User talk:Ben MacDui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. For ease of reading, if you leave a message here I'll reply here unless you request otherwise. If I leave a message on your page I'll be watching it for a while, so feel free to reply there. Please include a link to the article in question, and sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).

This user is a Scottish Wikipedian. There are things particularly relevant to Scottish Wikipedians at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. Please feel free to help us improve Scottish related articles in Wikipedia!

Archives Archive 1) Sept. 2006 – 28 January 07 Includes 4 DYK, 1 GA, 1 SL

Contents 1 Dancing Ladies 2 Re:Blood Red Sandman 3 Thanks 4 Peer Review 5 Congrats 6 David I questions 7 Portal:Scotland 8 DYK 9 Good Article 10 Bealach a Choin Ghlais 11 Re: 66.14.16.160 12 Spring cleaning 13 Hamilton 14 MacKenzie 15 Lunga, Firth of Lorn on DYK 16 St Kilda 17 Fauna of Scotland GA on hold 18 Wikibirds Peer Review of Fauna of Scotland 19 Re:Photo 20 Template:Infobox England place TfD 21 bmi regional- Scotland 22 Lamlash 23 A short "hello" :-)

[edit] Dancing Ladies

I'm not sure that your edit of the Gigha article does what you intended. I agree that Gigha does not have a grid network. I believe the reference to the central grid was intended to refer to the mainland grid. It was possibly badly phrased, but I certainly read it that way. I presume the objective of the "dancing ladies" is to remove or reduce that dependence. I further presume that Gigha presently has supply from grid on the mainland, and the opportunity to sell power back to the grid? I've not been to Gigha or Raasay, but have visited all the other Hebrides reachable by car ferry and all have had access to mains supply from the grid.--Shoka 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a proper reference to hand, but my understanding is that the turbines are wholly dependent on the 'external' grid, and that if there was a failure of the supply they are fitted with equipment that would switch them off. Nor is there any meaningful island owned grid. The turbines produce power and sell this to a third party. None of the power produced is sold on the island as such, which the current edit still suggests. The turbines may reduce the island's economic dependence on mainland suppliers, but I very much doubt that it in any way removes the island's dependence on a functional national grid. It's not so much that they have 'the opportunity to sell power back to the grid' as that this is what happens willy-nilly. I will see if I can find some reasonable evidence of this and look at the article again. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That section of the article is now much clearer, and the original did indeed mislead. Thanks --Shoka 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Blood Red Sandman

Hi, yes I must admit that it is pretty frustrating. However, before I have even had a proper chance, Inkpaduta has managed to establish notability for the songs, so they will most likely be kept, and at this rate I may not have to weigh in at AfD at all. Thanks for making contact, Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good news. Whilst I don't think I am yet ready to receive your (or indeed anyone else's) 'evil love' I will amend my listening in support. More on WP:SCOTLAND on the morrow. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, to be honest I'd rather it ws received here anyway ;-) - Will check WP:SCOTLAND tomorrow, though. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah - my (current) favourite chanteuse is here. Now, on a more serious matters, I notice that some folk have taken to leaving duplicate messages on both WP:SCOTLAND and WP:SCOWNB talk pages. There also seems to be other duplication e.g. listing Good Articles on both. Is there any written protocol which would attempt to create a clear distinction that you are aware of? Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was on the verge of saying that I wasn't aware of much going on over at WP:SCOWNB, until I realised that I had somehow managed to remove it from my watchlist... Other than a bit of common sense, I don't think (to the best of my knowledge) any such project/noticeboard combination has such written rules regarding posting, but it's probably about time something got done about that. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message. Unfortuantely the article has been drowning in vandalism for most of the day, with every wee troll and POV-pusher coming out of the woodwork - never mind ;-) Globaltraveller 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, all things must pass. They will move on in a little while. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Hi Ben, Congrats on the two GAs! I read Fauna of Scotland back when it was in DYK and think it is a fine article and could be a WP:FA with a little work. I ran the Peer Review script on it twice, the first time I just did the corrections and the second time I pasted it into your sandbox. Do you want me to also read it and make suggestions? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I read all three articles again just now (Fauna of Scotland, Mingulay, and Flannan Isles) and think all three have the potential to be Featured Articles. They are all well written, fairly well referenced, have many free images, and are interesting. Since I am not an expert on any of the topics, someone who is may have issues with them that I am unaware of, but I think they are fine and near FA already. (By the way, there is a problem sentence in the Wildlife section in Flannan: "From the late Middle Ages on that Lewismen regularly raided these nests for eggs, birds and feathers." - it makes sense if you remove the "that" but I am not sure that is what you want it to say.)

