User talk:Cagwinn/Archive 1

November 2016

Your recent editing history at Dôn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pigman☿/talk 01:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. You cannot provide a SINGLE primary source to discredit my edits. The two of you are more interested in arguing for argument's sake and now engaging the bullshit Wikipedia bureaucratic machine than dealing with the facts, which are absolutely on my side! Cagwinn (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dôn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're doing it again. You've been warned on talk page. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You're not intimidating me.Cagwinn (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

TALK PAGE OWNER DELETED THIS. REPOSTING IT

You want people to take your edits at face value, unsourced, yet start using ad hominems against others and deleting valid facts because you don't like them (Artognou Stone) or opinions you disagree with (Don being Danu). Wikipedia and its articles aren't yours. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent edit-warring, strikingly at Dôn, but also elsewhere: see Artognou stone. Your answers to messages about edit-warring are essentially simply insistence that your edits are right, and other editors are wrong. However, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. On Wikipedia disagreements about content are settled by discussion with a view to trying to reach agreement, and by editors accepting consensus, even if they are personally convinced that the consensus is mistaken, not by individual editors insisting that they know better than everyone else and therefore they can keep on reverting articles to their preferred version no matter what others think. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cagwinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

At least one other editor agrees with my edit to Artognou stone and people are debating it now on the talk page; my edits to Dôn will prevail, as I have provided numerous scholarly sources for them in the talk page, which no one has refuted. I am now the target of a vandal - UtherPendrogn - who is taking advantage of my block to damage numerous articles on my watchlist with unsourced, fringe original research. Cagwinn (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Being right is not an excuse for edit warring. The rest of the request is not about your own conduct; see WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Cagwinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17000 was submitted on Nov 27, 2016 19:43:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cagwinn: Which edits?
Uther Pendragon: Kʷennomdrungos is the Proto-Celtic form of Penndronn, which Pendragon is likely derived from. Drungos became Irish drong and Breton drogn, Old Welsh dronn.
Kw > P
e > e
nn > nn
om > lost due to apocope (which started around the 450's according to Peter Schrijver)
dr > dr
u > o (the process is explained in Language and History in Early Britain by Kenneth Jackson, the reverse exists as with Orbogenos > Urbgen)
ng > nn
os > lost due to apocope

Kʷennomdrungos > Penndronn

Maelgwn: Maglokunos
M > M
a > a
g > ɨ (since it's before an l, g is vocalised)
l > l
k > g (k is lenited since it's intervocalic)
o > o (unstressed o is lost)
u > u
n > n
os > lost due to apocope

Which gives Proto-Brythonic Maɨlgun, which fits perfectly with the Old Welsh form of Maelgwn, which is Mailgun.

The Artognou Stone edits are sourced and correct.

So where is your unsourced vandalism? UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So idiotic! Go troll someplace else! Cagwinn (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not idiotic or trolling. It's Celtic sound change. UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

References

You are obviously a mentally disturbed person. Please stop harassing me. Cagwinn (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller or Cuchullain - can you do something about this UtherPendrogn person? He is taking advantage of my current block (which should never have been put in place, as I was totally in the right, but anyway...) and targeting many articles that I curate, undoing my edits and inserting bizarre, totally bogus original research. Cagwinn (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean sourced, and done by PhD linguists. Are you seriously saying you're better than Matasovic, Schrivjer, Delamarre, Koch and Jackson, all respected Celtic linguists? And you've now called me and idiot, a troll and insane. You were blocked because of your behaviour, not the content of your edits. I did not undo your edits, I undid your attacks on my sourced edits which you were blocked for. Furthemore, you demanded for me to give my sources, I did. You proceeded to whine, insult me, and are now calling for me to be "dealt with" for actually complying, calling it "harassment".UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You are a troll, and a bad one at that. You are posting ridiculously flawed original research and it will all be removed as soon as I am unblocked. None of the sources that you mention (all of which I own and am completely familiar with) support your nonsense. Cagwinn (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They do support it. And you've just admitted you will keep edit warring after you are unblocked. You are free to try to DISPROVE my sourced claims. Without insulting me, preferably. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL, this is pure insanity! I know Koch and Delamarre - I am even cited in Delamarre's dictionary! They do not support your unhinged nonsense. Cagwinn (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've met Koch. And I'm afraid both do support my statements. Can you stop calling me insane please? UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL... no, they don't! You are quite clearly a mentally disturbed person and you are relentlessly harassing me - hopefully an admin will step in soon and have you removed from Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of report

