User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 7
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 6||Archive 7||Archive 8|
- 1 Recent Comments
- 2 Removed my contribution on sausage
- 3 help with a page move, link editing
- 4 Steenkamp pronunciation
- 5 AfD nomination
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for March 2
- 7 Don't revert for the sake of reversal
- 8 Gigha Revisions
- 9 First Glasgow Wiki Meetup
- 10 Kasmiri Pandits
- 11 Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast
- 12 Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
- 13 Keith O'Brien etc.
- 14 June 2013
- 15 Activated debates
- 16 Layout of Muirfield
- 17 September 2013
- 18 An’ another thing Jimmy: Scots and the Emperor’s Clothes.
- 19 Talk/user page
- 20 Primal lifestyle
- 21 It stinks
- 22 Blair Dunlop Page
- 23 Sunshine on Leith (film)
- 24 Sock puppetry & etc
- 25 Iron Drew
- 26 Red links
- 27 FODMAP page
Not quite sure what your issue is... my references are normally added at end (under references) as doing them inline would be odd as they are not direct quotes. Do you have any Specific examples with which you have a problem? Much is geographical... do you wish me to add a map as a reference???? Looking at your own articles (and edits) they are far from beyond reproach. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. My information is at least accurate--Stephencdickson (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Stephen, the links to Wikipedia policies that I provided in my posts on your talk page show in detail what I’m referring to and I would still recommend that you familiarise yourself with them (I’ll add them below again) but I’ll try to elaborate a wee bit here in summary. I notice you have been doing a bit more in regard to reference work though in recent edits, so that’s good.
- Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, so any material added must have citations attached to it. Inline references are preferable, far from being odd, as they verify individual matters specifically and you’re mistaken in thinking they are intended (only) for quotes; that isn't the case. WP:INCITE gives more information. Material an editor adds may be perfectly correct but, without knowing the origin, it is impossible to confirm that it is accurate just on their own say-so, from their personal knowledge, however honest the intent. I have noticed some content added by yourself which I don't necessarily think is wrong but for which I'd like to see confirmation as my own personal belief on the matter had been otherwise. (That said, when I concur with what you’ve added, I’d also like to see citations supporting it.) When it is uncited I could (and ought to really) just remove it as apparent original research. Instead though, I've generally asked for confirmation and citations.
- If refs are just added at the end of an article there is no way of knowing which parts of the article are verified by which refs, if they are in fact reffed by any, and any further material added by other users may spuriously appear to be verified by refs that have been listed in relation to other sections. As you seem at least a little unfamiliar with the requirement for verifiability and in how to reference material I'd recommend reading through WP:V (a very helpful quote on the policy from the first paragraph is "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.") and WP:CITE as they are very helpful and should answer why I've been asking you about verifying your material. However sure one is of one's facts, if it is from one's personal knowledge alone and not "previously published information", it can't be added to Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me if you have questions about the policy.
- However deficient one editor's work, if that gave other editors free rein to also make sub-standard edits or ones that fall short of policy, Wikipedia would, like much of the rest of the content of the internet, not be a very worthwhile work of reference.
- In regard to marking your edits as being minor ones, this has a pretty specific meaning in Wikipedia and by and large, your edits are not minor under this specification. WP:MINOR should clear this up. In your case, I'm sure this is a misunderstanding on your part, just not being familiar with the WP definition of the term, but it's worth letting you know that other editors may not realise this and may regard it as a tactic to hide non-minor edits from scrutiny (for instance watchlists can be set up to exclude the listing of minor edits, to minimise workloads on the basis that they are less likely to be controversial).
- I hope that clears matters up for you, though do please read the policies in full as well and by all means come back to me if you have any questions. A guid New Year and all the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC) 13:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed my contribution on sausage
Why don't you think that my edit was constructive? Mechanically separated meat is not in the general vernacular, but pink (or white) slime surely is. After further perusal of the MSM article, I guess I would accept an edit that changed "pink slime" to "white slime" but not a complete removal of my small edit.
- Not vandalism after all, apologies. It's a term I hadn't heard of before, it didn't appear to add anything and appeared to be a joke comment. However, adding this byname to the sausage article doesn't really expand our knowledge of what is being said, so although it's not vandalism it is superfluous and I've removed it again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree on the superfluity of the term in the article. Many people are familiar with the various "slimes" but do not know that the industry jargon is MSM. Inclusion of the term certainly doesn't harm the article, so I will be waiting the requisite amount of time so as not to 3RR and then I will revise again. Sukiari (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that discussing it on the article talk page now rather than waiting to avoid sanctions on a technicality is a better and more constructive course of action (incidentally (and I'm not accusing you of such an intention), not a hard and fast rule anyway; if there's an indication of an intention to war, sanctions can be applied at any stage). Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you helped update some links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENS_Foundation recently. Thanks!
On Jan 21, SENS rolled out a new website, new logo, updated branding, and started using the name "SENS Research Foundation". I've done work with them in the past, and know them well, (and they've paid me in the past) so my edits may fall under WP:COI for that page.
They blogged about the changes here http://www.sens.org/outreach/outreach-blog/welcome-our-new-site in a blog post linked from their new home page.
Can you help move "SENS Foundation" to "SENS Research Foundation" and help update some of the links to the site, and the internal references on WP that say "SENS Foundation"?
