User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 1

Abergavenny (Completed)
Thank you for your recent edits to the Abergavenny article but I have reverted them for several reasons. You added a Points of Interest section to the article. This is basically a Trivia section that must be avoided in articles. Things like the festivals can be added to the culture section, but 'things on' are unencyclopedic and will be deleted. Bullet points in the lead are also to be avoided, in fact bulletpoints in general are to be avoided. As an encyclopaedia we need to make sure that we add facts that would appear in an encyclopaedia in prose style. Have a look at some GA Wales articles such as Milford Haven, Rhondda and Wales to aid you in your editing. Don't give up, I wasn't being mean on purpose, much of your information is valid, it just needs refining. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FruitMonkey, Not a problem - I'm new here so it's helpful to have guidance!  I guess when I get further down I'll have to revise the sections that had bullets, too.  Question for you:  Just trying to figure out what I have to go back and recapture.  It seems like I'm missing some of my citations and previous edits in the upper section, too.  When you reverted - did you revert to older versions or just take out the section that concerned you?  CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had to revert you again, I'm afraid, back to an earlier version. Some of your information is just wrong (the Offa's Dyke path is not an "ancient pathway"), based on outdated and misleading information (Coxe), or simply unencyclopedic.  Again, happy to help, but we do need to maintain and improve articles, not simply add miscellaneous pieces of information.  It may help you to re-read some of the guidance highlighted in your "Welcome" message up above, much of which is designed to help new contributors.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm done with this article. I've been trying to fix some citations and didn't realize I was getting reverted drafts - which may be the problem. It would be better if someone would say what needs to be removed rather than taking the reverting (and eliminating something I've been working on for hours.)  By the way, there was a reason why I left in ancient pathway, based on information from 20 sources I've read on this subject so far.   I could have gone to that longer sentence if I knew what the problem was.  Yikes!!!! I totally respect the need for articles to follow protocol.  It's just really frustrating to have my work reverted - thowing the good with the bad.   CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's important to realise that any earlier work can simply be reinstated by clicking the right button - if editors agree that it's needed. Your work is not "lost" - WP saves everything.  But, as a general point of practice, it's often much easier (in my view) to save each change individually rather than making a large number of changes in a single edit - that way, the good changes can be kept and the "bad" ones can be easily reverted.  By the way, the Offa's Dyke Path dates from the 1970s or so, I think - Offa's Dyke itself obviously dates from the 8th century, but it was never a "pathway", it was a boundary and barrier.  The wording of things like that does need to be kept precise and accurate.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just really disruptive. It would be so much easier to just told what needs to be fixed.  Even though I tried to edit things in sections, I was still reverted back to earlier drafts with everything I worked on reverted.

Offa's Dyke is the name of long distance pathways in Monmouthshire. From what I've read (outside of Coxe who just hints at it), they date back to Pre-Roman times as evidenced through archaelogical evidence + connect the historical pathways. One of the sources that I read liked described taking the Offa Dyke pathways to taking a historical journey. So, I thought, ok - I'll keep that term. Just my reasoning - I hear why the term isn't encyclopedic.

When I first started trying to improve acticls by providing citations I realized what was really needed was a re-write. Which I even better understood after reading your and FruitMonkey's comments. I just think that trying to improve articles is not as much fun as I hoped. It's confusing for me when the entire article is reverted.