I am required to notify you that I have reported you because of the insults and abuse you have subjected me to. You have called me an idiot, mentally disturbed, insane, said I should be dealt with, and also said you hope I get removed from Wikipedia, that you plan to edit war as soon as you're unblocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_and_abuse UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

YOU ARE HARASSING ME!!! LEAVE MY PAGE ALONE!!! Cagwinn (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And you called me unhinged. I'm not harassing you, and you're only saying that in order to get me banned, victim playing. It's perfectly clear I'm not harassing you, I gave you my sources, you insulted me, I've officially notified you of my report for your insults and abuse. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

FOR THE LAST TIME - YOU ARE HARASSING ME!!! LEAVE MY PAGE ALONE!!!Cagwinn (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You're victim playing. You asked for sources, I posted them, you insulted me and called me insane. Now you are overreacting in the hopes I might get banned since you are pretending to be upset. You'll notice I have stopped talking to you in the main thread, since you clearly aren't interested in my sources and only in insulting and abusing me. I posted here since I am required to notify you, not by choice. Trust me, I don't want to stay here, where I'm getting insulted and abused by you. You aggravated the matter by posting here. If you actually wanted me to "leave your page alone", you wouldn't have replied here. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller or Cuchullain - please, isn't there anything that can be done about this person? The targeted harassment is unending today - he/she is making all sorts of ridiculous claims against me on various admins' pages and filing bogus reports against me. Meanwhile, I can't even defend myself! Cagwinn (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Bogus? You insulted, abused and harassed me at length for providing sources you asked for. Of course I'm reporting your behaviour, it's against the site's rules. They're not ridiculous claims, your posts are visible above and will be visible forever because of the history system. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is pure harassment and you will be reported for it as soon as possible. Cagwinn (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In case any other admins need context for all of this, several days ago this user began reverting perfectly legitimate, uncontroversial, and sourced edits on several articles that I watch (and I am one of the few editors curating them) and also began inserting totally nonsensical, un-sourced original research. This forced me to revert his changes, which then triggered his campaign of harassment against me. The articles in question are Maelgwn Gwynedd, Vortiporius, Artognou stone, Dôn‎, and Uther Pendragon. Since then, I have not only suffered through a deluge of posts to my talk page by him, but he has also filed baseless complaints against me on numerous admins' pages and filed bogus reports. Cagwinn (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm traveling and won't be available to get involved any further for some time, but for your own sake, PLEASE stop responding to Uther. It only hurts your case. My suggestion is to make a final post here saying you will refrain from further incivility and making comments about Uther, and that you'll accept the conditions of the interaction ban proposed at ANI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree to refrain from further incivility and making comments about Uther and will gladly accept the conditions of the interaction ban proposed at ANI (though I do feel it is unfair that I am not allowed to defend myself there). Cagwinn (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

≥== Harassment ==

Sorry for harassing you. Are you willing to discuss my edits to Maelgwn Gwynedd, Uther Pendragon and Artognou Stone? UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies, User:TheGracefulSlick, User:Cuchullain, User:WikiDan61, and any other admins participating in the current ANI discussion and watching my page: I thank you all for keeping an open mind on this dispute and judging it fairly; I will accept your decision and have been refraining from interacting with user UtherPendrogn, but he/she continues to post on my talk page and has weighed in numerous times on the ANI (even voting on it, which should not be tolerated), while I am prevented from doing so due to a block (for which he/she is partially responsible, I might add). I hope this will be resolved soon so that I can get back to being a productive member of the community, as I have been for nearly a decade now. Cagwinn (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies, User:TheGracefulSlick, User:Cuchullain, User:WikiDan61, User:Darkknight2149; User:CorbieVreccan is acting with malicious intent against me on the ANI board - he/she is bearing a grudge because I undid their reverts of my edits on the article Dôn - for which CorbieVreccan had me blocked, even though my edits are completely correct and now cited (on the talk page) with impeccable scholarly sources. CorbieVreccan is not impartial (he/she seems to be conspiring with UtherPendrogon after that user posted to CorbieVreccan's talk page), is spreading blatant falsehoods about me, and should not be allowed to weigh in here. I can't even defend myself on the ANI, so this is effectively a pile on. Cagwinn (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn you were blocked for edit-warring on the article you mentioned, whether you were "right" or not is irrelevant. I get it is unfair you cannot defend yourself at ANI. However, a lot of the editors, even those you pinged, are getting tired of this whole issue so accusing another user of conspiring against you will not help. I suggest you just let the discussion take its course before you lose their sympathy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood - it's just incredibly frustrating that I can't defend myself - especially against such biased, baseless accusations. CorbieVreccan should recuse him/herself from the voting in the ANI dispute, as they were directly involved in the edit war. I will remain silent from here on, though, and let it play out. Cagwinn (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are not interested in discussing my edits, I'm more than happy to stop posting here, if that's what you want. I was only trying to resolve the issue, since you were against those edits. As to voting, I asked whether it was acceptable or not, and have not yet received an answer. If it is not, I shall merely render it as a comment and not a vote. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@UtherPendrogn: The nature of the interaction ban discussed at WP:ANI is that you should not contact Cagwinn directly on their user talk page. If there is a content dispute, discuss it at the talk page of the relevant article. You have been asked not to post on this talk page any further; please respect Cagwinn's wishes and do not post here again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Both of y'all need to stop. Immediately. UtherPendrogn, do not post here again, avoid articles that Cagwinn has been editing, and move on.

