Talk:Welsh Not - Knowledge (XXG)

913:(coming from other noticeboards where this debate was posted). The OR issues would be specific to the imagery of the Welsh Not (size, shape, how it was worn, etc.) and as long as editors agree that is accurate to how sources describe or depict it, that gets over most of the issues - we allow user-created versions of maps and other figures that come from reading of reliable sources as long as we include no intepretation of that. As to the image of the girl, as long as its clear that the girl represents someone that may be Welsh and from the time period that the Welsh Not would have been used (rather than, say, someone of Indian or Chinese heritage, or wearing contemporary clothes), then that fine - we could argue forever what features would be needed to be 100% clear what a Welsh girl would need to be but that's getting far into nitty gritty that's not needed when the focus is on the Not. I also appreciate the discussion to avoid introducing any significant emotion or distress from prior attempts and just show the humility associated with wearing the Not (as sourced in the article) in the pose selected as to avoid possible OR/POV. I think the claims around the figure of the girl being OR here are something that are reasonable to think about, but in the end this specific image address fairly well to be beyond OR. -- 632:, a part of the No Original Research policy that pertains to images. Editors in opposition to the inclusion of the image (both outright and weakly) noted concerns that the image's creation was the result of editorial decisions on how to depict the child with the Welsh Not. These included the particular emotion displayed, the shading, and the child's sex. Editors in support of the inclusion of the image described an absence of a visual depiction in the article as harming the quality of the article, and argued that because no photographs were easily accessbily of the Welsh Not in use, that the CGI graphic would be appropriate for inclusion. Some editors in support said that the arguments of those opposing the image's conclusion would apply to pretty much all images (with some asking how this was different from a child model posing for a photograph). Some editors, both those in support and those that are neutral, said that a CGI image may be appropriate when there are no existing photographs that are appropriate for use. 3424:? Whenever the accusers are asked to provide evidence they refuse to respond. I'm sure there are many other accusations I could source - all personal. Which I have not answered because they are ridiculous. I am trying to get this article to be based on what Welsh historians say. Just Welsh historians, no one else. Would you have supported the original image that in my opinion would have made the article look silly? I really don't care about the new image, it represents how Welsh people treated their children, do you want to imply the worst punishment meated out by Welsh people to their children? My objection is on principle; is it or not? If not then I think we should tone the image down because there were other punishments, writing lines, detention etc. However if you 3385:

of lighting, angle of the hands, style of dress etc. and thickness of the cord holding the WN when the major issue is would it be made clear that this was a mock-up, in which case I would regard all of the previous comments as being irrelevant. Secondly the comment I objected to was 'John Jones' images of child abuse'. This is personalising the inclusion of the image, and implying that the image is one of many, and that he would condone the inclusion of child abuse images on wikipedia, whereas we all know that the image, whilst showing a child, would by no means be regarded as illegal by the police, and I would contend that the phrase 'John Jones' child abuse images' implies that. I have also noted increasingly personal attacks by

701: 2224: 3527:'s support vote - which included that they "read through all of the arguments presented on this page with increasing disbelief. So much pettifogging nitpicking, and what seems to me some pretty unhealthy comments about child abuse...". Claim's of Brwynog's own disbelief, observations of pettifogging nitpicking and Brwynog's assumption of unhealthy comments are in no way supporting the support comment. It is discussion or commentary, and, if discussion is to be included only under discussion, such comments should be moved there. (Brwynog's vote commentary is by no means unique - this is not a particular comment on that vote). 1143:- but somewhat more importantly IMO, one can hardly see the 'not' at all beacause of size and low lighting, until the image is magnified on a bigg-ish monitor. Having no prior knowledge of what a 'not' was, I first thought that some kind of dress or shift was the subject of the article and image. The image is merely a CG forlorn female child, head and eyes downcast. Would not an image of the 'not', even a CG one, better inform as to what the item was. Anyone who was ever punished by being made to 'stand in the corner', or similar, can easily imagine the shame/annoyance/anger attached to wearing this item. 660:. And, given that the disruption from socks/meatpuppets/canvassing is one of the principal reasons for the finding of no consensus, it would be more than proper to launch another discussion in light of the limited rough consensus achieved in one with respect to CGI graphics to see if editors can achieve a consensus on image inclusion absent the sort of disruption that occurred here. In the meantime, until a consensus is reached, the page should remain as it was in the 489: 3682:: Is there a reason the depiction is of a person wearing the Welsh Not, which introduces all sorts of editorial decisions that could cause POV or OR issues, rather than a simple depiction of the Welsh Not, similar to the non-free photographs provided for the purpose of example above? I'm reasonably confident that a caption stating "it was worn around the child's neck" would allow our readers to understand how it was worn. 538: 517: 1119:-- the details of the image have been driven solely by discussion here, not by anything in any published source, and is, as Cheezypeaz says above, the very definition of OR, and that should suffice to conclude the argument, no matter how many supporters the image has. Moreover, adding this sort of imagery to pages is in bad taste, and not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If ever there was a case for 1460: 423: 302: 281: 219: 312: 413: 386: 250: 978:. It's really sad that an RfC was needed here. There was an image request tag on the article for 2 years, so this should have been straight forward. Alas, to some people having an image was too political, and those editors should now take their bias elsewhere. I support this image, and any similar on the grounds explained by so many, above, especially 2604:- it was simply a direct response to that editor's !vote - so I assumed there was no need to ping. When you moved my question, it lost the context - there was no indication who I was asking the question of. Given that you've been doing a lot of 'moving to the correct place' it would probably be worth ensuring that no context was lost in the process. 1583: 1565: 1548: 1525: 1496: 2731:. Either way, the options weren't discussed, and the 'rules' were not made clear from the start, hence the shambles we have ended up with - with discussions ripped apart. New readers won't realise that 'votes' were challenged, or that clarification was asked for, as the questions and comments have been moved away from their true context. -- 3657:. No, I couldn't find anything to suggest it is allowed or disallowed - that is why I asked you, as the initiator and housekeeper of this RfC. It does seem inconsistent that one form of commentary/discussion is allowed, and another isn't, but I defer to your knowledge and interpretation - this is the first RfC in which I've participated. 935:. My only concern is that it should include a warning clarifying on the file by the license that it is a computer generated picture. Otherwise, as pointed above by Masem, any objection to the picture should only be aimed at discussing the details and accuracy of the picture, as a paradigm of the situation depicted. 3758:

This has all gone pear shaped. Is the discussion about wikipedia policy or the image? The movement of the comments seems to have annoyed a lot of people - including me, it has the appearance of an attempt to bury discussion. And of course we have that doggy tweet. And no mention of the history of the

2869:

If I would have left your discussion in the 'Support' or 'Oppose' sections, and asked you to move it to the correct place, what would you have done? Exactly what I did: you would have moved it to the Discussion section. By doing it myself I saved you time and bother. I really can't understand why you

2473:

says "violates non-free use policy". Well, if it was uploaded under an assertion of "fair use" or similar then I'm not surprised. That would only be valid in the context of a critical discussion of the image, not merely for identification purposes or to illustrate the subject of this article. This is

2331:

I am not !voting (for the moment, at least) in this RFC. I do not think this (or similar) child abuse image should be included in this article. HOWEVER, that is my opinion and that view is not based on wikipedia policy. I do have doubts about the image creators interpretation of details, but consider

1020:. It's shocking to me that this article is about a physical object without having any kind of image of that object to depict what it looks like. If a properly sourced non-CG contemporary photograph could be provided, it would likely be better, but lacking one, I see nothing wrong with using CG here. 734:

I support including this image as it is educational, encyclopaedic and illustrative, showing how the Welsh Not was used. This is a difficult subject on what today would be considered child abuse, yet the image itslf seems neutral and sensitively done. There were no 'Original Research' (OR) objections

4659:

has added the early 20th century to the lead with a reference to wrexham-history.com and I have moved the reference to the Overview section. However wrexham-history.com seems to be a personal website so I am posting here in case a page follower has a better reference for or against the use of the WN

3384:

Certainly, although by now the size of this thread makes is nigh impossible for anyone who has not been involved from the beginning to have any meaningful input. I regard that most of the comments about the images to be pettifogging. I have read many posts arguing about the colour of skin, direction

1919:

The tweet is certainly not neutrally worded, but even though I personally am at best ambivalent about the use of the CGI image (on the grounds of OR - I'd be fine with something attributable), it should be said that the !votes in favour of the image pre-date the tweet so I couldn't reasonably claim

3867:

I will note that this does seem improper; while I have no strong view on the RfC at the moment (probably because I can't be bothered reading through the mess of discussion above), it is clear that it shouldn't be a vote, and further splitting it into a vote removed context from people's discussion

2378:

Well, it may be that the attribution would give publicity to the book, so they would have something to gain from it. In addition, the author might just be glad to increase public understanding of a subject that he cared to write a book about in the first place (and although it's probably up to the

2302:

is confusing the RFC by sharing this image. The Welsh Not article says the Not was used until the end of the 19th century - and c.1885 certainly is before the end of the 19th century. No image would properly cover "between the 1790s and the end of the 19th century" but the image does cover part of

1897:

I believe that the tweet was by someone involved in this discussion. The twitter account doesn't mention the wp account name. The wp account name doesn't link to the twitter account. Both link to the same real name, and given the overlap of interests, I think there is close to zero chance that the

639:

in a way that significantly affected the ability of the discussion to attain a consensus on the central issue. After fully discounting the contributions of the editors who engaged in sockpuppetry, noting the strong evidence of twitter canvassing, and understanding that both sides make policy-based

621:

In this discussion, editors discussed the potential for introducing a computer-generated image to the article in order to demonstrate an inividual child wearing the Welsh Not sign. This discussion was significantly tainted by canvassing/meatpuppetry and CU-confirmed socks, which led to four of its

3791:

An RfC leads to a discussion on the page that hosts the RfC. This "RfC discussion" is an ordinary Knowledge (XXG) discussion that follows the normal rules and procedures, including possible closing. Closing the discussion, in which an uninvolved neutral editor declares the discussion finished and

1176:

unlikely we'll ever get an actual photograph of it being used for real. I suspect if there was a contemporary artwork by a noted artist, there would be no problem, but again not likely. Is the depiction of humility or shame, as opposed to outrage or brandishing a badge of honour, also a political

4336:

has boldly removed the parallels section, on the basis of it being Original Research. On reflection, that is the correct approach - in the absence of a source noting a parallel between the Welsh Not and the various other language-behaviour-modifiers, they were solely included on the basis of the

4200:

I think any reliably sourced use of a token for language suppression in schools is a parallel, given the uncertainty about how the Welsh Not was used. The first mention of the Welsh lump, which has just been removed, does not mention any punishment beyond wearing the lump. The Canadian stick was

3993:

I wasn't offering any advice. I was just pointing something out because AFAIK, most users don't bother to turn on the preference that shows blocked user names in italics and struck through, so it won't always be obvious. One of them has even voted several times. Like the SPI closer said, how the

1349:

above. If you dispute that, then raise it on the Original Research Talk page. Point 3 - you asked: 'Do we really need to show a sign hanging around a neck?' Answer: 'yes' in order to illustrate the device and its usage. Otherwise, are you going to delete all depictions of crucifixes, from all WP

4144:

The (current) opening of the article says "The Welsh Not was a token used by teachers at some schools in Wales...". It was a token moved from student to student who spoke Welsh, with the student left with it at the end of the day/week punished in some way. The Not was effectively a transferable

1258:

The photo is not OR. Specifically, to be OR, facts would contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Unless the individuals believing the photo is OR could describe the conclusion reached or

3365:

thankyou for your input, it's good to have fresh eyes from an uninvolved editor on this topic. Could you please clarify which contributions you see as 'pettifogging nitpicking'? Also 'what seems to me some pretty unhealthy comments about child abuse' - I hope we all think that child abuse is

1401:

is the correct place, and not the policy talkpage, for requesting input on possible original research and for asking for advice regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Did you put a notice there about this RfC as suggested on the RfC instruction page? --

2075:-My good friend! I think it's my favourite of all the 10 or 11 images made. But why confuse this RfC? This is about the latest image! And by the way, this is the image you, and others described as being too black and looking like a slave! Fyi - welcome black women in Wales and in WP. 3818:

Consensus on Knowledge (XXG) does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and

3522:

I accept that you have moved threaded questions and comments to fit with your preferred format of keeping the discussion in one place. However, many of the !votes include commentary and detail which doesn't directly support the editor's vote - for instance, I've just commented on

1877:

Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive

2119:) on Knowledge (XXG). A black African person would say: "I love Wales, I feel their pain. What was done with the Welsh Not was very, very wrong. Now, get that cg image on that article now, so that the whole world can see how children were treated at that time." 3831:

So basically, my interpretation is that we are trying, by the use of sound Wiki-policy-based arguments, to drive the consensus one way or the other as to whether that image (or a very similar image) should be added to the article. Does that make sense? --

1236:

image is required. In particular, some Welsh Not's survive till today, and are held by - and occasionally displayed by - various museums. I would think that the most appropriate image to include would be a photograph of one of these surviving artefacts.

3901:- that remains unclear), has ceased contributing, how does this RFC get resolved? The weight of numbers certainly indicates 'include' but many questions remain unanswered, and discussion on this talk page seems to have moved on from the RFC question. 2845:

Whether the format was chosen by yourself or not, it is not your role to reformat responses according to your idea of tidiness. No individual "owns" the process. If there was a problem, you should have contacted those editors and explained it to

3721:

Or even to help mere mortals like myself to make their mind up which way to cast my 'vote', as I am undecided pending the replies to questions I'd asked in context, but which are now lost and unanswered in the big 'Discussion (image)' section. --

2261:

There is evidence (as mentioned in the article) that the WN was used on Welsh children half a century before the Victorian Era!!! And your linked image would have been c. 1885!!! That's around a HUNDRED years later! Confusing the RfC once again!

3872:

violation. I would strongly suggest that the editor who originally split the discussion remerge it. I also note with concern the off-site canvassing, and wonder if this RfC should be closed as no-consensus and re-held with broader input.

1275:

PS: specifically, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.

3253:

article. And as I said, I think the answer to this question is important as it could help the closer of this discussion (assuming they find it down here and realise why it was asked) to determine the quality of it as an argument per

861:. No reasonable objections have been given for deleting this image. To a newcomer to the article, it gives a lot of information in an instant, and I agree with Cell Danwydd that it's 'educational, encyclopaedic and illustrative'. 4263:. The uncertainty about how the 'parallels' work, makes me think they would be better included in a 'See also' rather than claiming each of them as a parallel, however most of them are not notable enough for their own articles. 999:. I've just read through all of the arguments presented on this page with increasing disbelief. So much pettifogging nitpicking, and what seems to me some pretty unhealthy comments about child abuse, and spurious comments about 2220:

Just to remind people of the original image that I removed to cries of outrage and bias which caused this debate. This is suppost to be a Welsh Girl from the 1800s. She looks like a slave girl of african heritage in a prison.

1795:

then I'm guessing they would withdraw their objections and we could move on. Given the size of the discussion it would take too long to workout who had and who had not been notified. Perhaps it would have been a good idea if

3759:

image. I'm not sure why certain editors with Welsh names want to have such a harsh image to depict a Welsh child about to be beaten by a Welsh school master at a school their Welsh parents are paying to send their child to.

3614:

You would like me to 'clarify if discussion or commentary is permitted within a !vote'? I haven't found anything to suggest it is disallowed, can you? In fact there's an example of voting + Discussion here, in the same RfC:

4538:

I've re-added the image request to the talk page, with some specifics. There may even be some kind editor watching this talk page in Wales who can make a trip their local museum and take a good photo of a real Welsh Not!

3799:

If, for example, the editors of a certain article cannot agree on whether a certain fact should be included, they can use an RfC to find out what the community thinks and, if a consensus emerges, that usually resolves the

4405:"tally sticks (bata scóir and maidecrochaidh), wooden gags (préaslach), wooden cows (vuoc'h koad) and wooden halters (Welsh Not) made them tangible and painful symbols of the subservient status of all the Celtic tongues." 3331:"Having "an image request tag on the article for 2 years" doesn't mean whatever is suggested can be added with no discussion and consensus? If the tag was there for 20 years, it doesn't mean "just add whatever you want"? 3594:

a !vote. I won't be taking it up on the RfC talk page, because it seems to be specific to this RfC and you are the one housekeeping/administering/managing this RfC. I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm asking a question.

3706:'s enthusiastic curation, there are now quite a few orphaned discussion points here that have no apparent context. How can we restore the integrity of this RfC to give any uninvolved closer a fair chance of evaluating " 2492:

Thanks for clarifying. Any valid release for upload will involve a determination of who holds the copyright for that image. In my experience, that process can be quite tortuous and frequently fails. Sorry to be such a

1085:

Editorial decisions have been made in the choice of sex, posture and lighting. It is not just a child wearing a Welsh Not. Whether you agree or disagree with those editorial decisions they have been made and that is

4117:. We may need to wait a little longer on seeing it close, as these requests often take a few weeks. Or maybe we'll get lucky and someone will stop by sooner? Anyone not involved in the argument can do the closure. 2379:

publisher, I see that publisher was founded by the author himself). These two things are behind my suspicion that it is worth a try - although I don't want to second-guess what legal limitations there might be. --

952:. (summoned by bot) Is this a sensitive topic? Yes. Upon reviewing the image I can't find anything that would prevent this from being a depiction we use. I understand the caution, but I don't see a problem here. 3393:

on others in this discussion which makes me question as to whether I really want to be part of such an environment. It also makes me question what are the motives of some of the editors who have entered this

153: 2784:. Nothing was 'changed' in the middle of the discussion; but a sentence was added to clarify as some editors did not respect / or had not seen the 'Discussion' section. Please respect other editors choice. 1210:

be valid in this context.) This could then be included with suitable attribution. It is not entirely far-fetched that they might consent to this, and it would be worth somebody asking them, in my opinion.

1171:

is too open to interpretation. Even if allowed by policy, it will be difficult to find an image that everyone will "like", e.g. does the girl in this image look non-Welsh? does that matter? It's of course

588: 3289:, can you give diffs please, showing what led you to believe that "to some people having an image was too political". This would help an uninvolved closer to understand the weight of that assertion. -- 3151:

cannot be characterised as "On top of that the Knowledge (XXG) talk:No original research also confirmed that there is no OR in the image"! This is all very misleading. I notice too that you tried to "

1848:. My google translate phone app says "The longstanding argument is over the inclusion of a child photo with the WN about his neck, but we seem to be winning the battle, from the end: <wiki url: --> 3849:

It seems to me there are two different questions. Is a cgi image created by the editors or not? And if it is not then is this a suitable image to use? We are mixing up the two in the discussion.

2307:

is confusing the RfC again... I think there's plenty of confusion in this RfC, but I don't think it's fair to say the image is confusing the RfC, and that the confusion there is is not necessarily

1489: 4301:

I do think it's relevant and I feel that sentence could be left as it is. Personally I'm not very keen on "See also" sections because it's often unclear what the connection is with the article.

