User talk:Ben MacDui/Archive J

Scotland Article - Official Languages

Below is a copy of what I have sent Mais oui. For your info...

Hi.

Your colleague, Ben Mac', appears to agree that Scotland's Offical Languages include Gaelic and Scots. However, nowhere can I find evidence to support either of you on this. Your last revision today cited an "International Treaty", (I'm assuming the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is the treaty to which you refer), and "Domestic Legislation", (again I assume the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005).

I am not taking the micky here, (and I genuinely mean that), but have you actually read these documents? Either of them? Guess what - I have, and what is more, nowhere in either of these documents is the status of Offical Language conferred upon either Gaelic or Scots. There is no disputing they are languages in their own right and are recognised as such in both the domestic legislation and international treaties to which you refer. These are facts not open to any misinterpretation. However, the European Charter states under Article 1 that for the purposes of the Charter:

a. "regional or minority languages" means languages that are:

i. traditihttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.pngonally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and

ii. different from the official language(s) of that State;

it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants;

b. "territory in which the regional or minority language is used" means the geographical area in which the said language is the mode of expression of a number of people justifying the adoption of the various protective and promotional measures provided for in this Charter;

c. "non-territorial languages" means languages used by nationals of the State which differ from the language or languages used by the rest of the State's population but which, although traditionally used within the territory of the State, cannot be identified with a particular area thereof.

Article 2 – Undertakings

1. Each Party undertakes to apply the provisions of Part II to all the regional or minority languages spoken within its territory and which comply with the definition in Article 1.

2. In respect of each language specified at the time of ratification, acceptance or approval, in accordance with Article 3, each Party undertakes to apply a minimum of thirty-five paragraphs or sub-paragraphs chosen from among the provisions of Part III of the Charter, including at least three chosen from each of the Articles 8 and 12 and one from each of the Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13.

Nowhere in the 23 Articles of the Charter does it mention that the Charter itself confers Offical Status to any language specified by the 8 States, (Including the UK), who ratified the treaty with regard to those languages as defined in Article 1. As for the UK:

a) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 and Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Charter that it will apply the following provisions for the purposes of Part III of the Charter to Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic and Irish.

Scottish-Gaelic – 39 paragraphs Article 8: Education Paragraphs 1a (i) 1b (i) 1c (i) 1d(iv) 1e (iii) 1f (iii) 1g 1h 1i 2 Total: 10

b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter’s definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter. Period covered: 01/07/01 - The preceding statement concerns Article(s): 2, 3

None of the above paragraphs and sub-paragraphs relating to Scots or Gaelic to which the UK Govt. gave an undertaking to apply affords "Official Status" to either language - FACT. May I therefore refer you to the Wiki page for Official Languages and the Section Officially recognised minority languages.

With regard to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, it starts:

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 21st April 2005 and received Royal Assent on 1st June 2005

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language, including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education.

This provides for the establishing of Bòrd na Gàidhlig which will have "functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland". Therefore the Act states both the intention and the means but does not itself confer the status of Official Language upon Gaelic. It will be for BnG to exercise its functions in order to secure Official Language status for Gaelic - FACT.

To insist therefore that both Scots and Gaelic are Official Languages is both erroneous and misleading. To do so repeatedly without apparently checking the facts is, well, you figure which adjective I should insert.

The case of Taylor v Haughney (1982) is also relevant. For links to that and the above, Google is your friend.80.41.226.135 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Shetland Islands

Hi, and thanks for the welcome message.
I've made a change to the Perie Bard page, hope I didn't screw it up, apart from forgetting to log in. The info is just from personal knowledge of the area, having lived there for 50 years ;-). I hope info like that is OK.
I don't have a lot of spare time but I will have a look among the other islands and see if I can add or correct anything. I put the position on the Perie Bard one, I thought that sort of thing might be helpful if folks wanted to look it up on a map. Should a reference be given for position information from the OS map?? I wasn't quite sure how to do a reference, but I will learn.
Regards,
Shetlander57 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A reference isn't really needed for an OS grid reference, although one can be provided by referring to the relevant Landranger etc. map. This is however something of an exception. Scottish islands are often lacking in references, and normally I'd slap a {{fact}} tag on unreferenced material, and remove the information after a few weeks if no-one has found a reference for it. Adding references is relatively simple in principle. All you need to do is type <ref> at the beginning of the reference you are providing and </ref> at the end. (Note the extra slash in the second tag). Provided there is a references section containing the tag <references/>, the citation will then show up at there. Peerie Bard has a simple example

The complication is in the detail. There are several referencing systems and styles. WP:MOS#Sources_and_links may help. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps this may interest you.
I don't know if this should be added to the Bressay page or is there a better place to add this info, or if on the Bressay page should it have a new section?. Perhaps you can phrase it better than I can, and add it, if it's worth adding.

