User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hobson-Jobson

From Webster's Third International Dictionary, Hobson-Johnson: "assimilation of the sounds of a word or words foreign to a language into the sounds of a word or words coined or already existent in the language." The Wikipedia article "Hobson-Jobson" describes it as a "phonological change;" what else could it be?Francvs (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Links and refs are supposed to be directly pertinent. Changing a red link regarding linguistic contamination to an article about a dictionary of Anglo-Indian terms is WP:OFFTOPIC and baffling to anyone who clicks on it. I guess, now, your intention was to link to the section Hobson_Jobson#Law_of_Hobson-Jobson but this is not an example as there is no phonological change. Lipka has different meanings in Crimean Tatar and Polish but the phonology is unaltered. Linking a ref solely to examples of entirely unrelated word examples of the law of Hobson Jobson has no pertinence to the etymology of the term "Lipka", so again is off-topic: it does not support the material in the Lipka Tatar article so has no pertinence there. If there is, as yet, no article or article section in Wikipedia to link to a term, it is better to leave it red-linked than to link it to something which is not directly pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia article says, an older form was "Łubka/Łupka;" by Hobson-Jobson, this would become "Lipka," taking on the sound of a word already existent in the Polish language. Hobson-Jobson isn't just a law, it's a process of assimilation, as Webster's definition says. In my footnote, I referred to a later part of Webster's definition "(as Spanish cucaracha has become English cockroachor as English riding coat has become French redingote)." This assimilation is a general process, not confined to Anglo-Indian words.Francvs (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the bit regarding possible contamination with the Polish word concerns the form "Libķa/Lipķa": read the article again. The reference to the form "Łubka/Łupka" follows on and no link to the Polish word is made; your connection to it is WP:OR. Phonological change is not mentioned at any point and your connection to it is WP:OR. The etymology of entirely separate words is not pertinent, particularly when that process is not in action with this word. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Xero Shoes

thanks for that fix - yes, that's what I intended. Bazzargh (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Haggis

Please revert the change you have implemented on the Haggis article. You have been reverted a number of times already, and there is no consensus for your change. I think a number of editors have explained their opposition to what you are doing already, and your interpretation of their positions (including mine) is flawed and does not assume good faith. I was not canvassed and I am not editing on behalf of "my mate". Per WP:BRD I'll ask you to revert what you have changed until you can establish consensus otherwise. Otherwise your insistence on changing this amounts to tenuous edit warring. Thanks --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mutt_Lunker reported by User:Squinge (Result: ). Thank you. Squinge (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How nice of you. My last edit reverted to your version. What are you up to? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You should stop reverting to *any* version while there is still a discussion about the disputed content in progress. And you should stop claiming a consensus when you do not have one. Squinge (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought you said you would stop getting on your high horse? No other contributor to the discussion agreed with you, all criticised the version of the text you preferred. Consensus is your view then is it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to leave the article alone until there is a consensus, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, that's all! Squinge (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And you're absolutely wrong with "No other contributor to the discussion agreed with you" - User:Escape Orbit has actually just agreed with my original preference, after you turned your nose up at what I'd thought was a compromise that we had agreed to. But either way, thee versus me is not enough for a consensus and you really must wait for others to contribute. Squinge (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after my edit away from the text which all participants including you were critical of. You also accepted the use of the term "turnip" in the original version was ambiguous. You seem to be reverting to a version you accept is deficient purely to score points, then submit this vexatious notice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing of the sort, so please stop all the accusations of bad faith and bad motives (and perhaps have a read of WP:AGF). The standard approach is to leave an article at the state it was before the disputed change was made, and then only make a change once a consensus has been attained. Whatever the final version will be, it will be by consensus and may not be exactly what I want or exactly what you want. So, how about we continue from a position of WP:AGF? Squinge (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I patiently engaged with you, with considerable effort at great length and in detail, for a full day despite it being clear from your responses that you were not properly reading, or at the most charitable not understanding, what I had taken the trouble to write. This shows a deficiency in respect. How much do you expect to demand AGF under these circumstances? Again, I'm not talking about you actively disagreeing with me: you would state a position, I would express a concern with it then you would restate the position without even acknowledging my concern let alone addressing it. Now either you weren't taking the care to read my posts or there is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. You do not seem overtly incompetent and I would be reluctant to put forward the latter out of politeness even if I thought so but by all means advance this as an extenuating circumstance if by contradiction you feel it applies.

