User talk:Ben MacDui/Archive 11

Happy Holidays!

	<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much - hope you and all the Scottish Isles have a wonderful 2010 and that you had (are still having?) a great Hogmanay! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question on the Sysop Recall proposal

I don't want to disrupt what is quite an involved and organised discussion on the specifics of the proposed recall mechanism but I wanted to ask you (as the creator of the page), if there's going to be a general community vote on the finalised draft. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there will be. There is an unresolved discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Thanks for the Xmas greetings. Ben MacDui 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your mountain

I hope you don't mind, I added this to your mountain. I gotta say, I find Barrow's explanation very convincing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Splendid. There is more in a similar vein about "Clann meic Duib" at the generic Earl of Fife that you may have seen. Another of the line apparently wanted to build a 100 foot high pyramid-shaped burial vault on the summit, the cheeky fellow. Ben MacDui 17:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the !vote

Seriously, this sword cuts both ways. It's a win-win, and as I say on the page, if we don't have the support we might as well know now. Of course, it is a bit annoying to have to eat my holiday relaxin' time up, but it's well worth it to get a defacto !vote out of the way. It appears to me the best thing to do is assume good faith at all times, eh? Take no bait, and... 8D Merry Christmas (or your own favorite holiday) and a Happy New Year in 2010! Jusdafax 22:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hmm. Archived, eh? Ah well, more time with the family then. Too bad, though, I saw the !vote as a real chance to move forward. With good humour, Jusdafax 23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2nd update: It's been un-archived. All to the good, say I. Jusdafax 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm catching up... slowly. Thanks for the good wishes, have a good holiday and see you on or about Jan 4th (in this part of the world that is "tomorrow" in working days right now, for goodness sake....) Ben MacDui 09:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Berneray

Hello MacDui. I've come across a few references to a "Berneray, Harris" ; though i can't find this island in List of Outer Hebrides. So, I'm guessing "Berneray, Harris" must actually refer to Berneray, North Uist in the Sound of Harris. Is that right? I just wanted to be sure to get the wiki-links going in the right directions.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. According to Scran Berneray is in "Harris parish". St Kilda is so that's possible but I don't have a parish map of the area to hand. I'd be happy to look at the source if you think that would be helpful. Ben MacDui 08:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How peculiar, is that the name the island is known by in English? I only know it as Beàrnaraigh na Hearadh (ie Harris Berneray). Akerbeltz (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This map is not very revealing in terms of specific parish boundaries. I wonder if the name arose because the eponymous Bjorn was originally na Hearadh. Ben MacDui 10:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Gazeteer [1] says its part of the Harris parish. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. Ben MacDui 12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we propose moving the page to Berneray, Harris therefore? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I think that would be more confusing, given its proximity to the Uists. However, I think there is a case for moving it to "Berneray" and either removing the text there or moving it to "Berneray (dab)". Ben MacDui 14:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PS re Orkney. Could you have quick look at the last couple of edits [2] and [3] ? An editor has provided a couple of refs for "Arcaibh" but the Gaelic wiki uses an accent on the "A". Neither Mac an T. nor Watson seem to bother with the name at all and a decent and definitive ref would be good. Ben MacDui 14:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

With all the B's around it might make sense indeed to just use it as a dab. Fine by me. I'll improve the refs, the short vowel version (Arcaibh) is correct but due to shoddy spelling, some people have re-analysed the spelling wrongly and added the spelling. Gaelic Wiki is full of errors, sadly. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again... Ben MacDui 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CDA

