User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 13

Edinburgh
I see where you are coming from, but this is the accepted standard across all articles (Madrid, Paris, Berlin); one is expected to assume it is the same if not stated. We only state foreign names if they are different.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, discussion here: Talk:Edinburgh. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Request
Hello, I see you have weighed in as wikipedia administrator, and I don't know the means by which things like this should be done, but maybe you could direct me, there is a dispute about information added to East Liverpool, Ohio in which user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_from_Idegon deleted information I believe to be both well-sourced and properly cited. I'm confused as to the deletion and would like some sort mediation. Can you please offer some mediation or failing that, advice on what I should do next? Thank you.174.70.84.42 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there, for the record I'm not an admin and I've only skimmed through the edits in question; not enough to pass comments on the merits of the material or the querying of it but I can hopefully point you in the right direction. Firstly, I'd point you to WP:BRD. Under this method for reaching consensus, you have made a WP:BOLD edit, as you are entitled and encouraged to do but another editor apparently has concerns about the material and has Reverted the material. The next stage in the process is for you to Discuss the matter on the article's talk page; you can explain how you believe the material to be appropriate, well supported by reliable sources, or whatever your reasoning and to request an explanation from the other editor as to why they are disputing the material. However strong you believe your case to be, do not restore your edits until the matters in dispute have been fully discussed and a consensus to do so has been reached on the talk page or you may be regarded as WP:EDITWARing and may leave yourself open to sanction. See how that goes but if you find yourself wishing to widen the discussion by notifying other interested editors, you can additionally post at the talk page of an appropriate WP:PROJECT, such as perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio. There are various other appropriate ways of notifying other editors (that whole guideline is worth reading). I hope you come to a satisfactory resolution. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. 174.70.84.42 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. By the way, it's conventional to start new talk page topics at the bottom of the page; see Talk_page_guidelines. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Culture
Stop contributing to the repression of Scots culture by the English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbscotland (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Somewhat ironic. See . Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

pepitos
I can only say that I have had them served in a cafe on Tenerife in Arona, I would not know how to add this proof though? I apologise.

Calle El Hambre in Tenerife has their menu on facebook with a HUGE array of Pepitos, I am afraid I do not know how to send the screenshot nor the link but if you are interested in helping me make the article on the page accurate then I would beg you to please assist. I have ASD and all the editing info on here overloads my brain and I can't wrap my head around it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.216.197 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out the links to various guidelines that I added to your talk page. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

this has not helped matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.216.197 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You and what army Lunker ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcmanus98 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(archived section)
Stop Vandalising the Article Donside_Village

Wikipedias own information states: Wikipedia contributors use the term "vandalism" to refer to changes which are intentionally unconstructive. Such changes may be removal of useful content, addition of nonsense, or deliberate introduction of factual errors. Vandalism should be removed when found, as it makes articles less useful to readers.

You are: Removing useful content and therefore vandalising this page

I created the article and I live in the village, you do not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbscotland (talk • contribs) 13:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

regards to Getulio Vargas article
I removed the agnostic category because there is no source that says he was an agnostic. explain to me any proof that says he was an agnostic when you get the chance. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C602:4020:3C57:D63:744A:D636 (talk • contribs)


