User talk:Owain/archive7

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Just wanted to warn you about User:Welshleprechaun#The_List[1] Pondle (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been self-reverted now. Interesting how he/she is accusing people of bias in this way, which is of course bias in itself. Other people may not find people on 'the list' to be problematic. Owain (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me now. Why did you not use Monmouthshire (historic) in this edit? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Owain (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owain. Following on from the origin of the name Wentloog, I wondered what you would make of this in the current Caerwent article:

"Although the name Caerwent translates from Welsh as "fort of Gwent", the name Gwent itself derived from the Roman name Venta (Silurum) which meant "market" (of the Silures). (The English town name of Winchester has a parallel derivation, ultimately from the combination of the Latin words Venta, in that case, Venta Belgarum, and castra).^[1]"

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I'd read that very definition today as well (and approved of it)! Owain (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so just coincidence then that Gwynllwg gave us the Went in Wentloog, but Latin gave us the Went in Gwent and Caerwent? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd never really thought about it to be honest. Let's not forget that Wentloog is west of the Usk, so hand nothing to do with Gwent. Try imagining a bunch of Normans trying to pronounce Gwynllwg and you can see it is an entirely different "Went" ;) Owain (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that Gwynllwg and Gwent were enemy territories, were they not. I guess Octavius Morgan was just repeating a common misconception. The origin of the name of Gwynllyw himself is another question. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the point of having the station sign image if you were still arguing over the station article, but you're not, so it's unhelpful and unnecessary in the Newport article. And "famous" is, in my view, redundant as well. Surely you don't see Chippenham as an article to be emulated...??!! - it's quite long, but not very good in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that bothered if you remove it, I just like consistency. As for "famous", my original text said "iconic" which was changed to "famous" by someone else. Can you agree with "iconic"? Owain (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but others might invoke NPOV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well these words are all subjective to a degree. "Famous" doesn't necessarily mean that everyone on the planet will have heard of it, just more than one person! "Iconic" in the way I initially meant it just means that it stands for Newport, i.e. is a defining symbol for the city. Owain (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "famous" is redundant on a WP page - people clicking on the page will either have heard of it before, or not, and it doesn't help their understanding either way if an editor describes it as "famous". "Iconic" in the sense of symbolic is OK-ish in my view, but not a very precise use of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are reinserting a change that is clearly contested. WP:BRD means that my reversion was allowed, but your reinsertion is disruptive. You have been an editor for long enough to know that this is not the way to proceed, and this is not the first time I know you have made such reinsertions of material to an article which others dispute (e.g., your similar actions recently on Wales, and previously on other articles). If you initiate a slow or even a fast edit-war again without engaging in discussion about any changes you wish to make (i.e., violate WP:BRD), I may be forced to take administrative action because it is disruptive.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been an editor long enough to realise that marking an edit as vandalism when it clearly isn't is disingenuous in the extreme. What exactly is your problem with my clarification on these articles? The fact is that in Local Government statue, the county of Cheshire is about to be abolished and replaced by the county of Cheshire West and Chester and county of Cheshire East. Those two local government counties are part of Cheshire for the purposes of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, which is what I was clarifying. Of course the areas remain part of the ancient county palatine of Chester anyway, but that's not what the sentence was trying to clarify. Owain (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owain, you appear to confusing unitary authorities with counties; Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Cheshire are (or rather will be) unitary authorities, replacing the current 7 unitary authorities in Cheshire [2]. The county does not change. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. This is the terrible state our terminology is in. The ancient county of Cheshire will not change, but as per the Local Government Act 1972, the county of Cheshire will soon be history. The lieutenancy area (aka "ceremonial county") of Cheshire is based on the local government areas, so that will need amending when the local government county is abolished. See SI 2008/634: A new non-metropolitan county... to be known as Cheshire East, shall be constituted. A new non-metropolitan county... to be known as Cheshire West and Chester, shall be constituted. The county of Cheshire shall be abolished as a local government area. Owain (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss controversial changes prior to making them such as the removal of the Ebbw Valley Line from File:Cardiff Rail Network.jpg. It is still a commuter line of Cardiff and does not have to be within the city boundaries to be so. Whether it is part of the Valley Lines network is beside the point, although I maintain it is, as it was incorporated onto Arriva Trains Wales Valley Lines network map, as seen on the trains on such lines and at stations [3]. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not part of the Valley Lines network. Your diagram shows the lines and stations within the administrative boundary of Cardiff, it does not show stations and lines that happen to go to Cardiff, as that would be absurd. The schematic map you link to is also not a map of the Valley lines network as it shows Newport, Gloucester and Cheltenham! The Ebbw Valley line is a spur of the Great Western main line (route 13) and not part of the Valley Lines (route 15). See [4] and [5]. Owain (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram I created shows commuter lines in and leading to Cardiff. The only stations it showed were in Cardiff. It is not the same as the Valley Lines map, it just shows Cardiff commuter lines. Not all Cardiff commuter lines have to be Valley Lines. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is clearly labelled "Rail Network IN Cardiff". That particular line starts in Newport, 10 miles away from Cardiff. If your intent was to show commute lines leading to Cardiff it would include the line as far as Gloucester, Bristol Temple Meads, Swansea, &c. That is clearly not your intent, as the label indicates "Rail Network IN Cardiff". That particular line is not in Cardiff. Owain (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look again at the diagram, you will see that continuation to Bristol, Gloucester etc. is shown. None of the stations on the Ebbw Vale line are not in Cardiff, therefore they're not shown on the diagram. I judge your argument to be nothing more than Newport based POV judging from your concentration on Newport related articles and the argument concerning the naming of Newport railway station. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it goes to Gloucester is shown, but it may as well be labelled, "to Bristol, Gloucester, Ebbw Vale" and miss out the diagonal line altogether. The inclusion of the line implies that it is part of the Cardiff network (and indeed IN Cardiff) when it simply isn't. I make no apologies for being pro-Newport as Wikipedia is full of Cardiff sycophants such as yourself. Owain (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new version of the file with the county limit, showing that the line is not in Cardiff. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's home town as we both are, but I try not to let it interfere with my edits to keep things neutral and politely suggest that you do the same. A bit off topic, I commonly see edits undermining Cardiff and they often come from editors whose edits suggest they're from Swansea or even Newport. With the latter case I don't see why there is a petty rivalry from our neighbour Newport as I have spent quite a bit of time (usually cycling) in Newport and find it to be a agreeable city, espeically the old canals around Rogerstone. Certainly Cardiffians do not see Newportians as rivals but as neighbours and cousins. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was actually thinking of giving you a heads-up that listing Monmouthshire under England at county town wouldn't last the day! If you look at the talk page and edit history you will see that I ran into the same problem. I eventually felt like I had been chased off the page with a mixture of hostility for my "legalistic approach" (quoting primary sources rather than opinions) and pity for my ignorance in making such a silly "mistake". I had to take the page off my watchlist for a while as it was getting silly. Life's too short for that sort of aggro. Lozleader (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's flattering to be stalked. In a creepy sort of way :) Owain (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owain, this seems utterly ridiculous. Newport certainly isn't the county town of `Gwentshire'! And not sure there many other contenders. I would certainly support any further efforts (in a non-stalking way!) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Are you referring to the County Halls section? My addition is "Monmouthshire, 1889 to 1974, Shire Hall, Newport". What is wrong with that? The Shire Hall in Newport was the headquarters of Monmouthshire county council between 1889 and 1974. Furthermore Monmouthshire was legally part of England during that time. I totally fail to understand what you are getting at. Owain (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually agreeing with Lozleader that Monmouthshire should be listed under England as a county town. Your County Halls section edit also seems perfectly fair. It's confusing enough to be historicaly accurate when county boundaries have changed, but when national boundaries have also changed, it's even more treacherous. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you threw me a bit by not stating which efforts you would be supporting! ;) Owain (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recent changes on hundreds per this discussion - as I'm sure you already know! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, of course - the notion that if enough people on Wikipedia agree to it then it must be true. How sad. :( Owain (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide any evidence that the "hundreds" are actually used for any purposes now, and that it would be useful to readers of the encyclopaedia to explain that, I'd be happy to accept your point of view. But if your case is that they were "never abolished" ... so what, they still "ceased to be". