User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 18

my apologies

I was one of the ones who used your doppelganger's spelling in the ANI thread. Sorry. I knew I recognized Human Taxonomist's talk page style but I couldn't put a name to the master. I'll know it now. Meters (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No apology needed, it happens all the time. I noted it at the discussion purely to stop any confusion or difficulty tracking the edits of mine that had been referred to. I don't think I've had the dubious pleasure of HT's company in the past. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the personal attack

And told them that another would result in a block. That sort of attack is completely unacceptable, let me know if the behavior continues. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Most grateful. Thanks Doug. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"St Fort" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St Fort. Since you had some involvement with the St Fort redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pardon? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This edit. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes but what about it, if you please? Can I suggest you reflect on what, at best, seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to my clearly good-faith edits and, what's more, point out to me what legitimate talk page comments you believe me to have deleted or edited in an appropriate manner? Thoughtlessly slapping standard vandalism templates on the talk page of experienced editors is hardly the way to win friends and influence people. That edit formatted the references I had added to the St Fort discussion, transparently my intention, and made some "minor edit" style formatting changes elsewhere in the article. Even if I have unknowingly introduced some major error, it must be abundantly clear that it was an accidental consequence of my implementing changes via Reflist. Please do calm down. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
reFill, not Reflist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm calm. I'm pointing out you shouldn't edit others' comments. I didn't accuse you of vandalism. I pointed out you edited a boatload of other users' comments. Don't do that, whether you're regular or irregular. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Do it in a more attentive and less accusatory, patronising and clod-hopping way then. "If you would like to experiment", I ask you. It should be clear to anyone, let alone an editor as experienced as you, that there was no intent to edit anyone else's comments. And evidently you are not actually going to help me out by pinpointing the part or parts of my edit you take issue with. Is this a guessing game? Sifting through, while vainly waiting for a more helpful lead from you, I realised it had escaped my notice that, with the evident intent to neaten the presentation of 4 links, it had obscured that they linked diffs. I've reverted them. Did I win? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
By "it had obscured" I am referring to reFill. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you win. Congratulations! TJRC (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Would have been nice to get there more swiftly and amicably. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I too don't understand the reason for the template message, it indeed does sometimes happen people accidentally delete talk page content (in which I simply re add it with a summary indicating it was probably accidentally removed) but in this case it was from an editing tool so simply pointing out this issue rather than issuing a tpv2 message would seem more appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Pipe band (and bagpipe) notability

Hi, thought you might be interested in helping work out a policy for notability in piping at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bagpipes#Notability_guidelines? It seems that there can be quite different understandings of what constitutes notability, especially as a lot of piping coverage is well outside of mainstream media. There are quite a few articles that exist that I suspect are not notable - User:Ostrichyearning3/nn - and many many more notable articles that do not exist yet. But would be useful if there was a clear distinction! best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree it's an issue and, though I'm no expert, if I can help I'd be glad to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Cheers! There's some suggestion that this is not a good plan User_talk:Ostrichyearning3#nope but if that's the case, it might still be useful to have some information pointing to more general guidelines. From things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Liddell it seems like at least some information about how levels of competition work, and what good sources are, would be useful. best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Genetics/Scottish

Hello. Can I ask why you keep removing the section on genetics in the Scottish people talk page? You've done so around 20 times in the space of a single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As you were made aware, your indefinite block applies to you as a person, not to an IP. It applies equally if you WP:SOCK from another IP. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I'm talking about a section I'm trying to add to the Scottish people talk page in order to improve the article, which you keep removing. Repeatedly. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am making no comment on the individual edit. You were blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and thus not allowed to edit any more. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh was I now? And when exactly was this I was blocked for disruptive editing? And how am I editing now and for the past week or so if I'm 'not allowed to edit anymore'? This is an incredibly strange interaction, but you appear to have a bit of a problem with vandalising talk pages going by complaints levied towards you on your own one. Are you acknowledging you are repeatedly removing my edit to the talk page regarding Scottish people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you claiming that you edited Wikipedia for the first time ever on the 20th March? I am self-evidently removing your edit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea when I first edited Wikipedia. I've certainly not edited it frequently in the past, and have zero recollection of any 'indefinite block' for 'disruptive editing'. Alright, and you're removing this edit and solely this edit. None of my other recent edits. Under the assumption that I was blocked for disruptive editing, but again you're not continually removing any of my other recent edits? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, all your other edits should also be removed or struck. Bit of an imposition to expect others to clear up after you though. What user name or IP have you edited from previously? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And why should they be removed or struck? It clearly doesn't seem to be much of an imposition for you though, does it. You seem VERY focused on incessantly deleting my (and it would seem many others') attempts to improve the Scottish people article with a section on genetics. I have no idea what user name or IP I have edited from previously. I've never had a user name, as I said I've never frequently edited Wikipedia. And I have no idea what my IP addresses have historically been. Why on Earth are you asking that? Stop vandalising talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors that have been blocke are not allowed to edit, that is why. If you can't tell me your previous IP, go to an edit that you have made, in the history of an article, and tell me the date or show me the diff. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And, as I just told you, I've never been blocked. At least as far as I'm aware. I'm afraid I don't have any recollection of specific edits I made to specific articles on specific dates over the years. We don't all have eidetic memories, I'm afraid. For the third time, I don't frequently edit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

SITW edits

Let me start off by apologising for my perceived "warring" I am unused to wikipedias editing mechanism.