The east side of Bressay was the site of the wreck of the reefer "Green Lily" on 19th November 1997. It was a ship which had just left Lerwick with a load of frozen fish from the local Shetland Catch factory when it broke down and drifted ashore in storm force winds. All the crew were rescued by the Lerwick lifeboat and the local Coastguard rescue helicopter.
What makes it particularly notable in is that the helicopter winchman, Bill Deacon was swept away and killed after having ensured the safety of the last of the ships crew, he was posthumously awarded the George Medal for bravery.
The Coxwain of the lifeboat, Hewitt Clark, was awarded the RNLI Gold medal for his part in the rescue, and is the only living RNLI member to hold such an honour.

Note, info just from memory, so would need to be checked and referenced against sources such as possibly Coastguard or RNLI.
Also, would it be worth mentioning some of the more notable shipwrecks around the other Shetland Islands? I know little bits and pieces about some of them, and it may help to fill out the pages. If you like the idea I can see how you add it, and then do similar for the other ones.
Shetlander57 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed I think it would be helpful, and crucial in creating comprehensive articles about the islands. I have just completed something along these lines for Papa Stour in fact. It should be easy enough to provide references. Entering 'Green Lily shipwreck Shetland' into Google for example provided several useful hits. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the Papa Stour page. I can correct some details there, so I'll look out some of the info I have, and the Ben Doran happens to be the one I know perhaps most about. I actually have a tape recording of a BBC radio programme from about 1978 which tells the full story of the Ben Doran (A178) wreck, and the later wreck of the Elinor Viking (A278). The programme was put together from tape recordings made by the late Clement Williamson from Scalloway, who, sometime in the late 40's or early 50's, had interviewed all the people, still alive, who had been involved in the rescue attempts. It is an amazing programme.
I'll see what I can put together and add a bit to your aticle.
Shetlander57 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. In principle I can't see any objection to a radio broadcast from a reliable source being used as a reference, but having taken a quick look I can't see anything about the subject either way. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear. I was referring to the Shipwrecks on Papa Stour, Section 3.4. The Aberdeen trawler Ben Doran. The Stromness lifeboat was only given the order to launch on the Sunday, 2 days after the wreck, by which time it was too late, and it was called back before it got there.
I also had a little bit more on the Highcliffe wreck, and the Juniper wreck as well. It's just that locally it is something that just about everybody knows about.
Maybe best not bother, I think I'm just confusing you.
Shetlander57 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you were being clear, but you may have come across one of Wikipedia's more famous conundrums already. "Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability". In other words, if you and everyone in Shetland knows something to be true, its irrelevant if you can't point to a published source that verifies this. I hope you will edit Papa Stour; all I was saying is that if the reference you use to verify the facts is a radio broadcast, it would be interesting to try and find some wiki-guideline about this. There is probably one somehere in the vaults. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Conundrum would be putting it mildly.
As I now understand Wikipedia thanks to your very sensible and honest statement, I'm surprised that anything every gets added, or indeed, to be candid, that half the information is allowed to stay here.
I won't bore you with a long statement on it, but this is the way I see it.
An event happens, and it is reported in the newspapers, perhaps with wrong details, but, that is a verifiable source, so Wikipedia includes that information, and therefore Wikipedia has the wrong information.
In this house there are over 2000 factual books, which must have been written by somebody with personal or technical knowledge of the subject. If not, and they all had to reference other works, it begs the question, "Who wrote the first reference, and if that was a newspaper, who are normally the first to report anything, can we believe anything?"
That sums up the conundrum as I see it, and now I appreciate what a hard time you guys have, it must be very frustrating to see things on Wikipedia which you know personally to be factually wrong, but are tied to the rules in such a way that you cannot correct it.
I'll edit the Papa Stour shipwrecks tomorrow, most likely Canmore is the best reference to wrecks, and any other references I can find, and then you can see if you think it's admissible.
Shetlander57 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The changes look good. In the perfect world we'd have the actual date of the radio broadcast, but its a small point. It's my intention to propose this as a Good Article at some point, and I think its unlikely the reviewer will grumble, but we shall see. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Award Center Newsletter

Wikipedia:AWC/newsletter/archive/4 - Newsletter Bot Talk 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC) If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here.