 * I reverted this along with a series of dubious, unexplained edits you made in several articles. To the Vargas article, you added the category Brazilian Roman Catholics and noted his religion as Roman Catholic without, yourself, providing a source. By all means remove or question uncited material but your edits at this and other articles demonstrate that you are systematically adding uncited material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Macmillan Dictionary
According to this, they check submissions to the open dictionary, not just blindly accept them. So I still think it is a reliable source. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summaries, that is neither here nor there as nothing is said about whether scran is widely used in the US, a fundamental requirement for inclusion in that article. What's more, the inclusion of the term in an American dictionary without remark as to its rarity or Britishness reinforces its unsuitability for inclusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Fritter roll
Hi, I noticed you have a WP:COI based on the fact that it was your PROD on the article. You have dismissed every reference with your "failed verification tag". I could go through them one by one with you, however I am PROD patrolling and I certainly am not going to fight with you over fritters. I thought I could help. You should probably place an AfD on the article if you feel this strongly. But also realize you have a COI. I have no COI involved with Scottish Fritters. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre suggestion that that is a COI. None of your supposed sources even discuss the subject of the article. By all means participate in the AFD discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Look at the caption of the photo in the very first NY Times reference that you say failed: Haggis fritters in Edinburgh. I guess now we will go thorough the AfD process. But I will remove the incorrect "failed verification" tags and I hope you will allow the AfD to proceed without making those kind of edits. You have a desire to delete the page, and that is your COI. I am just a PROD patroller. Lightburst (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some proprietors get creative by stuffing their fritters with different food items. {{not in citation given} In this entry, the proprietor stuffed the fritters with Peas.Lightburst (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did erase one reference as well. Hey, it is probably a redirect anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritter
 * The article is about a bread roll containing a potato fritter. These sources are not about potato fritters nor bread rolls, let alone in combination. Discuss this at the article, not here please. I still don't understand your accusations of COI. Could you check you understand the definition of the term? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Archived here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits to balance the Bias excluding Irish Bagpipes - Not Uilleann Pipes
Hi Mutt,

New to this but maybe you can help me. I’m shocked as a multi generation bagpiper from Limerick, Ireland at the bad and historically wrong and biased exclusion of Irish Bagpipe history in Wikipedia and in general.

I come from a long line of musicians for hundreds of years on both parents sides. Many bagpipers including my Dad, son and myself.

For example, in my home town of Newcastle West we always knew the O’Brien Family, who were evicted form their “Castle Roe” by the Norman Fitzgerald’s from Shanagolden had famous old Irish language poems about their bagpipers. - this was in the 1200’s

Every bagpiper in Ireland also knows that Uilleann Pipes were invented by Bagpipers after a set of English Laws called the “ Penal Laws “. Also known as the “ Statutes of Kilkenny “. These laws by the English specifically Banned the Irish Bagpipes because they were seen as an instrument of war. The Irish families each had a piper who rallied them in skirmishes etc.

Either there is a parallel universe or Uilleann Pipers and Irish / Scottish Historians are ignorant of the real history.

I travel to Scotland with St Joseph’s Pipe Band several times a year, we just won the World Pipe Band Championships in grade 3a last week in Glasgow.

I would love to engage and even meet up for a dram and learn and teach from each other as you seem to know a lot from your articles.

I have a lot of real history handed down and reference points to help put a bit more shale on the real history. Would love to co operate as this is new to me and I am heavily involved in a business as my full time normal job when not playing bagpipes. Also, Irish and Scottish Bagpipes are totally the same thing. Any nuances like extra drones and adaptions aside. Which I know a bit about also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic Musician (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having responded constructively to my reversions of your edits. There is an element of truth in some of what you say but rather a deal of myth and confusion as well. If you are to add material it must be directly supported by sources which are regarded in Wikipedia terms as reliable. Please study this policy. I'd recommend to you "Bagpipes: A National Collection of a National Instrument" by Dr Hugh Cheape; it cuts through commonly held misconceptions about the history of the instruments. Scotland is the main focus of the book but it has significant cover of the variety of types of pipes found more widely and through history, including notably in England and Ireland. I'd draw your attention to the Great Irish warpipes and Great Highland bagpipe Wikipedia articles, which reference each other as broadly analagous in origin and form. These instruments had been pretty disaparate in form throughout their range. The GHB is, though, the modern standardised version, and by far the more widespread form and name. Likewise, early forms of pastoral pipes and union pipes (Grattan Flood's rebranding as "uilleann" was fanciful and only last century) were widespread in Scotland and England (some of the most reputable makers in London), as well as Ireland. In Ireland, as an expensive piece of comparatively sophisticated new technology, early on they were largely an item for prosperous Anglo-Irish establishment households. The Statutes of Kilkenny predate the earliest reliable mentions of GHB/warpipe style bagpipes in Scotland and Ireland so I'd need some convincing that there are mentions of bans on the instrument therein. To have taken yet another 4 centuries to inspire the invention of uilleann pipes seems even less convincing. These are just some examples that counter amusing and well-intentioned but dubious oral histories. Mutt Lunker (talk)
 * FWIW there is some evidence that bagpipes originated in Egypt and that Nero bagpiped while Rome burned,but the Highlanders of Scotland have their own version https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Piob-Mhor-or-the-Great-Highland-Bagpipes/  Celtic I appreciate your families history and story, but all too often family stories are just that. My grandmother told me that an ancestor was an "Indian Princess" (Native American variety) alas DNA and extensive genealogical research do not validate that story. a;sp there were no such thing as Kings, Prince or Princess in native American culture..Oldperson (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

