User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Regarding the reverting of the Scotland page.

You removed the changes I've made to Scotland.

I don't see how they should be removed. I added that the native name of Scotland is "Alba", as it is in Scottish Gaelic, and that it's a constituency (not by name, but it's a constituent country of the UK, along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland). It is then a constituency and Scotland should be allowed to be described as that. Of course a Commonwealth or Republic if they decide on independence.

If you don't find these appropriate or allowed then please explain them.

Oh, and will it be alright to add the royal standard of England to the England page? What about the Arms of Llewelyn on the Wales page - as it is a historical and modern standard of Wales that is represented in royalty and nationality?

Regards, Megasean0.

In English and in Scots, two of the three native languages, the native name is simply "Scotland". "Alba" is mentioned in the lede as the Gaelic name. You seem to be confused between the term constituency, an electoral division (follow the link), and the notion of a constituent country which is an entirely different thing, has no legal standing anyway and is never used in the name of Scotland, formally or otherwise, or, as far as I know in the name of any other country. As you say yourself, it is "(not) a consituency...by name" but by filling in the "conventional long name" category you state incorrectly that it is.
The Royal Standard is the monarch's flag, not that of England and the Arms of Llewelyn are again his personal arms, not that of Wales so no, I think you should not add them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
...and if you have further such points, you'd be as well discussing them at the talk pages of the articles in question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Sommerville

Hi Mutt Lunker re Jimmy Somerville Apologies as I am new to Wkipedia editing. I have now seen your message on my talk page.I have now added a recorded reference to explain the authenticity of the information. Regards Kemylpethe Camp (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and well done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

VT Group article

I'm new to this, so please excuse my mistakes. I'd prefer to discuss this over the phone, but I'll give this format a go.

I agree with your comment that the article is really about the defunct British half of VT Group. However, the logo (upper right) is not defunct -- it represents the U.S. VT Group that is still in operations, providing different services than the defunct British half of the firm. This is confusing to customers, and potential customers, who are searching to learn more about VT Group.

Everything I posted is true. VT Group was acquired by Jordan Company from Babcock. There is a new CEO, and the work VT Group (still in operations) does is different. I didn't delete any historical information, other than the historical profile information that was from 2009. If my edits were inadequate, I'm not sure how to sufficiently explain the relationship and current status of the firm. Where does one draw the line when it comes to historical information vs the present? Please advise.

Mathias0879 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch and apologies, I'd posted here to see if we could enlist some help, meant to flag this at your talk page and clearly forgot. Your attempts were actually pretty good for a beginner and the matters clearly need to be addressed but I think that having details of one company in the lede and infobox, then the history of another one, substantially or entirely different, in the rest of the article, without explanation of their relation or difference, makes things rather confused. On reflection, it may be best to have two suitably titled separate articles, each having a hatnote before the lede to redirect anyone who is looking for the other article and has arrived there by error. An explanation of how the companies are connected should be included in the articles. I'm not very familiar with the facility but you can request an article be created, so it may be an idea checking that out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Iyengar

Why did you remove this category from Lyengar he was a student of Krishna Pattabhi Jois

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, Iyengar refutes this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Billy's Band

Hello Mutt Lunker,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Billy's Band for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bruce comments

Mutt,

I disagree with your rollbacks of my talk page message. I left an appropriate message related to the discussion. I will not revet your edits, as I do not want to start an edit war, but I disagree with them.

I will also be closing my Wikipedia account as it seems you have to belong to the right "club" in order to participate. I can not think of a handful of edits I've made on any page, including talk pages, that have remained. I know this is a wiki but a wiki is made up of a cooperative effort not the select edits of a few.

I was in the process of reverting my edits while you so eagerly awaited to revert it. Unfortunately my ISP connection is not as fast as yours.

Finally, I thoroughly dislike wikis that pounce on the newbies. FYI I have probably close to 30 Barnstars awarded at other wikis for my contributions. It's only at WP I've had problems. I will be closing my account today as it seems my edits are not appreciated.

