User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Scotland - Capital

Hi! Gary here, No I am okay with that....I just thought London was correct as well. Thanks for letting me know. Gary. GaryFG8125 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish

This is botteville. For some reason, probably Wikipedia reaction time, I did not at first get the reason for your reversion of my changes, and hence did not understand it. Now I see, it is not that you were defending error, but that my statement appeared to you to be not comprehensive enough. It is now clear to me that fly-by changes are not going to work here, and that the topic needs research. I like doing it, I was interested in them anyway. It surely must have struck you that American Scotch-Irish does NOT mean Ulsterman, at least not in America. All that material and those statements need to be corrected, and Andrew Jackson does not belong in that article, nor Buchanan, Grant, or Jimmy Stuart or any of the rest of them, unless it is corrected. I am NOT going to start telling my relatives from Lorneville, Nova Scotia, that they are of relatively recent northern Irish extraction. Don't you agree? Moreover, Canadian Scotch-Irish does not differ from American Scotch-Irish; in fact, I never heard of such a division. We always refer to the main population of Nova Scotia as Scottish. The population of the two countries is relatively mobile. The only difference you notice is that when you cross the river at Machiasport they start saying "hey?" quite a lot, except for Quebec. I don't move very fast on these things but that is who I am and where I stand. I will take each one of your remarks seriously, but you need reasonable reasons. Ciao. I got other things to do now. I may take a break for a while. Later, whenever.Botteville (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Ulster_Scots_people#Requested_rewrite. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mutt have a chat whenever Just a quick one from Britain's point of view. In emigration terms in the 19th century, Scotish means from Scotland, Gaelic or Lowlands. Scotch-Irish means the Scottish Protestants that were put into the north of Ireland in and around the 17th century but emmigrated to America for more or less the same reasons as their Catholic neighbours. Irish means the rest of Ireland's emigration which was mainly in other parts of America. Sorry if I'm stating the bleeding obvious, but like I say happy to chat

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoorybrig (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello sir,

What is your opinion on today's stacks? I wonder how big of an impact gozilla had on the global stacks market, depending on Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.20.198 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Cease edit warring on the page for Barbara Allen

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara_Allen_(song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.194.45 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara_Allen_(song), you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.194.45 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Barbara_Allen_(song)#Origins and revert your blanking of the tags that facts in the article are disputed. Also, as requested, read WP:BRD and provide the requested quotes from your purported sources expressly regarding origins. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Notifying you about the dispute

I have responded to your claims here, and as per wikipedia rules I am notifying you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Obstructive_IP_editor_at_Barbara_Allen_.28song.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.194.45 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Scotland an island?

Good point. Have a great weekend! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I could see it was clearly GF; and yourself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me at my country too! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (SumOfUs) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating SumOfUs, Mutt Lunker!

Wikipedia editor Prof tpms just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for the kind contribution to Wikipedia. Please add suitable images to this page. Regards.

To reply, leave a comment on Prof tpms's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glossary of American terms not widely used in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Raith, Fife

Props for getting onto this so quickly. I was today trying to fix some bad DAB links, when I found that Raith always linked to a general article about ringforts. I think (and hope) I directed all the bad redirects towards your new page.

Oh, and I took the opportunity to join in your argument against that BoN who's been BSing in Talk:Barbara Allen (song). Narky Blert (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hounding

Hi Mutt Lunker, I don't wan't you to get the wrong idea of me. The reason I mentioned hounding in the edit summary was not because he reverted my edit (as I suppose you might think), but because said user has a history of constantly and systematically reverting my edits, even in articles outside his normal sphere of interests and come up with whatever excuses as he always did. (N0n3up (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

That's what I'd assumed you'd meant and I couldn't see any recent reversions of your edits by that editor, unless I missed them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a long history. Unless you're interested I can take the trouble to find every troll edit he made and compile it into an organized list of hounding edits :). (N0n3up (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

