User talk:Ben MacDui/Archive 10

Sula Sgeir[edit]

If you don't stop going down with the area, that poor island might disappear into the sea :-) --Ratzer (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has survived worse. Cheers. Ben Mac Dui 07:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of outlying islands of Scotland[edit]

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of outlying islands of Scotland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article and knew it was one of yours. Congrats on the DYK. Dincher (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too and ditto on the congrats. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. Ben Mac Dui 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Jón Kristinsson[edit]

Hi MacDui, I see that the page I am constructing on JK has been deleted on ground of A7.
JK has a Dutch Wiki article [1] and as his contributions to low energy building design is significant and widely acknowledged I thought of porting and augmenting the Dutch article to en. He is the most well known "Icelandic" architect.
But this takes some time for me. If you agree that JK article is a contribution pls revive the JK page with "hangon" so that I have time to finish it. Oddurben (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have added the tag {{construction}}. My Dutch is poor and I am assuming a case can be made - please attend to this asap. I note he is described as "is een Nederlands architect." He is presumably better described as "an Icelandic architect working in The Netherlands" or similar. Please do not remove "speedy deletion" tags from articles but use the "hang on" template and similarly don't use "hang on" on talk pages - especially mine! Good luck with the article - I will be watching for progress. Ben Mac Dui 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished for the time being. Pls. review and fix as need be and remove warnings. Oddurben (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I've removed the tag - although it is not like a speedy deletion tag - you can do this yourself any time. Ben Mac Dui 10:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps, Hebrides[edit]

Hi MacDui, I've noticed a few places where the location maps for places in the Hebrides gives a wrong positions, despite correct coordinates, notably Vatersay and Hushinish (seem to be the same error regardless of if it's a map of just the Outer Hebrides or Scotland). The template is so complicated that wouldn't know where to start looking for the error - worse is that I can't even figure out where to report it and ask for help (I would't expect that every templatewizard has Talk:Hushinish on their watchlist). Any idea on how to solve/where to report this? Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an earlier discussion about the same problem at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/Archive_3#Scotland_map. If you raise it as the current talk page I daresay someone will have a look at it, but yes, the template is so complex that only a few people understand it, and I almost never use it myself. Why anyone thinks it is interesting to tell readers that every settlement in Scotland has an ambulance service is beyond me. Ben Mac Dui 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. To avvoid a new question concerning the locator maps diverging into a discussion about ambulances and fire brigades I think I'll post directly at Template talk:Location map, I'll try to investigate some more to see if I can identify the error more precisely first though. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Dun Dun Dun Dunnnnn.....[edit]

Thanks for the positive comments. I wasn't expecting the Dunnichen article to get through so quickly, and I'm not 100% convinced by everything in it, but I guess it's well on its way.

The Dunachton stone is quite badly covered in lichen and moss, so it's difficult to get a good photo of it (I was hoping there would be a good one on Geograph, but no luck.) The symbol is a deer's head, but it's slightly damaged. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical of yer Picts. I am beginning to think they were not so much enigmatic as simply camp. "Great victory there Talorc - I know, let's erect a big stone and draw a comb and deer on it." "Ooh yes Erp - with one of those nice big Zs too". Ben Mac Dui 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... I quite liked Cummins book, The Picts and their Symbols, for his interpretation of the stones, but any attempt to decipher them is only ever going to amount to guesswork. Here's a drawing of the stone in question...

http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/details/1073512/

Not the most inspiring I've seen. And it has to be said, it doesn't look all that much like a deer... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a kangaroo... Ben Mac Dui 12:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardtalla[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for your interest in this page. While i don't have the time at present to develop the entire article, there is an abundance of note in this subject. I have compiled a list of 119 monographs citing Ardtalla. No, I haven't read them all yet, but the mentions span the subjects of history, literature, biology, geology and hiking. I have expanded the article a bit and added a few sources. There are also over 10,000 google hits; while most of these google hits are non-notable commercial references, many do add some spicy tidbits of information on the academic subject of the Ardtalla Estate. Since you are one of the premier editors of Scottish esoterica, I am surprised at your comment above, but I hope you will join in expanding the page. Best regards. Hadrianheugh (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was precisely because I couldn't see much on Google other than SCRAN that I was asking, but I am nonetheless impressed by your research. Perhaps I was over-reacting after a long campaign on Skye to address this issue - we have a village article for every 126 rural residents plus numerous redirects for even less notable "settlements". ( I wonder if this is some kind of record - it would appear at first sight to be about 100 times the number of settlements per head created for New York!). I look forward to reading more in due course. Ben Mac Dui 07:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville Deletion[edit]