Quill and Pen (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you have been bitten but your post did not address improvements to the article, which is the talk page's purpose. Some of the posts above had parts which verged on general discussion as well and this article (amongst numerous others) has been the target of an IP-hopping sock who continually uses talk pages as a forum, so it's rather more under my scrutiny for forum posts in general. There is no implication of judgement being passed on you, so I hope you stay. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to an admin my page is no more. The lack of civility and kindness is apparent here and I've contributed. You were not the one who ran me off but it is the clubbiness that did it. My contributions were appropriate and inline with the other comments and should have stayed. Good luck in your writing ventures. Quill and Pen (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The admin was only responding to your own request but you can request its re-instatement if, as I hope you have, you have decided to rethink your departure. My contact with you was intended to help and inform and is in no way a rebuke. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heather (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppets and IP Adresses

You are presumably unaware, as I was myself until yesterday, that ‘Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users.’ (Wikipedia). This would appear to explain your otherwise inexplicable belief that I am a sock puppet who uses multiple IP addresses. I don’t claim to understand these things, however, as a result of some strange ‘crossed wires’ a few days ago, I was prompted to do a little poking around and realised that this is exactly the situation in my own case. My IP address simply changes frequently of its own accord – so that the IP address I am given today may have been allocated to someone else yesterday, and may in turn be allocated to someone else tomorrow. IP addresses are not the unique user identifiers one might suppose them to be. And I am not a ‘sock puppet’.

Meanwhile I must point out that ‘Wikihounding’ is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by harassment and/or personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban.

I'm afraid Mutt that I really do find your 'stalking', and repeated threats, unfounded accusations, deletions and other odd behaviour not only tiresome but also clearly falling within the definition of 'Wikihounding' – behaviour not at all consistent with the collegiate ethos and mutual respect one expects to find amongst Wikipedia users, especially amongst its administrators.

Therefore, for the record, I am formally inviting you to modify your behaviour.

In the meantime you may care to spare a moment to reflect that your misguided attempts to block the IP address of what you imagined to be a sock puppet no doubt resulted in you inconveniencing a number of other Wiki users.


Cassandra

These, again, are the some of the many reasons you should get an account (but you know very well you wouldn't last long if you did). Whether you are IP-hopping intentionally or not, the effect is socking and your consequent avoidance of sanctions, as you have been told many, many times. You continually abuse talk pages as a forum for your own POV (one which, more broadly, is reflected honestly and accurately, in contrast to your own postings, in the very lede of your main target article) misrepresenting sources as you go. This is as much vandalism as any other form. Have you actually ever read WP:NOTFORUM as repeatedly directed? You do not have free rein to "enjoy" yourself by abuse of Wikipedia in this manner. It is grotesque to compare the countering of a consistently abusive sock with wikihounding. You are the one who risks the block of other IP edtors when admins have to range-block or semi-protect to curb your behaviour. Don't load that on anyone else and mend your ways. If you genuinely believe your editing to be legitimate and honest, put your money where your mouth is and edit consistently from one account. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

HappyEaster! from 

Ninja2222  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja222222 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Staffordshire oatcake, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jpswade (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

British slang

How exactly am I supposed to provide a citation for a slang term outside of Urbandictionary? Besides, half of the terms on the page are uncited. I use the term, and other people I know use the term. What more do you want?

The Mighty Drakodan (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability provides the information on how to do this. If you can't cite it, it should not be added and Urbandictionary is very much an unreliable source. Yes, much work is required on this and related articles, with the overwhelming majority of the text unreferenced, hence the WP: OR and WP:V tags at their head. This is all the more reason to make sure any additional material added is properly referenced, rather than carte blanche to compound these problems with the articles with the addition of further unsupported material. By all means remove any unreferenced material, or if you feel minded it would be very helpful to provide references for existing entries which are verifiable. I had been slowly trying to address these matters at List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of British words not widely used in the United States, List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L and List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z. At the first of these, I have been systematically referencing entries or removing them but so far have only reached "F", let alone getting as far as the other three articles, my eventual intention. I have though, been keeping an eye on these articles to make sure any changes are at least constructive and reliably sourced until I can address them in more depth. I hope this helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