  Anyway, the obvious things I can see for them are fairly minor. The lead paragraphs need to be an accurate summary of the whole article (so all headers and subheaders need to at least be mentioned in the lead). Also headers are not supposed to repeat the name of the article, so "Visiting Mingulay" could be just "Visiting" or perhaps "Visiting the island" (though I think italicizing Mingulay Boat Song to show it is a title would likely be OK). There are whole paragraphs without a reference - my guess is that one ref applies to several paragraphs in these cases, but that could be an issue.

  So if you want to try for FA I would pick one (Mingulay would be my choice) and get it peer reviewed first. I would also look at WP:FAC to see what criteria are being looked at there, as well as looking at recently featured articles here. I would also try to find articles that are featured as models for yours. Once you have had a peer review and addressed all the issues raised in it, plus a good idea of what is expected and some time to devote to it, I would go for FA. What you learn from one can be applied to the next one. Let me know and I will look more closely at whatever you want. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

		The Original Barnstar
		For the great new article Renewable energy in Scotland, respect to you Mr Munro :) sbandrews 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that, and suggest that you propose it as a future 'selected article' on Scotland portal too. Or, since Scotland is leading the way on renewables in the UK, perhaps on the UK portal? Gralo 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you both for your kind comments. Pardon my lack of knowledge here, but I am not sure either what this entails, or how to go about it. Can you direct me to a recent example or two? I had a quick look at the UK portal and I wasn't sure where to go from there. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say that this is one of the best DYKs I have seen in the recent times. Have you considered passing it through WP:FAC/WP:GA anytime soon? :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank-you! I hope to get it through GA sometime in the reasonably near future. Not sure about WP:FAC, which seems to result in high levels of vandalism, but your encouragement is appreciated. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David I questions

Annat(s) is right enough, same as annates. I have no idea what the Anglo-English for infeftment is. The Dictionary of the Scots Language doesn't give one. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A good Sabbath morn to you Calgacus.

Good evening to you too.

Firstly, I accept your claims about Image:SCOTLANG1100.PNG but I couldn't help wondering about its provenance. Is it from an old text book? Are there rules about using images from old books? If so I might have a few (non-historical) ones that could be useful. Secondly, I think it would be helpful to have some kind of 'family tree' to refer to. However, as I don't know how to create an image of one, I didn't want to burden you with it.

It has been a long time since that map was produced, be assured though that it was not a scan. You can use maps from old books as long as they are old enough to have had their copyright expired under US and Florida law. You can see WP:Copyright for details.

Forgive my almost total lack of historical knowledge. "Saint Margaret, a myth" You seem to be making an unequivocal statement that the idea of Lallans culture having its origins from this marriage is a 'myth'. It is not clear if the source in footnote 95 promotes or denies the 'myth'. I was mildly curious.