Cagwinn, stop making disparaging comments about other editors, now, or your block will be increased.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cúchullain, now Pigman is piling on with CorbieVreccan on the ANI - how is that even remotely fair? They are the ones who edit warred with me and got me blocked - now they are disparaging me on the ANI and voting against me on this issue with Uther? This is a blatant abuse of admin power and an attempt to remove me from Wikipedia! Cagwinn (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, given the way you've comported yourself, it's better that you aren't able to comment at ANI and deepen your hole. Your own actions are what led to your block. Blaming others for everything, not to mention continuing to insult them, threatens to undermine the goodwill you generated in accepting the interaction ban and agreeing not to be uncivil. I'm trying to help you; please take my advice and let it go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Cuchullain. Accusing administrators of biased editing (even if you believe it to be true), and other possible rude behaviour would only heat the situation and start a full on argument. If you just let it play out on its own, things will go a lot smoother. It would also probably minimise the consequences, considering what the result might be if you go into the discussion guns blazing. DarkKnight2149 23:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate both of your efforts to assist in this matter - but this is hardly a fair process. CorbieVreccan and Pigman (who both clearly bear a grudge against me, as can be seen from discussions on our respective talk pages, as well as the articles they edit-warred with me over, and the ANI thread) after being canvassed by Uther, are now attempting to sway the ANI decision against me. CorbieVreccan even posted on Pigman's talk page today and directed him to the ANI. Cagwinn (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I will try to be as nice as I can since you were quite riled up yesterday. Quite frankly, I would have, too. Uther was definitely harassing you. There's no doubt it. All the users who voted for or against the proposal acknowledge that. At this point, the best you can is let the block live out and let the users work out the complaint. To consistently point every little bit of things Uther, Corbie or Pigman do just shows that you aren't letting it go. My only advice is that you take a breather from Wikipedia and just relax until the block expires. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine - and it is certainly my intention to do just that; I felt compelled, however, to at least call out on this talk page the obvious bias by some editors in the voting on the ANI (where I am not even allowed to offer a defense at the moment, and some very untrue, slanderous statements are being made about me by people with a personal grudge). Cagwinn (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Pigman has admitted some wrongdoing. DarkKnight2149 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I did notice that earlier; it surprised when he went on to vote against me in the ANI after admitting on his personal talk page that it would be a breach of ethics. If this were a court of law, I would at least be entitled to an unbiased, impartial jury. That's all I am requesting here. Cagwinn (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yet another example of how this entire debate has spiraled out of control - UtherPendrogn just said to User:Drmies on the ANI "You really are a bitter arsehole." The comment was quickly removed by another admin. I am wondering if any of the admins are beginning to see why I got so frustrated with this person? Cagwinn (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn has been indef blocked but don't take this with a grain of salt. You should read what other editors said about you at the ANI discussion, and try to use that as advice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Cagwinn (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I was the one that removed the personal attack, but I am not an admin. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent disturbance in the Force