All other respondents were critical of the original version of the text, you had also expressed you were no longer satisfied with that version and your apparent refusal to read or address concerns, despite repeated attempts to raise them made it apparent that further engagement with you was not likely to elicit a response to them. As you were the sole holder of your position it seemed reasonable to conclude the consensus was not with you, that the consensus was that the wording was thought by several editors to be deficient and that it ought to be changed. So I did. Yet despite this you abandoned AGF by slapping on this vexatious warring notice, after having promised not to get on your high horse again. The notice is still there.

So would you give me the courtesy of reading, carefully and making sure you absorb it this time, what I have posted on that talk page, in it's entirety? It is long and each post repetetive of matters covered earlier I'm afraid but this was my patient attempt to get you to address concerns that you repeatedly missed or evaded, hence my re-statement thereof. Please. 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I read your comments, agreed with some and disagreed with others. I might not have responded to every word you said, but if you felt I ignored or misunderstood something specifically, then you are always welcome to ask me if I'd missed it or misunderstood or whatever. But just attacking me in such a condescending manner is really not the way to go about it - I appreciate it was out of frustration, but inadvertent misunderstandings like this are common in the online medium, and are rarely caused by the bad faith and/or incompetence that you believe you saw in me. So, how about we both try to back up a little, put whatever misunderstandings we've had in the past behind us, and get back to a civil and friendly conversation on the article talk page? How does that sound? Squinge (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not any points you agreed or disgreed with I'm talking about, it's the ones you kept repeating without even acknowledging that I had continually raised concerns about them. This makes dialogue with you unfruitful. If you won't address a concern, then don't address it when I repeat it several times, why would I attempt to say it yet again? Your slapping on of this notice and still dangling it there, despite acknowledging it's a fuss over little, does not give the best impression. What am I to think? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to remove the notice from here if you want - it's your talk page. And I'll be happy to go over to the report itself and withdraw it. After that, whether or not you want to continue a civil discussion on the article talk page is entirely up to you - but I won't be continuing this fruitless dialogue here. Squinge (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've marked the EW report as "Withdraw - no action needed" and have struck the notification here on this page. Squinge (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Irn Bru edit

many thanks for edit. Bit of a wikipedia editing newbie, and didn't see the bit about trivia. How would you recommend re-structuring the article? Personally I think the bits about band and museums don't belong at all in 'brand portfolio' where they were previously, and I rather like having the Ebola virus link given it was all over national news - but it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Irn Bru in the media sections, which were more about advertising campaigns. Whilst I'd be tempted to have another go this evening (and another read of various advice for editors) I thought I'd ask your advice first! Regards. 12:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njfawcett (talk • contribs)

No worries. Busy at the moment but I'll have a think about it - possibly just altering the titles to more suitable ones would suffice... Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've returned to your edit but with some changes to titles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I've been looking back on our discussions last week, and I was clearly being a bit of a dick with the edit-warring threat and the actual report, and your reaction to me was really quite understandable. I offer my apologies and a promise to be more friendly and cooperative in future. (And tomorrow, we're having haggis, tatties and neeps :-). Squinge (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's really big of you. Thanks and all the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Haggis

Just want to let you know that I've started a discussion about the recent contested changes at Haggis, at Talk:Haggis#Recent changes. Squinge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McCrae's Battalion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Fife. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

John McTernan

I was merely clarifying a link Wiki already has to the subject in the top right of the page If you look at the video I cite as evidence everything is explained — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Mpoos (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FODMAP

It's been years since I did much editing here - when the NYTimes was refused as a source, I found that discouraging. So I don't know what would count as my talk page. You'll have to be more specific re the information you felt was dubious, re FODMAP. If you're looking for authority, the Monash University would be a good place to try, but this is a rather new diet: clinical studies are quite positive, but still very sparse. If I had to guess your concern: Re specific ingredients, the diet remains more declarative than empirical. At least one empirical test has been made of the diet as a whole. No doubt that will change in twenty years or so. Rice is obviously ok. Unfortunately the dangers of switching to a very low fiber diet (which FODMAP can too easily become) are more immediate. I don't care if you want to wipe the ref to a commercial product - it's expensive, of use to me only because I'm up for a bowel exam and can't use the others. But I might not be alone in that.