I really think that by your own standards there are many other acts that would be better suited to that section. For instance: All the artists that have appeared on both field recording albums, the artists that have appeared on both of the recent mixtapes and the artists that are appearing on the latest "Help the Witch" compilation album, all released on their record label. That however I think would lead to a bloated "associated acts" section. Wolf people I can understand to a extent as they have a stronger association (they are in the process of releasing a album by Wolf People from man Jack Sharp). All associations that are of more note than the previously mentioned singular release.

Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecoldinalex4k (talk • contribs) 12:07 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying this time. I'll post a few tips on your talk page to help familiarise yourself with editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Gaels

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais. I've highlighted one specific change to Gaels that's highly suggestive but I'm not familiar with the subject or the editor concerned, so perhaps there's something you can add? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Mutt Lunker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Why I did these edits

I did these edits because I just want the confirmation of my account. Thank you, I understand you. Blockman9000 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Being an American, I am unfamiliar with pure BE...especially the version spoken in the northern part. I really appreciate your revert, explaining that the term 'zip' is perfectly known in Scotland.

If you could do me a favour, on the Zipper page, could you mark the term 'zip' as "chiefly British" or some such. As it stands, it's shown as a variant but with no clarification of origin.

I'm also going to go find your list of BE words that AE speakers don't understand. It may help me tremendously.

Thanks again, WesT (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Zip", sometimes "zip fastener", is the usual term in the UK, not just Scotland, and its use is wider than that. It's certainly used in Australia and I'd assume more widely in the Commonwealth. I don't know if the term "zipper" is restricted to the US or has wider use. Appending the terms with "chiefly N American" and "chiefly British" may be overly restrictive and the zip article lists a multitude of other terms in the lede, none of them universal either. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Yet again, I'm faced with the fact that the US does things differently than the rest of the world. [sigh] I'm running into that with paper sizes, too! WesT (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha. Mutt Lunker (talk)
(talk page stalker) You mean the "rest of the world" does things differently than the US? :) I'm firmly convinced that had the US successfully adopted the Metric System in the 1800s, as it almost did on several separate occasions, that the Metric System would not be in almost universal use as it is now. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Seem familiar

Might Special:Contributions/JoinOnIn be You Know Who? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Quack! Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. - BilCat (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Scottish people

Hi Mutt, hope this is the place to chat about edits. You undid and edit on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people.

The text "In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone whose linguistic, cultural, family ancestral or genetic origins are from Scotland" - This view may accurate for certain countries outside the UK (typically those with historical Scottish diaspora and esp the USA), but it is certainly inaccurate in Scotland, the country (and people) of the subject. Technically all polls by a leading public opinion and data company are partial polls but yougov is one of the authoritative measures here in the UK of public opinion, regardless of sample size. I would also be correct stating "In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone born or raised in Scotland" both are equally true, depending on whos 'modern usage' you are considering.

cheers, Clydesailor (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Clydesailor:, as your point regards the article, it would be better addressed at the article's talk page, rather than mine. That said, per my edit summary, my point was not so much about the material itself but its placing "in the lede" and that there may instead "perhaps (be a place for it in) the body of the article". The lede is an introduction to the article and should only contain and summarise material that is covered in the main part already.
Regarding the poll itself, there may well be a place for covering it elsewhere in the article, as long as it is presented as "respondents indicated x, y and z". It should not be presented as: respondents indicated x, y and z, so x, y and z is the case; it's not a vote. The source itself interprets the results in ways which could be challenged and it highlights the contradictions and inconsistencies of responses, not least in how the respondents treat specific examples. It sampled people, Scots and non-Scots, in Scotland and did not apparently sample Scots, or non-Scots, outside of Scotland, so reflects the views of that sample only.
As mentioned, any continuation of discussion regarding the article should be at the article talk page please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Request translation Isabelle de Charriere

Hello Mutt Lunker, Would you write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the SCO.wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll decline the suggestion; I haven't been active there in a long time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to delete MacDon't worry. It's a mistake.