It's not the kind of accusation to make likely, likewise calling them a troll. I could see no evidence of it from a quick look and the UK-article edit seemed at least partially reasonable. When is the most recent other example of reversion that you are complaining about? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to type in nor call anyone a troll, not really my nature. And in case you're wondering, you can find examples in articles such as Industrial Revolution , Lend-Lease (two articles which he barely ever edits), British Empire, not to mention such as snooping through my history, block logs when talking about edits and many more which might take a time to bring out. And in one example in the UK article talk page, he stopped at one of my discussions to simply crash it by posting edits like "I don't agree" while coming up with any excuse to simply undermine my edits. To be fair, he does make good edits and seems like a respectable editor, this dilemma I am talking about is between me and him. I'm just saying this since you asked, but it's not really my thing to go around and talk about the conflicts I had with said editor. (N0n3up (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

Even if there are more reversions than those you list, if these three articles hold up the most pointed examples that you have to present to me: the editor had recently edited two of the articles, so could reasonbly be expected to have them on their watchlist and thus your subsequent edits be drawn to their attention. What's more, these examples were several months ago, at the end of last year: hardly a sustained campaign. Incurring blocks is likely to gain you a reputation and put you under scrutiny, so best not to get in that situation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Howdy, I removed the 'Scotland' note from the infobox, because I've deleted the royal coat of arms from the Scotland article. I took this action, because we don't have any royal coat of arms in the England, Northern Ireland or Wales infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes and you've left the coat of arms for England, for Wales and for Northern Ireland but not for Scotland in the article. As the article is about the United Kingdom, leaving a symbol which is not used throughout the United Kingdom, without a note to say that it is not and to say what is used in the remainder would seem to be the worst of both worlds. Either leave the coat of arms in the article, along with the caveat to explain the situation throughout the whole of the subject of the article, or remove both image and caveat.

That the symbol is that of the sovereign, not the state which is the subject of the article, is another possible reason for removing it, not least that it is that individual's symbol for only part of the entity anyway. That's a different matter though. Either the image should be there with the explanation, or neither should be there at all.

What's more, further applying the logic that you've deleted the note because you've "deleted the royal coat of arms from the Scotland article... because we don't have any royal coat of arms in the England, Northern Ireland or Wales infoboxes", the logical extension would be that the coat of arms for each of the other three entities (which happens to be the same for each) has no place in the article either.

Hope that helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a coat of arms for Northern Ireland or Wales, but I did find one for England. Would it be better to keep the 'coat of arms' out of the Scotland article? or add the coat of arms to the England article. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW - After having reviewed all the Commonwealth realms. It's likely best to keep the 'royal coat of arms' in the UK article, as a coat of arms is included in 14 of the other 15 Commonwealth realms infoboxes. Canada, is the lone exception. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is that there isn't one used throughout the UK. There is one which is used in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and there is another for Scotland. On that basis there may be a case for removing it altogether as it does not apply to the UK as a whole, the subject of the article after all. However if it is to be left in, it is not appropriate to imply that it does apply in the UK as a whole, the subject of the article. Either the situation for the whole UK is covered regarding the symbols, or the symbols should not be covered at all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand now. England, Wales & Northern Ireland don't have their own 'royal coat of arms'. As a result, you're correct in keeping the footnote about Scotland, in the UK infobox's showing of the UK royal coat of arms. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

List of towns and cities in Scotland by population - Edinburgh

Hi, I edited the Edinburgh Section on the bases of the the Edinburgh and South Eastern Scotland city region. IDKIWL435495 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That entity is a different and very much wider entity than just the city of Edinburgh alone, hence your edits at List of towns and cities in Scotland by population being incorrect. The article you have written about this entity does not clarify what it actually is and seems to discuss several entitiies therein without clarifying their relation or providing reliable sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Steel-cut oats

Dear Mr. Lunker:

I am sorry to bother you, but the reason for my correspondence is, that I noticed that you reversed the contribution I made concerned the groat. The first time I placed it in the footnote, because it was the only part of the article which made a attempt to clearly explain what a groat is. You reversed it, because of attribution concerns, and I thought I adjusted accordingly, by putting the statement in the body of the article.

I was under the impression it was an introductory article, and unfortunately I ran across a word that I did not completely understood, & I was trying to make it easier for the next reader after me to understand some of the specialized words used in this subject matter. I believe its important to have a solid foundation, by having a succinct definition of certain words and phrases, before one can feel comfortable to delve deeper into the topic.

