Jump to content

User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Hey, I understand. I have vast knowlege in that area of history, I actually am from Jajce. My Username is a nickname as i currently reside in Australia. Thanks for the tips, will make note in future. (Wogzilla (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)).

thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huma irani (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

dilemma

{{helpme}}I've come across a Wikipedia article about someone I know and find it questionable, largely on notability grounds but also on the reliability of sources. Basically it seems like a promotional article. I don't want to edit it myself since, as I know them, I arguably have a conflict of interest, not least in that I don't want to upset them by tagging it and excising swathes of it. What's more they would be likely to guess that it's me from my user name. For this reason I'm reluctant to even name the article here. Any ideas what I should do? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to tell someone the article if you don't want to edit it. Try the WP:COIN. Also maybe a username change?  fetchcomms☛ 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}Thanks but I think I'll have to sleep on this. Clearly I'd have to notify someone if I don't edit it myself but even posting at WP:COIN could be traced back to me, as could any edits following a username change unless I erase any link with the current name, which I'd be loathe to do for those who currently know (of) me. I was hoping there'd be some way of flagging the issue, e.g. identifying myself only privately to an admin, without public attribution and ethically. Wikimail? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, e-mailing someone privately is an option, but in your case, my advice would be to contact Wikimedia through the Volunteer response team. Depending on the nature of the issue, you may find the page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem helpful. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Sure - we have a system for dealing with such things; please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem and take it from there. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}Sorry, but I've been going round in circles between WP:OTRS and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem and back again. There's plenty of reference to contacting volunteers but, as far as I can see, no address to contact them on, apart from for some highly specific matters which aren't pertinent to the problem above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See m:OTRS. All addresses should be [address]@wikimedia.org .  fetchcomms☛ 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If you send your query to info-en-o@wikimedia.org it will be filtered through to the correct place.  Chzz  ►  00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Hi, I would like to thank you for your message and advice, I am a new member and I am really just trying to help and not do any damage to anything on Wikipedia. The reason I took the time to change his nationality was because he is called the "British" No.1. In the media he is known as "British" usually. He plays in a team that represents Great Britain. I took it in the people's interest to change his nationality and in that thought I was doing the right thing. I will continue to call for it to stay as "British" because he is the person that represents every constituent country in the United Kingdom.ScoBrit (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife

Hi! It would appear that you are a regular contributor to articles regarding Tayside and Fife. I have proposed the creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife to improve the quality of all of the articles which fall into the scope of the project. I would hope that you and other contributors would like to indicate their interest in the project. If you would like to join please add your name on WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tayside and Fife. If the project gets a reasonable amount of interest I will create a draft of the WikiProject (after consultation with editors who are interested) in my userspace and then will create the WikiProject. Thank you. Andrewmc123 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wee Willie Winkie poem

I'm just guessing that this is the way I am supposed to communicate with you. I saw your message to the effect that you had reverted the Wee Willie Winkie text after my suggested change. Apologies for tinkering unknowingly with the original orthography. I defer to your knowledge on this, though I do find it odd that Miller would write 'gown' rather than 'goun', as the rhyme ceases to be obvious. I have certainly found 'goun' on other sites (such as http://www.rampantscotland.com/poetry/blpoems_winkie.htm) which purport to show the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.217.12 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS WHY I DELETED THE SENTENCE ON THE "SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE" PAGE

I deleted it because the Conservative Party did not win the majority as it was a colition Government that formed the new Government and not just the "Conservative's". So there is no need for that sentence to be there as the Conservative Party did not win the 2010 General election. It also makes out that the election never happened. Did you even read the sentence ? or did you just undo just to be a Idiot ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoBrit (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you now agree to Delete the sentence ?ScoBrit (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't have at that stage but it's gone now, see talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexander hahn