It's a reference to growth of myths about St. Margaret and Máel Coluim in the later middle ages. The Boardman article has details, such many prominent Lowland families tracing their origin to Saxon or Normans who came to Scotland as followers of either St Margeret or Máel Coluim. Wikipedia doesn't have much info on this kind of thing atm, but like - though not real - examples are Sholto Douglas and Fleance. As that article shows, these myths follow a trend, and since Máel Coluim didn't come from England and most of these families can be shown to have later origins, I find it difficult to see why "myth" could be controversial. It is typical of medieval and "pre-modern" people everywhere to explain historical change or origins by assigning roles to "Great Figures" ... e.g. the Normans and Welsh explained the different countries of Britain with the myth of "the sons of Brutus" - e.g. Brutus (the Briton) had three sons, Locrinus ("England", from Loegr, Welsh for England), Kamber ("Wales", from word for Wales) and Albanactus ("Scotland", from Albanach, "Scotsman"). Similarly, in the later middle ages, Andrew Wyntoun explains the descent of the Scottish kings as "kings "from Adam through the Irishry" and adds that before the marriage of Máel Coluim to Margaret, "Saxonys and the Scottys blude, [were] in natyownys twa before than". Of course both are "myths" ... myths in the sense of being explanatory tales and well as being scientifically unsatisfactory.

I note that you do not mention which languages David himself may have spoken. "his kingship became more Celtic" hints at interesting complexities here, but let us discuss this on another and more leisurely occasion.

No I don't, because it would be pointless. He must have spoken Gaelic and French, he almost certainly knew English and most probably was decently literate in Latin. Maybe he knew Cumbric too, who knows; maybe he knew Norse.

I made a tactless comment about "native Scottish language", which on reflection I amended. I think you are perhaps being unkind to the purveyors of 'Scottish English'?

Do you think so? I have to admit that I find it awkward to find correct terminology when writing about this period. "Scotland" almost never means what we think of it as, it refers rather to Scotland north of the Firth of Forth - hence I often adopt "Scotland-proper". A concept like "Scottish English" would have been entirely incomprehensible in David's day (and for centuries to come)... it would either be "Scottish" or "English", which is what these sources mean when they say that the Forth "separates the Scots from the English", even though the dominion of the Scottish king stretched across that boundary. You get used to it if you do a lot of reading of contemporary sources, but that doesn't make it easy to write in a forum like wikipedia.

Shouldn't David: The King Who Made Scotland be a primary source?

No, why? It is a work by a modern historian, see Secondary source.

The "Hagiography of Exoticism" - where can I buy a copy!?

Hah. I just printed it off the relevant article from a copy in my university library. You'd have to shell out here or here. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your patient replies. At $90 a shy I shall just have to seek the exotic elsewhere. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Scotland

I think this is what you want:

• Portal:Scotland/Featured article --Mais oui! 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I wondered what this was but the appearance of Bud pre-dates my own. So how would a new one be selected to appear? What would happen next? Is it an encouragement to improve the selected article or more of an honorific? Where can I find out instead of asking more silly questions? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD - just archive the current one and bung up the new one. Ta. --Mais oui! 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the history of Portal:Scotland/Featured article, it has been up at least since September last year, probably longer, so there's no issue with you replacing it - go for it :) Gralo maintains the Energy portal very well, a good place to see how a portal works. More comprehensive portal info is found at Wikipedia:Portal, enjoy sbandrews 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 21 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Renewable energy in Scotland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

I noticed your excellent article on renewable energy. If you have the time could you review World energy resources and consumption? It is on the GA list in the same section as your article and you would make a very competent reviewer. The Skeptical Optimist 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of you to say so. I will certainly take a look at it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MITGeek passed the World Energy article as a good article last week. I hope the article will be featured, do you think it is ready for that at this point? The Skeptical Optimist 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it is a credible idea. I will try and make time to put some suggestions together soon. I am a bit stretched at present. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I look forward to your input. The Skeptical Optimist 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bealach a Choin Ghlais

I would definately say refers to more than one dog. siarach 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 66.14.16.160

66.14.16.160 could be a static IP, used by only one person, or a shared IP, used by many people. Without any evidence of one or the other it is difficult to tell if the current user is even aware of previous warnings. I might have blocked the IP anyway if vandalism was ongoing, but by the time you posted to AIV it had been over two hours since that IP's last edit. Blocking is mainly a preventative measure, so it's pretty useless to temporarily (24-48 hrs) block an IP when it appears to edit only every couple of weeks. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spring cleaning

Mmmm.... yeah.... sorry about that!!