 * Bummer, I see that the entire article is reverted to the very beginning - sorry to see that! I was liking Abergavenny's story and could have worked with the comments, but you all know best.CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get mad, get even! Sit back for a bit, have a brew and remember that WP is a big place with a lot of people involved in it. You are going to have things reverted at some point - we all do, even after we have been here a while - but you can learn from it. Happen I think that your enthusiasm could be very beneficial to the project and I would urge you to persevere. Things do eventually fall into place. My suspicion is that one of the problems at the moment is that your enthusiasm is slightly misguided: this is normal (and preferable to that displayed by the vandals, the hip-hop fraternity and those who follow reality shows, but that is just my opinion!) I realise that it is late now but I am wide awake and will be through the (UK) night. Time zones can be an issue in resolving things but, please, do persevere and do ask questions/challenge when in doubt. Your challenge above has produced, hopefully, at least an explanation which makes some sort of sense to you. I know nowt about Offa's Dyke, except that it is there, so you are one up on me and your contributions, if they follow the numerous policy guidelines (which you will learn), will educate me and umpteen others in the years to come. I'll look at Gwladys shortly. Sitush (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush, Thanks so much! You made me smile!  It was a hectic day on many levels today and the reverts happened at otherwise stressful times today - so I did get out of sorts too quickly and was later sorry for it.  I'll look forward to your comments about Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam and then maybe stay on that thread.    All the best!  Thanks for the smile!CaroleHenson (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever "sources" you've read that say that: "Offa's Dyke is the name of long distance pathways in Monmouthshire. From what I've read.... they date back to Pre-Roman times" are, quite simply, untrue. I have simply never seen that claim, ever, anywhere, and can only think that you must be misinterpreting the sources.  Obviously, there were pre-Roman trackways in the area.  Obviously, Offa's Dyke was built by the Mercians as a boundary.  Obviously, the long distance footpath was created in 1971.  Are you conflating those quite different concepts in some way? What are your sources?  Sorry to sound harsh, but this is an encyclopedia and we need to be accurate in what we say.  Please, there's no rush, but you cannot make dubious statements on your own and expect others just to accept them.  I agree with what Sitush says, and we certainly do need and welcome more enthusiastic editors like yourself - but please be careful in what you write.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think something must get lost in typing text to one another sometimes, because I'm hearing that you're not meaning to be rude. Here's text taken from the Offa Dyke's Path page on wikipedia:  "It passes through historic towns and isolated hamlets. En route can be seen hill forts, castles, abbeys and surviving remains of the habitations of former occupants of the beautiful corridor of the path."  For the piece that I was writing about Abergavenney (before it was reverted back to the original), I read a number of pieces about the Silures habitation of the area - and the pathways that connected their hilltop forts / grouping of houses. I see that part of the confusion is that there is "Offa Dyke" which fits your definition... and there is "Offa Dyke's Path" which I was writing about, and fits the defition I've been reading about.  Whether American or British - there are lots of roads and trails "made" in modern times that were based on historic pathways. This is actually something that I've studied quite a bit (England and America), because I'm quite interested in the way in which pre-civilized tribes affect the modern world. I actually have books in my home from my travels to England about this very topic. From your question I would imply that the pathways that became part of the Offa Dyke Pathways were NEVER pathways used by ancient tribes.  That was actually one of my problems with the Abergavenney article.  It talked about the origin of the town beginning from Roman invasion, when in fact there has been tribes in the area with "hill forts" and it seems that name Abergavenny was actually derived from Gobannia from pre-Roman times (paragraph #2 under history) - which was solified from books that I read on this topic.  This was written in the "Pre-Roman origins of the town and its name" section I wrote which you reverted, which had proper citations.  Since you're following up with intention for clarity, I'm following through with the same intention.
 * No problem. The Silures did not have "towns" - they had hill forts, which were used for various functions such as keeping animals, defence, and settlement, but were not really "towns" as we would describe them, with "houses".  Anyway, they were on hilltops, and Abergavenny is in a river valley.  There were certainly hill forts in the Abergavenny area - as there were everywhere in southern Wales and much of England - but they had no direct connection with the later town of Gobannium.  What there was - and the precise timing is getting into obscure corners of prehistory - is a history of iron working in the area, which gave its name to the Roman town and the river Gavenny.  So far as pathways are concerned, yes there would have been connections betwen the hilltops (many of the paths being probably Bronze Age rather than Iron Age), but it's generally impossible to be specific about precisely where they were.  Offa's Dyke is an 8th century earthwork, unconnected to those pathways so far as we know.  The Offa's Dyke Path - something quite different - was devised in 1971 to pass through scenic and historically interesting areas as a long distance footpath.  It generally - but by no means precisely - follows the line of the Dyke.  It is a public right of way - some parts follow old footpaths or lanes, which could go back hundreds of years (but probably, in almost all cases, not as far back as the Iron or Bronze Ages), and other parts of it would have been created as new footpaths in the 1960s and early 1970s.  Sorry if I seemed rude - just trying to help.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Please remember to sign your posts! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in summation ('cause aren't we about ready for that?), it seems: 1) ancient pathways is not an appropriate phrase because a) it is not encyclopedic and b) the pathways are a combination of new footpaths and old pathways. Regarding Gobannium being considered a "town" - and that there were not Silure "towns" I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that there were no places of habitation (whatever you'd like to call it) before the Romans. I took the term "town" from Coxe's book and didn't have a better term. [We have the same issue here in the US where people did not think that there were Native American villages, but there were, plainly found early deeds, maps, etc. in the geneological work I've done here.] Please see: "Coxe">. I liked this version because I could read it. There are other books but they are older but it was more difficult to cross-reference the ancient name to the modern term for the town. As much as I loved doing that article for a number of reasons (one being the connection of historic to modern world that we don't often scratch the surface to see), it sure seems to have created a lot of buzz. For what it's worth, by the time I get down to a couple of sentences, I have anywhere between one to five type-written pages in my head and choose brevity - at a cost I'm guessing when I use cited terms. Are we ready to agree to disagree? It seems like you'd like to have someone else work on Abergavenny anyhow. CaroleHenson (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not up to "me" - literally anyone can work on the article! But there are guidelines here on WP, and I'd just make the general point that, if you make edits that other editors disagree with or are simply wrong, those others will simply change them or take them out.  That's the way WP works - it can come across as rude, but usually it isn't intended that way. Re William Coxe, he wrote his book in 1801 (not 1904) - there has been a lot of research done since then, and what he wrote can't generally be taken as accurate now.  It used to be thought that hillforts were "towns", but now they are not - and, anyway, they are not at Abergavenny, they are a few miles away.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