1534: 2697:

Formatting should be made clear at the start of any discussion - not by changing it around in the middle of the discussion. As others have said, the context of comments needs to be retained.

2397:

I've created a section in the article "In literature" just to add a mention of the book. But this is a bit speculative. It's just a novel, which I've not read, and I can't find any RS reviews.

2115:

African people lived in Wales and many spoke Welsh. The offensive part is punishment for speaking a certain language! Equally offensive is that WP editors are attempting to sensor information (

3590:'s deletions, it is related to your housekeeping of this RfC, which is what I took that discussion to be about. What I would like you to do is clarify if discussion or commentary is permitted 1920:

that the tweet has skewed the discussion. It is probably not worth worrying about unless there is actual evidence that people have showed up to support the image after the tweet was posted. --

1198:. If not a contemporary artwork by a noted artist, then how about modern artwork from a noted source? Specifically, I am wondering about the cover image from the book "Under the Welsh Not" by 2889:

You said: 'Formatting should be made clear at the start of any discussion - not by changing it around in the middle of the discussion. ' Can you now confirm that that had actually happened.

1120: 3548:. I'm not sure what you want me to do other than that. If you don't like this format, then please take it up on the RfC Talk page. I'm sure they will advise you. Don't shoot the messanger! 896:.I think such images help to understand how the use of a language was punished at a time when photograpy wasn't invented. It may be useful for illustrating articles on language submersion. 2541:, could you provide diffs to support your assertion that 'to some people having an image was too political'? I can't find editors claiming any of the proposed images was 'too political'. 4152:(although I believe that would be a extraordinary claim), but the supposed parallels of Canada and Ireland do not - there was no chance of transferring the punishment to another. 3147:

discussed on that noticeboard where you implied it had been. That notification you mention was added by someone else after my prompt, and after this RfC was started. And no, the

2358:

I think it's unlikely, but might be worth a try. Has Gwasg Carreg Gwalch ever done anything similar? There might be legal limitations arsing from sub-contract with the artist.

1825:. That seems to be a bit beyond the guidelines - I don't think the tweet could really be considered 'neutrally worded' (Google translate works if your Welsh is not that good). 3616: 2781: 2656: 3265:

Perhaps you will now address it, bearing in mind that the article had an image before (the one I added) and that the image you show above has raised a lot of controversy. --

3954: 3487:

images of a child wearing the Welsh Not to commons. Those two things are indisputable, which leaves the child abuse aspect: the Not has been referred to as child abuse by

210: 4728: 578: 4386:"such as the punishment stick: the Welsh 'Not', the batascoir (Ireland), the maide crochaidh (Scottish Highlands) and the symbole (Brittany and elsewhere in France..." 4713: 1037:. The problem is that we don't have a free image available of a child wearing the Welsh Not or not even a close up of the actual thing, so this is a good alternative. 1693:

Thanks for these suggestions, some of which I've taken aboard. Wikiprojects based on politics and English have been left out as they're not relevant, in my opinion.

831:. Earlier versions of the image were wholly inappropriate for various reasons, but those reasons have now been addressed. The current version seems to align with 147: 479: 4733: 1511: 554: 4708: 2332:

the image to be probably good enough, and not enough to sway me to oppose. (And that is not a request for anyone to produce further similar child abuse images).

3784:

including a CG image to illustrate how the Welsh Not and how it was worn by a child. The image to be included is this one on the right, or a very similar image

3098: 3056: 3006: 2966: 1398: 79: 4703: 837:"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" 469: 1558: 1338:

for your 3 points. Point 1- 'The image was constructed for this page..' - not relevant; this isn't a criteria of OR. Point 2 - Take a look at what I said: "

1232:

as there are significant editorial decisions involved that could introduce OR or POV issues, and while I agree that an image is required, I'm not sure that

498: 396: 2622:, are you following a Wiki policy or guideline for RfCs by moving all the discussion away from from its original context, or is it your own initiative? -- 4723: 4497:

an article exist about such tangentential topics) so I have re-added Symbole and Dialect Card into see-also, with slightly more see-alsoey descriptions.

739:. The deletion of this image has created a non-neutral article. Similar images are found in books and on covers of books, but none have an open licence. 4113:

Discussion has certainly died down on the RfC. I think consensus is clear, but there is some disagreement. I've requested a 3rd party formal close at

3792:

summarizes its conclusions, is often of particular value in an RfC, as the purpose of an RfC is usually to develop a consensus about some disputed point

4155:

I wonder if the clear 'parallels' would be better moved to a 'see also'? In any case I think there is no reason to keep the Canada and Ireland at all.

700: 4718: 4145:

punishment which allowed a student to avoid punishment by identifying another student to take the Not (and ultimately the punishment) in their place.

1167:. I think there are valid arguments on both sides. In my view policy on the use of CGI images in articles such as this, is not sufficiently clear and 3826:

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Knowledge (XXG) policy

3260:

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Knowledge (XXG) policy

2988:

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Knowledge (XXG) policy

545: 522: 445: 368: 4558:. To use that we'd need permission from St Fagans. There is a Knowledge (XXG) representative at the National Library who might be able to help us - 4450: 3101:

is a fact. They are aware of this RfC. It happened, and some have arrived here, left comments that there is no OR in the image. On top of that the

1633:, that will depend on one's personal POV though, so the more views we can attract, and from the widest cross-section of editors the better - no? -- 2982:

article. The answer to this question is important as it could help the closer of this discussion to determine the quality of it as an argument per

85: 4688: 358: 4639: 4603: 3920:, the 'instigator' doesn't own the RfC, and it doesn't matter if they disappear, for whatever reason. Guidance on ending it can be found here: 3148: 3102: 1341: 736: 4698: 1541: 1518: 1505: 1270: 1078:

The image was constructed for this page and with the feedback from the editors of this page. Which seems to me to be the very definition of

30: 436: 391: 1003:, which frankly could be made about every image ever made. The image is clear, without bias, and is a helpful addition to the article. 4693: 3186:

This is a Request for Comment on the image. I've explained why I think an image is needed. Can you tell me why an image is NOT needed?

2223: 1671: 1575: 334: 4373:. Luxembourg Washington, DC: Commission of the European Communities European Community Information Service distributor. 1986. p. 184. 3249:

I wanted you to explain why you think this particular image (the only image which is the subject of this RfC) is required to ensure a

2663:) does detail the correct way of different sections, with one specifically for 'Discussions'. I've done that, exactly as recommended. 1365: 3428:

want to emphasise how cruel Welsh people were to children then who am I to disagree? Tell me which way to vote and I will do it. FYI

1747:

There is a "Request for comment on including a computer-generated image" on the Welsh Not talk page you might want to contribute to.

99: 4635: 4613: 4599: 4434: 4415: 4396: 4377: 954: 44: 4283:

I think most of them do include some sort of device to mark out students who were caught using the wrong language, so I think it's

2725:

This style is normally used only when a majority vote matters, and only when the quality of the arguments is relatively unimportant

104: 20: 3979:

not to strike anything out, but to rely on discussion closers discounting those contributions. Do you have any further advice? --

2478:. This is precisely why I said that if the image was to be used, then permission would need to be obtained from the publishers. -- 4581: 2717:

There are multiple formats for Requests for comment. Some options are shown here. All of these formats are optional and voluntary

1965:

Please elaborate! The user did not vote! Trying to score points here? I suggest you discuss the image, not valuable new editors.

1177:

statement? I'm also unclear on how or why a CGI image should be treated differently to a photograph of a posed real child model.

2811:

If discussions have been ripped apart, then the editor who placed them in the wrong section can easily rectify their mistakes.

74: 4683: 2193:

Given the feedback of the other editors it seems that this might in principle be ok. I'll be interested to hear the opinion of

2168:

Reality check, the sentence ends: "...so that the whole world can see how children were treated at that time by Welsh people."

4424:"Its counterpart in Wales was the 'Welsh Not', a kind of wooden placard worn by ... firmly condemning the use of 'le symbole'" 3805:

Then, if discussion dries-up without a clear agreement, an uninvolved close is usually asked for, in which a determination of

2533:

regarding his support vote. I'm not sure how moving questions out of context is expected to make things clearer, but defer to

261: 668: 325: 286: 65: 1099:

The image has improved since the first rather strange attempt. It got off to a bad start and it may not recover from that.

694:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4135:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4114: 3708:

the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Knowledge (XXG) policy

2475: 964: 168: 4577: 4319:

lists rely on links, and not all of these other things have an article about them that would make a suitable link. --

2240: 1787:

They were, if i've read the thread correctly (and I probably haven't), the other people who were objecting because of

635:

Unfortunately, the significant effect that canvassing and sockpuppetry had on this discussion renders it in many ways

622:

participants being blocked. And, when the contributions of blocked sockpuppets are fully discounted, editors achieved

135: 2870:

didn't place the comment in the 'Discussion' section in the first place. Just take a look at similar RfCs elsewhere.

3239:

you included with your support 'vote' above, and the question you moved and buried down here (where you assert that

4148:

Some of the given parallels follow this - the Basque country, Japan and Kenya. The examples of Brittany and France

2227: 218: 185: 109: 4620:

and the OED and The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales both capitalise the "Not", so the article wasn't moved.

3499:

not regard it as child abuse, but at least three editors here do - none of whom have voted to exclude the image.

