Talk:Cefnllys Castle

September 2007
I reverted the edit by Jeremy Bolwell since I think the article is too brief to justify splitting into sections, which are of only one or two sentences each. Also I don't think "Only the Church Remains" is a suitable section title.

I am guided in part by Manual of Style (headings).

--John Stumbles 08:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cefnllys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928105325/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/swanbrec/churches/maelien/5544.html to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/swanbrec/churches/maelien/5544.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Save for the last reference
It's common practice to just have the reference at the end of the final sentence it supports, if it supports multiple sentences. (i.e. "My mom hates me. Oh and my dad.[1]" I did this, and reverted me for "too much rely on the final reference - including something unsupported by the reference", which I don't think makes sense when many articles— even G and FAs— utilize this to save some bytes and to make the prose less cluttered.  Gerald  WL  05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you even see that I added a discussion here? I'm happy that you undid my edit there, cause it seems like my ping wasn't reaching you.  Gerald WL  17:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not get a ping - you need to sign your post at the same time you leave the ping. Adding a ping after having signed the post means it doesn’t work.
 * Despite what you claim about GAs and FAs, they don’t promote the practice of adding information from one source into something that isn’t supported by another source. If you are trying to remove what you think is a double citation, don’t remove the second one, remove the first. Your edit has meant that the source at the end of the sentence is supporting something from a different source. As this is an FA, please be careful when messing around with sources. NewtTickler (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , then why not, instead of reverting it completely, edit it to remove the first sfn instead of the second? I would love a more straightforward reasoning: "You removed the second and not first ref". I still don't understand what you completely mean, so I'll do the correct edit and see if you're on the same boat.  Gerald WL  06:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How will you learn not to make the same mistake again if you need to have people correct the most basic errors. Can you now see the difference in the two versions? You removed the source that supported the statement “The outline of a building in this area is likely to be the oak hall recorded at Cefnllys in the 15th century.” Your first edit made that supported by Brown & Pearson, pp. 10 and 16. That’s not right: it’s not supported by that. It appears on page 18, which is what the citation said. Please be very careful when you mess around with sources - it was slapdash to remove a valid one and make the information rely on something different. NewtTickler (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , umm excuse me, did you see the latest revision I did? The statements are: "There was probably a small bailey to the south-west, and a scarp across the main ridge suggests the southern half of Castle Bank may have formed a large north bailey. The outline of a building in this area is likely to be the oak hall recorded at Cefnllys in the 15th century." Both are supported by "Browne Pearson 2006, p.18". So, to not make it duplicate, I removed the first sfn, which is literally the same with the second sfn. Since BP200618 is ref. 14, that makes it: ""There was probably a small bailey to the south-west, and a scarp across the main ridge suggests the southern half of Castle Bank may have formed a large north bailey. The outline of a building in this area is likely to be the oak hall recorded at Cefnllys in the 15th century.[14] A stone curtain wall and rampart extended along most of the hilltop rim.[15]"
 * I'm not repeating about the previous edits-- that certainly is an error that I removed the second instead of the first. I CAN learn from my mistakes by myself, I don't need you ranting about my previous edits in order to learn from my mistakes. Perhaps just tell me in a straightforward way, and I would just do the right edit, instead of ranting more things in this talk page which does not contribute to anything.  Gerald WL  07:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I saw your edit – and you’ve finally got the basic step right, so well done.
 * By the way, I’m not the one here who is “ranting”, thanks. I’ve just explained where you were sloppy. It’s good you can learn from your mistakes, but if they’re not pointed out to you, you wouldn’t notice or know. I was quite clear in the edit summary what the problem was, but that obviously didn’t work, neither did my first explanation here, thus the second, longer, clarification. Perhaps now you’ve learnt the right way, you can ensure there’s no further sloppiness? NewtTickler (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did learn not to rush in edits the next time, and I apologize if I turned rude previously. I'm usually the straightforward person, so long words can annoy me. No offense, of course. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for ya.  Gerald WL  07:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Anyway, this is unethical for some, but the reason I edited the article in the first place is because I was learning how FAs are like, since I'm currently planning to have an article to FA, and it's now on PR. If you're fine with this, could you see the article and perhaps give suggestions? It's lonely as hell and I don't want to deliver something for FA that's less than perfection. Again, this is only if you have the time to.  Gerald WL  08:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)