User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Kilmarnock

You reverted edits on the KIlmarnock page claiming copyright violations. Can you please indicate which copyright violations you are referring to? In the edit you reverted I had added NO text and any text that was on the article had been added by another user. So please explain further your reasons for reverting. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per above, "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Education in England

You reverted my edits for no reason. I'm not sure why you reverted my good faith edits, where I was fixing some issues with the artcle such as sources and info for the primay/secondary sections. Could you please inform me why you are reverting the edits? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DdLiam (talk • contribs) 10:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per edit summary, as you, above all, know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? By going through old versions of the artcle I added back to the main image and improved on the sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DdLiam (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Matt Lunker

... was just deleted as a user page of a non-existent user. I've just restored the page and actually created the account so that won't happen again. Graham87 05:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Had I not set it up correctly? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Kilmarnock bias?

Explain, Matt? Goodreg3 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You blanked mention of, probably, the 3rd oldest football club on athe planet to add a clearly less significant fact about other clubs, one from a place with which you evidently have strong ties. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that the mis-counting was clumsiness, being familiar with your editing. What's more, the citations you added actually provided the missing support for the more significant and now absent original fact. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, given the time, yes, it was a case of miscounting. My editing may not always be perfect, Matt, but no one is perfect. As a Wikipedian of 6 years now, I would hope that there is support in your edits and engagements rather than attacking mistakes. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, your editing is, to an alarming degree, slapdash, ill-considered and often against policy. As you seem impervious, at best, to advice and warnings in this regard, don't be surprised if you do not get support for carrying on in like manner. If you've been like this for 6 years it will be some time before perfection is under any threat. Be more considered or don't make the edit unless and until you can be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Even with a hand of friendship, you still find it in yourself to be rude. As I said, nobody is perfect, and I am sure you have made the amount of mistakes and foolish edits in your time, as your talk page too would suggest. To personally attack someone for mistakes, misunderstandings and the like is, quite frankly, rather uncalled for and just plain nasty, Matt. Goodreg3 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not personal, it's about your edits, which you are responsible for. Take more care with them. If lack of consideration counts as "nasty", have a wee word with yourself: you should not expect other users to have to either clean up after you or to avoid subjecting your edits to the scrutiny and revision or reversion they so often require. You might understand that one might get fatigued with this, hence my directness. You may well have it in you up your game, I've seen transformations in other editors, but I'd suggest you take more time, make much less-sweeping edits, chek what your source says, check your facts, check your edits, don't edit if you are tired or not thinking straight and don't edit to make a point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I had enough, AN/I

Don't worry, I did not bring you to AN/I but Patrick Mcdermott25. But I did mention your name there! See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Patrick_Mcdermott25. The Banner talk 19:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Tone

Matt, I really do not care much for your tone you used on the Edinburgh page when you reverted my edit. Your tone and, at times, un-constructive reversions of my work, are in line with points one and three of Wikipedia:Disruptive user and I now feel that you have a strong gripe either against me or my edits, or even both. If I feel this continues I will seek appropriate action. By all means, be constructive, offer feedback and advice, but do not call someone out for human errors such as spelling mistakes. This can easily be viewed as bullying, and can I highlight to you that you do not understand individual users circumstances that may result in such mistakes, such as autism or dyslexia. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of rude, nasty and uncaring behaviour. Please consider your mannerism and tone in the future. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Montage is not ordered "Clockwise from top-left" - either re-label caption or reorder shots; it's Princes Street, not Princess". Could I be more dispassionate, matter of fact and detailed in indicating the flaws in the edit and the action required of you? Thank you for finally addressing the errors at Edinburgh but you could have done this in the first place rather than taking the huff and just reverting, including re-instating your spelling mistake without taking the care to fix it.

I'm spending considerable time fixing or reverting your errors and giving detailed edit summaries to explain the reasons, in the hope you might pay heed and start taking more care. And you sling it back in my face. It's highly inconsiderate to expect this level of attention to sustain. If errors are pointed out to you, sorting the wheat from the chaff of your edit is your responsibility. I'll point it out but do not expect me or others to have to make the fixes any more. In the past I tried to retain good parts of any problematic edit and fix the mistakes but this is very time-consuming and I don't feel it's fair to expect this of me, or anyone else. I'm not sure if you are advocating you be allowed free rein to edit as you like without scrutiny but this would be in no way reasonable. As I've said repeatedly, it has been about those of your edits which are poor, not you. If you are now asking for special exemption from the standards expected, that's you choosing to make it about you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"points one and three of Wikipedia:Disruptive user"?! I'm not aware of having recently edited a featured article candidate, let alone one that you have been editing; or the rest of the stuff at that point. Name-calling? These kind of spurious accusations do not play well, particularly if you are about to "seek...action", so you might want to retract them now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you've taken the feedback on board about the montage captions and addressed the same issue at other articles. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Hi Mutt, I reverted this and following edits to your userpage. Any idea what that was all about? Cheers. BilCat (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Seem familiar?

See Special:Contributions/N0pep0tat03z. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Had a quick look. It's possible but I can't be certain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's possible we've been dealing with two or three people using the same computer or router. All along, Hoggardhigh socks have sometimes made edits that are more competent, along with the typical serial comma edits. Some of the registered socks will typically start ranting after being reverted several times, something the IP socks almost never do. We'll see what happens with this one. BilCat (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 21:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Scottish parishes

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#St Fort and Scottish parishes I'd note that Canmore (select boundaries on the top right) does currently show them. Do you think its acceptable to redirect/merge NN places into their civil parishes in Scotland like what is commonly done in England? You appeared fine with that but the IP apparently wasn't. Also I haven't used parishes to categorize on Wikipedia (though I have done so recently on Commons) and only used the census localities. What's you're opinion on this? Though maybe I should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think discussing it at the project would be a good idea. Can you quote me the pertinent passage in the redirect discussion, or the time/date stamp of the post(s)? By "NN", is "notable" intended? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Having revisited the redirection discussion, I'm guessing you are referring to my initial sympathy with retargetting to Forgan (Fife) in preference to the proposed deletion of the redirect to Newport-on-Tay. As further investigation uncovered sufficient referenced material to establish a stub, discussion regarding redirection to one or other article became redundant, hence my striking of my earlier "retarget" opinion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion in general not a specific post. Yes "NN" means "not notable". I'll start a discussion at the project. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you believe me to be fine with? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding St Fort, as its notability has subsequently been established, I don't see a redirect or merge as necessary or desirable. There's also the issue that it is largely in Forgan but partly in Kilmany parish. Excluding St Fort but in general, for entities that are not deemed notable, there may be a case for redirection or merging to the parish; I'm not sure. Should there be a discussion on the matter I'll take a look. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

When you said "Good suggestion to retarget to Forgan"[1].

Yes St Fort is moot since that is an article now but I'm talking about how we deal with other topics that aren't notable. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Scottish parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, wanted to be sure if it was the specific and/or the general case we were talking. I'll take a look. By the way, I take it "Borders" is intended here? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that was a typo, there is already a link to the correct spelling at List of listed buildings in Stobo, Scottish Borders. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Him again?

Special:Contributions/TimonAndPumbaa623? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Reckon so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks like another one: Special:Contributions/January2020. Reverted, but I'll see if this provokes a reaction too before reporting. BilCat (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

Matt, could you please inform one what was wrong with his edits on Education in England and Education in the United Kingdom? My edits were quite broad, however, the pages are filled with bias and incorrect info. I was only doing good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKzzD (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem?

