![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
I was one of the ones who used your doppelganger's spelling in the ANI thread. Sorry. I knew I recognized Human Taxonomist's talk page style but I couldn't put a name to the master. I'll know it now. Meters ( talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
And told them that another would result in a block. That sort of attack is completely unacceptable, let me know if the behavior continues. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St Fort. Since you had some involvement with the St Fort redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
TJRC (
talk)
23:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandford ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thought you might be interested in helping work out a policy for notability in piping at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bagpipes#Notability_guidelines? It seems that there can be quite different understandings of what constitutes notability, especially as a lot of piping coverage is well outside of mainstream media. There are quite a few articles that exist that I suspect are not notable - User:Ostrichyearning3/nn - and many many more notable articles that do not exist yet. But would be useful if there was a clear distinction! best, Ostrichyearning3 ( talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Can I ask why you keep removing the section on genetics in the Scottish people talk page? You've done so around 20 times in the space of a single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 13:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I'm talking about a section I'm trying to add to the Scottish people talk page in order to improve the article, which you keep removing. Repeatedly. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh was I now? And when exactly was this I was blocked for disruptive editing? And how am I editing now and for the past week or so if I'm 'not allowed to edit anymore'? This is an incredibly strange interaction, but you appear to have a bit of a problem with vandalising talk pages going by complaints levied towards you on your own one. Are you acknowledging you are repeatedly removing my edit to the talk page regarding Scottish people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea when I first edited Wikipedia. I've certainly not edited it frequently in the past, and have zero recollection of any 'indefinite block' for 'disruptive editing'. Alright, and you're removing this edit and solely this edit. None of my other recent edits. Under the assumption that I was blocked for disruptive editing, but again you're not continually removing any of my other recent edits? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 16:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And why should they be removed or struck? It clearly doesn't seem to be much of an imposition for you though, does it. You seem VERY focused on incessantly deleting my (and it would seem many others') attempts to improve the Scottish people article with a section on genetics. I have no idea what user name or IP I have edited from previously. I've never had a user name, as I said I've never frequently edited Wikipedia. And I have no idea what my IP addresses have historically been. Why on Earth are you asking that? Stop vandalising talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And, as I just told you, I've never been blocked. At least as far as I'm aware. I'm afraid I don't have any recollection of specific edits I made to specific articles on specific dates over the years. We don't all have eidetic memories, I'm afraid. For the third time, I don't frequently edit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Let me start off by apologising for my perceived "warring" I am unused to wikipedias editing mechanism.
I really think that by your own standards there are many other acts that would be better suited to that section. For instance: All the artists that have appeared on both field recording albums, the artists that have appeared on both of the recent mixtapes and the artists that are appearing on the latest "Help the Witch" compilation album, all released on their record label. That however I think would lead to a bloated "associated acts" section. Wolf people I can understand to a extent as they have a stronger association (they are in the process of releasing a album by Wolf People from man Jack Sharp). All associations that are of more note than the previously mentioned singular release.
Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecoldinalex4k ( talk • contribs) 12:07 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais. I've highlighted one specific change to Gaels that's highly suggestive but I'm not familiar with the subject or the editor concerned, so perhaps there's something you can add? Thank you. FDW777 ( talk) 18:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I did these edits because I just want the confirmation of my account. Thank you, I understand you. Blockman9000 ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Being an American, I am unfamiliar with pure BE...especially the version spoken in the northern part. I really appreciate your revert, explaining that the term 'zip' is perfectly known in Scotland.
If you could do me a favour, on the Zipper page, could you mark the term 'zip' as "chiefly British" or some such. As it stands, it's shown as a variant but with no clarification of origin.
I'm also going to go find your list of BE words that AE speakers don't understand. It may help me tremendously.
Thanks again, WesT ( talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Might Special:Contributions/JoinOnIn be You Know Who? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mutt, hope this is the place to chat about edits. You undid and edit on the page /info/en/?search=Scottish_people.
