User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Half and half

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_and_half You removed my edit citing 'no reliable source', but no citation or reliable source was provided initially, so why do I need one for an edit? The sentence in question referenced what a certain dairy product is called in England. I am English born and raised, and the sentence was incorrect. 'Half cream' is not a term that is used in England, or the United Kingdom. The term used is 'single cream', it is pervasively widespread and in common use, so it is not in question, and I do not believe a citation is necessary or required under that context. The term 'single cream' is visible in the dairy section of any supermarket in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.218.58 (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

American dairy "half and half" is a mixture of milk and cream, which is at best rare in the UK (no mention is made of England). It is not single cream, which is just cream, no milk. Everything needs a reliable source and as the assertion that half and half is "known as "half cream" in the United Kingdom" does not have one, it can be removed. I've tagged the assertion but feel free to remove it altogether. Personally I've never come across the stuff. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Gaelic loanwords

Why do you think SMO is an unreliable source?

They are a major source of information in Gaelic language.

Montalban (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sabhal Mòr Ostaig Gaelic loandwords in English http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/cananan/beurla/faclan.html

I was also taught the same thing when I did Irish as part of Celtic Studies at the University of Sydney that the word 'smashing' is derived from the Gaelic. Montalban (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the reference to one from the BBC! Montalban (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Bannockburn

Hi Matt,

I didn't personally many any amendments to the Battle of Bannockburn page, but my father might possibly have done. May I just verify what it is that was changed and then altered/ undone?

Thanks,

EdB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.117.132 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Noting AN discussion

Just letting you know that a thread has been started on AN by another user which mentions you -- Samtar talk · contribs 09:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved -- Samtar talk · contribs 09:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rosacea

Mutt, those were redundant wikilinks (which I mentioned in my edit summaries). That's why they were removed. Please refrain from reverting that edit again, thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your reference to them as "redundant" is the source of the confusion as they clearly link to pertinent articles. On a second look I see that they are repetitions of earlier links so I see what you mean now, though I'd suggest it would be clearer to note them as repetitions/duplicates in the summary to clarify that you aren't questioning pertinence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
They're not redundant because they're unimportant. They're redundant because they were linked multiple times in the same section. Everyone else has always understood what redundant means when I say that so my edit summary was perfectly clear. You've been the exception to the rule. I will be keeping my practice the same. Redundancy is not synonymous with pertinence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I was simply explaining the reason for the misunderstanding and that I recognise that what you said was not after all incorrect but that its slight ambiguity had led me to be puzzled. My suggestion avoids the ambiguity without any additional lack of clarity but if you insist on sticking with your choice of words to make a point about being right, or something, that is your choice. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Scottish clan

Thank you for reverting the changes to the talk page Shipsview (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Areas of Kirkcaldy

[[

File:Ambox warning blue.svg|30px|link=]]

Template:Areas of Kirkcaldy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jellyman (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Dundee Page

Hello, Mutt Lunker. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Mutt,

I see you have removed an update to the Dundee Wikipedia page, this is an official commit so please refrain from removing this.

Dan Gibson Dundee City Council Social Media Manager

Hoggardhigh

Feel free to take part, if you wish. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Beer in Scotland

Hi Mutt Lunker. I've removed the explanation of how shilling was pronounced from Beer in Scotland as we don't require a long explanation of the pronunciation or of how the shilling term was used in relation to money for an article on beer in Scotland. For those interested in learning about the old British money system they can click on the link. The explanation has little if any direct relevance to the how the shilling system applied to beer. It is WP:Out of scope for the article. If you still feel some explanation is warranted, please start a discussion on the talk page, and ping me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(Continued at Talk:Beer_in_Scotland#Naming_system. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC))

Knock, Knock, Ginger

Your recent edit. And it's a bare URL NOW, but still not a reliable source. Close but no cigar. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Got there in the end! Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

About Italic languages.

