User talk:Hogyn Lleol

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Archive 1 (Feb 2006 - Feb 2009)

Archive 2 (Feb 2009 - Feb 2012)

Archive 3 (March 2012 - Feb 2019)

Template:Our Peak has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this. Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Tony. By the time I got to it (Sunday morning), it had been decided to keep the article. (Can't really see why it was up for deletion anyway.) Cheers, Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wonder if you got a reply yet regarding your query about the WG Snowdon visitor numbers. In my own investigations I have now discovered the name of the person in the park authority who supplied the figures to WG. This confirms that the figures came from the park authority, which means the discrepancy must be a misunderstanding or double counting. I have not approached either that person nor their WG contact yet as I just wanted to check if you had an answer first - don't want to go pestering them with a query if it is answered. If you heard nothing, I will contact them. In any case, I believe your edit to use the park authority figure is correct. We know that they are the source of the monitoring. Thanks. -- (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirfurboy. Yes, I did get a reply, of sorts. Namely: "Thanks for your enquiry. We are looking into the difference you highlight and will get back to you shortly." So I am expecting to hear back from them before too long. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I will watch this with interest then. I have looked at the figures in their report and am convinced there is an error. Firstly, the 650,000 is too round a number. Secondly they say they are counting differently for 2018 onwards but in the table they appear to compare like with like, noting a small fall in visitors in 2018 in the table. Yet 2017's year's figures definitely included the rail visitors, so if the number were 650,000 this year plus rail users, that should be a substantial increase. I also found out that this report was commissioned research for WG (which is usual practice). I wonder if wires were crossed between researchers and WG in the exchange of numbers. Thanks again for pointing out the issue and I will look forward to later updates. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted several of those points, not least the alleged drop in figures in 2018, which simply wasn't the case! Hogyn Lleol (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirfurboy. I never did get a reply, and of course I'm not going to now for a long while, if at all. However, it's all now been superseded because the figures for 2019 are shortly to be released (well, they were), subject to verification. As soon as they're officially published, we can link this latest figure. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hogyn Lleol,

I found this useful took (https://reftag.appspot.com/ ) the other day to help when you see a book/page on Google Books. Basically it produces the citation for you. If you already use it, please ignore my message. SethWhales ^talk 11:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sherbet Antlers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherbet Antlers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch yn fawr am yr ymateb. Rwy'n cymryd achos fod ni ar Wikipedia saesneg ag erthygl saesneg hefyd, maen felly well i ni trafod pethau mewn saesneg y fan hyn man lleiaf! Hi. Thanks for response, really appreciate that. Please see this link where I discussed with an administrator the vandalization of your original article

User_talk:Nosebagbear#Caradog_Jones:_request_for_edit.

I guess most of that is self explanatory. It's because everyone uses it as source material that I have finally tried to do something about it. I appreciate it might be something of a pain for yourself after all this time!

Not particularly worried about spelling (Caradoc) (which as we both now is often confused for that name) or DoB which was flattering at 1960 but really 1958. The one thing that has always driven me mad is that it states we used himalayan guides, when in reality we made a rare unguided ascent which was a matter of pride for us.

Apart from the background bio in those google docs that were linked I do have numerous links and citations I have kept a record of to verifiable sources (climbing journals, news articles, books etc). IF you did decide to take on the update I could provide you with all those as potential sources which might be of use. Perhaps you might want to discuss all this with the admin Nosebagbear first. All the intricacies of Wikipedia are a bit of a minefield it seems, so I am trying to do the right thing here. All the best for now, Caradoc. Wikididit (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life's really busy with other things at the moment - I'd be very happy for User:Nosebagbear to take this on. Thanks. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the reply anyhow. All the best. Wikididit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, you've made it twice now. You were reverted the first time, so you should be following WP:BRD having been reverted for this already. The capital letters are not in the source material. Now, you can absolutely make the argument that cases of letters do not need to be exact, but as you wanted to come in and "correct" me, or the way the article was written to begin with and say "change to what the source actually says", then you should be being consistent everywhere—the cited article actually does not use lower-case letters to begin those sentences. Please stop changing this back, and if you really wish, you can discuss the change on the talk page as you've now been reverted twice.

As I was being exact, which you claimed you were in the first place, I want to indicate that those quotes actually do not begin with that case of letter, hence the brackets around the lower-case stand-in. Considering I wrote the article and there is no prior version without the brackets in use to revert to, we retain the original version (with brackets) as there is now a disagreement, until a consensus to the contrary has been reached per WP:BRD.

If you think this is too silly or inconsequential a matter to put to a discussion to gain consensus on, then perhaps consider that you should not have returned to the article to make the edit after being reverted the first time. Thank you. Ss112 22:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: MOS:CONFORM (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Typographic_conformity) Hogyn Lleol (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you will notice, if you had read the very next point, that it says "However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets". That means, if one wishes to be precise, they can put the change in capitalisation between brackets. I choose and chose to do that. It's not incorrect and doesn't need to be "corrected". Being put straight after the point that an editor can put a letter in lower-case means either option is fine. Ss112 21:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of what the whole paragraph says, and you will note that I have been happy to let your version stand. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this edit to Welsh Whisky completely invalidated the reference in the Aber Falls section. Your edit summary was "Filled in 4 bare reference(s) with reFill 2". Is this a problem with the reFill tool, and should we report it? Verbcatcher (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't initially see the error, but I see that you've reverted it. Thanks (I should have spotted that, of course.) Yes, that Instagram error should be reported - do you know how to do that? Regards, Hogyn Lleol (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've now found the relevant talk page and reported it. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with National Three Peaks Challenge? Some campaign to get Snowdon officially renamed to Yr Wyddfa? Cheers! Adakiko (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the NTPC page. Numerous pages which refer to Snowdon have in recent months been changed to Yr Wyddfa by zealous types. I'm a Welsh speaker and as keen as any, but as you point out, this is the English Wikipedia. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note CelebrityNetWorth - is NOT a reliable source as per WP:RSP - Arjayay (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Ah, my bad. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch for the correction, i honestly didn't notice! doktorb _words^deeds 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]