The text "In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone whose linguistic, cultural, family ancestral or genetic origins are from Scotland" - This view may accurate for certain countries outside the UK (typically those with historical Scottish diaspora and esp the USA), but it is certainly inaccurate in Scotland, the country (and people) of the subject. Technically all polls by a leading public opinion and data company are partial polls but yougov is one of the authoritative measures here in the UK of public opinion, regardless of sample size. I would also be correct stating "In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone born or raised in Scotland" both are equally true, depending on whos 'modern usage' you are considering.
cheers, Clydesailor ( talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mutt Lunker, Would you write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the SCO.wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 ( talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that's a mistake. I accidentally deleted it because I thought I could erase it because I didn't need it. I'm sorry. 도성전 ( talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Matt, The source for the John Martyn edit is English births, deaths and marriages on Ancestry.Com. His mother Beatrice Elizabeth Jewitt's birth was registered in South Croydon(1921). Her mother's maiden name was Hawkins. As both Hawkins and Jewitt are unquestionably English surnames there seems no reason to believe in Martyn's whimsical claim to Belgian Jewish ancestry. Regards Rae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae Donaldson ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mutt, So, if I understand you correctly, I could order copies of the relevant birth certificates and that wouldn't be admissible as proof that Martyn was having us on about his mother's identity? Not that it matters so much to me that I would ever do that. I guess I'll just have to leave this one as it is! If I ever see a copy of Thomson's book I'll be interested to see what proofs he offers in support of Martyn's claim. Regards Rae Rae Donaldson ( talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Mutt, you may not see how official certificates prove ancestry but unfortunately that's often all we have to go Rae Donaldson ( talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC) on. If I got a marriage certificate for Martyn's parents and then followed the maternal line back through both the mother and father to birth certificates for both of them and discovered nothing Belgian-or indeed inferably Jewish-I'd say we were onto something, wouldn't you? Yes, of course I'm aware that people change their names in order to fit in but I think you'll find this is less common in the UK than it is in the United States where, for example, the surname Smith is as likely to be of German as of British/Irish origin(Brown/Braun is another case). In this part of the world, the idea that Smith might indicate German ancestry would be regarded as fantasy without some reputable proof to the contrary. Regards Rae Rae Donaldson ( talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Mutt Lunker. On my mother's side, many are Scots for the most part, maternal and paternal, originally from Isle of Skye and Edinburgh. My relatives on that side use names/ terms interchangeably. But it is fair to remind contributors of wiki's protocols (while lingering on Samuel Butler's explanation of a definition: the enclosing a wilderness of ideas within a wall of words). Prattlement ( talk) 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Mutt Lunker: It is policy to put references to notable people, even in these types of lists and has been more ten years, now. It don't how many times, people have complained to me, add a reference. Please do not remove the tag. scope_creep Talk 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to nitpick, but it's not exclusively a North American English use of the word. Just trying to help avoid other unnecessary changes.
Please see:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/fit
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fit
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fit_1
Apologies for using revert and missing the commas, no offense was intended.
Jonathon A H ( talk) 02:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit on United Kingdom page? The First Secretary of State is the second most powerful political office in the UK Government, so I don’t get why it shouldn’t be there? Ciaran.london ( talk) 22:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you give me the name, date and place of birth of President Obama's Scottish ancestry. I'm of Ancient Egyptian ancestry btw. I don't have any evidence to prove that, but I can just claim it I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj ( talk • contribs)
I won't bother editing Wikipedia anymore as people like you are clearly not interested in factual accuracy, only hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj ( talk • contribs)
Your comment at the top of the page asks for a link to show he is an author. The requested link in your note is a Google Books Link.
I have added the Google Books link
You have now deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones19 ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Gjones19 The notability page asks for significant coverage. The delete panel asks for evidence - including a link to "books" from Google.
The link I provided was from Google Books as requested.
That links shows significant numbers of books.