Hi, don’t understand what your problem is with my edits. Please do not revert them as I spent a long time working on them. If you have anything constructive to add please do so, otherwise cease immediately. Thank you in advance

Newcastle upon Tyne

Hi, I happened to notice that two accounts (I assume you know whom I'm referring to) have been reverting your edits on this article and POV pushing. Have you filed a SPI report? --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes thanks Ashley, it's here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the report; so they have been doing this for quite sometime. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, bouncing back with a deafening WP:QUACK. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting otherwise-legitimate edits by blocked accounts or evasion

Hey Mutt,

Regarding your edit to Bomis, in general it's poor practice to revert the otherwise-legitimate edits of blocked editors. I won't say that that particular reversion was problematic, since unhelpful edits while evading a block are specifically exempt and I don't know to what extent the original edit was particularly helpful, but it's just something you should think about.

Thanks,

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at your contribution history, you likely already know that, but I just wanted to let you know. :P No further action is required on your part (please don't reply on my talkpage), have a great day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify if you are retracting your gross mischaracterisation of my reversions of the latest in a long line of sockpuppets of an indefinitely banned user? You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:GRAVEDANCE and appear to be advocating the obligation to scrutinise, in fine detail, the edits of highly prolific trolls, using subterfuge, who have been barred from editing at all. If that is a requirement, we might as well give them free rein because they'll just submerge us with their cruft. They have been deemed to be untrustworthy of editing here; they don't get a second chance with every new sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WP:REVERTBAN gives more leeway to reverting banned users, and as a policy, overrides any essay. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Either the user is a sock of the banned user and is barred from editing, or they are an entirely new user (they aren't) and thus no grave to dance on. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: WP:GRAVEDANCE is primarily about reverting the original account's edits. It means an editor doesn't have carte blanche to revert a blocked/banned user's edit wholesale simply because they were blocked/banned. Reverting socks isn't in view there at all, in my opinion. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

In particular, almost all of the edits Hoggardhigh makes, both on the original account and the socks, are problematic because they're generally optional changes, particularly their obsession with using Oxford commas. Even the Bomis edit could be read either way, and therefore didn't need to be changed at all. That's the major problem with the user, and they've never once responded to attempts to discuss optional changes. That's what they're indeffed. BilCat (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be an LTA whose history I was not particularly privy to or aware of. My mistake, carry on. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Righto, grateful thanks both. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits for no reason

You have no reason to revert my constructive edits. If you continue I will have no choice but to take serious action. Do you understand how pointless and disruptive your personal crusade against me is? You should be ashamed of your conduct, people like you make Wikipedia a toxic and hostile place.

SunriseUntilSunset (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:EVADE, User:Politialguru. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I take it you won’t engage with any the points I have made. You are are a serious troll and it’s shocking you are still here to be frank.

SunriseUntilSunset (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:EVADE, User:Politialguru covers it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to edit again, plead your case and unless and until you are released, you must not edit. Running multiple WP:SOCKPUPPETs is hardly a way to further your cause. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

SPI for Politialguru

Just saw you added the tag to Broforbernie as I clicked save - just FYI I've just opened a new investigation for that user! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah - I was too late - you've already added him in the previous report. Not to worry, the more the merrier. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we were clearly on to it simultaneously. Have made a note at your report. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Stockport / Cheshire fundamentals

Good day, you recently reverted my edit on Stockport whereas I said Stockport is in Greater Manchester, and has been for over forty years. It doesn't lie in any other boundaries other than the one that it is at the moment, "historic counties" have no meaning other than for rose tinted geographs. If we were to say it USED to lie within these Cheshire & Lancashire boundaries I'd probably accept that but to use this phase-shifting double analogue is beyond me.

So, it says : "Most of the town is within the boundaries of the historic county of Cheshire, with the area north of the Mersey in the historic county of Lancashire." - Sorry, that's just wrong, the town currently is without a doubt, 100% not within these stated boundaries, simply because they don't exist anymore. Stockport is 100% in Greater Manchester. I live in Cheadle and it's like saying I live within the historical boundaries of Cheadle And Gatley Urban District Council, well I don't, because it doesn't exist anymore and it all changed in 1974 just like the Cheshire / Lancashire thing.

Best regards!

Chris Cartographer Cheadle

See Historic counties of England; they exist as a thing. It is administratively in Greater Manchester but also in the historic county of Cheshire, if no longer the county of Cheshire. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - but you're wrong. They don't exist, otherwise I'd be paying my mortgage on a house in Cheshire, not Greater Manchester. Saying something is historic doesn't mean it exists. Part of the M60 motorway near me used to be called the M63 back in the day, so historically it was the M63, does that mean I'm driving on the M60 or the historical M63? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.255.21 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to add again sorry, the historical counties USED to exist, and that's where I'm coming from, it's just they don't anymore.

Kind regards

You didn't read the article then, I assume. Please do, but you could start with this section, including: "In 2013, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles formally recognised and acknowledged the continued existence of England's 39 historic counties". Don't get confused with the various contemporary administrative units. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

English people

I just noticed that you did not sign your contribution on the talk page fully - you may want to do it again, rather than leaving yourself anonymous! Cheers, Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

In response to your message on my talk page -- Normally I would not alter people's comments however, I felt that the referencing The Queen as 'Betty' was rather disrespectful and inappropriate. I hope you understand that it was nothing personal and I appreciate your constructive message. Thank you, Finchley59 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you think about other people's comments, altering them misrepresents that person. How disresepectful and inappropriate is that? I know you are new but be warned, NEVER ever do this. And lightening up might be a useful course. While we're at it, this will show you how to sign your posts properly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Federalism-Unitary veritability; large country like China should be federal, not unitary.

Hello, Mutt Lunker. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Zealand, UK, China are federal states.

New Zealand is a brother of Australia which is federal, but why New Zealand is unitary, not federal?

Prove that New Zealand is a federal country because of the South Island and North Island divide.

Prove that China is a federal state because of its large size

Prove that the UK is a federal state because of England, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

If I bothering about certain countries is a blend between Unitary and Federal, Why you like questioning the federal-unitary status of certain countries?

Currently, why New Zealand is a separate country not a state part of the commonwealth of Australia?

I think my country Indonesia is a federal-state not a unitary state, but where's veritable proof for the Indonesian Government shape of system which denotes a Federal or Unitary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberllamamusic (talk • contribs)

Apologies, I do not really understand the point you are making but please do not make significant changes to multiple articles with neither explanations nor sources and do not mark such changes as WP:MINOR. Discuss the matter at the article talk pages if you believe you have a point which is supported by reliable sources. Also, please sign your posts and it is superfluous to put a talkback notification on the very talkback page you are indicating. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like another one

See Special:Contributions/Knayslayer. I'm also watching an IP I'm suspicious of. BilCat (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Righto.

