Jump to content

Talk:Bewnans Ke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Does it say Liskeard is the place of publication in the book, on the title page or verso? (Since you ask if it is OK.) Evertype 09:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the Standard says that it can be supplied. I've put it in square brackets to clarify. Of course, all of the data for the Williams/Thomas edition has been supplied and is not from the cited item because it hasn't been published yet, so I guess the whole lot should be in square brackets. Branvras
You're right about putting Liskeard in brackets. You're not right about the Exeter edition, because it is [In press.]. Evertype 17:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure its correct to descibe this as an English play - To avoid RV wars what do other users think? Perhaps we should have a "Cornish language" sub cat of English plays? My thinking about the original removal of the cat was because of the language of the play IE not in English, I will leave it up to you ...........Reedgunner 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"English plays" is the category not for English language plays, but plays from England (it doesn't include Scottish plays, American plays and Australian). Removing it from the cat means that it doesn't show up in any play category; perhaps it could just be put in "British plays", but I don't think a Cornish (or Cornish language) subcat is needed, there just won't be much in it.--Cúchullain t/c 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think there would be 2 Cornish language plays in the Cornish language play sub cat so point taken! - British plays might be a better home perhaps Reedgunner 08:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

An editor has twice changed certain spellings from the Americanized to the British style (or at least certain versions of it). This is presumably due to the ENGVAR guideline on "Strong national ties to a topic". While it is obvious that Cornwall is now part of England and uses British English, this article's subject is a play that is not written in any form of English and that dates to a time before the Cornish language was forcibly displaced by English. As such I don't see how the variety of English used in the article matters much. In a similar vein, I don't imagine that articles on pre-Columbian or colonial history in what is now the US or Canada would be required to use American or Canadian English simply because the subject would later become part of those countries, especially in cases where the language later went extinct. ENGVAR is clear that the guideline "should not be used to claim national ownership of certain articles; see WP:OWN." Additionally, some of the changes were not actually changes to British English, but rather changes from one variant of British English to another (spec. the change of -ize->-ise, though both are used in British English, and the change of the possessive -s'->-'s's, which is a matter of choice). Is there some other consensus on what to do in cases like this? It would be good to have some additional input on this. At any rate, I'd appreciate it if we could wait until I'm done expanding the article to do any blanket spelling changes, just to make sure it's all consistent.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked for my opinion - but I don't have one. I'm content either way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious usage in the current version is "advisement [ədˈvaɪzmənt]" noun Chiefly US, archaic in Britain consultation; deliberation - Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003. Very few habitual users of British English would recognise it so a less rare word would be more useful here. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Teudar

[edit]

Is there a connection between him and the Tudor dynasty (descended from the rulers of Deheubarth)? The link may not be helpful if he is only known as a Cornish king. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. The article does say, based on John T. Koch's Celtic Encyclopedia, that the tyrant "Teudar" may be a satire of Henry Tudor. It may be worth a link higher up, as we certainly don't have an article on the character.--Cúchullain t/c 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might the reference to Teudar be a folk memory of King Tewdwr Mawr of Penwith? Soylentbeige (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teudar the tyrant is a recurring character in Cornish literature, and it was quite a common name, so it's certainly quite possible the literary references reflect one or more historical figures. Though that link may be conflating different figures of the name.--Cúchullain t/c 15:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beunans or Bewnans Ke

[edit]