...And at this point I will step in. I've been watching this for a while now. C, the issue may be that there is one source (Coxe) who talks of towns and a lot of other sources which refer to the habitation as something else. In that situation, the majority is likely to "win" - consensus makes them more reliable as sources.

G, I must admit that you do come across sometimes as being a little bit terse. I'm sure that you do not mean it but I'm sure also you are aware of WP:BITE. Your explanations are informative to someone who knows nowt, like me, but also a bit daunting.

Both of you, it will all look different in 12-24 hours time. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was trying not to be bite-y, but it's difficult when someone adds material that you just know - in my case, having lived in the area for a few years and knowing a bit about its history, and about WP come to that - is factually wrong. I did say sorry.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sitush. I won't engage in this thread of conversation any longer.  It serves no purpose and just gets me upset. CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

2006 tag (Completed)

 * Can you explain something? Why, or how, did you create an apparently new article with a   tag at the top, dated 2006?  I'm confused.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that. There is now a tag on it for a "possible cut-and-paste move or redirection", which I didn't notice before. But I haven't got a clue how that bit of WP works. One of many areas I am clueless about. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the citations, I'll make the changes tomorrow following what we've said above. Regarding the tag with the 2006 date, there was a blank record for Gwladys fetch Dafydd Gam that I found accidentally in a google query.  Once I figured out that the wrong Gwlaldys was attached to Dafydd Gam (and Sitush later found attached to William ap Thomas), I used the blank record with the correct name and then attached it to her father's record (disconnecting the wrong one).  Weird, but since it had the right title, I went with it.CaroleHenson (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it copied across from Gwladys ferch Dafydd? - they are both dated Oct 2006. Anyway, seeing that you're adding perfectly good refs to the article now, it can just be deleted from the Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I did a query on Gwladys fetch Dafydd and got two wikipedia links.  I clicked on the one I had not been working on and it had the Gwladys fetch Dayfdd Gam title and no text.  Since I had just rewritten Gwladys fetch Dayfdd that was attached to Gwladys fetch Dayfdd Gam's record showing his daughter born BEFORE him, the lightbulb went off that there were two records and the wrong record was attached/referenced as the daughter of Dayfdd Gam.  So, I reverted the previous Gwladys article (died in 1300s) and wrote the article for the second Gwladys (died 1454) and attached her to her father's record.  Ok, I'll delete the header tomorrow.CaroleHenson (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you found my mistake with EvansHT, referencing on the second instance rather than the first. There's a bit of a smokecloud lying over that book but perhaps you know the answer? See the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gotten so confused about the citations that I'm going back and verifying each and every citation. Hopefully that will help clear the smokecloud.  It was interesting to see how many people weighed in - and edits for clarity, etc.  I'll check the articles talk page right now.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Did You Know

 * As a peace offering (?!), can I suggest that the article - after a bit more work, maybe - goes forward to the "Did You Know" section on the Main page, which highlights interesting new articles. The process will take a few days, at least, so there's no rush.  Hope you're OK with it being nominated?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very nice of you to suggest Ghmyrtle! I appreciate that!  It look a lot longer than I expected, but I went through and verified each citation I entered - and had some edits as a result.  Whew!


