User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Edit reversion

Hi. Although I know it is mythological, I think the declaration is an important document and this piece of information should not be overlooked in the article, because that's how Scots historically thought about their origins. Alamir (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I could see the source said nothing about etymology and your edit was framed as factual rather than mythical. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Forth Bridge

Good work on sorting out those {{clarify}} tags. My money was always on South Queensferry; I'm not going to conduct my own researches, because I suspect that you're right. My speciality is in knowing things like why the barge was called Hougoumont. Narky Blert (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the pattern in that article was indicating that the unspecified instances were likely to be SQ but I'm glad I could nail them definitively from the sources. I'd confess it was niggling me from a highly localised Fife/Lothian WP:WORLDVIEW perspective. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanday, Orkney

It is stated in the Living Orkney magazine article cited (not the OIC link), that SC was the community council negotiator with SSE, which successfully secured the wind turbine community benefit mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. So he is certainly relevant as a person associated with Sanday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.84.128 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Relevance isn't the issue, it's notability.

Better to engage at the article's talk page, if you have more to say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

On account of what I say above, I would say the Wikipedia entry on Sanday is incomplete without mention of SC. Local notability is relevant in an article such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.84.128 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, better to engage at the article's talk page if you have more to say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You are the one deleting the entry! In the context of this article, and what I say above, consider, for example, John D Mackay, "notable" because "he is remembered locally for writing to The Times in 1967". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.84.128 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You are discussing the article so post your comments there so anyone can engage in the discussion. I am not going to have a private discussion about it here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reinstated it with the reason for local notability. It's up to you if you wish to delete it again. It's not often I contribute to Wikipedia, but almost whenever I do, it is a battle. The whole project seems to be WP:OWNed by the regulars, which is a shame for those of us interested in the dissemination of knowledge and the recording of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.84.128 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is the way you go about, no wonder you get into battles. Read WP:BRD: you were bold with your edit, you were reverted by two editors, now discuss it on the article's talk page. The onus is on the bold editor to make their case, not those who dispute the material. Please revert your addition of the material and wait until a consensus has been reached. This is a tried and tested method to avoid conflict and your continuous addition of the disputed material is becoming disruptive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:User from Scotland

Question: What does "This user is from Scotland" mean?

This user was born and lives in Scotland.
This user was born in Scotland but no longer lives there.
This user currently lives in Scotland and is a non-native citizen.
This user currently lives in Scotland but is not a citizen.
This user previously lived in Scotland.

Only #1, #2, and #3 would be Scottish Wikipedians. Only #1, #3, and #4 would be Wikipedians in Scotland. This is the reason I avoid using the phrase "from Scotland" unless I explain further. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs

17:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want people to say these things about themselves, make new userboxes, don't change existing ones and put words in people's mouths. Who are you to force people to specify to your level of detail? I'll do so only if I choose and I choose not to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I only bring this up because the other 300+ userbox templates of the form [[Template:User from someplace]] state "This user is a native of someplace." I've created Template:User native Scot for this purpose. Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom. Good luck. Your aye, Buaidh talk contribs 23:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit to English people

[[

File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]

Hello, I'm R9tgokunks. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. R9tgokunks ✡ 20:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Response here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

new section

Hi I have been checking through the editing history of the wiki page in dispute (English people) and over the years many users have removed islam from the religious section and included it in other religions only for it to be added back by one of three users which overall shows that the majority consensus is being ignored by the likes of Doug Weller and cordless Larry, as the clear consensus is that islam doesn’t belong I will have to remove it. AngloPatriot89 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not an accurate assessment. Many user names is not the same as "Many users": quack! Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Highland clearances

I note your edit summary[1] about emigration of Highlanders to South Africa as a result of the clearances. The only reference I can find is James Hunter in "Set Adrift Upon the World: the Sutherland Clearances" discussing two failed attempts to get families from Sutherland to emigrate to South Africa. (The locally raised regiment had served in South Africa - this may be connected with the unwillingness to emigrate there. As an example: Novia Scotia was the final choice of some tenants expecting to be cleared from the Strath of Kildonan in 1818- though they were initially interested in South Africa.) This would support your edit - South Africa was an unpopular destination.