Attn: User:Cuchullain, User:DougWeller, User:Darkknight2149, User:Callmemirela, User:Drmies, User:Hijiri88, User:Boing! said Zebedee, et al: Just as a quick follow-up: it has come to my attention today that the editor who filed an ANI report against me and caused such a ruckus on the ANI board <redacted> had, earlier this year, messaged me on Facebook with a flurry of questions about Celtic linguistics and Arthurian matters; in the course of the conversation, he became so confrontational towards me that I ended up blocking him. He was also involved in several flame wars with friends of mine on a couple Arthurian-related Facebook groups of which I am a member. This recent exchange here on WP was very clearly a targeted personal attack against me. Anyway, lesson learned and time to move on. Thank you for your patience and fair judgement. Cagwinn (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not terribly surprising, unfortunately. We'll have to keep an eye out in case he returns under a sockpuppet account.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't reveal personal information gained about someone off-wiki, as it's a violation of WP:Outing policy - if there should ever be a need for further investigation in the future, it might be appropriate to pass on the information to someone offline, but for now it shouldn't be posted here. After the off-wiki abuse directed at several people, I think the chance of an unblock for him is very slim, so hopefully there will be no more trouble here. Oh, and yes, if you see any sign of him socking, it's better not to reply and just let me (or one of the others) know and we'll deal with him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand - I won't reveal his name, or any other details. Cagwinn (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for socks on this Talk Page and the other pages on my watchlist. DarkKnight2149 21:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Cagwinn, I also happen to be on ArbCom, which makes me Like Super Important--but really, if you have information that is private in nature, send it to ArbCom. There's an email address somewhere on this wiki. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you. If the editor comes back and continues to stir up trouble, I will do that. Cagwinn (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Is this it? arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org DarkKnight2149 00:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that looks familiar. Send a message and I'll respond as patronizingly as I can with my Arb hat on. SRSLY, no private stuff on-wiki. Let the Arbs handle it. Cagwinn, it happens that editors harass others off-wiki and in ways that can't be disclosed on-wiki by the victims or other parties. Let the Arbs handle it--that's why they make the big bucks. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll forward the off-wiki abuse that I have, collected from several people - it's probably best if you fine Arbcom folk look after it in case of future action. I'm off to bed now, but I'll send it tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You know I'm the finest of the fine. Still, I'll let someone else handle it while I watch TV. Thanks Boing. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Really?

I am have in excess of 90,000 edits across multiple content areas over more than a decade, most of that as an admin, and I specialise in addressing spamming. You, who have about 3000 edits over seven years in a pretty narrow area of content, and you revert with an ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARY telling me NOT TO REVERT AGAIN, and reintroducing a self-published source from a well known vanity press. Without, you know, taking it to Talk. Well done. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about your dickwaving contest - Throop qualifies as a reliable source (see the second bullet below), despite this book being self-published, per WP guidelines, which I have already brought to your attention:

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works:

# A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves)

# Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

# A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published.

Throop is an acknowledged expert in the field who has been published by reliable third party publishing house (Simon & Schuster). You are now engaged in edit warring for egotistical reasons that have nothing to do with the content of the article. If you persist, I will report you. Cagwinn (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So cite a reliably published book. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion, you have nto even tried, you have instead edit warred with an admin who is removing link spamming. That is (a)n stupid and (b) arrogant. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OMG, you are unreal!! I DID ADD RELIABLY PUBLISHED BOOKS - AND YOU REVERTED MY EDIT WITHOUT EVEN REVIEWING THE SOURCES!!!!!! You are not trying to improve the article, you are just looking to bully good-faith editors. Cagwinn (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Priscilla Throop is cited as a source IN MANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES, as this Google search will demonstrate. Cagwinn (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Another ANI

You're mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG.27s_questionable_spam_blacklist_additions.2C_removals_of_citations_to_reliable_sources.2C_failures_to_usefully_engage.2C_etc.. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know why Guy saw fit to delete your ANI notice on my talk page (which I restored); what is going on here? Cagwinn (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page

Hi Cagwinn! Just wanted to point out that it is against WP policy to remove other editor's comment on an article's Talk Page: Talk Cunobeline Action History. I'm sure you knew this, but I just wanted to send a friendly reminder. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed..."