Sorry, that's a mistake. I accidentally deleted it because I thought I could erase it because I didn't need it. I'm sorry. 도성전 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

John Martyn edit

Hi Matt, The source for the John Martyn edit is English births, deaths and marriages on Ancestry.Com. His mother Beatrice Elizabeth Jewitt's birth was registered in South Croydon(1921). Her mother's maiden name was Hawkins. As both Hawkins and Jewitt are unquestionably English surnames there seems no reason to believe in Martyn's whimsical claim to Belgian Jewish ancestry. Regards Rae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae Donaldson (talk • contribs) 07:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting hypothesis and may well be worth pursuing but a fundamental policy of Wikipedia is that original research can not be included. If the record is definitely for Martyn's mother, those details can be included in the article: birth name, date etc. but any extrapolation from that which is not included in a reliable published source can not. Also, I'm sure you're aware of people of immigrant backgrounds adopting new surnames, for reasons of assimilation, ease of spelling or pronunciation, alterations or mis-spelling in official records, so this can not be conclusive in itself. You might also find Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth of interest. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I've added citations from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Graeme Thomson's acclaimed and recently-published biography which support his mother's Belgian birth and Jewish ancestry, the latter ref in some detail. The full name and birth date are also different to what you state. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

John Martyn

Hi Mutt, So, if I understand you correctly, I could order copies of the relevant birth certificates and that wouldn't be admissible as proof that Martyn was having us on about his mother's identity? Not that it matters so much to me that I would ever do that. I guess I'll just have to leave this one as it is! If I ever see a copy of Thomson's book I'll be interested to see what proofs he offers in support of Martyn's claim. Regards RaeRae Donaldson (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be admissable as proof purely of the actual details on it - name, d.o.b. etc. I don't see how this would say anything about whether she had Belgian Jewish ancestry or not. What details are given? Speculation about not having the right sort of surname is not convincing and clearly does not trump mention in two reliable sources. Would you, for instance, dispute Arnold Brown is Jewish on account of his name? Did you see the refs I provided and the quote from Thomson? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

John Martyn

Mutt, you may not see how official certificates prove ancestry but unfortunately that's often all we have to goRae Donaldson (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC) on. If I got a marriage certificate for Martyn's parents and then followed the maternal line back through both the mother and father to birth certificates for both of them and discovered nothing Belgian-or indeed inferably Jewish-I'd say we were onto something, wouldn't you? Yes, of course I'm aware that people change their names in order to fit in but I think you'll find this is less common in the UK than it is in the United States where, for example, the surname Smith is as likely to be of German as of British/Irish origin(Brown/Braun is another case). In this part of the world, the idea that Smith might indicate German ancestry would be regarded as fantasy without some reputable proof to the contrary. Regards Rae Rae Donaldson (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What we have to go on in Wikipedia is summed up as: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".
I should have said earlier that, as this discussion regards the content of the article, the more suitable place to have it would be the talk page of the article itself so that the whole community is aware and can participate, should they wish. If you have anything further to say on the matter, please direct it there rather than here from now on.
Also, it isn't necessary, and probably best avoided, to put a new section heading every time you leave a post if it is just a continuation of an existing thread. Readability of the thread is aided by indentation, using colons, per this guideline. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

names/terminology

Thank you, Mutt Lunker. On my mother's side, many are Scots for the most part, maternal and paternal, originally from Isle of Skye and Edinburgh. My relatives on that side use names/ terms interchangeably. But it is fair to remind contributors of wiki's protocols (while lingering on Samuel Butler's explanation of a definition: the enclosing a wilderness of ideas within a wall of words). Prattlement (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Dunoon

Hi @Mutt Lunker: It is policy to put references to notable people, even in these types of lists and has been more ten years, now. It don't how many times, people have complained to me, add a reference. Please do not remove the tag. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There was references on it before it was reformatted. scope_creepTalk 10:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, as this regards the article, please post on its talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I've elaborated here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Fit

I don't mean to nitpick, but it's not exclusively a North American English use of the word. Just trying to help avoid other unnecessary changes.

Please see:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/fit

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fit

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fit_1

Apologies for using revert and missing the commas, no offense was intended.

Jonathon A H (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, having checked six online British dictionaries, I think I found two or three that indicated support for the existence of "fit" rather than "fitted" as an acceptable form in this context. The others did not. The 3 you note may have been them; the others were Collins, Chambers and Longman. You were perfectly justified in reverting that part of my edit, per WP:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES, hence my compliance, per my edit summary. I would have done the same and regularly make reversions of pointless MOS edits that have been made in either direction. That said, unless I have missed the pertinent sections, on re-checking the dictionaries you list, they simply don't note any regional variation in the term used, rather than state that they are universally commonplace. The usage is not usual in British English and at best sounds colloquial, as you may have discovered elsewhere on the internet. I can't vouch for the reliability of the other two sites but the AMA style guide ought to hold some weight: [1], [2], [3].
By the same token, those dictionaries will have made you aware of the valid use of "fitted" in the context and that the characterisation of my edit as "gramatically incorrect" was inaccurate; "unnecessary" I have no dispute with, having since researched the matter. It may have been unintentional but a straight reversion of my edit and classifying it as minor would indicate your belief that mine was uncontentiously vandalous or not in good faith; not something to dish out casually. Thanks for the apologies. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

FSoS

Why did you revert my edit on United Kingdom page? The First Secretary of State is the second most powerful political office in the UK Government, so I don’t get why it shouldn’t be there? Ciaran.london (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My primary reason was that you had already made this edit and been reverted. Per WP:BRD, you have been bold, you have been reverted, please now discuss it at the article. Do not make the edit again unless and until you have gained consensus to do so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Can you give me the name, date and place of birth of President Obama's Scottish ancestry. I'm of Ancient Egyptian ancestry btw. I don't have any evidence to prove that, but I can just claim it I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj (talk • contribs)

As you are aware, having blanked them, there are numerous citations for all aspects of his ancestry, including those attested to be of Scottish ancestry.
I'm not sure if by your logic one has to be born in Scotland to be Scottish American, whether having a Scottish parent qualifies you but presumably having a Scottish grandparent does not count. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Facts

I won't bother editing Wikipedia anymore as people like you are clearly not interested in factual accuracy, only hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj (talk • contribs)

Noted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Paul Sloane page

Your comment at the top of the page asks for a link to show he is an author. The requested link in your note is a Google Books Link.