In the article Germanic Languages , The sentence I changed from Italic - > Romance was simply due to the fact that the sentence mentioned the Indo-European sub-groups in sorting order, or very similar to a sorting order. As Italic languages don't include Spanish etc, is the Italic languages - group smaller than Germanic languages. But the wider Romance language group is (larger than Germanic languages)

The sentence was (with "Germanic languages" as "it"

Out of this blur becommes Italic (and Indo-Iranian) smaller (or "Germanics are behind both of them). My change to Romance was ONLY done in order to make this sentance work. I know Italic is "between" Indo-European and Romance , by structure and age. But this was a question of sorting order I hope I have made myself absolutely clear about this matter. Also Hellenitic languages failed to be mentioned. And I re-wrote stupid parts. Naturally are there space also for Italic languages, but please read the context another time. Sorry to disturb you here. But there was this other quite silly user also, who don't believe Greek as a part of Hellenistic languages... or whatever.

Really hope you can see my points. Boeing720 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This is best raised at the article talk page but I will note that your posts and edits are, as a whole, not easy to follow and the rationale you gave for this particular edit, in your edit summary, was factually inaccurate. I'll also note that your article talk page posts often do not seem easily and directly relatable to improvement of the article, their purpose, but seem more like general discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
But of cource, I just hoped you could see why I changed Italic languages to Romance languages. Itailc (only) are smaller than all Germaniv together. But Romance languages may very well be larger than Gemanic languages. (Romance languages include Italic languages, and this is not about the development of languages, but size. In the sentence I found to be wrong. I hoped you would agree. Sorry. Boeing720 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Response at the article talk page. Please don't continue the thread here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List of words

Greetings. I'm just going to follow up here. Bumps and lumps (which I haven't gotten to yet) are both very common euphemisms for small breasts. Bumps for very small and lumps for the mid-range. Though I hadn't finished putting in the extensions for slang slightly vulgar. I'll postpone any further edit till infront of a computer where I can do it all at once vs a phone which makes things difficult. Bo attempt was intended to be non-productive or vandalistic. Though I see your concern and will fix that assessment in my future modification. ThanksLostinlodos (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

also a quick note, even wiktionary redirects mosquito bumps to mosquito bite and makes reference to the slang. Urban dictionary lists bumps with multiple preceding monikers. Showing various sizes. Scanning through I was quite surprised not to see bumps listed as breasts under American English. It's so common it's made it into prime time television (I'm Sorry, Chicago Med...). I hope that helps explain. Lostinlodos (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

follow up

hi - camaron resigned - that is the detail that requires reporting in that article - not what happened for two years after. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn

Following Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn's loss of a vote of no confidence among the Parliamentary Labour Party, he also faced a leadership challenge, which he won

Please do not add this again - this had nothing at all to do with the United kingndon exit vote - it was internal Labour politics - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced everything for you apart from the Labour detail - it has nothing at all to do with aftermath of eu leaving. If you think it had please open a chat and we will discuss on talk , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As you well know, I have engaged on the article talk page in question; that is the appropriate place for the discussion so keep it there. Please do not fragment the conversation by engaging here as well. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Does this look suspicious?

See here. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still learning how to submit Sockpuppet reports. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Likewise thanks for alerting me. Do you use Wikipedia:Twinkle? It makes the reporting considerably easier. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I was headed to bed when he made his first 3 edits, which didn't include the typical comma edits at that point. Yes, I do use Twinkle, but the only time I used it to report add a sock, someone said I did it wrong. - BilCat (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