You can't ask for significant coverage of notabality and then say that a significant number of books on Google Books is not acceptable when the delete panel itself asks for Google Books.
I do not edit under any other name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones19 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Gjones19 The links in the Delete panel SPECIFICALLY link to Google Books. A listing on Google books is independent of the subject. The page has external links independent of the subject as well. —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! If you're interested, the Scottish Wikipedia seems to be in need of experienced Wikipedians who can speak Scots. The news made the rounds today that nearly half of the articles were created by someone who doesn't seem to have that much experience with the language, so a cleanup effort may be needed. More details are at this slightly hyperbolic Reddit thread. Please let me know if you're interested in helping out! They're also looking for administrators for the wiki, too, as a side note. Enterprisey ( talk!) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! Please do not change Gaelic phrases if you’re not a speaker of the language. You previously replaced the Gaelic term for “Scots” with their equivalent Irish phrases. Lughaidh Mac Iain ( talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you may have misread my signature on Talk:Scots Wikipedia, I'm not SnowFire. WP:INDENT is pretty standard, though, isn't it? Comments go in chronological order and get indented according to who they're replying to. Ignoring the chronology and using an extra indent for "responding to your reponse" just makes it look like you answered SnowFire before Sigehelmus did, and typed one too many colons. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mutt Lunker, I read the comment left on my talk page by you and UncleBubba, and both have you written on my talk page that you guys already started the reversions yourself, I only made mistakes yesterday which all of it got fixed by either you, UncleBubba or other editors. The revisions I did day were all 100% correct, I don't understand why you reverted all of my good faith edits? And follow me on the talk page of Rousgill, like there is one revision on Buddhism where the community was spelled as "commmunity" and you reverted that which is not according to community standards. Please look back at all the reversions you made of me today, they all are bad. If you want, could you please take this matter to the admin's discussion board? Let them decide whether to ban me or not, I don't like you reverting my good faith edits it is not done automatically I go through manually spend like 10 mins or so along with my grammar tool(I am talking about all the edits made by me today). I only started making grammar corrections since 2 days ago. Please do not revert my good faith edits henceforth. You should have reverted the good faith edits of yesterday if you had concerns instead of spending time to revert the good-faith edits I made today. Angus1986 ( talk) 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
The reason why I made my edit was because there was a duplicate reference, causing the following message to appear at the bottom of the article:
Cite error: The named reference "scotslanguage.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
If you look at the other reference tagged "scotslanguage.com", you'll see the content is the same, only that one has been archived and the other hasn't. They're the same reference.
142.117.65.51 ( talk) 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit. I have changed it to something shorter to represent the fact that it is unknown who 'got there first' with Fish and Chips - thus the lead as it was originally is misleading. I suggest we take it to the talk page, where I have already added my thoughts as to why it is important to note it is disputed and has a rightful place in the lead. Thanks. Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 09:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Previous incarnation? What are you on about? I have only joined the debate today. Where has it been rebutted? You cannot prove who first paired Fish with Chips, thus your lead statement is false. How is it unreasonable to point out that fact and that the matter is a subject of controversy AS according to the sources? Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Fish and chips. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 11:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
IamNotU Hi again, yes that is understandable, honestly I thank you for stepping in. He didn't really make efforts to respond accordingly in my opinion and instead accused me of being a sock puppet, which I had to check what that actually was. I have no idea where he got that from and perhaps has some wires crossed with another user. No hard feelings anyway. I see the matter as resolved now. Thanks all. Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to invite you to the Scots Leid Discord if seeing as you're a Scots Speaker and all. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It's basically where a lot of us discuss how to improve Scots Wikipedia. Getting more fluent native speakers to participate is a top priority of mine as an admin of that project. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 23:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Too horrific. For a start, as it's apparent that the bulk of, doubtless well-meaning, posts are being contributed by non-speakers I'd strongly suggest the discussion be conducted in English. There's no shame in that; a lot of spadework can be done by non-speakers and much better if they discuss matters in a language that everyone is fluent in. The problems that came to light in the press in August are reflected perfectly in the language of the discussion. The construction of sentences as a word-by-word translation list from what you would have said in English into a succession of the most obscure, maximally-differentiated terms or spellings that can be found, Scots dictionary in hand, does not make one a speaker of Scots. If the discussion is being conducted in this sort of fabricated tongue, one can assume the wiki itself is continuing in its previous disastrous course. This is not modern Scots as it's spoken and it serves to alienate speakers from their own tongue. If you didn't get a chance to read the links I gave above, I elaborate there. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I made some notes back in late August, initially with the intention of posting piecemeal at the Met-Wiki discussions re the hoo-ha over Scots Wikipedia. I started to repurpose them as a collection of observations, to link to in the discussions, then abandoned them, probably incomplete but I can’t remember what else I may have intended to add. I have neither followed the discussions nor any overhaul of the Scots Wikipedia since so, if it’s of any interest, please read it in that context.
