User talk:Gordon410

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with 'Romano-Brittonic' peoples' fate in the south-east. This section in the Wikipedia article, Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain, claims that there are two competing theories: (1) the natives were invaded, enslaved, and genocided and (2) the natives had “a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.” The first theory was proposed by Edward Augustus Freeman, and the second was held by Grant Allen, an essayist. From the information given in the Wikipedia article, the theories of Freeman and Allen appear simultaneously valid. Both theories appear simultaneously valid because one is compatible with the other. If no fault is found in the two theories occurring simultaneously, one can conclude that both theories are simultaneously and equally valid theories. Furthermore, both theories are equally valid simultaneously until a substantial evidence shows that one theory is incompatible with the other. These theories are too diverse to draw any conclusions either that they completely disagree or that they completely agree. Therefore, a competition of the two theories is not shown to be existent in this Wikipedia article. Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false.

Gordon410 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is really a subject for the article talk page. Put your reasoning there and if appropriate link it from the article using a  tag.  Start your section title on the talk page with , and clicking 'dubious' in the article will take the reader to your discussion on the talk page.  -- Elektrik  Fanne 17:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have already done this. My reasoning has been rashly discarded or neglected since I wrote it in April of 2016. Could you look at my reasoning on the article talk page, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Contents 2 - 5. Gordon410 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Contents 2 - 5. My reasoning has been rashly discarded or neglected since I wrote it in April of 2016. Could you look at my reasoning on the article talk page, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Contents 2 - 5

Gordon410 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been a lively discussion about most of those points. The newest, written earlier this week, seems more an argument on the theories of Anglo-Saxon settlement than a proposal to improve the Wikipedia article to me, and Wikipedia is not the place to debate the scholarship. If you can write a concise proposal on how to improve or re-write the article and feel there's not enough community input, leaving a neutrally worded note at a WikiProject at its talk page such as WT:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms may help bring in more editors interested in the subject. Huon (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am merely bringing up the flaws in this wikipedia article. Basically, the two theories are not competing. That should not be hard to understand. I have stated myself clearly. If editors refuse to take action, I will myself. Gordon410 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, be WP:BOLD, make the changes. What is the worst that can happen?.  -- Elektrik  Fanne 10:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I get banned? Gordon410 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For an edit made in good faith? Highly unlikely.   -- Elektrik  Fanne 11:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but editors have threatened to remove my edits and block my account: "I think it's pretty clear at this point that you have not convinced any other editors of your position. If you incorporate your material into the article, you will be editing against consensus and may be considered to be editing disruptively. I suggest you tread lightly." Another wrote: "Whilst you have not, to my knowledge, acted in a disruptive way, you have not shown much evidence of the collegiality and willingness to abide by consensus that Wikipedia demands of active editors. There are things that administrators can do to police editing. Anyone's account can be blocked from editing temporarily or, after some due process, permanently. The same can also be done to any IP address." You can see my hesitation. Gordon410 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I am not an expert in the article subject, but if you have already discussed it on the talk page and the consensus is already against you, then all you can do is just walk away and forget it. Incidentally, other editors cannot block your account.  Only an uninvolved administrator can do that.   -- Elektrik  Fanne 16:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you anyway. Yet to walk away from it is something I just cannot do. I have spent over a hundred hours on this specific topic with nothing to show for it. I have even written an eleven page paper proving my point. You must understand my frustration and that I cannot forget it just like that. Incidentally, if there is interest, I could send you the paper I wrote. It does not take an expert to understand it. Gordon410 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your paper would not be an acceptable authority for Wikipedia purposes unless it has been published in a recognised and peer reviewed journal. This is because it would be regarded as original research.  Of course, any reliable and verifiable source on which your paper was based could be used, but it sounds as though you have been down that road already.   -- Elektrik  Fanne 12:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What you say is correct. Although my paper is not published, it contains reliable and verifiable sources that prove my point. Would you like for me to send it to you? I would attach the document here if I could, but Wikipedia does not have that option. Gordon410 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There would be no point. I have no knowledge of the subject matter.  I dropped by here merely to answer your help request.  Good luck!  -- Elektrik  Fanne 15:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I appreciate your time and effort. Do you know who has knowledge of the research in my paper, and can confirm whether it contains reliable and verifiable sources that prove my point? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not an expert in the field, nor are you a historian, let alone a linguist. Your "paper" would just be the (zealous) POV of a rank amateur.  Sorry. 74.37.205.28 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. I just happened to be looking around the WP:TEAHOUSE archives when I saw your question about attaching a document to an article.  Anyway, a good place to ask for someone to look at your paper would probably be the WikiProoject Talk page User:Electrik Fanne already mentioned, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Gordon410! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:39, Saturday, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Gordon410! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 02:06, Sunday, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Gordon410! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:01, Sunday, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Gordon410! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:01, Wednesday, July 20, 2016 (UTC)