It is always easier to trivialize or mock those who are not familiar with the topic by saying that one "plonks" a definition arbitrarily into a sentence. Moreover, if you think it is in not an appropriate spot, then adjust the following statement's position accordingly:

"A groat is a hulled grain, or a grain with its outer coating or husk removed"

After all, I thought Wikipedia's mission was to accommodate people with varying level of expertise.

Please show some degree of empathy in the matter

Thank You

24.188.156.182 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Followup: How about this revision amended after the phrase "coarse oatmeal": made from the whole grain, which is hulled, namely, it has it outer husk removed, to expose the central whole oat groat.

24.188.156.182 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my attempt at humour caused offence. I have no doubt that your intentions are good but the insertion of a definition of a term used in a sentence already regarding a definition, of the article topic, makes that sentence cumbersome and obscures its intent. The definition of the article topic is clearer without your added diversion and the link to groat provides a quick route to a definition of that term for those who need it, without impeding the flow of the sentence for those who don't. If we added definitions in article text to all blue-linked terms Wikipedia would be a cumbersome read. Best wishes, Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Steel-cut oats". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Steel-cut oats, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Steel-cut oats 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Steel-cut oats 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Steel-cut oats3". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Steel-cut oats3, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Inchdairnie

No offence taken at all. :-) I hope you realize that my return comment was purely in jest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.7.26 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure so thanks for the clarification. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Steel-cut oats

I am back to discuss Steel-cut oats. Unfortunately, life got in way, so I did not have time to refine the definition of a groat. This time I am hoping we can work in a more collegial manner with respect to this part of the article. Please keep in mind that wikipedia articles are suppose to be meant for a general audience, its not designed for a industry trade journal. I will "resurrect" the three earlier amendements and try to improve upon it in talk section. If you have any objections please place it in the talk sections.

MrX2077 (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies please ignore the previous statement, I only took a cursory look at the article & I did not see the revision. You have yourself a good day

MrX2077 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of vandalism attributed to me on a page I've never visited

Hi. A yellow label appeared on a Wiki page telling me I vandalized a page and that a bot has fixed it. To my knowledge I have not visited that particular page. While it's not impossible that I may have accidentally pasted something from my clipboard, the phrase that was apparently inserted, "How could you be so mean?" isn't even a phrase that I'm ever likely to use anywhere. I'm somewhat concerned about this, please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvieBoleyn (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC) EvieBoleyn (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are engaged in a discussion about this on your talk page and think this is your best course of action. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mutt, yes, it's as resolved as it's going to get, I think.EvieBoleyn (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Doune Castle

I removed Category:Monty Python and the Holy Grail from Doune Castle purely because it's not an essential, defining characteristic of Doune Castle; nothing against that fine film. Trivialist (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"Violin bass"

I added an explanatory note, which you reverted. It included a link to the "viol" page where a picture clearly shows the validity of the note. The fact that "violin bass" is a misnomer is something that should be mentioned in this article. Please explain your action (and reconsider)!

Go-in (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

However much validity you believe your personal observation on this matter to have, you are not what Wikipedia counts as a reliable source so it is not appropriate to add your opinion to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You never responded to me, so I take it that you have accepted my argument, and will approve my adding the note. Please confirm! (Edit war - no.)

Go-in (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My response is above. Of course I do not approve. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Your instructions are "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." I followed this. I have no indication you ever watched my talk page. Go-in (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please carry on reading: the next bit says "If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Mutt Lunker}} on your talk.", which I did. The idea is the dialogue continues in the place it started, i.e. "on my talk page" in this case, rather than fragmenting it in two different locations, as you appear to have done. My answer above still pertains. Maybe they should have called it a viol bass; they didn't and that you think they should have is not notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

By now it looks as you have accepted that the shape is that of a viol and not a violin, corroborated by other Wikipedia entries. Then up comes a novel angle, that this is not notable. I don't know what to say, except that this is your personal opinion. Of how much validity? That the instrument is called a "violin bass" is an established fact, and I have no intent to promote a change to that. Only to add information about its actual shape which could be of interest to many. I don't understand the controversy here. It could be formulated better, I'm sure, and with crystal clear references. (This is a Beatles related article, and such articles have become full of gossip and pedestrian details, and are in dire need of cleanup. If this is your agenda, I'm with you. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.) Go-in (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