- I'm a bit busy at the moment but I've made the move for now at least as that's quick (I can't see anything that would make the move controversial as the organisation has clearly changed its name) and it gives a chance for the bots to make a start sorting out links. I don't see myself getting a chance to do any of that manually right now but if you wanted to steal a march on the bots and do any of the work they won't get to, I don't see any problem COI-wise. Best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Helen, that's interesting: for what it's worth, neither quite the pronunciation I imagined or the one being used in news broadcasts here. I was also interested in the pronunciation of Reeva; would you agree "riːvə" would be an accurate rendering? In which case the "ee" in the two names is pronounced differently? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I would you agree with "riːvə", the "ee" in the surname is longer with a twist (see also J. M. Coetzee). I don't think Reeva is an Afrikaans name per se (neither are her middle name Rebecca, her brother's name Adam, her mother's name June and her father's name Barry). HelenOnline (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I contacted Secret the admin who deleted an article you nominated for AfD to discuss returning the article to Wikipedia. You can review my comments there and follow the link to review the repaired article. What I am hoping is that you will agree that the subject is notable and the deletion was a mistake. If you would leave a comment on Secret's talk page to agree or disagree, I would appreciate that you considered this request. Thank you.—My76Strat (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think the reasoning for the deletion still very much stands. Almost all sources are closely tied to the award, a large number from the very body which awards it. Probably the only truly independent RS which mentions it is in a brief biographical blurb about a contributor to the Huffington Post, the article itself making no discussion of the award. By all means direct Secret to this comment. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, it seems Wikipedia:RECREATE#Valid reasons for recreating a deleted page bears on this article's circumstances. And so I applied that provision; Independent Publisher Book Award. Best regards,—My76Strat (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pebre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pepper (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.
Don't revert for the sake of reversal
Don't revert my edits. I added five sources and can deposit more sources if you can. It was not unsourced or WP:OR. And you didn't demonstrate the sources are unreliable. You simply disagreed with the sources. That is not ground for reverting a theory. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BALANCE we are obligated to "describe both approaches and work for balance", instead of reverting it at will just to censor something you don't like. Mr T(Talk?) 11:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. A less equitable person than I, might regard the use of the word "racist" in your edit summary as tad inappropriate or even a personal attack. Kindly behave yourself. Mr T(Talk?) 11:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- The theories are outdated, no longer adhered to and largely now regarded as a racist relic. See Aryan race. Sources must be reliable and you must reflect them accurately. You appear to have an agenda. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen Aryan race and you didn't provide a single source that explicitly states that the theory is outdated. At least for the nonce it's your OR. Kindly cite a different source that explicitly says what you're claiming. And then we can talk. Till then please don't revert. Mr T(Talk?) 12:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly read: Mr T(Talk?) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Very good, these directly contradict your edits to the Kashmiri Pandits article, so are you showing me these as a prelude to self-rv? Also it would be more constructive to have this discussion at the article talk page since the discussion ought to regard the article, not your personal affront. 12:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, FYI, I have taken the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you can stand the heat then please don't "leave it in [my] hands", as per your last message at Talk:Kashmiri Pandit. This article needs sensible people and it needs people without POV baggage and long records of trips to the drama boards. In particular, when Mrt3366 and DarknessShines get going, there tend to be problems because they rarely seem to agree (or hadn't up to the point where I could last be bothered reading the tiresome argument/counter-argument that was mostly wikilaywering). - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly read: Mr T(Talk?) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen Aryan race and you didn't provide a single source that explicitly states that the theory is outdated. At least for the nonce it's your OR. Kindly cite a different source that explicitly says what you're claiming. And then we can talk. Till then please don't revert. Mr T(Talk?) 12:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to the first ever Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
May be my english was not good, but don't you think that because we are using a 2010 source should we not make it clear that no killings were reported till 2010, the source doesn't claim anything beyond 2010.This is with regard to this edit--sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- The paragraph makes it clear that this was the situation in 2010; it starts "In 2010...". Your wording implied that there were killings in 2010 which, from the source at least, there were not. If you have a reliable source for killings in or after 2010, this can be added, otherwise the wording is perfectly accurate as it is. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast
Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Keith O'Brien etc.
I've added more to the Keith O'Brien article, you're Scottish and understand the Scottish perspective better than I do. Can you improve the article?
- I've had the article on my watchlist because of the controversial nature of the recent developments regarding O'Brien, largely to try to make sure any new edits are NPOV and reflect sources accurately. In that respect I've already had a go at improving the article as it develops, if in a small way, and as I'm not party to any additional material on the topic, had no particular intention of further developing or revising it. So, in short, probably not but was there anything more specific you had in mind? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2013 (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 and 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(Click show ⇨)
Hi Mutt Lunker. I invite you to feedback on my views in Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, I'm encouraging all involved since January to do so. Adam37 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Layout of Muirfield
- The first nine go roughly the same direction along the coast, the second nine go roughly the same direction back again. I've reworded the sentence though to spell it out more clearly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, as my edits are none of the above, I chose to disregard your petty threat. It is baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
An’ another thing Jimmy: Scots and the Emperor’s Clothes.
Ah there you are Mutt.
Just before I fly off on my holidays I thought you might find this of interest. No need for a quick repsonse since I shall be away.
Though I doubt that you'll like it, and perhaps not agree with it, the following very brief and (mostly) objective summary of the facts about the story of the Scots languge will at the very least widen your horizons on the matter, whilst demonstrating that the the Scots language is a far more complex topic than Wiki suggests.
I should perhaps emphasise the word 'brief' since there is at least 20 times more solid info of the same kind available for those who look a bit deeper.
Though you may disagree with the conclusion, what I am sure you will, eventually, agree is that the present Wiki pages are not only selective and deficient in content, but as a consequence are visibly POV (though exactly whose POV I can only guess).
Even if one has only read Murray on the subject and nothing else you will see exactly what I mean.
Indeed I think it is the word 'subject' which is the stumbling block. At the moment Wiki's Scots language pages don't treat the topic as a neutral academic 'subject' but rather more as a credo to be explained and defended. The pages each need a radical overhaul is they are to be honest NPOV reportage.
Do please share this short paper with Wiki's Scots Interest colleagues. I'm sure they too will find it highly informative.
Cassandra (P.S. Do forgive the closing dedication - too strong a temptation to resist)
An’ another thing Jimmy: Scots and the Emperor’s Clothes.
