User talk:Cltjames

Mr. James wiki space.

C. James online Wikipedia Talk.

Llywelyn

Dear James,

Just for your information regarding the article about Llywelyn the Great, the source does mention Susanna as the most probable wife of Malcolm, Earl of Fife. In fact, this is the main argument of this source. You can find the whole paper in Jstor.

Best wishes,

@2003:E1:5F29:2E8B:11A2:232E:F53F:E288: I'm not contesting the validity of the source. But firstly, the article is about Llywelyn and not his children, this information can be left in a note as not to distract the reader. Secondly, what I said about the reference was, the immediate source linked was for DWB, and they do not mention Malcom, so the reference used was incorrect to follow that sentence. Again, your right, the information is sourced, but now can be read in the notes. Cltjames (talk 19:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Street League Skateboarding, world tour results (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Street League Skateboarding, world tour results and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Street League Skateboarding, world tour results, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cltjames! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, have amended SLS webpage to include split request, the reason I resubmitted the request is because even after reading instructions I was unaware of the process, I think I got it right this time. (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add citations to self-published sites

Hi, I noticed you referenced "Unofficial Royalty" (a group blog) and "Genealogics" (a blog) in this edit; per WP:SPS, self-published sources such as blogs should not be used for non-BLPs unless the authors are extremely well-respected as topical experts, and should never be used for living people. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, understood. - Cltjames, 19/11/2021, 22:29. Cltjames (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Surnames

In Wikipedia articles, please use surnames after the initial use of the full name. See MOS:SURNAME for details and exceptions. Cheers. Schazjmd (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it thanks. Cltjames (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you didn't read MOS:SURNAME very well, because your very next edit, you added "Mr." to a surname. Please read and follow the Manual of Style guidance that I linked you to. Schazjmd (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Partially, force of habit, kinda playing it by the ear but also know what is being suggested; I wasn't too sure if MOS:Surname is applicable to the whole of the article, or just specific sections. I think I've covered my tracks for now, thx again, long day. Cltjames (talk). 20:07, 23 November 2021.

Re: Gravata case possible hoax

Hello, Cltjames. You have new messages at Psiĥedelisto's talk page.
Message added by Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jaguar

Please do not use all caps. If there is a technical problem with the app, that should be reported and you may temporarily use Wikipedia in a browser on your device, instead of altering articles. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I used all caps to get someone's attention for this particular reason... I don't know why people are ignorant like this waiting for the page to be removed as the main article and rudely reverting, when there is a problem identified a revert is not the answer.Cltjames (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The best approach is to explain the problem you are seeing on the talk page (Talk:Jaguar) rather than get into edit wars. This pages has got 150000 views in the last month and no problem has been reported. Can you explain the problem in more detail. What device, operating system and wikipedia skin are you using? I can't see any problem in mobile view, but don't use the app. Describe exactly what you see and what is wrong, as that is the only way to diagnose the problem. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks, the problem wasn't necessary mobile view, it was when the Jaguar made front page for wikipedia there was an edit where it was written like this.... jaguar () .... So the idea was with text inserted into the empty bracket which was coding only it removed the bracket entirely from the article introduction.Cltjames (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That helps, I can see the problem in the page preview feature (when you hover the mouse over Jaguar in another article). This usually removed the scientific name in parenthesis, but it has trouble handling two consecutive parenthetic terms, i.e. (a)(b). I assume the front page used a similar preview method. I'll see if I can find a fix or find someone who can. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the initiative, it's true, I didn't know how to approach the problem. Cltjames (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Various

Hi, I've been editing Wikipedia for some ten years, just thought I'd chip in with some thoughts about your messages.