Please don't make random unsupported deletions. I have no interest in Smallville and cited the addition as unreferenced. As far as I am concerned the reference is valid in a "culture" section. You offered only the most blase excuse for deletion which I do not feel was acceptable. Fenix down (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a random deletion - the addition of this "fact" was the random act. At best, I would suggest this "fact" should go on the Pilot (Smallville) page, but I really fail to see the relevance to the island of St Kilda. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any uncited material can be removed per WP:V - what's unacceptable about that? I spend much of my on-wiki time finding citations for editors who are too lazy to provide them, but there are limits to my patience. Please bear in mind that St K is an FA and its asking a lot to have someone look up a reference for something when they don't know what the subject matter is in the first place. If someone can provide a statement that links Smallville to St Kilda in a meaningful way other than just as a co-incidence of name (which is often the case with modern cultural refs) then it would be welcome on the St Kilda page. Ben Mac Dui 09:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norse activity in Scotland[edit]

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim#Category:Norse_activity_in_Scotland

PS. Nice work on that Pictish guy who whacked a viking. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few - all the individual Norse jarls of Orkney could be added if you felt so inclined and St Magnus Cathedral and.. of well, I'll add a few more as I come across them. Yes, Mr Tusk is a goodie - as ever I am driven on by what I fondly imagine to be my GSOH. Ben Mac Dui 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Johns[edit]

Thanks for the tip off. Frankly that kind of nonsense needs to be nipped in the bud. Wikipedia should be well referenced, but certain other areas need to be better tended, particularly celebrity and popular culture articles. A question of priorities really. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nae probs - btw when I have finished the Orkney marathon I am thinking of proposing the list of freshwater islands to the collab of the month - I noticed you were ranking them and became intrigued. Ben Mac Dui 14:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Outer Hebrides/archive1[edit]

Almost there...! One question from me, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains or humps[edit]

10/07/2009 20:14 - J C Vetterlein wrote:

> Can you assist me. please? > > I have in my Talk page the item below from a fellow calling himself Ben > MacDui. I have added a piece at the bottom of this extract that I should > like to send Ben. How may I achieve this? > > He sounds a jolly chappie and since I am a sort of Welsh equivalent to his > Ben I am sure we could exchange many a yarn. Moreover, I have spent many > hours in the Cairngorms and was once engaged for a short period to Derry > Cairngorm. > > Any suggestions? > > Thank you.

John C Vetterlein

PLease refer to: http://www.orcadian.co.uk/skynotes/index.html

From Wilberfalse to Ben MacDui. Please see latest page entries for Rousay - all verifiable - I am here on Rousay after having slipped down from Cadair Idris some eighteen years back.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wilberfalse"

Look forward to hearing from you, MacDui'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilberfalse (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 October 14. Just received your message on my talk page, Ben. Many thanks.

You may be interested in having a copy of Brings - a study in black & white of that region (on Rousay) which has just been re-issued with extensions and published by Spring Ast LIX. Incidentally, I am the owner of part of the Brae of Moan that includes the triangulation pillar. The auroral images on The Orcadian Sky Notes web site are all from Rousay. We have auroral stations at Moan and Springfield.