4446: 4368:" It was at this time that the Welsh Not , which had its counter - parts in Scotland (the maide crochaidh) ..." 2933:, no, you should not rip them apart in the first place! It's a time sink repairing them, and so unnecessary. -- 229: 4634:

That other encyclopedia is also wrong because there is no way in heck that not in Welsh not is a proper noun.--

4617: 4480: 4187: 4071: 4035: 3448:

tells me to switch my vote I will strike out the old entry and make a new entry in the support section and you

3350: 3336: 2502: 2460: 2402: 2363: 1770:. I suggest pinging all editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, not just two. 1182: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 1228:; on the fence, leaning towards weak oppose. I suspect images like this, as CGI constructions, go beyond what 267: 1259:

implied, one cannot infer that a conclusion is reached or implied. No opinion on the photo vs. the existing.

1092:

Do we really need to show a sign hanging around a neck? Will our readers really not know how that would look?

4063: 2483: 2384: 1925: 1216: 959: 4115:

Knowledge (XXG):Closure requests#Talk:Welsh Not#Request for comment on including a computer-generated image

1872: 1800:

had done that at the start? And no, I wasn't canvassing. As you can probably deduce from my edit at 15:02.

1767: 1353: 779:. Also because we need to bring back the neutrality of this article as per all relevant, reliable sources. 129: 4555: 4179: 3878: 3687: 3624: 3553: 3191: 3110: 3018: 2898: 2875: 2816: 2668: 2567: 2426: 1706: 1361: 1242: 987: 744: 711: 698:

Request for comment: including a CG image to illustrate how the Welsh Not and how it was worn by a child.

3813: 3806: 3711: 3152: 2728: 2719:". The format you seem to have chosen is, IMHO, the least appropriate for this problem, that page says: " 2056:

I've added a copy of the original image below. I think you will understand how we got into this dispute.

1485:

To get a good cross-section of views, should we publicise this RfC elsewhere - on some projects perhaps.

55: 3479:- you say you objected to the phrase 'John Jones' images of child abuse'. All the images are created by 553:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

444:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

333:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4284: 3874: 3683: 2562:- just refer to it in the usual way. You've pinged him in so he should see the question in due course. 1238: 940: 70: 4493:"It could be argued that these are tangential to the topic, " That's exactly what 'See Also' is for ( 1196:

only if there is no reasonable prospect of finding an image that can be attributed to a notable source

1059: 125: 3854: 3764: 3642: 3571: 3457: 3315: 3209: 3128: 3059:(which is the correct place for discussion od disputes over NOR in articles). All I can see there is 3036: 2916: 2834: 2686: 2645: 2585: 2444: 2285: 2249: 2206: 2173: 2142: 2097: 2061: 2039: 1988: 1953: 1858: 1805: 1752: 1723: 1655: 1620: 1383: 1320: 1104: 883: 866: 801: 761: 678: 4316: 2970: 1229: 1139: 1116: 657: 629: 249: 4476: 4183: 4067: 4045: 4031: 3346: 3332: 2529:'s dedicated housekeeping of this RFC has inadvertently resulted in removing a question I posed to 2498: 2456: 2414:

In fact, this exact book cover (File:Under the Welsh Not by Myrddin ap Dafydd.png) was uploaded by

2398: 2359: 2303:

the period when the Welsh Not was used. It is certainly a worthwhile consideration. You claim that

1880:". If it was done by someone involved in this discussion they would need to be warned, I think. -- 1423: 1281: 1264: 1203: 1178: 1128: 161: 4320: 4049: 4017: 3980: 3948: 3925: 3921: 3846: 3833: 3749:

then came along and made a pig's ear of things! Created confusion as they were loosing the vote!!!

3723: 3707: 3587: 3545: 3390: 3290: 3266: 3255: 3160: 3094: 3080: 2991: 2983: 2934: 2808: 2769: 2732: 2623: 1938: 1916: 1894: 1881: 1694: 1679: 1647: 1634: 1608: 1595: 1437: 1403: 840: 4665: 4625: 4206: 3975:, I asked the SPI closer if we should strike through the contributions of the blocked users, and 2859: 2702: 2479: 2380: 1942: 1921: 1775: 1475: 1212: 1148: 1042: 901: 848: 428: 234: 175: 4514:, See the responses above to your previous suggestion that "See also" is adequate in this case. 4445:

It could be argued that these are tangential to the topic, and we should just create a new page

3957:

and it's interesting to note the large number of other participants who have also been blocked.

1466: 3105:

also confirmed that there is no OR in the image. To me that's good enough and perfectly clear.

2201:. However my concerns about the posture and lighting remain; and does she have a skin disease? 4656: 4431: 4412: 4393: 4374: 4324: 4232: 4053: 4021: 3999: 3984: 3962: 3929: 3898: 3894: 3837: 3742: 3727: 3703: 3654: 3620: 3549: 3519: 3492: 3449: 3441: 3437: 3399: 3307: 3294: 3286: 3270: 3221: 3187: 3164: 3140: 3106: 3084: 3048: 3014: 2995: 2962: 2938: 2930: 2894: 2871: 2812: 2736: 2715:, it's not "The suggested format" though, it's one of "multiple", and they are described as: " 2712: 2664: 2637: 2627: 2619: 2601: 2597: 2563: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2422: 2415: 2015: 2011: 1885: 1849:. It's a wonder that the picture is in the wiki of 8 other languages, but not on the English! 1797: 1702: 1683: 1638: 1599: 1441: 1407: 1394: 1357: 1199: 1194:. I agree that there are arguments both ways. I take the view that the CGI should be included 1008: 983: 979: 776: 740: 707: 51: 3250: 3079:

a "fact", as you claim, then please supply a link to the discussion on that notice board. --

2979: 2780:

section, means that editors place their discussions there, at the bottom, in accordance with

2116: 4554:

The only one I know of that would really provide what we need is the one shown in the image

4544: 4502: 4342: 4292: 4268: 4160: 4122: 4095: 3906: 3662: 3617:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate support and oppose opinions

3600: 3532: 3504: 3371: 2609: 2546: 2337: 2316: 2267: 2124: 2092:

You're not concerned that it might be considered offensive by a person of african heritage?

2080: 1970: 1903: 1830: 1302: 1025: 936: 784: 550: 231: 3869: 3779: 2772:

The format was chosen by myself, and is 'the suggested format' for this RfC. It was chosen

1898:

same person is not behind both accounts. Would it be outing to name the account concerned?

4171: 3850: 3775: 3760: 3746: 3638: 3582:

I've changed it to a seperate point, as I want to make sure the question (not comment) to

3567: 3544:

I've moved this here, as it's related to your comment to Brwynog, and not to deletions by

3480: 3453: 3386: 3342: 3311: 3205: 3124: 3032: 2912: 2830: 2682: 2641: 2581: 2494: 2440: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2281: 2245: 2202: 2169: 2138: 2093: 2072: 2057: 2035: 2027: 2023: 1984: 1949: 1854: 1822: 1801: 1763: 1748: 1719: 1651: 1630: 1616: 1379: 1335: 1316: 1100: 921: 879: 862: 797: 757: 674: 2014:

Really? I have attached a copy of the original image below that was strongly defended by

1845: 1792: 1788: 1612: 1168: 1087: 1079: 1000: 832: 4559: 4371:

Linguistic minorities in countries belonging to the European community : summary report

3429: 3060: 2194: 1740: 1433: 1419: 1346: 1294: 1277: 1260: 1124: 141: 1459: 488: 4677: 4661: 4621: 4567: 4519: 4458: 4306: 4260: 4202: 4048:, yes! "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in the "Appearance" section. -- 3341:

This reply used to relate to something. If you can you work out what it was, you win

2886: 2855: 2765: 2698: 1784: 1771: 1471: 1206:) is willing to give permission for copyright purposes. (Important: "Fair use" would 1144: 1038: 897: 844: 819: 3452:

are not allowed to edit my new entry. Hope that helps towards reaching a consensus.

4088: 4009: 3995: 3972: 3958: 3782:, and the question we are trying to reach a consensus on is whether we should be: " 3583: 3524: 3476: 3445: 3425: 3413: 3395: 3362: 2241:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/archive-lifts-lid-life-school-9957515

2239:

And here are some pictures of actual Welsh School children from the Victorian era.

1004: 537: 516: 317: 4030:

Which gadget is that, sorry? Might have been useful.... for past 10 years or so.

4540: 4511: 4498: 4360: 4338: 4333: 4288: 4264: 4156: 4118: 4091: 3944: 3917: 3902: 3658: 3611: 3596: 3528: 3500: 3488: 3433: 3367: 3055:

a "fact" as there is no evidence at all of it having ever been discussed on the

2965:, there might not have been any objections on the OR talkpage, but so what? The 2721:

Don't use a "voting" style when you want to encourage comments and collaboration

2605: 2559: 2542: 2333: 2312: 2263: 2198: 2165: 2120: 2089: 2076: 2019: 1966: 1934: 1912: 1899: 1868: 1841: 1826: 1744: 1298: 1055: 1021: 780: 441: 422: 2727:" - the quality of the arguments is the most important when trying to reach a 914: 418: 307: 4175: 2978:

And can you please explain why you think this image is required to ensure a

706:

The image to be included is this one on the right, or a very similar image.

549:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the 24: 301: 280: 3586:

is not lost in a mass of discussion. While it is not specifically related

4563: 4515: 4454: 4302: 3246:

be) and where no-one will know the context where it was originally asked.

2053: 815: 4013: 1871:, that looks like a clear case of inappropriate canvassing to me. The 412: 385: 4472: 4337:

opinion of Knowledge (XXG) Editors, and therefore Original Research.