• The wide variety of allowed referencing styles is a source of considerable contention. They are very personal, and all have pros and cons. As regards HMS Hood: this is a WP:Featured Article, which means that an exceptional amount of effort has been expended to achieve that gold star. Likewise WP:Good Articles. These types of articles are usually jealously guarded to maintain their status. The general idea is that the originating editor of the article chooses a reffing style, which should be continued for ever unless a wp:Consensus for change is reached on the talk page. Some people can be very forthright about their preferences. See User talk:MinorProphet#Referencing for one editor's views, which I completely respect, by the way. There are further lengthy discussions with other experienced editors if you click the links at User talk:MinorProphet#Further thoughts on referencing.
• My personal preference, learned over many years, is for {{sfn}}s, which integrate very well with the templates of {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} etc. I don't know if you are aware of the mouse 'hovering' function which means you can hover the mouse over an {sfn} to show the short reference, and then hovering over that pops up the entry in the bibliography if it's been made with {cite book}. This is done by clicking on Special:preferences → Gadgets and disable 'Navigation popups' and enable 'Reference Tooltips'. This has recently been made the default, but you may not be aware of it.
• {sfn}s are great when they work, but a pig when they don't. You just have to learn the {cite} and {sfn} templates and the many ways they can go wrong. Failed sfns and cites can be highlighted in orange or red by a javascript. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page.
• DPL bot will point out links you make to disambiguation (dab) pages such as Nannau. These are usually unintentional. It's amazing how many dab pages there are for subjects you think are unique. To highlight dab pages, click on Special:preferences → Gadgets, and enable 'Display links to disambiguation pages in orange'. This does what it says on the tin, and alerts you to such links. I have raised this point with the creator/maintainer of DPL bot, but the message only contains opt-out instructions, rather than a link to the gadget. The only way to make sure that the link is the one you really mean is to click on it, physically copy the article's title and paste it back into the link. Some pages aren't actually dab pages, but still contain links to multiple articles. In other words, click and test every single link you create.
• Being wp:Bold is fine, but it's often a disheartening learning process. There a are a large number of experienced and helpful editors on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with anything in a particular article, raise it on the corresponding talk page. Don't be in too much of a hurry. Someone will usually reply within a day or two (or less), often an editor who has made considerable contributions to the article. Many people actively use their wp:Watchlist to monitor pages they are interested in. There's always the WP:Help desk if you get stuck.
• You can quite happily delete any old messages from ArbCom (I call it Admin spam). As the messages say, to opt out from the notices, just add at the top of this talk page, it doesn't display anything.

I hope some of this has been useful. WP is an ongoing learning process, it doesn't stay still for long. You can ping me with {{re|MinorProphet}}. Happy editing. MinorProphet (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the insight MinorProphet, it's been really interesting to learn the coding, and I hope to help out when I can. Cltjames (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Women's rugby

Hi, C. James – If you have time, could I ask you to give an opinion on this talk page about the current World Rugby Sevens Series? There is some contention over the standings points to be carried over from the Great Britain side to England (and potentially Scotland and Wales) if/when they play in the competiton next month.

The issue is there's no source for the speculated calculations used in the article on Wikipedia. Because England have not even played the competition yet, my proposal is to remove them (and other potential future teams) from the standings list until after they have actually joined the competition (and when there's a reliable source for their carried-over points). Can you can add any thoughts on that? Thanks for your contributions. -- Ham105 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the scoring list for team GB, and the home nations (Wales, England, Scotland); I know this system is based on an Olympic qualification system, so GB represents 3 nations playing. As for your query about how England scored points, then maybe there could also be an error in the webpage.

But as for how teams are calculated in a table, normally in sports it's ok to leave a team with 0 games and 0 points and just have them at the bottom of the table with 0 as representation and have the table show all the teams playing, irrespective of if they've already begun the tournament or not, just to explain the format better as to who qualified. Cltjames (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hi there. Thanks for this. I hope you don't mind, but I have pared it down from your very nice Welsh medieval castle situated on a rock overlooking the sea near Criccieth to the rather less elegant C13 Welsh coastal castle. If you have a look, please, at WP:SHORTDESC you will see why, including the rather depressing fact that we are supposed to try to keep them down to about 40 characters! So we are always looking for a bit of a shorthand way of saying things without it becoming incoherent ... certain things are obvious, like Criccieth's redundancy in the short description, and others we just have to busk a bit. I hope this helps, and thank you for your edits. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Cltjames! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Hywel Dda that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my thinking process was I did 2 edits, therefore I wanted to introduce one edit as potentially a minor edit, this is because I didn't alter anything direct in the article, only external links. But thanks for the info. Cltjames (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Gerard Garner

Many thanks for your message - 'rv' just stands for 'revert'. Your point is valid, however, and I have re-added the key info with better sourcing. GiantSnowman 14:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of CR7 titles

