Talk:Scottish Gaelic

Addition of images

Many images have been added in the last few days. Can I suggest familiarisation with MOS:IMAGEREL, particularly in regard to "too many (images) can be distracting: usually, less is more"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You might bring this up on the editor's talk page - they appear to be new and may not check here. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit war or something

@Largoplazo Don't kno wyou are reverting my edits, Pictish didn't extinct in 1100 and you can know that by seeing the page dedicated to it. Pictish names still appear in 1300's, which clearly states that the language didn't extinct in 1100 and likely continued to live for at least 1 century, dying by 1200.

Just to clarify the situation. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why people tell me they don't know why I did something after I've told them why I did it. In this case, you're still claiming not to know after I pointed out to you the last time you said that that I'd already explained it.

To summarize what I said in the edit summaries, we go by what the cited source, and we don't substitute our own reasoning for that. What does the existing source say, and what sources do you have that contradict what the text currently says? Largoplazo (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have particular Pictish names from 13th century from local Pictish areas that clearly imply the existence of local Pictish culture and thus language until around 1200 AD or at worst 1100 AD - Gartnait earl of Mar and Gartnait earl of Buchan.

The people who had the Pictish names unambiguously were named after their ancestors (because the name was not borrowed into Gaelic and didn't make it beyond local community), thus it suggests an unbroken genetical Pictish nobility line, where names simply cannot live longer than ~150 years; to live longer they need to be borrowed and start living already inside Gaelic, but since the last guy with a Pictish named died in 1300's, it says that the names didn't make their way into Gaelic language and remained local.

Names either survive into the language and live with it for an eternity, like Arthur, or they die as localised variants that don't live for more than 1 century typically. Thus, Gartnait being used until 1300 says that Pictish, in worst for it case, died by 1100 (not "during 11th century"), and in a nonetheless probable case died in 1200. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You're doing your own reasoning here to dispute a source. See WP:OR. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pikkupapupata @Largoplazo Okay this is getting ridiculous already...

I've brought a source to you. What exactly now is wrong? If you like, really, really conservative for some reason, then idk, change it something how you think it'll be more reasonable. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why'd you ping me? Pikkupapupata and I aren't operating on a single mind. I was content that you provided a source; then that was reverted. I have no idea what their reason was. Largoplazo (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. As I explained in my edit summary, that source did not support the changes made, especially as a replacement to the sources already cited in the in-line citation.

To be more specific to the sentence that was altered: the new source mentions Gaelicisation twice on page 18 and does not specify that to have occured by the 12th century; and it did not mention anything about Cumbrians; it mentioned Cumbric [language] once in the introductory paragraph on page 16 in the specific context of being a descendant of Common Brythonic.

Additionally, the in-line citation that was there (and is now restored) supports the entire paragraph up to and including the sentence that was altered. Removing it and replacing it with a different source that does not reflect any of the information written is a clear issue.

In checking the source provided, seeing the previous edit attempts to the same sentence, and seeing this discussion, it made sense to me to restore the previous version and direct discussion back here.

If information is going to be changed, any source provided must clearly support the changes - information should be verifiable.

Hope this helps to clarify. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"with Brythonic (Archaic/ Old Welsh), a near neighbour of Pictish which survived until the 12th century or so in the resilient Brythonic kingdom of Strathclyde"

I understand you're using search to find key words, but for such short article you could have read it fully; this particular line clearly states that Cumbric survived until 12th century. The text mentioned that 'all Inhabitants of Alba became Gaelisized", which includes Cumbrians also, as Strathclyde was absorbed into Alba in 11th century.

I think mentioning that both Cumbrians and Picts definitely went extinct by the end of 12th century is a good consensus, with the statement in the text being correct according to scientific sources. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That clause of the sentence is attributed specifically to a 1926 publication by W J Watson, one person who is then further described by the source's author in that paragraph as making no distinction between Brythonic and Pictish as separate languages (which is a whole other topic in and of itself). Cumbrians are not mentioned, and Gaelicisation of 'Scotland' is not written about with an explicitly specified century in that section.

Another section on page 20, 'Pictish and Gaelic' says,

'The third signifcant source of evidence is features of Scottish Gaelic which differ from Old Irish (also known as Old Gaelic), its parent language. Many of these are most easily explained as due to Pictish infuence, in that as Picts adopted Gaelic (between the 8th and the 10th centuries, probably) they acquired it imperfectly, much as many Welsh features survive in the English of the eastern Welsh valleys.'

and

'We may imagine Pictland becoming fairly rapidly Gaelicised in the 10th century, even though there is evidence of signifcant Gaelic infuence much earlier.'

