This edit is neither a minor edit nor can it be described the way you did as "small items, tidying up". You have added an uncited claim (views of "surrounding tribes") and made a controversial change by emphasising one controversial hypothesis in the title of a section that deals with many things. At least describe your work reasonably in the edit summary . Babakathy (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies ... This has indeed been a very "turbulent", almost traumatic process - trying to discuss and then edit the Great Zimbabwe page. I found (and have added) a suitable citation. DLMcN (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed the "nonsensical" entry ! ... [I'm not sure where I should sign as having carried out that action, however])

Your edit summary did the job perfectly I would suggest. Thanks. Babakathy (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: Please note that I am travelling at the moment and having trouble getting decent internet access, and won't be able to access my books and notes until after I return home later this month. I have three different English translations of the Periplus at home - of which, perhaps the most trustworthy one is that by Lionel Casson (based on an ealier one) which contains detailed notes as well as the Greek original. I will compare the accounts of Raphta after I get home and report back.

That said, perhaps you could start by checking out William H. Schoff's translation which has been digitalised and is online at: [1].

I think your supposition that other travellers, after the original Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa c. 600 BCE, probably sailed down the east coast of Africa is almost beyond question. There is evidence for this in both Western Classical and Chinese literature. I can give you more details on this if you wish, after I return home. Please remind me, though for, as I mentioned above, I am getting very forgetful (and also I will be very busy and distracted after I return). All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: Yes, I have often wondered how early outside countries became aware of the gold from Great Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, I have not come across any references that might point to it in early literature. Concerning the furthermost southern port on the East African coast known to the author, the 1st century Periplus mentions only that:

"Two days' sail beyond, there lies the very last market-town of the continent of Azania, which is called Rhapta; which has its name from the sewed boats (rhapton ploiarion) already mentioned; in which there is ivory in great quantity, and tortoise-shell. Along this coast live men of piratical habits, very great in stature, and under separate chiefs for each place. The Mapharitic chief governs it under some ancient right that subjects it to the sovereignty of the state that is become first in Arabia. And the people of Muza now hold it under his authority, and send thither many large ships, using Arab captains and agents, who are familiar with the natives and intermarry with them, and who know the whole coast and understand the language."