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." The editor whose comments I removed is indeed using the talk pages of the articles as a platform for his/her personal (and totally uninformed) views on the subject. Cagwinn (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor whose comments I have removed is spamming two different articles with ridiculously uninformed original research that has already been thoroughly debunked, yet the editor refuses to admit it and is now spamming the articles' talk pages. Cagwinn (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." The editor whose comments I removed is indeed using the talk pages of the articles as a platform for his/her personal (and totally uninformed) views on the subject. Cagwinn (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You haven't discussed on the relevant Talk Page what exactly gives you the right to remove other editors' comments. WallHeath (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your ridiculous, uninformed etymological speculation - which is original research (OR) and strictly prohibited on WP - was already debunked on the Historicity of King Arthur talk page, yet you obstinately took it upon yourself to continue to post your factually challenged musings to the Cunobeline article. Cagwinn (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You have described my comment as ridiculous, spam, speculation, original research and factually challenged musings, but you haven't said why you describe it in this way. Please engage in a discussion in the relevant talk page(s). Thank you. WallHeath (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Already explained on the other article you have been spamming with your nonsense. Cagwinn (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Which article have I spammed?WallHeath (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of King Arthur. Cagwinn (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not spammed any article with regard to this issue because I have not edited any article with regard to this issue. Please engage in the relevant Talk Page. Thank you. WallHeath (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Talk:Cunobeline shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Several other editors appear to disagree with your conclusion that the comments are improper and warrant removal. If you're convinced of it still, then take it up on the Talk and get a consensus for removing them. Don't just keep making the same edit over and over in the hope that others will simply give up. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Another bit of advice, this one without the heavy hand of a template message: Keep WP:CIVILITY in mind. Calling another editor a "liar" in Talk page comments, as you did here, is unlikely to change their mind and is not going to win you much support among disinterested editors. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories and parents

Hi, articles should go under the most specific relevant category, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages. Common Brittonic is already categorised under Category:Indo-European languages indirectly via its membership of Category:Brittonic languages. It would have been placed there directly only if it didn't belong to any of the branches of Indo-European, as happens for example with Messapian language. – Uanfala 20:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Camlann

Hi, Could you explain the reasoning behind this edit? I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting me, I'd like to understand what it is. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The source is not only completely out of date, it is not reliable. There is no reason to believe that Camlann was a place in Wales, despite what modern local folklore might claim. Cagwinn (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you might be in position and willing to fix it

Lady of the Lake has some serious issues, and I mentioned some in the talk page (I couldn't even really make any proper infobox there). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Also lead problems at the talk page of Gawain (various information exclusive to the lead). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at the talk sections and I don't understand what you are asking me to do. By the way, you should consider registering an account. Cagwinn (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• LoL: The article fails to even mention connections to Lancelot in the article body (only in the lead) And which is where it should be explained. It also fails the to mention the rivalry/enmity with Morgan (also in Malory), among other things. Another problem: does not even say where she first appeared, and what were the origins. Speaking of which, "Gwragedd Annwn, Welsh lake fairies" and "Myddfai, site of a non-Arthurian "Lady of the Lake" legend" from "see also" should be probably in the article body. Also it's not nearly as awful here as it was the crap in Morded's "in later works", but these bullet-point lists of modern appearances in various articles should be replaced by prose based on references discussing this aspect (like books and/or journal articles). But that's not really as important as the things above.

• Gaw: "Florence, Lovell, and Gingalain" and Gawain's sisters are only mentioned in the lad, nowhere in body It obviously should be fixed by adding the relevant content that is otherwise exclusive ton the lead section. The references should also be moved to the body, as the lead should bhe only a short summary of the actual article.

Someone needs to fix this and I saw you being continously very active so I thought you can do it. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, lead section should be not parts of the articles at all, but just short digests of them. Also again, Lady needs to have the origins explained. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way (it's not intended to be a rude accusation - I'm being earnest), but why don't you fix it? Cagwinn (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd need to research it first and I assume you already did. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have too many other things going on right now and can't go down the rabbit hole of making major revisions to Wikipedia articles. These days I mostly make minor edits and try to keep the vandals and loons at bay. Anyway, while I have read most of the later romances, they are not really my main focus of attention. I primarily concern myself with the origins of the early tales and various linguistic issues. Cagwinn (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph to the Lady of the Lake article's Origins section on the possible connection between the name Viviane in the romances and the epithet chwyfleian in medieval Welsh poetry. Cagwinn (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That was superb. And if you ever get the time, these article also need some more cross-referencing between the various character (for example the relationships with Morgan are never even mentioned in Lady's, Lancelot's, Merlin's, etc.). Also do something with these awful random bullet point lists of modern fiction without removing these subsections entirely (there is actually a lot of literature written on this subject, including entire books to cite). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Badon