Wilberfalse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilberfalse (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory[edit]

Many thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Attachment theory FAC ran out of time before the reviewers had finished reviewing so it will shortly go again! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and I am sorry to hear that. I would suggest cutting down the size (which should also help to tighten up the prose) for the next attempt. Good luck. Ben Mac Dui 07:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We knocked off 6 kb doing that in the last week or so! I expect there's some more though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tantallon[edit]

Many thanks for your review and useful comments. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Ben Mac Dui 19:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, missed that. More of a Sunday Herald reader myself. Cheers, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two homeopathic tablets?[edit]

Surely it would be more effective to have half a one? Or in serious cases just lick the packet? pablo_hablo. 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was feeling pretty good today, so obviously I had to increase the dosage :). Ben Mac Dui 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ben MacDui/Deathwish[edit]

I was going to add User:Ben MacDui/Deathwish to my userboxes, but is there a way that the userbox could link more directly to the essay? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought I was being so discreet! I have attempted a rather lame fix, but suggestions are welcome.. Ben Mac Dui 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I hope you are well and simply going along with my little joke. I have found some of the recent scandals somewhat dispiriting and created it as a sort of light-hearted response, although the subject does have a serious side. Ben Mac Dui 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it - thanks. I was surprised reading the list of former admins that there were some I did not even know had been made admins, who were already former admins. As for me, I am fine, just busy in real life and distracted enough that I seem not to get much done here lately. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnhill[edit]

Many thanks for your edits, Ben. I attempted to post the picture on the page myself, but the technicalities defeated me in the end! Cheers. Dhmellor (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - if you want me to explain anything, just ask. Ben Mac Dui 10:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camping photo 1931[edit]

No problem about my parents on the pass. I bet it was cold there! Duncan Duncanogi (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam[edit]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to thank you? ..[edit]

Ben MacDui ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skye[edit]

Glad to help - it is a very good article and an enjoyable read. Let me know if you want me to take another look, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Barra Head[edit]

Hi Ben MacDui. I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the few small issues I've identified to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know at one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. I hope the review has been helpful. Thanks. Nick Ottery (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the highlighted changes. I've now passed the article and it looks like all the admin related stuff has been taken care of. Cheers Nick Ottery (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you... Ben Mac Dui 09:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award[edit]

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls, waterfalls, waterfalls![edit]

Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!

If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls

Or closer to home try the hilarious Eas Foss Waterfall on Mull! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the joke.... Ben Mac Dui 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eas is Gaelic for waterfall, foss is Norse for waterfall and waterfall is the English for waterfall ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - hence High Force I presume. Is it "Foss" or "Fors"? Ben Mac Dui 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In old Norse (and present Norwegian dialects) both, [2]. At Mull it seem to be Eas Fors. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as we are all here making fun of the English-speaking folk, here are two questions based on my travails at the List of Inner Hebrides. Oldany Island claims the name is derived from Norse, but does not indicate how. Any (non OR) notions? Also, Glas Leac is very common here - much more so than the Outer Hebrides. What does it mean, and why not Dubh Leac etc.? Mono-lingually yours. Ben Mac Dui 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None that would not be kicked into touch as OR but islands in -ey with a Gaelic derivation are virtually unheard of. On the Gaelic... leac is a large, flat stone. Dubh literally is black, but can also mean hidden (plus a few other meanings) so it's hard to tell without context. I'd say if it's above ground it probably refers to it's color, if under water probably "hidden". Glas is just a different colour term, covering the grey to light turquoise colour range. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a stat, but there are lots of "Dubh Sgeir"s and "Glas Leac"s, but few "Glas-sgeir"s and "Dubh-leac"s. This would then make some sort of sense if a small rocky island that was mostly above the waves was dry and therefore grey in colour, but one that was habitually wave splashed and often tide-covered would be both wet and black as well as somewhat "hidden". I wasn't aware of the double meaning before. Ben Mac Dui 10:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We live to learn - I discovered just now that something I thought was a grammatical anomaly in Gaelic makes perfect sense when you figure out what Old Irish did to the poor word ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I understand why most of the names in Waterfalls of Iceland end in "foss", thanks (and thanks for your votes)! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also new arrival - Waterfalls of Scotland. Ben Mac Dui 11:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlinks[edit]