If there was any gold being shipped from there it was probably going to Muza in southwestern Arabia (and they could well have not have wanted the Romans to know this and kept the knowledge hidden. However, this is pure speculation on my part. I am sorry not to be able to supply you with anything more definite. If you do manage to turn something up, please do let me know. It may be worth contacting the archaeologist who has done the ground-breaking work at the mouth of the Rufiji River, Professor Felix Chami, I found him really helpful when I was writing my book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome. His email address is (or was) fcham9@udsm.ac.tz. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John ... Indeed, as I state in my essay at http://www.dlmcn.com/anczimb.html - M. Horton alludes to a deliberate policy of keeping secret that southeast African gold-source, citing the Yemeni writer Al-Hamdani of 942 AD; see 'The Swahili corridor' in Scientific American 257 (September 1987), pp. 76-84. It is by no means impossible that early explorers always made a point of testing the effluent at the mouths of rivers, to see whether they contained gold. Had they done that, the Zambesi and Sabi (= "Save") rivers would both have given positive indications.--DLMcN (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thanks for your interesting article which I have downloaded and will read more carefully as soon as I can find time. Please see the draft notes for my translation of the 3rd century Chinese historical text, the Weilüe, Section 15, and the linked footnotes 15.1 and 15.2, for some of what I have been able to deduce about 澤 散 'Zesan' = Azania. This draft version (I intend to publish the whole as a book later) is available on the Silk Road Seattle website at: [[2]]. However, I am in the process of revising all these notes - so please don't quote me without checking first. Hope it is of some interest. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... for being there to support in the first place. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN. You have new messages at Cliftonian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hopefully I've fixed this. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, the article is now back at FAC if you are interested in looking it over. I hope you and your family are well. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Many thanks ... that is incredibly kind and generous - because any contribution I may have made, must be a very tiny fraction of Cliftonian's efforts. --DLMcN (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I am quite baffled by the fact that Cliftonian has received only one stripe in his award of today, compared with my two? --DLMcN (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the awards are made based on the reviews an editor performs, which are tallied here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Quarterly reviewing totals. Reviews in this case does not include articles that they wrote/nominated for review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN. You have new messages at Cliftonian's talk page.
Message added 08:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've indefinitely blocked the editor in question for clear block evasion - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Starmagicxxx - if they re-appear please let me know, or alternatively post at WP:AIV, stating they are evading their block (in case I'm not online!). GiantSnowman 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should continue to use the talk page and come to agreement with Waslalh. Regarding protecting the page, there has not been enough recent disruption to justify it - however I have added the article to my watchlist and will monitor. GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed there are a couple of links to your own website on the Great Zimbabwe article, please can you clarify? Thanks, GiantSnowman 12:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to keep watch ... I am only aware of one item - presently occupying reference no. 7 - providing quick and convenient access to a published article. It seemed relevant to insert it to help back up the claim [still under discussion with Waslalh] that "There are people, still alive today, who believe that it is possible that the ancestors of the Lemba were responsible for constructing GZim". --DLMcN (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinsert this without getting agreement at WP:NORN that the two of us are wrong in calling it OR. If you do go there, give a pointer on the article's talk page. I'm winding down for a break so may not respond. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be agreeable to including George Murdock as another possible adherent of the 'Lemba' theory? - for example by inserting [my earlier]: "...The Lemba claim to Great Zimbabwe was supported by Murdock((ref name="Murdock"))Murdock, G.P. (1959). Africa: its peoples and their culture history; see pp. 387 and 204 et seq. New York: McGraw Hill.((/ref)) and by Gayre ..." --DLMcN (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your suggestion about the Gayre comment and cite - I see what you mean. Will do. THanks for watching the article. Very interesting to see how the thinking has changed for some about their role at Great Zimbabwe (and just seeing the remains of that city makes you wonder about these great places humans built in so many areas).Parkwells (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thanks for the website link; I shall take a look. A most interesting ancient civilization, for sure. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My message:

James -

I could not help noticing that you and EddTey are in fact exactly the same person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EddTey

It could be argued, incidentally, that you have been engaged in an Edit War [in this "French versus Spanish" dispute] since 29th January [following your first alteration-edit on 25th December].

As you know, this^ is not the first time that you have been guilty of this sort of offence....

I am not sure how often that needs to happen, before the Wikipedia authorities start thinking about a complete and permanent ban - something which you would prefer to avoid, almost certainly?

Hopefully, you will take this message as a piece of friendly advice, and nothing more.

With regards and best wishes, --DLMcN (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply:

We are not the same person, you should know that using the same IP does not necessarily mean that we are the same person.

And I have not been involved in any editing war. I have contributed sources and discussed and spoken many times.

Avoid threatening others in a childish way. Thank you. JamesOredan (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result:

JamesOredan continued Edit-Warring, and was permanently blocked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JamesOredan_reported_by_User:Jeppiz_(Result:_Indeffed) ... >See Edit-Warring file 386, no 13 --DLMcN (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous saying in Spain:

"Consejos vendo que para mí no tengo"

That is literally what you are doing. You criticize me that I am starting an Edit War despite having contributed official sources and having discussed the subject for a long time and in different threads, and even some people (not just Edd) have agreed.

Instead, you have erased a map agreed by the mere fact that you do not like, without providing any source and without consensus.

Chapeau JamesOredan (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the map-change, it is misleading to accuse me of replacing it unilaterally [i.e., without consensus] - because it was in fact an old (and widely accepted) version [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Spanish_Language_Map ] which I was resurrecting in order to inquire what other people thought of it. Thus, [for easy reference] it made sense to prominently display the proposed change. During the subsequent discussion, I emphasised that I would certainly accept a reversion to the previous map, if that was what most people wanted.

Only [the puppet?] EddTey replied to my post, but s/he did not bother to respond to my questions about the colours adopted for France, the Philippines, Morocco, and parts of the USA.