For what it’s worth:
What is your problem with my factual edits to the presidents section of the Scottish-American article? You persist in placing on that section a list of presidents who have no proven connection to Scotland - a list of presidents with no named and documented ancestor who was born in Scotland. You are also now basically vandalising the section as your actions have removed my addition to the list of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose 3xgreat grandfather (James Murray of Dumfriesshire) was a Scot. I thought this was an encyclopedia? Yet you seem to favour including information with no factual basis. There is also a great inconsistency between the Scottish-American article and the Irish-American articcle in terms of documented evidence and references and what is included on that article. Why are you so determined to make this article so flawed and inaccurate? Reefyj ( talk)
Hello. I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet histories here, but see that you've reverted some past socking on State-funded schools (England) and Education in England, so maybe you can make a quick call on it without it needing a full SPI. Were TrotterBefeet and Leetigrethe4th more of the same, yesterday? Similarly-sized additions and removals, changing the number of subjects from 12 to 13, wanting a different lead photo on the first of those article, etc. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 10:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's wrong with my changes I made to that page? The primary and secondary school sections were unsourced and I added information directly from the Gov.co.uk websites with correct sources to each information. There is a message on the section informing users to edit with better sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetigrethe4th ( talk • contribs)
Aha, thanks for that. But I've never been blocked on Wiki before nor am I making edits on behalf of banned users? Is there a way I can have my edits restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetigrethe4th ( talk • contribs)
There seems to be a lot about Scotland on here Matt. So if that means you're Scottish and into 80s sophisti-pop music, don't you remember Cut Magazine (it was about Cut where this argument started)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I understand your reasons for removing Flower of Scotland as the predominately played National Anthem of Scotland. However, upon research, the England article cites that God Save the Queen is predominately the national anthem for England. If Flower of Scotland is going to be removed from the Scottish article due to it not being official or recognised, surely the same argument can be applied to God Save the Queen on the England article, as, like Scotland, England does not have it's own official national anthem. Goodreg3 ( talk) 00:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I am preparingto sue you and Wikipedia for defamation, slander, libel, and many other torts. In December 2nd, you blocked my friend’s best account and called me a mean person. I am seeking $1,000,000,000 in damages but am willing to settle for an apology. Good bye, you will never be hearing from me again. Sincerely, User:fragino27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B12D:6288:CC8F:E4BF:24AC:6D25 ( talk) 22:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lars Lokotsch article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Giant Snowman 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you intending to revert every single edit made by myself on the Scotland article. Granted, some of your reverts have been with clear purpose and understanding, however, you claim that reverting the edit whereby i added a
section tag to the 21st century section of the article as messing up the layout. Currently, the photograph displayed within the 21st century overlaps into the next section, which in my opinion makes the article look untidy and cluttered. So, arguably, without the tag it messes up the layout of the article. Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems perhaps a tad personal, as some edits have been reverted that I feel have been unjustified. Goodreg3 ( talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
I was one of the ones who used your doppelganger's spelling in the ANI thread. Sorry. I knew I recognized Human Taxonomist's talk page style but I couldn't put a name to the master. I'll know it now. Meters ( talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
And told them that another would result in a block. That sort of attack is completely unacceptable, let me know if the behavior continues. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St Fort. Since you had some involvement with the St Fort redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
TJRC (
talk)
23:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandford ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thought you might be interested in helping work out a policy for notability in piping at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bagpipes#Notability_guidelines? It seems that there can be quite different understandings of what constitutes notability, especially as a lot of piping coverage is well outside of mainstream media. There are quite a few articles that exist that I suspect are not notable - User:Ostrichyearning3/nn - and many many more notable articles that do not exist yet. But would be useful if there was a clear distinction! best, Ostrichyearning3 ( talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Can I ask why you keep removing the section on genetics in the Scottish people talk page? You've done so around 20 times in the space of a single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 13:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I'm talking about a section I'm trying to add to the Scottish people talk page in order to improve the article, which you keep removing. Repeatedly. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh was I now? And when exactly was this I was blocked for disruptive editing? And how am I editing now and for the past week or so if I'm 'not allowed to edit anymore'? This is an incredibly strange interaction, but you appear to have a bit of a problem with vandalising talk pages going by complaints levied towards you on your own one. Are you acknowledging you are repeatedly removing my edit to the talk page regarding Scottish people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea when I first edited Wikipedia. I've certainly not edited it frequently in the past, and have zero recollection of any 'indefinite block' for 'disruptive editing'. Alright, and you're removing this edit and solely this edit. None of my other recent edits. Under the assumption that I was blocked for disruptive editing, but again you're not continually removing any of my other recent edits? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 16:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And why should they be removed or struck? It clearly doesn't seem to be much of an imposition for you though, does it. You seem VERY focused on incessantly deleting my (and it would seem many others') attempts to improve the Scottish people article with a section on genetics. I have no idea what user name or IP I have edited from previously. I've never had a user name, as I said I've never frequently edited Wikipedia. And I have no idea what my IP addresses have historically been. Why on Earth are you asking that? Stop vandalising talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 17:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And, as I just told you, I've never been blocked. At least as far as I'm aware. I'm afraid I don't have any recollection of specific edits I made to specific articles on specific dates over the years. We don't all have eidetic memories, I'm afraid. For the third time, I don't frequently edit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 ( talk) 17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Let me start off by apologising for my perceived "warring" I am unused to wikipedias editing mechanism.
I really think that by your own standards there are many other acts that would be better suited to that section. For instance: All the artists that have appeared on both field recording albums, the artists that have appeared on both of the recent mixtapes and the artists that are appearing on the latest "Help the Witch" compilation album, all released on their record label. That however I think would lead to a bloated "associated acts" section. Wolf people I can understand to a extent as they have a stronger association (they are in the process of releasing a album by Wolf People from man Jack Sharp). All associations that are of more note than the previously mentioned singular release.
Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecoldinalex4k ( talk • contribs) 12:07 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais. I've highlighted one specific change to Gaels that's highly suggestive but I'm not familiar with the subject or the editor concerned, so perhaps there's something you can add? Thank you. FDW777 ( talk) 18:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I did these edits because I just want the confirmation of my account. Thank you, I understand you. Blockman9000 ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Being an American, I am unfamiliar with pure BE...especially the version spoken in the northern part. I really appreciate your revert, explaining that the term 'zip' is perfectly known in Scotland.
If you could do me a favour, on the Zipper page, could you mark the term 'zip' as "chiefly British" or some such. As it stands, it's shown as a variant but with no clarification of origin.
I'm also going to go find your list of BE words that AE speakers don't understand. It may help me tremendously.
Thanks again, WesT ( talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Might Special:Contributions/JoinOnIn be You Know Who? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mutt, hope this is the place to chat about edits. You undid and edit on the page /info/en/?search=Scottish_people.
