User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 18

Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

What are you doing?

Two questions;

1 - What is it you are wishing to achieve over at Scotland?
2 - What on earth is it you are actually on about?

See talk page discussion on the Scotland article which has highlighted areas of concern in the references. I have just spent a considerable amount of time trying to rectify this, all for you to, once again may I add, come in and totally destroy what it is I am trying to achieve here.

Care to explain yourself? I honestly don't know why I try. I honestly feel like you are a security guard that is actively patrolling my every move on here, and no matter what I do, or how many reliable references I provide, you will revert. And before you talk about that reference (https://monovisions.com/vintage-scotlands-landscapes-19th-century/) then please do not. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah hold on. Now the frequent reverts make sense. It appears you are making good use of your rollback abilities. Interestingly, Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. I would argue that all my edits are in good faith, and not always in agreement with why you have to revert the edit in its entirety. Unless my rollback theory makes sense, of course. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As before, as it's about the article, it should be dealt with at the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

kunghibbe

Don't know the right way to go about this but I found him (her?) again here.18abruce (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've rolled back these edits for now. May report them but they'll no doubt reappear under another guise. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

SPI Comments

Hey, Mutt Lunker. Please reply to SPI in the appropriate section. I know exactly what the checkuser evidence looks like, as I am a checkuser and performed the check for this specific case. I cannot reveal the exact nature of that data, nor do I want to spill the beans, as it were, to the sockmaster who is aware of that SPI page. There is no doubt that these are the same user, and they have essentially admitted it publicly already. The check was to uncover new accounts since the last SPI, and that check happened to confirmed what was already revealed the first time around. Happy to answer further questions here, but keep in mind I can't go into details on the CU data. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I know why the checks were made, am not casting doubt on the results and am not requesting exact details of this individual case. I had been filing comments in the correct section but when in direct response to comments of yours, to fragment the dialogue further looked weird. Apologies if that was the wrong choice. You used the term "Technically indistinguishable", formatted, bolded and with a tick symbol, which would appear to indicate a defined generic term regarding what had been uncovered. I'm asking for confirmation that this term has such a definition, presumably laid out somewhere in Wikipedia (I couldn't find such an entry). Is there somewhere on Wikpedia that explains in general the kind of thing that the term can indicate? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mutt Lunker I searched around some but could not really find any sort of "definition" page for the various indicators we use. They're kinda used by long term convention and often mean exactly what they say. This is such a case. Technically indistinguishable means that literally, as far as checkuser data goes. all the various fields and available information for the users in question is an exact match. There is no way to tell them apart from checkuser data. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

Hi Matt. I added in KHS for Gordon Brown as I saw that this was mentioned for Richard Park in the same section and the reference backed this up. It seemed OK to me as Brown is certainly more notable than Park. What do you think? Zeno27 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zeno. Yes, I noticed the mention for Richard Park so removed it too. The section is about notable residents, the school they went to is unlikely to be pertinent in regard to their notability and to mention this for all of the many people included would be a distraction. It's perfectly pertinent to cover in any articles about the individuals but not here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah. I'd missed that you'd removed that as well. Thanks for the explanation. Zeno27 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Hi, just wondered why you were reverting my edits? 2.96.227.72 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey welcome back politialguru. Haven't seen you for a while, how have you been? 10mmsocket (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I see you're having fun at Cleveland Police. I'm sure @Mutt Lunker will keep an eye out too. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed both of you are still reverting my edits on all articles. Please can you explain what you are trying to achieve? It’s sad you are doing this. I suspect you may be getting me confused with another user. Although, I’m not sure how given our usernames aren’t remotely similar. If you have a problem with my edits, let’s sort this out by asking moderators to step in. 2.96.227.72 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It's really easy. We hate sockpuppetry. You are banned for life from Wikipedia. You are not allowed to edit and any edits that you make can / should be reverted regardless of their merit. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned by your behaviour. I think you are mistaking me for somebody else. At what point have I been banned? I would recommend chilling out. Anyway, I’ll be making sure your behaviour is flagged to moderators one way or another. 2.96.227.72 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Blocked for two weeks for block evasion by ScottishFinnishRadish. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of any others landing here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked again. That was easy! 10mmsocket (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hi, I saw that you've reverted my edits on the Irritable bowel syndrome article. Please note that removing constant mentioning of study types is according to WikiProject Medicine guidelines. It does not add any extra information (we should use secondary sources anyway and the paper's title in the reference will tell the reader what kind of study it is). More importantly it makes Wikipedia articles less accessible and written more like an academic paper. The average reader does not know and does not have to know what a meta analysis means. I'll reinstate my edits, please let me know if you disagree with any on a case-by-case basis.

Best wishes, Adam Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Per my post at Talk:Irritable_bowel_syndrome#Rephrasing and my edit summary, that's not why I reverted. I've continued the discussion there. Cheers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Scotland article city coordinates

Hi @Mutt Lunker, of course, you're absolutely correct that both coordinate systems are valid. The purpose of my change to the coordinates on the Scotland article was to condense 4 lines of text into two with no loss of information. Infoboxes are already long unwieldy things without wasting valuable space. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation but that would appear to depend on one's display setup, is of minimal benefit if any and certainly not to the extent of effectively invalidating the original format, in my view. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
They're also overly precise for the coordinates of a city but I'll leave them as they are then. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the level of precison did occur to me too but, per WP:OPCOORD, the centre of settlements "may be an arbitrarily chosen civic feature" and "must be specified with a precision of degrees, minutes and seconds to respect historical norms... or d.dddd". To, for example, drop the seconds could mean being around 1 km out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)