“Who is so deafe or so blinde, as is hee, That wilfully will neither heare nor see?” John Heywood 1546
In recent years the view that Scots is a language distinct from English has not only gained widespread acceptance, but has also been granted an important degree of political recognition.
Relatively few people in Scotland seem to question this idea. But does this linguistic Emperor have any clothes? Is the ‘Scots Language’ serious semantic science; or is it just a delusion, the romantic vision of politicised poets and poetry-inspired politicians?
The Scots Language Centre highlights two key publications in the 19th century:
“John Jamieson’s An Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language published in 1808 is the first Scots language dictionary to be published.” (1)
“James Murray’s The Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland was published in 1873. Having mapped out the dialects of Scots for the first time, and a chronology, Murray founded the modern study of Scots.” (2)
Both publications include detailed commentaries on the history of the Scots Language.
Jamieson begins by stating that:
“I do not hesitate to call that the Scottish Language, which has generally been considered in no other light than as merely on a level with the different provincial dialects of the English.”
In other words, in 1808 Scots was not considered to be, nor to have been, a language distinct from English.
Despite at least one continental visitor to Scotland in historic times apparently reporting that the language of Scotland was different from that of England * , the historical record provides scant evidence that Scotsmen prior to Jamieson’s day ever believed that ‘Scots’ was a distinct language from English – notwithstanding the commonly observed, but never exclusive, practice from the early 16th century until the late 17th of substituting the name ‘Scottis’, ‘Scots’ and ‘Scotch’ as the name for the Lowland language in place of its historic name of English or ‘Inglis’.
Rather the historical record confirms that Scotsmen believed that Scotland and England shared the same language:
“There is nocht tua nations vndir the firmament that ar mair contrar and different fra vthirs, nor is inglis men and scottis men, quoubeit that thai be vtht in ane ile, and nychbours, and of ane langage” - The Compleynt of Scotland 1549.
“...natura autem deum omnium rerum parentem opificemque sequuta Scotie et Anglie regna lingua moribus religionis consensu et vnitate inter se concordia infra vnius insule ambitum inclusit...” James VI to Scottish Parliament 26th April 1604 Procedure: commission; asking of instruments.
“Thairfore, since by the good providence of God bothe nations are in ane illand, speake on[e] and the same language, profess on[e] and the same religion and ar united under the same head and monarch” Instructions from the Parliament of Scotland to ‘there commissionaris’ at London 26th November 1645.
Jamieson however disagreed, setting out in his dictionary the explanation for his dissent in a long ‘Dissertation’ on the history of ‘the Scots Language’.
He argued that Scots was a distinct language from English because it had a wholly different genesis, being descended independently from ancient Gothic in remote antiquity. Any resemblance between Scots and English was coincidental.
The Dictionary of National Biography subsequently described Jamieson’s Gothic theory as ‘obsolete’ and ‘of interest only to antiquarians’.
The DNB’s editor was being kind: though Jamieson’s word hoard may be of considerable historical interest, his pet theory was eccentric nonsense, something which was perfectly evident to informed ‘antiquarians’ even in 1808. (‘Jamieson’s Gothic theory’ was in fact first popularised almost 20 years earlier by John Pinkerton – a sometime forger of ‘ancient’ Scots poetry – in his ‘Dissertation on the Origins and Progress of the Scythians or Goths’, though the idea can be traced back earlier still, not least to Robert Sibbald’s 1710 work ‘The history, ancient and modern, of the sheriffdoms of Fife and Kinross’.)
Murray’s ‘The Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland’ (1873) is of a wholly different order.
Despite a seemingly prodigious knowledge of classical history John Jamieson was an enthusiastic, amateur with less knowledge of Scottish history than of Roman and Greek. Fellow Scot James Murray was by contrast an intellectual prodigy and professional philologist. Before his death in 1915 he would be the recipient of multiple international honours, and be acknowledged as the world’s most eminent lexicographer.
In investigating the history of the dialects of Lowland Scotland James Murray recognised that fact and fable were frequently mixed.
To address the problem Murray takes up almost the first 100 pages of his book in order to carefully tease out the many strands of the centuries-long story.
In contrast to more-recent histories, whose authors are seldom so scrupulous when presenting their evidence, Murray’s book delivers in fine detail an ice-cold cascade of surprising, and sobering, revelations and observations.
Murray takes up scalpel and microscope to strip his subject to the bone - displaying, dissecting and demolishing one erroneous belief after another in pursuit of strict historical truth.
For example, on the oft-quoted pledge of 16th century ‘Scots language’ poet Gavin Douglas to “Kepe na Sodroun”, Murray comments that the claim is “very curious, in the light of the fact that no Scottish writer - indeed, so far as I know, no Northern writer, of any period, either in England or Scotland - has employed so many genuine Southern forms.” Under Murray’s finely-focussed lens Burns too is examined and found wanting. Murray concludes that the ‘Scots Language’ was never more than an alternative name for the most northerly manifestation(s) of Northern English, the common dialect-group extending from the Humber to the Firth of Forth.
Murray’s book, still in print, though rarely referred to, remains a standard work.
Almost reluctantly, the current on-line edition of the Dictionary of the Older Scots Tongue notes that ‘James Murray, Sir William Craigie [DOST Ed 1931-56] and A. J. Aitken [DOST Ed 1956-86] refrained from claiming language status for Lowland Scots. They were aware of its geographical continuity with the dialects of the north of England. Others, including David Murison [Ed Scottish National Dictionary 1946-76] and Prof. J. Derrick McClure**, have made the case for considering Scots to be a minority European language’. (3).
The introduction to Grant and Dixon's ‘Manual of Modern Scots’ published in 1921 however confidently tells readers that ‘Scottish was the language of the University, the School, and the fashionable courtiers... The language was used all over Scotland in official documents, Session Records, Town Council Minutes’. Yet remarkably the only evidence which the authors present, their proof of the once-upon-a-time existence of ‘pure court-Scotch’, is a quote from a 19th century romantic novel by Sir Walter Scott.