List of cities in UK

Hello, I see you have been an editor on List of cities in the United Kingdom and I'm wondering if you can help find some way forward over a current editing dispute. Essentially User:Italay90 has made some rather fundamental changes to the article. One is to group all the cities from the different parts of the UK into a single list, which has its pros and cons. But the one that has caused a problem is a unilateral decision to remove the references to the City of London and City of Westminster and instead instate the population of Greater London in their place. As the list is, as it states in the lead, "places that have been granted city status by letters patent or royal charter" and Greater London does not hold this status whereas the City of London and City of Westminster do, the content of the article no longer agrees with the lead. I have tried reverting and explaining but have been quickly reverted and effectively ordered not to make changes in the edit summary.

I am assuming these are good faith edits and the editor does not understand the difference between a formally recognised "city" and one as used in common speech. From the way they write I suspect that English may not be his/her first language which is another barrier. I absolutely do not want to go behind anybody's back or "tell tales", but I would appreciate any advice you might have on where to bring this so that the list can once again be a list of places granted city status and not the mess that it now is. Is there perhaps a project page on UK geography or something? Lozleader (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I left aforesaid changes in the talk page of the article for 6 months with no response so Lozleader and any others who wished to object to such changes had ample time to do so. The article essentially replaced a preceding article which labelled London as a city, I am not labelling "Greater London" a city, only London. Other changes to the article took a large amount of time for me to implement (such as merging the tables of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to provide a better comparison of UK cities). There are various definitions of what city status is, and this article in-fact removed the city proper list for the UK? London, as far as I am aware, is the only city of the UK not to be granted city status which is, by various sources, a city by the "city proper" definition. I feel that this article is also rather pointless considering such a list actually exists in the article which it was derived from, rendering it pointless? (See: City status in the United Kingdom#List of officially designated cities).

What is the purpose of the article if it contains listings of cities in each part of the United Kingdom separately - considering the information is already available in separate articles? (See: List of towns and cities in Scotland by population, List of localities in Northern Ireland by population, List of localities in England by population & List of localities in Wales by population?) Italay90 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Transfăgărășan may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:
  • proved to be an impractical route due to the much greater accumulation of snow during the winter).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done.Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (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. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (Re: "Treacle")

I'm glad that we've finally been able to settle the matter of "treacle" (it's gone on for TOO long). I'm glad that we've been able to find a proper place for it. Thank you very much. LizFL (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Cigar Box Guitar entry changes

Matt - I apologize for the changes I made to the cigar box guitar entry. After reading the guidelines, I see that I was clearly in the wrong on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbgitty (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries: you're new here, I'm glad you've learned something and it's very big of you to recognise that your edits weren't suitable. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Re message sent through my talk page

Thank you, will read guidelines. I AM Horse McDonald and therefore will remove anything deemed inappropriate from the page. Horse (HorseMcD (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC))

Hi there, to quote from the policy, if an article is about you "you are advised to refrain from editing" unless "the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." It is not obvious that any of the material you are removing fits that definition, so if you are sure that it does, explain this on the article's talk page and contact WP:BLPN. Some of the material is uncited and on that basis can be removed, but again as you say that you are the subject you ought to explain that its inaccuracy is the rationale for its removal on the talk page. If you continue to simply remove material, with no other explanation than that you don't like it you may face sanctions, including being blocked temporarily or permanently. Let me know if you need any further explanation or help.
In regard to your talk page comment, Wikipedia relies on what it deems by policy to be reliable sources. That you are the subject of the article is not sufficient in itself but presumably means you will be aware of such reliable sources if factual material is to be added, so please provide such a source. (The rationale for this is obvious as otherwise anyone could add false material by claiming to know or be the subject.)
You seem to be editing as both User:HorseMcD, User:HorseMcDonald and possibly anonymously from IP address and as User:Horsemusic. This makes it more difficult to contact you and, though I have no reason to believe this is your intention, can indicate underhand intent with some users (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). For these reasons please stick to one user account.
I realise this may all be new and hard to get across but again, let me know if you need any further explanation or help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post a comment to you as you are obviously and naively using multiple accounts. You continue with your removal of material with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page or WP:BLPN. This is not the way to go about things, as you will learn very quickly if you carry on. Editing of the article may be restricted and/or you may be blocked. I tried very hard to be helpful: please read the above advice if you have not done so and give yourself a second chance, or you are likely to get into hot water. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Ehret's Birth Date Correction