 * Now put forward for WP:DYK - here. I'll be away for a few days but will check progress when I get back.  Great work on the article so far!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I came back and have been making more edits based upon 5 articles that Sitush sent from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that has provided more clarifying information. I've gotten through 3 of the articles and have 2 more to update.  I needed a break but I'll work on finishing in the next couple of days.  Thanks so much! --CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

---

ISBNs
Regarding IBSN's Ghmyrtle and Sitush, I love Open Library (thanks Sitush), but I'm not sure what of the numbers would be an IBSN. Do you know? Open Library OL23346359M LC Control Number 03017060 OCLC/WorldCat 13012228 CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OCLC13012228 is Tales & Sketches - published 1879, which is way before isbn numbers came in. Use the oclc number in the citation instead of isbn. Thus "|oclc=13012228". There are some notes for you on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the edit conflicts - you shouldn't have had to lose text because of them, but anyway... Help:Edit conflict. I'll stay away from the article for a few hours at least to give you more time to work on it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, nature of the game. I need to remember to save more often.  I hadn't seen anyone in the article for some time so I got lazy I guess.  Off to bed as soon as I finish the Herbert kid formatting (1/2 hour or so). --CaroleHenson (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Off to bed. I tried changing the childrens info so that  it's no longer bullets - and will become paragraphs.  If there are tweaks for style / standards, please let me know or make the changes.  More still to come on the kids. Nite. --CaroleHenson (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits (Completed)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Citing books
The broad-ish range of options you can use when citing a book are:

See Template:cite book for usage

For a web page (not a book website, but something like the Monastic Wales place), you can choose from:

See Template:cite web

I'm fairly sure there are others options for these particular templates, but I've never had need to use them. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir Richard Herbert (Completed)
I note that you have added a back link from at least one article to your own. You should go to Sir Richard Herbert and something will smack you right in the face. You have the info to change a sentence there. I could do it, but it's good practice for you. -Sitush (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I forgot that!! I read that when I was researching the Gwladys article, and yet found many more references tying Richard to Gwlayds and William ap Thomas. But it may be to an earlier point by you or Gmyrtle that they may have been older books.  I'll snoop around and see what I can find about him - dates of sources, etc.  I'll get back to you on this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The slight issue is his issue: you mention two Richards, Sir R and his son. I also found it curious (but by no means impossible) that one son marries the daughter of a knight and the a daughter marries the knight (could be the umpteenth marriage for the knight or it could be the knight's son,inherting his father's title). I'm hoping that you have set up your email address in Wikipedia cos I'm about to send you some info. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Two things. 1) I am totally not getting where I need to remove the you've got mail tag and to be able to see email.  You can email my personal email if you'd [email address removed for privacy. 2) I am also not getting that I had two Richards in the article for Gwladys.  I do mention him twice, once as a child and the second time as the site for which Gwladys funeral march began - and where she lived before she died. I'm stumped today! ;) --CaroleHenson (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Email sent.
 * The article has "Watkin married Elinor, daughter of Sir Henry Wogan" and MArgaret married Sir Henry Wogan.
 * THe article did say "Sir Richard Herbert of Coldbrook House, near Abergavenny. With brother Richard and half-brother Thomas died on the field of ..." but you deleted the bit about brother and half-brother in your last edit. Not sure why. -Sitush (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny! That's what you meant by mentioning Richard's name twice.  I thought you meant Richard and his son - not sure where I got that from.  The sentence should have said brother William and half-brother... It was a typo  - and I'm going to do a short article for Richard Herbert for the Richard Herbert disambigious page (once I get the information sorted out about the illegitimate Richard.  So, I thought I'd remove it there and have a bit of an article for Richard.