From the 1920s however the idea that Scots-is-a-language was actively promoted by Hugh McDiermid (the pen-name of Christopher Grieve), and by others such as fellow SNP traveller Lewis Spence (whose other interests more-prominently included magic, mysticism and Atlantis). ‘Mad or sad or visionary’ and ‘a wild haired chauvinist English hater’ according to Neil Oliver’s 2009 History of Scotland. Long-time communist, sometime fascist, but always an extremist, McDiermid was also a ‘full time Anglophobe’ (his own description) and was one of the founders of the SNP (1934). McDiermid’s ‘Scots’ poetry has ensured his enduring reputation amongst latter-day Scots language enthusiasts. MacDiarmid himself referred to his poetry as written in ‘Synthetic Scots’ and seemed ‘comfortable with using a hodgepodge of old Scots, current dialect and English’. In the inter-war period communists, fascists and nationalists alike promoted and refined the use of propaganda for political ends. In 1922 McDiermid wrote lamenting Scotland’s lack of “a propaganda of ideas”. He subsequently became ‘obsessed with language and believed that Scotland should re-adopt the archaic spellings and speech of the 15th century’.
The meme that ‘Scots’ had once been (and thus might still be) a language distinct from English however appears to have become more widespread, and to a significant extent been ‘invented’, only in far more recent decades.
For example today’s state-supported Scottish Language Society was founded in 1972 – but was at that time the less-ambitiously named Lallans Society***.
Thus the problem facing anyone seeking to produce an objective and comprehensive report on the subject of ‘the Scots Language’ is how to reconcile the history of language in Lowland Scotland as set out by James Murray and his successors with that of later ‘revisionists’.
That difficulty is made even clearer by Prof James Costa’s 2009 paper ‘Language history as charter myth?’ (4) which identifies current academic concerns about modern intrusions of Scottish myth and dogma into recent historical narratives, issues surprisingly similar to those identified by James Murray.
No one who reads Murray’s 19th century work or Costa’s of the 21st will do so without finding that they raise a multitude of questions.
Checking contradictory statements against primary sources is of course the best way to resolve such conflict.
One of the most useful historical records of language in Scotland, available on-line only since 2008, is the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707. It is a fully searchable database containing the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament from the first surviving Act of 1235 to the Union of 1707. With the exception of one single (and ambiguous) sentence, the parliamentary records do not contain any evidence which supports the view that ‘Scots’, despite its name, was ever considered to be a different language from English - rather they confirm the contrary. (5)
Meanwhile words themselves sometimes obscure as much as they reveal. Three which cause particular problems in explaining the unfolding story of language in Lowland Scotland are ‘Inglis’, ‘Anglisisation’ and ‘Scots’.
Murray went to some pains to point out that simple historical differences in spelling do not imply different meaning. Thus whilst one may correctly write ‘Until the 16th century Lowland Scots called their language English, which was most-commonly spelled ‘Inglis’’, it is wholly incorrect to write, as many now do, that ‘Until the 16th century Lowland Scots called their language Inglis’. Whether due to lack of care or by intention such inappropriate use of ‘Inglis’ inevitably conveys the misleading implication that the word meant something subtly, or even substantively, different to Scotsmen than when spelled as ‘English’.
The implied distinction becomes even more misleading when one notes that the spelling E-n-g-l-i-s-h is not recorded in England before 1585. (Historically a multitude of different spellings were used in both countries e.g. Cursor Mundi c. 1300 ‘Þis ilk bok es translate into Inglis tong to rede for the love of Inglis lede, Inglis lede of Ingland for the commun at understand’ or Bartholomaeus Anglicus De Proprietatibus Rerum 1398 ‘ Seint Gregory seith ynglysshe children to sellyng at Rome..and herde þat þey were Inglysshe’).
A second source of misunderstanding is the word ‘Anglisisation’. In one of his published lectures the late A.J. Aitken refers to “Anglisisation or, as some prefer, standardisation”. The neutral word ‘Standardisation’ however does not appear to have found much favour in current literature. Yet Anglisisation is a word which comes heavily freighted with misleading implications of cultural imperialism. The word has been used for so long (though in fact only since 1707, and then in a different context) that few, if any, seem to pause to question its utility let alone its factual basis. Yet in what sense is Anglisisation the correct word to describe the evolution of language in Scotland? If Scots was already an ‘Anglic Language’ how can it be said to have been ‘Anglicised’. Indeed, if as Murray concluded, ‘Scots’ is simply Northern English by another name the term seems even less helpful. Furthermore, since exactly the same unfamiliar concept of language homogenisation was simultaneously being introduced to all regions, dialect-speakers and social classes in both Scotland and England, what term can one use to describe the exactly identical process ‘south of the border’ other than ‘standardisation’? One surely cannot say that the language in England too was subject to ‘Anglisisation’?
(A related complaint is that early texts from Scotland have been ‘Englished’ before publication i.e. later English spelling has replaced the original. This conveniently ignores the fact that the same practice is equally commonly applied to similar-aged texts written in England – have they too been ‘Englished’?).
The introduction of the King James Bible in 1611 is widely (dis)credited with being a fount of ‘Anglisisation’.
A number of modern works about the Scots language quote the Reverend James Kirkwood who in 1703 (having by then been residing in Bedfordshire for 18 years) wrote “Does not everybody know that in our English Bibles there are several hundred words and phrases not vulgarly used nor understood by a great many in Scotland who have no other Translation.”