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the right pronunciation for Badon (Battle of Mount Badon) is /ˈbeɪdən/ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/badon_hill,_battle_of Therefore, I ask you to revert your revertion. Hlnodovic (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's incorrect, I don't care what they say. The initial -a- is short (as it still is in the Welsh form of the name, Baddon) and nothing like /eɪ/. Cagwinn (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In Welsh an unmarked stressed vowel is long before b, ch, d, dd, g, f, ff, th. Hlnodovic (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The vowel was short in Brittonic and remained short in Old Welsh, when the name was recorded as Badon (and the stressed syllable in Old Welsh was the final syllable). If the -a- had been long in Brittonic, the Old Welsh form would be spelled *Bodon (giving *Boddon in Modern Welsh). Whether short or long, the vowel was/is not pronounced /eɪ/. Also note that the dental -d- (-dd- in Modern Welsh orthography) is a voiced fricative /ð/. Cagwinn (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you also add at least some basic info on Lancelot connections to the Lady article?

I'm pretty confused as to where it first began, which Lady, etc. I don't want to write disinformation. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If we accept that that the German Lanzelet by Ulrich von Zaztikhoven contains elements of a more primitive version of the tale than Chretien's, the infant Lancelot was kidnapped by a lake by a water fairy (merfeine in Old High German) and raised in her country of Meidelant ("Land of Maidens", an island in the sea inhabited by ten thousand maidens who live in perpetual happiness). The sea fairy and her paradise island remind us of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Morgen of the Island of Avallon in his Vita Merlini.

I meant the actual tales of Lady-Lancelot (which I only guess began with the Prose Lancelot but really I just don't know). But guess I'll just post it the origins section in the way exactly as you wrote and leave it there. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also according to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Chrétien came first with the 'fairy in the lake' in Lancelot context anyway:

"Lancelot’s name first appeared as one of Arthur’s knights in Chrétien de Troyes’s 12th-century romance of Erec, and the same author later made him the hero of Lancelot; ou, le chevalier de la charrette, which retold an existing legend about Guinevere’s abduction, making Lancelot her rescuer and lover. It also mentioned Lancelot’s upbringing by a fairy in a lake, a story that received fuller treatment in the German poem Lanzelet."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lancelot#ref68610

I'll leave it for you to decide what to do about it now. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also-also, Lanzelet speaks about "Lady of the Lake" by name all the time, also in the synopsis, which I guess is wrong but I'll also leave it to you. which surely is wrong and I'll replace it all with "Fairy Queen" --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Chretien's specific version of the tale is older than Zatzikhoven's, but I believe most scholars these days recognize that the Lancelot legend pre-dates both authors and that Zatzikhoven's version retains more of the earlier version of the legend than Chretien's. Cagwinn (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you create an article for Merlin (poem)?

It's right now onoly a redirect to Merlin. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know which poem are you referring to. Cagwinn (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert de Boron's (seems important). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, OK - yes, it is (somewhat) important piece. It needs to be un-redirected from the main Merlin page first, but I don't know how to do that. You should contact an admin such as User:Doug Weller for help with this. Cagwinn (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merlin_(poem)&action=edit - you mean like that? :) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you just edit the redirect page, removing the redirect and adding the text you want to add. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug - I have edited the page and created a rough draft with info from the poem pulled in from the main Merlin article.Cagwinn (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

i also think all kids of relevant medieval literature should be included as another line in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Arthurian_Legend --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I did flesh it out a bit (despite repeated disruptions by reverters, again), at least out of a stub I guess. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think i finished it, you may check it out for errors i guess. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

IPA

Could you explain why did you restore a pronunciation that is neither a correct Old English transcription, not a correct Modern English transcription? (There is no /ɪ/ in OE, and in Modern English it should be /ɜːr/ instead of /ɛr/.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fix those vowels, then - don't just delete the whole thing!! Does this really need to be explained to you?? Cagwinn (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictish language information conflict

As before; it is not original research ... please read the external source by Forsyth/Fraser/Woolf. I was elaborating on it. I never said that it was true or not. How can this be original research; if I have a neutral point of view and do not claim that it is true or not? I was elaborating on their theories because Wikipedia had worded them poorly. Even when I do not claim to be right or wrong? Oh, Come on !