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could say the same thing about the metropolitan counties. They are not used for anything, but their areas have in some cases been appropriated for other purposes. In the case of Monmouthshire the two hundreds either side of Newport are in common use as the Caldicot and Wentloog Levels. It just seems a bit clumsy to state "were" and not be able to give a date when they de facto fell out of use. The articles themselves mention the local authorities that cover the relevant areas so it was logically consistent. Now there is a gaping factual gap that is incapable of being filled. That isn't very encyclopædic. Owain (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the hundreds were originally set up to perform certain legal and administrative functions, and ceased to perform any of those functions after 1886. The fact that their names continued in use to describe certain areas does not mean that the hundreds themselves continued to exist in any meaningful sense, in my view (and that of most other people, I think). However, I do also think that the "historic counties" have a lot more continuing validity, in that many residents of, say, Salford, do still think of themselves as being in Lancashire even though in an administrative sense they haven't been for some time. But that will change over the years, as those with experience of living in Lancashire eventually die out. I doubt if there was ever the same sense of "belonging" to a hundred, but even if there was it would have ended by the early part of the 20th century. I don't accept the "date of abolition" argument at all - I expect the Roman empire was never "abolished", but that doesn't mean it still exists - and I don't think there is a "gaping factual gap" in the articles, particularly as anyone sufficiently interested would look at the Hundred (country subdivision) article and read that they were "never formally abolished". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owain, you made an edit[6] to this article deleting a number of statutes listed in the source - e.g. the Interpretation Act 1978, the Representation of the People Act 1983. Are you sure that the provisions in these acts relating to preserved counties are no longer extant? I'm no legal expert, just wanted to clarify. Pondle (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Statute Law database is a useful tool here: just search for the legislation in question and search within that for the phrase in question. In certain cases the statute contains an added subsection such as the Licensing Act 1964 section 85 subsection 4, which states "In subsection (1) above “county", in relation to Wales, means a preserved county (as defined by section 64 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994)" but sub-section 1 itself has been further amended to remove all references to "county". So subsection 4 has no effect. The only practical remaining provisions are relating to Lords-Lieutenant, Sheriffs and the (often ignored) provision relating to Parliamentary constituencies. Owain (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let your obvious animosity towards Enaidmawr lead you to make edits that, as you know, clearly lack any element of consensus. In this case, I think Enaidmawr's edits are entirely justified, and yours are not. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a large element of Welsh nationalist PoV in his/her edits. This should not be allowed, especially given the constitutional history of Newport. My edits were simply to revert the article back to before the PoV was inserted. I fail to see how that shows or requires a "consensus". Owain (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the reference to Gwent was added by User:Mhockey, who is revealed by a quick google to have been born in Bristol and now lives in Oxford. An unlikely "nationalist", perhaps. Not that that is relevant - as discussed on the talk page, the edit adds value and neutral information to the article, and should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the bit I'm referring to. I'm referring to the removal of United Kingdom and insertion of nationalist phrases such as "south east of the country". The lead was written in a neutral tone before, but with those edits is strongly Welsh nationalist. Owain (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I agree that UK should be mentioned (it is in the current version), and I'm content that "between Cardiff and Bristol" is probably clearer than "the south east corner of the country", when there is some ambiguity as to which "country" might be meant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - having reread this, the consensus seems to be not to mention UK, which I'm OK with, in particular as there is a map showing it within the UK. I'm sure we agree that Newport is in Wales - but I'd oppose reinstating words like "south east of the country" because they're confusing as well as unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Newport County crest.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MaenK.A._Talk 06:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owain. I think you are getting confused with Ken Roberts' shop on Caerleon Road. I remember taking my motorbike to Len Weare in Newport town centre, opposite St Pauls church. Regards Pwimageglow (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I am! *blushes* Owain (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Newport-Mon-Coat-of-Arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you've done a lot of work on Wales. Dunno if you know but do you know about this site? It has a massive number of images for villages and roads and just about anywhere in the UK. I've already used to to provide images to many villages in the Vale and by the time I've finished I hope to provide photographs for every village in Wales. If you could upload some this would be great. Just have a search for local areas on geograph and you may be surprised. All the images can be used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.Perry Rimmer (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]