Hey, Cltjames, I hope you’re okay. I was thinking it would be a good idea to take the discussion on the UEFA Super Cup and Ronaldo’s Community Shield further. I consider that the PeeJay user is not giving much importance to the issue and just claims that there have been discussions about it in previous years and that the player did not play in those games, in addition to showing a link to a page of the game record of that Super Cup as proof when I showed him official links of UEFA and specialized websites where they mention the titles. On the other hand, I consider that the user falls into assumptions when stating that the official website of Madrid is impartial for "praising its footballers" when it has no proof of it. Do you dare to continue debating? Judasly (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your update, I believe the correct route has been taken for now, as in all the references needed have been displayed and we are waiting for administration to complete the task, maybe just add a definitive reference for the 2008 Community shield to prove the same issue, and perhaps another example of another football player who received an honours medal without playing the game to show this Cristiano Ronaldo case isn't the only example on wikipedia. Cltjames (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Judasly:, the discussion is ongoing with help from admin I have reopened the talk now at - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player awarded medal without playing, so we can continue to tall and then maybe refer to RfC for an independent comment from admin. Cltjames (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Perfect Cltjames, I’ll keep an eye on everything, thank you. Judasly (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Principality of Wales

I’ve just been sorting out your addition today to the Laws subsection in the post-1284 section. Couple of things on sources: don’t use WP:PRIMARY sources in the way that you did. A secondary source is needed. I’ve kept the primary source and list of penal laws as a footnote, separating it from any interpretation, which is necessary if a primary source is used. The Senedd web page is not WP:RS. Use a proper history book. The text you added in about the “UK constitution” didn’t make any sense and was unsupported anyway. I’ve replaced that with some proper text about the penal laws and 2 scholarly WP:RS supporting it. But that’s not why I’m posting on your talk page. I missed a series of edits you made in December which has messed up the referencing and notes - it begins with this edit where you create a different and conflicting set of references to the actual referencing section. It wrongly uses the notes section. So now there are two sets of references: “references” and “notes”. You need to revert that and put it back into the main run of references. The notes shgould only be for additional explanatory text not citations. I assume you did that when you were still learning. Because of intervening edits I can’t just roll it back and it’s quite a bit of work to do it manaully. So i’m asking you do it please. Hopefully you understand the problem, If not please ask. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've completed the task willfully. As you've noticed I'm working cautiously and have been taking things slowly in amending articles, but now have refined the article to try and make it perfect. As for the Principality I have found some work I am reading through, specifically governance and the set up of the Principality towns and administrators. e.g. The Medieval boroughs of Snowdonia, and some JSTOR extracts relating to the period of the Principality of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that I appreciate it. But please don’t use that book on the boroughs of Snowdonia. It was published in 1912! There’s plenty of modern materials. You just need to not necessarily look for the obvious. Rule of thumb: don’t go much before 1990. Even second half of 20th century likely will be overtaken by modern scholarship. Pre mid 20th century and certainly pre WW1 won’t have the standard of scholarship we expect these days. Nevertheless pretty much anything by Rees Davies is going to have relevant information and be reliable. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm aware of modern literature, only with Wikipedia being a free source of knowledge it only makes sense to include copyright free books, and the medieval boroughs book is perfect for this time frame we're looking at. This is especially true because it's been correctly scanned and posted online. I'd like to argue including this book because of the relevant information which is not available elsewhere copyright free. In particular the breakdown of the era, the book is perfect for the article so to speak. And the same goes for Robert Burton's book, it's an old source, not an unreliable source. I've searched plenty online and have only come up with maybe 5 sources which are free to reference, and the Snowdonia book comes from the wikipedia library, so I would consider that a reliable source. Cltjames (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, copyright is absolutely irrelevant. I assure you you are completely on the wrong track. WP:COPYVIO is about copying text not using it as a source. That is absolutely fine provided you use your own words to convey the information. It’s more than fine - it is the way everyone edits and must edit. Look at this article: Edward II of England. It’s a WP:FA: our gold standard. all modern sources. Put out of your mind using these old sources. Using those sources will be perceived very badly and undoubtedly be reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What I was saying was, it's actually from the Wikipedia Library, if that isn't a high enough standard then it begs the question, what is ? Cltjames (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