Hi Ben! I just spotted the last edit to the Orkney Article and though they seemed a bit 'Spammish', taking a deeper look at trhe Citations I get the impression that a serious bit of de-spamlinking is required, ref 138 ' Welcome to Orkney Trout Fishing' is a classic example. Another ref 71 is a link to the Ordnance survey website, which does not seem applicable to the section it is referenced from on Population figures. Plus there are also some links to Norwegian Language websites, that are questionable. I wondered if you fancied taking an objective look at them, as I may be somewhat ruthless in my trimming of them! Richard Harvey (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you are taking an interest in your Viking roots. The trouble is that whilst I think the "Orcadians" section is important there is not a great deal in it that is recorded in more formal academic studies - at least so far as I am aware. The trout fishing citation, for example (whilst it goes to the wrong page now - I'll fix that) backs up the statement about "ferry loupers" and I doubt Google Scholar is going to identify many other options. #71 is a "Vision of Britain" link - looks OK to me. The OS is #72. By all means do some tidying up - I am planning a GA (or if I can be bothered, FA) sometime soon. Ben Mac Dui 18:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland, Roman Era[edit]

Hello MacDui, I saw your question, and the northern-most camps (Cawdor and Balnageith) are relatively recent discoveries, found through aerial photography. The rest of the camps appear and are discussed in Frere's Britannia and elsewhere. I'm amenable to altering the map if there is contention or a serious question raised, or if a different presentation would be useful.

The real reason for this note is to give you a heads-up ... I've assembled maps of Roman roads, forts, and camps for AD 84 (end of Agricola's term), 130 (Hadrian's term), 155 (Antonius' era), 180 (Marcus Aurelius' era), 210 (Severan campaigns), 270 (late 3rd century), and 370 (after Count Theodosius' British campaign) ... topography, rivers, roads, and forts/camps are all compiled from independent sources, they match up quite well, and I've tried to be rigourous in double-checking the data; they should not be contentious.

They give interesting snapshots of Scottish history over a continuous period of time; it's a perspective that doesn't appear in books (none that I've seen), and it was quite educational. However, trying to insert them en masse would be disruptive and I'll post them on the talk page for comments/recommendations on the best way to proceed. If you're agreeable, I'd like to give you a first-look and see if you have any comments as the best way to go forward, since you're the primary author/editor of the article. If you'd rather that they just be posted to the talk page instead, that will be fine, as well. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your diligence knows no bounds! I'd be delighted to look at them to take a look at them too - thank-you for offering. Agricola's campaign is probably the most controversial issue - essentially because Mons Graupius seems to be so elusive. Have you seen the Roman Scotland pages on this subject? Perhaps not acceptable as a source but intriguing nonetheless. The conclusions make as much sense to me as anything I've read on the subject. Ben Mac Dui 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm printing the images and will then upload them to commons (with the appropriate documentations, of course), then return here to provide the links. I've been through the Roman Scotland site only recently, it's well-done and informative. I also cannot get any resolution on the location of Mons Graupius, try as I might. There are likely a few things that people will want to see displayed differently, I'm ready for that (perhaps the date on Inchtuthil, eg). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look and see what you think. One thing I liked about this presentation is that unoccupied/abandoned forts/camps aren't shown, which helps give an idea of where the Romans were and were not (can't get that perspective in a list saying that "camp A was occupied from time 1/time 2, unoccupied from time 3/time 4, etc"). Also note that the roads/forts in the Southern Uplands are focused on the 3 passes between England and the Firths of Forth and Clyde ... Deere St, Annandale to Lanark, and Annadale to Ayrshire ... protecting military lines of supply and communication.

File:Roman.Britain.north.84.jpg – forts, roads after Agricola
File:Roman.Britain.north.130.jpg – forts, roads after Hadrian
File:Roman.Britain.north.155.jpg – forts, roads after Antoninus
File:Roman.Britain.north.180.jpg – forts, roads after Marcus Aurelius
File:Roman.Britain.north.270.jpg – forts, roads late 3rd century
File:Roman.Britain.north.370.jpg – forts, roads after Count Theodosius
File:Roman.Britain.Severan.Campaigns.jpg – camps used in the Severan Campaign

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they offer a significant advantage over a list, although there are potential OR issues (which could probably be avoided if the maps came with a more detailed note explaining the reference(s) used). Funnily enough I think