I have a bad (sometimes good) habit of starting things, but then losing interest! It was me that initiated the noticeboard, the portal, and the WikiProject. WP:SCOWNB took a while to find its feet, but once it had, I personally stopped acting as its informal "manager". This meant that I stopped archiving and cleaning it up. Of course I should have asked for helpers, but I have the attention span of a flea, so just forgot about it. It needs a serious cleanout/tidy/archiving!

The WikiProject is in its infancy, but it is really the more powerful tool for driving up the quality of key articles and sets of articles. But it too needs a "Manager" or a small management team.

Finally, the Portal. It is a great tool for visitors to help them navigate. Cactusman and me did a lot in the beginning, but it too needs some keen folk to drive it forward, hopefully up to Featured portal status.

I am quite a good entrepreneur, but like many of that ilk I find actually growing/managing an enterprise once it is established a bit tedious!

A good idea might be to put round a circular, letting everyone on those two lists of participants know that their country needs them. I am sure we would get several volunteers, it is just making people aware of the wonderful possibilities of these tools and others.

Please note that Regional noticeboards and WikiProjects actually have different remits, but because the nb started long before the wp, it actually has several duplicate features (it was acting a bit like a wp). Those features should just be removed - eg lists of FAs, GAs etc. It should simply be a pin up board for temporary notes and informal chats at the Talk page. The wp is the forum for serious coordination.

If you are interested in this, then please benchmark our nb, wp and portal against other good ones.

Finally, my lovelife is going wonderfully thank you v much indeed. I think and hope that this may be "the one" :) That also means I have less time for this malarky, but I will still be very much "around". Wikipedia is great, but just watch out for the trolls! --Mais oui! 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved our chat to a more public forum. Let's see if anyone else is interested:

• Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#WP:SCOWNB__WP:SCO_etc._-_Spring_cleaning

--Mais oui! 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, obviously not! ;) --Mais oui! 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Hamilton. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia.

Sorry, you are going to have to help me out here. I wrote "If there was a well-sourced and authoritative article on the derivation of the name verifying that most uses had the claimed provenance I would certainly think it credible for there to be a request for it to take the name 'Hamilton' and have the existing page become a disambiguation page identified as such. However, in the absence of the same I can't see that there is much to discuss." Can you explain why you think this is a violation? Thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I now see you are talking about my adding 'the original place name'. I think that you are quite correct to remove this. I had rather lazily assumed that the Hamilton, South Lanarkshire and indeed Duke of Hamilton articles made this explicit but they only imply it. Given that all the other Hamiltons appear after 1643 I believe it to be 'true', but it is certainly not suitably verified anywhere on Wikipedia that I can see. I suppose we are waiting on Brendandh's research. So, in short I plead guilty to a minor breach of WP:V, but not guilty to WP:NPOV. My sincere apologies. (I knew it was a mistake to get in volved with the Lowlands.) Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fairness, I am a little hyper-sensitive to members of WP:SCOTLAND as a very non-productive, unprofessional argument ensued after a member posting to the noticeboard of the project. Thank you for your understanding and I appreciate your civility. Alan.ca 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacKenzie

I think that page was incorrect and have amended it. See Talk:Mackenzie. It is a navigation aid, purely. Tyrenius 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunga, Firth of Lorn on DYK

On 5 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lunga, Firth of Lorn , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Kilda

