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 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 at the end. (Note the extra slash in the second tag). Provided there is a references section containing the tag   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&amp;nbsp;mm. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.

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   Mac  Dui  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   Mac  Dui  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   Mac  Dui  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  Mac  Dui  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: Requests for comment/Ben MacDui. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions, I have deleted the RfC/U as it was never certified. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the reply. Good grief. Ben   Mac  Dui  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   Mac  Dui  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  Mac  Dui  08:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)