To the real point:

Goidelic/Brittonic/Pictish are Insular Celtic. Only difference is that Goidelic is Q-Celtic and not P-Celtic. Again, This is NOT original research. This is another thing that you (and some others) overlooked upon ... but you claim to be an expert in the field ... I think that it would be hardly a coincidence that Goidelic Celt is Q-Celtic (which is found in extinct Continental Celtic) and weren't the first tribe of Insular Celts to reach the British Isles. Look all around you, the evidence or "sources" are clearly there; here on Wikipedia. Occam's Razor and common sense are not original research ...

You have no understanding of it ... I'm not even (yet) an expert in my linguist degree; and am still an amateur in my 20's and even I can totally crush you in terms of Archaeology and Linguistics. Are you Scottish by any chance? Why is your Username styled similar to a Welsh name? There are even approximately over 70% of Italo-Celtic word borrowings in Basque. Most of the Indo-European lexicon are the verbs -- I've compared the cognates. That doesn't make it an Indo-European languages; though. (So why do you claim that you are an expert; when a young amateur like me can completely observe things that you've obviously and pitifully overlooked?) 2001:5B0:4AC9:89B8:F13F:B4A7:F502:3EE2 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My talk page isn't your dumpster for unhinged conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks. Take it someplace else, buddy. Cagwinn (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Stop edit warring

Stop reverting edits by other users without providing any source. Saying that there is "plenty"of evidence is not enough Just provide the damn source to your claim and stop edit warring Mimihitam (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

LOL - YOU are the one edit warring - I told you repeatedly to take it to the Talk section, where the sources will be provided!! Cagwinn (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Powerhouse Films

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Powerhouse Films, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --woodensuperman 09:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely unjustified - you should be ashamed of yourself for acting in such an unethical manner! Cagwinn (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Powerhouse Films

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Powerhouse Films, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Powerhouse Films for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Powerhouse Films 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/Powerhouse Films until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Powerhouse Films UK.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Indicator-UK.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic and Celtic

I agree completely with you that the AA theory for Insular Celtic has been discredited. I think my revised text makes this clearer than the previous text. Also, what is the purpose of the long quote from Jenner? Firstly, it is a rather trivial and unscientific observation, and secondly, it doesn't even say anything about AA connections; it only says that Cornish speakers blur some sounds like fictional members of the "Hebrew race" [sic]. --Macrakis (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Your repeated reverts at Brittonic languages is edit warring and disruptive. Saying an edit is nonsense or idiotic or that your unsourced contribution is universally accepted, is not a valid reason. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC

Vandalism??? You are out of your mind! Cagwinn (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert?

Hi! I noticed you | reverted my edit to King Arthur - that's all good, but I'd like to know why. You mentioned in the edit message "no OR"? What does that mean?

No Original Research. You have to provide reliable/verifiable sources. Cagwinn (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brigid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brigantia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So, are we going to merge the obscure / most stubbish Knights of the Round Table?

Actual article Knights of the Round Table. My candidates be completely merged (can always be split): Aglovale, Elyan the White, Dinadan, Erec, Morholt, Safir (Arthurian legend), Segwarides, Ywain the Bastard. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There are also various others who can easily be added to the list (Aban, Dornar etc.). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - I don't have the time to help, though. Cagwinn (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I can do it with just a copy/paste at first. Also as a list they might actually get more readership (obviously very little now) and by this perhaps even edits. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so I did. I thought about perhaps a few more but I don't know. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

David Knight and King Lucius

Having checked as you suggest with Wikipedia's stance on undue weight, it talks about 'views', which would constitute opinions. The test I have supplied from David Knight's book contains several statements of checkable facts, rather than a general sense of his views. As such, I ask that you stop deleting this information. Someone interested in the page should be allowed to know that there are modern differences of opinion on the matter. If you believe that Knight is discredited, I'm happy to learn about that, but I don't see that your unsupported comments that he is 'fringe' is any more than your own view. You seem to be giving undue weight to this. Certainly the reputation of an author can be a guide to the reliability of his work, but a contentious author may nevertheless make valid points. Your hasty revisions do not appear to me to be justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.159.172 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely justified. He is a fringe author and his views on this subject are well out of the mainstream. You will not find any serious scholars citing his work. Cagwinn (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I have not written about views, but about specific, checkable claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)