Greetings Mutt, the citation was itself actually wrong. So I updated the citation along with the other instances of the birth. If you want to look at the original source material from the citation to confirm that I made the correction properly, take a look at page 9 and 13 of this pdf of the book book in question HERE. It is available via Digital Dropbox. The existing citation only had page 13 cited, but mistyped the date. Perhaps page 9 should be added to the citation, as Fred Hirsch's articles are the primary source material on which Ehret's birthdate is based. Let me know if you have any further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdeezy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My "methods" and other insinuations

I have indeed "employed this method before"—but only because one Mutt Lunker insisted that this was the way it ought be done. Now, I'm not supposed to do what you previously told me to do because of a further, seemingly arbitrary consideration stated in a tone that distinctly suggests I should have understood this already. Clearly, I am an idiot. I'm not complaining, mind you, as the attitude is fairly consistent with that adopted toward contributors generally. I will also carefully avoid any direct comment on your ongoing aspersions regarding my motives to avoid even the remotest possibility of insult to your evident clairvoyance. Sorry to say, however, that this will be my last post.—Dr.Gulliver (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Response here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't edit my external link on the Battle of Bannockburn page. I don't want to get involved in an edit war with you, we would both get banned. If you have a reason why you think my link (I'm an historian and an expert on Scotland and her battle) should be below yours tell me what it is. Maybe we can work something out. -RMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodgunn (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your link shouldn't be there at all since you, as the author, clearly have a conflict of interest in its promotion and it is not a reliable source, despite your unsupported self-proclamation as an expert and however much of a diverting hobby site it is. You think I think your link should be below my what? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Scotland

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Scotland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

practice

Ahhh well as from your house down more , people are just some years with both jobs and don't utilize when ages welcome voice offers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1F00:C3BD:EB16:350D:EB58:9090 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Chew (Disambiguation)

Hi Mutt, Please see Talk:Chew (disambiguation) regarding recent changes. Thanks. Lexlex (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Caregiver

It is of common usage and there is no authoritative source on such matter. From Craigslist which people use to buy and sell local goods and services you can sell it used in the context. This word is new as it appeared in reaction to legalization of Medical Marijuana. Here is a link for proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.29.226 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is no authoritative source, it can't be added I'm afraid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Economy of Scotland

Recent news has shown that the economic situation in Scotland is improving. Thus, the unemployment rate is decreasing and therefore improving. What is indicated by the red arrow, however, is that the unemployment rate is increasing as shown by the worsening nature of the meaning of the red arrow.

GREEN<DOWN UP>RED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.130.228 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Reply here.)

Re: Will Thompson Actor

This was not an autobiography, I'm not sure what it was that gave the impression that it was I do believe that the problem was fixed. willthompson83 is not a stock puppet for Anonymous Content and vise versa there is no affiliation between the two we corrected what they put in the text all the facts check out nothing is incorrect this is information we have collected threw websites and articles written on the subject. What do you recommend the problem is.

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousContent (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Will Thompson

I not sure I understand the comment you left I didn't delete any thing on Will Thompson I corrected an article and the information within it. Again sir I will ask you what is wrong the article that you are pushing for a deletion all the facts are true and all works have been cited where do you see the problem.?

