User talk:Mutt Lunker

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

July 2017[edit]

Your revertion: Hi Mutt, you seem to have reverted my recent amendment. Could you perhaps explain the reason why? I have repeated this comment in the Talk: Ulster Scots. Brough87 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
New Reply. Brough87 (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rupa Huq[edit]

It seems very obvious that no recent sources make any real mention of her being married. Given the increase in her profile since 2005 this seems significant. Her husband does not seem to have appeared anywhere. Perhaps we should say that she was married? And I dont think this should be referenced by the Daily Mail. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The place for such a discussion is the article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

India Pale Ale[edit]

An apology would be appreciated given that you reverted a edit with an unnecessarily agressive, and inaccurate, edit summary [1] only for you to support the edit minutes later [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.52 (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Er, glad I reconsidered, self-reverted and explained my retraction in the edit summary. You're welcome.
(Also, your edit summary "Valid spelling for non-US specific article" is either open to misinterpretation or inaccurate. Not sure if you intend that it is not specific to the US - which is true but in that case either spelling is valid - or that it is specifically non-US, which is incorrect. My decision to self-revert was fairly borderline as the article as a whole does indeed have strong ties to parts of the world where US spelling is used, and increasingly so in the last few decades, and, I think at least in part, the refs for that note may have such ties. As the note regards the UK however, I decided on balance to retract.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
No apology but criticism: quite informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.52 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You seem to hold grudges and have difficulty moving on. I'm unable to help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
No indication of grudges have been given, not least because there are none: another flawed assumption by you. Your recent reply, with a breathtaking arrogant assumption that I was seeking your help, is consistent with your previous reply in which you patronisingly stated 'You're welcome'. You have clearly revealed your character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.52 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm done. Re-read your posts above and have a word with yourself. No indication of grudges... Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Towns and Cities (Scotland)[edit]

Hi I see you reverted my edit. I'm a little confused why as I did provide a reasonable reference for the Locality and Settlement [3] If you scroll to the bottom of that page it is explained how the estimates are calculated...

Source: General Records of Scotland (web).

Explanation: Localities according to the 2012 definition on base of output areas. 2001 figures are approximate values. 2015 figures are calculated by »City Population« using official estimates for "data zones". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu4581 (talkcontribs) 10:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the reversion was that I had thought you had deleted the definition of "locality" and "settlement", due to the major nature of your change making it somewhat difficult to follow in the diff. I see now that you had in fact moved these to the intro.
Otherwise, it's not clear to me who "citypopulation.de" are, whether they are reliable and what their sourcing is. I don't know what "General Records of Scotland (web)" is, though it sounds sort of official and may be from a government body but that isn't clear. If they are from official stats that are on the web, it would be better to establish that and cite them directly.
Your addition of a new, duplicate section containing stats from these refs for a limited number of localities amd settlements above a set of different stats for all localities and settlements, including the ones already listed makes for a rather confusing layout.
I hope that explains the reason for my reversion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The (Source: General Records of Scotland (web).) actually refers to the National Records of Scotland [4].
What citypopulation.de have done is use the population estimates from the 'data zone's' at NRoS and combined them to form the boundaries of each locality. This way you can see the estimated population of the locality for 2015.
I can understand how this new layout may be confusing so instead of all the changes I made, how about I could just add a column to the locality and settlement tables which contains the 2015 population estimate for each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu4581 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, whatever it refers to, what is "General Records of Scotland (web)"? I'm not sure what your link to the NRoS homepage is supposed to show as it is neither apparently the general records source referred to, nor displaying any pertinent data at that page.
Who are citypopulation.de and are they a WP:RS? Without knowing what you are referring to at NRoS I don't know what data zones are or how their combination forms the boundary of a locality, or what the latter means. This sounds at best like WP:SYNTH of data to conclude something that isn't explicitly stated by them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
...and a discussion about the artcle is best held at the article talk page really. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

New section[edit]