For the moment, I think it's most effort-efficient for me to go back to not editing Wikipedia. 184.66.139.194 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.139.194 (talk)

The issue was not that your addition to the FODMAP article was dubious but that it was unsourced. If the material came from a reliable source please give details in a reference; if it is your personal view, that is original research and can't be included. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thane_%28Scotland%29

Hello, Mutt Lunker,

In the first paragraph of the article "Thane", one can read the following: thane [...] "is a title equivalent to a count..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thane_%28Scotland%29

But the Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589973/thane

says the following:

Alternate title: thegn

thane, also spelled Thegn, in English history before the Norman Conquest (1066), a free retainer or lord, corresponding in its various grades to the post-Conquest baron and knight. The word is extant only once in the laws before the time of King Aethelstan (d. 939).

The thane became a member of a territorial nobility, and the dignity of thanehood was attainable by those who fulfilled certain conditions. In like manner a successful thane might hope to become an earl. There were others who were thanes because of their birth, and thus thanehood was partly inherited and partly acquired...

And the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thane

says the following:

2 ENTRIES FOUND:

   thane
   thegn

thane noun \ˈthān\ Definition of THANE

1

a free retainer of an Anglo-Saxon lord; especially : one resembling a feudal baron by holding lands of and performing military service for the king

2

a Scottish feudal lord

So, a feudal baron, not an earl, not a count.

Also, in the last paragraph of the Macbeth tragedy by Shakespeare,

http://nfs.sparknotes.com/macbeth/page_218.html

one can read the following [it is Malcolm who speaks]:

It won't be long before I reward each of you as he deserves. My thanes and kinsmen, I name you all earls, the first earls that Scotland has ever had. [...] [et cetera.]

So, maybe the above-mentioned assertion in the Wikipedia may be wrong.

I arrived at the word "thane" after having been reading the work Macbeth; and, after I had been hearing several songs from British rock group Uriah Heep, I learned that the bassist was New-Zealander Gary Thain (1948-1975). Now, as I am a Spanish-speaking individual, could you please inform me if the uttering of "thane" and "Thain" is similar, or exactly the same?

Heterotrofo (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Guadalajara, México.
20150326.

The meaning in England seems to differ slightly to that in Scotland, so beware of synthesising sources which refer to one with sources for the other. Definitions for the Scottish meaning largely say a "lord", generically, and the only specific one I know of, Oxford, says that it is equivalent in rank to the son of an earl. I believe this would equal a viscount in modern terms, so above a baron, but I may be wrong and this may be anachronistic. Earl and count are equivalent by the way. I don't know if Shakespeare is referring to a promotion from thane to earl or if he is just changing the name for their title. I don't know about Mr. Thain or his surname. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Why are you victimising me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.196.231 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L

You seem to have done a few more edits and redactions of my contributions than you've commented on in your Edit summaries. Can you please comment on each one you did, I'd appreciate the feedback. I had done:

(→‎A: added US aces) (→‎B: edits to bill & biscuit & bottle & bumps & burn & bus)