I have added the Google Books link

You have now deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones19 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that isn't what it says. Per the links given (the text in blue) it is a proposal that the article be deleted on the basis that it fails to demonstrate that the Wikipedia:Notability criteria are fulfilled, as laid out at the WP:AUTHOR notability guideline. Simply proving that someone is a published author is not sufficient to fulfil WP:AUTHOR and that is already established for this subject anyway, per the Selected publications section. Look at the criteria at WP:AUTHOR to see what would be required.
Do you also edit as User:Badly~enwiki? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Gjones19 The notability page asks for significant coverage. The delete panel asks for evidence - including a link to "books" from Google.

The link I provided was from Google Books as requested.

That links shows significant numbers of books.

You can't ask for significant coverage of notabality and then say that a significant number of books on Google Books is not acceptable when the delete panel itself asks for Google Books.

I do not edit under any other name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones19 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is no further need to establish that he has authored books. That is already shown amply in the article and it is not what is requested.
The links given in the panel are Google searches for potential sources (newspapers, news, scholarly articles etc.) which may establish that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. All of these hits for books are by the subject himself, so do not (presumably) cover him as a subject, are not secondary etc. or independent of him. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Gjones19 The links in the Delete panel SPECIFICALLY link to Google Books. A listing on Google books is independent of the subject. The page has external links independent of the subject as well. —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you followed the links I've provided and read the guidelines?
Yes, when a WP:PROD template is placed on an article it automatically does a series of searches based on the article's title and displays a link to those search results in the panel. Then it's just a click away to check if any of the automatically-generated results provide "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". All of the hits are to Sloane's own books which are primary sources and are presumably about his subject rather than him; as far as I can see there are no secondary sources amongst the hits, let alone ones that provide significant coverage of Sloane as a topic.
Instead, all that the search engine has produced is proof that he has written books which is neither in dispute nor sufficient to establish WP:AUTHOR. What is required is that other authors and publications, independent of him, are talking about him. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Scots Wikipedia

Hi! If you're interested, the Scottish Wikipedia seems to be in need of experienced Wikipedians who can speak Scots. The news made the rounds today that nearly half of the articles were created by someone who doesn't seem to have that much experience with the language, so a cleanup effort may be needed. More details are at this slightly hyperbolic Reddit thread. Please let me know if you're interested in helping out! They're also looking for administrators for the wiki, too, as a side note. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's years since I've been active there, though I was aware that, since then, only non-Scots were making signiciant contributions, with predictable results. The Reddit thread rings true to me, I'm afraid; it doen't sound hyperbolic. I think the best first step would be persuade that editor to decease from editing in a language they clearly have insufficient, if any, grasp of, then roll back all their contributions, even if that means mass deletions of the bulk of articles. No specialist knowledge of the language would be required for that initial stage. Any finer adjustments at this stage would be to polish a turd, I'm afraid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and the advice! If we do implement such a rollback – should be pretty easy, technically speaking – I was wondering if you had any further suggestions for improving the wiki after that. Or, if you were interested in maybe contributing a bit more time to the wiki – even just having a native Scots speaker supervising the cleanup work would be immensely helpful, I think. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm open to taking any broad queries that require a native speaker that may come up in the clean-up process but I don't feel inclined to the donkey work or to devote large quantities of time.
It may initially seem odd from someone who regards vernaculars in general as vital to the culture of communities and who speaks, writes and reads in their own on a daily basis but I'm unconvinced about the worth of directing significant effort towards a work of reference for people who already have a work available to them, orders of magnitude larger in its material, better composed and with much more scrutiny upon it, in a lingua franca that they are all also fluent in. It's a lot of work to construct something which, as a tool, people have available to them in abundance already. The current version is a ludicrous word-by-word-from-a-dictionary embarrassment with an emphasis on artificial maximal differentiation of the vocabulary from English when a term common to both tongues may be the more suitable and commonly-employed. It is not Scots; I'd much rather see a radically slimmed down version with integrity. If a well-written Scots Wikipedia with anything approaching the scope of the English one could be magicked into existence, that would be fantastic but realistically I can only see it being very small in scope if the articles are to be well-written, or larger but crap like it is now. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. I'm not sure if it adds anything further but I talk about the same here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just seen this by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I also just came here to suggest you may want to RfA there, based on requests at meta to get more Scots speakers; I recognised your username in the list of Scots and Scottish English userboxes, so thought I'd ask. I know you've said you're against it, but if you're not interested in the Scots Wikipedia being deleted, maybe think on it some more? Kingsif (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Noted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gaelic translation of “Scots”