I appreciate the work you've put into Community de-adminship. The problem I've had lately is the time I have had at the PC, is not what I call "concentration time" (proper quality time I suppose). I have been reading up, preparing text and making notes though, and I'll try and contribute in more depth this evening. Unfortunately most people are waiting for the vote stage - but that is typical of WIkipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, any and all help is appreciated. I look forward to seeing more. Ben MacDui 15:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt things were radically changing so I've started this poll (with a start time currently set at 11.00 UTC tonight). I was waiting for you, but, as I said.. What do you think? I haven't advertised it in any way yet. At least other people are staring to pop up, and although some are negative, they still might have decent input. I think that appeasing those who are critical of unfairness is essential to CDA's ultimate success. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK - thanks for letting me know. Ben MacDui 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben MacDui, I asked you "what do you think?" I know you are an admin, but I'm starting to find a lot of this extrememly tiresome - you are not being clear or straight enough with me too often. I've employed people in 'real life', and this is all unemployable behaviour as far as I'm concerned (from a number of people - including our beloved 'admin', one of whom still appears to live in his college bar). Running with 70% was clearly against the broader consensus (and that Motion to Close cannot be totally disregarded) - I don't respect the single-mindedness involved in all this. Stopping debate is just as wrong, whether it stems from the advocates or the dissenters of the proposal. It is just not what Wikipedia supposed to be about as far as I'm concerned (or it claims to be about, anyway). I have just as much respect right now with the people who voted in the motion to close CDA early, as I have with the people I've been working with the last week or so - if not a little more, as I can now see the intention of some of the closers was to simply stop people getting carried away, and embarking on, essentially, what has been happening since Jan 4th. 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I hadn't noticed that you had made a (rather philosophical) comment on the CDA draft page earlier today - must have missed it somehow in the watchlist. I won't scrub the above, so you at least an see how I've benn feeling about this. Apologies if it seemed rude though - I do tend to speak my mind (though I do always try to be civil). How do feel about voting in the poll? It looks like people are waiting to see who will do it first to me. I'm going to make another attempt at archiving a section or two into archive 1 (And possibly archive 2) - then I'm going to advertise the poll to some degree. No small job, given the participents over the last months. My laptop is working a little faster today (fingers crossed). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems - I will continue the dialogue "on the CDA draft page" as needed. But first my watchlist is needing some attention. Ben MacDui 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered at my talk. Thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal being discussed

Were you aware of a discussion that I initiated in Talk: RfA? I wasn't aware of your CDA proposal, which predates mine by almost two months. I didn't want you thinking I was seeking to step on your dick or whatnot. Maybe you could read over my proposal, and offer your thoughts on it; help me weigh the comparative merits and flaws of both. I welcome your feedback, either there or in my usertalk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware and many thanks for bringing it to my attention. For what it's worth my views are similar to those of Breeblebox (as at 01:35, 7 January 2010). Essentially my main concern is that this idea, however worthy in principle, would in practice result in a reduction in the number of good admins - and we need more not fewer. Regards, Ben MacDui 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironic...

On Everyking's RfA, you supported while asking him to use more edit summaries, but forgot to use one yourself. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

When I file my applications to the local lonely hearts club, I generally describe myself as having a GSOH. Sometimes, my attempts are misconstrued and I am sorry to say that it was quite deliberate. However, thank-you for attempts to be a good custodian. Ben MacDui 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Crusader

I was wondering if you could chip in regards to a new user who's only editing Wikipedia to the extent he's trying to airbrush all Gaelic from Borders related articles DvdScott? Wish we didn't have to do this every few months... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not very prolific, and I suggest a polite but clear message on the talk page explaining any relevant policy context. I'll watch out for any further developments. Ben MacDui 19:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA post finalisation poll - 24th Jan

I'll have to come back to the draft page tonight - not got much time today. Rather than initially comment, I finished the FAQ changes I've been working on the past few days instead. There are still a couple of points people have raised that could go in it.

At a glance, a 65/85 proposal might seem the wisest (ie an adjustment by 5 each way), but we'll see what people think. With it, we could really stress the "rule of thumb" factor, as you say. This could appease the great many who wanted 50-66 (inlcuding as their second options). A number of 70% votes seemed to be as much out of various concerns, than out of any real commitment to me (eg Are the safeguards we have strong enough? This might be the only 'start' percentage admin will vote for!) Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the run of 50 and 60 percentages at the end of the vote (possibly by people who stumbed across this page?), it does rather make you wonder what people do actually want. Whether the final RfC is watchlisted or not could mean everything, as admin can easily find out about these things of course, while the 'community at large' are almost impossible to notify. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The percentages hardly changed at all after the first 40 or so. Please see my message at the FAQ. Ben MacDui 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean they began high, and go lower? If the FAQ had sections it would have been easier - It's held me back a bit, but I wanted to make those changes before today. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No - the average did not change significantly from the first time I looked at it after about 40 !votes. Ben MacDui 19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Celtic nation

