Talk:Lowther Hills

Tone

There has obviously been an awful lot of work put into this article for which the original author must be congratulated however I have concerns that the style/tone is rather chatty and guidebook-like as opposed to being encyclopaedic. There is also quite a bit of personal opinion stated. Examples of this include phrases such as "You might wonder why anyone in their right mind would build two villages nearly 500 meters up in a desolate hillside in the Southern Uplands of Scotland." Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 15:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep on wondering why the American spelling of "metres" is used throughout... Also the author keeps on using "it's" when they should be using "its".

You're right, it's a good article, and it is a fairly notable hill range, at least in Scottish terms. However, it does need a few fixes.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As the original author of this page thanks for correcting the spelling of "metres". I think your problem with "it's" has a lot to do with changes in usage. In the era when I went through my schooling the possessive always required the "'" before the "s" as it would also in the case of the abbreviated form of "it is" - it's.

However, I found the notice posted at the top of the page really quite objectionable. I am totally new to this business of writing pages for Wiki and of course like anyone I will get things wrong until I get the hang of it. I have a user page like everyone else and a discreet comment could have been made there or in this present page and no problem.

My first reaction to finding this public slap over the wrist was to think "stuff it I will remove everything I have put on Wiki and be done with it". Then I thought the person who put this there may not reflect the position of Wiki on how to give advice. After all as an organization Wiki seeks to encourage the public to contribute to the encyclopedia, and because you are poorly dealt with by a receptionist does not necessarily mean the entire organization is at fault. It is hardly encouraging to be reprimanded in public - which is after all an extremely bad mannered insensitive thing to do in most circumstances in life and therefore it would surely be counter-productive of the organization for it to behave like this as a matter of policy.

I have an extensive knowledge of SW Scotland (the countryside, the culture and the history), plus of course a good working knowledge of Scottish art, history and culture and I believe there is much more I could contribute - especially as the two pages I have done so far have been reasonably well received. Clearly I am basically on the right lines. Given this it seems to me extremely daft to bite the hand that may feed you. So I will put this unseemly aberration down to the personal foibles of the receptionist and not blame the organization. Scothill (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As the "receptionist" in question I am very sorry that you felt you had been slapped on the wrist. I very carefully opened my comment on this page with what I hoped was a positive sentence acknowledging your efforts, obviously I was not effusive enough!! :) Maintenance tags, as they are called, need to be prominent on the actual article for two reasons, firstly so that readers are aware that the particular page does not (yet) meet our quality standards and secondly to encourage other editors to address the issues. Maintenance tagging is standard procedure and is common across most pages on the encyclopaedia, please, please don't take it personally, goodness, the tone tag is about the mildest of them all.... Very best regards, Nancy ^talk 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. the photographs are stunning. Nancy ^talk 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a free creative spirit of the open spaces of place and of mind, and in my wanderings I find that I have gone off route into a dark and somewhat sinister place. Ahead of me is "The wall of the thought police". I really think that it is more of a vast chimney than a wall since it feels like it goes all the way round you as you climb. I've been up here a couple of times. The first pitch is called "verbose rules and regulations" and is pretty boring. At the end of that you have a choice between two pitches, the "Mental straightjacket" and the "Self righteous teachers", both of which lead to the final pitch called "Patronization" - again a bit tedious. What you have to ask yourself is, "Is climbing this wall really worth the hassle when there are so many other routes to choose from". Generally you would do the thing just for the laughs, the sport of it, and to hell with the hassle, after all that is what you go on the hill for - the adventure of it. But this environment feels too happy clappy and slightly incestuous. No organization with serious pretensions to intellectual credibility would practice ritual humiliation in the manner of a puerile party game - distinctly kinky. Scothill (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You imply that you feel ritually humilated, I must accept that as only you can know how you feel. On the rest we'll have to agree to differ and so I'm not sure how useful it is to continue this discourse save to say that I have copyedited for tone and removed the maintenance tag. All best, Nancy ^talk 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman roads?

There must have been Roman roads in this area, especially since there were Roman forts and fortlets around there. Anyone know if the tracks that are there were originaly laid by the Romans or any other Roman builds? Thanks. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 03:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612010040/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_058/58_203_227.pdf to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_058/58_203_227.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612010040/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_058/58_203_227.pdf to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_058/58_203_227.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)