I added a db-band tag to the page since there is absolutely no claim to notability. I suggest you review the WP:CSD page for more criteria for deletions. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, was just browsing which db tag to put on myself but you got there first. Notability tag removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

query

Hey I'm new to wikipedia and I recently created an article for Eternal-WoW. The purpose is to advertise the company in a way, but I'd like to stay within the rules of Wikipedia and make it suitable content not purely advertisement. Any suggestions, tips, or things I can do to prevent my article from being marked and deleted as spam? Eternalwow753 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Brian

User ScoBrit

Hello, Yes ScoBrit is my brothers account, I am using a family Computer. He does not come on often but sometimes he Edits Wiki. Tamarin2010 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I see, Thank you. Tamarin2010 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mamoncillo

Thanks for getting back to me. I've checked the info again, and edited the page to contain the info.. also put the template on the user's page. :) Silivrenion (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"pipe band" edit war

An editor has been continuously adding material to pipe band that is being questioned by myself and other users because it appears to be OR (or latterly at the very least poorly sourced), of questionable notability and includes unexplained deletion of text and photos. Despite requests on the article's talk page and that of the user to engage in a discussion and to familiarise themself with policy they have continued to add the material and to remove tags and comments from their talk page. Although they have broken the 3RR rule I realise that, on checking the policy, I may be regarded to have done the same myself (although I was regarding some of the reverted edits as at least in part vandalous). They seem determined, I'm unsure if their edits would be seen as vandalous or just very stubborn and am unsure what to do next. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes, which were obviously problematic, and given the editor a hopefully unmistakeable warning. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not my Account

Go and get your facts correct before you throw some accusations about the place, you pathetic fool. Scottish wannabe..Get the fuck home, How possibly could you be partly Australian after all every single Australian has been an Immigrant from the past 200 years. Get a fucking grip you sad deluded old fool. Let me guess a stupid Nationalist? Get to fucking hell. You dumb sad no life git, get the fuck off Wiki and go straight to where you belong (6ft under). I have no time for sadacks. And who the hell would take a picture of Mince and Potatoes and label it on Wiki? Go and get your facts straightened and sorted, pathetic irrelevant idiot. Tamarin2010 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit: You live in Australia another Scottish wannabe, get to fucking hell you stupid "10 pound pom" LMFAO, You are a sad pathetic joke.

You silver-tongued charmer! Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

"I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from Massacre of Lviv professors." Topically-relevant? You mean the claim that the massacred professors were Soviet collaborationist who wanted to form a pro-Soviet government with Stalin? Yeah I removed that. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a cited text. Your interpretation as worded above is up to you but if the content added to the article accurately reflects the cited text it is worthy of inclusion so you should not blank it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What does it mean it is "cited text"? Cite from where? From a pdf about OUN? Those professors were highly educated individuals and were loyal to Poland. The claim that they wanted to form a pro-Soviet government with Stalin is totally defamatory and even more so because the article presents it as it is an established fact. J.kunikowski (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about them. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Don't blank material which is verifiable under this criterion even if you believe it to be incorrect. If you regard the text as untrue or defamatory, add your reliable, cited text to show a counter position. Don't censor material you don't like or disagree with. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You got it backwards. The burden of proof is on the person who tries to make extraordinary claims not on me finding sources who take "a counter position". It's even in your policy here: [1]. The claim that the Polish professors were in talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet government is most certainly exceptional and therefore I request exceptional sources. J.kunikowski (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The "extraordinary claim" is made in a cited academic text, thus satisfying the burden of proof under WP:V, thus you should not blank it. What's more the claim may or may not be true but it hardly seems extraordinary. Also you should not error war. As you have contravened 3RR I would advise you to self-revert otherwise you may be blocked. Then continue to argue your case on the talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all the policy clearly talks in plural ("sources" not just one "source"). Second I am not sure what academic text are you talking about, the only source presented so far is a pdf in Ukrainian about which we don't even know if it was translated accurately. And third the claim that the highly educated Polish professors were in talks with Stalin (no less) to form a pro-Soviet government is most certainly extraordinary, I would even say extremely extraordinary. J.kunikowski (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of the article. If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The really sad thing is that instead of putting in line the person attempting to mud the memory of those great people who were massacred by the Nazis just because they were Poles and Jews, you instead attacked me who tried to prevent it. Have you thought, even for a minute, that those murdered professors have many living relatives, relatives who had to live their lives without a father, a mother or even without both parents? Have you thought how devastating would be for them to read defamation like that their loved ones betrayed their own nation and entered talks with Stalin? It's like murdering them again. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not the point at issue. I am attacking no-one. 3RR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You entered the debated before any 3RR demanding that the text, which defame the murdered professors and which is in direct violation of the extraordinary claim - extraordinary sources policy. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment or advice requested