Hi Mutt Lunker. Thanks for reporting all of those Hoggardhigh sockpuppets to SPI – it's greatly appreciated. I just wanted to suggest leaving the "Notify reported users" checkbox unchecked from here on out for obvious socks of Hoggardhigh. Notification is not mandatory for sockpuppet investigations, and for chronic sockpuppeteers it is actually discouraged because it gives them recognition that may feed their desire to disrupt Wikipedia. Best, Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the tip. Should I leave out tagging the socks' user pages as well then? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the tagging is fine for now as it's informative for users looking at revision histories. I would say, however, that generally the step of tagging the user pages should be left to the SPI clerks or administrators to apply after an account has been blocked, not before. In the event that we're wrong about a sockpuppetry claim, tagging an account like this before blocking could drive a good-faith contributor away. But in the last few cases, the connections have been obvious, so no harm, no foul. Mz7 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

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

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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)

New section

Thanks Matt, it was unintentional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernpiping (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thought so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Galashiels

Hello Mutt,

Please refrain from removing Liamville, as it has been officially declared as a new suburb, we have contracts for this if you would like to see them they can be forwarded to you,

Kind Regards

Lisa

Highland Clearances

Thanks for mentioning your suspicions about the possible return of Baglessingazump. I have taken the liberty of mentioning this on the talk page of the administrator who has looked at my accusation of disruptive editing. I hope you don't mind - but I was beginning to feel a little isolated with only me saying that there were issues with the current problem editor.

I wish your thought had occurred to me a lot earlier, as it would have saved a lot of grief to disengage from the matter at an early stage. I stick to my view that we have a disruptive editor here, whoever it is.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The more I have engaged with the new identity, the more the idiosyncratic and sometimes bizarre style of expression, transparent attempts to distract from criticism with spurious complaints and excuses, and disregard for any need to provide sources for what appears to be dubious WP:OR POV, became increasingly familiar. Checking the Clearances article talk pages to remind myself of the user's previous identity, it became plain that they were also up to their tricks again there, in abundance. I've only skimmed through the dialogue at that article but my strong first impression is that they are being similarly uncooperative as they were there before, and are currently being at Scots Gaels, and are there to express their own personal views in the articles in question, whether there is any reliable support for these views or not. Only too happy to have my observations indicated to the involved admin. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I've now opened an incident at WP:ANI. Mutt Lunker (talk)
Thanks for your involvement. I should say I am very much a novice at dealing with all the Wikipedia procedures for dealing with this sort of thing (which I have not really encountered in any serious way before). Any tactical or strategic guidance would be welcome.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I've just left a note on admin's talk page conveying a very similar message to your recent post on ANI. Got to step away from this for a few hours, but hopefully the admin will realise what we are trying to deal with.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how we all get an admin to understand what we are up against. I have just had an exchange with the first admin to set up a block.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

He's at it again

Just a heads up that I have left some comments on Black Kite's talk page - initially just a bit of contact, but now there's been some WH activity on Highland Clearances that seems completely unchanged from their old ways.

I note activity on Scots Gaels talk page.

We have pending on Highland Clearances the text that was agreed (agreed by User:Catrìona, with comment from Camerojo that influenced the final version) but then deleted by WH reinstating some poorer quality text on the same subject (but with the citation needed tags deleted).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(new section)