Hey there! Please do not change Gaelic phrases if you’re not a speaker of the language. You previously replaced the Gaelic term for “Scots” with their equivalent Irish phrases. Lughaidh Mac Iain (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Honest error while trying to avert a confused user from repeatedly blanking the section in brackets. I was glad to see you'd spotted my error, mortified to see I'd made it and thanked you for correcting it. Not sure how I managed that but I think it may have been from over-hastily trying to revert the blanking by the user while mis-handling a small device with fat thumbs whilst wearing the wrong glasses. Again thanks. I will say though, "Hey there!" may not be the best opening gambit if you want amicable and co-operative relations with other users. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Indenting comments

I think you may have misread my signature on Talk:Scots Wikipedia, I'm not SnowFire. WP:INDENT is pretty standard, though, isn't it? Comments go in chronological order and get indented according to who they're replying to. Ignoring the chronology and using an extra indent for "responding to your reponse" just makes it look like you answered SnowFire before Sigehelmus did, and typed one too many colons. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No my post was responding to SnowFire, so misplacing it after Sigehelmus, who I did not address at all, is highly confusing. My indentation, further in than that for Sigehelmus, indicates the chronology and keeps that dialogue intact. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Indentation#Indentation_examples 3. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If you put it after Sigehelmus but at the same indentation level, that shows both Sigehelmus and you replied to Snowfire. It doesn't matter whether you were replying to Sighelmus: a comment below another comment at the same indentation level is explicitly not interpreted as a reply to it, per example #2 there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that #2 may well indicate it is a permissable alternative way of formatting the placing of the post, though the examples are not entirely analagous and I would argue that, in this case at least, it makes the continuation of the thread I was addressing disjointed. My choice of formatting entirely conforms with #3, your change to another valid format was doubtless in good faith but as the choice was mine, my preference should stand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your reversions

Hi Mutt Lunker, I read the comment left on my talk page by you and UncleBubba, and both have you written on my talk page that you guys already started the reversions yourself, I only made mistakes yesterday which all of it got fixed by either you, UncleBubba or other editors. The revisions I did day were all 100% correct, I don't understand why you reverted all of my good faith edits? And follow me on the talk page of Rousgill, like there is one revision on Buddhism where the community was spelled as "commmunity" and you reverted that which is not according to community standards. Please look back at all the reversions you made of me today, they all are bad. If you want, could you please take this matter to the admin's discussion board? Let them decide whether to ban me or not, I don't like you reverting my good faith edits it is not done automatically I go through manually spend like 10 mins or so along with my grammar tool(I am talking about all the edits made by me today). I only started making grammar corrections since 2 days ago. Please do not revert my good faith edits henceforth. You should have reverted the good faith edits of yesterday if you had concerns instead of spending time to revert the good-faith edits I made today. Angus1986 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I will respond at your talk page to keep the discussion in one location. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Scots language

Hi,

The reason why I made my edit was because there was a duplicate reference, causing the following message to appear at the bottom of the article:

Cite error: The named reference "scotslanguage.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

If you look at the other reference tagged "scotslanguage.com", you'll see the content is the same, only that one has been archived and the other hasn't. They're the same reference.

142.117.65.51 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. Try to get in to the habit of leaving an edit summary so that your actions are clear. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Fish and Chips

Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit. I have changed it to something shorter to represent the fact that it is unknown who 'got there first' with Fish and Chips - thus the lead as it was originally is misleading. I suggest we take it to the talk page, where I have already added my thoughts as to why it is important to note it is disputed and has a rightful place in the lead. Thanks. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fish and chips is indeed the place to discuss the matter, though, as you know, another user rebutted your previous incarnation there on the same matter already. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous incarnation? What are you on about? I have only joined the debate today. Where has it been rebutted? You cannot prove who first paired Fish with Chips, thus your lead statement is false. How is it unreasonable to point out that fact and that the matter is a subject of controversy AS according to the sources?Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fish and chips#TWO main ingredients imported?/Origin of pairing of foods. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fish and chips. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Glaaaastonbury88, I've reviewed the reverts in question, and don't find that there is anything disruptive about them per se. Mutt Lunker has made three reverts today though, which is the limit before it clearly crosses into disruptive edit-warring. I also find that it's entirely inappropriate for Mutt Lunker to accuse you of sock puppetry without any evidence. However, they have made efforts to discuss the content dispute on the talk page, while you have continued to repeat the same edits. This is not in keeping with the process of "bold, revert, discuss" that editors are recommended to follow to establish consensus when they see that others disagree with their edits. I would ask the both of you to please work out any misunderstandings in a collegial manner on the talk page, before making further edits or reverts. Thank you. --IamNotU (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU Hi again, yes that is understandable, honestly I thank you for stepping in. He didn't really make efforts to respond accordingly in my opinion and instead accused me of being a sock puppet, which I had to check what that actually was. I have no idea where he got that from and perhaps has some wires crossed with another user. No hard feelings anyway. I see the matter as resolved now. Thanks all. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This editor repeatedly reinstated manifestly incorrect, unsupported, material, claiming it to counter an interpretation that did not seem reasonably credible to be held and had been debunked in several talk responses. They refused to respect WP:BRD despite repeatedly being requested to, continuing with their warring. That is downright disruptive and bad faith, whether down to stubborness in pursuing their own misapprehensions or the POV-pushing it reasonably appeared to be; if tackling disruptive editing, WP:3RR isn't pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You're right that the edits were clearly incorrect and unhelpful, and they were not respecting BRD. But being right has led many an editor to their first 3RR block. Reverting blatant vandalism is one of the exemptions, reverting disruptive edits is not. In any case, it's over now... --IamNotU (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Scots Leid Discord