That source does not support the changes you want to make and have tried to make, and original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

I see that you have also edited the Pictish language article to specify the 12th century as well after the addition of 13th century was reverted - despite the same sources cited in this article being cited in that one for the same information, and which do not support mention of the 12th century. Please stop making such edits here and there when the pre-existing sources do not support them, and when no sources are given that explicitly support them.

Continuing to make the same additions to an article despite reversions is unambiguously edit warring. If an edit you made is reverted, the onus is on you to provide a reliable and verifiable source that clearly supports your additions, and/or to bring the topic to discussion on an article's talk page.

Additionally, consensus is achieved through discussion and collaboration by multiple editors. Between the reverts already done, this discussion here, and the source given not supporting the desired changes, it is my understanding that there is no consensus at this time to change the information in that sentence in the article.

If you feel that this discussion so far with two other editors, including myself, has not been adequate for any reason, you can certainly request additional input at a relevant WikiProject, DRN, or even via Requests for comment. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 04:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

We do not talk about Picts only here; Cumbrians are literally mentioned in the sentence "with Brythonic (Archaic/ Old Welsh), a near neighbour of Pictish which survived until the 12th century or so in the resilient Brythonic kingdom of Strathclyde". That is Cumbric.

Next, you cite sentences that just state "Picts were rapidly Gaelisized", without stating when they went extinct. If Picts adopted Gaelic in 10th century, by 11th century their language was definitely not extinct, if we are looking from this point. The dates of "Rapid Gaelisation" don't prove nor disprove anything, because they are not the dates of extinction.

Okay, maybe you misunderstood: I do not argue that the cited source mentions that Pictish was extinct only by 12th century; what source explicitly mentions is that Cumbrians went extinct during 12th century, and since the sentences mention "all inhabitants of Alba", I propose just to write the date by which both Cumbrians and Picts were definitely extinct according to scientific literature - 12th century - and don't overcomplicate things. This should be a normal consensus for both of us, but I don't understand with what exactly you are trying to fight here.

I do not see any cases against what I wrote. I provided reliable and verifiable source, there is no need to threaten me with an edit warring. Still hope we can resolve this without any 'outer forces', but if you really, really refuse to collaborate and find consensus here, then I think we should call for someone else. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I quoted directly from the source that you provided and I read.

You are still doing original research, which is not what this discussion is for and is not what Wikipedia is for. Any Wikipedia article needs to reflect what's clearly stated in any sources used. Sources should be evaluated for reliability and verifiability. The source you provided does not support your desired additions. The existing sources do not support your desired additions. That has been explained to you several times, by multiple users in this discussion and on your user talk page, and it cannot be said more clearly.

I am not misunderstanding.

I am also not 'threatening' you with edit warring; I am pointing out that you have been doing it already - which you should know from the warning another user left on your talk page about edit warring on this article. I am urging you to stop on all articles where you are adding unsupported information. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 09:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This is... not what we should discuss. I understand that you act with good faith only, as well as I, but all my claims are sourced.

I want to write approximately something like this: "All inhabitants of Alba were Gaelisized by the end of 12th century". This claim is sourced by the cited source, which states that the language of Strathclyde (aka Cumbric) was Gaelisized somewhere in 12th century (definitely by the end of it). Cumbric and Pictish are "All inhabitants of Alba". We do not write "Pictish was Gaelisized by the end of 12th century", we say that by the end of 12th century both Cumbric and Pictish were definitely, according to scientific literature, already extinct. What exactly about this is unsourced?

I understand what you are trying to say, but my claims are sourced, and what you are talking about now seems rather strange. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have not seen the text of the source in question but at best your understanding of it appears to be a novel interpretation, if not downright wrong. This is WP:OR, or possibly WP:SYNTH, if you are reaching your conclusion from different elements. Neither are allowed here.

One evident flaw in your interpretation is that the completion of Gaelicisation and the extinction of other tongues will not have been simultaneous. The former will have been established well before the other tongues were lost completely. Gaelicisation may have been one century, the extinctions another. Compare modern Scotland, which is comprehensively anglicised in its entirety, yet Scots and Gaelic are in no way extinct. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're up for it, I'd love some fresh eyes on this to make sure I myself haven't missed anything.