The quote is used to suggest that Lowland Scotsmen and women had trouble understanding the Bible in English. But the real point is missed: the Bible has some 6,000 head words (plus a vast number of proper nouns) and a total vocabulary of around 20,000. Thus, if the Minister is to be believed, ‘Scots’ and ‘English’ actually shared some 90% of the Biblical vocabulary. Yet even that is misleading: other Ministers in England too made exactly the same complaint – and for the same reason – that the translators had retained many Latin and Greek words where no English equivalent was available.
As for a supposed replacement of Scotland’s native orthography with that of England’s in the 16th and 17th centuries, such an assertion rests on there actually having been earlier formalised orthographies, genuine standardised spelling conventions, in both countries. This was hardly the case in either England or Scotland. The author of the Compleynt of Scotland for example typically manages to spell the simple word ‘Latin’ three different ways in almost as many lines – not one of them as ‘Latin’. Shakespeare famously never spelled his own name twice in the same way, and never once as ‘Shakespeare’. The original spellings in the King James Bible and its predecessors such as the Geneva Bible reveal not so much a fixed orthography but something almost better-described as a spelling free-for-all – a fluid situation made even less fixed by the still-evolving alphabet. Not until 1769 did the familiar standard ‘traditional’ text appear: it differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places (Not least in that King Iames now becomes King James). In reality a long-developing, and highly desirable, standard orthography came to both parts of the United Kingdom simultaneously during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Last is the barrier to understanding imposed by the changes to the meaning of the word ‘Scots’ over the course of time.
The original use of the word ‘Scots’ or ‘Scottis’ to refer to Scots Gaelic is well attested to, as is the increasingly common (but never exclusive) fashion amongst Lowlanders from the last decade of the 15th century onwards for using ‘Scots’ as an alternative name for the language instead of ‘English’. Despite a great deal of speculation the reasons for that change in habit are quite unknown: one catalyst though seems likely to have been an increase in anti-English feeling exacerbated by the military disaster of Flodden (1513) and its political and military sequelae in subsequent decades - whilst that novel usage of ‘Scots’ is widely claimed to have been popularised by the patriotic poetry of the above-mentioned Gavin Douglas, not least his most famous work Eneados, a vernacular translation of the Aeneid, composed in the same year as Flodden. Despite his modern reputation as a writer of ‘Scots’, Douglas would however on his death in 1522 be memoralised by a fellow Scottish poet as a noted writer of ‘our Inglis rhetorique’ i.e of English. Douglas’ celebrated ‘Scots language’ was in reality a pastiche, a mix of 14th century Chaucer-inspired Middle English and of contemporary 16th century Scottish rustic – a poetic device employed to create a pleasing patina of synthetic antiquity.
(The first reference to a ‘Scottis toung’, and the only simultaneous mention of it alongside the ‘Inglis toung’, in the record of the Scottish parliament, does not however occur until 1543 – and then in ambiguous circumstances, since read in wider context it is almost certainly a reference to Gaelic. The first unambiguous use of ‘Scottis’ as the name of the vernacular Lowland language does not appear until as late as 19th August 1568 – interestingly just a year after one of the most learned men of the age, the French philologist, polyglot and philosopher Joseph Justus Scaligerus, visited Holyrood and recorded that “Les Escossois et Anglois parlent mesme langage Saxon, vieux Teutonique, ils se servent de mesme Bible, et ne different pas plus que le Parisien d'avec le Piccard” (6).
Nearly 40 years later that common ‘Saxon language’ would again be mentioned – with an emphasis not on differences between Scotland and England but rather between northern and southern Britain. In 1604 the Englishman Henry Saville wrote:
“...both nations using the one and almost the same dialect, to wit the Saxon language. And the Scots and north people of England speak more incorruptly than the south, which by reason of the Conquest and greater Commerce with foreign nations, is become more mingled and degenerate from the ancient tongue”. (Galloway and Leveck: 1985:213))
Popular changes of nomenclature for patriotic or sentimental reasons are hardly unknown: German Shepherd dogs became ‘Alsatians’ after the first world war; in the 1920s the official state language of Illinois became legally ‘American’. Neither innovation made the slightest difference to the fact. Nor does there appear to be any credible evidence that 16th or 17th century Scotsmen believed that a commonly-used synonym actually made ‘Scots’ a different language from that of England.
By the 18th century however another change to the semantic value of the word ‘Scots’ or ‘Scottish’ had occurred. The generic, overarching, all-inclusive term for the language of the Lowlands simply reverted to its original name of English. ‘Scots’ now acquired a much narrower meaning: i.e. just those dialects and rustic forms of the common language geographically associated with Scotland. Thus in 1786 Robert Burns published his ‘Poems Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect’ and not ‘in the Scottish Language’.
Emotive claims of the ‘Scots language’ being discouraged in schools are therefore misleading. Exactly as experienced in every part England too, it was local dialects, not the language, which were being discouraged as a medium of education.
(Dialects, and dialect writing and poetry, are far from being peculiar to Scotland. Wright's English Dialect Dictionary, published in six volumes between 1898 and 1905, contains no fewer than 70,000 entries. The work includes a multitude of ‘Scots’ words that are, or were, equally encountered in England. The earliest English dialect dictionary was in fact published by John Ray in 1674.)
More recently a further redefinition of ‘Scots’ has occurred. For example the terms Older (or Early) Scots, Middle Scots and Modern Scots, first coined by Murray in 1873 as no more than chronological/geographical categories, a ‘shorthand’ used simply to locate written material in time and place were, within a decade of his death, being written of in ways that suggest that the writers mistakenly assumed that the names of these ‘library categories’ had by virtue of their mere existence somehow validated or confirmed as fact a distinct historical Scots language. For example the late 14th century Scottish epic ‘The Bruce’ written in Middle English in the Early Scots period was now misleadingly described as ‘written in Early Scots’.
The publicly-funded Scots Language Centre meanwhile offers: ‘Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language’.
