User talk:Henrywgc

Welcome!

Hello, Henrywgc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Alt Clut[edit]

I've made a few changes to "wikify" the additions you made, minor tweaks like italicising books and adding hyperlinks for some of the keywords which aren't otherwise linked. As I understand it, the Betha Adamnáin is now thought to be of early 8th century date, so I changed that. Likewise, the link between Coroticus and Dumbarton Rock, if I remember rightly, comes from Patrick's 7th century hagiographers (and thus from Bishop Ultán). Some of the caveats and quibbles are repeated in the articles on individual rulers, but it's certainly good to repeat them. The current "Strathclyde" king-articles use Goidelic style names, but they should probably be changed to Brythonic ones. I'll get round to that eventually. If you want to add notes to your additions, this explains how (you can see them in action in some of the individual king-articles as well). Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I was wondering if my contribution was just headed off into the void! I had a chat with Thomas Clancy about the Irish Life of Adamnan a couple of months ago, and I thought from memory that it was quite a late production: certainly, the story that Brude's body was brought to Iona is anachronistic. What's the authority for it being early 8thc.? I'm rather averse to changing the attested forms of personal names, but if you feel it's necessary... My feeling is that there may be good reason why names appear as they do, even surprising reasons, perhaps. --Henrywgc 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the thing about Coroticus: it's in Dumville et al. Saint Patrick, the chapter on the identity of Coroticus. The rex Aloo thing is from Mirchiu' s LIfe, I think. So quite late. --Henrywgc 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a quick look at the tidied-up text: very nice, thank you so much, with accents too! However, I see you' had "7th century" for the Betha Adamnain, which can't be right (he only died in the early 8th! I'll check this properly when I can and emend it - I still think it's 9th or 10th c. Otherwise, excellent! --Henrywgc 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edition of the Irish Life of Adamnan is 'Betha Adamnain: The Irish Life of Adamnan' by Maire Herbert, Padraig O Riain. They date the production to c.960. The poem may of course be earlier, but Clancy says it exhibits no particularly early features. Is this OK for you? --Henrywgc 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muirchu's 'Life' is from the later 7th c. but the chapter headings in which 'Rex Aloo' appears were added later at Armagh. I'll have to go back to Dumville when I'm near a copy and check this, but I think he argued for a fairly late date for this tag. --Henrywgc 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to accept Clancy's view; he's the expert. I got my date from De Paor's Saint Patricks World. The Betha Adamnain being early (indeed: 8th) I think I got from something by James Fraser on the battle of Dunnichen: again, much safer to stick with Herbert's version. Although there's no reference credited, the early kings in the article come from MacQuarrie's paper in Grant & Stringer's Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community. The later ones from from there and a paper by Dauvit Broun that I haven't seen myself.

If you've got some time to spare, Óengus I of the Picts (ghastly title I know, I may rename it to just Onuist and call the 9th century one Ungus) may appear on the front page at the end of the month. It hasn't really been examined very closely, so some harsh criticism would be useful. I'd rather hoped that the relevant volumes of the new Edinburgh history would have been published by now, but no. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if the whole page has reverted to its original state. Oh well. --Henrywgc 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure? It seems ok to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still all there, that's great. Perhaps I still don't quite understand completely how Wiki works. When I was searching for the page again ('Kings of Strathclyde') I got directed to what seemed to be the page before I'd added my critique, emendments, etc.
The page on Oengus looks wonderful: I don't know that much about this side of things, I've been focused mainly on the Gwyr y Gogledd, but I'll have a proper think about it and let you know if there's anything I think might be improved.
--Henrywgc 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a better look at 'Oengus 1' just now. Great stuff. The only comment I would have from my very narrow perspective is: footnote 8 refers to Rotri as a possible king of Alt Clut. I think this old chestnut was cooked up first by Alan Macquarrie in Stringer et al. I've even seen a website listing one of Rotri's son's as a 'king of Strathclyde'! Can Rotri be permanently removed from the discussion of North British kings? He was a king of Gwynedd in North Wales (see Bartrum 'A Welsh Classical Dictionary'; I think the Brut y Tywyssogion also makes this absolutely clear). --Henrywgc 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll fix that. I have to say that my attempts to get to grip with the Men of the North never did get anywhere and I'm confused now as when I started. If Wikipedia is having a slooooow day, you can sometimes see old versions of pages. Just one of those things. Technologically it's all very Heath-Robinson. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link on the Irish Annals page to Dr Dan McCarthy's 'Chronology of the Irish Annals' website, which is a marvellous study. A little gold padlock appears after the link: what does this mean?
--Henrywgc 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only that the URL for the site starts with https:// (secure http connection) rather than http:// (ordinary http connection). The practical differences are not very large. If you change the https to http, the padlock icon will (?probably) disappear but you will still end up at the secure http connection all the same if you click the link because that's how the TCD guys have set things up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annales Cambriae, the A-text.[edit]

If you are primarily interested in adding the text, have you considered whether perhaps Wikisource would be more appropriate? HeartofaDog (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:AC.jpeg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now tagged! --Henrywgc 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource[edit]

Further to your query, as far as I can tell, Wikisource does not accept text in html - but I am not myself a Wikisourcer, and my information derives entirely from their Help Page, which is probably worth a look. I do know that they only accept English language texts - a Latin text needs to go to the Latin Wikisource, although the English Wikisource would take an English language translation of it. I am afraid this is not very helpful, much as I would like to be, having pointed you in that direction; but I'm sure that both the English and Latin Wikisourcers would be able to help you out with addl advice. Good luck! HeartofaDog (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll see what I can do. If it's not possible to port the text easily to Wikitext, I'll try and put it on a website and make a link to it from the Wikipedia article. Kind regards. --Henrywgc 12:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created a page in Vicifons (Wikisource Latin) but can't seem to link to it from the Annales Cambriae page in Wikipedia. Can you tell me how to do this? Also, if I can get a link to work to Vicifons, how do I delete the Annales Cambriae A text page in Wikipedia? Sorry to be so clueless!--Henrywgc (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Annales Cambriae, the A-text.[edit]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Merenta 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this page were removed without my knowledge. Links still appear to it on web search-engines. The contents are now on Vicifons (Latin Wikisource site) --Henrywgc 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annales Cambriae[edit]

It's great that you're trying to improve the Welsh articles, but while links to the original text are certainly needful, people should not have to click through to a Latin page to then click over to the English translation they can actually read.

Wikisource is quite certainly for translations (s:WS:WIW) as well as original texts (or to look at it another way, each translation is an original text for its language). Regardless, stop being WP:POINTy: links to English versions of texts A & B obviously improve the article, so stop removing them. — LlywelynII 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, given that you are a dedicated editor at Annales Cambriae and presumably interested and knowledgeable, you're more than welcome to help with the translation of the B text and correct errors or make helpful notes or comments on either the A or B text.

I'd particularly like input on the comments I made on the Latin B text's talk page. Our text there seems to be quite different from Wms ab Ithel's; I assume that's to our credit but we should mention it since his is the published Latin text in the public domain. Also, in either timeline, there's about 30 years missing from the count from the birth of Jesus to the Battle of Hastings. Did the scribes really not know the accurate Dionysian era? Is a page possibly missing? or what? — LlywelynII 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also just put up the Latin text of Hywel Dda's laws since we didn't have one before. I cleaned the most obvious of the errors from the text scan, but there are still lots of little ones ("donee" for "donec" kinds of things) if you'd like to help with that (there's a link to the source text on the page) or with a translation. — LlywelynII 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Re: the discussion here—
My email's annalescambriaeburner₳gmail·com. Cheers. — $Llywelyn II$ 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]