English/Germanic
Do you mind if I ask you why you're so concerned about the ethnolinguistic classification of the English if you, I assume, do not consider yourself English... being a native of Scotland? You seem really fiercely resistant to this and I am just not sure why, exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am concerned about the integrity of articles in general. If there were a sustained campaign to push WP:OR at Potamonautes isimangaliso it would be no different. For the record, I am not a crustacean. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well honestly it seems to be you who's pushing an original research POV on that talk page and you seem to be pretty emotional about it, I'm just not really sure why? What would the English people be if not West Germanic, I honestly just don't understand? Every ethnolinguistic group in history has absorbed and assimilated others into it, you don't retain all the ethnolinguistic identities of your ancestors once you enter into a new ethnolinguistic group, otherwise we're all just ultimately African at the end of the day, are we not? If the ethnicity/culture of our ancestors defines our ethnic classification today. It's pretty reductionist and silly and if the ethnolinguistic identity of the ancestors of English people are responsible for their identities today then the English people are certainly not just descended from the Anglo-Saxons and Celtic Britons, are they?

I've never encountered controversy over the classification of the English of Germanic anywhere other than here on Wikipedia. What on Earth would they be if not Germanic as speakers of a West Germanic language?

The crustacean joke is, sadly, lost on me (I was not gifted with a mind that could easily discern humor). Could you explain it? It sounds funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit - Oh wait, nevermind, I got it. Hovered over the article. Well actually I'm also from Scotland is why I asked and so I know how hysterical and detached from reality people here tend to get over all things English, Germanic or Celtic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hebrides Change
Hey, Mutt, I felt the phrasing of the sentence was rather peculiar but I perhaps just misread it. If you're referring to peoples as Norse, Celtic and then hyphenating English and only English people as English-speaking I find this to be rather hypocritical. But hovering over the options it seems to link the Norse and Celtic to the languages.