This is the source that was given to replace the ones cited by Broun, Forsyth, Woolf, and Bannerman under reference 26.

(In case this is helpful: the pages are displayed after the 'Related papers' section if you scroll down - no signing up to download required.) Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't in any way WP:SYNTH. My conclusion is straightforward -> source says Cumbric went extinct in 12th century -> Picts, according to 'some' other sources went extinct before that -> ALL inhabitants were Gaelisized with the death of Cumbric. Ah, yes, you didn't see the text of the source... Please, see it before making such statements. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My statements are based on what you yourself have highlighted from the source: that it discusses the date of the extinction of Cumbric, with no indication that it discusses the date by which Gaelicisation was completed. Per above, they are far from being the same thing and you are misrepresenting the source if you say they are. “ALL inhabitants were Gaelisized (sic) with the death of Cumbric”? No, almost certainly well before then and the source does not say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe Matt Lunker already addressed that analysis of yours, and you haven't addressed his counterpoint, the one ending with Compare modern Scotland, which is comprehensively anglicised in its entirety, yet Scots and Gaelic are in no way extinct. In other words, Cumbric and Pictish continuing to be spoken for another century isn't inconsistent with Scotland being considered to have been Gaelicized by the end of the 11th. Largoplazo (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you... The Gaelisation is just "eventual assimilation into Gaelic", but I agree it doesn't necessarily come with the death of the ethnicity or language. If we indeed consider it just a step to eventual extinction, then I have no problems with dating, at least because my source indeed doesn't address it.

I think we should probably somehow state it text, that the extinction and Gaelisation were not the same by time for both Pictish Cumbric, to avoid such misinterpretations in future. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That's superfluous to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sir, if you continue to revert my edits that try to establish some consensus or anything, and while I try to find sources and somehow resolve this problem you simply continue to argue and do nothing, I am afraid I might start questioning your 20-year experience on Wikipedia. (not sure if this is a joke)

Can you, maybe, please, suggest what should be written in that place? The answer "whatever was there before you", that I suppose you are trying to give here, is not really an answer. I pretty much clearly stated my goals, among which is removing the ambiguity in the text, but what are yours? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't need to insert an off-topic diversion on a matter that is not central to what is being said about Gaelic, the topic, purely to explain why a source that you thought was pertinent is in fact not and thus not included anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 11:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

As do I. This article's about the language, as is the paragraph. The lead-in to this specific focus is However, though the Pictish language did not disappear suddenly .... There's no need to veer off into details about what's meant by Pictish identity or whether other elements of Pictish culture endured. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason for reversions

I'm addressing @Celtoi: here, where the issue was, to arrest their scatter-gun approach. (see Talk:Pritenic, User talk:Mutt Lunker)

You made edits to this article touching on a subject (Pictish) which, as far as I can see, do not reflect well what is stated in that article. I have not indicated a view on the facts of that article or on your edits, only that they ought to match.

Starting up a discussion at yet a third article does not help at this one. (Please do not attribute to me views I have not expressed. You refer to your Bold edits being Reverted; tellingly no mention of the lack of any intervening Discussion from you... (A “this is why I am right” edit summary does not count.)) Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologise if I was pushing it too much, my goal was only to attract your attention in a reasonable amount of time, though you were inactive on Wikipedia for several days during that period.

But, in other words, you suggest me to discuss and change the content of article on Pictish, and then you will not revert the edits on other articles, if they match the content of Pictish language article? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

To the above you can add that neither have I suggested a course of action for you. I will say, though, that your inability to understand the points being made by other users (see also thread above) and what is actually said in sources does not inspire confidence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but I also made edits on Scots article, that maintained a neutral approach which matches with Pictish article (which states that no clear consensus exists), but you still reverted them. It seems to me you are more defending the point of whenever was before (aka conservativism)? I just don't understand your motifs really, they don't match with that you say here.

Even my edits on Scottish Gaelic article had a neutral point that simply shifted the view from "100% Brythonic" to "some Celtic, probably Brythonic, probably Pritenic". From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll confess it’s difficult to engage with posts that are expressed in such an idiosyncratic fashion. As far as I can see though you still seem to be confecting attributions to me without basis.