I posted an RFC on Massacre of Lviv professors which you had commented on previously. The only one who responded, Molobo, is a guy with a huge block history due to Polish nationalist stuff. It looks like he and another Polish editor, also a multiply-blocked ethnic edit-warrior (see here: [2]) have gotten that info taken out before the RFC was even a few hours old. Where do I go from here? Could you comment on the RFC or can I cut and paste your comments on it? I'm informing an administrator about this in the meantime.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think calling an admin in for help and advice would be a good idea. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Faustian, with this yet another personal attack you posted above and numerous other in the article's page talk you are walking a thin line of being reported. Please focus on the article, try to back up your claim with reliable sources and do not attack editors who do not agree with you. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't address other people on my talk page. If you have something to say, address it to me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Claims are not "mine", my edits on articles aren't my opinions. I added a fact I came across and thought was interesting, taken from a source that obviously meets WP:RS criteria. You don't like that fact and want it removed. It's that simple.Faustian (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker may I ask how did you get involved into the discussion in the first place? You have never edited that page before and all you seem to do is constantly repeating Faustian's position without contributing anything else to the discussion. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My positions are entirely my own as you know, you having actually tried to misrepresent them to counter those of Faustian.
I have repeated some of them to the point of tedium to you, particularly my advice re 3RR which you did not heed and resulted in you being blocked.
Please do not assume ownership of articles. It is none of your business why I edited this article and I am entitled to do so as much as anyone else. However I will humour you and tell you. You may be unaware that this is an encyclopedia, intended for reference. I read the article out of interest, the actual intention of this project after all, if you have lost sight of that. I noticed that the article could do with a small amount of copyediting, which I carried out. This was subsequently lost when somebody reverted to an earlier version of the article, so I restored the copyediting. The subsequent edit to that (yours) flagged that references had been removed so I checked it, noticed that cited text from a reliable source had been removed and reverted this. The rest is history. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Brief statement on ANI would be appreciated

See here: [3]. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the page has been protected which I think is a satisfactory interim measure. I do not think you breached 3RR technically (2 reverts by my count, possibly 3 if you stretch the rules way past my understanding of them but not 4) and think the report may have been tactical and misguided. I'm still of the opinion that the source satisfies reliability. That said, it was no surprise a war started by the re-introduction of the material. I have the relevant pages watchlisted and will comment if I feel the inclination, there is no need to prompt me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Arturo Rodriguez

You put this article for translation which now seems to have been done. I was not sure whether to remove it from the RFT list as you had posted it there. Best Richard Avery (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, happy with removal from the list thanks. There was a dodgy machine-translated bit that could possibly have been licked into shape but it's since been reverted. If I remember correctly it seemed to be from the Spanish article, so I may have a bash myself...some day... Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Culture warrior

Please see this edit; as an IP I can't revert it. It's another useless edit by someone you are, by now, familiar with. Thanks, 199.80.13.132 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the script on BKS Iyengar page