Just thought I'd bring this point up for discussion: The scholarly edition of the text uses the spelling Bewnans Ke. This spelling conflicts with the National Library of Wales, which seems to prefer Beunans Ke. Some time ago I moved the page to Beunans Ke, mistakenly thinking both agreed. I hesitate to move it back, since the National Library are the ones who named the manuscript in the first place and currently hold it. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of this article should be Bewnans Ke. In fact in the manuscript text itself bewnans occurs 4 times, and vewnans 2 times -- beunans not at all. The National Library of Wales is just wrong. Please change it back. -- Evertype·✆ 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to go by what it is reported as in reliable sources. We certainly should mention the variant forms of the name in the lead, but I'd hate this article to be turned into yet another battleground between the various competing orthographies of Cornish. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we have two reliable sources that use the two different spellings. The scholarly edition of the work uses Bewnans Ke, but the National Library uses Beunans Ke. I think we should email the National Library and ask about it, since they're the ones who named and hold the manuscript. At any rate let's please hold off on major spelling changes until we sort it out.--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try again. The actual manuscript reading of the text in the Cornish language contains only the spelling bewnans. The editors of the critical edition use Bewnans throughout. The critical edition was published "by the University of Exeter Press in association with the National Library of Wales". Also: The spelling in Revived Cornish is also bewnans in UC, UCR, SWF, and KS. In KK the spelling is *bywnans (which happens to be unattested in the corpus, but is irrelevant here, since the choice is Bewnans/Beunans). In Revived Cornish beunans is not used by anybody. The National Library's website is wrong. Probably they were thinking of Beunans Meriasek which does have the spelling beunans in Stokes' 1872 edition. In my view, the fact that the National Library of Wales supported the critical edition (and hosted its launch, which I attended since I typeset the book), is enough for us to be able to decide that Bewnans is the better name. Now, I don't have admin powers and cannot move the article myself, so all I can do is ask you to do so. Nobody really calls this *"Beunans Ke". -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it as Beunans at this link, will leave you to comment on the reliability of the source. [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Kent is a friend of mine; I've published his novel Cult of Relics: Devocyon dhe Greryow, as you may know. Alan's use of Beunans in his short 2002 review of Nicholas Williams' Cornish New Testament is surely not as authoritative as the critical edition was published by the University of Exeter Press in association with the National Library of Wales. The plain fact is that this play is, now, today, not commonly known as Beunans Ke, but rather as Bewnans Ke. In the SWF it is known as Bewnans Ke. A Google shows twice as many examples of Bewnans Ke than of Beunans Ke. The spelling beunans doesn't even appear in the manuscript, but rather bewnans. What more "authority" do you need than the MS itself? In the Revived language beunans would be pronounced [ˈbœnəns]; bewnans is [ˈbeʊnəns] -- so that spelling is misleading. Cúchullain mistakenly moved the page. I request that he move it back. -- Evertype·✆ 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes good sense. If the choice is between the standard critical edition and the NLW website, surely more weight should be given to the former. For the record, the beunans variant is also used for Andrew Hawke's entry in Celtic Culture, which precedes Kent's entry on Beunans Meriasek. It may simply reflect the editor's wish to standardise the titles of these works and Koch (or Hawke) may not be alone in this, but if so, it would appear that this kind of strategy has not been overwhelmingly adopted (yet?), per Everson's Google resultsbut see Cuchulainn below, Cavila (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC). I don't agree that the spelling conventions of the manuscript are necessarily those to be preferred, but that's another discussion. Cavila (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~(edit conflict)Well, there's no reason to get worked up about this, we're all reasonable people trying to improve Wikipedia here, and it's a minor issue. In my opinion (and lo! I'm the one who brought it up in the first place) Bewnans probably ought to be preferred, since that's the form used in the scholarly edition, and I will be happy to move it if that's the consensus. However, the point I brought up initially is still relevant: the National Library is still using Beunans Ke. And they're not the only ones, a number of the references, particularly earlier ones ("earlier" as in, before the critical edition was published in 2007, so still quite recent), do use Beunans; as such it's Beunans Ke in John Koch's Celtic Encyclopedia, the notice in Arthurian Literature XXI, Philip Payton's Cornish Studies: Volume 12,[2] and of course at the National Library of Wales.[3][4] In the National Library's case, it's not just their web pages; it looks like they have the MS cataloged as Beunans Ke MS 28349D.[5] But as I say, I'm more than willing to perform the move if that's the consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why Koch (whom I don't know) or Hawke (whom I do) used beunans except that Stokes used it. But I notice that the citations with beunans pre-date the 2007 publication of the critical edition (Koch 2005, Payton 2004), so maybe that explains it—the definitive name derived from the analysis of the text which spells bewnans. My request stands, Cúchullain. -- Evertype·✆ 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and moved it per the comments from Evertype and Cavila. The article needs some more work, especially in the synopsis section now that the critical text is available.--Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

[edit]

Blanketing the article with the word "allegedly" does nothing to improve neutrality, it's entirely unnecessary. The material is properly attributed to the source, though now that the scholarly addition is available we should rely on that. Please stop reverting.Cúchullain t/c 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting and explain your issues here on the talk page.Cúchullain t/c 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling redux

[edit]

Per previous disucussion I've reverted the spelling changes from Americanized to ostensibly British forms. First, This article's subject is not written in any form of English and predates the displacement of the native language by English. As such, it's hard to see how the variety of English used here matters much, and ENGVAR specifically shouldn't be used to claim "national ownership" of articles. Second, the Oxford spelling of words using -ize is perfectly acceptable in British English and in Wikipedia Articles and don't need to be changed regardless.--Cúchullain t/c 14:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken George

[edit]