 * I'll work on sorting out the two Henry Wogans. I'm guessing they're from different generations, but I'll work on it, too and differentiate them in the article.  Wow! Good finds!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are seeing the benefits of a couple of Cambridge University history degrees. Had no use for them for years and all of a sudden ... Anyway, I'm going for a beer, having been awake now for 36 hours or so. Catch ya later. -Sitush (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FamilySearch (Completed)
Do not use FamilySearch as a source - it is grossly unreliable. You will have to edit it out manually - if you use "undo" then intermediate edits will be lost also. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed it for you. Also removed the Beth Uiterwyck (sp.?) stuff. It isn't a great idea to use genealogical sites as sources because there is rarely a way to validate their accuracy. Genealogy attracts at lot of amateurs, who make a lot of connections based sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence - and they copy-and-paste stuff from other places without checking, creating multiple circular references that cannot be tracked down because they rarely indicate their sources.


 * A recent example I've come across was a family in Australia who thought one of their distant cousins was the owner and managing director of Churchill Machine Tool Company, simply because they'd seen the site of a person who was a closer relation to the subject and that person made that statement. Now, the closer person made the statement based on an old family photograph album which showed her relative next to H H Asbridge and the photo had a note under it. Alas, it was Asbridge who was being referred to in the note, not the relative. Even then, the note was wrong because Asbridge was a director but he was neither the owner nor the managing director. Obviously, the Australian family were quite put out by all of this and are insisting that the site of the closer relative is correct, even though I've sent them lists of directorships & copies of the share register around that time etc to prove the point. Weird, and of course that "lie" will be perpetuated by other amateur genealogists in the future. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh my, you have really been hard at work on the Gwladys article - and your info helps me understand how to make it better. A couple of things:  1) I don't remember being the person that added family search, if I did I apologize, because in the genealogy work that I do, I wouldn't have used it as a source. Thanks so much for finding and fixing it!!!  2) Thanks for catching Beth Uiterwyck, too.  I didn't realize it was a geneology site until I just now visited the site and went home.  More really good catches!!!


 * I'll go back to the sources/references in the Gam article to fill in the areas where the citation what removed because it's unreliable. I tried with a couple of them and didn't find what I needed, but I'll keep plugging along there.


 * Questions for you: 1)I tried reformatting the children so that they look less like a list, but I realized what I need to do is reword the section so that it looks less like a list (e.g., group the children who changed their alliances from that of their parents to be against the British monarchy, etc.) so that it's much more encylopedic.  Any other major change like that needed?


 * 2) Should I totally change my approach for finding information? For instance, instead of doing a web query, how would you have approached finding information about Gwladys and her family?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You find information where you find it. The important thing is to assess its reliability and then to document it. How you find it doesn't really matter.


 * Leave the children as a list, and don't bother with  because it just adds problems. There is nothing wrong with lists in WP provided that they are not over-long. They can get very long when someone starts documenting the output of, say, an actor. Yours are perfectly justified: Glwadys is definitely not going to bear any more children. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, GREAT news that I don't have to rework the children! I hope I haven't been too much of a bother for you!  You've been great at gently guiding me along --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)!

No probs. NB: I've double-checked after your comment above and it seems that it was not you who added the FamilySearch citation - []. Sorry about that. I made an assumption based on the number of edits around the time + that you are a newbie. I'd still argue strongly against using such sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And a thought: read WP:SPS, taking note of the phrase "user generated". As far as I am concerned, pretty much all genealogy sites are "user generated". There are exceptions but often in those cases they would fail one or other different WP tests. I've often been intrigued by www.thepeerage.com, which I strongly suspect is reliable because it seems to be a cataloguing exercise based on standard texts such as Debrett - it certainly could help someone find the actual source for something. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, that begs two follow-up questions: 1) How did you know that this book from the U of M library was self-published?
 * Jones, Theophilus (1809). A history of the county of Brecknockshire. 3. Self-published. p. 505. http://books.google.com/books?id=9JDnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA505&dq=%22Watkin+Vaughan%22+Elinor&hl=en&ei=IeVSTbOFI4TGsAPjxPDpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAjge#v=snippet&q=%22Roger%20Vaughan%22&f=false.
 * Are you thinking that I should go back and get other references to replace this one?
 * Thanks! --CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It says so in the first page (something like "printed for him by ...", if I recall correctly). But no, this particular one is not of any concern. Well, not to me at any rate. There are exceptions to the rule as WP:SPS says. It is a matter of judgment and interpretation. One good guide would be if academics refer to a certain source - if they do, then it has effectively got the stamp of approval. In any event, from what I can see he is not writing about himself or his family, or his property etc. Antiquarian history sources are odd-ball things. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see it: printed and sold by... for the author. Ok, good news, thanks once again!