Mr. Mutt, I understand that you have made some research about Iyengars and their dialects. Let me just inform you that I'm a half Iyengar and half Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin, and I know everything about the past of Hebbar Iyengars. We talk Iyengar Tamil, but do not have a script of our own. Our Tamil is heavily influenced by Kannada, and we are more of Kannadigas than Tamilians. Most of us cannot even read Tamil, leave alone write our names in that language. So I don't want you, a Scottish guy, to lecture me about my own history. Please stop editing the "name" section of BKS Iyengar page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehest (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have been advised several times, take this to the talk page of the relevant article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding name on BKS Iyengar page

I don't like the fact that you block someone from editing. Do you know the BKS Iyengar is a Kannadiga? Why is the need for Tamil text on his homepage? If you don't reply back to this, I'm going to delete the Tamil text.

Hehest (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring. As before: "As you have been advised several times, take this to the talk page of the relevant article." Do not sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

British slang

Hello Mutt, I see you have an interest in this article. You have reverted some of my edits as is your perogative, however I'm not quite convinced about your reasoning. You have throughout the article's history deleted edits on the grounds that the word or phrase is 'not just British' but the article isn't 'exclusively British slang', it is about slang used or originating in Britain. If we apply your reasoning, almost all the article should be deleted because almost all those words and phrases are used in other countries. Bloke for example is common in Australia as I'm sure you are aware being part Australian yourself. Yours in good faith,--Ykraps (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to delete away. You've maybe seen that the whole article was nominated for deletion because of its poor state. Much of the remainder is questionable and the Phrases section is entirely uncited. I've done large clear outs of the most questionable material a couple of times in the article's history but frankly could have gone a lot further. I don't regard what has been left as being in a satisfactory state. Everything in that section should be cited but peppering it with countless fact tags would serve little purpose. However if you add anything new you ought to cite it, particularly for supposed derivations. Whether a term originates in Britain or not, if it is widespread elsewhere and/or not characteristically British it is not notable for inclusion in the article. If it is not even a slang term it of course should not be included. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Citing sources will always be difficult because of the nature of the topic. In addition many words that originated as slang have become standard English words. I am sure slang dictionaries are available but I don't care enough about the article to get one. The article currently needs a lot of work and I thought I might generate some interest by making a few edits and leaving a message on the talk page. With regards to the nationality issue; I am of the opinion that the article should just be called 'slang'. Words and phrases could then be labeled as to what country/culture/profession they're used in. Other articles on slang such as this one could be merged with it. It would also open it up to a wider audience. Thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I see there is already an article called slang, but it could be called slang words or list of....--Ykraps (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Citing this topic may well be difficult but I'm not sure it is markedly more so than many others and, even if it is, this is no exemption from the requirement to do so. An attempt to lump examples from all of the slangs of the world (some of which are here) into one article is likely to prove very cumbersome, to have the same problems of long uncited lists, multiplied by the numbers of sub-divisions, and I don't think that the British slang article (or any of the others) would form a suitable core for a general article anyway. I think what it really needs is some spadework from an expert, per the tag at the top. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Kannadiga vandalism from Hehest

Hi Matt,

I'm sure you're familiar with Hehest (talk). He was on hiatus for quite some time after being blocked for vandalizing pages like B.K.S. Iyengar. Now he seems to back and has taken to vandalizing several biographies of famous Konkani people like Shankar Nag, Anant Nag, and Girish Karnad. I have notified another Wikipedian with rollback and review rights who is a Konkani himself and is familiar with the cultural status of Konkani people. That being said, I'd like to bring to your attention, that Hehest has replaced Tamil script with Kannada script on Vasundhara Das. He randomly edits by removing information without providing explanation. Could you please revert his vandal edits on Vasundhara Das ( view difference ). I've gotten in an edit war with him before, and don't wish to get into one again.

--129.137.176.204 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edinburgh

Hi. As you may know, I do a lot of vandalism reversion. When I saw a large section blanked without any edit summary, I thought he was probably just a vandal and reverted it. Thanks for the fix. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 01:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mutt_Lunker/Archive_4&oldid=1139494043"