Archives

2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011

this is a very difficult question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.24.148 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to WP:ENGVAR, it really isn't. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mutt Lunker. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)|User talk:Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PS Any idea why this thing gives my name twice?

Hello, Mutt Lunker. You have new messages at Rothorpe's talk page.
Message added 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

.It works, congratulations. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't done this before. Just checking if this is the right way to message you.

Yes, you've got it this time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I take your point about addition of education details. I suppose I feel that a lot of these media personalities deliberately bury the fact that they come from a privileged background so I was trying to 'unbury' it. Perhaps this was too unsubtle. But I think the general public deserve to know where people on TV come from - and factors which helped them gain their current roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray3zor (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, you're new and seem willing to learn. This ain't the way to go about it though. Am in the middle of something at the moment but I'll elaborate shortly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian's advice was good, so I'd advise checking that again. Also read up on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE which will also give you some pointers.

If you do think these people are trying to cover something up, you need to verify this with a reliable source, see WP:V. Your general impression, whether correct or not, isn't sufficient here. In an introduction it's not appropriate to give such weight to something like whether they were privately educated or not. It doesn't define them, it's not what they are primarily known for. To put that in the intro screams out that you have an agenda.

Their education may be worth noting if outlining details of their early life, in the appropriate section but again, don't give undue weight. If it states that the school is independent and or/provides a link to an article on the school, that is sufficient, and adding e.g. "filthy priveliged elitist fee-paying School X" is again clearly pushing an agenda. I'm joking, but you get the point?

That "someone told you this" very much does not satisfy WP:V by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Someone told me this' would seem valid when that person is explaining their own history and there is no publicly available record to prove otherwise. That's how newspapers and books are put together - sometimes you take facts direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Again, I'm not trying to push an agenda. I'm just trying to make clear the exact nature of someone's education. I appreciate it was not appropriate to put it in the opening paragraph, but it is certainly appropriate to mention it along the way in measured terms. --Ray3zor (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what has been suggested to you. You clearly don't understand the nature of Wikipedia yet and with the misconceptions you hold about how it operates, you will have a tough time. This is not a newspaper or book or somewhere for you to publish your personal views. If "there is no publicly available record to prove" something, it doesn't go here. See WP:OR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to publish my personal views - as I explained to you previously. I'm trying to state facts clearly. --Ray3zor (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any discussion on the issues at Scottish people? Is it plausible that this is a content dispute? BTW, continuing to revert with no history of discussion puts you square on top of 3RR. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not much or possibly at all at Scottish People but this sock has and currently is being highly active on English People. My bad, but it's part of the same pattern. Also currently hitting Austrian people. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I handled your requests at WP:RFP. After seeing two changes of IP, I range-blocked 95.199.0.0/16 for 31 hours. No otherwise useful edits have originated from this IP range, and the block only lasts till Wednesday morning, so collateral damage should be minimal. [1] Deryck C. 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - thought I was going to be up all night rvv! I'll get some kip. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I ought also to remind that the IP range is blocked for the user's vexatious behaviour (as opposed to vandalism). The edit is otherwise a legitimate content dispute, and should any other user bring it up, a formal dispute resolution process needs to be taken. Deryck C. 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, was combatting this user purely to stop the deafening and familiar quacking. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you have a number of edits to Scottish Gaelic. If this isn't actually of interest to you then sorry! Caledones ^{talk softly, please} 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know but I don't feel I'm in a position to dedicate consistent time or effort. I'll lurk for the time being but by all means give me a shout, ad hoc. What's more, any pertinent knowledge I have could be characterised more as "about Gaelic" rather than of the tongue itself; the latter being a fairly limited vocabulary (hillwalker's Gaelic if you like). Would feel I'd be exaggerating to claim even "User gd-1" status. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the battle they started England. The battle was a catalyst and the last resistance was defeated. My opinion after research. Prophet of Hell (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. After the battle who "started England" and what does that mean? This is about a battle in Scotland so could not have resulted in a successful invasion of somewhere else. Your "opinion after research" is WP:OR and has no place here. 10:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The British resistance was broken and the settlement of all Angles could start. They came with all their people invading Scotland and settled later in England which they gave it's name. It's not their fault that the alliance of Britons, Scots and Picts tried to stop them near Kirkcaldy. It's part of Germanic wars because the British are pro Romans. Not Romans them self but they are clients of the Empire. Is that so hard to understand? Read the article Angles for better understanding. Prophet of Hell (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused. The Angles had been in what is now England since the 5th century. Also, even if the Britons in what is now Scotland could ever have been described as clients of Rome, they certainly were not by the end of the 6th century. Presumably you have reliable WP:SOURCES? 10:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

From my standpoint you are the confused. I'm looking at it in the 3rd person. What the alliances were in this ancient time is unclear. Fact is that the Britons were in an anti-Angles coalition and the Angles came with their whole volk to defeat them. If the Britons had contact to the former Roman Empire is unclear but possible. They lived under Roman rule for centuries and were romanized. This defeat was something like de-romanizing to them after 500 years of Roman rule. This can clearly be seen when you read and understand the Roman Britain-Anglo-Saxon battles in Germanic Wars. Prophet of Hell (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what are your sources for all of this? If it's, as you say, "unclear but possible" you are speculating and adding original research, which is not allowed. If this is just your own thesis, however reasonable you believe it to be if you don't have any sources for this, it has no place in Wikipedia. You are making sweeping generalisations about Britons: these ones were not under Roman rule in any significant sense/for any significant period and were not Romanised. Please stop now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For removing cruft from "List of British words not widely used in the United States‎" and keeping the page reasonably sane