it’s just a resource like Google books. just because something’s there doesn’t mean it’s reliable and there’s no ‘stamp’ of approval. In fact there’s no standard attached to it at all. There are dozens and dozens of modern sources which are good to us. Look this is one I randomly dug up: p.161 “Patronage, Politics and the Principality of Wales 1413-1461. This is the sort of thing you should be looking at and using, not something from. 1912 or 1730. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: no doubt that book would be ideal (bit out of my price range right now), but how about some extracts from JSTOR, such as this JSTOR. Also I found some key information in the Snowdonia book I mentioned about the organisation of the towns, e.g. distribution of boroughs explaining how the castles dominated the lands and how farming became key to society in the Principality. The information is there, it just needs to be extracted, remembering these old books would have been used as references in modern literature based on how the information was originally collected in this modern era. I mean for now these sources are better than nothing and can be seen as a second draft until better sources can be found. Cltjames (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

House of Aberffraw

Just saying thanks for the reference added for the family seats. Have a good day ;) 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:8498:8F3F:9D8E:575E (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Principality of Wales, again

I'm sorry I've had to revert your changes. You made the article impossible to follow. There are two distinct polities: the Welsh principality 1216-1283 and the post-Conquest English principality. You can't mix up the sections. Also, the article is about the Principality, not the princes or Wales genrally. We have other articles for that. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa That's fine, like I said work in progress, at least we've identified there was no need for pre 1216 Princes mention in the article. However I still believe there should be work included on the Magna Carta, and also Llywelyn Bren. Cltjames (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Skyfall (song), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You didn't fix the coding. All you did was make the table sloppy AF. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute I don't know if you actually took a look at the article before reverting... The coding wad incorrect and by undoing my edit the coding is incorrect and the article is incomplete. Please look at the revert before undoing someone else's work! Cltjames (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Take another look at your edit: [1]. Did you notice that it turned the chart tables into two zebras? That's the problem. You can "fix" the coding again if you want, but make sure all the left columns are the same color. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute I understand my edit wasn't perfect, I was hoping someone else would help finish the editing, reverting is simply deconstructive, maybe you can help complete the edit? My edit was better than broken coding, the revert simply doesn't make sense. Cltjames (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it created inconsistency, which is a task I take seriously. However, I'm in a good mood today, so I'll take care of the rowheaders for you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute Ok, thanks. Cltjames (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Cite book template

Hi there, thanks for taking a look at all those cite book templates with a rogue website parameter. Just to note that url= is a perfectly good parameter for the book citation. It is just the website= parameter that needs to go. A book can be available online, so the url= parameter points to it. However website= is the web version of publisher= and makes no sense for a book. So website= can be removed, but url= should remain. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, @Sirfurboy:, thanks for explaining that. Cltjames (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of Aberffraw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