Just help me improve my contributions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.220.38 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to. The general point is that this and the related articles (see the "see also" section) are woefully lacking in citations from reliable sources, which all articles should have. I've been slowly trying to improve these articles for a couple of years now; at one point they were in a very bad state with a lot of dubious and poorly defined content and hardly any citations. I cleaned out some of the worst of the content and have been slowly making piecemeal attempts to cite each entry, so far largely at List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom but have only reached "j" so far. The rest of the material that is uncited is liable to deletion but I have left it there if I think it may be credibly cited, as and when I or somebody else get round to it. This does though give the impression that it is okay to add unsupported material, so I have been trying to check each and any uncited new edits to the articles and either to provide references or remove them if I can't and correcting poorly defined additions. If you feel that you can support your additions, add them back with a reliable source but check the WP:RS article to see what sources are satisfactory in that regard. For the "different meanings" article that you edited, the sources should specify that a word has a definition or definitions of or largely of one of the two varieties of English, any additional definitions common to both varieties also should be cited. If there are only common meanings, the word has no place in the article obviously and if a word is used in only one English variety it should go in the appropriate sister article instead. I hope that helps but feel free to ask further questions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you're attempting to do, and it's a good thing. Yes, looking at the entire article's content made me feel that adding ref's to each little entry was not something that important. A bit ironic based on the discussion I had just a day ago with another editor who is in the opposite camp and waging a battle against the "little blue numbers". You and he should have a nice long sit-down on this (though, I think by Wikipedia policy, adding reliable source references is the preferred and perhaps demanded option). I may revisit this edit, but digging up references for "bill" & "burn" et. al. may be more than my level of Wikipedia devotion. :-) Maybe you'll do it as this seems to be your thing, though, since you're not yet ½ of the way through cleaning this page up... Thanks again for the answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.220.38 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I did think that some of your additions that I removed were potentially credible but without being able to find a source to back them, removed them. Also, for these articles it's quite easy to have an impression of a definition that isn't actually backed up by referring to sources or to have the impression that a word's use is limited to one variety of English when it is in fact common to both, or vice versa. For what it's worth, I'm mainly using online dictionaries; six British ones (Cambridge, Chambers, Collins, Longman, Macmillan and Oxford) and one American one, (Merriam Webster). Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yasar Kemal

Hi,

Why you reverted my changes? I just added his picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehmetGreenland (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You removed his birth name without explanation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, thanks for prevent :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehmetGreenland (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thane

Sir,

I apologize, it is that in fact I had not read your reply, regardless you wrote it the same day (March 26, 2015), maybe because I did not expect an answer located in your talk page (I boarded this train called Wikipedia about October or November, 2014, and I have to learn a lot).

Hope only a few have read the phrase I had mistakenly included.

Also, it seems to me that I need to learn how to read English carefully —I had not "noticed" the word between parentheses —Scotland— in the title of the article Thane.

Heterotrofo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
20150403.

No problem and apologies I usually put a talk back message when someone posts here and evidently forgot that time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Highland Clearances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reformation Parliament. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

United Synagogue

Please provide a details explanation as to

1) why the Zionist stance of the US.org can not be made apparent on its wikipage? 2) Links to criticisms of the US.orgs 'affirmations' ( that are done 'on behalf of world Jewry' -) that it's 'historical interpretation' of the origins of Israel is to be believed. The US.org provides no historical evidence or citations / references and as such has been not only criticized, but disproved.

Why can these two points not be highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Find reliable sources which say this and it can be. You are posting citations which make absolutely no mention of the United Synagogue to construct a case which is your own personal view, or synthesing different sources to make a case which none of the sources individually state. This is fundamentally against Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:RS and WP:SYNTH as requested, also WP:NPOV. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@new reference added, this has been corrected. please check.

the 'discreted content section' is not WP:SYNTH but fact. please read sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the policies. Also, please sign your posts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Old English

Sorry. I reverted your edit on the above article - this time with an explanation. I was in a rush and reverted previously without a full explanation. Apologies. Denisarona (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry again, have only just realised that there is a discussion regarding this on the Talk page of the article. Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It was only the lack of edit summary with your original edit, on a point that other editors had addressed with summaries, that prompted my reversion. I'm not knowledgeable on the matter. Best to discuss it with the others at the talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barbour. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish border.

Hi Matt. I live in Northumberland a couple of miles south of Hadrian's Wall, and I can tell you it is a very common misconception that the Wall used to form the Anglo-Scottish border. Perhaps you would like to come up with a form of words which clarifies that this was never the case, as neither England nor Scotland existed in Roman times. Regards, Max Tammbeck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammbeck (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Max, yes I'm well aware and to be honest I think that's what that section of the article says and pretty clearly. I guess there might be a way of being a bit more emphatic about it but we need to avoid over-explaining. I'll have a think. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Have thunk. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of the tool rollback

When to use rollback'

Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. Rollback may be used:

• To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
• To revert edits in your own user space
• To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
• To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
• To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.

