Jump to content

User talk:Richard the bread man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Why are you undoing my edits? The information up there reagrding language is incorrect, the language of the Khumry is British (early Welsh) not English which is a totally different language. This should be basic historical knowledge

December 2014

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to British Israelism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The source itself fails WP:RS as it is a personal website. The text you added has Wikipedia state as fact a minor fringe view. That's a violation of one of our core policies, WP:NPOV. Please don't add this again. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, don't you know that Welsh also "belongs to the Indo-European language family and is unrelated to Hebrew, which is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family". The quotation makes equal sense whether it refers to Welsh or English. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at British Israelism 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard the bread man, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Richard the bread man! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]
Please stop and try to get consensus on the talk page. This is really important, as you are continuing to edit war and if you don't stop it you will likely end up with a block. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are also adding unsourced material which appears to be your own opinion. Please read WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "massive ignorance or deliberate censoring of history and lingustics" is being displayed by you. There are no ancient "Colebren inscriptions" in Europe, since Coelbren is a script invented by forger Iolo Morganwg. If you read any basic literature on the origins of Brittonic Celtic languages you will find that there is overwhleming consensus among scholars that they are Indo-European and have no connection to Hebrew. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, Coelbren pre dates Iolo Morgannwg by many many centuries as already noted in regard to Llawdden, Dafydd ap Gwilym and others. It is not to your advantage that you cannot read or write Welsh as this is all found in Welsh history and Welsh historical text. Please deter from any more threatening language or you will be reported.

Paul, you are demonstrating considerable ignorance of history and lingusitics and I would advise you to stop and do some more research. There are examples of Coelbren on many ancient stones in Britain, notably the stone of King Gorddwfyn. Dafydd ap Gwilym (died 1367 AD) mentions it, as do six other well known bards between AD 1420 to 1480. A version of the Coelbren alphabet according to Llawdden 1400 -1480 can also be seen at the Welsh National Library Aberystwyth. The theory that Iolo Morgannwg (born 1747) randomly came up with the Coelbren in some opium den in Hampstead therefore is bunkum.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 4)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
/wiae /tlk 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Cymru Sovereign

[edit]

I don't think you can just delete the article for deletion template without addressing the concerns expressed on the talk page. Theres no evidence RS discuss this Party at all, just election results. But anyone can put themselves forward for an election, doesn't mean they are worth articles on wikipedia does it. 38 votes, by any showing, is piddling. Bulldog Antz (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] 


- Hi whoever this is above . Not sure what your point is. You are stating am irrelevant personal opinion on a factual article which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclope

Nomination of Cymru Sovereign for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cymru Sovereign 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/Cymru Sovereign until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_the_bread_man&oldid=1067470790"