Gwladys ferch Dafydd (disambiguation) (Completed)
Hi, I moved your page Gwladys ferch Dafydd (disambiguation) to Gwladys ferch Dafydd (disambiguation) as this is, hopefully, more likely to be found by people looking for either Gwladys. As it stood it sounded like a wiki version of Tokyo Rose. NtheP (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question on my talk page, yes - put at the top of each article page. NtheP (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! lol. I think we were typing messages to one another at the same time.


 * As the other editor has pointed out your page isn't being deleted, it has simply being moved to Gwladys ferch Dafydd (disambiguation). Wiktionary Gwladys is being delleted as it is not a likely search term when looking for "Gwladys ferch Dafydd", i.e. no one is likely to type "Wiktionary Gwladys" into the search box. Travelbird (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * oh, just the Wiktionary Gwlardy is being deleted. Ok, cool.  Then, I don't need to make the change I noted on the discussion page.  Thanks for clarifying it for me!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that the other disambiguation page had been re-directed.
 * What I said above stands. Wikipedia Gwaldys is not a likely search term.
 * As for your disambiguation page: You can either restore the disambiguation page if you feel that it is needed (go to Gwladys ferch Dafydd (disambiguation) - you'll have to click twice as at first it will be redirected to Gwladys ferch Dafydd). Alternatively the links added by User:Boleyn work fine, so that if that is okay with you you can leave things as they are now. Travelbird (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Using the same kind of link that User:Boleyn used works for me. I'll make that change to the Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam article.  Lot's to learn! Thanks for helping me get a little further along!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is going on here but presume it is for the best. Oddly, there is an article Gwladys, so presumably someone might search for just that name. Sitush (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems then we could:
 * do nothing more - I already added the direct link to Gwladys ferch Dafydd from the Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam article.
 * bring back the disambiguation page and: rename it to Gwladys (disambiguation) and add the Gwladys link
 * I'm good with either.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough experience of this stuff, sorry. Perhaps one of the contributing editors to this section could advise. You see, there could also be a disambig tag put on the Gwladys article. Too many Gwaldys' - my mind is boggled. Sitush (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's certainly nothing wrong with a Gwladys (disambiguation) page if there are sufficient Gwladys to make it worthwhile, then use other people on Gwladys to point readers to the disambiguation page. NtheP (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! Maybe we should just leave it the way it is now with the cross-links (or whatever the right term would be) between Gwladys ferch Dafydd and Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam.  Disagree? --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It all depends on how keen you are on listing other Gwladys's. Are people likely to find Gwladys ferch . . . ? If not then the disambig is needed. NtheP (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, it sounds like it might be the cleanest approach to bring back the disambiguation page. I've got to run for the rest of the afternoon, but I'll try and figure out how to: bring back the disambiguation page (I'm a bit confused what happened to it) and: rename it to Gwladys (disambiguation) and add the Gwladys link tonight.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done: Gwladys (disambiguation). --CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Puts me to shame ;) --Sitush (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, shucks! (I'm not so sure about that, but I'll take it.) ;) --CaroleHenson (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

next question, are there more Gwladys on here that we don't know about? NtheP (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a job for when I finish work I think. NtheP (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Nthep, for taking that on I am not sure how to go about updating the page (one list of Gwladys / other). --CaroleHenson (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see Ghmyrtle already made the changes! Nice job!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits (Completed)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is from a person or an automated response, but yes I realize I forget it sometimes. I'm working on remembering consistently.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is from a bot (SineBot - geddit). - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Back
Hi, been a bit busy but am back. Will take a look at yr Gwladys stuff soon. Not that you need me as I see plenty of other ppl have been weighing in.--Sitush (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Influences of British Monarchy on Gwladys (Richard Herbert and Roger Vaughan's) lives

 * Yep, you're right it's come along based with help from several people. So, no worries about editing the article.