Dan Koehl (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not specified which edit you are referring to but, if I am not mistaken, any recent edits using rollback have contained an edit summary additional to any generically generated one to explain the rationale. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Again: "You have not specified which edit you are referring to but, if I am not mistaken, any recent edits using rollback have contained an edit summary (to explain my reasoning) additional to any generically generated one to explain the rationale." What's more, I think you may be referring to the edit where I not only manually added a summary to explain my rationale but the auto generated section of the summary specifies that I believe it to be good faith. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits

Sorry my mistake, forgot to check box — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoorybrig (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic

Matt, I'm happy to listen whatever advice you have, I've just put in a reference/link to MacBain and if you want to delete or alter anything, just do it. I'm not up on wiki equiette but don't mind learning.

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoorybrig (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry and I realise you are making constructive efforts but let's take this step by step. I posted the following on your talk page:

"Thanks for responding on my talk page and I appreciate that your edits are in good faith but you have continued to make non-minor edits but marked them as minor at Scottish Gaelic. Please read the policy as linked above and feel free to contact me if you have any difficulties with it. Also, were the edits you made sourced from MacBain? The way the source is mentioned in that section is unconventional and probably needs addressed and it's unclear which parts are from MacBain or not, the article having been continually edited since the source was mentioned there years ago. (By the way, if you reply, do so here to keep the thread together; I will see it.)"

You are still marking edits, such as the one you mention above as minor; please don't. As requested, can you tell me if your edits were sourced from Macbain? Can we keep our conversation in one place for continuity of the thread please, so, if you are happier, we can keep it here on my talk page, rather than on your talk page as requested? Also, please get into the habit of signing your posts on talk pages. Let's deal with these first and we'll carry on from there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hope I have gone the correct route here (clicked on 'edit'), not even sure about that!

To address the MacBain question, the edits I have done correspond to MacBain but noticed that some of them don't and some a bit unnecessarily obscure muinntir>monastarium (change of sense). What should be done? Stoorybrig (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Stoorybrig

I've raised the matter at the talk page of the article now so you may want to participate there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Rae Costello

On what grounds did you get this article deleted? Do you even know Pacific Music? or Fijian Music? or ANYTHING related to music? if not, I'll advice you to keep away from articles related to them cause you just got the most renowned musician in the Pacific's article deleted, well done.--Stemoc 02:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Stemoc. Just because someone outside the Pacific has never heard of this name means nothing. I'm sure a good many Fijians, Samoans, etc. have never heard of Pavarotti or the Beatles. So what? If "notability" is applied to a purely global context, that discriminates against minority cultures and small nations. Unless that's what we want, "notability" must mean notable within the context of a nation or culture, not necessarily the whole world. Costello is well-known in Fiji, Samoa, and other Pacific Island nations, and unless we are racists who regard their cultures as worthless, that makes him notable. David Cannon (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Rae Costello and let's stick with the article's issues, not the ad hominem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

[[

Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pakistan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing or restoring other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Justice007 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you are the one who is warring by continually reverting to your contested change. You may not have contravened 3RR yet but it is clear by your edits and your comments at Talk:Pakistan that you are determined to force through your changes come what may. Self-reversion of your changes would be an indication that you now do not wish to war. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk England

I noted your reversal of the rants by user: ADuncan42. Note that he will be back and is quite persistent in his ranting. He has just had his previous login deleted IE: Angelo542, after being taken to task for the same issues and blocked for persisten copyvio's to the Clan Duncan article and rants on the Talk page. You will get the gist of him if you take a look at the history of his previous login talk page. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Aha, hadn't clocked it was one and the same - I had the dubious pleasure under his previous guise. Thanks, I'll bear that intelligence in mind. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've noted the connection on his user page and notified him about sockpuppetry on his talk page but I'm not holding my breath for him paying heed. From his history I imagine he'll just blank my edits but one lives in hope. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I also have a suspicion about a couple of anon IPs being his, due to the way they interacted with his Angelo542 editing on the Clan Duncan article, as though he was logging off to use them, then back ln again as a registerd editor. Perhaps you could take a look to confirm if I am correct in that analysis? I made a note of them, though he denied any knowledge of them, on this [Admins talk page ]. As he stopped editing and wiped his own talk page I let it drop, assuming he had realised he was getting nowhere. However if he continues then I will initiate a SPI. He is clearly here to soapbox and disrupt editing to promote his own ideology, rather than help the project. ~~