Still thinking about that #76. Has me chuckling but it is a good point! Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, me too. BilCat (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Cattell91 - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's him. That one has a different range of articles than Hoggard usually frequents. But it could be someone else's sock. BilCat (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A polite warning

Mutt; in future please always conduct a scan before making such accusations regarding individuals. Not everyone is a stockpuppet account nor is everyone engaging with it. Going through briefly the history of Education in England' the history is mainly you reverting people's edits. You aren't an admin nor do you have any power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemAD300 (talk)

Somewhat amusing to see that LemAD300 is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Extensive scope for psychological research on what drives this category of person. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the ranks of flashing, fluorescent ducks that, despite the experience of all the previous loops they've been on, believe themselves to be invisible. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

UK issue

I, politely, want to beknow that there were no mistakes on my changes. Instead, I would rather ask you to search more about the powers of the Queen (which are almost absolute), and history of Church of England (the state religion of England led by the Monarch) because the internet can confirm what I highlighted just as many already know I spoke truth. Localhost83 (talk • contribs). Written on 10 June 2021 at 13:10 (CET)

If you have sources for your edits, it is your obligation to present them, you can't just say "find them yourself". Mutt Lunker (talk)

Guess who's back

Per WP:QUACK: 87.112.110.133, 82.132.185.73 and 82.132.184.161 are being used by our old friend User:Politialguru. An annoyingly large range and clearly hopping fairly frequently, so I'm not sure much will come of it. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I had noted some edits by each of these three IPs as potential activity but hadn't been entirely convinced as yet. There's some overlap in target articles right enough. Have you noticed if the text of edits match those of earlier socks? I'm not sure if the IP geolocations indicate London or just non-specific UK; the previous IPs were largely the Newcastle area, if I remember correctly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's the editing pattern for me: numerous (usually 5-10) edits in a very short space of time that don't achieve much actual change, an obsession with Nick Brown, and a focus on Northumbria/Newcastle and Labour MPs. They usually edit from a mobile device and I suspect the IPs are just mobile data gateways rather than residential IPs. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 13:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep on keeping an eye on them. Yeah, the pattern tends to be numerous apparently pointless tweaks, with the suspicion that more dubious edits are hidden within the cruft, coupled with less common, disruptive major edits. I've got a couple of other IPs and users watchlisted to monitor further activity. If you're sure about these IPs, you'd be justified to revert per WP:DENY and WP:BLOCKEVASION. It would let the troll know they're still under scrutiny. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Phew!

Thanks very much for this – I was struggling to get my head round it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)t

Me too and you're welcome. Nothing clever, I just clocked that it appeared to be a garbled quote, with the ending quotation mark there and the opening one missing. I reckoned if I could find the source text it was likely to make more sense (or if it was the cobblers in the article, probably best to remove it). Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tautological island names

Regarding this removal all of these are on the OS with "Isle" or "Island" (which are cited in the articles) so even if the articles are at the locations without the prefix I think it's still reasonable to list them and anyway the Shuna Island and Isle of Skye do have "Island" and "Isle" in the titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I would hazard that the OS's use of "Isle" or "Island" in such cases is to clarify that the name applies to the entire entity, not just some feature of the island where the wording appears. Either way, the OS does not designate the definitive form of a name. These examples, and many in the article that I did not remove, are in real life overwhelmingly referred to simply by their names. There may be occasional reasons where initially appending "Island" or "Isle" helps with disambiguation but after that, the addition would be discarded. Appending them to make them qualify as tautological names for the list when the appendage is superfluous in common use makes them rather meagre additions. Their presence in the Wikipedia article titles does not qualify them, it effectively being a circular source. I have noted that these often unnecessary additions to island names appear to be a hobby horse of yours, most recently at Talk:Raasay. You'll note I left, e.g. the Isle of May, because, in that instance, that is what it is commonly referred to as (though sometimes "the May", never just "May"). Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Its probably not used simply to clarify since it would otherwise be used on all but there are many such as Risga and Eigg that don't. Even if the OS doesn't designate the definitive name at the very least its a valid name. There are many topics like rivers that include a prefix such as River Thames and are commonly known without it namely "the Thames" but its still accepted that "River" is part of the name. And all the articles have a citation to the OS for the name anyway so its not simply circular sourcing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

One spin on it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A point on Either way, the OS does not designate the definitive form of a name. In practical terms, the OS did actually fix the names of most places and geographic features in the UK - even though this was probably not their intention. When the initial surveys were done (and based on the OS experience of being diverted off, for political reasons, to survey Ireland before really tackling Britain) the surveyor maintained a "name book" in which different versions of names were recorded from local people. Great effort was made to employ the name in most frequent local use. The rare failures demonstrate the effectiveness - for instance "Scawfell" (for Scafell) was used by all local people well into the 20th century. Because the mountain was a station in the Principal Triangulation of Britain (and an earlier survey, from memory, in 1811) it was given a name before the procedures for name recording were developed in Ireland. Hence the overwhelming evidence of "Scawfell" (William Wordsworth, John Dalton, Harriet Martineau.... it's a very long list) was ignored. The historic change to "Scafell" appears to be entirely due to the OS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, the OS is widely used by the majority of sources though Raasay may be an interesting case in the it appears as just "Raasay" on smaller scale OS maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You continuously make this unsupported assertion. The OS version of any placename is likely to be in some use but in numerous cases it is not the most-commonly used version of the name. I remember another editor very convincingly putting you right about this, I just wish I could remember where. This campaign to trump common names with the Sunday version is invidious.

If you Google, say, the term "County of Fifeshire", you'll find examples of that to justify spurious addition to the tautologies article, even though it's always been plain Fife to the rest of us. I shouldn't give you ideas. It can't benefit the credibility of the article to include examples that sneak in.

Are you conceding that, without even the questionable OS justification to support its inclusion, "Isle of" Raasay should be removed from the article? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There was the discussion about Fife where I pointed out that its just "Fife".

Well the OS version would probably be more than enough but even without that other sources do use "Isle of Raasay" so it could arguably still be included even if the OS didn't use "Isle of". As with the "River Thames" being called the "Thames" commonly by people, especially locally or when the context is clear doesn't prevent the longer name at least being valid. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Do I really have to explain the Fife example? I picked for it's borderline absurdity but validity under the terms you are advancing. If it's inappropriate to cherry-pick a version of the name for one example, for it to fit the tautologies article, it is likewise inappropriate for other examples. This is what you are appearing to do for Raasay as all your supposed examples were challenged in the move discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my change

I realised my error but couldn't find the rollback option, appreciated! CHABGO (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Fife Coal Company

Hello

I noticed that you had added an additional footnote [4] to my history of Fife Coal Company, i.e. the short biography of Augustus Calrlow. I confess that I had not seen the piece before. That may have been an oversight but I don’t think I would have used anything in it. The official history clearly gives Charles, the founder, as the dominant person in the Company’s history compared with the comments on the contribution of Augustus. If you look at the first paragraph under Expansion, you will see that the insertion of [4] immediately before the last sentence implies that almost the whole of that paragraph was source from [4] whereas it was actually from the Muir book (as indeed was the last sentence). There was no need for the final [4] at the end of the history section – the Muir book was sufficient source.

I think the August biography made interesting reading and did present a different view of his role in the Company. I would prefer to see it under the See Also heading rather than as a citation which was not used. I do not like undoing another contributor’s edit (particularly as it seems a contentious issue on your page) so I will leave it up to you.

Having just returned to the page, whereas only one edit was showing when I first looked, now I see a mass of them and I do despair. Again, I can see citations inserted that I have not used. There are changes made to avoid confusion where no confusion existed. And occasional facts inserted (like Charles marriage) changing the flow of the text. I could have inserted lots of facts into other people’s articles but I assume that the author has spent some time (as I have) in trying to produce a balanced article. Yet, as far as I can see you have never shown any interest in Fife Coal in the past.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody owns an article; it is not your history of the company. There is no such thing as "other people's articles" either. It is very important you appreciate this and, if you don't, you'll have a tough time on Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with WP:OWN.