I'm surprised that the Scotland article makes no mention that Scotland is one of the Celtic nations. I thought to add something (like this: User:Daicaregos/sandbox 4) to the Culture section. It could do with being expanded a bit, to include things like Celtic artwork and jewellery, and political collaberation with other Celtic nations, but I seem to be struggling tbh. Alex Salmond talks about the "Celtic Lion", but he doesn't say why he used that expression (as far as I can see), so any inference would be WP:SYN. I'm struggling to find any decent refs. e.g. The universities of Aberdeen & Edinburgh have Celtic studies departments, but both fall short of saying anything that could be used or quoted. I found nothing useful on Scottish Cetic art. Celtic seems to be taken as read - it is implicit, so it's not defined explicitly. Should I just add what I have already and leave it at that? Or could you suggest anything? Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas, MacDui? I made the suggestion to Dai to ask you as you are an experienced Scottish wikipedian and I'm sure you'll have a few ideas. No pressure. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of three challenges. Firstly the idea may not meet with gratitude from passing supporters of a certain Govan-based football club or members of their political wing. The main thing here is that you have provided citations for the various festivals, but not the overall concept and that needs to be done robustly. Secondly, the prejudices of the "catholics under the bed" brigade apart, there is something of an anti-Gaelic feeling abroad in certain parts of Alba (see message from Akerbeltz above). Not sure I understand it myself - it's not as if kilted hooligans accost us on the streets and demand that we speak Erse at knife-point, but so it goes. Again, credible citations should see them off. Thirdly, and most scandalously, there is no article on the history of post-18th century Scotland which we could draw on. (One day, when I am bored with civility, I might start one just to see the feathers fly!) There is however a Culture of Scotland article. I mention this as ideally "Scotland" would simply be a summary of the "main" articles not a starting point for them.

Having said all that, I can't think of any reason why something along the lines you suggest could not be incorporated into the Culture section of "Scotland", and I'd advise:

• adding what you have plus a little more elaboration at "Culture of Scotland" and seeing what the reaction is.
• if that goes down well, raising the issue at "Talk:Scotland". I think my only quibble might be whether it is worth mentioning the Brittany festival (which I am sorry to say I had never heard of) in the Scotland article.

Hope that's helpful. Ben MacDui 08:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is MacDui, thanks. Although I hope your point about people confusing Celtic and Celtic F.C was tongue in cheek (people aren't really that dumb, are they?). Your point about anti-Gaelic feeling made me think. It is that the words Celtic and Gaelic seem pretty much interchangeable, which would explain the problem finding references under Celtic - they are under Gaelic. I like your idea of the Scotland article as a summary of the 'main' articles. It should work well. I've started editing "Culture of Scotland". I've updated my sandbox with a summary of the culture/sports info that I shall add to the Scotland page. Please feel free to make any improvements. I'm not precious about it and I think you have a way with words, in the way I haven't (sorry, didn't sign earlier). Daicaregos (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Outline

Hi. I was going to just change the link in your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic geography topics, from "Geography" to "geography" (redlink to bluelink). but figured it might be best to go about it the long way, by just letting you know! That's all. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta... Ben MacDui 21:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA: reply

Got your note at my talk (and so, it appears, did Matt). Myself, I'll be traveling on Feb. 2. My advice: don't go live until Feb. 3 at the earliest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