File:Agricola.Campaigns.80.84.jpg – Agricola in the north

is probably the most difficult one as the evidence seems conflicting and will probably only ever be properly resolved if someone with a metal detector unearths Mons Graupius (assuming it existed on the scale claimed by Tacitus). There is another issue in relation to the SDtRE article, which is that they focus primarily on the Roman view and on Roman activities in Caledonia - almost inevitable I realise given the lack of detailed information about the independent tribes north of the Roman lines - but my aim is to counter-balance that tendency where possible. Do you have a proposal as to where/how they might fit into that article? Ben Mac Dui 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're unlikely to find an ancient time capsule with the inscription "Here's where it was". I'm willing to make revisions here to cover other POV's. Agricola's invasion was a significant point in Scottish history, so it seems that we must have something. (now to figure out what that would be, right?)

Perhaps the best way to provide information and not be obtrusive (too many maps strewn through the article is a distraction) might be to put the ones with forts (ie, the "snapshots through time") in a separate section with a gallery at a convenient location (eg, alongside a summary paragraph or two) – now the information is there, and it doesn't require that the article text be changed. I'm amenable to anything that works ... we don't have too many situations like this to see how a good presentation is done. Other ideas here would be welcome. I think that the campaigns (Agricola and Severus) fit best in supporting the article text individually, at the appropriate locations. And maybe a post on the talk page first, soliciting ideas?

I forgot to mention earlier ... we're not in a hurry, and maps usually need a revision period, so assume we have that luxury (already I've noticed that Roman roads are almost invisible on a couple of images) ... so if you are so inclined, sit back and think about whether other presentations might look better (eg, clip off anything too far south of Hadrian's Wall and have a single-sized background for all maps, giving a feeling of continuity and focused solely on Scotland). NOTE: the exercise is thought to be most productive when performed while holding a wee dram of single-malt, but whatever works is ok.

Agree with concerns about OR and battle locations; am willing to revise to reduce contention, but not sure what to do at this point; I can give references with page numbers, but that seems implicitly defensive (and there are always counter-refs with page numbers). Perhaps revise as best we can and iterate to an optimal solution after people see it? Or maybe post on the talk page and ask for comments first? Maps are always contentious, as they lend credibility to a POV, and they should be subject to the same conditions as the text, a requirement that is under-enforced, IMHO.

Parenthetically: it is a damnable shame that "history" often means "military history", and then "battle, victory, defeat" are given precedence over the boring logistics that are often the real telling of military events. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just manged to get a copy of "A Gathering of Eagles" that has a few maps to compare/contrast with the above. I'll respond when I've had a chance to look into this. Ben Mac Dui 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By Gordon Maxwell, I presume. That will be great. And worry not that the existing maps and any consequent text will need to be changed as a result of newer and better information ... I view that as an inherent part of the process.

I updated File:Agricola.Campaigns.80.84.jpg in an attempt to abate potential contention; let me know if you have any specific suggestions here or elsewhere.

Also, please don't feel rushed; I appreciate that I sprang this on you rather suddenly, and that you have other irons in the fire. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Maxwell. Thanks for your patience! Ben Mac Dui 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look at them and I can't see anything in Maxwell that would contradict the general thrust, although I hasten to add I have not checked every fort - there is a lot of work in there! They would lend themselves very well to a "Timeline of Roman Britain" type of article as well as being used to beef up individual articles. I notice in the Agricolan campaigns there is a line that wanders over to Kintyre... Ben Mac Dui 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this, it is appreciated. I'll muse on how best to fit things into articles, and probably go about it slowly. Parenthetically, I made near-copies that focus on north-of-Hadrian's-Wall, also for future use. Some of the camps attributed to Agricola, esp. in N. Scotland, likely were made by his predecessors, successors; more work is needed here. Tacitus said that in 82 Agricola went by sea; ultimately he saw Ireland in the distance (but not necessarily in that campaign) ... Kintyre is one choice for that campaign, and one of 2 places where he could see Ireland (there is modern discussion here, as Tacitus lacked the foresight to understand that we would want to know exactly where and when he meant, without ambiguity). Again, thanks for taking the time to do this. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CDA[edit]