I would have thought my having created the article indicates an interest in the subject. Similarly, that does not make the article "mine". Aside from copy-editing the recent additions, the material I added was simply restoring the material from the original article which you had removed without explanation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

On another subject, what does this mean? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply

I do understand that nobody owns an article. In the past I have received some very helpful edits where I have made spelling mistakes, or where the links were improved – as you did in a couple of places – and these are always appreciated.

There were only a few lines in the original article. This situation always poses a problem because no-one likes removing someone else’s text. However, when a much larger history section is added, it is inevitable that the facts contained in the original few lines need to be subsumed into the much larger history section otherwise there would be some peculiar repetition. You cannot retain everything word for word. I made it clear that the reason for textual removal was exactly that. I had the advantage of reading the official history and as a source that seemed to take precedence.

You did not address any part of the two main paragraphs of my original note to you – or the last. The article is now in the anomalous position of having source citations that are not the sources used for the preceding text. I did make a constructive suggestion as to how that could be dealt with.

On your last point, the “this” query said “dangerous website”. From memory I clicked on this link a couple of times and my Norton software flagged it up in large red print as a dangerous website. These warnings can sometimes be glitches so I did not want to remove the link, but it seemed worth drawing attention to it for the sake of users that did not have anti-virus software.

Regards Bebington (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No source takes precedence, particularly not, for obvious reasons, an official history. To subsume implies incorporation but you largely did not. This edit deals with your sourcing issue and WP:OWN with your last paragraph. I'll try to think of a better way of dealing with, or indicating the warning for, that website. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that statements such as "I have received some very helpful edits" indicates that you may not have read or fully appreciated WP:OWN. The article may have received some helpful edits, you have not. I'm also not sure what you mean regarding removing something to the See Also section as this is for links to other Wikipedia articles and it is unclear as to what link your referring. What's more as, per, MOS:SEEALSO "The links in the "See also" section... should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", the traffic should if anything be the other way. If you mean the External Links section, preference would likewise be for incorporation of pertinent material in the article, unless there is a copyright issue or the like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A dialogue is ongoing here regarding the warning re the website. This check has not flagged a problem, for what it's worth. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest incarnation?

Looks like Patrick McDermott again, this time as 2800:810:44B:44C:74C7:D1AE:30AC:7386. The Banner talk 20:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Righto. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

SPI assist

Following your post at Talk:North East England I filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru. Anything you can add would be very useful. Thanks in advance and many many thanks for pointing it out as the edits stank but I never thought to go back through the article's history to see. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So much fun. Well done! 10mmsocket (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a virtual beer for the first to spot the next one! :) 10mmsocket (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You would hope they might face facts... Mutt Lunker (talk)

Please see this and support/comment as you see fit Wikipedia:Administrator's_noticeboard/Incidents#Followup_to_Politialguru‎_SPI. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Was just about to but it's already been actioned. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw. Excellent. Good all round I'd say... 10mmsocket (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You may know this already and there may be better ways of getting there but if you want the full catalogue of edits, go to User:2A02:C7D:93F3:4F00:0:0:0:0/64 and just after the word "...blocked" in the pink header, click on "2a02:c7d:93f3:4f00::/64" and you get the contributions for that range. Skimming through, they all fit the bill and go back a long way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Edinburgh

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for your longstanding efforts in monitoring and maintaining the Edinburgh article LordHarris (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Raasay v Isle of Raasay

Interestingly the main settlement on Raasay, Inverarish is also tautological, see Draft:Inverarish. I also have User:Crouch, Swale/Isle of Raasay which lists its settlements, there is also a lot more topics at Commons:Category:Isle of Raasay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Is he back?

92.16.168.36 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Is this him? 10mmsocket (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Without a doubt. I spotted the earlier edits and the subsequent ones are textbook confirmations, any of which can be reverted as WP:BE by User:Politialguru. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Active again today. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Keeping an eye on User:2A01:4C8:465:B8AC:8548:7A80:52D3:7FD4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No doubt in my mind on that one: police + north of England, pointless tinkering that reduces value of articles, instant revert. ninety:one 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Watching... 10mmsocket (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

51.6.7.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Only active in last fortnight, similar areas of interest to earlier incarnations: focus on North East England, including transport and politicians, also Doctor Who and other BBC science fiction. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that one, but another couple of have popped up which might be him.

• ‎2a02:c7f:98e6:f400:51e1:c3cd:82de:a640 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 82.12.105.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Similarly dubious but likewise difficult to be sure. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Odd. Anyway I'm 2RR on Newcastle so won't be responding further today. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Fancy playing whack-a-mole? New IP rage added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Politialguru#Suspected_sockpuppets --10mmsocket (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Good spot and happy to keep an eye out but I'm a bit hit and miss with things like viewing contributions from an IP range. Aside from noticing a few from that range cropping up in watchlisted articles, I've drawn a blank trying to view the range as a whole. Any tips? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Click the contributions link in the SPI, or click on one of the IP's, and change the URL of the last four digit groups to :0:0:0:0/64 10mmsocket (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Loch Urigull

I think you're right Loch Urigull was a mistake, I made it and I want it deleted so I can replace it with one with the correct name and with more information, I have nothing against deletionN1TH Music (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, make a note to that effect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Craig Ferguson Nationality

Hi. In your recent edit you said "This is not about his documents" yet under the American entry in the nationality category it has a link to the United States nationality law. So should I assume that your position is that in the American sense it is referring to 'his documents', but in the other entry it isn't? Alssa1 (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The matter regards the article so ought to be addressed at its talk page rather than here. Since you've brought it here, nationality is not dependent on the passport of nation states. He is Scottish, he is American. He didn't have to get a passport to be the former, he did for the latter. That's neither here nor there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You're the only one who has taken issue to it, so I thought I'd raise it here. The consensus on that page is that American nationality refers to American nationality law, can you explain why you believe that the other entry should be based on a different standard? Alssa1 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, the matter regards the article so ought to be addressed at its talk page rather than here. On the contrary, there has been chronic alteration regarding the subject's nationality at this article, often apparently of one chauvinist/nationalist bent or another. Why he is American is one matter which has no bearing on why he is anything else. Your implication appears to be that nobody should be listed as English, Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish on Wikipedia and if that is your angle, you have a job on your hands and it isn't here, or for that matter the CF article. If you have anything more to say on the matter, say it in the appropriate place. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually it appears to be just you reverting changes you don't like and not discussing them. See your reversions here, here, here, here, and here. You make demands of taking things to talk, yet there's been a talkpage discussion open at Talk:Craig Ferguson since 2 August, yet despite your repeated and vociferous reversions you have not taken part in it. Alssa1 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"the matter regards the article so ought to be addressed at its talk page rather than here" One unsigned comment that nobody else felt moved to respond to is not a discussion. All but one of those edits of mine revert the removal of the American aspect of his nationality which you evidently recognise, so to object to the reversions is perverse. What's more, all the edits are by IP socks of an IP banned for "continued nationalism vandalism/disruption". Post here rather than in the appropriate place again and I will delete it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You are the only person engaged in the disagreement, and I don't appreciate all this talk of 'appropriateness' when you're engaging long winded discussions with IP users on my talkpage. Alssa1 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If a long-winded user, now re-blocked, posts a mendacious, abusive thread, the only fitting place to warn you and rebut it is there. Blame the IP. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Shortbread vs. fortune cookies

