RR we'll take it up with the community and higher-ups.
And again, absolutely apologies if I blanked any encyclopedic content without having included the other edits maintaining them in other sections. I'll look over it again in a few days. — LlywelynII 03:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About "First off, you're the one pushing for opinion; I'm the one who was gunning for encyclopedic content." - My argument is that I am, in fact, pushing for the inclusion of an encyclopedic, noteworthy, significant opinion, which is "gunning for encyclopedic content" - I argue that trying to delete it is removing an encyclopedic opinion, which is the opposite of "gunning for encyclopedic content" - Hopefully you now understand my point of view.
Now, you say "sometimes opinions are needless POV regardless of sourcing" - That depends on their prevalence, related to the subject at hand. Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight covers it. Problem is, it's the only opinion we know of related to the subject. We can't say it's undue, because there is no other opinion more prevalent than Terry's! You use Mein Kampf as an example of an opinion which cannot be taken at face value. The problem is that Mein Kampf has been analyzed by many sources, and its views on Jewish people has been demonstrated as false. There are many other sources which have higher quality/more prevalent opinions than Mein Kampf in relation to Jewish people. Therefore taking Mein Kampf at face value would be violating UNDUE. Edith Terry's opinion has not received the analysis, dissection, and negative reception that Hitler's has. And I have not yet found any other analysis/interpretations of the differences between Chinese and Japanese names. It stands alone. It's the only opinion about the comparison of Japanese names to Chinese names that has been recorded in reliable sources that we know of.
" but one encyclopedic fact is that Japanese and Chinese names typically have different orderings in English" - Yes - that comparison is part of the section.
"another is that the Japanese ordering became much more common under the American military occupation following WWII" - Is there a source saying this?
"but claims that this distinction involved some superior Chinese resistence to imperialism is needlessly POVy" - I do not believe that is what Terry is saying. The quote says, exactly "it was one of the ironies of the late twentieth century that Japan remained stranded in the formal devices underlining its historical quest for equality with the West, while China set its own terms, in language as in big-power politics." - While she argued that China had dealt with the west "on its own terms" while Japan didn't, she isn't saying that China has an innate resistance to imperialism that makes it superior.
"even ignoring the way the 19th and early 20th centuries make the point demonstrably false. (Or to be charitable, too contentious and POVy for inclusion on a tangentially related article instead of, e.g., on one specifically interested in name order.)" - How is this the case? In which ways?
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to hit Google books and see if I can find any more opinions and facts related to the contrasting of Japanese and Chinese names. (If I can source the bit about prevalence of western order of Japanese names increasing after WWII, that would be a bonus)
Lu, David John. Japan: A Documentary History, Volume 1. M.E. Sharpe, 1997. xv. ISBN 1563249073, 9781563249075 - No opinions or new facts, just a note on what order the author chooses
Chan, Wing-tsit. Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy. Greenwood Publishing Group, March 1, 2002. xii. ISBN 1400809649, 9781400809646.
"Except for some contemporaries who put their personal names before their family names (as I do), Chinese and Japanese names are given in the Chinese order, that is, with the family name first. Chinese and Japanese scholars are not consistent in using the various names of Chinese writers. Here the private names of philosophers, rather than their courtesy or literary names, are used, except in the cases of Lu Hsiang-shan and Wang Yang-ming, who are generally known in China, Japan, and the West by their honorific names." - Information added to Chinese_name#Alternative_names, Lu Jiuyuan, and Wang Yangming
Beasley, William G. The Rise of Modern Japan, 3rd Edition (January 2000). Palgrave Macmillan, June 27, 2000. xi. Retrieved from Google Books on April 1, 2012. 0312233736, 9780312233730. -- First edition is dated London May 1989, from the Acknowledgements section on Page viii.
Gives preferences used in book, in terms of name order and Japanese romanization system. It also says "Chinese words and names are romanized according to the Wade-Giles system, which is more often to be found in books relevant to Japanese history. Alternatives to the Pinyin system, now becoming standard for references to contemporary China, are given in the index." - Information added to Chinese_name#Chinese_names_in_English WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously you missed the three or four times I already said I'd get back to this later.
In the meantime, save your arguments in text file somewhere for later use and post article source material like this on its talk page. =D — LlywelynII 07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be happy to move it to a new talk page later. But, I don't see a problem in posting stuff now, knowing that you'll get to it later :) - I knew you would get to things later, but I decided to respond now, knowing my content will still be up when you return WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thai versus Chinese names[edit]

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

No. I just fixed one deficiency in the page.
I'm not sure what you need straightening out with, but those services cost extra. — LlywelynII 08:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thai name and Thai Chinese need attention again.
How do you mean? — LlywelynII 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you by any chance related to Llywelyn the Last? (If so, I'll be more respectful.) --Pawyilee (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hopefully, your upbringing was such that you can be respectful regardless. — LlywelynII 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"With respect to," as a phrase, hints as to different kinds.
WRT Thai Chinese, your having spotted a deficiency re a surname by a Thai family of Chinese extraction, extracted from Sanskrit for "Does Good Routinely," led me to invite you to spot any I may have added in my recent changes to that, and Thai name, as well.
WRT The Last Leader, my interest is in the Last Leader of the Vientiane kingdom, a rump state of Lan Xang, who led the Laotian Rebellion of 1826-1829, and met much the same fate. If there is a category for failed heroes of failed kingdoms, then they belong in it.
WRT the Treaty of Montgomery, I'd like to know what Montgomery was involved. --Pawyilee (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello LlywelynII. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

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

I'm sorry. Shanghai's English-language library is very limited; I've been doing all of my work with internet-available sources, so I'm afraid I can't help. My suggestion (fwiw) is to look around for a wikiproject:scholarship or something, a community of people with access to LEXUS/NEXUS & the scholarship databases & American university libraries. They might be able to rustle something up for you. — LlywelynII 11:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, thanks for the info. I already made a request at the "Resource request" project, but nobody seems to have access to it over there either. I might try the Danish wikipedia if all else fails. Cheers and thanks again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

King of Cerdagne[edit]

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

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

List of English monarchs[edit]

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

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

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

Common and uncommon titles[edit]

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



Speedy deletion nomination of FEDIMA[edit]

Hello LlywelynII,

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

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

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

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

Hebrew calendar Era styling[edit]

