User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 1

Transnistria
I'm concerned about what I believe to be biased editing by at least one editor in articles and stubs related to the disputed region of Transnistria. References and category listings relating to one or other side in the dispute are being deleted with refs and cats supporting the other inserted in their place. Spellings of place names are changed, sometimes with the resultant loss of links. Text is being added elaborating aspects of the dispute that are probably best served under the main Transnistria article, the motivation appearing to be support to one side in the dispute.

I've made a few attempts to make the articles more balanced/NPOV but if I continue I fear it could just turn into an editing war. Also, on looking further into this there would seem to be a fairly large number of articles and edits affected and I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with them all (particularly currently as I'm on a dial-up and without use of my own computer). I suppose I could slap disputed-neutrality templates over all the affected articles and leave them but that would only be a limited solution and I don't like the idea of leaving these articles in a questionable state. Can someone with more experience give some advice? Mutt Lunker 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This post would probably be placed better on the administrator noticeboard than on your talk page. I suggest posting it there and informing them of the situation. Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusation
Thanks for the advice. I've now done this but, presumably because of posting it there, I'm now being accused of being a sockpuppet of a puppet master called William Mauco who appears (from his userpage) to have some similar viewpoints re Transnistria entries. I'm certainly not a puppet. What do I do now? Is the onus on me to "clear my name" or doesn't the accuser have to provide something more convincing than a shared viewpoint to a puppetmaster? Mutt Lunker 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything on WP:AN suggesting you're a sockpuppet, but I do see the banner on your user page. It seems there's been a lot of disagreement on the Transnistria page. Respond to the sockpuppetry allegation by placing a new reply under the topic WP:AN, and also leave a message on the talk page of the editor who placed the notice on your talk page. Ask why that claim has been made and what evidence exists to back up that accusation. -  Krakatoa  Katie  22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mutt. I'm sorry if you're not Mauco and you're finding this offending. User:William Mauco got away with abusive sockpuppetry for months, you can find some of the finer tactics here. I'm still not convinced you're not Mauco, he seems to go extraordinary lengths to conceal sockpupputry. If you want to get this over with quickly could you consent to a quick IP check? This involves an administrator looking at your IP and comparing it with Mauco's so as to determine whether you are him or not. Alternatively, you can refuse and remove the tag - there is no obligation for you to keep it there.--Domitius 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this. I'm not offended, it's just that being accused of sockpuppetry is outwith my previous experience and I wasn't sure what to do next. By all means do an IP check. Incidentally I'm not at my usual IP for a few days but I imagine that's not relevant -unless Mauco is my Dad and I don't know! Mutt Lunker 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone let me know how to be checked as per Domitius' comments above as I'm unhappy to just remove the suspected-sockpuppet tag from my user page while there is still suspicion of my genuine identity? Mutt Lunker 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * File a case at WP:RFCU. { Slash -|- Talk } 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Me 1
I tried to file a case at WP:RFCU as per above, found it a slightly confusing process but thought I'd done it correctly. Maybe I simply messed it up but on checking just now at it's telling me it's a non-compliant request and that it has been delisted, with the comment "Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask." Maybe I'm being thick but I don't understand. Am I not allowed to have myself checked out or something (in which case I wish I hadn't been advised to do so)? Mutt Lunker 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per "Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" 	Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask." Checkusers will not undergo cases to prove user's innocence (mainly because of WP:PRIVACY). Checkuser is not for fishing as well. I should know, because I am a check user clerk.  Let me know if you have any questions. Real96 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mutt Lunker 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Attacking"
Eh, could you please clarify what you are concerned with? I can then modify my message accordingly. Transnistria articles are indeed a can of worms with all sorts of bias in them. I think it was not nice of Domitius to abandon AGF with you so quickly, although he did explain himself. I find the situation rather ironic, because a real sockpuppet (Grigoras Iliescu) was discovered and blocked as a result. --Illythr 01:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At least in part due to my misunderstanding of your comment on User:Domitius' talk page. I hadn't twigged that you were saying User:Grigoras.Iliescu was a puppet, my misunderstanding, and I thought you were supporting my being attacked (which from what you say above re AGF seems not to be the case). Now I know the background to the nefarious editing history of Transnistria items I can understand why Domitius' eyebrow was raised. However (possibly due to my inexperience dealing with an issue as controversial as this one), being the one person who could be sure I was genuine, was not overjoyed by the tagging, felt more beleaguered when I thought you were cheering on an attack and then felt that any backing off of the accusations were, at best, equivocal, leaving me wondering if there is still a question about my credibility.