Hey, I just wanted to invite you to the Scots Leid Discord if seeing as you're a Scots Speaker and all. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me what it is? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's basically where a lot of us discuss how to improve Scots Wikipedia. Getting more fluent native speakers to participate is a top priority of mine as an admin of that project. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled as to why that should be undertaken in a separate forum, outwith Wikipedia. And to the choice of title.
This and this should give an indication of where I stand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
A lot of folks are there on the server (including the original Reddit poster who brought Scots Wikipedia up on /r/Scotland). It's a general interest Discord for speakers/learners of the Scots language with a few channels dedicated to Wikimedia. As to why some of the work is discussed offwiki, it's a practice already familiar to many editors here who are on the WP:Discord server. Some users prefer it as a form of communication since responses are in real time.
Either way, it'd mean a lot to me for you just to hop on even only to say hi. A lot of the new editors to Scots Wikipedia don't have a lot of experience on any other wiki project. I'd love for them to hear your perspective for any questions they have. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Too horrific. For a start, as it's apparent that the bulk of, doubtless well-meaning, posts are being contributed by non-speakers I'd strongly suggest the discussion be conducted in English. There's no shame in that; a lot of spadework can be done by non-speakers and much better if they discuss matters in a language that everyone is fluent in. The problems that came to light in the press in August are reflected perfectly in the language of the discussion. The construction of sentences as a word-by-word translation list from what you would have said in English into a succession of the most obscure, maximally-differentiated terms or spellings that can be found, Scots dictionary in hand, does not make one a speaker of Scots. If the discussion is being conducted in this sort of fabricated tongue, one can assume the wiki itself is continuing in its previous disastrous course. This is not modern Scots as it's spoken and it serves to alienate speakers from their own tongue. If you didn't get a chance to read the links I gave above, I elaborate there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That's... disheartening to hear from you, Mutt. I don't really have much I can say to that sharp of a critique. However, I would like to invite you to considering writing an essay on the project about your criticisms of it. If we're still doing things disastrously wrong even after 2 months, people should probably know as much. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I made some notes back in late August, initially with the intention of posting piecemeal at the Met-Wiki discussions re the hoo-ha over Scots Wikipedia. I started to repurpose them as a collection of observations, to link to in the discussions, then abandoned them, probably incomplete but I can’t remember what else I may have intended to add. I have neither followed the discussions nor any overhaul of the Scots Wikipedia since so, if it’s of any interest, please read it in that context.

For what it’s worth:

“I was contacted on my English Wikipedia talk page, for help as an experienced editor who is a native speaker. I’ve so far held off from participating in the debate about this headache but made some notes, stepping back and reflecting on the more fundamental issues about the project. I’m not sure it would be appropriate placing them here (in the Meta-Wiki discussion) as they don’t directly address the immediate situation, consist as much of questions as solutions but they may be helpful in understanding what unwittingly facilitated this mess and what we need to contemplate to make and sustain the Scots Wikipedia as a worthwhile enterprise:
Scots Wikipedia: if we are to know how to save it we must decide what it is for
This discussion is huge, splits into numerous threads and I have been keeping across it to the extent that I can but inevitably I’ve had to skim much of it. Many of the following aspects have been discussed in it but I thought it better to keep my points together here than to scatter responses throughout the discussion.
As one of the comparatively few editors that are declared native speakers of Scots, I speak, sing, write and read this tongue daily and, like any other vernacular, it is fundamental to the cultural identity of its community and heritage. It is a medium for personal expression in a social or artistic context and there are things I simply can not express in the same way, outwith this, my vernacular. English, though - Scottish Standard English - is my other native tongue and similar things could be said of it.
I had dipped into Scots Wikipedia a little, many years ago, had become aware that, in the main, native speakers were no longer active, that, bizarrely, non-speakers were, and thought that likely to be problematic. I drifted away. I had no idea of the extent of the problem that has now come to light.
Nobody noticed what happened at Scots Wikipedia because, whether one likes it or not, as a tool for seeking knowledge, certainly in its current form, it is superfluous to the needs of Scots speakers. There is no cause to use it so nobody did and nobody saw the problem mount up. All Scots are also fluent English speakers so if one wished to seek out knowledge on a topic, why would one consult a reference which has orders of magnitude fewer potential contributors, let alone active ones, and will always have many fewer, shorter and more poorly-maintained articles? Rather than being original, the articles are largely sourced from English Wikipedia which is, by any comparison, vast and comprehensive, with an enormous editorship, capable of maintaining and scrutinising the material much more effectively. Why would you not just go straight to the unprocessed original? The Scots Wikipedia can never compete on this basis and if there is to be a purpose to it, we have to contemplate this and define what it is.
Also off-putting, even alienating, to real Scots speakers is the apparent favouring of artificially maximally-differentiated vocabulary and spelling. Preference is often given to obscure or archaic terms or forms, on the basis, I assume, that they look more distinct from a much more likely alternative term that is the same, or deemed too similar to, a word in English. For linguistic and historical reasons, the use of Scots and English, both available to and employed by speakers, is a wide spectrum with a palette of colours from both, not two discrete entities, in common usage. Speakers place or shuttle across that spectrum depending on background, context and setting. At its extreme ends the tongues are very different. We should not restrict ourselves to the far end of the spectrum or dismiss terms common to both tongues just to seek to emphasise that Scots isn’t English. We should cultivate the reflection of actual usage that speakers would recognise.
There has been a flourishing in recent decades of Scots literature and reference books, for adults and for children. The notion of this Wiki aiding in preserving or sustaining the language sounds great in principle but it is not going to do so if it thinks it can cover the same comprehensive ground as the English one. It’s an impossibly huge task and, from the point of view of provision of knowledge, needlessly duplicates something that is already available. If it is to exist, its primary focus should be on covering things that can’t be covered in the same way in English. What are these things?
As others have commented, there is no standard and there are diverse dialects of Scots, different registers and vocabularies and it is largely a spoken tongue. Even the most competent of speakers has much less experience and confidence in writing than they do with English.
I have not the merest doubt that a similar situation exists for numerous other minority language Wikipedias, particularly those for whose communities, similarly, have the resource of a much larger lingua franca’s Wikipedia to hand. If anything, that the problems have finally come to light in this wiki may indicate it is, if belatedly, at least open to some scrutiny. How many such horrors are being compiled in obscurity? Perhaps any lessons learned here can be applied more broadly.” Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The kind of thing you were after? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Scottish-Americans

What is your problem with my factual edits to the presidents section of the Scottish-American article? You persist in placing on that section a list of presidents who have no proven connection to Scotland - a list of presidents with no named and documented ancestor who was born in Scotland. You are also now basically vandalising the section as your actions have removed my addition to the list of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose 3xgreat grandfather (James Murray of Dumfriesshire) was a Scot. I thought this was an encyclopedia? Yet you seem to favour including information with no factual basis. There is also a great inconsistency between the Scottish-American article and the Irish-American articcle in terms of documented evidence and references and what is included on that article. Why are you so determined to make this article so flawed and inaccurate? Reefyj (talk)

Matters regarding the article should be addressed at the article talk page. Suffice it to say though, you are the one making massive changes to a long-standing, stable version of an article. I am not placing anything anywhere, simply reverting to the previous version from your sweeping changes and it is not up to me to laboriously sift out any wheat from the chaff when the overall character of your edits is clear. Other editors have queried these changes and you have been asked several times to engage on the talk page; please do so and desist from making changes unless and until you have established consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

England school sockpuppets

Hello. I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet histories here, but see that you've reverted some past socking on State-funded schools (England) and Education in England, so maybe you can make a quick call on it without it needing a full SPI. Were TrotterBefeet and Leetigrethe4th more of the same, yesterday? Similarly-sized additions and removals, changing the number of subjects from 12 to 13, wanting a different lead photo on the first of those article, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Education in England

I'm not sure what's wrong with my changes I made to that page? The primary and secondary school sections were unsourced and I added information directly from the Gov.co.uk websites with correct sources to each information. There is a message on the section informing users to edit with better sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetigrethe4th (talk • contribs)

WP:EVADE. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that. But I've never been blocked on Wiki before nor am I making edits on behalf of banned users? Is there a way I can have my edits restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetigrethe4th (talk • contribs)

WP:QUACK. No. 11:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sophisti-pop