The text "In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone whose linguistic, cultural, family ancestral or genetic origins are from Scotland" - This view may accurate for certain countries outside the UK (typically those with historical Scottish diaspora and esp the USA), but it is certainly inaccurate in Scotland, the country (and people) of the subject. Technically all polls by a leading public opinion and data company are partial polls but yougov is one of the authoritative measures here in the UK of public opinion, regardless of sample size. I would also be correct stating "In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone born or raised in Scotland" both are equally true, depending on whos 'modern usage' you are considering.
cheers, Clydesailor ( talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mutt Lunker, Would you write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the SCO.wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 ( talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, that's a mistake. I accidentally deleted it because I thought I could erase it because I didn't need it. I'm sorry. 도성전 ( talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Matt, The source for the John Martyn edit is English births, deaths and marriages on Ancestry.Com. His mother Beatrice Elizabeth Jewitt's birth was registered in South Croydon(1921). Her mother's maiden name was Hawkins. As both Hawkins and Jewitt are unquestionably English surnames there seems no reason to believe in Martyn's whimsical claim to Belgian Jewish ancestry. Regards Rae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae Donaldson ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mutt, So, if I understand you correctly, I could order copies of the relevant birth certificates and that wouldn't be admissible as proof that Martyn was having us on about his mother's identity? Not that it matters so much to me that I would ever do that. I guess I'll just have to leave this one as it is! If I ever see a copy of Thomson's book I'll be interested to see what proofs he offers in support of Martyn's claim. Regards Rae Rae Donaldson ( talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Mutt, you may not see how official certificates prove ancestry but unfortunately that's often all we have to go Rae Donaldson ( talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC) on. If I got a marriage certificate for Martyn's parents and then followed the maternal line back through both the mother and father to birth certificates for both of them and discovered nothing Belgian-or indeed inferably Jewish-I'd say we were onto something, wouldn't you? Yes, of course I'm aware that people change their names in order to fit in but I think you'll find this is less common in the UK than it is in the United States where, for example, the surname Smith is as likely to be of German as of British/Irish origin(Brown/Braun is another case). In this part of the world, the idea that Smith might indicate German ancestry would be regarded as fantasy without some reputable proof to the contrary. Regards Rae Rae Donaldson ( talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Mutt Lunker. On my mother's side, many are Scots for the most part, maternal and paternal, originally from Isle of Skye and Edinburgh. My relatives on that side use names/ terms interchangeably. But it is fair to remind contributors of wiki's protocols (while lingering on Samuel Butler's explanation of a definition: the enclosing a wilderness of ideas within a wall of words). Prattlement ( talk) 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Mutt Lunker: It is policy to put references to notable people, even in these types of lists and has been more ten years, now. It don't how many times, people have complained to me, add a reference. Please do not remove the tag. scope_creep Talk 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to nitpick, but it's not exclusively a North American English use of the word. Just trying to help avoid other unnecessary changes.
Please see:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/fit
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fit
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fit_1
Apologies for using revert and missing the commas, no offense was intended.
Jonathon A H ( talk) 02:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit on United Kingdom page? The First Secretary of State is the second most powerful political office in the UK Government, so I don’t get why it shouldn’t be there? Ciaran.london ( talk) 22:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you give me the name, date and place of birth of President Obama's Scottish ancestry. I'm of Ancient Egyptian ancestry btw. I don't have any evidence to prove that, but I can just claim it I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj ( talk • contribs)
I won't bother editing Wikipedia anymore as people like you are clearly not interested in factual accuracy, only hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj ( talk • contribs)
Your comment at the top of the page asks for a link to show he is an author. The requested link in your note is a Google Books Link.
I have added the Google Books link
You have now deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones19 ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Gjones19 The notability page asks for significant coverage. The delete panel asks for evidence - including a link to "books" from Google.
The link I provided was from Google Books as requested.
That links shows significant numbers of books.