 * Iliescu was the editor I was by far most concerned about (though not the only one) so think it entirely apt rather than ironic that he be unmasked as a result of this. I wish the road there had been a bit easier though! However, if nothing else, it's been an education. Part of this is detailed above regarding the advice to me to file a case at WP:RFCU for an IP check on myself and the subsequent slap on the wrist since that's forbidden. Thus if any of the parties involved think this is still necessary, a case still needs to be filed.


 * I hope this wee episode is pretty much resolved now so wish you Illythr, and also Domitius a good Easter (of an appropriately religious or secular nature)! Mutt Lunker 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you were wrongfully accused as being sockpuppet, this is the result of long time activities of a very talented sockpuppeteer in Transnistria-related articles, who make now some people to overreact at anybody who seems to support similar views as the (now blocked) sockpuppeteer. See bellow explanation:

Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

 * Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)

Personages of the show

 * 1) User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006
 * 2) User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006
 * Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary and words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) from his first edit.
 * 1) User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007
 * Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.
 * 1) User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007
 * 2) User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

 * 1) Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni".
 * 2) In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": . According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet".
 * 3) Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"?
 * 4) Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" . "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"
 * 5) Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”
 * 6) Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"
 * 7) Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"
 * 8) Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"
 * 9) Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement". Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise"
 * 10) Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past
 * 11) Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
 * 12) Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:,
 * 13) Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.
 * 14) Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.
 * 15) Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.
 * 16) Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space . "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" . Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"
 * 17) Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson"
 * 18) Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"
 * 19) Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit"
 * 20) Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it"
 * 21) Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"
 * 22) Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"
 * 23) Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"
 * 24) Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary)
 * 25) Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say"
 * 26) Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems". "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia". "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary), "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"
 * 27) Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"
 * 28) Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"
 * 29) Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"
 * 30) Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"
 * 31) Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"
 * 32) Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)
 * 33) Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Fringe theories"
 * 34) Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: . At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead
 * 35) Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you"
 * 36) Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?", "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened", "I see. That's bad news"
 * 37) Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month". Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"
 * 38) Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation"
 * 39) Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring"
 * 40) Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here
 * 41) Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" . Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"

Hiding evidence

 * 1) Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies:

"— 	Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" 	Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask." From RFCU page. { Slash -|- Talk } 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

...then why did you advise me to file a case?? Mutt Lunker 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ella Fitzgerald
Please note that what you reverted as "nonsense" was a correctly formated template that automatically computes the persons age at death. It is frequently used in biography infoboxes. Jefferson Anderson 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no worries. Just wanted to make sure you would recognize them in the future... Jefferson Anderson 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I found the previous entry on your talk page to be rather interesting reading.... Jefferson Anderson 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it just. Re the EF edit - that'll teach me to try to edit two pages at once! Mutt Lunker 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Helping I. Thomson
User:I. Thomson has asked if I can help him out. I've had a go as far as I feel I can but think it's time to seek more experienced help. Most of the discussion is here. He is evidently very keen but by his own admission he has difficulties with spelling, grammar, constructing sentences etc., attributing this and other difficulties to "a touch of asperger's". His edits are often difficult to comprehend. Notability and referencing are other issues for him. I've done a fair amount of copy editing of additions he has made and tried to provide constructive criticism to him but am short on further ideas, or indeed time for further copy editing. One idea was to find a forum where he can make entries in the way he likes, either instead of or in addition to making appropriate Wikipedia edits. Any idea of somewhere that might be suitable? Any other thoughts on this? Mutt Lunker 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Point him to WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors. Real96 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'm not sure how this would help. What are you suggesting he does then? Mutt Lunker 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can any else suggest advice? In summary User:I. Thomson has requested help from me because, as he says, "I "can't" clarify sentences properly and have a touch of asperger's". His contributions can require significant work to revise them and are often deleted. I don't imagine he's the first contributor with Asperger syndrome or the like but I've looked to see if there are guidelines or help regarding -or support for - such users but couldn't find anything. I've also looked re capability issues in general. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Should I maybe discuss this on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? Mutt Lunker 11:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there are any guidelines about things like this. (That could explain why nobody's answered this helpme yet...) Maybe the administrator's noticeboard might be a good place for this. One suggestion might be to tell the user in question to use cleanup tags on their own contributions to help attract people who can sort out the problems that they might be unable to avoid introducing. See also for the over 200 Wikipedians who self-identify as having Asperger syndrome. Hope that helps! --ais523 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I think the suggestions are a good start. Mutt Lunker 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:user iso15924
The Template:User cyrl-2 will be deleted. Someone created it in "error". For writing systems the standard template is Template:user iso15924. Related: Userboxes/Writing_systems - if you have more questions - feel free to ask. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Buck
Hi Mutt, please source your edits. An adequate selection of nicknames for Buckfast are included in the published sources referenced in the piece, many have been stripped out before as unsourced. Thanks,  Dei z  talk 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mentioned in umpteen blogs but nothing more authoritative so I'll leave it. Mutt Lunker 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Correcting mis-spellings
I looked up the word "lieutenant" and by typing the word clumsily accidentally came across 41 articles containing the mis-spelling "lietenant". I had a look for a quick and easy way of correcting them all but without success. Any pointers? Mutt Lunker 14:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You could ask for permission to use WP:AWB.  Dei z  talk 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about your question in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel and After Midnight used Auto Wiki Browser (AWB) to fix many (if not all) of the misspellings (in the Article namespace - there is no point in correcting misspellings outside of articles). An alternate place to ask for bot taks to be run is WP:BOTREQ.--Commander Keane 15:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker 15:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart edits
I keep thinking that I could simply be pissed at you for failing to actually read the Discussion page, where I crafted several responses about how we don't alter citations and call you various impolite names for not paying attention, but that would be uncivil. Matt, we don't alter citations. Period, The reason we use citations in Wikipedia is because they are the words of others, set into print., Every time you change or alter them, you put the entire citation at risk, because you are adding your OR bent to it. I am going to change it back now. If you have some grand problem with it, I will expect you to direct your problems to the article Discussion page ONLY. If you are having trouble with understanding OR, and specifically the issues which I have brought up here, please consult an admin to advise you further. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the sentence again, there must at the very least be a typo in it. And relax. Mutt Lunker 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. On both counts. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have explained the matter more clearly on the Discussion page, iwould ask you to please revert your changes (you can add the [sic] if you want). You need to revert it to back yourself out of a 3RR violation (you've reverted 4 times within the 24 hour period). Please do this right away, as I cannot help it if someone esle reports you before you self-revert. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer but on my count we both stand at 3 (although my fourth last edit did follow one of yours, that particular one of mine didn't relate to your preceding one, so was not "undoing the actions of another editor").