My motives are in the second sentence in this thread, thank you, and apply also to the edit at the Scots article. What’s more, you marked the latter as WP:MINOR. (From your apparently confused response to my noting this ("Pritenic is NOT a minor theory") you may still not be aware what marking an edit as minor means. Please follow the link.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Terribly sorry for all my actions, but anyway, the fact remains a fact - I simply removed the specification of Pictish and Cumbric as Brythonic, and you reverted it. None of your comments states why exactly you did that, because you claim that you don't have any position and just want information to match... So the edit that simply removes the specification should not be reverted according to your stated position. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Brother, this is a serious question and you're visibly demonstrating some disrupting actions here, refusing to build any consensus and answer my questions. Or, maybe, you simply forgot to answer me here, so I will ping you once again. @Mutt Lunker

I repeat my question - why did you revert my edits, that simply removed the clarification of Pictish as Brythonic, which is something the article on Pictish language pretty much states (that many scholars have their own views). Is the problem that it is not clearly enough stated on the article page? Otherwise, please allow me to bring those edits back on Scots and Scottish Gaelic articles. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Building a consensus is not WP:BLUDGEONING someone until they change their answer to one you like. Stop pinging me at a thread I am evidently following and do not “brother” or “sir” me, madam. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not bludgeoning anything and I do not want to hear from you something very specific, I want you to answer me one single question, that I can absolutely repeat once again:

Why did you revert my edits, that simply removed the clarification of Pictish as Brythonic, which is something the article on Pictish language pretty much states (that many scholars have their own views)? Is the problem that it is not clearly enough stated on the article page?

Please avoid being short-spoken; the reason why I make so many replies is exclusively because you did not state your position clearly, and did not answer my question. I was pinging you to attract your attention, because, considering that you still made edits on Wikipedia during that time, you might have simply ignored my questions, and I do not want to wait an unknown amount of time only to receive such reply from you at the end. I apologise if you didn't like my "brother", but this is a typical way for me to address anyone anywhere on the Internet, without any emotional colouring. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer We supposedly didn't, because Mutt Lunker refuses to answer or clear his position in any way. Can you maybe help with it in some way? @Mutt Lunker ping again, although you claim to follow the talk page you seemingly ignore my answers even when you are active on Wikipedia. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No one is obligated to satisfy you, please have patience. I am not endowed in the dispute that you have here, I am mostly following the breaking of MOS:SECTIONANCHORs, of which this WP:EW is pulling in. You should try WP:Third opinion or WP:Dispute resolution if WP:BRD is not working out for you. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, gonna ask for the third opinion then. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

From my reading of the discussion, the underlying issue is that several unrelated changes are being advanced at the same time. That makes it difficult to develop consensus on any one point, as each issue has its own policy and sourcing considerations. I would recommend focusing on one proposed change at a time, discussing it to determine whether consensus exists before moving on to the next. If consensus cannot be reached on a particular point after a reasonable discussion, then the appropriate course is to leave the article as it stands rather than continuing to press the same proposal. That approach is generally more productive than pursuing multiple changes simultaneously and helps keep the discussion focused and manageable. Nemov (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

There are two edits that are identical in their nature - they remove the specification of Pictish as 'Brythonic', which is apparently what the article on Pictish language states. According to Mutt Lunker's position he made above, such edits should be allowed, but oklopfer insists that the consensus hasn't been reached, and thus those edits should not be made. That is, everything in this situation. Waiting for the reply of @Mutt Lunker From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

For the third time, please stop pinging me, stop continuously WP:BADGERing me to “reply” and stop attributing to me views I have not voiced (though they are largely so incoherently-expressed it’s difficult to be sure). Apologising for doing this does not make it okay. I am watching this thread and will post to it only as and when I have something further to say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, according to what Mutt Lunker had just stated, he refuses to contribute to reaching consensus in any way. If "No one is obligated to satisfy you" per WP:SATISFY, then no one is obligated to answer, communicate and reach consensus?

Then we come to the problem with @Oklopfer who reverts edits back, even though, considering what Lunker had said, he doesn't have any problems with them, I suppose? Is this actually possible to be resolved inside this, khm, group of users, or do I need to request some more assistance? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Despite discussion here, you are restoring your edits exactly as they were before, which does not suggest you are following through with any serious discussion, only to force concessions. Nemov's 3O was very well articulated and I entirely agree with it, you should follow their suggestions. If you are just going to restore again without any changes, then yes, I will probably revert again, because you were asked to follow BRD. Mutt Lunker explained their objections in the very first message of this thread, and you are mostly asking around this as if nonexistent, which was evidently frustrating to ML; I would feel the same way.