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

I can understand that, given the pre-existing discussion. Kind of you to keep the other edits. — LlywelynII 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, always try to be kind. Thank you. But it is not hard to be kind when the other is kind, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the internet? You must be new here.
Regardless, a blessing on your house (mazel tov, mazel tov). — LlywelynII 14:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only have sons to marry off, not daughters. Doesn't mean they don't bring their own challenges. (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: There is a whole big question as to exactly what the correct Hebrew behind "yasher koach" (definitely with an r) is. It's something that's become a little sloppy through Yiddishization. But I'll take the compliment anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought you might have an interest in this discussion on the very topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of style#rfc_ABCA17E StevenJ81 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maelgwn, Merfyn et. al.[edit]

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

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

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

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

I find your edits and points so generally well taken, I'm still not sure I understand. Did you came here in response to this? I was addressing an overstatement on the other editor's part and clarifying (I assume) yours. I just phrased it the way I did for parallelism's sake. Or was there something else?
Anyway, thanks for the kind words and constructive approach. Let's raid the Welsh Wikiproject sometime and give each other barnstars before they notice.  — LlywelynII 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that I tried to instantly absorb all that had changed since I semi-retired, then saw that that stolen map had actually been inserted into an article, and quick-skimmed some of the talk pages without taking time to digest ... looking at what I wrote, it does sound weirdly defensive. Maybe I can start over ...
Mostly I wanted to say that it's good to see your well-written and well-referenced material, and I'll be glad to have knowledgeable eyes lurking about. Agreed on raiding the wikiproject! And if I see a copy of that new TCE history of Britain lying about, I'll swipe that, too ... I see that you already have a copy. Looking forward to crossing paths in the future! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Horsepucky. It's not controversial; it's patently false and thus unreliable.
Also, kind of you to stop by and point out your edit so I can undo it, but you should learn to take a less snotty tone. — LlywelynII 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welsh princes[edit]

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

They're not a "departure from accepted precedent"–the English commonname is X ap Y and that's exactly what the article name should be and where it should stay. However, formatting "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)"
(a) is actually fine.
(b) looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" as though it weren't the English name and
(c) keeps people from thinking "ap Y" is some kind of surname.
If you're paying attention to these pages, you obviously have seen people formatting the {{persondata}} to read things like "Farfog, Triffyn" and "Ap Llywelyn, Gruffydd". This gets things across very easily and cleanly.
In any case, despite the schoolmarmish tone, you're quite kind (stopping by & not just reverting the edits) and obviously a force for good around here and nice to meet you. Your Welsh articles seem to be more the current stuff, but if you're into the history as well, kindly look over/add more to Synod of Chester or some of the kings I've been adding in to have something to link to from the Annales Cambria Wikisource.
Particularly like your take on "Taffy was a Welshman". Just learned about that awful tune the other day. — LlywelynII 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that was an hour out my life, but proposal is up. Since you seem to disapprove, it's ok if you want to sit out the conversation; but thought you'd be cheered I got the ball rolling like you asked. — LlywelynII 15:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi LlywelynII, nice to meet you too. I enjoyed your Synod of Chester. I'm sure I've seen that story about Augustine before (possibly here), though I couldn't find it in John Davies' A History of Wales. Davies says (p 61) that Bede says Aethelfrith ordered the slaughter of 1,200 monks at Bangor-Is-Coed, because they fought against them wth prayers, which met with Bede's approval (p 76). Nice! Sorry you dislike my tone. I find feeling quite difficult to convey here. I mean no ill-will towards you. Nevertheless, whether "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)" looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" is irrelevant. We should go with the sources, and the sources use “ap”. Thank you for posting your proposal. I look forward to the response. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, that's a mistake of wp:COMMONNAME (regarding the page titles) and WP:LEADSENTENCE (regarding this and which explicitly makes exceptions for cases like this where the meaning and use of ap is unclear to normal readers). — LlywelynII 15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for tone, don't beat yourself up about it. You didn't bite the nooB very hard – it's just that I'm not a newbie at all. ;)  — LlywelynII 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an english-only reader, I support your proposal :) GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank y'kindly, but be sure to note that here, if you didn't already. — LlywelynII 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

My apologies if userspace material is not covered under Wiki's relevant licenses and, more to the point, if you were keeping it hidden for personal reasons til it was well-polished.
For myself, I was building a Buallt article regardless, found it via Google, and made the obviously inappropriate assumption that Wiki material is always intended for public consumption and that you'd rather I employed your words than my own lesser ones. But I will definitely post a message to its talk page and, again, apologies. — LlywelynII 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm certainly happy to see it in the mainspace; I'd more or less forgotten about it for over 3 years. All material is covered by the licenses, but preserving the edit history is necessary for attribution. It's also nice to let folks know when you're copying their material to the mainspace. At any rate, it's fixed now, no harm done. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.--Cúchullain t/c 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi. I did fix most of them (as a courtesy, not a responsibility – my edits were constructive & it's a collaborative project). You're welcome to get the rest (Mostly a long line of 'ruler in X year' links that can handle the dab page just fine). Cheers. — LlywelynII 09:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for overly-picky issues related to which template or if any template should be added, again, knock yourself out. I only added a template at all because another user was moronically calling the dab pages {{name-stub}} and I was attempting to preëmpt him. But I will try to keep the MOS guidelines in mind in the future, thanks. — LlywelynII 10:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments[edit]

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

I'm sure the other side felt they were overstated and off-point, but thanks for the kind words. My apologies that they're so used to the way it was written when they were growing up that they ignored the perfectly valid sources and points you had already given them. — LlywelynII 08:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synod of Chester[edit]