What are we suggesting exactly by this? Was my mindset. That speaking Norse and Celtic languages makes you ethnically Norse and Celtic but speaking English doesn't make you ethnically English? And why are we suggesting that? If you speak a language as your native tongue you belong to that language's ethnolinguistic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit - Oops, wrong page. Just noticed your message at the top. I was initially planning on leaving it on my own talk page but a message there told me to respond to it on YOUR talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have something to discuss regarding an article, discuss it at the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to actually respond to it this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not liking the response you are given is not the same as not getting one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You've responded to me once, Mutt, and it was to make a crab joke. We currently have around 5 discussions hanging open waiting for you to get back to me on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, hopefully you'll respond to our 6th open discussion tomorrow. Perhaps you've gone to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mutt, if you get tired of this, and you think there's something we should do, maybe you can draw up a list of the various IPs over the years that seem to be . Besides all that logged-out editing and a variety of patronizing comments, plus what seem to be a bunch of rambling WP:FORUM posts full of original research, what else are they up to? Are they disrupting in article space? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you I am not Cassandra, nor am I female at all and I'm happy to prove that. I attempted to make a single edit which Mutt reverted and asked me to discuss, which I attempted to. As always with Mutt, however, when I attempted to discuss it he ignores the attempt to discuss the issues I have with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Not attempting to be patronizing either. Just a natural tendency, perhaps... I actually have apologized to Mutt in the recent past as I was wrong about my issues with the 'Scottish people' article. I don't have any personal issues with him and would rather not have them, but he raised issues with an attempted edit and I tried to discuss those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, there is a profusion of similarly unaccountably irate IPs who record, unsigned, on Wikipedia talk pages their indignation when the cause of their wrath remains unacknowledged. Linking or distinguishing such threads is neither straightforward nor fruitful. Those discussions you refer to could be 6 of many. You have no entitlement to endless responses, let alone ones you like.
 * Thanks, it is indeed tedious. The campaign seems to be largely confined to talk pages so far but this thread regards my reversion of this patently point-making edit, inevitably accompanied by extensive forum-posting on the talk page.
 * Some socks of Cassandrathesceptic are at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cassandrathesceptic. I have cause to believe the new IP is professing aspects of their identity which are not accurate, their favoured POVs and forum-posting seem similar to those of CtS and there are similar traits and incompetencies to their editing styles. That said, and for reasons it may be better not to disclose here, I so far suspect that the new IP is at most a meat, rather than sock, puppet. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, what you could do is simply revert and ignore. The Hebrides edit was just silly, and the talk page commentary is weird. "English indicates origins in England or from the English people"--yeah, and then follows a bunch of stuff about borders and history. So those kinds of edits, esp. if they're done a second time, report them as vandalism; just make sure you give a brief explanation for the admin who happens to look at WP:AIV. And if those talk page posts are not on point, revert per WP:FORUM. As long as that IP won't even to proper indenting and signing, and just goes around arguing, you have a good case for disruption. Was there an SPI? Blocks? An ANI discussion? All these things are helpful. You can tag all you like, but nothing will come of tagging. You could start by writing these things up, in words, diffs, and explanations, just like in a regular SPI but in a sandbox, if you like. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting my responses now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also what's weird about my points on the talk page, Drmies? What are you not understanding about them? My point is that ethnic English people can exist outside of England, whereas Mutt seemed to believe those people can only be called English if they are from the modern geographic area of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict, maybe? Hey, indent properly. You've been here long enough to know. And sign. Accept the formalities if you want me to listen. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not an edit conflict. The comment definitely posted and was later deleted, by someone. How's that? Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding CtS, there was a series of IP range blocks back in 2012:


 * 20:13, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.12.99.105 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusing multiple accounts: Cassandra, the Scots language POV warrior. There was a past ANI discussion (search for 'Cassandra'))


 * 20:01, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Continued unhelpful edits. Scots language POV warrior. See log entry for my previous block of this range)


 * 23:20, 12 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Abusing multiple accounts: Scots language POV warrior. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?)

Activity resumed when the blocks were lifted. I don't recall there ever being an SPI, I think as the socking was deemed so transparent. There was an ANI in November 2012 and an MfD regarding an OR essay that CtS had been touting and has recently resumed doing so. The next ANI is this one re NOTHERE behaviour, followed closely by this one, raised by myself, in response to an immediate personal attack by CtS. The adoption of the user ID was comparatively late and its use is only occasional, with most activity via changing IPs.

Whether they are related or not, regarding the new IP, can you think of appropriate action in regard to their repeated, bizarrely specific and detailed false attributions of statements to me, which I have patently not made? Although I may have some reasons to doubt that this is a CtS sock, this behaviour is strikingly similar. I'm concerned that any third party trying to disentangle the new-IP's haphazard and jumbled posts from mine may give credibility to these false apparent quotes. This kind of mud sticking to me blind-sided one of the ANI participants who apparently believed false attributions of views to me by CtS. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. This "Inglis" or "English" stuff--did it point at what we call Scottish, and what then "by the middle of the 15th century" was called Scottish? Because if that is the case, the phrasing is a bit odd, to me anyway. As for this "English-speaking" vs. "English", I suppose you are correct in saying this, "As "English" indicates origins in England, to substitute the word for "English-speaking" falsely excludes the influence of English-speakers from elsewhere, particularly, notably and, again blindingly obviously, those from Scotland"--but at the same time you're giving them an opportunity to get on some weird hobby horse. Simply saying "we're talking about the language", wouldn't that suffice? Anyway, I'll have a look at the ANI threads and all that--thanks for those links. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "we're talking about the language" would have encapsulated it much more pithily. Well put.