Rather than trying to force the hands of others, please reread through this whole thread and reapproach, instead of beating a dead horse. ~ oklopfer (💬) 05:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I do not exclude the possibility of my own idiotism; explain the position of Mutt Lunker to me here, if you think that I didn't understand it. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Celtoi, please don't attempt to force this change again without consensus. You haven't found support for the change or articulated your reasoning clearly enough to justify it. These things happen, sometimes it's better to move on than trying to force the issue. Nemov (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, according to what Mutt Lunker had just stated, he refuses to contribute to reaching consensus in any way. That's not how consensus works. "No consensus" is a valid outcome. No one is obligated to reach a consensus with you. Indeed, they can't be so obligated, as they can't make you change your mind and vice versa. But, in the face of the dispute, the burden of obtaining a consensus for your proposed changes falls on you. If you don't get consensus, then you don't have consensus. That said, MuttLunker has discussed this with you. He is under no obligation to continue to continue giving you the same responses over and over for as long as you continue to plead the same things over and over. You already have his response, and the choice not to continue replying isn't equivalent to acquiescence. Continuing to pester someone as you are doing and making the same points over and over after they've been responded to, that's bludgeoning. Largoplazo (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

No consensus is not a consensus for various reasons. If we cannot reach consensus, then the core structure of Wikipedia is broken and needs to be fixed => consensus must be reached in any other form. In my opinion, if a person refuses to elaborate, then I take it as a win and do whatever I want. If the person has any problems with my actions, we should discuss it and reach the consensus, otherwise if no consensus => I again take that as a win. Do you consider this logic poor or unconstructive?

Okay, this is not about our particular topic. As far as I understand, Mutt Lunker wants facts to align with what is stated on Pictish language article, yes? That is the position he expressed? Otherwise if I am incorrect and he stated some different position that fundamentally crosses mine, please explain it to me, I will be really glad to hear it. My goal is achieving some result, not endlessly talking about about what who did right or wrong. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If we cannot reach consensus, then the core structure of Wikipedia is broken and needs to be fixed => consensus must be reached in any other form: this is nonsense. There isn't some core structure Wikipedia could have that would magically give you a way to make people agree with you. And, as I said, the burden of obtaining a consensus is on you, or to make you agree with them, or to make you stop wanting what you want. Your opinion about you being the winner if you don't change their mind is an incorrect opinion. That isn't how it works. You don't win by wearing people out, and that there is guidance against bludgeoning and beating a dead horse basically implies that.

Now, having provided you with these comments, I'm not going to argue about how consensus works ad infinitum either. I've told you. My choice not to tell you 50 more times because I have other things to do in my life also shouldn't be taken by you as agreement. Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I will continue to live in my idyllic version of Wikipedia anyway, if this is how things done in yours.

Let us forget about it: can you PLEASE tell me the position of Lunker? I am too uninterested in arguing about what a consensus is, can you just clarify what exactly is wrong? I described how I see Mutt Lunker's position - is it incorrect? Because if it is correct, then my edits are not against this position and can be backed up, and the consensus is already reached. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Reread the comment from me to which you're responding here. Imagine me giving you the same response every time you plead yet again for someone to explain things to you. Mutt Lunker has plainly disagreed with you, whether or not you understand in what way it's a disagreement. Your "idyllic version" aside (where "idyllic version" sounds to me like "the version where I get whatever I want"), there is no universe in which you are justified in construing that to mean consensus. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let us focus on one single thing: can you describe/clarify the position of Mutt Lunker to me, please? Or "he disagrees with you" is the only thing you know here? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Time to read the room and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, please, maybe it is time to actually explain something to me? Genuinely, you all just ignore everything, the debate DID NOT come to a natural death, you all are just aggressively and actively trying to kill it; and no one lost nor won respectively, so it is not the time to drop the stick, unless you continue attempts to ruthlessly take it away from me and drop it. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I still hope for the better, if.. how many, 3 or 4 of you completely and fully refuse to explain, describe, seek and think on anything here, please state it unambiguously, and I will go seek assistance somewhere once more, probably. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)