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.
The main thing is that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNGACTOR. Take a look and that will indicate what needs to be addressed.
You could also check out WP:RS, WP:N, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:SOCK and WP:QUACK. You appear to be a new and inexperienced editor, so if you've made some mistakes, don't worry about it but do please heed these policies. 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gadjo

Hi, I see you've done some editing at Gadjo (non-Romani), in specific the sections in etymology/ derivatives. In Portuguese, the word for "guy"/ "bloke" is "gajo", feminine "gaja". It is used daily to refer to anyone whose name you don't know, ("the guy who works at the bank"/ "the guy who answered the phone") or as a substitute for a name to show slight annoyance - "I asked that guy to buy me cigarettes, and he forgot"/ "I knew those guys would be late"). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds credible so if you have a reliable source to back it up, it would be worthy of inclusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Fermor

Thanks for info on 'minor corrections'. Snowdrop123 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fermor

P L Fermor translated a book by Colette (Chance Acquaintances & Julie de Carneilhan) which was published as no. 1227 by Penguin Books in October 1957. Snowdrop123 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's right and this is already mentioned under the "Works" section of the article, hence my removal of your external link. The link doesn't add any further information, being only a scan of the front cover of the book that is already mentioned. I guess you could add it to that section as a reference but it is superfluous as an external link. Have a look at the WP:EL guideline, points to note in this case being "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum" and "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.".
I notice you have added this link to numerous other articles too and I suspect the above applies to many or all of them too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am new to the Wiki world. I have now read WP:EL and understand where you are coming from. However, is Fermor your page, did you create it and are you protecting it's integrity - or do you take on the task of policing it and other pages? The links given are mutual - in the sense that there is a wiki link on the Penguin web-site, and the information there has been researched from the actual printed pages (e.g. title page etc). I suppose unlike book cover design - where the link would better illustrate the skills of the individual - translating has been a more hidden skill. The link guides readers back to the resource on the range of translators used by Penguin. Snowdrop123 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles and anyone can edit. I had the Fermor article on my watchlist, having made some edits of my own recently, spotted yours and the thoughts as laid out above occurred to me, hence my edits. Don't worry, it can be baffling as you get used to editing here but if you read some of the guidelines in the welcome on your talk page that should help and feel free to come and ask me if you have any questions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dunfermline

Hi Matt, I just saw your reversion and I see what you mean. On close inspection of the population figures (2012) the 71,000 number is the contiguous area of Dunfermline ("settlement"), including Inverkeithing and Rosyth. There is an adjacent page that denotes the Dunfermline town area ("locality") population. I will make the correct edits.

Thanks for the heads up.

)
If you haven't already seen it page 5 here clarifies the difference between these so-called "settlements" and "localities". As we are talking about "the more recognisable towns and cities", it is localities which concern us, not settlements, so please don't add data about the latter in a locality article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dundee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(reversion of uncited material regarding living people)

Hi, I am long life supporter of West Ham and you edited my post on the Goalkeeping coach. Then my post on my hometown Kirkcaldy. Any reasons why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhade (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources if you add material to Wikipedia, particularly so in biographies of living persons or when adding material about living persons. The material about Bobby Mimms, even if you have a citation for it, may be suitable for a "personal life" section but is not pertinent or significant enough for the lede. I hope that helps. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The messages I've left on your talk page should also give you some pointers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Vibram FiveFingers

I've put the sentence back into the lede. The article looks quite promotional to me and this is one of the few independent reliably sourced areas. Also making health claims is a very serious business. Please see the talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Message for Matt re Kirkcaldy

Well spotted. I don't know how Kirkcaldy got on the list. It may have been there from the start and overlooked. I have revised it from time to time as I've discovered more about which places have a genuine mercat cross (or rather what can be defined as one in the historical sense, though residents creating a later structure, e.g. a Victoria Jubilee Fountain or war memorial may well regard it as their town or village cross). I wanted to click the Thank you button but couldn't find it, so have left this deletable message here instead. Kim Traynor | Talk 10:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I think there is a plaque on the wall or on the road where they reckon it was (on the High Street by the junction with Kirk Wynd) but no actual cross. A guid new year to ye. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)