I see you reverted my edit (and I do appreciate that you recognized my edit was in good faith). However, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. Certain details of the preparation differ, but shortbread and fortune cookies are fundamentally very similar, fairly simple recipes. Shortbread is flour, sugar and butter. Fortune cookie is flour, sugar and sesame oil. They're both fairly simple-tasting sweets, very brittle, crumbly when broken, and I'm not all that convinced that fortune cookie dough shaped in a more shortbread-like manner is that radically different from shortbread itself. I mean, butter is butter and you can't always replace its flavor, but it's also an oil, and oils like butter and sesame oil impart similar structural properties to their recipes. The other noteworthy difference I can think of is that butter is a saturated fat (solid at room temperature) while sesame oil is an unsaturated fat (liquid at room temperature), but I'm not sure how much of a difference this makes, as both recipes yield a sweet that is solid at room temperature. And given that there are alternative recipes for shortbread using other fats like coconut oil instead of butter, it doesn't seem the biggest leap that fortune cookie flavor and texture is the natural end result of substituting sesame oil instead. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not engaging in your warring re Doric (or anything else)

I see from your record that you're quite enamored of reverting and more given to issuing peremptory orders to others than in engaging in reasoned collegial discussion, even when invited politely to do so. Not a world I want to inhabit. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't appear to be a kindred spirit of these largely chronically block-evading WP:SOCKPUPPETs. You will notice I don't indicate such reversions as of good faith edits, as I did with yours. I'd hope you'd stay, get used to the conventions and contribute collaboratively but it's your choice. I gave you expansive indications to these in my edit summaries; they are not slap-downs. If you are reverted, best to discuss on the talk page to expand and gain a consensus, not simply to reinstate your edit, though to your credit you did give an edit summary. I was assuming this and your marking of an edit that is not the Wikipedia definition of "minor" (which is really, really minor - please read up on the policy, as this may not be obvious) as inexperience, hence crediting the edits as good faith. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted the reference to "warring" in your title above. Again, WP:BRD, and reflect. Inexperience once more, I'd hope. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are reverted, best to discuss on the talk page to expand and gain a consensus Exactly. Precisely what I invited you to do. In spite of my edit summary explaining the edit clearly, you overtly refused, and took it upon yourself to revert yet again rather than engage in a civil, open-minded discussion. Why you insist on the version of the text that you do remains unknown. It may be that you have little experience in the world of linguistics; if so, that's all the more reason to discuss. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Er, fair to assume you didn't read WP:BRD then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. Consider reverting only when necessary... for starters. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Good grief indeed. You were Bold, let's assume that I regarded Reversion necessary, then you Discuss at the talk page to convince me otherwise. It's a simple method and ought to avoid the sort of unproductive diversion we have The in the thread above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The only reasons you gave for reverting were Unexplained, not minor & not an evident improvement. Minor or not is a judgement call and not relevant to the substance. I explained why I cleaned up the text slightly, and how that was an improvement. At that point, it should've been case closed. If not, off to talk, as I suggested. Nope. Keep bickering... And the amazing bit is that still, after all this waste of time, no objection re substance of the sort that would've been worked through in the talk I originally suggested. Enough. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Norn language) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mutt Lunker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Material has been repeatedly added which is not supported by the sources given. The editor may be doing this in good faith but has refused requests in edit summaries to support their assertions. I have engaged meaningfully at talk. The other editor's engagement there, though again doubtless in good faith, does not meaningfully make efforts to advance support for their edits, simply repeating the refs which have already been pointed out to not support their position, with no accompanying text to explain their position. Neither have they responded to Ritchie 333's own request for support of their edits in the thread above in the article talk page. 3RR has not been breached as the period involved is longer than 24 hours and there are two distinct sets of edits in dispute. I'll note the other user has not breached 3RR either. Even if through ignorance, their persistence is patently disruptive and I maintain that my decision to remove the material was well-founded and in good faith. Be they right or wrong, no warning was given to me to that my actions were at risk of sanction; you could have talked to me first and just asked me to desist. The block is not warranted or necessary, so I request that it please be removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To unblock you, and allow you to go back to the article to continue where you left off, means I need assurance that you will not edit war. You have not provided this assurance, and in fact you give the distinct impression that if unblocked, you would continue to edit war. In this context, I must decline your request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mutt Lunker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm somewhat at a loss that you've have gained this impression at all, let alone a distinct one. Per "you could have talked to me first and just asked me to desist", despite regarding the block being imposed without any prior contact as precipitate, I was/am receptive to the request. I don't see that as particularly nuanced but just in case: I am not going to edit war. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears that your block has expired. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mutt Lunker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If my initial unblock request was swiftly refused because an assurance not to war was not picked up, why is the 2nd request still sitting in limbo, as there can no longer be doubt about the assurance? Do I have to retract my criticisms of the block and that no indication it was forthcoming was given? I still stand by them but, if it need be repeated, am not going to war. Is it that there is no/no longer grounds for the block but too embarrassing to acknowledge this by unblocking? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears that your block has expired. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note that you're no longer blocked. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Crouch, Swale: possibly somewhat academic at this late stage but I was lodging my questions and points while the block was still in place. (I'd thought it had another hour to run rather than just a matter of minutes.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That's because of the difference between GMT and UTC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

IBS Smart

Hi, not sure if my message will show up properly for you so I am sending it like this also

If you go on https://www.ibssmart.com/ and scroll down until you see the "View Study" button, you will be linked to this study that I used as a source https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10620-019-05684-6 .

Here is one of the Authors (Mark Pimentel) of the study talking about the blood test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPC3BagErr0

I don't know if there is a direct mention of the blood test in the study paper itself, but the blood test measures exactly what is stated in the paper. Mark Pimentel was involved in its creation and uses this test as a first line investigation for his IBS patients.

If you need more specific information, I can dig into the weeds a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.237.47 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please make the discussion at the article's own talk page, at Talk:Irritable bowel syndrome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Stridersword: Glossary of American terms not widely used in the United Kingdom - notes about reversion of good faith edit

Hi Mutt,

I just got a chance to see your reversion of my edit to this page I made on Nov 8, 2021. I apologize for not providing context to some of my deletions. The terms I deleted were all antiquated or . Many others that show up as red on the edit history were not actually deleted by me, but perhaps during editing they got moved around. I don't know why Wikipedia shows that i deleted 1000 bytes worth of information, as I tried to contribute about as much as I removed if not more. It might have been because I did delete a few repetitive sources; for example, some entries had three or four sources all giving the exact same definition for the word. I deleted them to clean up the page's bibliography a bit.

"Some examples of terms I viewed as purely incorrect would be "automobile" because many people say this on both sides of the pond and "vajajay" because that is a seriously ridiculous word for vagina I have not heard once in my life since I graduated elementary school. "Baby carriage" was deleted because not only is the word used in both countries, but just from personal experience I feel like it is even said more in the UK than the US. People pretty much exclusively say "stroller" over here.

I edited the definitions of several terms as they were often unclear and imprecise in their meaning. I did not just make these up, but consulted the use of online dictionaries and websites that highlight regional differences in dialects.

I changed "elephant ear" to "fried dough" as the former is a regional American term for the latter, which is more general and suited for a glossary. I added the term "tract housing" as it is a word that developed in the US to describe the suburban phenomenon in the 1950s that was carried over as the similarly meaning US originated word "suburb". I should have provided a source for this addition and I will provide one if you agree these edits can be reinstated.

The rest of the edits were alterations to the definitions of existing entries which I either thought were not accurate at all or missing important clarifying details. I cited these alterations when I could, especially the ones where I substantially altered the meaning of the definition.