You can't ask for significant coverage of notabality and then say that a significant number of books on Google Books is not acceptable when the delete panel itself asks for Google Books.
I do not edit under any other name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjones19 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Gjones19 The links in the Delete panel SPECIFICALLY link to Google Books. A listing on Google books is independent of the subject. The page has external links independent of the subject as well. —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! If you're interested, the Scottish Wikipedia seems to be in need of experienced Wikipedians who can speak Scots. The news made the rounds today that nearly half of the articles were created by someone who doesn't seem to have that much experience with the language, so a cleanup effort may be needed. More details are at this slightly hyperbolic Reddit thread. Please let me know if you're interested in helping out! They're also looking for administrators for the wiki, too, as a side note. Enterprisey ( talk!) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! Please do not change Gaelic phrases if you’re not a speaker of the language. You previously replaced the Gaelic term for “Scots” with their equivalent Irish phrases. Lughaidh Mac Iain ( talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you may have misread my signature on Talk:Scots Wikipedia, I'm not SnowFire. WP:INDENT is pretty standard, though, isn't it? Comments go in chronological order and get indented according to who they're replying to. Ignoring the chronology and using an extra indent for "responding to your reponse" just makes it look like you answered SnowFire before Sigehelmus did, and typed one too many colons. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mutt Lunker, I read the comment left on my talk page by you and UncleBubba, and both have you written on my talk page that you guys already started the reversions yourself, I only made mistakes yesterday which all of it got fixed by either you, UncleBubba or other editors. The revisions I did day were all 100% correct, I don't understand why you reverted all of my good faith edits? And follow me on the talk page of Rousgill, like there is one revision on Buddhism where the community was spelled as "commmunity" and you reverted that which is not according to community standards. Please look back at all the reversions you made of me today, they all are bad. If you want, could you please take this matter to the admin's discussion board? Let them decide whether to ban me or not, I don't like you reverting my good faith edits it is not done automatically I go through manually spend like 10 mins or so along with my grammar tool(I am talking about all the edits made by me today). I only started making grammar corrections since 2 days ago. Please do not revert my good faith edits henceforth. You should have reverted the good faith edits of yesterday if you had concerns instead of spending time to revert the good-faith edits I made today. Angus1986 ( talk) 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
The reason why I made my edit was because there was a duplicate reference, causing the following message to appear at the bottom of the article:
Cite error: The named reference "scotslanguage.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
If you look at the other reference tagged "scotslanguage.com", you'll see the content is the same, only that one has been archived and the other hasn't. They're the same reference.
142.117.65.51 ( talk) 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit. I have changed it to something shorter to represent the fact that it is unknown who 'got there first' with Fish and Chips - thus the lead as it was originally is misleading. I suggest we take it to the talk page, where I have already added my thoughts as to why it is important to note it is disputed and has a rightful place in the lead. Thanks. Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 09:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Previous incarnation? What are you on about? I have only joined the debate today. Where has it been rebutted? You cannot prove who first paired Fish with Chips, thus your lead statement is false. How is it unreasonable to point out that fact and that the matter is a subject of controversy AS according to the sources? Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Fish and chips. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 11:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
IamNotU Hi again, yes that is understandable, honestly I thank you for stepping in. He didn't really make efforts to respond accordingly in my opinion and instead accused me of being a sock puppet, which I had to check what that actually was. I have no idea where he got that from and perhaps has some wires crossed with another user. No hard feelings anyway. I see the matter as resolved now. Thanks all. Glaaaastonbury88 ( talk) 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to invite you to the Scots Leid Discord if seeing as you're a Scots Speaker and all. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It's basically where a lot of us discuss how to improve Scots Wikipedia. Getting more fluent native speakers to participate is a top priority of mine as an admin of that project. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 23:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Too horrific. For a start, as it's apparent that the bulk of, doubtless well-meaning, posts are being contributed by non-speakers I'd strongly suggest the discussion be conducted in English. There's no shame in that; a lot of spadework can be done by non-speakers and much better if they discuss matters in a language that everyone is fluent in. The problems that came to light in the press in August are reflected perfectly in the language of the discussion. The construction of sentences as a word-by-word translation list from what you would have said in English into a succession of the most obscure, maximally-differentiated terms or spellings that can be found, Scots dictionary in hand, does not make one a speaker of Scots. If the discussion is being conducted in this sort of fabricated tongue, one can assume the wiki itself is continuing in its previous disastrous course. This is not modern Scots as it's spoken and it serves to alienate speakers from their own tongue. If you didn't get a chance to read the links I gave above, I elaborate there. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I made some notes back in late August, initially with the intention of posting piecemeal at the Met-Wiki discussions re the hoo-ha over Scots Wikipedia. I started to repurpose them as a collection of observations, to link to in the discussions, then abandoned them, probably incomplete but I can’t remember what else I may have intended to add. I have neither followed the discussions nor any overhaul of the Scots Wikipedia since so, if it’s of any interest, please read it in that context.
