User talk:Mutt Lunker

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

Bruce comments[edit]

Mutt,

I disagree with your rollbacks of my talk page message. I left an appropriate message related to the discussion. I will not revet your edits, as I do not want to start an edit war, but I disagree with them.

I will also be closing my Wikipedia account as it seems you have to belong to the right "club" in order to participate. I can not think of a handful of edits I've made on any page, including talk pages, that have remained. I know this is a wiki but a wiki is made up of a cooperative effort not the select edits of a few.

I was in the process of reverting my edits while you so eagerly awaited to revert it. Unfortunately my ISP connection is not as fast as yours.

Finally, I thoroughly dislike wikis that pounce on the newbies. FYI I have probably close to 30 Barnstars awarded at other wikis for my contributions. It's only at WP I've had problems. I will be closing my account today as it seems my edits are not appreciated.

Quill and Pen (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you have been bitten but your post did not address improvements to the article, which is the talk page's purpose. Some of the posts above had parts which verged on general discussion as well and this article (amongst numerous others) has been the target of an IP-hopping sock who continually uses talk pages as a forum, so it's rather more under my scrutiny for forum posts in general. There is no implication of judgement being passed on you, so I hope you stay. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to an admin my page is no more. The lack of civility and kindness is apparent here and I've contributed. You were not the one who ran me off but it is the clubbiness that did it. My contributions were appropriate and inline with the other comments and should have stayed. Good luck in your writing ventures. Quill and Pen (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The admin was only responding to your own request but you can request its re-instatement if, as I hope you have, you have decided to rethink your departure. My contact with you was intended to help and inform and is in no way a rebuke. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heather (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppets and IP Adresses[edit]

You are presumably unaware, as I was myself until yesterday, that ‘Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users.’ (Wikipedia). This would appear to explain your otherwise inexplicable belief that I am a sock puppet who uses multiple IP addresses. I don’t claim to understand these things, however, as a result of some strange ‘crossed wires’ a few days ago, I was prompted to do a little poking around and realised that this is exactly the situation in my own case. My IP address simply changes frequently of its own accord – so that the IP address I am given today may have been allocated to someone else yesterday, and may in turn be allocated to someone else tomorrow. IP addresses are not the unique user identifiers one might suppose them to be. And I am not a ‘sock puppet’.

Meanwhile I must point out that ‘Wikihounding’ is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by harassment and/or personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban.

I'm afraid Mutt that I really do find your 'stalking', and repeated threats, unfounded accusations, deletions and other odd behaviour not only tiresome but also clearly falling within the definition of 'Wikihounding' – behaviour not at all consistent with the collegiate ethos and mutual respect one expects to find amongst Wikipedia users, especially amongst its administrators.

Therefore, for the record, I am formally inviting you to modify your behaviour.

In the meantime you may care to spare a moment to reflect that your misguided attempts to block the IP address of what you imagined to be a sock puppet no doubt resulted in you inconveniencing a number of other Wiki users.


Cassandra

These, again, are the some of the many reasons you should get an account (but you know very well you wouldn't last long if you did). Whether you are IP-hopping intentionally or not, the effect is socking and your consequent avoidance of sanctions, as you have been told many, many times. You continually abuse talk pages as a forum for your own POV (one which, more broadly, is reflected honestly and accurately, in contrast to your own postings, in the very lede of your main target article) misrepresenting sources as you go. This is as much vandalism as any other form. Have you actually ever read WP:NOTFORUM as repeatedly directed? You do not have free rein to "enjoy" yourself by abuse of Wikipedia in this manner. It is grotesque to compare the countering of a consistently abusive sock with wikihounding. You are the one who risks the block of other IP edtors when admins have to range-block or semi-protect to curb your behaviour. Don't load that on anyone else and mend your ways. If you genuinely believe your editing to be legitimate and honest, put your money where your mouth is and edit consistently from one account. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

HappyEaster! from

Ninja2222  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja222222 (talkcontribs) 21:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Staffordshire oatcake, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jpswade (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

British slang[edit]

How exactly am I supposed to provide a citation for a slang term outside of Urbandictionary? Besides, half of the terms on the page are uncited. I use the term, and other people I know use the term. What more do you want?

The Mighty Drakodan (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability provides the information on how to do this. If you can't cite it, it should not be added and Urbandictionary is very much an unreliable source. Yes, much work is required on this and related articles, with the overwhelming majority of the text unreferenced, hence the WP: OR and WP:V tags at their head. This is all the more reason to make sure any additional material added is properly referenced, rather than carte blanche to compound these problems with the articles with the addition of further unsupported material. By all means remove any unreferenced material, or if you feel minded it would be very helpful to provide references for existing entries which are verifiable. I had been slowly trying to address these matters at List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of British words not widely used in the United States, List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L and List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z. At the first of these, I have been systematically referencing entries or removing them but so far have only reached "F", let alone getting as far as the other three articles, my eventual intention. I have though, been keeping an eye on these articles to make sure any changes are at least constructive and reliably sourced until I can address them in more depth. I hope this helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

List of cities in UK[edit]

Hello, I see you have been an editor on List of cities in the United Kingdom and I'm wondering if you can help find some way forward over a current editing dispute. Essentially User:Italay90 has made some rather fundamental changes to the article. One is to group all the cities from the different parts of the UK into a single list, which has its pros and cons. But the one that has caused a problem is a unilateral decision to remove the references to the City of London and City of Westminster and instead instate the population of Greater London in their place. As the list is, as it states in the lead, "places that have been granted city status by letters patent or royal charter" and Greater London does not hold this status whereas the City of London and City of Westminster do, the content of the article no longer agrees with the lead. I have tried reverting and explaining but have been quickly reverted and effectively ordered not to make changes in the edit summary.