644:

that can be ascertained from this discussion on the inclusion of the

233: 4576:

Someone please do, so hard to see the thing in the current image! --

4363:

could have checked first, and he would have found sources like this:

3633: 3562: 3200: 3119: 3027: 2907: 2825: 2677: 2576: 2435: 2276: 2133: 1979: 1714: 1374: 1311: 874: 792: 752: 3075:

that they had not been consulted or invited. If I missed it and it

4390:

Nationalism, Ethnicity and the State : Making and Breaking Nations

2723:". Surely we need collaboration with this? It then described as: " 2222: 699: 330: 1791:

If they saw the opinions of the other editors about it not being

1121:

Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day

4669: 4643: 4629: 4607: 4585: 4571: 4548: 4523: 4506: 4484: 4462: 4346: 4328: 4310: 4296: 4272: 4210: 4191: 4164: 4126: 4099: 4075: 4057: 4039: 4025: 4003: 3988: 3966: 3933: 3910: 3882: 3858: 3841: 3768: 3731: 3691: 3666: 3646: 3604: 3575: 3536: 3508: 3461: 3421: 3417: 3375: 3354: 3319: 3298: 3274: 3235:

The question you have avoided, is the one I asked you about the

3213: 3168: 3132: 3088: 3040: 2999: 2942: 2920: 2879: 2863: 2838: 2740: 2706: 2690: 2649: 2631: 2613: 2589: 2550: 2506: 2487: 2464: 2448: 2406: 2388: 2367: 2341: 2320: 2289: 2253: 2210: 2177: 2146: 2101: 2084: 2065: 2043: 1992: 1957: 1946: 1929: 1907: 1889: 1862: 1834: 1809: 1779: 1756: 1727: 1687: 1659: 1642: 1624: 1603: 1479: 1445: 1427: 1411: 1387: 1324: 1285: 1246: 1220: 1186: 1152: 1132: 1108: 1063: 1046: 1029: 1012: 991: 970: 944: 925: 905: 887: 852: 823: 805: 765: 715: 682: 3228:

claimed that an image is not needed, and indeed it was me who

243: 235: 15: 3011:

the consensus is that the image contains NO original Research

1821:

This has also been notified to interested folks on twitter -

1297:. The photo is not OR. Thanks for your valued contribution. 3009:. They have been asked to comment here, and as you can see, 487: 2537:

understanding of the process. In any case, I therefore ask

611:

Request for comment on including a computer-generated image

1844:

Yes that's not exactly seeking wikipedia policy advice on

1678:

by the creator of the RfC, so I've marked it as done. --

3495:(25 September) as well as me (27 September). The police 1350:

articles? That would be censorship, and so would this.

4287:. Agree that 'See also' might work better 'a parallel' 4201:

apparently hung around the neck, like the Welsh stick.

3976: 3229: 3156: 3149:

opinion of that one other editor on that other talkpage

3072: 2890: 2773: 2470: 2418: 1823:

https://twitter.com/RobLlwyd/status/1443265938653171712

1675: 1417: 4315:

It seems relevant to talk about these as 'parallels'.

4066:

Thanks. I knew this Talk page was good for something.

2969:

is the correct place for that discussion, and not the

720:

Any discussion should be under the Discussion section.

160: 3232:

the first image to this article just a few weeks ago.

2600:. I have now, but my original question did not ping 839:- which is a new one on me, but seems to be accepted 2232:

This was one of the earlier versions, for comparison

440:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 329:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2640:I'd also like to know the answer to that question. 1768:

Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing#Appropriate_notification