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

Fwiw, it's II.
And yes, of course it did (or at least was described that way by the annals). Did I not include references? or you were just pointing out that we should polish it up for a DidYouKnow? — LlywelynII 23:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that should be Caerleon Upon Usk (not Chester), held under the auspices of St David's (Moni Judeorum being ultimately from the Irish form for Hen Meneu = St David's), and likely in preparation for (or somehow conflated with) the 2nd Augustinian meeting at Augustine's Oak. Several articles go into some detail (not all details and characterizations of which I buy), such as at Gregorian mission and Augustine of Canterbury.
btw, as to the massacre ... it's a good thing that those British Christians were so unChristianlike, else it would be a story of a Northumbrian (Bede) justifying the massacre of defenseless Christians by pagan Northumbrians by placing words in the mouth of someone who had died a century earlier ... how often do Christian sources really justify the massacre of Christians by pagans? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources I saw place it at Chester, not Caerleon upon Usk; it would be under the auspices of St Davids anywhere in Cambria given St David himself was supposedly there and they theoretically raised it as their archdiocese at the synod; different 2ndary sources make it identical w/Bede's council or prep for it: the primary ones are simply unclear. You wouldn't use an "of" in that grammatical construction.
But just like any other article: go find reliable sources for positions like the one you personally have re:Bede's lack of objectivity and knock yourself out, provided you don't unduly ignore the narrative of the primary and secondary sources already provided but simply put it into the best context. — LlywelynII 07:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, I was just checking (didn't go through your sources at the time, but did notice that you were providing them in enough detail to check things out ... always a good sign!). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Llywarch ap Hyfaidd: text missed out?[edit]

In this edit, I notice there's a space after "where it states Hyfaidd was", before the full stop, so I'm wondering if you'd intended to continue the sentence.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You are one of several people that have tried to change it from "international spelling" to "British" spelling. Please join the discussion on the talk page [1] so a proper consensus can be formed. Dream Focus 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hasmonean dynasty[edit]

Please notice that your edits at Hasmonean dynasty regarding WP:ERA might not come in line with the Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV. While the standard you used is implementing Christian symbols (AD, BC); it is a common practice implement secular symbolism (BCE and CE) for non-Christian articles in order not to offend the readers of another culture/religion. Hasmonean dynasty is obviously a Jewish history article, hence it would better be using non-Christian standard (BCE, CE). WP:ERA policy states you should use the same standard throughout the article, but the standard form to be decided by editors, hence i think it should be returned to BCE, CE form.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinion is duly noted but that consensus should be built at the article's talk page, not mine. The article's format was chosen by the authors; hence my edit to restore/standardize it. Cf. WP:ERA if you missed that the first time.  — LlywelynII 21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, LlywelynII.

You tagged Dione (mythology) as having numerous issues. I've just tried to fix at least some of them. Please have a look, and decide whether to remove the tags. SamEV (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice of you to bring it by. Personally, I didn't think nearly enough of the vague and unsourced Earth Mother bit had been dealt with (one way or another), so I just reworked it. If you see anything I wrongfully left out and have sources for it, add it back in. — LlywelynII 19:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great job. I don't think I have any more I can offer the article. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After correcting several articles which confused the Diones, I got hit with a DPL bot notice. I know I can ignore it, but still I wonder whether we should move Dione (mythology) to Dione (Titaness) and use Dione (mythology) for discussion of all the mythological Diones (though there isn't much to write about the other three of them). What do you think? SamEV (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Although I personally wouldn't capitalize the titaness, just go with whatever the style is elsewhere (presumably there's something like Titan (mythology)?). — LlywelynII 07:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went with capitalization, since the Titanides (as are their male counterparts the Titans) are a specific group, so that "Titaness" and "Titanides" are proper, collective names. (See for example SamEV (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to Join the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields Task Force[edit]

Daniel Boone National Forest Tater Knob.jpg
Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force
An invitation to join us!
You're invited to be a part of the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Eastern Kentucky Coal Field region of Kentucky. To accept this invitation, click here!

J654567 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian Hills[edit]

Hey, I saw your edits to the Indian Hills article. I have scans of the ancient articles I used still, I don't think I can link to them in the article for copyright reasons, but here is the the scan of the article for the stuff about the leaflets and people's objections. The attitude might not make a lot of sense nowadays, I was trying to just copy it into the Wikipedia article and not apply any editorializing. It might be useful if you want to work on the article more.

Indian Hills was kind of a clear illustration of the suburbs vs. Louisville culture clash of the mid-20th century, not wanting bus lines into Indian Hills meant keeping out the riff raff, or something like that. --Runame (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to clean up the style and reorder the structure to make the section flow better, but I don't think I added any editorializing disparaging the local's resistance to Louisville Metro. If I inadvertently phrased things in a POV manner, feel free to patch it up. "Battles with Louisville" seemed to me the tersest way to express the tone of what was going on (Louisville isn't so positively considered that that phrasing makes I.H. sound bad, is it?). It's quite possible the "something like that" involved race but, unless that's in your sources, let it alone: it's perfectly plausible they just didn't like the poor or their corrupt government on its own merits. Certainly all of their fears about the expense of urban sewer connection turned out to be justified.
What I'd like to see with Indian Hills has nothing to do with that. I'd like the Secretary of State or the local government clear up whether Cherokee and the other cities were fully absorbed or not. The Land Office still lists them as active cities. In general, we could use some sources that address the origins of Louisville suburb place names like Strathmoor, since Rennick & the Ky Encyclopedia don't mention most of them. Within Louisville Metro, Heritage Creek, Kentucky, is a mess: Google thinks it exists where it obviously doesn't & Bing thinks it doesn't exist where it might.
Another oddity is Keene, Kentucky, which isn't being dealt with by the 2010 census even though smaller 'cities' still are. Was it disincorporated and again the Land Office is out of date? No idea. — LlywelynII 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I didn't put anything on race in the actual article, the sources just aren't there for it... even if well, it was the 1950s and 1960s, an all-white suburb... but yeah without sources it can't go in the article. My main concern is having the Wikipedia article just summarize what's in the old newspaper articles, with no content changed... people can draw their own conclusions. I don't really know anything about the Secretary of State issue... I am sure the other cities are now legally a part of Indian Hills, as they are all taxed and regulated by Indian Hills and no governments exist for the other cities. I assume the secretary of state just doesn't have a very accurate database. --Runame (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese Cuisine[edit]

Hi LlywelynII --

I very much agree with the recent edits you've made at Chinese Cuisine, and hope you keep them up. The article has a long way to go, and, as I am not surprised to see, you are taking it in the right direction.

One minor point: we should keep the list of Further Reading, for reasons that I've explained on the Talk Page there. Basically, it's "half a loaf is better than none." And besides, it's in line with WP:FURTHER and WIKIPEDIA:Further Reading.