I just wanted to tell you that you're doing a great job setting up the RfC for the Community De-adminship proposal. Keep up the good work! Angryapathy (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's nearly ready. Ben Mac Dui 12:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question re CDA publicity[edit]

Ben, I'm confused about an aspect of the CDA proposal. I realize it is a talk page, so I guess I could talk there, but the current structure doesn't easily lend itself to asking general questions. While an RfA has one big step followed by a decision, the nature of a CDA is that there are two steps, followed by a decision. The first step is the acquisition of the signatures of ten editors (or an arb committee recommendation), followed by an RfA process in reverse.
However, in the publicity section, it isn't perfectly clear (at least to me) what provisions apply to the first step and what apply to the second step.
For example, the second bullet point in 6.1 talks about the required publicity for the de-adminship request. I originally thought this was the ten signature part, but now I realize I'm wrong. But that means we haven't addressed how to notify the community that there is a signature gathering in progress, with a time constraint. Where is this posted? Does the admin in question have to be notified about this? When exactly, does the three or seven day period start? Also, perhaps it is obvious, but we should explicitly spell out that the signature gathering fails if ten have not been obtained at the end of the specified period, but it passes when the tenth one is obtained. No need to wait three or seven days to start the next step.
Finally, if someone signs, can they change their mind? What if we get to ten, start the next step and someone changes their mind?
If this belongs on the talk page, I'll be happy to post there, but I'm not quite sure where.--SPhilbrick T 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the structure tends to assume a less complex dialogue. However I suggest posting the above under a new section called "Comment" under sub-section "3.2 Neutral" in the Publicity section. If the discussion about these points becomes elaborate a separate page may be required, but I hope that will provide a suitable starting position. Ben Mac Dui 19:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, I'm wondering about the issues that Protonk brought up. I don't know what else to do, but maybe we should give it some thought. (And I just learned that I should not have been calling you Ben. I trust no harm is done, and I'll certainly try not to do it again!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it is tricky as I am now so involved that its hard to see how it looks for someone new to the issue. However, I'm not sure I can do much better than the "Background" section. Perhaps the issue here is that someone coming from CENT think it is a "general discussion" about the issues, which it ain't, and there is no room on the template to explain that. Don't worry at all about the Ben thing - I'm used to it. Perhaps I'll change my name to Sgurr Alasdair. Ben Mac Dui 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving![edit]

Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Unfortunately I am on a diet - do you have anything less fattening? Ben Mac Dui 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy[edit]

I think you should just delete Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy and remove all references to it. Once the proposal for the RFC is drafted, there's no need to "vote" yet again. RFC means "request for comments", and it should be just that, a request for people to comment on the proposal. If a consensus builds for further changes to the proposal, we can make those changes. We already have consensus for some form of recall process, so there is no need to put that up again. Voting is a very counterproductive endeavor. Gigs (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is not your first choice but I'll reply on the RfC Strategy talk page asap in order to keep the discussion in one place. Ben Mac Dui 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Government Directorates[edit]

Hola, I have tried to standardise the articles as best I can, it is difficult given that the ministerial portfolios are not a match for match with the Director Generals.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its a bit peculiar - in casual conversation I hear "Environment Directorate" singular but there is no entirely satisfactory solution. The idea that a meta Directorate has umpteen mini-directorates is a descriptive system that surely only civil servants would dream up. The logic has probably got some something to do with protecting the pension rights of depute directors rather than providing a clear nomenclature for public consumption. Ben Mac Dui 11:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

I'm definitely not insisting, but please consider whether archiving the 70% version you just archived might be a little premature. After all, this is part of the most key portion of the discussion, and the discussion is going to continue for about a month. But, again, I'm not insisting at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am being bold - but by all means replace it if you prefer. Ben Mac Dui 20:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to take it on myself to do that, seeing as how I'm (as yet) the only supporter. It just seems to me to be kind of COI for me to do it, so that's why I chose to discuss it with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply asap - apparently my assistance is required with some forthcoming pagan festival or other. Ben Mac Dui 12:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed my decorative antlers etc. and re-instated it. Do you have a suggestion as to how long it should remain if there are no more "support"s? Ben Mac Dui 15:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. My suggestion (and it's only a suggestion) is that, because this issue of percentages is arguably the most difficult and the most important to "get right", we really need to leave the discussion of that section (generally, not just that one option) open for the duration of the comment period (until January or whenever). You never know what good insight might be suggested late in the game. That being the case, it's probably best to leave all of the alternative options there, so that they can be compared and contrasted. (Not that I expect this particular option to be adopted!) Thanks again (and those antlers sound interesting!). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

