User talk:Hrothgar cyning

Welcome!

Hello, Hrothgar cyning, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

It's good to have someone who knows what they're talking about editing King Arthur. If there's anything you need, please don't hesitate to ask.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC) /Archive 1[reply]

King Arthur historicity

I appreciate there is alot of work you put into this article and know it is a pain when people considerably alter one's work. I want to try and address your points (Celt & Saxon connot be left out though, nor can we discredit people openly here, we can only try to present our point impartially, and without preference (hard I understand) and the result can only be the best if this is done). I am going through it again and will try a slightly different approach. Once it is done you can do your edits as you please. You may want to wait until is is done to respond in discussion.WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem. My feeling on the bias arises when there is settlement on the argument against the argument for, rather than equal criticality, on the both parts. I dont think it is right for one side to be shown to defeat the other. I cant see any bias in my work on the article. I may try to tip the balance back the other way slightly and I will try to find other refernces to support this. I am sure John Morris say something to the effect of the B-E ref. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur

No worries, I'll check it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

My friend, I just looked the article on Arthur, and I am afraid that you will find it has been vandalised. Some rather childish references to mail genitalia have been inserted. A shame that people have nothing to better to do with their lives.

62.1.218.86 (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed; however, I'm impressed by how speedily vandalism has been reverted today, which reaffirms my faith in wiki :-) Cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainpage

I had no idea, last time I checked it wasn't even on the rotation yet. You're right about just waiting a bit to try and tune it back up to concert pitch; any good edit right now is just as likely as a bad one to get swallowed up in the deluge. Once again, many thanks and congratulations on the article being put up, it's clearly some of Wikipedia's finest work, and one of the best encyclopedia articles on Arthur that's out there.

And thanks about the degree, it was a long time coming.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all working out. The FA version of the article still stands and there are several devoted editors keeping watch to make sure it doesn't suffer too much from mediocre revisions.

As for my degree, I've gotten a "real job" at my school (University of North Florida), which will help me pay for graduate school if I stay there. I plan on pursuing an MA in English literature with a focus on medieval literature, though this all depends on extenuating factors like time, money, and my girlfriend's plans.

I hope all is going well with your research. I try to keep up with the Arthurian world, but find myself having less free time these days. I recall you saying some time ago you were finishing up another book? How goes it with that?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur

I thought about dropping by and congratulating you for the quality of the article, but this is probably a better compliment: [1], in case you were not aware of it :) 189.105.102.249 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that really is an impressive number of visits! Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]