(I've expanded this more on the Braveheart talk page but) as we agree "that the grammar sucks" of the phrase in question and as it is not in quotation marks, it can be assumed not to be a direct quote, "sic" is thus inappropriate and the phrase ought to be copyedited to make grammatical sense. I don't have the cited text so don't know what is intended here, so if you have a copy, I'd be very grateful if you either put the phrase in "quotation" marks with "sic" if appropriate or, if not, please amend the paraphrase to read as it should. Mutt Lunker 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want, I can email the pdf I have obtained of the JSTOR reference (which is only an abstract, wheras the copy I have is complete). Just use Wiki-Mail to send me an email address and I'll forward it along. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, except am not familiar with Wiki-Mail and just drew a blank trying to find out. Can you point me in the right direction please? Mutt Lunker 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the toolbar column off to the top left of this page. Under the category of Toolbox, you will see an option, "E-mail this user". Click that and type a message with your email address in it. I will then send an email to that address with the pdf file in it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit, ML. It demonstrates some grace. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Imdb
I don't wan tto seem like I'm repeatedly nixing your additions, Mutt, but WP doesn't allow Imdb to be cited, as it isn't a reliable source of citable information. This is why I think you should probably self-revert this edit. There are other reviews that address this issue, i think, and you can probably find them. Youjust need to roll up your sleeves and root them out. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The same citation has been listed in relation to another part of the article for at least several months so seemed a fair assumption this was legit. Can you point me to the embargo on IMDb being cited, plus any other guidance, lists or proclamations as to citable/non-citable web resources as this would be v. useful? Mutt Lunker 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

...for instance, this one appears well researched and referenced but... http://www.gaddgedlar.com/Braveheart.htm? Mutt Lunker 22:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? You should pull that citation immediately, and replace it with a 'cn' or 'fact' tag, coz it's no good as a reference (but pretty good for confirming thinfs like accurate cast abd crew name spellings and release dates). there was recently a lot of hubbub about including imdb info, but I think it has been quelled as unreliable. Let me ask around to get the hard and fast stuff for you. Considering htat people add opinions, rumors and outright lies to imdb, its simply not encyclopedic.
 * As for the gaddgedlar reference, I wouldn't cite them, as the articles draw on other material, but I would cite the material they are referring to, as that info seems a lot more solid. An argument could be made that the gaddgedlar material isn't noteworthy enough or even closer to a blog than an article (from looking at the source of where the article is located). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the Imdb source - I completely missed it. I've since pulled it. There was a notehr reference in place, so it should be okay for now. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dub Music
Well tagged on the Dub Music article. I removed much of the subsequent paragraph and your tag. I hope that meets with your approval. Wwwhatsup 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good job done, thanks. Mutt Lunker 07:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on EVent, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An error. Go ahead and delete. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Balwearie High School
While it's not vandalism, it quite obviously is not "[a] clearly genuine [website] and a pertinent addition to the article". Just because it has the correct domain name, how does that make it genuine?