King of Wales

The major revert on 12 September 05:36 removed massive amounts of content for King of Wales. If you're unhappy, you could revert this massive deletion edit and start a discussion on the discussion page to ensure a happy medium? Titus Gold (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold: Well, after trying too hard and losing a bulk of my most recent work, and someone else getting a barnstar, and despite my good faith edits and enthusiasm (thankfully a revert of one section has been 'approved' for the House of Aberffraw with modern book sources and some coding and references improvements), I decided to look elsewhere from Wikipedia (I was recently recommended to start a blog) to post originally sourced Welsh medieval literature (translated during the 19th and 20th centuries) that hasn't been reprinted since the books were released over a century ago and has still been deemed WP:RS, that despite being legitimately printed and peer-reviewed Welsh literature books. Despite the sources being reliable at the time and in the most case for my research the only sources available today. So, using my knowledge about the topic of Welsh Royal history, their Kings, Princes, and origin story, I will be transferring some reverted article work to my new blog:- teyrnasguynet.blogspot.com. The site name is a play on words using the middle Welsh name for the Kingdom of Gwynedd, Guynet and of course Teyrnas, which translates from Welsh to Kingdom. The website is supposedly an unreliable source because of its position as an online blog, but the information is wholly valid. Also, I'll be sharing my supposed WP:OR about what I've learned about the House of Aberffraw (and neighbouring houses of Dinefwr and Mathrafal), Princes of Gwynedd and the legendary Kings of Britain (& King of the Britons) and King of Wales, a taboo subject on Wikipedia of late (especially Governor's of Cambria subject I found in Book of Baglan) which is currently greatly underrepresented in articles. However, don't let that deter you from reading my Blogspot posts, learning, and commenting, please, and maybe do a guest blog for me in the future about the historical topics that I've mentioned. @Academia45: goes for you too, come and say hi to my new blog and maybe contribute as a guest! Cltjames (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, great, I'll take a look at it ;) Academia45 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hi Cltjames! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Anglesey that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DankJae 18:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I simply deleted unnecessary references which I previously added and also added references in another section and wrote less than a few sentences. I thought there wasn't any major changes, making it a minor edit. But I will check up on this definition, thanks. Cltjames (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cltjames, fully understand, I too fell into that trap once, so no biggie. Just raising it though. Thank you for your efforts! DankJae 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Talhenbont hall (October 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Talhenbont hall and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hoary (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Talhenbont hall has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Talhenbont hall. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: OK, I'll take a look, I think there's a possibility of creating a slimmed-down, limited article for Talhenbont as a historic home in Gwynedd, UK. Ps. I'm surprised it's not in the Pevsner literature, but that's probably because it's been privately owned for decades without access to the estate, that is, other than for corporate events. I'll try to trim my sandbox request, then we'll see what I can come up with. Thanks for the advice. Cltjames (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary Ok. I somehow missed a book entry in the first submit, I've improved the article with more bulk and references. I've added a tree list, please tell me if it fits in with the theme, or is unecessary? Otherwise, I hope it's acceptable this time. Cltjames (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: Ok, grammar check part 2. I believe the article should be ready now. Please alert me of issues which could be detrimental to the submission of the article. Cltjames (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: I've removed the vague discussion. Please answer or give me an opinion as to the article's potential public release? Cltjames (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Talhenbont hall has been accepted

Talhenbont hall, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary thanks so much, I appreciate your help, I've learned a lot. Cltjames (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope the experience wasn't too painful. Wishing the article and its creator a happy future! -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford ok well, I was getting around to finishing the reference and saw the whole article was unreferenced and decided to complete the task at hand after a night's sleep. Just a delayed reaction, I am aware of the issue. Cltjames (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Barnstars for your efforts

		The Citation Barnstar
		Awarded for you work on List of rulers in Wales. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded for you work on List of rulers in Wales. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: Thank you for the barnstars, the article came under criticism recently and needed an overhaul and I felt I had adequate knowledge to properly display the sequence of Kings, Royal Houses, and Lordships associated with the rulers of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The article was on my to-do list since the video on it was released, so pleasantly surprised that when I came to work on it today, yourself and other had already sorted the major issues. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

DankJae is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DankJae 09:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae Thanks. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, too. Cltjames (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Outstanding work!

		The Wales Barnstar of National Merit
		For your extraordinary work on List of rulers in Wales and many other Wales related articles!  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this is belated since your work on that page was done in November, but I just stumbled across that page's edit history after being sent the video that prompted your efforts, and I was truly stunned by what I saw. 265 edits on one page! What really shocked me is that your efforts to that page are only the tip of the iceberg, it doesn't even make the top three most edits you've made to a Wales-related article! I am genuinely impressed by your dedication.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard Thank you for your compliment and the barnstar. When I commit myself to an article, I try my best to finish what I started and feel the List of rulers in Wales article is now to a high enough standard to represent the topic in comparison to other similar articles, and yes the YouTube video was damming and the inspiration for my effort. As for Welsh articles, I am half Welsh, and I wish for the articles published to be a higher standard involving referenced and correct information. I have mainly focused on Welsh (especially Gwynedd) medieval articles and will continue to refine those mentioned in need. Cltjames (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Cltjames, I am not related to the article in question on the List of rulers in Wales, but I wanted to say thank you too for all your edits since all those years on Welsh history ;) It seems that we are not that many who actually cares about it and spend the time to go get all the sources and bring back Welsh history. So thank you, and have a great day ! Academia45 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Academia45 thanks for that. I've been reading Wikipedia since before I was a member in 2011. But, I only really edited clear vandalism. Then, since 2019 I found the time to edit something close to home for me, Welsh history. There was a clear gap in the market with many unreferenced articles, and many in need of improving. Keep up the good work Academia45! Cltjames (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, pretty much the same story too of how I started. Have a great weekend ;) Academia45 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)