Hamiltonstone (talk | contribs) →Talk:Orkney: new section |
→24 Waterfall salute!: new section |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
See my query / suggestion at the article talk page. Cheers, [[User:Hamiltonstone|hamiltonstone]] ([[User talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
See my query / suggestion at the article talk page. Cheers, [[User:Hamiltonstone|hamiltonstone]] ([[User talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== 24 Waterfall salute! == |
|||
{{panorama |
|||
| image =File:Ricketts Glen State Park 24 named waterfalls.jpg |
|||
| caption = Thanks for all your help with picking images. [[Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park]] made [[WP:FA|Featured Article]] today! {{u|Dincher}} ([[User talk:Dincher|talk]]) and [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|height = 300 |
|||
| alt = Waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, waterfall, and waterfall. |
|||
}} |
Revision as of 21:31, 9 February 2010
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! |
If you leave a new message on this page, I will usually reply here unless specifically asked to reply elsewhere.
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)
The Gazeteer [1] says its part of the Harris parish. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:36, 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)
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)
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)
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.
- 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:
- 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)
- Hope that's helpful. Ben MacDui 08:45, 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)
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)
- 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 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)
Where is the consensus to start the WP:CDA rfc now?
Firstly, I'm not sure you've seen this. (esp NJA's comment).
- Nope I had not - wasn't invited. I looked at NJA's last comments and they seemed to me to indicate a sense an interest in continuing the dicussion but not a determination to do so.
Secondly, you and Tryptofish may be vocal people - but you cannot be allowed to run such an important show yourselves. There are a number of things that still need discussion. You cannot just ignore people!
If you run the rfc without consensus, I'll run an rfc on the rfc. Abiding by the rules of consensus is a hundred times more important than CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- & I can run a poll on the rfc re the rfc - you see the point. This could go on forever and the longer it runs, it may be that the langauge gets improved but the further it gets from the original simple idea. If the RfC is successful I have no doubt that new and good ideas will emerge (or that old ones will re-emerge). However, for any of that discussion to be worthwhile there needs to be a clear sense that the community backs the principle,. If they don't the effort is wasted. Ben MacDui 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've put the 'needs discussion' tag back in to 80% (where the hell is th CONSENSUS for it????) - I thought I did that last night, but I didin't realise it had had two edits (so the "approx" was just removed). I would not have normally edited and 1am sunday morning, but they sense of panic you are instilling forced me to do it. How about an RfC/u? Does that tickle your fancy? There is no need for this at all. It is done when it is done.
- Abiding by consensus is a hundred times more important than CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- And it is the consensus of the community that will make the difference, not whether the handful of editors involved can agree on the precise wording required. Ben MacDui 12:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I won't make a big deal of this (link) but you reverted me once and I felt I had to do it. You communications have been a bit distant of late too, rather like you are popping in without reading it all. I'm sure you are a thoroughly decent chap and all that, but Wikipedia only makes sense to me when play by the (very simple) rules that it has. We all edit, we strive for consensus etc etc etc. Things that fall by those rules are likely to fail imo. I've got little time today myself, but I'll attempt to give it everything I can. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- And it is the consensus of the community that will make the difference, not whether the handful of editors involved can agree on the precise wording required. Ben MacDui 12:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- When you say you "won't make a bid deal out of this" I am not sure what you intend to convey as you are clearly going out of your way to make a big deal out of what - that I reverted you once? I trust you are recalling that when you broke 3RR I didn't make a big deal out of it by - well choosing to ignore it in the hope it would lead to more active collaboration. Possibly a mistake. I suspect you experience my communication as being "distant" as I prefer to reply briefly and succinctly and find your style - well difficult to understand. This in particular seems to me to be a bizarre way to achieve any kind of consensus. Ben MacDui 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- With respect, I don't think clarity is much of an issue with me. I'm happy to close the RFc/u if you promise me that this is done when it's done. I've never railed against any clear consensus, whether I've agreed with it or not. Clear consensus is always the key for me - it's the only step forward that noone can rally against. By only having a fairly week consensus from the outset, the foundations of CDA are not all that strong, so it needs as crystal a consensus as possible as an actual proposal to make it through. Unfortunately I feel less good about it winning the more I contemplate little issues with it (the 'power voters' will have a lot of say I think), but I still think it has a good chance. CDA is as fine a blancing act as Wikipedia is ever likely to see - so why rush it?
- When you say you "won't make a bid deal out of this" I am not sure what you intend to convey as you are clearly going out of your way to make a big deal out of what - that I reverted you once? I trust you are recalling that when you broke 3RR I didn't make a big deal out of it by - well choosing to ignore it in the hope it would lead to more active collaboration. Possibly a mistake. I suspect you experience my communication as being "distant" as I prefer to reply briefly and succinctly and find your style - well difficult to understand. This in particular seems to me to be a bizarre way to achieve any kind of consensus. Ben MacDui 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll pitch that new suggestion (in NJAs sandbox) later today (hopefully - i might have the day free now). Also we need to sort out the percentage. As it has been posed on the admins noticeboard that CDA has too many safeguards to make it worthwhile, I suggest using 85%. I say this a compromise as I think (alas, as there is no consensus amongst those actually discussing the proposal) that the consensus in the VOTE 2 was more like 90% (as a ratio that would actually be 9:1). I have no objections to ratios btw if we mention them both, ie "approxinately 6:1 (about 85% of the total votes)". Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You can close the RfC/u or keep it open as you prefer. We disagree on what is needed that's all and it is a rather odd way to try and achieve the consensus you say that you wish to have. Ben MacDui 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
MacDui, thank you very much for the compliment on my talk page, much appreciated. At this point, I feel as though I've been too much in the middle of things, and I need to take a step back for a little while. Therefore, it will now fall to you and others to sort this thing out. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
And making sure that you know: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ben MacDui. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Ben MacDui 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- For calling me disruptive? Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Ben MacDui 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
See my query / suggestion at the article talk page. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)