User talk:Richard Keatinge

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noviomagus Cantiacorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durobrivae.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composite bow has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 03:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard,

I only changed to broadhead because of the common saying when speaking about them. Honestly, I've always heard the term broadhead. This page below has what you said up top and what I said in the pictures, lol. I won't go near it anymore. https://slicktrickbroadheads.com/collections/mechanical-heads

Good meeting you. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is not fair on the countless Welsh history enthusiasts who want to read about the King of Wales and the Royal House of Aberffraw to have all the work in the articles deleted overnight. Hopefully we can settle on a rewrite for both articles involving adequate sourcing like before. Here is the deletion review:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of House of Aberffraw. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cltjames (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cltjames Tbh, I am not sure how I ended up watching this page, but here I am. I think you have misunderstood process here. There is no deletion review, as what has been carried out is WP:BLAR. You can object to this simply by reverting the redirect, but should bear in mind that Richard's next step would then, almost certainly be to send this to AfD. AfD could reach a consensus to keep the article if sufficient reliable secondary sources exist, but equally it could reach a consensus to delete it entirely. As a blank and redirect, all your edits are preserved in the page history, and you can make use of them as you wish in other fora or in your own writing. I would suggest at least considering whether you could defend an AfD before reverting the BLAR. Your next step is up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you @Sirfurboy:, Richard, why didn't you simply do a deletion request first? The natural process of this article correction was not a deletion but a rewrite. I do not want an edit-war, we need to find a long-term solution, I thought that you being a Barnstar Wikipedia enthusiast would have a better conclusion than delete and redirect. If you wanted to get involved in the House of Aberffraw, you could have contributed as you did with the King of Wales article. Besides, I think history speaks for itself... You cannot delete history, the House of Aberffraw was a royal dynasty which should be respected and revered. The article was not biased but did have old sources which could have been a WP:OR, WP:RS, but is it worth costing a decade's work? The article can easily be rewritten, cropped, and downsized like House of Gwynedd. What do you say? Could you contribute to a rewrite, please ?? Cltjames (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of King of Wales. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cltjames (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wa (Japan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Robin}} to your friends' talk pages.

P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to a 2024 full of intriguing discoveries …

I don't know what Father Time's looking at,
but I appreciate Wikipedia editors like you.
Cynwolfe (talk)

Time (1810) by Pieter Christoffel Wonder

Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard Keatinge. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Titles in medieval Wales, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard Keatinge. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Titles in medieval Wales".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looked like an article ready for main space or at least an AFC review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was an interim cut-down version of another article, List of rulers in Wales, and its utility in the debate was slight and fleeting. It will not be missed. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Richard, we meet again. Sorry to have to do this, but I feel I had the right of way in improving the Madoc article, and the work I undertook was a drastic improvement simply based on grammar, paraphrasing, restructuring, tidyup and an overall copyedit. If you look carefully, the only additional section I wrote was Madoc#American settlement, which places in the article perfectly explaining the missing connection of the Moon-eyed people, an article which is directly linked to Madoc but wasn't even mentioned once. Otherwise, I simply added a sentence here and there and IMPROVED the article. So, I reverted your revert, and contacted administrators noticeboard to avoid the complete mess that we saw in the Aberffraw & King of Wales articles, both of which I have lodged a formal complaint about now too. Sorry to have to go through this again Richard, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Cltjames (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be addressed more appropriately at Talk:Madoc. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are around to deal with this again. as I expect Cltjames will revert me again. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that simple @Doug Weller:, we are a team working together and I wanted an explanation from Richard as to his reasoning over the full revert. What I am proposing is a peer review process of my work, therefore we can have a fully vetted article and not just a 1 person approach that seems to be catching on like an avalanche. Cltjames (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cltjames There's no "we'", there is you and everyone else. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions were good Doug, there is no I in team, I am aware of that much, I'm just disappointed that once again an article progress has been reverted, just look at Aberffraw for instance, of my work reverted maybe up to 3/5 has returned, so again, no need to panic again. Cltjames (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is no I in team - Well, there is in Welsh. Tîm. 😜 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]