However, I should add that I have concern about the way the article handles emigration. The implication is that the clearances resulted in big population falls, yet the actual statistics show continued population increases whilst clearance and emigration were both happening. I think any reader of the article could easily be misled as to the view of historians on this point. Furthermore, both Eric Richards and Tom Devine explain that some emigration was simple resistance to social change - something that is not mentioned in the "resistance" section of the article. (Those who had the financial resources and entrepreneurial spirit were giving up on rent increases and insecurity of tenure - the New World was a better deal.) It is a complex story and only a lot of "non-Wikipedia" tasks have prevented me from doing the necessary reading to put together a better handling of this aspect. Sorry to moan on about the frustrations of this article.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted re SA, thanks. I'm sure there was some level of emigration there but listing it with the other more self-evident destinations overplays its significance without support being provided. I'm not particularly across wider issues re emigration in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The Gaels

The text of the article makes clear that more Gaelic-descendants live abroad then in the Highlands, so why not call it a diaspora? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have a look at Category:Diasporas you'll see that it contains articles specifically about diasporas, not articles about peoples who may have diasporas. Were it the latter it would contain the articles on pretty much every people on the planet, to no useful end. Were there a Scots Gaelic diaspora article, or however one might name it, that would be the one for inclusion. For example there is a Scottish diaspora article which is in Category:Diasporas, via sub-categories, rather than Scottish people. I hope that helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Font problem

Hi, Following a recent edit I notice that the entire paragraph within which the edit was embedded now displays Courier Regular 14pt font rather than Helvetica Regular 14pt font. Is there any was to revert to the standard font? Alwin Cambrun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwin Cambrun (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Towns and Cities in Scotland

I'm confused about something reading the definitions, aren't settlements basically contiguous localities of a certain density (when applicable), and aren't the density requirements the same for both? I think if that's the case, you'd want to make the definitions as simple as possible. And in this case this would mean not directly quoting the definition for settlements I'd think. What's the easiest way to explain this starting on page 5 (https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//geography/products/2012-setts-locals-back-info.pdf)? Thanks! --Criticalthinker (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My reading of the definitions is that settlements have a defined high density component and localities do not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This link makes clear that localities are subdivisions of settlements (https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/census/geographies.pdf). And then from the link above I got this:

"Localities have been determined by first creating settlements and then assigning a locality value to each of the postcodes in the settlement based on whether they fall within a previous locality."

I'm still a bit confused, quite honestly. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm really just curious if you think there is a clearer way to explain on the article page that would be clear that localities are components of settlements? Otherwise, it currently reads like there are two different standards for defining these area when in fact, both use postcodes as base components. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree it is confusing and I only feel understand the definitions immediately after thoroughly reading them through, then I would be fuzzy on it again the next day. The official definitions are difficult to comprehend but I can't think of a way of redefining them in simpler terms unless unwarranted simplification or interpretation is introduced. To say that localities are subdivisions of settlements is not correct in my view although the way that they are differently defined leads me to the belief that localities may correspond to a settlement or be smaller but they can not be larger. I'm unclear as to the purpose for having both types of entity. Sorry. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Here, for localities: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/settlements-localities/set-loc-16/locality-geographies.pdf

"Does it nest in a higher geography? Yes, Settlements" "Is there a building-block geography from which it is made? Yes, Postcodes"

The way I understand it, urban localities are made up of postcodes of a certain density. All urban localities also correspond to a settlement, unless there are two localities side by side/contiguous, in which case they merge to become a settlement. The point being that the link I just posted is every clear that postcodes are the base for both, and that urban localities are constituent parts of larger settlement. It actually comes across as very basic, if even explained poorly by National Records of Scotland. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Per above, as far as I can see in the definitions density is not a factor for localities, only for settlements. I'm not sure why you have gained this impression. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It's why I specifically said urban settlements. Not all localities are settlements, but obviously we're talking about urban localities in the context of talking about them as components of settlements. Urban settlements are definitely components of settlements. In any case, I see I'm no longer getting anywhere; I will do further research myself with NRScotland. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

James Logan

What's your source for James Logan not being the McCrae's Battalion member? Litster's Record of Pre-War Scottish League Players has a James Henry Logan playing for Raith Rovers between 1912 and 1919 and then having two stints as manager. Beatpoet (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

See my post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#James_H._Logan. You restored a link to James Merrilees Logan, the manager was James Lochhead Logan, the team captain and battalion member was James Henry Logan. If you have info on the 1912-1919 JHL, that should be useful material to create an article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've posted at the project again about potential further confusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Logan brothers

It's a good blog written by knowledgeable authors - but WP:RS applies here. Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reply.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

AGF

It would be better for you to assume good faith than label me as a pov warrior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.2.247 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mutt Lunker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Religion in...

Hi, thank you for your reversions of Special:Contributions/88.17.38.180. The edits are block evasion by Scgonzalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Religion in... statistics_vandalism. If you spot any future edits of this type, you can report the IP to WP:AIV as block evasion. Thanks again, DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)