 * One question for you though - when I think about the stories of these people's lives a lot is based upon the changes and influences in the monarchy. I've been reading some of my books on British monarchy and I wondered if it would be helpful to add context - i.e., nature of the reigning monarch, key influences of their reign, what might have caused them to do what they did - and how they did it (e.g., Battle of Agincourt influences).  So now the question:  What are your thoughts about me adding a section about the political climate and how it set the tone / affected the lives of Gwladys, Roger Vaughan and Sir Richard Herbert (Ewyas) of 8-15 sentences?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like an excellent idea. A while back another editor and myself got this article: Sibyl de Neufmarché up to GA class. We put a lot of historical background in it to give the article proper context. Remember though to keep it focused on your subject. Whatever you put in would have had to affected his or her life. By British I presume you mean the English monarchy. You might want to include the Marcher Lords to add even more context.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks, Jeanne - great points and will ensure it fits the context of the subjects and will check out Welsh Marcher Lords (which I've skipped upon along the way, too). I have an outline and will work on it probably tomorrow or so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir Roger Vaughan (Completed)
Why is there a need for an article on Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine separate from the article on his wife Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam, especially since the Sir Roger article duplicates verbatim content from the Gwladys article? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that there is a lot more info to go into the separate article - I've sent her quite a lot and she did put a note in the edit summary about more to come. CaroleHenson is a fairly new editor and is doing great so far, so I'd wait and see. There are more experienced eds helping out. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the article is in its early stages, I suggest that an under construction template should be placed on the article until more content is added just so it doesn't get tagged with an AfD.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, though I think there is enough there + cited to stop an AfD. Done it anyway. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the template Sitush (and now I know the syntax for the future)!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I finished the article and Jeanne went through and made necessary edits. Are we able to take down the under contstruction tag?  Thanks!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been taken down.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Thanks so much for catching the needed edits! --CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You're doing great, CaroleHenson
Thank you, Jeanne!!! It's been great working with - and learning from you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Carole. You are doing fantastic work, and I notice your Gwladys article has been approved as a DYK!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Shining Star (Phrase) for deletion (Completed)
The article Shining Star (Phrase) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shining Star (Phrase) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to this "Articles for Deletion" nomination:
 * You asked for and received feedback for the article while it was still in your user space. The feedback you received indicated that the article did not meet criteria for inclusion.  At that point, you should have engaged in discussion, either on the Request for Feedback page, or directly on the talk page of the editor who provided the feedback, for ways to improve the article.  Instead, you appear to have ignored the advice you were given and created the article.
 * I don't say this to berate you, but rather to try to help you as a new editor. Listen to the feedback you get from more experienced editors; they may not always be right, but it is better to engage rather than to ignore.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had waited for feedback and checked regularly and hadn't realized I had received input. When I went to post it I hadn't seen anything in the discussion page, so I posted it.  There's no problem, if it doesn't meet the guidelines, it doesn't meet the guidelines.  By the way, I absolutely would have not ignored the information had I read it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As you'll see in the updates for the feedback and the page you start for article deletion, I am totally fine with immediately removing the article. I just couldn't figure out how to do that - it seems like it's part of a process.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you agree that the page should be deleted, you can replace the entire contents of the article with the template db-author, since you are the only editor to have contributed to the article in any significant fashion. This will result in the deletion of the article within a few hours at most.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, deletion of the page seems both inevitable and what is needed. I replaced the article with db-author.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your editor review
Hello, I have reviewed your article as you requested on Editor review/CaroleHenson, and I am pleased to tell you that it meets the expansion criteria for being featured on the Main Page as a DYK! (You can see the page for my comments, including on how to nominate it.) If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me or anybody else! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, especially for finding me here and letting me know that you've reviewed the article!!! (I'll figure out yet how I can see when review comments are made - or make a list of requests so I can checkback.) I saw your comments and responded at the Editor Review page. --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I nommed, see here. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that was nice of you! --CaroleHenson (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam
Orlady (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Carole!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orlady and Jeanne!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Richard Herbert
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks Material Scientist!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another?!?!? I need to start keeping up with the Jones's. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're funny! I couldn't have done it without all the help I've received. I think people are being nice to the newcomer.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad people are being nice to someone. I'm not having a great time of it here at the moment! - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that, you're very respectful and helpful. You deserve better!  Hope it's better tomorrow! --CaroleHenson (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WOW, two DYKs! You're off to an excellent start, Carole. Congratulations, I'm really pleased for you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jeanne - and all your help along the way to make for polished articles, great job! It's very much appreciated.  By the way, I was reading the article for Gwladys and found that much of the information for her husband William ap Thomas was incorrect (notes on [Talk:William ap Thomas]).  I've revised the article, provided references and am wondering if the article is ready to move out of the "start" class.  What do you think?
 * It's well-sourced, has quite a bit of info. I think it merits a C-class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've worked a bit more on the article, but found all I think I'm going to find on William ap Thomas. Is there anything I could do to move it to a higher quality class (e.g., editing, etc.)?  Thanks!!! --03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How do?
"How do" is a well-worn phrase used in Lancashire and Yorkshire for "how are you doing?", "hello" etc. Best said by dropping the "h" and sometimes elongating the "o" of "do" - 'ow doo. That's your bit of trivia for the day.