174: 4598:“Not” in “Welsh not” shouldn’t have a capital n.-- 1340:There were no 'Original Research' (OR) objections 3745:moved the discussions to the Discussion section. 1945:The tweet however appears to have paid dividens: 648:. However, there appears to be enough here for a 640:arguments seem to have some legitimacy, there is 4475:"? That sounds a bit different and more severe. 4430:. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 75. 4409:Language and community in the nineteenth century 1399:Knowledge (XXG):No original research/Noticeboard 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3005:Fact: Neither were there any objections on the 1947:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Welsh_Not#POV_Tag 1192:Also on the fence (leaning towards weak oppose) 4016:though - it does the trick nicely! Thanks. -- 2782:on the RfC page#Separate votes from discussion 2657:on the RfC page#Separate votes from discussion 1490:WT:WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom 1467:WP:NOR/N § RfC: Computer-generated image as OR 4411:. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 16. 1535:WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom 814:- Don't understand the opposition reasoning. 646:particular CGI graphic proposed for inclusion 8: 3994:discussion gets closed is up to the closer. 563:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject English Language 1615:or not? So I would say not to bother them. 626:to include the CGI image in the article. 511: 380: 275: 3103:Knowledge (XXG) talk:No original research 2455:What was the reason for deleton? Thanks. 2230:simulation of a child wearing a Welsh Not 628:Policy discussion largely focused around 4729:Low-importance English Language articles 4453:(which is currently very Anglocentric). 4451:Language education in the United Kingdom 1611:I think it's just a policy issue. Is it 4714:Applied Linguistics Task Force articles 4223: 3893:Given that the instigator of this RFC, 3063:'s notification of this RfC made there 2034:." to an editor who removed the image. 513: 454:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics 382: 277: 247: 3825: 3817: 3798: 3790: 3783: 3259: 3067:this RfC was under way, and following 2987: 2724: 2720: 2716: 1876: 1339: 1137: 1075:I oppose for the following reasons... 4734:WikiProject English Language articles 4618:Talk:Welsh Not/Archive 2#Proper nouns 566:Template:WikiProject English Language 7: 4709:C-Class applied linguistics articles 1701:, here, or have I missed something? 1202:(ISBN 1845276833) if the publisher ( 690:The following discussion is closed. 543:This article is within the scope of 434:This article is within the scope of 323:This article is within the scope of 4704:Low-importance Linguistics articles 3099:WP:No original research/Noticeboard 3057:WP:No original research/Noticeboard 3007:WP:No original research/Noticeboard 2967:WP:No original research/Noticeboard 1697:- can you explain why you've added 23:for discussing improvements to the 4616:, this was discussed in August at 4180:when the school bell finally rings 1342:when discussed on the OR Talk page 737:when discussed on the OR Talk page 14: 4724:C-Class English Language articles 4178:. Don't be caught, with the Not, 3339:) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2671:) 11:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2570:) 06:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1709:) 15:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1267:) 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 869:) 13:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 787:) 12:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 343:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Wales 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4719:WikiProject Linguistics articles 4131:The discussion above is closed. 3710:" to help them decide whether a 3194:) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 3021:) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2901:) 21:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2819:) 15:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2476:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 2429:) 06:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1581: 1563: 1546: 1523: 1494: 1458: 1368:) 12:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1138:This is a very clear example of 1115:This is a very clear example of 747:) 11:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 536: 515: 457:Template:WikiProject Linguistics 421: 411: 384: 310: 300: 279: 248: 217: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 4428:Language planning and education 4237:(2nd ed.). R. Cruttwell. p. 262 3051:, as far as I can see, that is 1875:guideline is very clear that: " 1512:WT:WikiProject English Language 583:This article has been rated as 474:This article has been rated as 363:This article has been rated as 4689:High-importance Wales articles 3355:22:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 3320:19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 3299:14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 3113:) 14:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3000:11:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2880:21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2864:17:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2741:12:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2707:12:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2661:Separate votes from discussion 2650:08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2632:06:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2614:06:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2551:06:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2507:10:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2488:10:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2465:08:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2407:22:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2389:22:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2368:22:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2342:01:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2254:17:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2211:15:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2066:17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2044:17:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1973:) 07:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 1958:18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1930:11:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1908:07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1890:07:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1863:23:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1835:23:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1810:15:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1780:15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1757:14:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1688:15:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1660:16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1643:15:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1625:15:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1604:15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1480:15:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1446:13:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1428:13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1412:13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1286:12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1221:22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1187:13:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1133:12:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 1109:12:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 1013:22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 992:16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 971:15:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 945:14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 926:13:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 906:13:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 853:13:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 824:12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 716:11:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 499:Applied Linguistics Task Force 266:It is of interest to multiple 1: 4644:20:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 4630:09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 4608:04:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 4392:. London: SAGE Publications. 4127:00:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 3647:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 3627:) 10:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3576:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 3556:) 08:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3402:) 15.57, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3214:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 3133:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 3041:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2921:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2839:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2691:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2590:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2525:Unfortunately, it seems that 2449:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2290:02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2270:) 08:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2147:02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2127:) 14:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 1993:02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 1728:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 1559:WT:WikiProject United Kingdom 1388:02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 1325:02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 1305:) 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 888:02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 806:02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 766:02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 683:04:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 557:and see a list of open tasks. 496:This article is supported by 448:and see a list of open tasks. 337:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 4699:C-Class Linguistics articles 4636:Alex Mitchell of The Goodies 4614:Alex Mitchell of The Goodies 4600:Alex Mitchell of The Goodies 4586:13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC) 4572:12:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4549:08:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4524:07:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC) 4507:17:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 4485:17:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 4463:09:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 4347:04:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 4329:08:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4311:07:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4297:06:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4273:02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4211:23:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 4192:22:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 4165:22:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 4100:02:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC) 4076:10:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4058:10:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4040:10:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4026:08:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 4004:08:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 3989:06:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 3967:22:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 3955:actually been indeff blocked 3143:, the fact is that this was 2421:, and subsequently deleted. 