Matt, if you view sophisti-pop as "being a rarely-employed, retrospectively-applied, contrived, neologism for a spurious concept that does not meaningfully hang together; a bag of bollocks" and I view it in exactly the same way then why are we arguing about it? I don't know if you care for this style of mainstream 80s pop music or just a fan of updating Wikipedia, but in regards to Sophisti-pop I am on the same side as you...
The points I'm trying to get to get to people is as follows
A) if sophisti-pop (even with that hyphen, though - like Ghmyrtle and others have argued on the New Wave thread - maybe it should have been Sophistipop as people involved in youth culture probably wouldn't be bothered about grammar) and about 'jazz, soul, and pop' then it should include a bit about blue-eyed soul/white soul and jazz-pop as these, along with pop, would be terms would be used back in the 1980s (it already got the box for jazz, pop and soul at the bottom, but shouldn't people be directed to the right jazz, pop and soul articles)
B) if sophisti-pop is a retro thing invented by a couple of Amercians in the 2000s, then maybe it shouldn't just be linked to Quiet storm, a link to Yacht Rock would be helpful as well (especially since Thomas Inskeep is a self-styled yacht rocker)
C) if sophisti-pop is about studio sophistication then put it in the direction of acts like Talk Talk, David Sylvian, Kate Bush and The Blue Nile etc.[1]
D) if sophisti-pop is about Thatcherism, then maybe a mention of Margaret Thatcher and yuppies might be beneficial to set the scene of the era (Note: I hope you have watched Dominic Sandbrook, it's very good)
E) if sophisti-pop is about Bryan Ferry, then maybe its about Phil Collins and Donald Fagen as well (especially with Prefab Sprout and Deacon Blue being mentioned a lot of the time on blogs in regards to this genre)
F) if sophisti-pop is all these things and more then make it reflect that, as people will notice the term online, put it into google and end up being misinformed when they end up here.
Note: I have not come across a BBC Four programme or Trailblazers episode about the genre yet (so it true that its probably not very well known with the section of the general public in the UK who would watch Sky Arts/BBC Four) though it would be good for Trailblazers as it has been one of the better examples of music programming recently...but lets hope Music Icons - with John Aizlewood, Will Hodgkinson and Sunta Templeton (a 'Clips & Quotes show' where people might as well be reading wiki for viewers watching on AXS TV) - don't get to sophisti-pop, as they will just end up regurgitating Thomas Inskeep's article without much thought.
P.S. this is not supposed to resemble an essay, I just talk a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Please keep talk about an article at the article's talk page. Duplicating it here is a recipe for confusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://rateyourmusic.com/list/hermanschnadelbach/top-150-sophisti-pop-songs/

Don't you remember Cut Magazine

There seems to be a lot about Scotland on here Matt. So if that means you're Scottish and into 80s sophisti-pop music, don't you remember Cut Magazine (it was about Cut where this argument started)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

Hi there. I understand your reasons for removing Flower of Scotland as the predominately played National Anthem of Scotland. However, upon research, the England article cites that God Save the Queen is predominately the national anthem for England. If Flower of Scotland is going to be removed from the Scottish article due to it not being official or recognised, surely the same argument can be applied to God Save the Queen on the England article, as, like Scotland, England does not have it's own official national anthem. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You evidently do not understand my reasons if you are attributing to me the ones above; my edit summary ought to be clear. Material that was unsourced was removed from the article. You restored it, providing neither support for the material nor explanation for the uncited re-addition. You were reverted with the request to "Please cite". You simply restored it again, similarly unsupported. Don't add it back unless and until you can provide support; it's that simple. If it is so evidently correct, you should have no difficulty finding supporting material.
Matters regarding an article are best discussed at the talk page of the article, particularly as I am not the only, or indeed main, editor who has disputed your edits there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you maybe mistaken. Clearly, you do not have the ability to engage in a civilised and constructive discussion, despite my friendly and calm approach to finding a consensus (which you have not even addressed). Goodreg3 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not addressing your contention or whether it is correct or otherwise; that is not my point, I don't have an opinion on the matter and I am not going to engage in any variety of discussion of that. I am, again, addressing that your contention is, contrary to policy, not supported and that you are repeatedly inserting it despite this and despite you having been requested to desist until you have provided support. Can there be any consensus other than that you are doing this? Please do not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) This isn't a new issue. From a quick search of the talk page archives, the issue has been discussed several times before. There's even a note at Talk:Scotland/FAQ, which oddly isn't linked to on the talk page. BilCat (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit incoming!

I am preparingto sue you and Wikipedia for defamation, slander, libel, and many other torts. In December 2nd, you blocked my friend’s best account and called me a mean person. I am seeking $1,000,000,000 in damages but am willing to settle for an apology. Good bye, you will never be hearing from me again. Sincerely, User:fragino27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B12D:6288:CC8F:E4BF:24AC:6D25 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lars Lokotsch article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Per the citation in the German article: "Dass der gebürtige Hennefer...". I imagine the confusion is the similar name and comparative proximity of the towns and that he was signed to teams from both. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Scotland edits

Are you intending to revert every single edit made by myself on the Scotland article. Granted, some of your reverts have been with clear purpose and understanding, however, you claim that reverting the edit whereby i added a

section tag to the 21st century section of the article as messing up the layout. Currently, the photograph displayed within the 21st century overlaps into the next section, which in my opinion makes the article look untidy and cluttered. So, arguably, without the tag it messes up the layout of the article. Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems perhaps a tad personal, as some edits have been reverted that I feel have been unjustified. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Certainly nothing personal. I don't think I've reverted them all but as they have been fairly consistently detrimental to the article, I have reverted those ones. Detailed edit sumaries were given for each of them, yet in some cases you persisted despite being warned of policy breaches, an admin even intervening. Not the way to cut yourself slack. I think I've left a few that were less clearly harmful. If you want to deal with issues connected with the article, best tackle them at the talk page there but I will say that opening up a large blank space in the article is not my idea of uncluttered. (You may be editing on a very small device, in which case it looks ok but even on a small tablet it looks bad and on a medium-sized monitor it looks awful, let alone a large one.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mutt_Lunker/Archive_14&oldid=1005992681"