I need your feedback...

Which of the following medals looks better. This one:

Or this one:

Which one do you like better?

Please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What is Around the World?

It's a collaboration!

A collaboration using advanced wiki-tools!

The event is being co-sponsored by Wikiproject Lists of basic topics and WikiProject Geography, and participants will be "traveling" all around "the World" visiting each country online (here on Wikipedia) as they apply advanced wiki-tools to improve pieces of the profiles of each and every country on Earth!. Each pass through these pages is a "trip around the World..."

The set of pages we are working is currently located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics.

Each page presents essential information on each country in a topic outline format, for ease of overviewing and navigating. Most of the topics presented are linkified, which turns these pages into a hypertextual map to material about each country on Wikipedia. When completed, they shall all become part of Wikipedia's contents system.

The pages share a standard format, with the information on each country presented in the same general order. So rather than tediously working on a single country to complete it, each participant works on all 200+ political entities, completing a single data item or detail across all of the pages!

For this they use advanced tools like WP:AWB, Linky, etc. It goes fast, and since others are doing this at the same time, it makes "the World" feel like a beehive, and the participants are its bees.  :) The energy is contagious.

And since you are moving from country to country, the tasks make it feel like you are traveling around the world, and you get to learn a little about every country as you do so. This approach also allows for greater efficiency, because by the time you've done 30 or so of a particular item, you've figured out how to finish it faster and more effectively (such as where to find the data or how to make adjustments), and this specialization speeds up development - but more importantly it reduces errors.

The tasks are varied, which adds even more variety to the project. Some tasks are look-ups-and-fill-ins, some are copy and paste, some are image hunts, some are maintenance adjustments, some are link fixing, some are blue-linking (creating an underlying redirect so a link turns blue), some are fact checking, etc.

Standing by to help are co-coordinators, who can lend a helping hand to participants, provide instruction and tips on how to use the tools, and help them find what they are looking for. Co-coordinators also use advanced tools to inspect the work of participants, and touch it up as needed, or if a task was done wrong throughout, point this out to the participant so he or she can make the necessary corrections.

Co-coordinators are working on the set of pages right now, to familiarize themselves with "the World" so they can help more effectively by the time the main event starts. But there's still lots of preparation left to be done, and we are looking for editors experienced in advanced wikitools who would like to become co-coordinators.

The Transhumanist 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Looks like you put a lot of work into this!  :) Overall the formatting's looking pretty good, but I agree that I'm concerned about the quality of the references. In order to make the article "stick", you need to make a case that this subject is genuinely notable to the outside world, meaning to non-Findhorn people. Many of the article's references seem to be to the Findhorn.com website or to publications by Findhorn itself, and those are probably WP:AUTO violations. Can you find any newspaper or magazine articles about the subject? Those would be better, per WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Elonka 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, you are my “best and only friend”. Ben MacDui 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ben MacDui/Sandbox

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it has been
  • it is claimed
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS the footnotes can be found here: [Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/October 2006]

Sandbox

I'm sorry I don't understand when didi I edit your sandbox? Could you please provide a link to the edit. Sorry if I have edited it. Harland1 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to start the WP:CDA rfc now?

Firstly, I'm not sure you've seen this. (esp NJA's comment).

Nope I had not - wasn't invited. I looked at NJA's last comments and they seemed to me to indicate a sense an interest in continuing the dicussion but not a determination to do so.

Secondly, you and Tryptofish may be vocal people - but you cannot be allowed to run such an important show yourselves. There are a number of things that still need discussion. You cannot just ignore people!

If you run the rfc without consensus, I'll run an rfc on the rfc. Abiding by the rules of consensus is a hundred times more important than CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

& I can run a poll on the rfc re the rfc - you see the point. This could go on forever and the longer it runs, it may be that the langauge gets improved but the further it gets from the original simple idea. If the RfC is successful I have no doubt that new and good ideas will emerge (or that old ones will re-emerge). However, for any of that discussion to be worthwhile there needs to be a clear sense that the community backs the principle,. If they don't the effort is wasted. Ben MacDui 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put the 'needs discussion' tag back in to 80% (where the hell is th CONSENSUS for it????) - I thought I did that last night, but I didin't realise it had had two edits (so the "approx" was just removed). I would not have normally edited and 1am sunday morning, but they sense of panic you are instilling forced me to do it. How about an RfC/u? Does that tickle your fancy? There is no need for this at all. It is done when it is done.