Hi Mutt Thanks for keeping me right. I have clearly a long way to go before I understand the complexities of the Wikipedia system. I suppose that I have to tick the "watch this page" box in order to draw the attention of those who have previously contributed to the entry whilst a tick in the the "minor change" box is only picked up randomly. Alwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwin Cambrun (talkcontribs) 07:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alwin, don't worry, we've all got to start somewhere and I'm happy to help if you've got any questions. Not sure if you noticed but I've posted at Talk:Markinch#Reference_to_Place-names_of_Fife_by_Taylor.
Choosing "watch this page" puts an article on your watchlist and any edits to that article or talk page show up on your list; likewise for other editors but only if they have chosen to add that article to their list. If you want to draw another editor's attention to an article talk page discussion, by all means drop them a line on their talk page but it's probably best to have the actual discussion about the article at its talk page, so that it keeps it in one place and others can see it. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bagpipe tunes[edit]

Hello, Mutt Lunker! I notice where you reverted the addition of “Flower of Scotland“ to the GHB article, your ES mentions that the bagpipe setting doesn’t quite match the original tune because of an unavailable note. JFTR the same criticism could be made of “Scotland the Brave“, whose original vocal line reached the C(#) above high A at one point in the chorus, while the pipe version has to settle for repeating the preceding phrase with high A at the top. Many other well-known pipe tunes adapted from songs include similar compromises; indeed, if one were to exclude everything from the ceòl beag repertoire that was not originally composed for bagpipe, there wouldn’t be much left aside from regimental marches and a few dance tunes.—Odysseus1479 22:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Scotland the Brave was a tune long before lyrics were put to it but even if it's the other way round as you say, what you describe is a question of a consonant adaptation due to a restriction in range versus an actual bum note in the pipe accompaniment to Flower of Scotland, so not like with like, but that's a secondary matter really. FoS is first and foremost a song, now often accompanied by pipes - inadequately to my mind - and oompahing brass at sporting events, but not really a good example of a pipe tune. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, you’ll notice I didn’t re-revert, and I generally agree with most of the above—although I can’t resist pointing out that the bagpipe‘s flattened high G is frequently a “bum note“ in tunes adapted from major-key airs, including such standards as “Bonnie Dundee” and “The Green Hills of Tyrol“, albeit usually mitigated by having short duration as a ‘passing note’ in a run or figure. Anyway, I guess my main point is that to be considered exemplary the character and history of a tune ought to be more important than the accuracy of the arrangement; for example it‘s a pet peeve of mine that “Amazing Grace“ is as popular on the pipes as it is, for reasons that have nothing to do with fidelity to the original (which is pretty good): AFAIC it doesn’t hold a candle to something like “Lochaber No More“. And any pipe tune can easily be ruined by adding brass!—Odysseus1479 00:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's certainly a spectrum as to what one might consider a pipe tune in regard to tunes with other origins, and where to draw the line is subjective. I'm maybe showing my prejudice in regard to the F o S arrangement but my drawing of the line is probably tipped by it being, largely in contrast to the other examples discussed, an example which is generally played in accompaniment to its singing, with the car horn every time the singers hit that note "correctly" and the pipes land elsewhere. It would be nice if the article's list included more typically pipe world tunes rather than the more scratch-the-surface, popular Scottish tunes often played on the pipes current emphasis. I know some of these may or may not have originated on the pipes and few if any will have articles to link to but: Cabar Feidh, Cameronian Rant, the Black Bear, Jig of Slurs, Atholl Highlanders...? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am no longer a piper, and certainly no expert on tuning the pipes, but I understand that some 'modern' pipers tune their pipes differently to those of 'traditional' pipers to take account of the need to accommodate the different settings of 'popular' songs. I feel the article does not reflect this but do not have the expertise (as in piping knowledge) to make this comment.Shipsview (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking GHB, there are concert pitch chanters available but I think their use is comparatively limited. I may be wrong. Otherwise there's a lot of use of small pipes and border pipes by otherwise GHB players when playing with other instruments. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)