Does this make any sense? Language in England, both written and verbal, has changed almost beyond recognition since the 16th century. Can one imagine a hypothetical ‘English Language Centre’ in England writing ‘Taken altogether, English dialects are known collectively as the English language’ and excluding modern English from its definition? Or a ‘Campaign for Real English’ claiming that ‘real’ English became so ‘corrupted’ after the first Stuart monarch came down from Scotland to occupy the throne of England in 1603 that only English literature and spelling from before that date represents the ‘pure’ English language?
Of course, just as one can never step in the same river twice, so all living languages, their variants and their dialects, continuously evolve and mutate. There can never be, and never was, any such thing as a ‘pure’, or indeed a ‘corrupted’, language - only snapshots of change-in-progress captured at different moments in time.
The definition offered by Scots Language Centre would make at least a kind of sense if two words were added ‘Taken altogether, Scottish dialects [of English] are known collectively as the Scots language.’ Two apostrophes might help even more.
Assertions by the Ministerial Working Group which presented its case to the Scottish Parliament in 2010, that the Scots language has no standard form in the 21st century are profoundly mistaken. Whatever the Scots language may or may not have once been, it has simply evolved to become today’s ‘Scottish English’, or to be less sensitive to nationalist feeling, plain modern English – that is ‘the standard form’ of the Scots ‘language’.
Meanwhile anyone familiar with the rigorous evidential standards demanded by science or the law will be forcibly struck by the presentation techniques employed by Scots language enthusiasts. The scientific or judicial methods of enquiry are inverted: evidence appears to be carefully selected to support the desired end, rather than it being the evidence, and moreover all the evidence, which leads to a natural, logical, conclusion.
Sophistry and rhetoric - advocacy rather than dispassionate, forensic analysis and disinterested judgement - are characteristically deployed: a preference for less-likely but favourable historical explanations in place of the more-probable but unfavourable; wholesale omission; anachronisms, false assumptions and false analogies; the use (and misuse) of arcane technical terms; pathos, platitudes and patriotism. Even a modern version of Procustes’ bed is called into service, stretching or chopping the commonly-understood meaning of the word ‘language’ in the struggle to force it to fit the frame.
The English speak English, the French speak French and the Germans German. Therefore the Scots must have spoken Scottish. The ‘logic’ is seductive.
To many scientists and lawyers these forms of argument, nearly all arising from that single misleading premise, are depressingly familiar from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (USA 2005), and from earlier related cases, all the way back to the notorious Scopes trial of 1925.
Interestingly many of the members of the Ministerial Working Group on Scots, which made the case for increased state funding and support, seem to have had a direct commercial or professional vested interest in the promotion of ‘Scots’. Large sums of public monies are now spent on promoting the ‘Scots language’: there are by contrast no similar grants, salaries and subsidies for doubters of the prevailing orthodoxy.
In any event, as the late historian Professor Rosalind Mitchison of Edinburgh University observed, Scottish historians have seldom liked writing against the popular tide. Scotland’s academics are perhaps even less likely to recommend shooting themselves in their state-funded feet. Meanwhile indifference, or perhaps simple politeness, has resulted in virtual academic silence from England: some of the few critical academic papers of recent times have emanated not from Britain but from European institutions, not least from Professor James Costa working at the Institut Nationale de Recherche Pedagogique in Lyon, France.
The easily-verified fact is that the English language, rich in dialects, and in its variant and evolving guises has been indigenous to what would one day become Lowland Scotland in an unbroken line since Anglo-Saxon colonists first established the Kingdom of Bernicia (subsequently part of the of the vast Kingdom of Northumbria, and later still Lothian) between the Forth and the Tees in the 7th century. The Anglo-Saxons arrived at exactly the same time that Gaelic-speaking Scots from Ireland were colonising the north west of Caledonia and establishing their own petty-kingdom of Dal Riata there. Both doing so at the expense of the native Picts and of the indigenous Britons.
The already long-established Anglo-Saxon ‘Sassenach’ English-speaking population of the Lowlands and beyond was later boosted by waves of refugees from the south seeking sanctuary from both the Norman invasion of 1066, and from its bloody aftermath in the ‘Harrying of the North’. Later still, in the 12th and 13th centuries, further large waves of English-speaking settlers, some reportedly from as far south as Somerset, were moved north by Britain’s now-Norman aristocracy, populating some 50 new towns and Royal Burghs, not least Stirling, Dunfermline, Aberdeen, Perth, Scone, Elgin and Edinburgh.
The Kingdom of Scotland established by Robert the Bruce and his successors in the 14th century was thus much less a ‘kingdom of Scots’ than an independent kingdom of the northern English, led by a Norman-French descended aristocracy. Despite the historic name, it was effectively a new kingdom, one within which the actual Scots of the earlier and original kingdom of ‘Scot-Land’ in the Highlands would henceforth be marginalised – they and their Scots (Gaelic) language eventually being referred to as ‘Irish’, and the people described as ‘savages’ by the new ‘Scots’ to the south.
Given enough time language divergence might, at least conceivably, have eventually arisen between England and this second ‘Scotland’. The powerful counterforce to divergence in the shape of the printing press, introduced to Britain in the 1470s, would however make quite certain that it never did.
Latin was the focus of Education in Scotland, made statutory in 1496. It would long continue to be central not only to Education but also to the Law and the Church. Following the Reformation however English rather than Latin became at least the everyday language of religion. There is no record in the Scottish Parliament of ‘Scots’ ever being designated ‘the State Language’, nor of being ‘the national language’ despite many modern assertions that this was the case.
Meanwhile, though self-interest may at least explain some of Scottish academia’s current enthusiasm for the Scots ‘language’, it fails to explain the surprisingly limited criticism from Scotland’s other inhabitants.
Maybe the Scots are an unusually gullible people.
This however is highly implausible. Scotland not only has an excellent education system, but Scots are also proverbial for their ‘canniness’.