Cheers, ch (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, for which I'll hold off on a protracted edit war. ;) As I pointed out, in this case, half a loaf is worse than none since it (a) gives the appearance of a well-researched article instead of the website-based mess that actually exists; (b) is completely unexplained and uncurated, giving the appearance that these tomes are well-known authorities when that may be very far from the case; (c) is therefore liable to stealth bloat and advertising; (d) does not remove any content from the reader since it was still available on the talk page.
I have no especial quarrel with WP:futher provided it's labelled as a "Further Reading" section and not a bibliography or references one; but I would request that you reconsider the length and dubious quality of the books involved on this particular page. If you can't give at least a short gloss on each entry explaining the reason for its inclusion, my opinion is there's really no helpful service being provided that couldn't be better dealt with by surfing Google Books or Amazon recommendations. — LlywelynII 12:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yangtze River[edit]

It's always good to see some solid content creation on Wikipedia. From patrolling recent changes, sometimes it seems like three-quarters of the edits are vandalism, bot edits, or updates of football goals scored. Have you stumbled across Listen to Wikipedia? (Link:[2]) If only all the editors of Wikipedia could focus on harmonious content creation rather than petty disputes. Altamel (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, again, thanks for the kind words. (Quickly blanks the page of petty disputes filling the rest of his talk page...) — LlywelynII 03:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Mary better described as 'Judean' or 'Judean-born'?[edit]

On 8 July 2013, in Three Secrets of Fátima, you changed my wording 'Palestine-born Mary' to 'Judean Mary', with the explanation 'Miriam mother of Josh was from Hasmonean Judea, not "Palestine"'. I don't have a problem with getting rid of 'Palestine-born', and it's an irrelevant triviality that I think she was born in Herodian Judea rather than Hasmonean Judea, since that doesn't change the text of the article. However for much of her life she can arguably be more accurately described as Galilean, since the Tetrarchy of Galilee ceased to be part of Judea after Herod's death. So it seems to me that 'Judean-born' might well be better than 'Judean'. However, I don't think it's worth risking getting into a row over the matter. So I've decided to simply bring the matter to your attention, and let you make the change if you think it's a good idea, and to forget about it if you don't. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Galilean is fine, although (as you're well aware) Mary was born well before the end of Herod's rule so its status after his death is beside the point. The larger point is that at the time the entire vague area was Judea and (as you're well aware) Palestine was used by the Romans and in modern discourse specifically to disassociate the area with the Jews Mary and her family were very much a part of.
As far as Judean v. Judean-born: Judean. It's shorter, clearer, and just as accurate. It's not as if she left Judea to became famous for her work in Gaul or India. If we were going to be POINTy over nationalities, she was "Roman" but calling her that would make the article less accurate and helpful, not more. — LlywelynII 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough regarding 'Judean' v 'Judean-born'.
But I very much regret feeling somewhat obliged to say, if only for the record, that I take exception to the second of your '(as you are well aware)' comments, which, doubtless unintentionally, seems (and/or could be interpreted or misinterpreted) to be vaguely hinting that I must be something like some sort of anti-semite, or enemy of Israel, or supporter of terrorism, or whatever, seemingly just because I used the term Palestine to refer to an area which, to the best of my rather limited knowledge, has been known as Palestine for most of the past 2000 years.
You have no way of knowing what I am and am not well aware of. [textwall]. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeez, the NSA thing in really messing with people if they feel their Wikipedia handles are going to come back to haunt them.
In any case, having assumed in WP:GOODFAITH that you aren't in middle school and know anything whatsoever about the subject under discussion, I am perfectly comfortable in stating that you are well aware that "Palestine" has political implications. (That knowledge is, in fact, the very reason for your former text wall above.) Those implications are (historically) anti-semitic and (as stated) inappropriately pointy for discussing Mary mother of Jesus in an article about Christianity, all the more so because the polity and area was clearly known as Judea at the time. If you were unaware of that, I gave you links to peruse above; if you felt they were wrong, you could have discussed that here or at those pages.
Your off-topic ad hom and attempted rationalization actually make you seem more anti-semitic than the original edit. No reason (other than the over-reäction) to assume you are, so I'll suggest you take a moment sometime to read WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
All that said, you now understand and don't mind the actual edit to Three Secrets of Fátima and we're done here, right? — LlywelynII 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Languages of Italy vs Italian Dialects[edit]

Hi. I saw your edits (Languages of Italy and Italian Dialects) and I agree with you. There is too much confusion among these two articles. As you suggest, Italian dialects should include all the idioms that are spoken in Italy and that are closely related to and not officially recognised (Venetian, Sicilian, Neapolitan...). In fact these languages are deeply influenced by Italian and today they are not so different . While the Language of Italy should include only those languages recognised (Sardinian, German ...). But in order to do it we have to start a deep edit of the article Languages of Italy because there are a lot of languages not recognised and part of the Italian dialect indeed. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, thanks for the support. I was just stopping through, but couldn't just let it alone. Good luck fighting the good fight against whatever local patriots created that mess in the first place. =) — LlywelynII 11:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tattoo fad among rich[edit]

Hi Llywelyn, I happened on some checkable refs for the improbable statement that the rich 'n' royal had tattoos in the late 19th c. Must have been something to do with the Naughty Nineties. Have added the refs and removed the 'dubious sources' tag.RLamb (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as it's sourced, peachy, but the article I saw was very much overstating the case that tattooing was looked on as a privilege of the rich and powerful. They may have slummed it up, but that didn't get rid of the overall association with Asians, sailors, &c.
But thanks for dropping by. — LlywelynII 03:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See what you mean, tried to balance it.RLamb (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submitting an RM[edit]