My edit of the description of Ken George from “enthusiast” to “expert” has been reverted, and I disagree with the reversion. The reversion was on the grounds that George is “not a professional linguist”. This description of what makes one an expert in a field is excessively narrow. George has a PhD in the phonology of Cornish, has undertaken decades of detailed study of Cornish, and has numerous peer-reviewed papers about the language to his name. Using the criterion of being a professional as the metric to distinguish an expert in this field, however much experience one amasses, has the appearance of ad hominem editorialising. I propose that the description "expert" stands. Soylentbeige (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Further to the above: the Wikipedia entry for Expert states that "An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, OR occupation and in a particular area of study." (my emphasis), also "An expert can be, by virtue of credential, training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person...". Ken George clearly fulfils the criteria for being an expert in Cornish and should be described as such. "Enthusiast" is not a suitable description. Soylentbeige (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much indication that George is an "expert" on Cornish, nor do I see anything wrong with being an "enthusiast". George does not have a PhD in Cornish phonology, his PhD is in estuarine tides (his expertise is as an oceanographer).[6] He does have a doctorat du troisième cycle, or third-cycle doctorate, from a French university. This is nothing to shake a stick at, but it's not a terminal degree. I don't think having some degree is the only criteria for someone being an "expert", but in this case his work on Cornish has been criticized by at least some folks who are indeed experts in related fields.[7][8] I object to labeling him an expert, but if "enthusiast" doesn't work, perhaps we could switch it out to something more concrete, like "writer" or "revivalist".--Cúchullain t/c 14:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the link to Michael Everson's criticism of George, I think it is worth noting that Everson is a promoter of an alternative orthography to George's & doesn't speak Cornish. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to my first critique of George's dictionary, I might simply point out that every point made there is verifiably fair. -- Evertype·✆ 09:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm surprised he hasn't turned up here yet, Everson is User:Evertype. Evertype is also the name of his publishing company. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And worth noting that we don't really go in for terminal degrees in notAmericaland. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, I'm pretty sure France is part of "notAmericaland", and that's where George got his degree. The "third cycle doctorate" degree absolutely is (was) lower than the "state doctorate", which is the highest "expert's" doctoral degree, the "terminal degree", or whatever you want to call it.--Cúchullain t/c 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That book appears to be the only thing available on Google about the status of "third cycle doctorates". Anyway, it certainly appears to be a higher degree of some sort. I don't think that Evertype has any kind of degree in Cornish, and unlike George doesn't speak the language (or, for that matter, write books in it - though his company does make money from selling books in competing orthographies), so his status as an "expert" is if anything even more questionable than George's. The concept of terminal degrees is an American one, and does not map to the European experience, so is not terribly helpful here. It would be wonderful if we could find some kind of official mapping of pre-reform French degrees to current European levels. DuncanHill (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the phrase "terminal degree" feel free to insert your own, the point is the degree George has isn't the top qualification in the French system of the time. It's not "the" doctorate English speakers may expect, and it's definitely not a "Ph.D" as the original editor claimed. There are quite a few sources on the topic available on Google Books.[9][10].--Cúchullain t/c 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the Doctorat d'Etat at that time is described in both of those links (which appear to me to be to the same text) as "monumental" and taking at least five, and up to 20 years, it doesn't sound much like an English doctorate to me. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This, from SciencesPo, suggest the Doctorat d'Etat was seen as a second, higher level PhD, rather than what an Englishman would understand as a PhD. DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And our doctorate article describes the Doctorat d'Etat as a higher doctorate (like a DLitt), rather than a normal one like a PhD. DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes the links are the same text, I meant this one.[11] Here are a few others I found but I can't access them all.[12][13][14] The state doctorate was France's classical doctorate, and yes, it was by all accounts unusually rigorous compared to other countries. That's part of the reason they invented third-cycle doctorates in the 50s. However, those were less rigorous and generally less respected, so they replaced both with the current doctorate in the 1980s. --Cúchullain t/c 20:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see much indication that George is an "expert" on Cornish" is merely your opinion (upon which you are editorialising), and there are many who play an active part in the language and its revival who would disagree with you. All variants of revived Cornish have "been criticized by at least some folks who are indeed experts in related fields", but perhaps you haven't been aware of that from the other side of the Atlantic. You "object to labeling him an expert"; I object to not labelling him an expert. It seems pointless to continue this discussion. Soylentbeige (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, unless someone is widely regarded as an expert, Wikipedia shouldn't be claiming that they are. In this case he doesn't have the academic credentials of an expert, and his work in general doesn't appear to be highly regarded among experts. We can discuss other wording alternatives, or we can just let it go as is.