There was, on the other hand, a lot of discussion regarding Catalonia - which was only of tertiary importance because I had not marked that particular area differently from the rest of Spain. In any event, Edd's comparison of Catalonia with Scotland was a very poor one, because of the enormous discrepancy between the strength of Catalán and that of Gaelic, (or that of the Scots language).

Instead, we should look at Canada, where certain areas are shaded differently if French [or various native-Indian languages?] are co-official and/or widely used. So Spain could perhaps be treated in a similar manner.

It is also a 'red herring' to accuse me of making the change without including any backup from reliable sources. The map simply shows where Spanish enjoys the status of being an official language - and that is something which can easily be checked elsewhere. --DLMcN (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Spanish_language_map_2 > March 2019 discussion

[Click on Africa^ to magnify] This map was created by Ichwan Palongengi. My modifications just consist of: (i) showing Castillian to be co-official in Catalonia; (ii) marking a few areas where Spanish is only a minority, non-official language: (southern USA, Philippines, northern Morocco, France, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - which is mostly controlled by Morocco).

According to https://www.ethnologue.com/language/spa - Spanish is spoken more in the north of Morocco than in other parts, which means that its 'status' in the northern province(s)/regions will be higher than the '7' given in that site for the country as a whole. [Spain used to own the north; many people there do go across and visit Spain. Possibly we could also mention Ceuta and Melilla in order to justify placing a marker in northern Morocco]. --DLMcN (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 29th revision --DLMcN (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good afternoon.

I have made some suggestions in "Talk" about the map of the global languages. I would like to know if you could do an equal design on the map of the French and English language, and replace the yellow color with another color to improve visibility.

Thank you. NothingHam Bread (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NothingHam - Many thanks for your contact.

In Wikipedia one always has to tread carefully so as not to upset other people.

In the World Language Talk-File, there was a lot of discussion recently about possible changes in the Spanish map. Some of it was quite heated. One of the people involved (and his puppets) has actually been permanently blocked from Wikipedia for persistent, disruptive editing.

I am now living in Spain (and trying to improve my command of Spanish) - and, prompted by contact with people here, I've also read a fair amount about its distribution around the globe...However, I cannot really say the same about French.

Take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New-Map-Francophone_World.PNG [scroll down to "File History"]

- and also at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:New-Map-Francophone_World.PNG ...

The last three people who have worked on the French map may be contacted at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maphobbyist and

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Motiss and

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Julienbch

Why not write to them asking if they^ can accommodate your suggestions?

Similarly, in order to make changes in the English map, it would be advisable to clear them with at least some of the editors shown in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anglospeak.png [> then scroll down to "File History"]

In my Spanish map, I actually have doubts as to whether the whole of France should be highlighted as it is. However, it is probably prudent to wait and see whether any more comments come in before making further alterations.

I am [partially] colour-blind, so I do appreciate the contrast offered by yellow. What colour would you prefer? ... Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about producing and uploading maps of English and French under a new file name, but with the same contents as the old maps, right now, then wait for suggestions to alter them, which is an extremely easy task in the case of SVGs. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DLMcN, thanks for your response.

The yellow combined with the white I think doesnt appreciate the contours well, I think a pink or light green would be better for the eye.

I will try to make a new map for the English and French language with a style of the Spanish language and content like the current ones. If there is no problem in it, of course.

I think in France there are many Spanish speakers, I would say that outside Spain, France is the european country with the most Spanish speakers and students of this language, although I dont know with certainty. For me, I would leave it as designed, its really a good map. NothingHam Bread (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothingham - it sounds as if you are going to construct your own suggestions for new maps of the English and French languages? Presumably they will be in ".svg" format? Despite what I said above^, as Lili says you could certainly then upload them into the article - and just wait to see if anybody reacts. (I feel that I have had more than my fair share of disputes in Wikipedia, so perhaps I am now oversensitive about being drawn into too many more).

Also, as LiliCharlie implies, you are quite free to re-edit my Spanish map, changing the yellow to a colour of your choice: [Yes, a light-shaded one would indeed be appropriate > I would be quite happy with that !] --DLMcN (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DLMcN and LiliCharlie, user NothingHam Bread has been blocked as a sockpuppet of JamesOredan/EddTey/Blade and the rest, thought you should know... --IamNotU (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

> IamNotU - Many thanks for the alert ! --DLMcN (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Megaman en m. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Afrikaans, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Megaman en m (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it was enough to link to the Wikipedia page on Eldoret? - (which I did by enclosing it in double square brackets).