Hi Ben. You've been busy with the St Kilda page recently, and to good effect, if I may say so. It's a pity about that huge section on Neil Mackenzie which was added anonymously on 5 March. It's too long and detailed, in my view, and as you have pointed out, it lacks references. If I can summon up the time and energy I might have a go at editing it some time, and I'll try and add something on John Mackay, a later missionary who also had a profound effect on St Kilda (but a less positive one). Dhmellor 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you and yes, please do some tidying up - the history section certainly needs some attention. The addition about on Mackenzie is really a mini-article about him, and I wondered if it might be a verbatim quote from somewhere or other. If not, I was of half a mind to find a few suitable references, remove most of it and create a new page with a 'see also' on the St Kilda page. I think the conservation issues could also perhaps be added to and become a section separate from history too. Have you been there by the way? Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering abouut copyright on the material on Mackenzie. But the literature on St Kilda is so huge that it would be a needle in a haystack job! Yes, I've been to St Kilda, have you? If so, you know what an awesome experience it is. Dhmellor 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly not - I am somewhat jealous of your journeys, but hope to make amends. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work on the St Kilda page in the past few days - it's greatly improved it. Dhmellor 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your request for help with old photographs of St Kilda, I think I might have one or two postcards with old photographs on. I'll have a look this weekend. Let me know if you want me to send one to you. Dhmellor 12:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking the typos out of the last edit - I was a bit rushed. Hopefully it's well on its way to GA now (arguably its a bit too long!) I was hoping to be able to frighten the more squeamish readers with a photo of Rev MacKay, but I don't want to push the copyright issue too far if it can't be proved the photographer died 100 yrs plus ago. If you have access to a digi camera you could email me an image or two of the postcards, or I'd be happy to explain how to upload the same to Commons. Cheers Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't do photography - I prefer my binoculars! However, I have a nice postcard copy of the famous sepia shot of the St Kilda 'parliament' - date 1886. If you think it's PD and you want to load it onto the site, email your name and address to Dhmellor@aol.com and I'll post it to you. Dhmellor 18:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noticed, on the back of the postcard it says 'copyright 2000, Aberdeen University'. So I guess that's that? Dhmellor 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna of Scotland GA on hold

On Hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 08:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job on fixing those so quickly. I would have got back to you sooner but I didn't see your message until today (it must have been hidden in several other messages I got at the same time). Anyway, good work, and please continue to improve articles and nominate them for GA. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC, since we have a large backlog. --Nehrams2020 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibirds Peer Review of Fauna of Scotland

You're welcome, I'm glad to help. --Hey jude, don't let me down 13:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Photo

The following is my understanding, and I do not assert it as fact (;)). As I understand it, if you also come across the picture in a work published (in the USA) before 1923, then any later assertion of copyright isn't relevant (this mught be controversial, see Copyright Term Extension Act). Wiki works under US and Florida copyright law, so you can ignore assertions of copyright from British institutions that are legally non-applicable in the US. If the guy who took the picture is dead more than 100 years, I think you can upload it (this is often hard to find out). If the picture is of someone who died in the 19th century, then chances are you probably can upload it. Just stick {{PD-old}} (I think) as the tag. Wikipedia guidelines tend to err on the side of caution, but I doubt half the things they discourage would actually be punished by a court. If you are challenged for some obscure reason, you are free to argue WP:Fair Use. I don't trust my own understanding, as I'm not a lawyer. Best thing to do if in doubt is to ask on Wikipedia talk:Public domain or Wikipedia:Image use policy. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox England place TfD

Hi, could I just ask how you got the figure of 98% for use of Infobox Scotland place. Cheers. Adambro 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I counted three transclusions linking to the UK infobox, and the talk page of the same suggest there are 170 using the Scottish infobox. I had a look at the links to the latter and at first sight there seemed to be more than 170. I'm happy to be corrected if this isn't the case of course. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining that for me. Adambro 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Hijacking this section for a moment): can I thamk you for the comments you made in response to my last message on this TfD discussion, since it gave me a good opportunity to express my desire to change my opinion aqnd to state what I think should happen. If you care to look at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Wales you will see I had already begun to be unhappy with the way the changes are being deployed, and felt that there had been at least one step that had been missed out. So, in my (further developed) new view, the correct way to have proceeded would have been:

• (1) Call for all interested people to potentially join in developing a new infobox,
• (2) Done some of the development at the same time as getting some help from people interetsde in particular parts of what is the current UK,
• (3) gave some examples of the new template in use and made another call for suggestions for improvement,
• (4) when a decision is made that the new template can be "released", go on a "sellling" drive (an ugly word, but it means setting out its good points, how it is better than the old ones, etc) to the interested parties (relevant projects, etc).
• (5) After discussion seems to have reached a natural end-stage, think about gauging the consensus,
• (6) If there is a consensus and it is that the new template should be deployed, then deploy it.
• (7) When the number of uses of the old template have effectively reached zero, only 'then, put in a TfD for that template.