However valid or interesting you believe your observations to be original research is specifically not allowed here. If you have a reliable source which states these things, that would be different. Do you? Please also read WP:SYNTHESIS. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fran and Anna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airdrie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ryan Stevenson (Scottish Football player)

The article Ryan Stevenson (Scottish Football player) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fuortu (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Ryan Stevenson (Scottish Football player)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Ryan Stevenson (Scottish Football player). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Ryan Stevenson (footballer, born 1998). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ryan Stevenson (footballer, born 1998) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fuortu (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, I'm not the creator of the original article but I moved it to its current title as the original one was highly ambiguous. Additionally, I'm making at least a few basic improvements in the article for the time being. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for saving that article! I removed the BLP prod because you added sources. I think it's best to delete that duplicate article. Cheers Fuortu (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to how the duplicate article is in existence as the move should have turned it into a redirect, shouldn't it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You probably had previous version (before the move) on other tab in your browser. You added the category to that version and saved it. You might have thought that you're editing the moved article but you edited the redirect. That's probably what happened. Fuortu (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that could be it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi. I noticed you'd put in good work on Scottish-related articles. I was wondering if you'd be interested in contributing to this ambitious British Isles challenge to bringing about 10,000 improvements to the UK and Ireland. The drive is fuelled by regional contests every few months. We will get to Scotland in the new year sometime. If you'd be interested in chipping in with the articles you improve please add your name to the participants and start adding your entries to the big list. Diversity of input will make it much more interesting to peruse! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear it in mind and keep an eye on the challenge at least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

England edits

No idea why you got rid of most of my edits as all the scientists were born and lived in england until they were adults, including peter higgs. so its only fair they be can included on both the united kingdom and england wikipedia pages. and it doesnt seem to matter on most pages what a person states their nationality is here, for example some famous Scottish people are listed as Scottish on this site when they identify as British.

Also i dont know why you got rid of alec jeffreys, Dna Profiling, the first hip operation and Humphry davy as i gave reliable sources to prove these to be true.

and the reason i gave science and technology and transport their own section is because they were listed under economy which seems wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick876436 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Also if dolly the sheep was removed because it took place in scotland does that mean i can add penicillin as that was discovered in england?

Nick876436 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not attribute to me views or motives that are your own fevered imagining and are nothing to do with those expressed in my edit summary. If you feel your edits have merit, lay your case out at the talk page of the article in question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok i will do that. thanks for responding

Nick876436 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mutt Lunker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

To be clear, this isn't about your behavior. It's about Cassandra's. agtx 15:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with your assessment and am heartened that a new and objective eye comes to similar conclusions. Their long-term IP-hopping phase (still occasionally active) makes tracing earlier edits difficult but this is an earlier, positively-identifiable one that I've recovered but I think they started half a year or so earlier; I may be able to unearth earlier posts. For ref, there are some old IP range blocks listed on CTS's talk page, imposed to counter their activities in late 2012. Although there is the occasional edit on other matters, they seem to overwhelmingly focus on this topic and a closely related one that, if I can make sense of it, is along the lines that areas of Scotland where Anglo-Saxon/Old English/Inglis/Scots/Modern English(?) was adopted do not truly count as Scotland (or "Scot-land" as they put it) and possibly that they count as the north of England, with a similar consequence for the inhabitants as not being truly Scottish, and possibly being English, I think. The vast bulk of the activity is on talk pages but they have made edits to articles along these lines and I believe they would view a lack of a counter to the repeated posting of their POVs as a green light to implementing their desired changes. Nothing seems to dissuade them that this is inappropriate and they persist in posting the same line, time after time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

...and this is an early Admin noticeboard thread concerning their behaviour, leading, I think, to their first range block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for the additional information. She's just accused me of being a sock of yours, so I'm done engaging with her. I hope that this time at ANI will be the end of it. agtx 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)