Hope this helps to explain the edits that I made. I spent a lot of time that day carefully researching and trying to improve what I thought was an article that needed some serious updating. I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so I wanted to send you a message clarifying my edits after I saw you reverted them. Sorry for it being a little long, I've had a lot of coffee and am procrastinating writing a research paper. In the future, should I use the topic's talk page to explain any large edits that I make?

Thanks for your concern,

Stridersword

Hi Stridersword, thanks for getting in touch. You've picked up a lot of the reasons as to why I reverted your edit: that your assertions were largely unexplained and unsupported, including substantial deletions etc., though they were clearly done in good faith. Some aspects appeared to simply be incorrect.

The alteration was considerable and wholesale, so, though it looked to me that there may be some parts that could be of value, when it was clear that other apects seemed questionable, particularly without support, it would have taken quite a bit of work to sort out what to keep from what to revert. When you are making lots of edits on a number of different points, it's probably best to edit each aspect individually, with a supporting edit summary each time. That way, other editors can address or contest each matter piecemeal.

With this article, the crucial aspects that references should cover are that a) the term is American and b) that is not widely used in the UK. The definition of the term itself is much less important, other than to identify what the item ot topic under discussion is. This is particularly so if there is a link to an artircle on the item given, where the definition can be found if required. I haven't checked them all but the refs you removed served the purpose of providing support that a) and b) are the case and thus the items have a place at the article. This is crucial to the item and you can take a look at the talk page discussion where much of the discussion regards whether a term does indeed fulfil a) and b).

Your elaborations as to definition and further discussions on the items or topics may be somewhat moving off-topic for the scope of this article, though quite possibly suited for inclusion in their own articles.

If you reckon you deleted some material you didn't intend to, clearly that is something to be careful to avoid doing, as you clearly appreciate.

I hope that helps. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

edit revision

Hi Mutt Lunker, I was hoping you can help me better understand why my edit needed rivised.Thank you for linking the MOS on typographical conformity; however, after reading it, I'm even more confused. Under that section, a paragraph seems to contradict it: If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo". Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."

The edit in question is a full sentence, and using the logical quotation spoken of above, I placed the comma before the ending quotes. Can you help me understand why this rule doesn't stand? I dont mean to burden you about one tiny edit, but my head is exploding, and you obviously have a lot of experience on here. Thanks for your time & help :) MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies but I'm unclear as to which edit you are referring and I can't find a record of having previously engaged with you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Having trawled back almost a year, I'm wondering if you're referring to this edit of yours, though it regards a full stop/period rather than a comma, as you refer to, so maybe not. As the quote is behind a pay wall I'm not going to check but as it is not capitalised (see MOS), it appears to be a fragment of a sentence, not a full sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle

Courtesy ping. I just requested semi-protection of Newcastle-upon-Tyne as it looks like our old friend Politialguru is back. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket:, what do you reckon: User:2A01:388:261:150:0:0:1:66? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket::User:Metrosteve. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: The latest incarnation is persisting while lamely attempting the innocent act. As the details of this edit have now been hidden, would elaborating on their nature help move the SPI investigation on? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I've been busy in offWiki stuff today. Ditto tomorrow morning but I'll dive in tomorrow afternoon for sure. Keep the shields up in the meantime. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries. In regard to that SPI, the user is now blocked anyway but IP activity has started already, by User:2A01:4C8:1488:8B62:F997:1338:1555:BB9F. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, see you're ahead of me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just filed a new SPI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

...and another (the edits themselves are mildly positive). Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue with which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring at East Frisians, etc. regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a page I've edited, as far as I'm aware. I see Talk:English_people#Germanic_and_Frisian_links is also mentioned and I don't believe I have engaged there either (although I have at other threads at Talk:English). You'll have to elaborate as to my involvement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I pinged you because you made a number of edits to English people including two reverts of User:Alssa1 who reverted you in turn. I'm unclear who is right in these cases, but it is all part of a pattern of reversion and re-reversion between Alssa1 and other editors which ought to be resolved once and for all. The first edit in the series is here and the last possibly here depending on who the unregistered user is. Take a look at the history and you'll see what I mean. Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Response here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Mutt reverted addition of "competence" as a word having different meaning in American and British English

Greetings Mutt,

I made a change. You reverted it. Let us talk, please.

A. Nony Mouse

Where in the below, if at all, do we disagree?

Point 1.

Usage of "competence" to denote "jurisdiction" is exceedingly rare in America.

Point 2.

I do not recall having encountered this usage, not even by euro wonks, other than in discussions which are at least 2 of (a) about european/international law/politics, (b) by professionals involved in same, and/or (c) by journalists seconding material from them.

"Competence" is not used to mean "jurisdiction" in American politics. Not even euro policy or international policy folks do.

Even the Economist magazine does not use "competence" in that sense, when discussing America.

Point 3.

The "OED compact Edition" of 1971 lists the "jurisdiction" definition last out of 4 definitions given. Since the OED itself ranks such a use as rare, it is quite reasonable to expect that it might be rarer still, peculiar to America.

Further, the OED does not even include a "jurisdiction" definition for "competency". That use of "competency" was extraordinarily rare or unknown, even in Britain, as late as 1971. Accordingly, the claim that such use is not extremely rare in America very much requires support.

Point 4.

Nearly every meaning, of nearly every word, is surely used by somebody on both sides of the Atlantic.

So, "[b]oth definitions [are] used in both locations" would justify emptying the list and removing the article.

Thus, by argument from absurdity, something beyond "Both definitions are used on both sides" is needed to justify the reversion.

Point 5.

Proving my point 1 is very close to proving a negative. Your point is contradictory to mine, thus testable.

Proving that "The use of 'competence' as a synonym for 'jurisdiction' is not extremely rare in America." should be straighforward. It could be done by producing a non-trivial collection of such use by Americans under non-arcane circumstances.

Point 6.

Since the person making the reversion presumably had in mind some non-trivial list of examples when they acted on the claim that such use happens in America (with more than trivial frequency), it "should" not be hard for them to back their claim.

Point 7.

Absent such a showing, the reversion is not justified.

{ In the above I refer to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_American_and_British_English_(A%E2%80%93L)

curprev 17:20, 21 December 2021# Mutt Lunker talk contribs# 122,261 bytes -156# Reverted good faith edits by 2601:1C1:C100:D710:ADBB:160B:AACE:1112 (talk): Both definitions used in both locations undo Tags: Undo Twinkle

responsive to:

curprev 18:40, 19 December 2021# 2601:1c1:c100:d710:adbb:160b:aace:1112 talk# 122,417 bytes +156# ##Add "competence" as a relative (arguably synonym) of jurisdiction. undo Tag: Reverted } — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:D710:205A:2CD:4C1B:BADA (talk • contribs)

"America's most trusted dictionary" notes if a word or usage is particular to one dialect/country or another. There is no such note for usage 1b. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Mutt, you offered Merriam-Webster 1b as a citation. But it refers to historical use, not American use.

Again: You claim that this use happens on the American side. Please provide examples.

       https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competence
       1b law : legal authority, ability, or admissibility a matter within the competence of a judge to adjudicate

To my knowledge not even Merriam-Webster claims that lack of them calling out a difference is a statement that there is no difference. There are all manner of reasons why they might not catalog a particular difference. Yet you independently make that claim, unasked, on their behalf.

So _I_ poked around to see if I found anything to support your claim.