Both Murray and Costa, more than a century apart, suggest that national creation myths fill a psychological need. Thus many of those who are not convinced that ‘Scots’ is or ever was a language seem at least content to treat those who are excited by the idea with tolerance or amusement.
And perhaps amusement has a larger part to play. In-jokes are always popular, and within Scotland what could be a better in-joke than getting one over on the EU and the UK Government by having them formally recognise not a language but merely the idea of a language?
Yet jokes can go too far. Not least when they impinge upon the education of schoolchildren.
Teaching about the historic literature of Scotland, the history of language in Scotland and about the dialects of Scotland is undoubtedly a good and commendable thing.
But when genuine history is bent and distorted, in effect falsified, for fun or for ideological reasons, in ignorance or with intent, and then taught to children as fact, then the joke turns sour.
Scotland has a long record of unusually strong affection for romanticised history - the fabricated poems of Ossian in the 18th century, the ‘retro-invention’ of Clan tartans in the 19th , or ‘Braveheart’ in the 20th . A host of similar examples can be identified between Walter Scott’s first foray into the literary proto-Disneyfication of Scottish history in 1802 and its literal Disneyfication in ‘Brave’ in 2012.
In the 21st century an unprecedented convergence of interests - those of a coalition of enthusiasts and zealots, fund-hungry institutions and academics, commerce, and flag-waving politicians (ideologues and opportunists alike) - has seemingly turned yet another romance into ‘fact’.
Meanwhile, as the quantity of written material about the ‘Scots language’ has proliferated since the 1970s it has generated a critical-mass of circular-referencing, self-supporting material - a merry-go-round of recycled misinformation creating a comforting illusion of substance. But as Costa notes “it is likely that most texts draw on the same sources, possibly Aitken (2005 (1985)), Murison (1977, 1979), and perhaps Williamson (1982/3)”.
The tale, like all tales, exhibits a tendency to grow with re-telling: once-tentative speculation being transmuted into positive assertion. With safety in numbers even normally reputable academics can be found who cross otherwise unbridgeable historical chasms with mere leaps of the imagination. Perhaps it is not too surprising: as Costa observes, “the divisions between linguists and militants are not as clear cut as usually believed”.
In 1841 Scottish journalist Charles Mackay wrote his book ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The book chronicles the history of ‘National Delusions’, ‘Peculiar Follies’, and ‘Philosophical Delusions’. A modern edition of Mackay’s book might well include a whole chapter on the ‘Scots language’.
From Jamieson’s eccentric misconception in 1808, down to today’s state-sponsored confabulation, the history of the story behind the ‘Scots language’ is a subject worthy of study in its own right.
But the world deserves better of 21st century Scotland; Scotland deserves better. Above all, Scotland’s schoolchildren deserve better than to be taught synthetic history alongside MacDiarmid’s ‘synthetic Scots’ poetry, learning merely that whole cloth can be woven from wishes – given only sufficient gold, and enough imagination.
Today it is an extraordinary irony that Sir James Murray, a man who in life comprehensively displayed and dismantled the myth of a Scots language, is now lauded as the founder of Scots language studies. Meanwhile, whether the ‘Scots language’ is judged as a joke, an eccentric’s fantasy, a manifestation of academic irresponsibility and ignorance, or merely as a particularly pernicious political propaganda, it is equally ironic that John Jamieson’s famous Dictionary contains no entry for ‘Scottish’, ‘Scots’ or even ‘Scottis’ Language. Perhaps even he eventually realised that his Emperor had no clothes.
- A frequently-quoted foreign visitor to reportedly mention a ‘Scots language’ was Spanish diplomat Pedro de Ayala; on 25th July 1498 he wrote a despatch from London to Spain describing King James IV of Scotland.
The English translation, published in 1862, reads ‘His own Scotch language is as different from English as Aragonese from Castilian’.
The original document in the Spanish archives however reads ‘sui su lengua natural Scocessa la qual es con la Inglesa como aragones con Castellano’.
Literally this translates as ‘his own natural Scottish tongue which, compared to English, is like aragonese compared to Castilian’.
‘Lengua natural’ or ‘natural tongue’ has a more nuanced meaning than ‘lengua’ alone. This may be better translated as ‘vernacular speech’, or ‘dialect’.
Aragonese was considered a dialect of Spanish (i.e. Castilian) in Ayala’s time: Ayala therefore intended to convey that the relationship between the English language and James’ ‘lengua natural Scocessa’ was similar.
Though Ayala lists seven other languages, or tongues (lengua), spoken by James IV, English is not amongst them, an omission emphasising that Ayala takes it as self-evident that English is the common form of ‘Scocessa’.
Elsewhere it is commonly stated that Queen Elizabeth I spoke ‘Scottish’ without making clear that what was meant by ‘Scottish’ was in fact Scots Gaelic.
“She possessed nine languages so thoroughly that each appeared to be her native tongue; five of these were the languages of peoples governed by her, English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, for that part of her possessions where they are still savage, and Irish”. . From: 'Venice: April 1603', Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 9: 1592-1603 (1897), pp. 562-570.
- Despite the DOST statement about his views, McClure notably concludes his 2010 essay ‘When Did Scots Become Scots?’ by endorsing Francis Bacon’s early 17th century observation that Scots and English represented “a diversity of dialect rather than of language”. (7)
- The phonetic spelling ‘Lallans’ (i.e. ‘Lowlands’) was introduced in 1786 by Burns. Today’s general usage however can be traced back only to 1946 when radical political activist Douglas Young wrote “As it is convenient to have some term of distinction for that part of Scottish literature which is written in Braid Scots or Anglic, to refer to it separately from Scots literature written in Gaelic, English, Latin, or any other tongue, I suggest ‘Lallans’, adopting the term of Robert Burns.” (Source: OED). Young was an associate of Hugh McDiermid, and was Scottish National Party Chairman 1942-45 (mostly spent in prison); Young and David Murison [Ed SND] were life-long friends and associates. The Lallans Society was founded in 1972: its founding President was SNP activist George Philp; its Vice-President was Hugh MacDiermid. (The alternative supposedly ‘traditional’ name ‘Doric’ also came into common use only in the 20th century; the Greek-derived word ‘Doric’ i.e. ‘rustic’ or ‘rural’, an adjective once used throughout all Britain by its classically-educated elite, having apparently been mistakenly assumed to be, or perhaps intentionally adopted as, a noun by Hugh MacDiermid who first wrote of ‘the Doric’ in 1925.)
