User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

What are you doing?

Two questions;

1 - What is it you are wishing to achieve over at Scotland?
2 - What on earth is it you are actually on about?

See talk page discussion on the Scotland article which has highlighted areas of concern in the references. I have just spent a considerable amount of time trying to rectify this, all for you to, once again may I add, come in and totally destroy what it is I am trying to achieve here.

Care to explain yourself? I honestly don't know why I try. I honestly feel like you are a security guard that is actively patrolling my every move on here, and no matter what I do, or how many reliable references I provide, you will revert. And before you talk about that reference (https://monovisions.com/vintage-scotlands-landscapes-19th-century/) then please do not. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah hold on. Now the frequent reverts make sense. It appears you are making good use of your rollback abilities. Interestingly, Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. I would argue that all my edits are in good faith, and not always in agreement with why you have to revert the edit in its entirety. Unless my rollback theory makes sense, of course. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As before, as it's about the article, it should be dealt with at the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

kunghibbe

Don't know the right way to go about this but I found him (her?) again here.18abruce (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've rolled back these edits for now. May report them but they'll no doubt reappear under another guise. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

SPI Comments

Hey, Mutt Lunker. Please reply to SPI in the appropriate section. I know exactly what the checkuser evidence looks like, as I am a checkuser and performed the check for this specific case. I cannot reveal the exact nature of that data, nor do I want to spill the beans, as it were, to the sockmaster who is aware of that SPI page. There is no doubt that these are the same user, and they have essentially admitted it publicly already. The check was to uncover new accounts since the last SPI, and that check happened to confirmed what was already revealed the first time around. Happy to answer further questions here, but keep in mind I can't go into details on the CU data. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I know why the checks were made, am not casting doubt on the results and am not requesting exact details of this individual case. I had been filing comments in the correct section but when in direct response to comments of yours, to fragment the dialogue further looked weird. Apologies if that was the wrong choice. You used the term "Technically indistinguishable", formatted, bolded and with a tick symbol, which would appear to indicate a defined generic term regarding what had been uncovered. I'm asking for confirmation that this term has such a definition, presumably laid out somewhere in Wikipedia (I couldn't find such an entry). Is there somewhere on Wikpedia that explains in general the kind of thing that the term can indicate? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker I searched around some but could not really find any sort of "definition" page for the various indicators we use. They're kinda used by long term convention and often mean exactly what they say. This is such a case. Technically indistinguishable means that literally, as far as checkuser data goes. all the various fields and available information for the users in question is an exact match. There is no way to tell them apart from checkuser data. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

Hi Matt. I added in KHS for Gordon Brown as I saw that this was mentioned for Richard Park in the same section and the reference backed this up. It seemed OK to me as Brown is certainly more notable than Park. What do you think? Zeno27 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zeno. Yes, I noticed the mention for Richard Park so removed it too. The section is about notable residents, the school they went to is unlikely to be pertinent in regard to their notability and to mention this for all of the many people included would be a distraction. It's perfectly pertinent to cover in any articles about the individuals but not here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I'd missed that you'd removed that as well. Thanks for the explanation. Zeno27 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)