I am assuming these are good faith edits and the editor does not understand the difference between a formally recognised "city" and one as used in common speech. From the way they write I suspect that English may not be his/her first language which is another barrier. I absolutely do not want to go behind anybody's back or "tell tales", but I would appreciate any advice you might have on where to bring this so that the list can once again be a list of places granted city status and not the mess that it now is. Is there perhaps a project page on UK geography or something? Lozleader (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I left aforesaid changes in the talk page of the article for 6 months with no response so Lozleader and any others who wished to object to such changes had ample time to do so. The article essentially replaced a preceding article which labelled London as a city, I am not labelling "Greater London" a city, only London. Other changes to the article took a large amount of time for me to implement (such as merging the tables of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to provide a better comparison of UK cities). There are various definitions of what city status is, and this article in-fact removed the city proper list for the UK? London, as far as I am aware, is the only city of the UK not to be granted city status which is, by various sources, a city by the "city proper" definition. I feel that this article is also rather pointless considering such a list actually exists in the article which it was derived from, rendering it pointless? (See: City status in the United Kingdom#List of officially designated cities).

What is the purpose of the article if it contains listings of cities in each part of the United Kingdom separately - considering the information is already available in separate articles? (See: List of towns and cities in Scotland by population, List of localities in Northern Ireland by population, List of localities in England by population & List of localities in Wales by population?) Italay90 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Transfăgărășan 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • proved to be an impractical route due to the much greater accumulation of snow during the winter).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done.Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


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) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (Re: "Treacle")[edit]

I'm glad that we've finally been able to settle the matter of "treacle" (it's gone on for TOO long). I'm glad that we've been able to find a proper place for it. Thank you very much. LizFL (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Cigar Box Guitar entry changes[edit]

Matt - I apologize for the changes I made to the cigar box guitar entry. After reading the guidelines, I see that I was clearly in the wrong on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbgitty (talkcontribs) 22:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries: you're new here, I'm glad you've learned something and it's very big of you to recognise that your edits weren't suitable. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Re message sent through my talk page[edit]

Thank you, will read guidelines. I AM Horse McDonald and therefore will remove anything deemed inappropriate from the page. Horse (HorseMcD (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC))

Hi there, to quote from the policy, if an article is about you "you are advised to refrain from editing" unless "the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." It is not obvious that any of the material you are removing fits that definition, so if you are sure that it does, explain this on the article's talk page and contact WP:BLPN. Some of the material is uncited and on that basis can be removed, but again as you say that you are the subject you ought to explain that its inaccuracy is the rationale for its removal on the talk page. If you continue to simply remove material, with no other explanation than that you don't like it you may face sanctions, including being blocked temporarily or permanently. Let me know if you need any further explanation or help.
In regard to your talk page comment, Wikipedia relies on what it deems by policy to be reliable sources. That you are the subject of the article is not sufficient in itself but presumably means you will be aware of such reliable sources if factual material is to be added, so please provide such a source. (The rationale for this is obvious as otherwise anyone could add false material by claiming to know or be the subject.)
You seem to be editing as both User:HorseMcD, User:HorseMcDonald and possibly anonymously from IP address and as User:Horsemusic. This makes it more difficult to contact you and, though I have no reason to believe this is your intention, can indicate underhand intent with some users (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). For these reasons please stick to one user account.
I realise this may all be new and hard to get across but again, let me know if you need any further explanation or help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post a comment to you as you are obviously and naively using multiple accounts. You continue with your removal of material with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page or WP:BLPN. This is not the way to go about things, as you will learn very quickly if you carry on. Editing of the article may be restricted and/or you may be blocked. I tried very hard to be helpful: please read the above advice if you have not done so and give yourself a second chance, or you are likely to get into hot water. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Ehret's Birth Date Correction[edit]

Greetings Mutt, the citation was itself actually wrong. So I updated the citation along with the other instances of the birth. If you want to look at the original source material from the citation to confirm that I made the correction properly, take a look at page 9 and 13 of this pdf of the book book in question HERE. It is available via Digital Dropbox. The existing citation only had page 13 cited, but mistyped the date. Perhaps page 9 should be added to the citation, as Fred Hirsch's articles are the primary source material on which Ehret's birthdate is based. Let me know if you have any further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdeezy (talkcontribs) 13:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)