Now to matters wikipedia. I've been keeping an eye on things you have been editing of late and am really impressed. Enthusiastic new editors are ten-a-penny but those that can combine their enthusiasm with a willingness to learn about how this whole she-bang works, and to collaborate with others, are a bit less common. You appear to be one of the less common. Good stuff.

Just by way of encouragement, you've had some DYKs (more than me) but things can go further. I've edited a lot more than you but have not really been active here since much before January ... and I've just taken an article to Good Article status with a suggestion that it should be a Featured Article. Not blowing my own trumpet - this would not have happened without a lot of help from the community - but it does demonstrate that we who have become active recently can make a difference. So, keep doing what you are doing - it is appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'ow doo to you. Thanks for your compliments!  I've enjoyed the articles I've worked on, but will have less time once I go back to work next Monday (YEAH! how does that translate?  "brilliant" more of a London term?).


 * It would be great to see your article that went to "Good Article" status. If you don't mind, what is the name of the article?


 * I've been dying to share something funny with someone here - and it's most fun to share it with someone from England. I've been working on the Baron Greys of Powis article and found out two interesting facts with interesting correlation to my family tree: 1)the Greys and Dudleys shared Powis castle for a time. My great-grandmother Nellie Dudley married my great-grandfather Charles Walter Gray and they shared a house for a time, too. 2) the Gray coat of arms that my grandfather Gray cherished has the exact image of the lion from Powis at it's center (but different color image and field). I've seen that image for years and wondered where the lion came from!  (Ironically, I am related to both the Greys and Dudleys of this family going back a few more generations - but the only verified tie is through my grandmother (nee Guernsey) Gray's family.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, Carole. I myself love genealogy and family trees. I created a few articles on Grey women a while back, however, they were of the Ruthyn branch. Hmm, I wonder if the word ruthless comes from them as the Greys of Ruthyn were very cruel and callous towards the Welsh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very possibily. Oh, very cruel and callous sounds bad!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Churchill Machine Tool Company - it is long! Re: the Greys, well, some overzealous editor might now claim that you have a conflict of interest  AS for returning to work well, hey, see the positive: it presumably means that your health issue is improved. There's more to life than WP. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting article! I bet that took some time! And, yes, I'm very excited to get back to work!!! I miss my friends and the work. Yes, my health is improving, especially so after I got out of the house.  Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Sheer stupidity, my good sir/ma'am. I do apologize. Names are hard to think of (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

--Whew! Thanks for the folllow-up! --CaroleHenson (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 16 March 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Red links
Responded to your question on my talkpage, keep up your good work...Modernist (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Agostina Segatori Sitting in the Café du Tabourin a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. nancy 15:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. I've fixed it so the page history is now all at the new title. nancy  15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes tons of sense ("move" to preserve the history)! Thank you so much noticing and fixing it! --CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about sourcing
Hi Carole, I was doing some maintenance on a novel article I have and with clicking through links ended up at Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam which seems to be one of yours. I just wanted you to know that I left a message and some questions there on the talkpage about the sourcing. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Have done as you asked, and also amended the p 431 to pp. 431-433 (I think that the reprint probably follows exactly the page numbering of the original but I'll check them when you have done your stuff, if you want me to do so). - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the confusion - I was watching the talk page for an update from you. Ok, or if there's another link I could use - I could use the right one.  Either way is fine with me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
It wasn't completely altruistic though as many of the fishermen did earn a tidy sum ferrying all those people over the Danish/Swedish sea... Just a thought that could be added. Bug42