Hi LlywelynII, please don't convert another user's comments into an RM as you did at Talk:Baekdu Mountain. This is not an acceptable reason for reformatting others' comments, and may be considered disruptive. It also throws a wrench into the RM process; in this case, it made it look like the request had been open for a month (and thus was ready for a close). In the future, it's fine to start an RM in an existing section if you want to work off of their comments, but the request needs to go at the bottom of the section, signed by you. In many ways, it's preferable to start a new section, in which you can still refer to previous comments on the talk page. Understand? --BDD (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course not. It's what he meant to do but was ignorant of the process for. That is in no way disruptive and (in fact) is covered by the REFORMAT policy you linked to. The admin can clearly see what was going on, since I explained it in my comment. If the admins are really on autopilot and would close the discussion after only two comments, feel free to weigh in or helpfully edit my edit. Cheers — LlywelynII 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not to anyone's benefit to put a new RM straight into the backlog. And in fact, it's not unusual for RMs to have low participation, so two comments wouldn't necessarily be a red flag. Just don't do it again. --BDD (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Been here for years and first time it's come up. It's obviously what the guy wanted but, if it confuses the admins that much, I'll be sure to claim it as my own with the new date. — LlywelynII 14:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi LlywelynII, Just wanted to say thanks for your contribution on the Kosciuszko page in the Memorials and tributes section, however you apparently forgot to add the citation. As the article is currently undergoing an FA review, and unless someone can source this information, the edit will no doubt be reverted in short order. If you could, would you please provide the source? Regards. -- Gwillhickers 05:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but I've always found it obnoxious when people demand repetition of cites provided on the the linked pages. That said, I think the stub on Thaddeus of Warsaw is still unsourced, so I'll see what I can do to fix that. — LlywelynII 06:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there. I see you reverted my edit to Russell, Kentucky.

From Wikipedia:Hatnote...

Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because:

  • they were redirected. (nope)
  • because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title. (nope)
  • because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names.
    • "Russell", "Russell Springs" and "Russellville" seem pretty dissimilar to me. And none leads to a disambiguation.

What about Russell, a neighborhood in Louisville?

I know you were trying to be helpful, and I'm not trying to seem like a know-it-all, but hatnotes really mess up an article unless they're necessary (and this one isn't). I'll add a note to the talk page, instead of just revert your edit.

Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already handled the talk page and will add the Louisville neighborhood. They are quite similar, particularly the county, and your edit – while well intentioned – is (yes) in violation of the policy you're citing. There are numerous cities in Kentucky that added or dropped -ville from their original names, and these are similar enough to mention while we're dabbing the county. — LlywelynII 04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thaddeus of Warsaw - expanding?[edit]

If you could add just 130 or so referenced words, it could be T:TDYKed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that good?  — LlywelynII 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WP:CFD/S is the proper place. Do not try to do this manually. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Category_talk:Louisville,_Kentucky_politicians. Come here first before mass reverting my good-faith (and perfectly correct) edits.
[edit: I see you started a template move. Peachy. Still talk about it here first.] — LlywelynII 00:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Comments on Ten Little Indians talkpage[edit]

As per [3], I was wondering what you meant and to whom you were referring specifically (if you were in fact specifically referring to anyone or any group in particular) with your comment that there is nothing wrong with showing how others are uncivilised. (I don't have the words verbatim in front of me but that is the gist of it.) I agree with the sentiment in theory, but it's not clear to me what you meant.

Also your spelling of Llywelyn is curious; it's not the most commonly spelled/orthodox version of the Welsh name (i.e. Llewellyn, Llewelyn) but how Irish author/writer Morgan Llywelyn spells her own surname, although what name she was born under is anyone's guess. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring on Myriad[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on myriad. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing ported comments from my talk page, since I was the one who went to you to discuss this reasonably. — LlywelynII 12:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Template:..., about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stop edit warring at the IPA help page or I will ask to have you blocked for disruption. These examples have been there for years and reviewed by many people. If you think they're wrong, take it to talk. As for checking with the OED, I verified with the OED before reverting you, so you might want to check it yourself. You might not distinguish between words like hire and higher, mare and mayor, but many people do, and we have a general audience, not just you. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You obviously didn't. The talk page has the actual OED pronunciation. — LlywelynII 08:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it does. The two-syllable OED pronunciation. Perhaps you should read the pronunciation key there so that you understand dictionary conventions (also used by Webster's, BTW). Or compare loir to see what the diff is: If there's a stress mark, it's two syllables. No stress mark, one syllable, even if stressed. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article titles for Chinese kings[edit]