Abiding by consensus is a hundred times more important than CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And it is the consensus of the community that will make the difference, not whether the handful of editors involved can agree on the precise wording required. Ben MacDui 12:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't make a big deal of this (link) but you reverted me once and I felt I had to do it. You communications have been a bit distant of late too, rather like you are popping in without reading it all. I'm sure you are a thoroughly decent chap and all that, but Wikipedia only makes sense to me when play by the (very simple) rules that it has. We all edit, we strive for consensus etc etc etc. Things that fall by those rules are likely to fail imo. I've got little time today myself, but I'll attempt to give it everything I can. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say you "won't make a bid deal out of this" I am not sure what you intend to convey as you are clearly going out of your way to make a big deal out of what - that I reverted you once? I trust you are recalling that when you broke 3RR I didn't make a big deal out of it by - well choosing to ignore it in the hope it would lead to more active collaboration. Possibly a mistake. I suspect you experience my communication as being "distant" as I prefer to reply briefly and succinctly and find your style - well difficult to understand. This in particular seems to me to be a bizarre way to achieve any kind of consensus. Ben MacDui 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think clarity is much of an issue with me. I'm happy to close the RFc/u if you promise me that this is done when it's done. I've never railed against any clear consensus, whether I've agreed with it or not. Clear consensus is always the key for me - it's the only step forward that noone can rally against. By only having a fairly week consensus from the outset, the foundations of CDA are not all that strong, so it needs as crystal a consensus as possible as an actual proposal to make it through. Unfortunately I feel less good about it winning the more I contemplate little issues with it (the 'power voters' will have a lot of say I think), but I still think it has a good chance. CDA is as fine a blancing act as Wikipedia is ever likely to see - so why rush it?

I'll pitch that new suggestion (in NJAs sandbox) later today (hopefully - i might have the day free now). Also we need to sort out the percentage. As it has been posed on the admins noticeboard that CDA has too many safeguards to make it worthwhile, I suggest using 85%. I say this a compromise as I think (alas, as there is no consensus amongst those actually discussing the proposal) that the consensus in the VOTE 2 was more like 90% (as a ratio that would actually be 9:1). I have no objections to ratios btw if we mention them both, ie "approxinately 6:1 (about 85% of the total votes)". Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can close the RfC/u or keep it open as you prefer. We disagree on what is needed that's all and it is a rather odd way to try and achieve the consensus you say that you wish to have. Ben MacDui 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MacDui, thank you very much for the compliment on my talk page, much appreciated. At this point, I feel as though I've been too much in the middle of things, and I need to take a step back for a little while. Therefore, it will now fall to you and others to sort this thing out. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And making sure that you know: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ben MacDui. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ben MacDui 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For calling me disruptive? Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it has been well over 48 hours and no one else has certified the above RfC/U (on you). Would you like me to close it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the instructions, I have deleted the RfC/U as it was never certified. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I replied on his talk page and provided a copy of the text of the RfC/U - hopefully this is the end of it, but we'll see. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the reply. Good grief. Ben MacDui 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete revision history

Hello!

Ive have contacted several admins on the english wikipedia about this:

Hello! Today I was editing a page on Wikipedia. I closed the browsers window as usual and then opened it again when I felt like to edit the page again. When I was done I checked the revision history of that page and I could see an Ip-adress, my Ip-adress, I werent logged in the second time! I have been searching and reading all around wikipedia, how to delete revision history on an article because I dont want my Ip visible when I have an account. It seems that admins have a tool for this and could you help me with this, please? Best regards EN

Most of them told me about WP:OVERSIGHT and that you could help me.