Sir,I believe that my edits regarding the English people is perfectly correct,The English people were traditionally Roman Catholic before the English reformation ushered in by Henry VIII,moreover for nearly a 1000 years since the introduction of Christianity among the Anglo Saxons they were Catholics with an obedience to the Church of Rome,It was only after the reign of Henry VIII or more precisely under Elizabeth I that Anglicanism became the established religion.So highlighting Catholicism as an historic religion of the majority of English people before the late 16th century is in my opinion perfectly correct.Islam was never an ethnic religion of the English People,its presence in the United Kingdom is due to the migration of Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh(both former regions of British India) in recent decades.There might possibly more British pagans or British Buddhists and certainly much more British atheists or agnostics than ethnic British Muslims,so it is not only inaccurate but I believe also a deliberate attempt at mischief by trying to include Islam as a religion of the British people.Please do consider I am personally not a Catholic,so I do not hold any preferential bias towards the Catholic Christian faith.Please acknowledge and reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.119.5 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you are already aware that there is a pertinent discussion on the article's talk page and also in its archives. Please familiarise or re-familiarise yourself with this and if you still feel you have a case, take it up there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sir,I believe that my edits regarding the English people is perfectly correct,The English people were traditionally Roman Catholic before the English reformation was ushered in by Henry VIII,moreover for nearly a 1000 years since the introduction of Christianity among the Anglo Saxons,they were Catholics with an obedience to the Church of Rome,It was only after the reign of Henry VIII or more precisely under Elizabeth I that Anglicanism became the established religion.So highlighting Catholicism as an historic religion of the majority of English people before the late 16th century is in my opinion perfectly correct.Islam was never an ethnic religion of the English People,its presence in the United Kingdom is due to the migration of Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh(both former regions of British India) in recent decades,there might possibly be more British pagans or British Buddhists and certainly much more British atheists or agnostics than ethnic English Muslims,so it is not only inaccurate but I believe also a deliberate attempt at mischief by trying to include Islam as a religion of the English people.Please do consider I am personally not a Catholic,so I do not hold any preferential bias towards the Catholic Christian faith.Please acknowledge and reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.119.5 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the same thing once again,yes I did familiarize myself with the talk page on the english people,the section on religion has points that completely agree with my view,so do consider and let me make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.119.5 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That one participant had (very...) similar views is neither here nor there as there was absolutely no consensus in favour of those views. The discussion also points out the numerous errors in your line of thinking. If you have anything further to say, please do so at the article talk page rather than here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sir,I repeat what I said,the talk page did have views supporting what I said,and moreover there can be no question of a consensus here because truth is built not on consensus but rather on facts,and the fact remains that highlighting Islam as an ethnic English religion is completely wrong and stupid,if i may say so.As I already said if you bother giving Islam the status of a religion followed by the English people,please do the same for Eastern orthodox English,Jews,Buddhists,pagans,Hindus,English deists and whatnot for there are more ethnic English people following these cults rather than Islam.


This is the plain truth and if you continue with your irresponsible action of highlighting False facts as the truth I am very sorry for you.Good day and please do accept my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.119.5 (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

For the third time: take it to the article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Scottish pronunciation

Hi! I just noticed you via Scottish English. Are there any words in Scottish Standard English that are considerably pronounced differently compared to other mainstream accents of English? Similarly, I've also heard that despite the ⟨wh⟩ in whelk, it is simply pronounced as welk, not hwelk. Likewise, weasel is pronounced as hweasel. To what extent are these words inconsistently pronounced? Are there more exceptions? — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

PS, you say on your userpage you're part Australia. Guess what? I'm Aussie, with part Scottish blood inherited from my 2nd-generation mother! Maybe we have that in common ;-) — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mutt Lunker: Hello? I seen you made edits but you haven't replied to me yet... — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the "h" in "whelk" is a later addition and doesn't reflect pronunciation, whether for Scottish English or other varieties. For what it's worth, in Scots (as opposed to Scottish English) it is "wulk" or "wilk". In Scottish English "weasel" is simply "weasel", generally also in Scots but you may get the odd instance given with a "wh". You should find the phonology section informative. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, however I've already read the phonology section before I've asked you. — they call me AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 23:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mutt Lunker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop incorrectly assuming I replaced English with Gaelic

I simply showed on the article that the language is known as Scottish Gaelic or "Gàidhlig" as the term Gaelic by itself in Scotland largely is assumed to be in regards to the Irish language, sorry if that confused you. Josephscullion (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit confused. Scottish Gaelic is neither "known as... "Gàidhlig"" in English, nor is "the term Gaelic by itself in Scotland largely... assumed to be in regards to the Irish language". It would be assumed to be Scots Gaelic or possibly Scots Gaelic and Irish collectively. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mutt_Lunker/Archive_11&oldid=1090548330"