More on this at my talk, but I no longer think we need to wait as long as I said yesterday. Maybe just another day or two from now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When you get back to this, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship#Remaining questions. It would be good if you could go through all of the points in that section. As best as I can tell (if I haven't forgotten anything), once we settle all of those, we will be ready to go live. Best regards, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back! I've made a quick read through your recent comments, and will now go through them systematically, but I'm leaving you a quick message first. Some of the things I marked as "not done" were just minor stuff where it was mostly Matt objecting, and I just wanted your confirmation that I wasn't missing something important. However, there are some others, that I will try (again!) to clearly indicate, that need serious attention, and that I need you not to just blow off as tldr. <shout> NO THE THING ABOUT THE RFC PAGE IS NOT ABOUT SUPPORT OPPOSE SECTIONS! IT'S ABOUT THE DISCUSSION SECTION, AND IF YOU GO AHEAD WITH WHAT YOU ARE STARTING TO DO, THE OPENING OF THE RFC WILL BE MET WITH AN IMMEDIATE PETITION TO ARBCOM TO SHUT IT DOWN. YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH THIS, AND NOT JUST BLOW IT OFF! </temper tantrum, sorry!> There are a few other things out there, and we can work through them, but, since I've been doing an awful lot of heavy lifting without help, you need to do me the courtesy of reading what I already wrote and following the links I already made, instead of asking for summaries. That said, I agree with you that we can go live in about 24 hours! I just need you to cooperate with me, as indicated, to avoid needless setbacks. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - but I couldn't see any explanation at all at first sight. I'll have another look, but this draft has been there for weeks and many more besides at its earlier location, it is advertised on the navbox and so far there has only been one edit at the talk page! Ben MacDui 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at WT:CDADR (which I stopped watching ages ago) and I don't see anything about Arbcom petitions. However, I am not surprised that folk who oppose it will do whatever they think they can to prevent community discussion. I am afraid after four polls including a motion to close I don't really understand the "discussion was prevented" argument. The difference between the two versions is here [4] and seems pretty inconsequential to me. Do I need a wiki-lawyer? Why is it a talk page? Ben MacDui 16:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you need a wikilawyer, but I may soon need a wikishrink! I've just finished, for the moment at least, responding on the actual pages. I'm really sorry to you, personally, for not being aware of the draft RfC page, but, honestly, with all my efforts to follow all of this maze of discussion, I overlooked it and never had it on my watchlist until yesterday or so. That's just the way it is. I've tried to explain at the bottom of the talk in the section you created about the poll page, so let's see where we are after you have a chance to go through that. As I see it now, we are indeed ready, as you said, to "go live" within the next 24 hours or so. I'm currently satisfied with the Guide and the FAQ. If we can make sure we are OK on the polling format, I think we can responsibly pull the plug on the pre-RfC babel, and move on, at last, to the RfC itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the discussed language into the proper poll page, as you advised in your suggestion. Please double-check what I did, and correct anything I messed up. Once you have done that, I think you should have the honor (?) of taking it live. It's time. And thank you for all your work on this. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is serious railroading and I cannot support cda as it stands, or the manner of it implementation. Instead of plugging away at making a demon out of me Tryptofish, read Wikipedia and the policy pages. Seriously. These excess personal comments (the consequence of your personal impatience basically) are not what Wikipedia is about. There is no way for me to explain it to you if you can't see it - but you just have to drop the WP:POV. It is KEY. Consensus. Wikipedia. No cliches about the 'deal already being done'. Just Wikipedia. Can you understand that? Do not waste good people's time. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that we are all under a little stress at present. I am sorry to hear Matt, that you may not be able to offer your support. Thank-you nonetheless for your contribution to this long and complex process. I recognise that more could be said, but after several more weeks of discussion, I believe it is time to ask the community their view on the proposal rather than continuing to debate the points. Ben MacDui 11:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC

You may be an admin MacDui, but you are nobodies boss. You do not have consensus to run the cda now. This reply to me is simply a rejection of my stance, which has been typical of your behaviour to those you disagree with throughout. How dare you say "I am sorry to hear Matt, that you may not be able to offer your support." Show some bloody respect - and a little bit on sense too. Above all - show some patience. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Calton weavers

You gave me valuable help and advice on Loch Alsh some time ago. Now I am looking for more help and advice on this article. The author (whom I know personally) needs encouragement since the first version (their first article) was speedy deleted. Improvements by other editors would be the best form of positive feedback. I believe the article deserves more content and a better flow than it has at present. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid this is a subject I don't know much about and there does seem to be a dearth of editors working on modern Scottish history. I have added a couple of categories - it might be worth searching through them to see if there are links, sources etc that could add to the article. Ben MacDui 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contribution. It will give a boost of confidence to a new editor whom I think can contribute a lot. I will encourage jomillsjo to look for more sources and flesh out the article. Thanks! Aymatth2 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Orkney

See my query / suggestion at the article talk page. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Waterfall salute!

Thanks for all your help with picking images. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both (again). I am currently decorated with some that look more like this at present. Ben MacDui 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Frozen waterfall (1).JPG

.