Hi LlywelynII, please do not rename articles for Chinese kings without discussion. The situation for Chinese kings is very different from other countries, due to complications with personal name versus posthumous name. -Zanhe (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. It's not different at all and there are WP:MOS guidelines on ruler's names. If you want to take it up with them, cool, but the Chinese pages shouldn't have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS where we needlessly add titles. The only issues are the occasional homophony, which are properly dabbed; the issues where state rulers and imperial dynasts have the same name, which would need sorting out, granted; and the era-named kings, which are properly called the X Emperor.
If there is an existing discussion somewhere, cool, point it out; but otherwise the current page names are unhelpful; they're against policy; and I'm just fixing them. I tried doing that for individual pages, but then editors were confused about "but the other ones look like X"... so if it's just inertia, I'll go ahead and do the work.
For what it's worth, I've already fixed at least two bad names in the Shang and Zhou dynasties.
EDIT: Also, I'm just fixing the formatting on the standard names. Obviously, I'll steer a wide berth around the ones that are actually contentious and well-established like Qin Shi Huang, & al. (Mho is Shi Huangdi/Qin Shi Huangdi is at the wrong place but there's long and very careful arguments about why it's there.) or at places where the common usage is clear like at Liu Bei instead of Zhaolie of Shu Han. The current situation elsewhere is just sloppy. There weren't even redirects, e.g., from Wu of Han to Emperor Wu of Han before I started doing this. — LlywelynII 01:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Zanhe. The name of Chinese monarchs are inseparably connected to their titles. You cannot referred to Emperor Wu with the name of Wu without his title. You can referred to him as Liu Che without his title. It is Han Emperor Wu or Emperor Wu or Emperor Wu of Han NEVER Wu of Han.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You should never refer to the Hongwu Emperor as "Hongwu" but after introducing "Emperor Wu", people drop the title all the time and there is no problem with doing so. His existing article does so repeatedly.
On the other hand, it is Chinglish to refer him as the "Han Emperor Wu" in the manner of Han Wudi.
[added during Kave's comment below: If we're going to switch over to using the Chinese names completely, I can understand that. But this is just a question of formatting the English names and the MOS is pretty clear on how we should treat royal names. Thinking about it, even the Zhou states don't matter too much since the emperors will generally be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.] — LlywelynII 01:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles. Make a request for your moves or I will revert all of them if Zanhe doesn't already do so.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'll have to go to work soon, so you'll probably be doing that before I can. I'm not exactly sure how reverting a move works, but make sure to leave redirects from the correct namespaces in any case if either of you start in on that.
The redirects are needful even everyone else is going to agree they prefer the wordier titles.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if you're paying attention to the arguments I'm putting forward, but the page you sent me to starts out with a giant banner saying : "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." I'm not sure it means what you think it does. — LlywelynII 01:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)EDITReply[reply]
The current policy is WP:SOVEREIGN (generally, don't use titles) and WP:Manual of Style (China-related articles)#Names of emperors. That just says that you should use temple, era, etc. for the correct particular dynasties. This is unaddressed and I don't see any good reasons to ignore the general practice. (And in any case, we need the redirects.) — LlywelynII 02:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion the consensus would not change even if the page was active. Also you say "after introducing "Emperor Wu", people drop the title all the time and there is no problem with doing so. His existing article does so repeatedly. " Have you read Emperor Wu's article or the Hongwu Emperor's article? Nearly every single sentence (I haven't read their entire article so there might be minor reference to Wu or Hongwu without Emperor next to them) calls him Emperor Wu this or Emperor Wu that and with the Hongwu Emperor it is "the" Hongwu Emperor this or the Hongwu Emperor that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should read the article. That was my point. It does appear simply as Wu and there's nothing wrong with that.
And the Hongwu article looks that way because I fixed it. — LlywelynII 07:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The names of Chinese sovereigns are far more complicated than European ones, with personal names, posthumous names, temple names, etc., while European rulers just use their personal names. That's why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) specifically makes exceptions for Chinese and related East Asian royalties. Conventionally, posthumous and temple names are almost always accompanied by the title (king or emperor), while personal names are usually not (same as European royalties). Otherwise there's no way to tell if a king's name is his personal name or posthumous/temple name. In any case, it's almost always a bad idea to start moving hundreds of articles without obtaining consensus first. -Zanhe (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wonderfully friendly and respectful, which is rare and thanks for that. At the same time, yes, I do understand what I'm talking about and there's no more reason to have Emperor Wu of Han than to have King Charles II of England. It's unnecessary in a way that (e.g.) Hongwu of Ming is entirely incorrect.
If we're switching to Chinese names and moving to Han Wudi, that's fine, but the current pages are simply badly formatted English, per the way we handle nobility everywhere else on the project. — LlywelynII 07:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Llywelyn, there is no problem with having the redirects. But in the future, please make the redirects directly (eg. create Wu of Han as a redirect) and not move the article itself unless the consensus to do so has been reached. An undiscussed large-scale move of several dozens of articles can be considered disruptive, especially when it contravenes existing conventions (even if they had been marked historical). _dk (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, the consensus is well-established. See WP:SOVEREIGN. It simply hasn't been observed for Chinese articles. Emperors known by their era names are distinct: they must be addressed as the X Emperor as shorthand for the actual "emperor who ruled during the X years of Chinese history". Emperors known by their posthumous and temple names are no different from European regnal or papal names and there's no obvious reason why they've been left badly formatted when Charles II of England, e.g., is given without the "King".
Since there is some pushback from editors above (albeit apparently owing in part to a misunderstanding about how Chinese titles work in English), I've stopped for now but the current situation is still a (bad) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue in violation of outstanding Wiki-wide policy. — LlywelynII 07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Llywelyn, WP:SOVEREIGN explicitly says that it only applies to European monarchs, and Chinese monarchs are governed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles). -Zanhe (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it has a separate section for dealing with them and announces there are other policies, owing to irregularities. Since the section linked above is moot and no longer active, the rest of the page is actually controlling. [Like I said above: you've got to treat the era-named ones differently, but (unless we're going to get overly morbid about when it's appropriate to use temple and posthumous names) the rest simply function as regnal names and there's no good reason to have them in the page titles when we don't do that for any other similar figure.] All the same, I have suspended by edits given the feedback here showing that they're appreciably contentious (albeit correct) ;).
EDIT: Also, there's WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME, but that just concerns which name we use for which dynasty, not the way we format their titles. And also there's WP:CONSENSUS which controls Qin Shi Huang &c. and is what's going on right now. — LlywelynII 05:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Memorials / Official Communications[edit]

Hi LlywelynII -- Just saw your excellent work on Memorial to the throne, which has both important content and well chosen references. But there is considerable overlap with Official Communications of the Chinese Empire -- in fact some of the same sources and the same topics. How would you feel about merging the two? At least the Official Communications article could be the main article, since it is more general, with sections marked "see also." I'd be happy to have you make the revisions and decide which topics go where, though I would also be happy to do the shuffling around my self. Cheers and thanks in any case. ch (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Let's talk over here, though. — LlywelynII 16:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge discussion for List of saints by pope[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of saints by pope, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jayarathina (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compatriots Rebellion?[edit]

Hi LlywelynII, I've never heard of this term being used to describe the rebellion that deposed King Li of Zhou. Could you point me to reliable sources that use this term? Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't ever heard about it before but I saw it in another article and then found a few sites like this. Look around, though. If it's completely nonstandard in English, there's no problem with removing it even if it is infrequently used within China. — LlywelynII 10:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the use of foreign language footnotes[edit]

Since using Chinese footnotes is not fine, why does the Chinese Wikipedia allow so many articles with English footnotes? There are many Chinese Wikipedia users who do not understand English or did not have proper English education.

Does sound like a problem. [Sort of: I'm pretty sure it's standard within China to leave Roman-letter names and titles in the original and not to phonetically transcribe every occurance within scholarly articles. That is completely not the case with (mostly) nonphonetic and (otherwise) incomprehensible characters for consumption in English. In any case,] Take it up with them. — LlywelynII 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite that, I'll take your advice and complete the translation of sources in a period of time soon. Anyway, I started a discussion on the talk page of Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei. Why don't you take part in the discussion? --Huang (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it didn't come across clearly enough in the other discussion, lemme say it here. The big thing is thank you for helping out. Some article is better than no article; some footnotes are better than no footnotes; and you could always just write the articles and let other people do the translations or replace your footnotes with something else. Keep on keeping on and don't let the bastards get you down.
But (A), yeah, that's the policy; (B), it's a pretty good one as they go; and (C), if you are hanging around and working on more Chinese articles, it does help ease the load if you just include the translations as you go. (Personally, I don't always include full sections of text; but I do translate the names of the sources so people at least know where to start looking, especially if the English name is distinct and has its own article: 山海经 [Classic of Mountains and Seas].)
Thanks again. — LlywelynII 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