--Cúchullain t/c 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "enthusiast" needn't be taken in a negative sense (although importantly, it can be taken as a euphemism for somebody with more zeal than skill), but I'm curious what does count as an expert. He has, as you say, a doctorat du troisième cycle, which might not be a terminal degree but is certainly an academic qualification suggesting expertise. The English equivalent might be an M.Phil. He developed a new Cornish orthography that was adopted by the Cornish Language Board as, effectively, the official modern spelling. Controversially, indeed, and with much criticism from other big fish in the tiny pond of Cornish language studies. He has published a Cornish dictionary. He contributed to chapters on Cornish and on Language Revival in Martin Ball & Nicole Muller (eds), The Celtic Languages (Routledge, 2012). The West Briton describes him (literally) as "a Cornish language expert". I have no dog in this fight, but I'm wondering how anybody would qualify as an expert on a revived minority language, if he doesn't. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These links Rennes University and Study in Europe suggest that third cycle & doctorate are broadly the same as British doctorates. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They changed the system about a decade ago, streamlining what had been a mind-bendingly complex system of higher postgraduate education. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever would have thought the French would come up with a system that nobody else could understand?DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my earlier post I linked to this which explains the situation of French degrees at the time George got his third-cycle doctorate.--Cúchullain t/c 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, my point wasn't to knock George or his degree, just to challenge the original editor's claim that possessing this degree made someone an expert. Obviously other things besides diplomas can make someone an expert, and Georg has an impressive output, but as so much of his work is criticized by other, well, experts, "expert" just seems POV here. However, it's clear he's an "enthusiast", and as I say other more concrete descriptors may also be appropriate, I suggested "writer" or "revivalist" above.--Cúchullain t/c 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I point out above, at least one of the experts you use to deny that George is an expert could hardly be described as an expert by your criteria. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's definitely an expert on orthography, but more to the point, no one's trying to claim that Everson is a "Cornish expert" in a Wikipedia article.--Cúchullain t/c 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's an expert in his own orthography, granted, but by no means an expert on Cornish, so using him as an expert to support your contention that George is not an expert seems invalid. DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an expert on orthographies and writing systems in general; with regard to Cornish in particular, I helped to revise the Standard Written Form into Kernowek Standard, which is a robust orthography that reflects the realities of the two dialects of the revised language more accurately and authentically than any other Cornish orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 09:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really, as he's an expert in a related field who has criticized George's work. And he's hardly the only one. Do you object to the article's present wording?--Cúchullain t/c 20:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, at this point we've spent more energy debating this one word than has been spent on the entire article in years. I've stated my position that the word "expert" isn't neutral here and I think it's a reasonable objection. Moving forward I suggest we either talk about other options (I've suggested two) or we leave the wording that's been there for the last several years and move on.--Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about we go with the quotation from the West Briton? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a quotation is necessary to identify who George is in one sentence of this article, nor should we have to fall back on a local weekly paper to describe him. Honestly, it looks like the BBC article we're citing doesn't even bother to name him at all, we might could just remove him and be done with it. His edition hasn't gotten much notice outside the footnote that its timing annoyed the publishers of the critical edition.--Cúchullain t/c 12:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"fall back on a local weekly paper"? All of a sudden Cornwall is an insignificant place, far removed from where Cornish is spoken, which is the corridors of the BBC? Perhaps you don't mean to be as dismissive as you sound. So just to spell it out: you sound dismissive, as does the use of "enthusiast" in this context. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mean to be dismissive, but to be frank this sounds like a lot of grasping at straws to justify classifying George as an "expert" in an article he's only briefly mentioned in. We don't need a direct quote to deal with one word in this article, and yes, I believe that "Cornish expert" isn't neutral for the reasons I've explained, and should be avoided. If "enthusiast" sounds dismissive, what else do you suggest? Or what do you think of my three or four other suggestions?--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So Ken George's work has been criticised by other experts - I don't think a single Cornish expert hasn't been criticised over the years. Neither George, Kennedy, Gendall, Jenner, Nance, nor Williams has been immune to criticism. All have reached conclusions that others have disagreed with, and all have been proved wrong on occasion. Should all of them be called mere "enthusiasts" because they have been subject to criticism? I think not. Soylentbeige (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about them, and most of them besides Williams have nothing to do with this article. Clearly the word "enthusiast" bothers you, so do you have any other suggestions? For the third time, I'm amenable to more descriptive terms such as "writer" or "revivalist", or removing mention of George (or even just removing the descriptor).--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We may not be discussing them, but it was illustrative to mention them with regard to your claim that criticism reduces one from expert to enthusiast. Anyway, regarding the descriptor, if "expert" isn't acceptable, how about "authority"? Soylentbeige (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, since no one is trying to promote any of those people as "experts" in this article. Even Williams, who almost anyone would consider an "expert" on Cornish (not to mention the article's actual subject), isn't called that in this article. I don't think "authority" is any better than "expert". Something along the lines of "writer", "revivalist" or even "board member" (of Kesva an Taves Kernewek) would be more concrete and neutral, or we could remove the descriptor.--Cúchullain t/c 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bewnans Ke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bewnans Ke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bewnans Ke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bewnans_Ke&oldid=1206277864"