User talk:Mutt Lunker

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

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

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[edit]

Hi,

Why you reverted my changes? I just added his picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehmetGreenland (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 22:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thane[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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) 09:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

United Synagogue[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish border.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[1]

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)