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Ben MacDui,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orkney #2

I've done and passed this at GA. Good job. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. Ben MacDui 09:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'Community de-adminship': The original Uncle G proposal

Thanks again for your support. That it came unsolicited was important to me. I welcome your further thoughts and advice, as the RfC process is new to me, as is what happened starting Feb. 7th to your RfC(s), which you launched two days into my unnannounced one week wiki-break. As you know, I believe this is the best way to move forward, given the events of the past month. Best regards, Jusdafax 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've told Jusdafax this too. I just finished edits to the revised version, that, in my opinion, make it ready to take to the community. I hope that you might consider supporting bringing that forward, rather than the Uncle G version. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe not. I wonder if you might look in at what Matt did. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Another act of meat canvassing? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Matt. I was asking for a knowledgeable editor to evaluate the edits. There's a difference. Anyway, thanks to another editor, the page is presentable again. Of course, I don't know how long this will last, but, MacDui, I'd again hope you will give it your consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear me what a lot of drama. It has taken me quite some time to catch up with the various threads and I will have to go off-line again for a few hours. I will try to do more catching up later today. Ben MacDui 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sigh, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax: the impression I get is that you want to press ahead with an "Uncle G" RfC regardless of any progress elsewhere. Fair enough - I'd be happy to assist (although I may not support the proposal) but if you need any assistance it would be helpful if you could be more specific.

Tryptofish: I looked at this diff which identifies the changes between the version discussed after the first RfC was closed and the "current" version. (My experience of late is that by the time I have finished penning any kind of note it has changed again). In general terms it looks fine to me, by which I mean it reasonably reflects a lot of the discussion (as have numerous other versions). If I had the inclination I could suggest umpteen tweaks, but as has been said often enough I don't think they are the point. The question to be posed is really about the principle. I have not looked at the RfC page, the FAQ etc. to see if they are in good shape, but with any luck that is easily done. As per my note to Jusdfax, I'd be happy to help with any specifics - clearly a big issue is the elusive "consensus to proceed", which might be no easier to obtain today than previously - although similarly I may not support the proposal.

My caution is that I fear that TenOfAllTrades is only too right regarding the nomination/canvass problem and as time has progressed I have become more conservative on that issue. It is all too easy to imagine that there are ten editors on Wikipedia somewhere who would be happy to co-nominate just about any admin for any number of trivial transgressions and I am not convinced that ten nominations is a sufficient number. It is of course hard to know without any practical experience and it will be interesting to see what comes out in an RfC.

It would of course be ideal if you could find a way to work together on this, but I realise there has been a lot of water under the bridge. Best of luck to you both. Must dash again! Ben MacDui 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MacDui. I have just came across the thread concerning Matt Lewis and have made a comment there. I hope you and others will take what I have said on board and get back on track. You are all for the most part after the same thing so coming to an agreement not to continue infighting would benefit everyone. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, due to the continuing madness I am standing by. Jusdafax 11:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: While I would have vastly preferred Tryptofish had waited to discuss the posibility of taking a look at some of my concerns (the irony!), as you may already know he has launched the RfC again. In the interest of correct and proper form, I have been helping to do some of the publicity for it, but would like your permission to remove your 7 Feb. notifications and/or update them. As for the Uncle G version, I see no reason to open a competing RfC, so I will let this RfC run its course. At this writing the !vote is running about 50/50, but it has only been going a half day or so. Best, Jusdafax 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness - just dropping in to check my watchlist - yes, by all means update the notifications, and thanks for letting me know. Ben MacDui 08:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and since I see you prefer MacDui, I shall hence address you as such. Best regards, Jusdafax 08:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Sustainable practices in Scotland

I have nominated Category:Sustainable practices in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Sustainability in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Scottish English

Template:Scottish English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Scottish English has been nominated for deletion

As the creator of Template:Scottish English, perhaps you ought to know that it has been nominated for deletion. I'm sure that you'll effortlessly manage to be more diplomatic than my good self!  ;) --Mais oui! (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I see you have already been spammed. Lucky ole you. All the best. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and best wishes

Thanks for the message at my talk. I've noticed that you've been away, and I hope that all is well with you. I look forward to working together again in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)