User talk:Mutt Lunker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks for info on 'minor corrections'. Snowdrop123 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


P L Fermor translated a book by Colette (Chance Acquaintances & Julie de Carneilhan) which was published as no. 1227 by Penguin Books in October 1957. Snowdrop123 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's right and this is already mentioned under the "Works" section of the article, hence my removal of your external link. The link doesn't add any further information, being only a scan of the front cover of the book that is already mentioned. I guess you could add it to that section as a reference but it is superfluous as an external link. Have a look at the WP:EL guideline, points to note in this case being "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum" and "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.".
I notice you have added this link to numerous other articles too and I suspect the above applies to many or all of them too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am new to the Wiki world. I have now read WP:EL and understand where you are coming from. However, is Fermor your page, did you create it and are you protecting it's integrity - or do you take on the task of policing it and other pages? The links given are mutual - in the sense that there is a wiki link on the Penguin web-site, and the information there has been researched from the actual printed pages (e.g. title page etc). I suppose unlike book cover design - where the link would better illustrate the skills of the individual - translating has been a more hidden skill. The link guides readers back to the resource on the range of translators used by Penguin. Snowdrop123 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles and anyone can edit. I had the Fermor article on my watchlist, having made some edits of my own recently, spotted yours and the thoughts as laid out above occurred to me, hence my edits. Don't worry, it can be baffling as you get used to editing here but if you read some of the guidelines in the welcome on your talk page that should help and feel free to come and ask me if you have any questions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Matt, I just saw your reversion and I see what you mean. On close inspection of the population figures (2012) the 71,000 number is the contiguous area of Dunfermline ("settlement"), including Inverkeithing and Rosyth. There is an adjacent page that denotes the Dunfermline town area ("locality") population. I will make the correct edits.

Thanks for the heads up.

If you haven't already seen it page 5 here clarifies the difference between these so-called "settlements" and "localities". As we are talking about "the more recognisable towns and cities", it is localities which concern us, not settlements, so please don't add data about the latter in a locality article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dundee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruk. 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) 09:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(reversion of uncited material regarding living people)[edit]

Hi, I am long life supporter of West Ham and you edited my post on the Goalkeeping coach. Then my post on my hometown Kirkcaldy. Any reasons why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhade (talkcontribs) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources if you add material to Wikipedia, particularly so in biographies of living persons or when adding material about living persons. The material about Bobby Mimms, even if you have a citation for it, may be suitable for a "personal life" section but is not pertinent or significant enough for the lede. I hope that helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The messages I've left on your talk page should also give you some pointers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Vibram FiveFingers[edit]

I've put the sentence back into the lede. The article looks quite promotional to me and this is one of the few independent reliably sourced areas. Also making health claims is a very serious business. Please see the talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Message for Matt re Kirkcaldy[edit]

Well spotted. I don't know how Kirkcaldy got on the list. It may have been there from the start and overlooked. I have revised it from time to time as I've discovered more about which places have a genuine mercat cross (or rather what can be defined as one in the historical sense, though residents creating a later structure, e.g. a Victoria Jubilee Fountain or war memorial may well regard it as their town or village cross). I wanted to click the Thank you button but couldn't find it, so have left this deletable message here instead. Kim Traynor | Talk 10:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I think there is a plaque on the wall or on the road where they reckon it was (on the High Street by the junction with Kirk Wynd) but no actual cross. A guid new year to ye. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Information icon 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[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 (talkcontribs)

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)


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)


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)