For what it’s worth:
What is your problem with my factual edits to the presidents section of the Scottish-American article? You persist in placing on that section a list of presidents who have no proven connection to Scotland - a list of presidents with no named and documented ancestor who was born in Scotland. You are also now basically vandalising the section as your actions have removed my addition to the list of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose 3xgreat grandfather (James Murray of Dumfriesshire) was a Scot. I thought this was an encyclopedia? Yet you seem to favour including information with no factual basis. There is also a great inconsistency between the Scottish-American article and the Irish-American articcle in terms of documented evidence and references and what is included on that article. Why are you so determined to make this article so flawed and inaccurate? Reefyj ( talk)
Hello. I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet histories here, but see that you've reverted some past socking on State-funded schools (England) and Education in England, so maybe you can make a quick call on it without it needing a full SPI. Were TrotterBefeet and Leetigrethe4th more of the same, yesterday? Similarly-sized additions and removals, changing the number of subjects from 12 to 13, wanting a different lead photo on the first of those article, etc. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 10:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's wrong with my changes I made to that page? The primary and secondary school sections were unsourced and I added information directly from the Gov.co.uk websites with correct sources to each information. There is a message on the section informing users to edit with better sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetigrethe4th ( talk • contribs)
Aha, thanks for that. But I've never been blocked on Wiki before nor am I making edits on behalf of banned users? Is there a way I can have my edits restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leetigrethe4th ( talk • contribs)
There seems to be a lot about Scotland on here Matt. So if that means you're Scottish and into 80s sophisti-pop music, don't you remember Cut Magazine (it was about Cut where this argument started)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I understand your reasons for removing Flower of Scotland as the predominately played National Anthem of Scotland. However, upon research, the England article cites that God Save the Queen is predominately the national anthem for England. If Flower of Scotland is going to be removed from the Scottish article due to it not being official or recognised, surely the same argument can be applied to God Save the Queen on the England article, as, like Scotland, England does not have it's own official national anthem. Goodreg3 ( talk) 00:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I am preparingto sue you and Wikipedia for defamation, slander, libel, and many other torts. In December 2nd, you blocked my friend’s best account and called me a mean person. I am seeking $1,000,000,000 in damages but am willing to settle for an apology. Good bye, you will never be hearing from me again. Sincerely, User:fragino27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B12D:6288:CC8F:E4BF:24AC:6D25 ( talk) 22:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Lars Lokotsch article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Giant Snowman 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you intending to revert every single edit made by myself on the Scotland article. Granted, some of your reverts have been with clear purpose and understanding, however, you claim that reverting the edit whereby i added a
section tag to the 21st century section of the article as messing up the layout. Currently, the photograph displayed within the 21st century overlaps into the next section, which in my opinion makes the article look untidy and cluttered. So, arguably, without the tag it messes up the layout of the article. Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems perhaps a tad personal, as some edits have been reverted that I feel have been unjustified. Goodreg3 ( talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)