Would you accept the change in the "Afrikaans" article if I were to insert the https://afrikanerway.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/eldoret-a-boer-settlement/ link from the Eldoret article? -DLMcN (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion can be found on Megaman's Talk-page > --DLMcN (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I was told that I could delete this, if I wanted to do so - but I decided that it was worth retaining as a record of events - DLMcN)

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:DLMcN, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On June 8th, after a heated exchange with Wiki-Administrators [in which his language was sometimes very "~colourful" !] - Galendalia was suspended indefinitely from Wikipedia. --DLMcN (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to work out what exactly is bothering you? Yes, my use of the ID 'DLMcN' does duplicate that of my website (which I certainly intend to maintain). I would be happy to delete all mention of my website in my User ID page, if that will solve the problem. But even if I do delete that reference and link, there will still be a name-duplication. The only way to get rid of that, surely, is to expel me from Wikipedia ! - despite the fact that I have tried to be helpful with many of its topics. But if you are forcing me to choose between being a Wiki-editor and keeping my personal website, then you can probably guess my decision. [Perhaps there is an easy way of changing my ID, is there?] ... Or is it the contents of my personal Talk-file which is upsetting you? - if so, which portions exactly? --DLMcN (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the G11 speedy. I don't see at all how your user page could be construed as advertising. It looks extremely normal to me. Have a good day. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Per WP:user pages, "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." It is not promotional in this case, so you are good. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ThatMontrealIP ! --DLMcN (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DLMcN, I just wanted to second the information that there's nothing whatsoever wrong with your user page. The person who left the messages about it is a new user who made un gros faux pas. Apparently they misinterpreted the user page guideline and thought it wasn't allowed to list your e-mail and website address for privacy reasons, but that's not true. How that led them to leave an "advertising or promotion" warning I can't really follow, but anyway, feel free to delete or archive it if you'd like, it was a mistake. Carry on as you were! --IamNotU (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao DLMcN, comme ne connaissais pas ta « user page » j'ignorais que tu maîtrises la langue française, et même celle allemande qui est ma langue maternelle. Quant à moi, je parle les trois langues officielles de la Belgique. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bon soir, LiliCharlie. Merci pour écrire. Pardonne moi - il y a beaucoup des erreurs quand j'écris en français. --DLMcN (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Problem, señor. I appreciate if native English speakers make an effort to speak foreign languages anyway. Monolinguals who imagine that language is no more than a means to exchange thoughts known in the English-speaking world have no idea what it means to be a human being. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lili - What you say about the English (and many Americans) is true: their attitude is an unfortunate consequence of speaking the 'Number One' language in the world. I have strong southern African connections, where knowledge of other tongues (specifically Afrikaans, Portuguese, Zulu, Shona - and even French and German in certain areas) is an enormous asset...

The ability to read German (with a dictionary by my side !) has been a great help in my work and research, particularly in history - more than any other foreign language which I've dabbled in. I persuaded my sons to take it at school - but, sadly, they have not managed to keep it going...

I only wish my Spanish was half as good as your English. A lot of Belgians have moved into our village here in Andalusia, and amaze us with their ability to switch easily between five different languages. --DLMcN (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DLMcN, it is not for nothing that Brussels became the de facto capital of the EU. The city is officially bilingual, the majority are French-speaking, it is surrounded in all directions by the Flemish Region where Dutch is the sole official language, and most people also speak fluent English, not to mention immigrant languages with a substantial number of speakers. A place where cultures meet. — Having several official languages is above all an expensive matter. Every minor form to fill in must exist in several officially approved versions, all government officials must be able to understand each detail of the files that their colleagues wrote in a different language... Not an easy thing to achieve. In fact many more than the three official languages are native to Belgium, including West Flemish, Walloon, Picard, Luxembourgish, and so forth. Languages —and mentalities— galore.

Your village seems to attract Belgians. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]