I left the school in May and know for a fact that this website is not official. When I left there was an internal school website (which had much more content than this one!) and also plans to make itavailable externally as well.

I really don't know what you thought you would gain from adding it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothy m (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So since my edit wasn't vandalism, as per the instruction you should have explained the reversion. Although "because it has the correct domain name,...that (does not necessarily) make it genuine", neither in a site containing such mundane and apparently correct data is there anything to suggest it is "quite obviously...not "[a] clearly genuine [website]". If you have reason to believe that it is bogus, spurious or fraudulent, details would have been useful in an explanation.


 * All that said, as the domain name is also listed on Scottish Schools Online and Scottish Government, that would suggest it is genuine. More evidence of its falsity is required than simply your claim of inside knowledge as you attended the school earlier this year. If you have such evidence, it's even more important that you explain this fully as that would mean a false domain is being listed as genuine on government and government supported sites.


 * You may find this useful regarding reversions. Also, please AGF and sign your comments as per guidelines. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, as you have just mentioned, you should have assumed good faith when I editted the article, if we're going to be pedantic.

http://whois.domaintools.com/balweariehighschool.org.uk says it's been registered since 1999, I heard while at the school that it had a website/domain a while back but they don't have one anymore. And that it used a balweariehighschool.tld.uk URL. This could be the very website in question. Except one problem. You say it's 'apparently' under construction. Do you really believe that it has been under construction for 8 years?!

Given that during the 6 years I was at the school not once did I ever hear of this exact web address being banded about (and you would have thought being the "official" site people would have actually heard of it), I put it to you that while this may be the school's so called "website" it is entirely pointless to list it in the article.

Also, providing links to 2 sources just because they list the website doesn't give you any more credibility. I would say the school hasn't updated the listing, and would put money on the fact that there are websites/email addresses on those lists that aren't working or have been changed.

You also conviniently do not address my final point - "I really don't know what you thought you would gain from adding it!", if you could be so kind as to answer it I'd be grateful.

Thanks Boothy m (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never and do not query your GF. Pointing you towards some guidelines which your editing may indicate that you are unaware of does not mean I question your good faith. I’m sorry if you feel offended and we should try to focus on issues of notability and avoid a personal punch-up. This will be difficult if you maintain an accusative tone towards my motivations for the addition of the link. Some background might be useful:


 * I came across this apparent Balwearie site for the first time last week when looking for information to clear up an apparent contradiction between the Kirkcaldy article and the Balwearie article. I had never seen the site before and am sure I would have done had it existed in previous months, for example when trying to find citations for matters regarding the motto in March and April (see the talk page if you're interested (drew a blank on that by the way)). Having chanced upon the site I added a link in Wikipedia, in good faith. I noted however that it is "apparently under construction" as it had only recently (a few months at most and possibly much less) made an appearance, with only the homepage and contacts page with any content. As there are other linked pages on the homepage, there would appear to be, or have been, intent to construct these. The date the domain was registered is neither here nor there. It has apparently been entirely unused for most of the interim.


 * The listing of the website on official government sites further indicates it is at least genuine. It may possibly be dormant, recently awakened, inaccurate (“the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”), pure rubbish, but if it is genuine, has a place as a link in the article. When I said “if you have reason to believe that it is bogus (etc.)”, I meant this literally, not as a rebuff. If, despite any indications to the contrary, it is in fact spurious, garnering some evidence on this would be really useful. If it is genuine but inaccurate, note this by the link.


 * I hope this won’t sidetrack us but you have specifically requested an answer to “what (I) thought (I) would gain”. My answer was there; purely and simply AGF. I may or may not be mistaken in believing the website to be genuine but I'm puzzled as to the basis for your apparent belief that I added it to the site for some unspecified gain. Why do you refer to my credibility when the issue is surely the credibility or otherwise of the edit/website therein? You say that it was intended by the school to produce a website. If and when that website is produced wouldn't it be the article (not me, or you, or any individual user) that gained from having a link added?


 * To change the subject back to the school motto (mentioned in passing above), as a more recent pupil if you have any leads on any Scott of the Antarctic (or Scott of Balwearie) connections I’d be interested to hear. All the best - and I mean it - Mutt (not Matt). Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i knew that they had been trying to get a website off the ground in the last couple of years and that they are very embarrased not to have one. but outside the Computing department, there aren't many people who know how to work computers apparently. also the School computers are "notouriously" very slow. i found out this source annoymously Kilnburn (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)