PRL42 (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind. Could be saner, couldn't it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Mutt Lunker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for [contributions]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Common Sense, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Always remember that the sky is blue. I don't need to reach for my color charts to prove that sky sky is blue rather than aqua. Nor do I need to provide a citation from a biologist professor to prove that the average number of digits on a human's hand is five. Nor does every single word, phrase or sentence in this overly-bureaucratic publication need a citation beside it. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. You should decide whether you are removing this material simply because you don't like it, or because you are over-protective of any given article. Feel free to visit Scotland, Northern Ireland or Yorkshire and get to know the people there, and how they use words differently from yourself. Alternatively, look up the information before you hassle other contributors about adhering to bureaucracy, and use common sense. Some information may be poorly referenced on the Internet, since it may not have made the transition from 'real life', but may still be fact. This is where common sense, two minutes of research, and a search engine of your choice can come into play.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Hi there Matt. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of British words not widely used in the United States, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Also, thank you for your kind notification of your latest removal of my constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. However, I should tell you that it is becoming irritating and is a waste of time. You are also being quite provocative - especially when you do not engage in any dialogue after I have tried to engage you with humorous criticism and advice. Instead, you stick boilerplate text on my talk page and make assumptions, as you have done with my contribution.

I believe one of the policies of this publication is WP:AGF. Clearly you have not done this and have merely been a) lazy and b) territorial. Ironically, this 'war' you seem intent on starting has probably taken up much more time for you than actual research on the subject which would prove to you, with the addition of common sense (as highlighted above), that my contribution is not a mere "test edit". I am offended at that accusation, by the way.

I appreciate, of course, that you have merely chosen boilerplate text to send to my page. But really, you should stop to consider whether your actions thus far is beneficial, in any way, to anyone. Because so far, all it has done, is made both of us in all likelihood, irate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.239.247 (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If, for some reason, you're interested in knowing what the above is about, see edits here and talk here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, mutt. the reason that i am here is i need your advice on how to address some issues in the article.

1883 linoleum factory - i know this must be mentioned; but i don't know where to place info on the infamous factory in the article.

Dysart becoming part of Kirkcaldy in 1929 through an act of parliament - although i am going to add this to the article (again), should the ties with both settlements be mentioned in the history section?

Culture - should the article start with an opening paragraph? maybe one on the various clubs and organisations in the town? also is it worth putting in info on the community festival and new peace garden in the Beveridge Park? as well as this both Ravenscraig and Beveridge are on the inventory of gardens and designed landscapes, is it appropriate? i want to refrain from having too much detail in the paragraph.

other than that, the article is looking really good. Kilnburn (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linoleum - history subheading "Industrial History", per here?

The incorporation of Dysart etc. is mentioned, briefly, in the history section already. Were you going to expand on this or add a separate section somehwere?

Take a look at this. I would be cautious about a long list of clubs, restricting mentions solely to any that were particularly notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Mutt Lunker

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#"><a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">health</a></a>-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Irritable Bowel Syndrome. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#"><a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">e-mail</a></a> me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mutt Lunker, thank you for you interest in my disseration research project. I would like to ask you to complete a brief <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">online</a> questionnaire, following this link https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=18871 Once you complete the survey I would like to talk to you about your editing experiences and motivations you have for doing so. I can talk to you either through Skype/phone or if you prefer to answer the interview questions in a written form then you can e-mail me on nusa.faric.11ucl.ac.uk and I will send you the ethics form and the questions. Thank you so much and you input is greatly appreciated. Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nuša, I'm very briefly back on broadband having been limited to a smart phone and zero-to-feeble mobile signal the last few days. Is there a deadline for completing the questionnaire (as you mention a time limit on your talk page)? Brief as it is, I still may find it difficult to complete it properly for another few days but will see if I can if you have a very tight deadline. I'm also happy to talk to you, by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mutt Lunker, I do not have a strict deadline, but let's say the end of this week (by Sunday, 29th) would be ideal. It would give me enough time to analyse your written response or in the case of interview, the transcript. Let me know whether you would prefer me to ring you/talk to you over Skype.thank you! Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't present a problem. I'll be in touch. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

 :)Hydra Rain (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of British words not widely used in the United States, you may be blocked from editing.

That's silly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness confirmed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is you that keeps deleting my comments on the "Scots" language page. If not, then please accept my apology. My comments ARE about improving the article and should not be deleted.

It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to keep posting a comment to the effect that this is not a talk page for discussion of the "Scots" language. IT IS IF IT IS RELEVANT!

Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of your own personal beliefs. If, as in this case a concept is not widely accepted then that should be mentioned. In this case it is certainly clear that the claim for a "Scottish" language is disputed! You may wish to promote it. That is your right. However, not everyone concurs with your view. This should be referred to in the article on the so-called Scottish language in order for this piece to be balanced and fair and in order to fully inform those who wish to read about this subject so that they can make their own INFORMED opinion.

To delete my comments on the talk page because you disagree with them goes against the whole principal of Wikipedia and freedom of speech.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - EB Hall (often attributed to Voltaire). John2o2o2o (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point entirely. I am not addressing your views, let alone agreeeing or disagreeing with them, but your use of the talk page solely as a platform for those views. If you have reliable sources for your viewpoint, these could be used to address the article, otherwise you are using the talk page as a forum for your own original research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are you have not right whatever to criticise me or to try to delete comments I make about this. I take it you would accept it if I said "dogs bark"? This matter is perfectly evident to anyone who lives in the UK! Furthermore I am not altering the page, simply highlighting a perfectly valid point that you know and understand perfectly well on the talk page.

Your aggressive chasing and deletion of my comments - especially on to other pages not related to your section of interest is a violation of my human rights and amounts to bigotry. How dare you!

Leave me alone!John2o2o2o (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]