I searched the US Code for "competence".

       https://uscode.house.gov/search.xhtml?edition=prelim&searchString=competence&pageNumber=1&itemsPerPage=100&sortField=CODE_ORDER&action=search&q=Y29tcGV0ZW5jZQ%3D%3D%7C%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3Afalse%3A%7C%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3Afalse%3A%7Cfalse%7C%5B%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3Afalse%3A%5D%7C%5B%3A%5D

None of the results I looked at made the 1b "jurisdiction" use.

So I searched for exactly the Merriam-Webster 1b use.

       https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=%22a+matter+within+the+competence+of+a+judge+to+adjudicate%22&ia=web

On the first page there were 29 results, all are listed below.

       1 An American that I argue does not count.
       5 results from the USA which are not 1b uses
       2 are from the USA but about religious law
       2 are from United Kingdom
       6 from India
       4 from "INTERNATIONAL LAW"
       3 from the Phillipines
       1 each from "Africa", Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Poland, and Uganda.

AN "AMERICAN" RESULT, THAT I ARGUE DOES NOT COUNT

This article is the exception which proves the rule. Although he is an American I insist that the author picked up the usage at issue from his time as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.

https://texaslawreview.org/facial-challenges-saving-constructions-and-statutory-severability

       Facial Challenges, Saving Constructions, and Statutory ...
       https://texaslawreview.org
       The doctrines that license "facial challenges" to the constitutionality of statutes are widely
       misunderstood. So are the two leading devices for limiting facial challenges' potentially
       wrecking-ball effects: narrowing or saving constructions and severability doctrine. This
       Article advances entwined theses about facial challenges, narrowing constructions, and statutory
       severability ...

This says he was at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar:

       https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10247/Fallon/

As for the remaining 28 . . .

USA RESULTS WHICH ARE NOT 1b USES

       Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Harriet Bouslog ...
       https://www.law.cornell.edu
       4. The specific utterances in the speech that the Legal Ethics Committee and the Supreme Court
       found as furnishing the basis for the findings that petitioner impugned Judge Wiig's integrity were
       the references (which we have quoted in full above) to 'horrible and shockig' things at the trial;
       the impossibility of a fair trial; the necessity, if the Government's case were to be proved, of ...

       Competence Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
       [Search domain merriam-webster.com] https://www.merriam-webster.com # dictionary # competence
       competence: [noun] a sufficiency of means for the necessities and conveniences of life.

       2020 Report on International Religious Freedom - United ...
       https://www.state.gov
       This report covers the period between January 1 and December 31, 2020. U.S. embassies prepare
       the initial drafts of country chapters based on information from government officials, religious
       groups, nongovernmental organizations, journalists, human rights monitors, academics, media,
       and others. The Office of International Religious Freedom ...

       [Usc02] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
       https://uscode.house.gov
       FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (As amended to December 1, 2021) Historical Note. The original
       Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts were adopted by order of the Supreme Court
       on Dec. 20, 1937, transmitted to Congress by the Attorney General on Jan. 3, 1938, and became
       effective on Sept. 16, 1938.

       2020 American Heart Association and American College of ...
       https://www.ahajournals.org
       1. INTRODUCTION. Ivor J. Benjamin, MD, FAHA, FACC. William J. Oetgen, MD, MBA, MACC. Katherine
       A. Sheehan, PhD. C. Michael Valentine, MD, MACC, FAHA. The 2020 American Heart Association and
       American College of Cardiology Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics (2020 Consensus
       Conference) comes at a time even more fraught than the eras of the 3 previous meetings on the
       same topics.

CANON LAW

       Book VII: Processes [Canon Law]
       www.ahereford.org
       Canon 1414 Joinder of Cases By reason of connection, interconnected cases must be adjudicated by
       one and the same tribunal in the same process unless a prescript of law prevents this.. Canon
       1415 By reason of prevention, if two or more tribunals are equally competent, the right of
       adjudicating the case belongs to the one which legitimately cited the respondent first.

       CanonLaw.Ninja
       [Search domain canonlaw.ninja] https://canonlaw.ninja
       CanonLaw.Ninja is a full text search reference for the Code of Canon Law and other related documents.

RESULTS WHICH ARE NOT AMERICAN

UNITED KINGDOM

       The Bodo Community & Ors v The Shell Petroleum Development ...
       https://www.casemine.com
       Introduction. 1. In this Group litigation, the many Claimants, numbering some 15,000 or more and
       including several representative type claimants and claims on behalf of children, seek damages
       at common law and statutory compensation under the law of Nigeria in relation to oil spills from
       pipelines said to have been caused by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria ("Shell"
       or "SPDC") in ...

       A. V. Dicey: Law of the Constitution
       https://constitution.org
       INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION A. V. Dicey. Preface to the First
       Edition..... Preface to the Eighth Edition ..... Analysis of Introduction.....

AFRICA

       Africa Law Centre: List of Public International Law Cases
       https://africalawcentre.blogspot.com
       In its Judgment the Court affirmed the fundamental importance of the plea in bar referred to
       above. In putting forward this plea, Guatemala referred to the well-established principle that
       it is the bond of nationality between the State and the individual which alone confers upon
       the State the right of diplomatic protection. Liechtenstein considered itself to be acting in
       conformity with this ...

INDIA

       Civil Procedure Code, 1908 law notes - iPleaders
       https://blog.ipleaders.in
       The term decree is defined in Section 2 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A decree always
       follows judgement and is based upon a judgement. It is divided into five types unlike judgement
       which is final in itself. A decree may be final or preliminary. It is a formal declaration or
       adjudication and is conclusive in nature.

       (DOC) Comparative Criminal Procedure Code in India ,U K ...
       [Search domain academia.edu] https://www.academia.edu # 6079506 # Comparative_Criminal_Procedure_Code_in_India_U_K_USA_PROJECT
       The Indian judiciary has only 10.5 judges per million citizens, compared to 41.6 per million
       in Australia, 50.9 per Submitted by sumbul fatima f91 | P a g e million in the United Kingdom,
       75.2 per million in Canada, and 107.0 per million in the United States. Caseload statistics
       reflect these disparities.

       Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India ...
       [Search domain latestlaws.com] https://www.latestlaws.com # latest-caselaw # 2019 # november # 2019-latest-caselaw-1095-sc
       , 2019 Latest Caselaw 1095 SC

       G.Gopalakrishnan vs The Deputy Director
       [Search domain indiankanoon.org] https://indiankanoon.org # doc # 154306585
       1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on: 04.10.2018 Delivered on: 03 .01.2019
       CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD) Nos.11454, 14860 and 14894 to 14899 of
       2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13450 to 13455, 10442, 10443 & 13399 of 2018 W.P.(MD) No.11454 of 2018:
       G.Gopalakrishnan ...

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Bare Acts - Live
       www.bareactslive.com
       4. Savings .-(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code
       shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special
       jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other
       law for the time being in force. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the ...

       Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India And Another | Supreme ...
       https://www.casemine.com
       P.N Bhagwati, J. (for himself, Untwalia and Fazal Ali, JJ.)- The petitioner is the holder of the
       passport issued to her on June 1, 1976 under the Passports Act, 1967.On July 4, 1977 the petitioner
       received a letter dated July 2, 1977 from the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi intimating to her
       that it has been decided by the Government of India to impound her passport under Section 10(3)(c ...

"INTERNATIONAL LAW"

       In defense of deference: International human rights as ...
       https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
       The Court claims that a margin of appreciation is appropriate for at least three main issue
       areas. 'Balancing' the rights against other urgent issues such as emergencies, public safety,
       the economic well-being of the country etc-as permitted for several rights to private life,
       religion, expression etc (Art. 8, 9, 10).