1247:09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC) 1153:07:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC) 1064:12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 546:WikiProject English Language 3934:16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC) 3911:00:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC) 3883:07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 3859:10:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3842:10:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3769:09:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3732:08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3692:07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 3667:10:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3605:09:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3537:02:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3509:04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 3483:and that user has uploaded 3462:22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3376:02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3275:07:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3169:19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 3089:06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2943:06:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2891:Here's the link, once again 2854:could correct any errors. 2321:08:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2178:16:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2102:07:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2085:07:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 1047:11:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 1030:07:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 4750: 4694:WikiProject Wales articles 4447:Language teaching in Wales 3698:Orphaned discussion points 652:that CGI graphics do not, 480:project's importance scale 369:project's importance scale 346:Template:WikiProject Wales 4670:13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 4426:Ferguson, Gibson (2006). 4407:Jenkins, Geraint (1998). 4234:Second Walk Through Wales 4170:Yes, a bit like sadistic 3422:accusation of colonialism 2474:all clearly explained at 582: 569:English Language articles 531: 495: 473: 406: 362: 295: 274: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 4231:Warner, Richard (1800). 4133:Please do not modify it. 3418:accusations of vandalism 1650:Sadly that may be true. 775:for the reasons give by 692:Please do not modify it. 3809:should ideally be made. 3155:" that known supporter 3097:A link wa added to the 2032:get an admin to ban you 437:WikiProject Linguistics 4684:C-Class Wales articles 4594:Capitalization errors… 4578:Trans-Neptunian object 4388:Coakley, John (2012). 4012:. I didn't know about 3366:unhealthy, don't you? 2233: 1542:WT:WikiProject Schools 1519:WT:WikiProject History 1506:WT:WikiProject England 704: 492: 256:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 4660:in the 20th century. 3653:Thanks for your help 2655:The suggested format 2226: 1054:Nothing more to say. 703: 491: 260:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 211:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 4140:Not quite parallels? 3868:could actually be a 3789:From the RfC page: " 3343:Tonight's Star Prize 2774:right from the start 1672:WT:WikiProject Wales 1576:WT:WikiProject Wales 460:Linguistics articles 105:No original research 3953:the instigator has 3637:confirmed by CU. — 3566:confirmed by CU. — 3416:Did you miss these 3204:confirmed by CU. — 3123:confirmed by CU. — 3031:confirmed by CU. — 2911:confirmed by CU. — 2829:confirmed by CU. — 2681:confirmed by CU. — 2580:confirmed by CU. — 2439:confirmed by CU. — 2280:confirmed by CU. — 2137:confirmed by CU. — 1983:confirmed by CU. — 1766:, are you aware of 1718:confirmed by CU. — 1378:confirmed by CU. — 1315:confirmed by CU. — 1204:Gwasg Carreg Gwalch 878:confirmed by CU. — 796:confirmed by CU. — 756:confirmed by CU. — 637:irreparably tainted 397:Applied Linguistics 4652:Early 20th century 2971:OR policy talkpage 2234: 1594:Anywhere else? -- 1253:Discussion (image) 705: 693: 493: 429:Linguistics portal 262:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 4449:as a sub-page of 3889:What happens now? 3649: 3578: 3357: 3216: 3135: 3043: 2923: 2841: 2693: 2592: 2451: 2354:Also on the fence 2292: 2149: 1995: 1853:! Welsh flag x3. 1731: 1712:(Blocked sock of 1482: 1390: 1356:comment added by 1327: 1274: 1200:Myrddin ap Dafydd 1123:, this is it. -- 890: 808: 768: 691: 672: 669:non-admin closure 603: 602: 599: 598: 595: 594: 510: 509: 506: 505: 379: 378: 375: 374: 326:WikiProject Wales 242: 241: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4741: 4440: 4421: 4402: 4383: 4247: 4246: 4244: 4242: 4228: 4172:"pasio'r parsel" 4078: 3952: 3752: 3751: 3636: 3631:Blocked sock of 3630: 3565: 3560:Blocked sock of 3559: 3491:(13 September), 3340: 3203: 3198:Blocked sock of 3197: 3122: 3117:Blocked sock of 3116: 3071:earlier comment 3030: 3025:Blocked sock of 3024: 2910: 2905:Blocked sock of 2904: 2828: 2823:Blocked sock of 2822: 2680: 2675:Blocked sock of 2674: 2579: 2574:Blocked sock of 2573: 2438: 2433:Blocked sock of 2432: 2357: 2356:, Dani di Neudo: 2279: 2274:Blocked sock of 2273: 2136: 2131:Blocked sock of 2130: 2030:threatening to " 1982: 1977:Blocked sock of 1976: 1717: 1711: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1469: 1462: 1377: 1372:Blocked sock of 1371: 1369: 1345:.' I agree with 1314: 1309:Blocked sock of 1308: 1268: 967: 962: 957: 918: 877: 872:Blocked sock of 871: 795: 790:Blocked sock of 789: 755: 750:Blocked sock of 749: 666: 589:importance scale 571: 570: 567: 564: 561: 560:English Language 551:English language 540: 533: 532: 527: 523:English Language 519: 512: 462: 461: 458: 455: 452: 431: 426: 425: 415: 408: 407: 402: 399: 388: 381: 351: 350: 347: 344: 341: 320: 315: 314: 313: 304: 297: 296: 291: 283: 276: 259: 253: 252: 244: 236: 222: 221: 212: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4749: 4748: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4674: 4673: 4654: 4596: 4536: 4437: 4425: 4418: 4406: 4399: 4387: 4380: 4369: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4240: 4238: 4230: 4229: 4225: 4142: 4137: 4136: 4062: 4014:that preference 3996:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3959:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3942: 3891: 3700: 3632: 3561: 3199: 3118: 3026: 2906: 2824: 2676: 2575: 2434: 2351: 2275: 2132: 1978: 1713: 1582: 1580: 1564: 1562: 1547: 1545: 1524: 1522: 1495: 1493: 1373: 1351: 1310: 1271:Summoned by bot 1255: 1161: 1159:Neutral (image) 1072: 965: 960: 955: 916: 873: 791: 751: 727: 725:Support (image) 696: 687: 686: 685: 662:status quo ante 650:rough consensus 618: 613: 568: 565: 562: 559: 558: 525: 459: 456: 453: 450: 449: 427: 420: 400: 394: 365:High-importance 348: 345: 342: 339: 338: 316: 311: 309: 290:High‑importance 289: 257: 238: 237: 232: 209: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4747: 4745: 4737: 4736: 4731: 4726: 4721: 4716: 4711: 4706: 4701: 4696: 4691: 4686: 4676: 4675: 4653: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4595: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4560:User:Jason.nlw 4535: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4477:Martinevans123 4442: 4441: 4435: 4422: 4416: 4403: 4397: 4384: 4378: 4365: 4364: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4249: 4248: 4222: 4221: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4195: 4194: 4184:Martinevans123 4141: 4138: 4130: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4068:Martinevans123 4046:Martinevans123 4032:Martinevans123 3937: 3936: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3829: 3822: 3816:policy says: " 3810: 3803: 3795: 3787: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3719: 3718: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3540: 3539: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3379: 3378: 3359: 3358: 3347:Martinevans123 3333:Martinevans123 3327: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3310:diffs please! 3302: 3301: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3263: 3247: 3233: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 2975: 2974: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2883: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2709: 2616: 2554: 2553: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2499:Martinevans123 2457:Martinevans123 2410: 2409: 2399:Martinevans123 2392: 2391: 2371: 2370: 2360:Martinevans123 2347: 2345: 2344: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2298:I don't think 2258: 2257: 2256: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2216: 2214: 2213: 2189: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2069: 2068: 2049: 2047: 2046: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1865: 1838: 1837: 1817: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1760: 1759: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1572: 1555: 1538: 1532: 1515: 1509: 1503: 1464:Courtesy link: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1330: 1329: 1289: 1288: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1223: 1189: 1179:Martinevans123 1160: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1135: 1112: 1111: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1083: 1071: 1070:Oppose (image) 1068: 1067: 1066: 1049: 1032: 1018:Strong Support 1015: 997:Strong support 994: 976:Strong support 973: 947: 929: 928: 908: 894:Strong support 891: 859:Strong support 855: 826: 809: 773:Strong support 769: 732:Strong support 726: 723: 697: 688: 620: 619: 616: 615: 614: 612: 609: 607: 601: 600: 597: 596: 593: 592: 585:Low-importance 581: 575: 574: 572: 555:the discussion 541: 529: 528: 526:Low‑importance 520: 508: 507: 504: 503: 494: 484: 483: 476:Low-importance 472: 466: 465: 463: 446:the discussion 433: 432: 416: 404: 403: 401:Low‑importance 389: 377: 376: 373: 372: 361: 355: 354: 352: 349:Wales articles 335:the discussion 322: 321: 305: 293: 292: 284: 272: 271: 265: 254: 240: 239: 230: 228: 227: 224: 223: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4746: 4735: 4732: 4730: 4727: 4725: 4722: 4720: 4717: 4715: 4712: 4710: 4707: 4705: 4702: 4700: 4697: 4695: 4692: 4690: 4687: 4685: 4682: 4681: 4679: 4672: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4658: 4651: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4593: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4534:Image Request 4533: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4443: 4438: 4436:9780748626588 4433: 4429: 4423: 4419: 4417:9780708314678 4414: 4410: 4404: 4400: 4398:9781446291511 4395: 4391: 4385: 4381: 4379:9789282558508 4376: 4372: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4359:I think that 4358: 4357: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4335: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4281: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4236: 4235: 4227: 4224: 4220: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4153: 4151: 4146: 4139: 4134: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4090: 4086: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3871: 3866: 3865: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3830: 3827: 3823: 3820: 3815: 3811: 3808: 3804: 3801: 3796: 3793: 3788: 3785: 3781: 3778:, this is an 3777: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3750: 3748: 3744: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3678: 3677: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3635: 3628: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3613: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3580: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3557: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3542: 3541: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3521: 3518: 3517: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3401: 3397: 3392: 3388: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3261: 3258:which says: " 3257: 3252: 3248: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3202: 3195: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3114: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3029: 3022: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2986:which says: " 2985: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2909: 2902: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2882: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2827: 2820: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2672: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2594: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2571: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2523: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2480:Dani di Neudo 2477: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2430: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2412: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2381:Dani di Neudo 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2355: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2271: 2269: 2265: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2229: 2225: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2135: 2128: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2010: 2009: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1974: 1972: 1968: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1943:Dani di Neudo 1940: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922:Dani di Neudo 1918: 1914: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1873:WP:Canvassing 