(1) Jamieson’s An Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language www.scotsdictionary.com/
(2) James Murray. The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland. http://archive.org/details/cu31924026538938
(3) Dictionary of the Scots Language DOST - History of Scots to 1700. www.dsl.ac.uk/
(4) James Costa., Language history as charter myth? Scots and the (re)invention of Scotland. Scottish Language, 28 (2009), 1-25 http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/63/24/32/PDF/Costa_chartermyth_final.pdf
(5) Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707 www.rps.ac.uk/
(6) Mitchell A., A List of Travels, Tours, etc., Relating to Scotland: Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh 1901, vol. 35.
(7) McClure JD., When Did Scots Become Scots. www.booksfromscotland.com/Features/Articles-and-Essays/History-of-the-Scots-Language
Dedicated to Wikipedia Editor Mutt Lunker whose enthusiasm first drew the writer’s attention to the Yiddish slogan “A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot” – an entertaining example of Jewish wit, but which, regrettably, turns out not to be a genuine axiom of philology. In exchange can only be offered an equally questionable quip, one generally attributed to Lenin: “Ложь повторять достаточно часто становится правдой.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jimmy? If you have a point, can you be somewhat more succinct? My page is no more a forum than the talk pages of articles and if you expect me to plough through all of that to no useful end you have another think coming. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
User pages are intended for the user themself to make edits to, the talk page is for messages (Unlike what you did at User:Cigarboxguitar's user page) --Your Friendly Neigborhood Wikipedian (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I gave the editor a username block - it was a toss-up between that and an advertising block - they posted to the talk page that they were the UK distributor! Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds fair enough; was on the point of giving them a COI welcome and maybe I should have done. At least they were up front about the matter I guess. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot".
- Blocking administrator: Elockid ( )
- Keep trying - this seems to be a bug or an overwide block. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- If your first post above is truly your rationale for removing pertinent and cited material, that's the problem. If you think you have a case, please take it to the talk pages of any articles in question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Blair Dunlop Page
Hi Mutt, I have noticed that we have both been updating Blair's Wiki Page. I wanted to let you know that it is me, Blair's producer and record label who has been updating it as you keep replacing it with very old and out of date info. Are you happy to leave the new text as it is now that you know who is doing it. My updates are done with the approval of Blair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooksmere Records (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting in contact and it's clear your edits are well intentioned but they are problematic from a number of aspects. Please revert them for now and I'll elaborate when I get a chance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for self-reverting. I have half a moment to elaborate a little and give you some policies to familiarise yourself with and that should explain why your edits weren't ok. It was fairly clear from the edits that you were likely to be associated with the artist, which is problematic from the point of view of conflict of interest and, particularly with the highly promotional tone of your text, WP:NOTADVERTISING. Articles must be written in a formal and encyclopedic tone, with material cited from reliable sources, with these points in particular pertaining to biographies of living persons. You also appear to be editing under more than one user name, so you may face suspicion that you are operating sockpuppets.
- I appreciate that this was very likely to be done through lack of knowledge of how things work here, particularly as you had the sense and courtesy to contact me, but you must take heed of the policies. Your conflict of interest does not prohibit you from editing the article per se but it will make it very difficult and is possibly best avoided, particularly as you are an inexperienced editor. Hope this helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sunshine on Leith (film)
Sock puppetry & etc
Rather than clutter up the Scots language pages further Mutt I thought I'd leave a comment here. Your assertions that I indulge in deliberate 'sock puppetry' and have been subject to multiple blocks puzzles me. To the best of my knowledge you are the only person to have ever made such allegations against me, or to have initiated such action. Possibly the matter is confused by the fact that my PC is second hand. I see that you too seem to have been the victim of similar misrepresentation. Meanwhile I agree with you entirely that what I might think or conclude is not relevent. But by the same token nor is what you might think or conclude. What matters are the facts. At the moment the Wiki Scots language pages simply omit half (indeed more than half) of the relevant facts - i.e. all those which are 'inconvenient' to the primary proposition. That doesn't look much look like neutral NPOV reporting to me: and I'm sure if you are honest with yourself that it doesn't to you either. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- You continually make the error of assuming that my criticism of your behaviour implies something about what I “think or conclude” and its relation or opposition to what you think or conclude. You do not know what I think or conclude. You only know what I think of your abuse of talk pages as forums and misrepresentation of sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- A registered user or one that uses the same IP all the time can be warned on their talk page for perceived disruptive behaviour (such as use of talk pages as a forum). If the behaviour is deemed worthy of sanction, an admin can block the account or IP. A user that is unregistered and uses a different IP almost every time they edit leaves themself open to the suspicion that this is done to evade, or at least to make more difficult to implement, such sanction for disruptive behaviour and to obscure their edit history. This would be a variant of sockpuppetry. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yo Man, just wondering why you keep having to put that speedy deletion thing on that page. Why don't you just leave it alone. I bet you have never tried iron bru or mountain dew.
Hi Matt, I was just wondering why you made some changes to the FODMAP page recently? I'm a little bit new at this so sorry if its a dumb question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapelle (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Was it the edit where I referred to WP:ELPOINTS in the edit summary? Take a look at that policy and if you have any more questions, come back to me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)