Now, woukd that have been a sequence of stages that you and others would have been happy with? Of course, it can potentially fail at many points, in which case, the template just doesn't get written or deployed. I think it would address the issues of involvement, etc, even though it might take longer to complete (if it did complete at all). However, it seems to me that it deserves to take longer. I'd welcome any comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for anyone else course, but I certainly think this would have had a much better chance of proceeding with a degree of co-operation and grace - and thank you for taking the trouble to respond so civilly. We're all volunteers trying to create a decent encyclopedia and it's a pity to be expending so much effort on contention. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Ben that the process that DDStretch has set out would have been a good one to follow, I have run into difficulties myself when I've been a little too bold in making changes and now realise that it is important to consult with other editors as much as possible to gain feedback. When I haven't done this, I have found, as in this case, that other editors take a hostile stance to whatever idea is being proposed, simply because of the method, even when it may actually be a very good idea.

When you do come up with a good idea, I appreciate it can be frustrating to see how long it takes to get it adopted, but my own experiences suggest that this cost in time ultimately is worth it.

My personal opinion would be that it would be useful to do a reasonable amount of work (in your own user space) prior to asking other users for their opinions, as this will give them a better impression of your proposal.

I also agree with Ben that recent comments will have gone a long way to addressing some editors concerns regarding the implementation and hope further progress can be made. Adambro 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bmi regional- Scotland

Hi Ben, I wondered why you took bmi regional out of the airlines list in the Scotland article? bmi regional article is based in Aberdeen Airport, and is quite a large airline with 16 jets and a large range of destinations. It is much larger than say Air Scotland or City Star Airlines. As for capitalisation, the Wikipedia article does have it at BMI Regional, but the airline's website and logo have it all lowercase (see [1]). Thoughts? Thunderwing 13:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There were two reasons. The capitalisation was one. I looked at the Wikipedia article and another web page - flightmapping.com I think - and concluded capitals were appropriate. You are correct, I now see that bmi themselves do use lowercase and that would be the proper usage. The second was that no reference was given, and whilst the rest of the section hardly uses any that's not a reason to avoid doing so - we are trying to improve the article and this a major shortcoming at present. You may be correct that bmi regional are based in Aberdeen Airport, but the reference you provide above says "bmi regional...is part of the wider award winning bmi group and operates an all jet fleet from regional airports including Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds Bradford...". If you replace it in lower case with a reference confirming the base is Aberdeen I will have no complaints. Cheers Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem- I found a good reference [2] and added back. I was hoping to find a good reference to cover all the airlines that are based in Scotland but not much luck so far! Thanks. Thunderwing 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lamlash

Thanks for your help although it may have been a little more positive to enter the correct details. --MJB 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, but if I were to attempt to fix every unreferenced item in the islands I would be doing nothing else all day. I notice the template has a fatuous ambulance field. Can it not be switched off? Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A short "hello" :-)

Hiho,

I'm just dropping by to leave you a short and spontaneous, but very warm and hopefully motivating "thank you"! It's always giving pleasure to me to see that formerly "new users" find their own way through the "Wikipedia jungle" and turn out to be such good users, committed to Wikipedia's origins (valuable, encyclopaedic content).

I assume you already got to know some of the bothering conflicts and other somehow annoying stuff of this complicated community. Please always remember how you started here – I wish you never lose the basic trust, self-assuredness and joy (with)in this project. Personally, I'm glad to have been helpful for you regarding some smaller issues in the past. And I really enjoy noting that you're still active :-)

All the best --Ü 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)