When creating new articles, such as Gadi Kinda, please ensure that all information is supported by reliable sources. An editor who has been around as long as you should know that by now - and if you continue to create unreferenced articles then your account may be blocked. GiantSnowman 19:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the reason you moved the article title; however, we present the name not as how the book title appears on the jacket - which would be the publisher's house style, but according to MOS:CT, which is the Wikipedia house style. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • shrug* The rule about not needing to follow their style is always a judgment call but, if you feel strongly about it and no one else wants to go digging around for other sources that support the capital F, sure, man. Knock yourself out. — LlywelynII 10:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've seen a number of editors make your mistake. WP:ERA says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Now we can debate about what established means, but it doesn't mean the first mention. That would leave us in the ludicrous situation where the first edit to an article 10 years ago is BC, the 2nd edit is BCE, and then after it's been stable all that time someone comes along and reverts to BC. Or vice versa. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, you're making the mistake (or at least, I strongly disagree with the reading of the policy you suggest.)
The entire purpose is to avoid needless edit warring, but basing it on "stable use" (a) encourages stealth editing of uncommonly-visited pages in the hope of establishing a 'new normal' and (b) active disrupting of any page in the hopes of challenging the 'old normal'. I get that you apparently prefer BCE/CE, but just take up the issue on that particular page's talk page, if there was a good reason for the edits away from the originally-established use. The example you give isn't ludicrous, except for the idea that any prominent BCE-using page wouldn't have been reverted numerous times over the course of ten years. (And of course, in reality, the normal situation is an uncommonly-visited page that was BC for two years, BCE for three years, and mixed for five.)
In the specific case I imagine you're discussing, there might be a good reason: two guys did talk about it on the talk page. But it was only two, 7 years ago, and the page's normal use seems to have been BC in the time since (at the very least, all I did was bring the infobox in line with the running text).
Moreover, those two had fairly bad logic: there's nothing "more Chinese" about either system; both are external impositions. We're not going to use the Taiwanese era system for the articles and, while the Chinese term for AD translates as "Common Era", it's completely standard for the Chinese to translate that as BC/AD in practice. That's because implicit in the editors' argument is the idea that AD represents WP:BIAS and not WP:ENGLISH; if it were accurate, the only appropriate time to use AD would be in articles about Church councils and policy would reflect that. It doesn't because they were wrong to be so reflexively oikophobic.
In the meantime, in general use, bright lines work much better and, if there are involved editors, there will be pushback as here. This is a better way both in theory and in practice: it's much easier to check the first use than to try to work out every dating edit of a decade-old page trying to count how many months it bore either use. Go with the first one and then if there are reasons for moving away from that, discuss them. — LlywelynII 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, there is no 'bright line' in WP:ERA. I wish that it was more explicit. Are you really arguing that, for instance, a 10 year old article that was BCE for the first 6 months and then changed to BC where it remained until today can be changed back to BCE? Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not the proprietor of Wikipedia, so I don't see what you plan to get out of your hypotheticals. (I could easily give you one you'd agree with—a little-monitored page on an obscure rabbi could certainly and sensibly be changed over if people felt strongly enough—but does that actually change your mind?) You prefer to read "established" in a rather unhelpful way, which is your choice, and I'll disagree with that where I see it in action and it isn't supported by any other rationale or consensus (which will probably be never).
It's pretty uncommon to change anyone's mind on the internet, but I laid out my reasoning above. If you want to stick with yours and wade through the edit history of Yu the Great to count how many months it's spent as one, the other, or both so we can figure out whether you think it should be BC or BCE, be my guest. Short of that, whatever number of recent weeks or months you think counts as "established" will be far more capricious and conducive to continuous unhelpful editing aimed at setting a new normal. Better (mho) to just read "established" as precisely what it does mean and request some consensus prior to any change. — LlywelynII 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. My mind gets changed by other editor's arguments fairly often, but until I know what you mean by 'established' I'm in a quandry. And this has turned out more argumentative than I expected it to. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, happy holidays in any case. — LlywelynII 06:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And to you. Sometime I may try again to get clearer wording for this. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big ad[edit]

Greetings. So there's a big, intrusive, racist ad wherever {{Infobox Chinese}} is used, discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advertisement.3F.3F. Since you were the last to edit that template, I thought you'd want to know. Any idea how to fix it? It seems to take advantage of complex template syntax or something... Quadell (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind. It has been fixed. Quadell (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that was certainly odd. Anything in particular about the {{Infobox Chinese}} template that left it open to that? or it just came from simple vandalism of one of the underlying template pieces? — LlywelynII 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, {{Infobox Chinese/Footer}} contained the offending code. Whoever it was, they knew what they were doing. Anyway, Merry Christmas and happy editing, Quadell (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Battle of the Conwy (13th century)[edit]

I see you created a redirect from Battle of the Conwy (13th century) to Madog ap Llywelyn. I have posted a comment at Talk:List_of_battles_301–1300#1294_Battle_of_the_Conwy querying whether this name for the battle is correct. Can you help? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mos:saint listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mos:saint. Since you had some involvement with the Mos:saint redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have replied to your comment at User talk:PMLawrence#FYI. Is that a fair assessment of the historical situation? PMLawrence (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You created the redirect Second Lincoln Administration to Template:Lincoln cabinet in October. It is now appearing on Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects, as that was refreshed today. Any chance you are planning to create an article about that topic any time soon? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned before, you very seriously need to review WP:BROKE. I applaud your desire to fix actual problems. Leaving a red link for all of these pages because you feel pangs of OCD is not an actual improvement.
If you very much dislike the present situation, you can create a stub article for Second Lincoln Administration that includes the presently-linked template. You don't need to bother other editors to do so, and (while the notices are very kind of you and huzzah) it would take less time to make that stub than coming here and asking me to do it for you. Best of luck, — LlywelynII 05:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2014 - Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti be renamed and moved to Unification of Hispaniola[edit]

Hello there fellow scholar/editor,

There is a talk page on this subject and since you have an interest in the discussion I would love to hear your views on it as well. I've responded with my viewpoints against the potential move as you will soon see why. I thank you for your time. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub tags[edit]

I see that you created several pages back in October where you did the stub tags wrong, such as this one. Just to clarify:

  1. Stub tags go all the way at the end of the page, after the other categories.
  2. The first letter of a stub tag should be capitalized if the first word in the tag name is one which is always capitalized, such as Kentucky, but not otherwise.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to your first point, kindly link the policy.
As to your second, Wiki's markup automatically capitalizes the first letter regardless and I can't imagine how it makes any difference.
As to your general approach, it's Wiki. If something's wrong (or even "wrong"), fix it yourself. If you're trying to cajole other people into doing your work for you, work on your phrasing. WP:YACATCHMOREFLIESWITHHONEY. Cheers. — LlywelynII 16:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to the first, the link is: WP:STUB#How to mark an article as a stub. As to the second, I'm not trying to get other users to do my work; I'm trying to get them to do it right wen they do it themselves anyway. And while it may not matter fir the software, it looksbetter to human eyes when they look at the wiki-code. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Foo Dynasty" or "Foo dynasty"?[edit]

There's an RFC here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opium War merge[edit]

Hi Llywelynll. I have a DYK in preparation, which will reference the First Opium War and I'd rather that there wasn't a merger tag on that page given it's potential exposure on the main page. Do you mind if I go ahead and carry out the merge? Best, ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 09:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elaeis guineensis[edit]

I'm glad you made that edit to Elaeis guineensis correcting the factual information. I just wonder what a "generic name" for an area is. I've never heard "generic" applied to the name of a geographical area. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to your query, I sadly can't write to William Safire but I think the usage fits, as it would for using "Sudan" to describe the general prairie south of the Sahara rather than the Islamic republic now using that name. In any case, the usage is linked through for any confused; if you think of more felicitous phrasing, feel free to emend it. — LlywelynII 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your beautifully written reply. I'm going to see if I can find a synonym for "generic" that would be appropriate. If I don't find one, I'll leave it as it is. CorinneSD (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the article, created by you, there is a link to a disambiguation page, probably by accident. You may be interested to read the talkpage in fixing the mistake. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulgars originate from Togarmah, there are many fading errors over the centuries. Ongar was fading or mistyped or mistranslated as ohguz. The word GAR means tribe. Bul-gar, Un-gar, Ma-gar (used with Hungarian accent as Ma-gyar). further mistranslations were Aldi-gar written in some sources as Altsek, Aldzi-gar, Aldjigher and so on.

If you read the history of Great Old Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire you would make direct connection for the hegemony of the Bulgars in Europe. John of Nikiu says there are descendants of the Huns which makes sense, considering where the Hourse was first found of earth. Tyurk was wrongly adopted termin from Communist Russia derived from Kotrak the son of Kubrat and the one who establishev Volga Bulgaria. The termin Kotrak was mispelled Kokturk,but this is evidence that Great old Bulgaria holds legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for coming by and I'm sure most of that made sense in the original language (presumably Bulgarian), but I can't really follow most of what you're trying to say. If you have sources for better reconstruction of the historical names of these illiterate nomad polities, just add them to the pages. — LlywelynII 02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KNBrugsenilogo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:KNBrugsenilogo.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 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).

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. TLSuda (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on James Pinnock (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do you know why Opium Wars wasn't merged with the others page? If it was by the lack of a volunteer I could do it. Ruddah (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Ruddah. The merge is in progress. I also left you a message on the Opium wars talk page. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 06:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Green Ocean listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Green Ocean. Since you had some involvement with the Great Green Ocean redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liu Dan[edit]

Can you explain LlywelynII moved page Liu Dan to Liu Dan (basketball player): not PRIMARYTOPIC to me? I see a basketball player mentioned in four templates and 29 articles (now links to disambiguation pages). I see a red linked prince, linked three times (including the dab page) and I see an actor with a different name. S I really don't understand why the basketball player is not the primary topic here. The Banner talk 10:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To start with, the actor doesn't have a different name: the actor has the exact same name. Second, the fact that the Chinese dynast doesn't have a page up yet does not make him less notable than a random stub on a basketball player that isn't even thorough enough to have her Chinese name (or even more than a single sentence, iirc). I would have fixed the links if I had seen them, though: you're right that we shouldn't leave it hanging on a disambiguation page. I must have accidentally looked at the double redirect only option when I didn't see any incoming links at all.
As for justifying the primary status, I'll do some googling for you in a bit. — LlywelynII 10:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. Vanilla Google pulls up a page full of references to a Chinese artist and the Google Books page is artist, artist, prince, artist, prince, prince, random bank worker, random prisoner, artist, prince. The basketball player is a footnote, albeit one that someone bothered to link a bunch. I'll fix them. — LlywelynII 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have mentioned the actor as "Lau Dan" not "Liu Dan". The Chinese spelling of his name is not relevant for the English-language WP. And at present, the basketball player is the most linked topic. The just found model does not even have her own article... The Banner talk 11:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A) Kindly comment to the appropriate comment.
B) I mentioned no such thing. You claimed the names are different, when in fact they are literally and exactly the same. There is no such thing as a Chinese "spelling" and the Mandarin(/pinyin) spelling is relevant when it shows up in English, which it does even for Cantonese stars.
C) Mostly, though, go review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fanboys who have covered their topic extensively here and most-linked carries no weight whatsoever (although, again, apologies that I missed them and didn't already straighten them out prior to the move: am in the process now). The sports figure is not the PRIMARYTOPIC for that name in the English language, there is no standout replacement, so that's where the dab page goes. — LlywelynII 11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there. I noticed a recent edit of yours which translated "dim sum"/"dianxin" as an "a la carte item". I am assuming that you derived this translation from dian, the verb, which can mean "to order, as from a menu". This is not the correct etymology for "dianxin" - if followed literally, this etymology would yield the literal translation "to order, as from the menu, a heart", which is not what the phrase means. The phrase means literally "to touch lightly on the heart", which refers to its role to lightly line one's belly, without filling it up. "Snack" is a more apt translation than "a la carte item". -- (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With respect, you are incorrect in almost every particular. I have never edited dim sum and have not recently edited anything about it; I presume you're talking about something related to Chinese cuisine, which I have edited but my edits left untouched the idea that it literally derived from "touch your heart". That is completely true. It is completely untrue (albeit common Chinglish) that "snack" is an appropriate translation of English dim sum. I assume your use of a URL name and failure to link the article in question was a deliberate attempt to hide your mistaken edits. Sorry it didn't work out for you. — LlywelynII 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)