       Legality of Use of Force (Yugo. v. Belg.), 1999 I.C.J. 124 ...
       www.worldcourts.com
       [p 145] I. Introduction 1. I entirely support the decision of the Court in dismissing the
       requests for the indication of provisional measures submitted on 29 April 1999 by the Federal
       Republic of Yugoslavia against ten respondent States - Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
       the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.

       3 - International Arbitration Agreements: Basic Issues
       [Search domain lawexplores.com] https://lawexplores.com # 3-international-arbitration-agreements-basic-issues
       3 - INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: BASIC ISSUES. 22 Jan, 2017 BUSINESS LAW 0. It is
       elementary that international arbitration is consensual: without an agreement to arbitrate, of
       some sort, there can be no arbitration. 1 At the same time, the terms of the parties' arbitration
       agreement play a central role in defining the character of ...

       International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ...
       https://www.un.org
       5. The Constitution is the fundamental law in the country. The rights referred to in the
       International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are guaranteed in the Syrian Constitution,
       which is ...

KENYA

       Petition Nos 13 A, 14 & of 2013 (Consolidated) - Kenya Law
       kenyalaw.org
       A. INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Nairobi,
       affirming the decision of the High Court sitting in Nairobi (Havelock, Mutava, Nyamweya, Ogola &
       Mabeya, JJ.) in Judicial Review No. 295 of 2012, of 20th October, 2012.. B.BACKGROUND (a) Proceedings
       in the High Court [2] The Petition hearing at the High Court consolidated five cases: Nairobi J.R ...

MALAWI

       Malawi's Constitution: Final Draft
       [Search domain africa.upenn.edu] https://www.africa.upenn.edu # Govern_Political # mlwi_const.html
       Malawi's Constitution: Final Draft NOTES Drafting of the Constitution. This Constitution was
       drafted by the Constitutional Subcommittee of the National Consultative Council (NCC) between
       January and May 1994.

NIGERIA

       D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ...
       https://lawcarenigeria.com
       D. (MARRIED WOMAN) (RESPONDENT) v. NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN
       (APPELLANTS) Lord Diplock Lord Hailsham of St. Mary-Marlebone Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord
       Kilbrandon Lord Edmund-Davies Lord Diplock my lords, In form this is an interlocutory appeal
       upon a summons relating to the discovery of documents by the National Society for [#]

PHILLIPINES

       G.R. No. 232131 - REY NATHANIEL C. IFURUNG, PETITIONER, VS ...
       https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
       Through this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner Rey Nathaniel C. Ifurung
       (petitioner), in propria persona, seeks a declaration from the Court that: (a) Section (Sec.) 8(3)
       in relation to Sec. 7 of Republic Act (R.A.)No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
       is unconstitutional for being an outright transgression of Sec. 11, in relation to Secs. 8 and
       10 of Article (Art.)

       G.R. No. 225973 - SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD H. REPUNO ...
       https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
       Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that on November 8, 2016 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached
       herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled cases, the original of which
       was received by this Office on November 10, 2016 at 5:15 p.m.

       DEFINE LIFE: Administrative Law Case Doctrines
       https://lestatuesque.blogspot.com
       Ø the Supreme Court emphasized that the power of appointment in the Philippines appertains, with
       minor exceptions, to the executive department; that membership in the voting committee in question is
       an office or executive function; that the NCC and similar corporations are instrumentalities of the
       Government; that the duty to look after government agencies and government property belongs to ...

POLAND

       CASE OF DOLINSKA - FICEK AND OZIMEK v. POLAND (European ...
       https://laweuro.com
       FIRST SECTION CASE OF DOLI#SKA - FICEK AND OZIMEK v. POLAND (Applications nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19)
       JUDGMENT. Art 6 (civil) Manifest breaches in procedure for appointment of judges to the Chamber
       of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, undermining its legitimacy and
       impairing very essence of the right to a "tribunal established by law" Application of three ...

UGANDA

       Magistrates Courts Act (Chapter 16) | Uganda Legal ...
       [Search domain ulii.org] https://ulii.org # akn # ug # act # 1998 # 10 # eng@2020-02-14
       Magistrates Courts Act Chapter 16. Commenced on 22 January 1971 [Up to date as at 30 September
       2020] [Note: The version of the Act as at 31 December 2000 was revised and consolidated by the
       Law Reform Commission of Uganda.

24.21.202.119 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC) A. Nony Mouse

2022 JAN 02 I reached out to the author of that Texas Law Review article (Professor Richard Fallon). I asked if he recalled picking up that (MW 1b) usage of "competence" from his time at Oxford. He replied that he had "read PPE" at Oxford. That usage of "read" is currently in the list of differences, indirectly supporting my claim that his usage of "competence" is also "not really American". And, at the risk of hammering the point home, in the same reply, Professor Fallon used "self conscious" to mean "paying attention to what one was doing" or "aware of one's actions". That is another usage all but unknown in America, where "self conscious" is almost exclusively used to denote a feeling of guilt, lack of confidence, or reluctance (thru shame).

Which raises another possibility. I just checked and the non-guilt usage of "self conscious" isn't on the list. Are you aware of that contrast in the use of "self conscious"?

24.21.202.119 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC) A. Nony Mouse

I do not know the basis of your claim that "Merriam-Webster... refers to historical use, not American use", either for the work as a whole or the 1b definition. The claim is incorrect. Historical usages may be included but they are noted as such when that is the case.

Merriam Webster is what Wikipedia classes as a "reliable source", which is a requirement for the support of material here. Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS. One's own personal impression, synthesis or original research is not allowed. See WP:SYNTH, WP:OR.

To support a claim that a word has a use in one country or dialect that it does not in another should be straightforward if this genuinely is the case as dictionaries will note such a thing, often in brackets: "(US)", "(UK)", "(Commonwealth)" etc.. If you can find a source that supports you, without OR or SYNTH, great. If you can't, and even if you are sure you are right, you must not.

I am certain that your post above is by far the longest one I have had on my talk page, in fifteen years or so. If you want to engage with someone in a debate, this is not the way to go about it.

I should have said this in my earlier response but, as I was able to answer you quickly and simply, I did so instead: if you want to discuss the content of an article, one should do that at the talk page of the article, rather than have a private discussion that other interested users will not be aware of. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I'll review OR and SYNTH.

Courtesy to you: Any objections to anything you've written here being copied/quoted in the article's talk page?

Further: Am I expected to remove/reduce this item/discussion from your page? My default is that this is comparable to a communication to you that you will discard/summarize/... per your inclination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk • contribs)

When you have read and digested WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you will appreciate why an essay laying out one's own personal research is not something that Wikipedia can consider. That will be as much the case if you aim to repeat your line above at the article talk page, so please do not.

Please leave the text above as it is and appreciate that if you submit colossal posts such as that, you decrease the likelihood that attention will be paid to them. I am not directing these essays to you as a rebuff and I do not believe you posted such a large amount of material as a tactic, hence I didn't mention them in my previous response but if you want to have an appreciation of the kind of reaction you may get to such large submissions, WP:TLDR and WP:TEXTWALL should give you a perspective. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions to my edits on the bagpipe page

I was making my edits on mobile and didn't notice a few bad autocorrects and other problems. Your fixes and rephrasings are much appreciated and help a lot.

Fenevad (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mutt Lunker!

Happy New Year!

Mutt Lunker,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.