I've restored both redirects Wikipedia talk:CDADR and Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC - for some odd reason they're popping up intermittently as red-linked and show up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects. I see that I'm not the only one that's deleted these - but if they disappear again, drop me a note and I'll look a bit more in to why this might be happening. Skier Dude (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - many thanks. Ben Mac Dui 09:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CDA Archiving[edit]

On the CDA discussion archiving, could you summarize the archived sections in a table or something to reduce the TL;DR factor of the whole thing? Gigs (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a good idea, although I am not the only person with editing privileges on that page.... Ben Mac Dui 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't see a way of tabulating it without losing the thread of the enumerations - revised system with major pruning shows 6 active discussions, which is I hope less daunting. Thanks for the suggestion.. Ben Mac Dui 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wondered about the enumeration as well. It's one of the reasons I didn't attempt it myself. It may not be clear but I do appreciate the administrative work you have done on this, no matter how it turns out. Gigs (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Strategy Page[edit]

Well, it's become kind of a disaster. Are you ready to archive it yet? It's confusing people as to what the point of it is. Once we have a coherent proposal we can always revisit what the standard for final consensus would be. Right now it's just added distraction. Gigs (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it's a "disaster" - I just think its a discussion with various points of view being expressed - part of the consensus building process. Ben Mac Dui 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a disaster in the sense that the purpose is unclear to readers, as it was to me when I first came across it, and that has caused confusion about the context of the discussion on the talk page. I'm very concerned about TL;DR factor in general for the proposal discussions. Gigs (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye - the TLDR thing is an issue, but we can't reasonably prevent people adding new ideas. There are only 6 current discussions however. Unless you have any suggestions the only way I can think of to significantly reduce the challenge is to place the draft RfC on the WT:CDADR project page but direct discussion to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy - which I fear would only make things even more complex at this stage. Ben Mac Dui 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenrothes (grading of article)[edit]

MacDui, a couple of months i did a lot of work on the Glenrothes article doing reference work. i have also put the article through a peer review.

however, there are still a number of references that do not have page numbers. i consulted another user to check to see if Glenrothes still retained A status but it was only graded as B status as a UK article because he didn't know much about the A grade. i'm wondering if you would not mind looking at the article to see if it still meets the current criteria of A or if a downgrade to B status be better instead. Kilnburn (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I instead suggest the following. It would be unproductive to downgrade the article. A huge amount of effort has been undertaken to improve it over and above how it was when it first received its A-class status. If it is felt that the article is flawed and it no longer meets A-Class status, it would be far more constructive to highlight the work that requires to be carried out for it to remain at its existing A-Class level, and to progress it to GA or FA status. Then allow a set time period of say a few weeks for this additional work to be carried out? It would be a shame to see peoples hard work and efforts degraded by down grading the article before given a chance to remedy it. Mcwesty (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Mcwesty. I have not read it through on this occasion, but at a quick look I'd say that it was:

a) in the ballpark for A class based on content, but

b) not even GA class from a technical point of view - especially referencing.

Thus, if you are trying to satisfy a typical reader there may not be much more work the article needs, but if you want the satisfaction of having it either be or come close to FA standard there's a lot of detail that needs attention. Without reading through it properly I can't say for sure, but I don't think it is necessary to downgrade an otherwise A class article to B class because the formatting of references (which no-one except Wikipedians cares about) don't meet certain requirements. Hope that's helpful. Ben Mac Dui 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with that. i got a bit mixed up with the grading on wikipedia. i thought A wasn't as high as GA when in fact it is the other way around. thanks for explaining this to me. Kilnburn (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]