Here is the page(Its in swedish): http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Berglind#Medverkan_i_shower

Best regards KN

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertnature (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

lex ritman

Dear Sir, We had already contact on 31-5-2010. It was about my article about William H. Mounsey. You can find a book of mine mentioned by the Royal Library in The Hague: " Kapitein Robs stormachtige leven". See: www.kb.and fill in: lex ritman. Also on: www.google.com and than the same. There are several reviews there, but of course in Dutch. Do try: www.google.com and fill in: zeelandnet pieter kuhn. Click and click again after reading. The whole site is with my text and name. There are reviews there too. For a check you can mail: redlumrock@zeelandnet.nl Cor Mulder will confirm who I am. You can also phone (working days): 0031703615393 (my publisher for the mentioned book): Uitgeverij Panda. All my books are sold out, so promoting is no use. You can find out that I am not a spammer and that I am not an unreliable source. The moderator who offended me and removed my name as often as possible is: Bob Re-born. Thank you for trying to bring my name back in an article today. I hope he will know the text written here by me. I ask for help, because I think he will not answer me any more. Calling me a spammer and unreliable source was not nice. I worked together with Hans G. Kresse (mentioned by me in several articles).Thank you on forehand. Lex RitmanRomeinsekeizer (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not querying who you are. I am querying whether Major William Henry Mounsey, a British spy was published independently, or by you. Ben MacDui 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My reaction: books published by Antoninus Pius can be found: www.ericdenoorman.nl and click. Than click on: Eric de Noorman (top of page). Than click (left on: literatuur/you have to scroll). Than scroll a while till: Ritmanuitgaven (meaning books written by Lex Ritman). The publisher (mentioned): Antoninus Pius. See the reviews and pictures (of course written in Dutch). Not vanity editions of course, but for members of a foundation. With: www.google.com and fill in: "Kapitein Robs stormachtige leven" 404.001, you can find more books. Scroll and you see pictures again and reviews and a lot of libraries with the blue and red book. Books about Eric de Noorman are for instance in Rotterdam in a library. With: www.kb.nl and fill in: lex ritman, you will find all together three publishers. So at any rate reviews with 5 books with Eric de Noorman and two with Kapitein Rob. Of course I know the publishers. So you cannot say that it is independent. Especially Antoninus Pius was a limited edition done in cooperation with Panda and the heirs of Hans G. Kresse and with consent of the Royal Library (acquisition). One published by the heirs themselves (number 16 of KB). Also especially written for members of the foundation Hans G. Kresse. Of course you can also say that I am the publisher, because it was my initiative. The Mounsey-book is within this scope. So I am not a persistent spammer and unreliable source. Question: is it allowed to write about your own work or excavations?Romeinsekeizer (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) I think we will stop now. Thank you again192.87.123.13 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is only a pity that the article about William H. Mounsey has no mentioning of the main source, meaning my book. I accept that of course192.87.123.13 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)RomeinsekeizerRomeinsekeizer (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ritman

Last message. No need to reply. See: www.google.com (images): "lex ritman" books (click).Also: www.google.com (internet): "lex ritman" trouw. And of course: click again. Review in newspaper. I understand now what a vanity book is. "Mounsey" is not a vanity book. It is a co-production.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I said sorry to Bob Re-born. I was focused on writing about my research.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ritman(2)

Dear Sir, I would be happy when you remove: lex ritman, Ritman and Ritman(2). Than I can start again according to the rules, that I didnot completely understand. Sorry for that. Of course it is only a request. Thank you for all your helpRomeinsekeizer (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC) See: www.kb.nl and fill in my name (lex ritman): click on any title and you will see a review. Via: www.bibliotheekdenhaag.nl and than: fill in ZOEK and than click on ZOEKEN. Two reviews.192.87.123.18 (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Romeinsekeizer (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to loginRomeinsekeizer (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor thing

Do you remember using Edo Nyland's book Odysseus and the Sea Peoples: A Bronze Age History of Scotland ( as a source a few years back? Well, in his own words evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ling_sumerian.htm (spam filter wouldn't allow full url) "Analyzing the place names of the Odyssey, he made the interesting discovery that names and words may be interpreted as a shorthand, having been agglutinated from core words of the Basque language. He identified a subset of the Basque language, the core words of which have come through five millenia in almost unchanged form, as the nearest equivalent of the neolithic universal language which has been spoken in Europe and the Near East before the 'babylonian speech confusion.'Applying his new decoding method to names and words from many other language families, he arrived at the startling result that words of ancient languages like Sanskrit and Sumerian as well as of modern European languages like English, Spanish or German, can be decoded by the same method into Basque sentences revealing hidden meaning. This discovery is supporting the hypothesis of monogenesis of languages, according to Genesis 11.1: "...now the whole earth had one language..." I tried this on his name and discovered the Basque word 'kook'. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page. Ben MacDui 08:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)