1870: 1866: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1847: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1710: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1676:been notified 1673: 1669: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1579: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1561: 1560: 1556: 1553: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1530: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1484: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1436:, thanks! -- 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1293:I agree with 1291: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1272: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1213:Dani di Neudo 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1136: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1091: 1089: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 995: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 974: 972: 969: 968: 963: 958: 951: 948: 946: 942: 938: 934: 931: 930: 927: 923: 919: 912: 909: 907: 903: 899: 895: 892: 889: 885: 881: 876: 870: 868: 864: 860: 856: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 827: 825: 821: 817: 813: 810: 807: 803: 799: 794: 788: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 767: 763: 759: 754: 748: 746: 742: 738: 733: 729: 728: 724: 722: 721: 717: 713: 709: 702: 695: 684: 680: 676: 670: 665: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 638: 633: 631: 625: 610: 608: 605: 590: 586: 580: 577: 576: 573: 556: 552: 548: 547: 542: 539: 535: 534: 530: 524: 521: 518: 514: 501: 500: 490: 486: 485: 481: 477: 471: 468: 467: 464: 447: 443: 439: 438: 430: 424: 419: 417: 414: 410: 409: 405: 398: 393: 390: 387: 383: 370: 366: 360: 357: 356: 353: 336: 332: 328: 327: 319: 308: 306: 303: 299: 298: 294: 288: 285: 282: 278: 273: 269: 263: 255: 251: 246: 245: 226: 225: 220: 216: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4657:Stub Mandrel 4655: 4597: 4537: 4494: 4427: 4408: 4389: 4370: 4239:. Retrieved 4233: 4226: 4218: 4154: 4149: 4147: 4143: 4132: 4112: 4008:Fair enough 3977:they advised 3899:Llywelyn2000 3895:Cell Danwydd 3892: 3875:BilledMammal 3757: 3743:Cell Danwydd 3740: 3739: 3720: 3704:Cell Danwydd 3701: 3684:BilledMammal 3679: 3655:Cell Danwydd 3634:Llywelyn2000 3621:Cell Danwydd 3609: 3591: 3563:Llywelyn2000 3550:Cell Danwydd 3543: 3520:Cell Danwydd 3496: 3493:Cell Danwydd 3484: 3450:Cell Danwydd 3442:Cell Danwydd 3438:Llywelyn2000 3326: 3308:Llywelyn2000 3287:Llywelyn2000 3243: 3240: 3236: 3225: 3222:Cell Danwydd 3201:Llywelyn2000 3188:Cell Danwydd 3185: 3144: 3141:Cell Danwydd 3120:Llywelyn2000 3107:Cell Danwydd 3093: 3076: 3068: 3064: 3052: 3049:Cell Danwydd 3028:Llywelyn2000 3015:Cell Danwydd 3010: 3004: 2963:Cell Danwydd 2931:Cell Danwydd 2908:Llywelyn2000 2895:Cell Danwydd 2885: 2872:Cell Danwydd 2868: 2851: 2847: 2826:Llywelyn2000 2813:Cell Danwydd 2807: 2777: 2713:Cell Danwydd 2678:Llywelyn2000 2665:Cell Danwydd 2660: 2654: 2638:Cell Danwydd 2620:Cell Danwydd 2602:Llywelyn2000 2598:Cell Danwydd 2596:Many thanks 2577:Llywelyn2000 2564:Cell Danwydd 2557: 2539:Llywelyn2000 2535:Cell Danwydd 2531:Llywelyn2000 2527:Cell Danwydd 2471:deletion log 2436:Llywelyn2000 2423:Cell Danwydd 2416:Llywelyn2000 2413: 2353: 2346: 2277:Llywelyn2000 2260: 2215: 2188: 2134:Llywelyn2000 2114: 2048: 2031: 2016:Cell Danwydd 2012:Llywelyn2000 1980:Llywelyn2000 1964: 1850: 1816: 1798:Cell Danwydd 1715:Llywelyn2000 1703:Cell Danwydd 1698: 1692: 1674:has already 1586: 1574: 1568: 1557: 1551: 1540: 1528: 1517: 1499: 1488: 1463: 1395:Cell Danwydd 1375:Llywelyn2000 1358:Cell Danwydd 1352:— Preceding 1333: 1312:Llywelyn2000 1292: 1239:BilledMammal 1233: 1226:Same as Dani 1225: 1207: 1195: 1191: 1173: 1165:On the fence 1164: 1051: 1034: 1017: 996: 984:Llywelyn2000 980:Cell Danwydd 975: 953: 949: 932: 910: 893: 875:Llywelyn2000 858: 857: 836: 828: 811: 793:Llywelyn2000 777:Cell Danwydd 772: 771: 753:Llywelyn2000 741:Cell Danwydd 731: 730: 719: 718: 708:Cell Danwydd 689: 661: 653: 649: 645: 642:no consensus 641: 636: 634: 627: 624:no consensus 623: 617:NO CONSENSUS 606: 604: 584: 544: 497: 475: 435: 364: 324: 318:Wales portal 268:WikiProjects 214: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 4361:User:Seddon 4285:WP:Relevant 4174:with added 2778:Discussions 2776:. Having a 2495:wet blanket 2311:'s fault. 1670:I see that 451:Linguistics 442:linguistics 392:Linguistics 148:free images 31:not a forum 4678:Categories 4219:References 3851:Cheezypeaz 3819:guidelines 3776:Cheezypeaz 3761:Cheezypeaz 3747:Cheezypeaz 3639:Mikehawk10 3568:Mikehawk10 3481:John Jones 3454:Cheezypeaz 3387:Cheezypeaz 3312:Cheezypeaz 3241:discussion 3237:discussion 3206:Mikehawk10 3125:Mikehawk10 3033:Mikehawk10 2913:Mikehawk10 2850:, so that 2831:Mikehawk10 2683:Mikehawk10 2642:Cheezypeaz 2582:Mikehawk10 2441:Mikehawk10 2309:Cheezypeaz 2305:Cheezypeaz 2300:Cheezypeaz 2282:Mikehawk10 2246:Cheezypeaz 2203:Cheezypeaz 2170:Cheezypeaz 2139:Mikehawk10 2094:Cheezypeaz 2073:Cheezypeaz 2058:Cheezypeaz 2036:Cheezypeaz 2028:John Jones 2024:John Jones 1985:Mikehawk10 1950:Cheezypeaz 1855:Cheezypeaz 1802:Cheezypeaz 1764:Cheezypeaz 1749:Cheezypeaz 1720:Mikehawk10 1652:Cheezypeaz 1631:Cheezypeaz 1617:Cheezypeaz 1397:, I think 1380:Mikehawk10 1336:Cheezypeaz 1317:Mikehawk10 1230:WP:IMAGEOR 1140:WP:IMAGEOR 1117:WP:IMAGEOR 1101:Cheezypeaz 880:Mikehawk10 863:John Jones 798:Mikehawk10 758:Mikehawk10 675:Mikehawk10 658:WP:IMAGEOR 630:WP:IMAGEOR 4241:25 August 3922:WP:RFCEND 3814:consensus 3807:consensus 3712:consensus 3430:The Anome 3394:argument. 3256:WP:DETCON 3224:, I have 3153:votestack 3061:Hipocrite 2984:WP:DETCON 2729:consensus 2352:Reply to 2195:The Anome 1741:The Anome 1434:Hipocrite 1420:Hipocrite 1347:Hipocrite 1295:Hipocrite 1278:Hipocrite 1261:Hipocrite 1125:The Anome 966:Norwegian 88:if needed 71:Be polite 25:Welsh Not 21:talk page 4662:TSventon 4622:TSventon 4471:"wooden 4317:See also 4261:TSventon 4203:TSventon 4176:jeopardy 4064:Hoorah!! 3897:(and/or 3714:exists? 3420:or this 2887:Ghmyrtle 2856:Ghmyrtle 2766:Ghmyrtle 2699:Ghmyrtle 1878:behavior 1785:TSventon 1772:TSventon 1699:politics 1472:Mathglot 1366:contribs 1354:unsigned 1145:Pincrete 1039:Cwmcafit 937:Iñaki LL 898:Gorkaazk 845:Ghmyrtle 656:violate 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4321:DeFacto 4259:Thanks 4089:Kudpung 4087:Thanks 4050:DeFacto 4018:DeFacto 4010:Kudpung 3981:DeFacto 3973:Kudpung 3949:DeFacto 3926:DeFacto 3847:DeFacto 3834:DeFacto 3800:dispute 3724:DeFacto 3702:Due to 3680:Comment 3588:DeFacto 3584:Brwynog 3546:DeFacto 3525:Brwynog 3477:Brwynog 3446:Brwynog 3426:Brwynog 3414:Brwynog 3396:Brwynog 3391:DeFacto 3363:Brwynog 3291:DeFacto 3267:DeFacto 3251:neutral 3161:DeFacto 3095:DeFacto 3081:DeFacto 2992:DeFacto 2980:neutral 2935:DeFacto 2809:DeFacto 2770:DeFacto 2733:DeFacto 2624:DeFacto 2117:WP:BIAS 1939:DeFacto 1917:DeFacto 1895:DeFacto 1882:DeFacto 1851:Sigh up 1695:DeFacto 1680:DeFacto 1648:DeFacto 1635:DeFacto 1609:DeFacto 1596:DeFacto 1438:DeFacto 1404:DeFacto 1334:Thanks 1052:Support 1035:Support 1005:Brwynog 950:Support 933:Support 911:Support 829:Support 812:Support 587:on the 478:on the 367:on the 258:C-class 215:14 days 154:WP refs 142:scholar 4541:JeffUK 4512:JeffUK 4499:JeffUK 4473:halter 4339:Llwyld 4334:Seddon 4289:JeffUK 4265:Llwyld 4157:Llwyld 4119:Fieari 4092:Llwyld 3945:Llwyld 3918:Llwyld 3903:Llwyld 3870:WP:TPO 3824:And: " 3797:And: " 3659:Llwyld 3612:Llwyld 3597:Llwyld 3592:within 3529:Llwyld 3501:Llwyld 3489:Monsyn 3434:Monsyn 3368:Llwyld 3244:should 2990:". -- 2606:Llwyld 2560:Llwyld 2543:Llwyld 2334:Llwyld 2313:Llwyld 2264:Monsyn 2199:Llwyld 2166:Monsyn 2121:Monsyn 2090:Monsyn 2077:Monsyn 2020:Monsyn 1967:Monsyn 1935:Llwyld 1913:Llwyld 1900:Llwyld 1869:Llwyld 1842:Llwyld 1827:Llwyld 1745:Llwyld 1416:Done! 1299:Monsyn 1056:Oraina 1022:Fieari 961:Savage 841:policy 781:Monsyn 664:RfC. 654:per se 264:scale. 126:Google 4150:might 3924:. -- 3444:. If 3230:added 3226:never 3159:. -- 3065:after 2026:With 1846:WP:OR 1793:WP:OR 1789:WP:OR 1613:WP:OR 1169:WP:OR 1088:WP:OR 1080:WP:OR 1001:Wp:OR 843:. 833:WP:OI 340:Wales 331:Wales 287:Wales 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4666:talk 4640:talk 4626:talk 4604:talk 4582:talk 4568:talk 4556:here 4545:talk 4520:talk 4503:talk 4481:talk 4459:talk 4432:ISBN 4413:ISBN 4394:ISBN 4375:ISBN 4343:talk 4325:talk 4307:talk 4293:talk 4269:talk 4243:2021 4207:talk 4188:talk 4161:talk 4123:talk 4096:talk 4072:talk 4054:talk 4036:talk 4022:talk 4000:talk 3985:talk 3963:talk 3947:and 3930:talk 3907:talk 3879:talk 3855:talk 3838:talk 3812:The 3765:talk 3741:No! 3728:talk 3688:talk 3663:talk 3643:talk 3625:talk 3601:talk 3572:talk 3554:talk 3533:talk 3505:talk 3485:nine 3458:talk 3400:talk 3389:and 3372:talk 3351:talk 3337:talk 3316:talk 3295:talk 3271:talk 3210:talk 3192:talk 3165:talk 3157:here 3129:talk 3111:talk 3085:talk 3073:here 3037:talk 3019:talk 2996:talk 2939:talk 2917:talk 2899:talk 2876:talk 2860:talk 2852:they 2848:them 2835:talk 2817:talk 2768:and 2737:talk 2703:talk 2687:talk 2669:talk 2646:talk 2628:talk 2610:talk 2586:talk 2568:talk 2547:talk 2503:talk 2484:talk 2469:The 2461:talk 2445:talk 2427:talk 2419:here 2403:talk 2385:talk 2364:talk 2338:talk 2317:talk 2286:talk 2268:talk 2250:talk 2207:talk 2197:and 2174:talk 2143:talk 2125:talk 2098:talk 2081:talk 2062:talk 2040:talk 2022:and 1989:talk 1971:talk 1954:talk 1926:talk 1904:talk 1886:talk 1859:talk 1831:talk 1806:talk 1776:talk 1753:talk 1724:talk 1707:talk 1684:talk 1656:talk 1639:talk 1621:talk 1600:talk 1587:Done 1569:Done 1552:Done 1529:Done 1500:Done 1476:talk 1442:talk 1424:talk 1408:talk 1384:talk 1362:talk 1321:talk 1303:talk 1282:talk 1265:talk 1243:talk 1234:this 1217:talk 1183:talk 1174:very 1149:talk 1129:talk 1105:talk 1060:talk 1043:talk 1026:talk 1009:talk 988:talk 941:talk 917:asem 902:talk 884:talk 867:talk 849:talk 820:talk 802:talk 785:talk 762:talk 745:talk 712:talk 679:talk 359:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 4564:Deb 4516:Deb 4455:Deb 4327:). 4303:Deb 4056:). 4024:). 3987:). 3932:). 3840:). 3780:RfC 3730:). 3610:Hi 3497:may 3345:!! 3297:). 3273:). 3167:). 3145:not 3087:). 3053:not 2998:). 2941:). 2739:). 2630:). 2558:Hi 2228:CGI 2054:Deb 1888:). 1686:). 1641:). 1602:). 1444:). 1410:). 1208:not 956:The 816:Deb 579:Low 470:Low 176:TWL 4680:: 4668:) 4642:) 4628:) 4606:) 4584:) 4570:) 4562:. 4547:) 4522:) 4505:) 4495:if 4483:) 4461:) 4345:) 4309:) 4295:) 4271:) 4209:) 4190:) 4182:. 4163:) 4125:) 4098:) 4074:) 4038:) 4002:) 3965:) 3909:) 3881:) 3857:) 3828:". 3821:". 3802:". 3786:". 3767:) 3690:) 3665:) 3650:) 3645:) 3619:. 3603:) 3579:) 3574:) 3535:) 3507:) 3460:) 3440:. 3436:, 3432:, 3374:) 3353:) 3318:) 3262:". 3217:) 3212:) 3136:) 3131:) 3077:is 3069:my 3044:) 3039:) 3013:. 2919:) 2893:. 2878:) 2862:) 2842:) 2837:) 2705:) 2694:) 2689:) 2648:) 2612:) 2593:) 2588:) 2549:) 2505:) 2497:. 2486:) 2463:) 2452:) 2447:) 2405:) 2387:) 2366:) 2340:) 2319:) 2293:) 2288:) 2252:) 2209:) 2176:) 2145:) 2100:) 2083:) 2064:) 2042:) 2018:, 1991:) 1956:) 1941:, 1937:, 1928:) 1915:, 1906:) 1861:) 1833:) 1808:) 1778:) 1755:) 1743:, 1726:) 1658:) 1623:) 1478:) 1470:-- 1426:) 1386:) 1364:• 1323:) 1284:) 1245:) 1219:) 1211:-- 1185:) 1151:) 1131:) 1107:) 1062:) 1045:) 1028:) 1011:) 990:) 982:. 943:) 924:) 904:) 886:) 851:) 835:- 822:) 804:) 764:) 714:) 681:) 673:— 395:: 213:: 205:, 201:, 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 4664:( 4638:( 4624:( 4602:( 4580:( 4566:( 4543:( 4518:( 4501:( 4479:( 4457:( 4439:. 4420:. 4401:. 4382:. 4341:( 4323:( 4305:( 4291:( 4267:( 4245:. 4205:( 4186:( 4159:( 4121:( 4094:( 4070:( 4052:( 4044:@ 4034:( 4020:( 3998:( 3983:( 3971:@ 3961:( 3951:: 3943:@ 3928:( 3916:@ 3905:( 3877:( 3853:( 3836:( 3794:. 3774:@ 3763:( 3726:( 3686:( 3661:( 3641:( 3629:( 3623:( 3599:( 3570:( 3558:( 3552:( 3531:( 3503:( 3456:( 3398:( 3370:( 3349:( 3335:( 3314:( 3293:( 3285:@ 3269:( 3220:@ 3208:( 3196:( 3190:( 3163:( 3139:@ 3127:( 3115:( 3109:( 3083:( 3047:@ 3035:( 3023:( 3017:( 2994:( 2973:. 2961:@ 2937:( 2929:@ 2924:) 2915:( 2903:( 2897:( 2874:( 2858:( 2833:( 2821:( 2815:( 2735:( 2711:@ 2701:( 2685:( 2673:( 2667:( 2659:( 2644:( 2636:@ 2626:( 2618:@ 2608:( 2584:( 2572:( 2566:( 2545:( 2501:( 2482:( 2459:( 2443:( 2431:( 2425:( 2401:( 2383:( 2362:( 2336:( 2315:( 2284:( 2272:( 2266:( 2248:( 2205:( 2172:( 2150:) 2141:( 2129:( 2123:( 2096:( 2079:( 2060:( 2038:( 1996:) 1987:( 1975:( 1969:( 1952:( 1924:( 1902:( 1884:( 1867:@ 1857:( 1829:( 1804:( 1774:( 1751:( 1730:) 1722:( 1705:( 1682:( 1654:( 1637:( 1629:@ 1619:( 1598:( 1578:? 1537:? 1514:? 1508:? 1474:( 1440:( 1432:@ 1422:( 1406:( 1393:@ 1382:( 1360:( 1328:) 1319:( 1307:( 1301:( 1280:( 1273:) 1269:( 1263:( 1241:( 1215:( 1181:( 1147:( 1127:( 1103:( 1082:. 1058:( 1041:( 1024:( 1007:( 986:( 939:( 922:t 920:( 915:M 900:( 882:( 865:( 847:( 818:( 800:( 783:( 760:( 743:( 710:( 677:( 671:) 667:( 591:. 502:. 482:. 371:. 270:. 207:5 203:4 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index