Yes, that rings a bell. I didn't act much in regard to the previous pantomime but I observed much of it and the IP edits looked pretty blatant as I remember it; quite possibly incompetence in the first instance but the denials were transparent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Hopefully this will nip things in the bud. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though I notice you seem to have accidentally removed a thread from @Materialscientist's talk page like you did, and restored, on this page too. You might want to go back and restore it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Big finger, small iPad touchscreen keyboard syndrome. :( Richard Harvey (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I know the feeling - sometimes think I'd be as well using my elbows. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme FAC

Hi. As someone who takes a keen interest in articles about the UK, I wondered if you might like to comment on the FAC discussion for Gateway Protection Programme? A previous discussion was archived due to a lack of participation, and I am keen to avoid the same happening again. Any thoughts you have on the article would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Spam.

Dear Mutt,

Could you please tell me why the reference on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_dialect_(Scotland) constitutes as spam when you seem to be 'ok' with the other reference stated. It is slightly unfair that a dictionary on the language can't be used as a reference. Sort of defeats the purpose. Please explain your rationale before I escalate this query. Thanks, DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.66.6 (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Further_reading#Considerations_for_inclusion_of_entries, particularly regarding reliable sources. It's apparent from the pattern of edits recently and a few months ago that the addition of a mention of the book to the article is as publicity for a self-published work. This isn't appropriate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note:- Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ashley mackie 29. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Designating Inglis as Scots, before Inglis had developed into Scots

I believe in adhering to accuracy in so far as is possible. It's not accurate to refer to the language of Barbour and Whyntoun as Scots during this period. Wikipedia seems to be the only place on the internet that does so. It was known as "early northern Middle English" and was called Inglis by its speakers, and the 'Scottis' language at that time was Gaelic. From the very scholarly website: Wir Ain Leid "Although early Scottish literature, in Inglis, such as Barbour's Brus (c.1375), Whyntoun's Kronykil and Blind Harry's Wallace (c.1478) may more accurately be described as early northern Middle English, scholars of Scots refer to the contemporary variety in Scotland as Early Scots." All languages should be referred to as they are (or were) referred to by their native speakers. --Glan-adair2015 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it might or should otherwise be referred to, as the article says "scholars of Scots refer to the contemporary variety in Scotland as Early Scots" - there you are. "All languages should be referred to as they are (or were) referred to by their native speakers" - what a bizarre notion. Will you be advocating that Wikipedia remove all reference to French, German and Spanish and change them to Francais, Deutsh and Español? Any discussion would be better placed at the article talk page. I did add a note that the term "Inglis" was used at the time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mixup at Clark

If you just double-check the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clark&action=history you will see that you reverted my proper reversion of vandalism. I have reverted your reversion, so all is well. But can you remove the notation from my talk page? Thanks! 50.174.200.16 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, my error. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Walter Scott

You assume rightly. Good catch. --Antiquary (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

early modern english

I saw the thing about mad in a documentary on philology, it wasn't OR, but I'll find a source. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 19:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fine but I think you'll be pushed to find a source that says that sense had been lost in British English (Collins and Oxford note somes senses of "mad" as British or US but not this one). I think the usage may be slightly different in Britain in that it's less likely to be without a context ("it makes me mad" rather than "I'm mad") but it is used. Also, can only find references to the origin of the word with sense "insane". Any further discussion would be best held at the article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here's a 19th century English (as in England) dictionary which defines mad as "disordered in the mind, broken in the understanding, distracted, expressing disorder of mind, over-run with any violent or unreasonable desire, enraged, furious. An 18th century dictionary has basically the same definition, but with long s's --Monochrome_Monitor 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)