 * Advancing views about the various dialect/languages and terminology for Middle English/Inglis/Scots/Scottish Standard English is a favoured forum theme for CtS but I didn't get the impression that this is central to the Hebrides edit. The new-IP seems to be homing in on ethnicity more, hence the spurious attribution of their notion of opposing views on ethnicity to me. The choice of "English-speaking" in the article text presumably aims to cover the full scope of history so the term encapsulates all those evolving terms and languages/dialects rooted in Middle English. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It would have sufficed, Mutt, and if you actually look at my first comment in this specific discussion I actually attempted to smooth things over by saying exactly that, that I assumed you were talking about ethnic status as opposed to linguistic status for Norse(-speaking), Celtic(-speaking) and English-speaking, it was just the wording which initially made me think there was selective application of the -speaking attachment, and that I thought I was incorrect in this initial assumption. When it comes to Scots, whether it is a separate language or not isn't really the crux of the issue, nobody would deny the Scots and English languages are groupable considering their high degree of mutual intelligibilty, nobody would deny they are from the same root, in fact people use the term 'Anglic' for the Scots and English languages, what exactly do you think Anglic means?


 * So whether they speak Scots or English, they're still all ethnolinguistically English, they are all still the one bloc in the same way Irish and Scottish Gaelic speakers are the one bloc, Gaels, despite being considered 2 separate languages sharing a common root. You can come up with whatever obfuscating term you want to negate English influence on the Scots language but it ultimately descends from a northern variety of English itself, thus it is a West Germanic language and its native speakers were, or are, ethnically English, or a least a sister people to them.


 * But hey, can we draw a line under this now? Can we shake hands and carry on? Mutt, I DO apologize if I have offended you or accused you of views you do not possess, in the future I will endeavor NOT to do this specific thing with you.Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

, noting that unsourced, WP:NOTFORUM pontification continues at Talk:Kingdom of Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You can keep deleting reality on Wikipedia all you like Mutt. In reality attempting to siphon people off from their actual ethnolinguistic heritage is a sick and twisted thing to do. Why is the common denominator you with these squabbles, I've seen you get into these with 3 other editors (myself, Edin Bargarin and Cassandra) now, and I'm willing to bet if anyone was obsessive enough to hound and stalk your Wikipedia edits as you do with myself and Cassandra they would find a lot more of these issues. You clearly have deeply held prejudices about the world (such as the English not being a West Germanic people, such as the English speaking peoples not being one groupable ethnolinguistic bloc like any other peoples), and you relentlessly and doggedly try to push others combating those views of yours off of Wikipedia. Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Predictably and despite the very qualified impression of an apology above, these IPs continue their smeared attribution of views to me that I have never expressed. They continue with their rambling forum posts that make no attempt to address improvements to the article: here and here. The streams ought to just be removed but, with a "You can keep deleting reality on Wikipedia all you like" attitude, stronger and more lasting action may be more effective. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mutt, where does this idea that you claim "the English are not a West Germanic people" come from? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this, given that "the English" as a people are now a very heterogeneous group, and that the "early" English descend from Celts and Hengist/Horsa, and given that many of the relevant discussions that I've seen that involved you were about language, not DNA. Oh, we are talking about DNA now? Drmies (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The English people article has been subject to a sustained campaign to categorise said people as Germanic (and to remove any mention of Islam as a religion adhered to by a section of that people). It has been discussed to death on the talk page, stretching back endlessly through the archives. Consensus has been that the categorisation is not appropriate (and that Islam should be listed). The reversion, by myself and others, of repeated edits that go against consensus has led to CtS/associated socks, new IP/Samuel and some others baselessly extrapolating as to the views of those doing the reverting. CtS does this sort of false attribution systematically. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So, if you go to the English people talk page, Drmies, there is a discussion between myself and Mutt (as well as between Mutt and some other users) over the ethnolinguistic classification of the English people. Mutt takes issue with the classification of the English people as West Germanic, which as native speakers of a West Germanic language they surely are? Because they (like any other ethnolinguistic group that has ever existed) absorbed/assimilated people who at one point in time did not speak a Germanic language? Or something? That is your stance right, Mutt? Are you going to deny that's your stance? Shall I quote you directly saying this?


 * It seems to be Mutt that is talking about DNA and genetics and claiming this stops a person from being Germanic? Although what 'Germanic genetics' are in the first place I'm not really sure. I asked Mutt but he never responded. I don't really know, he just really does not seem to like using the term Germanic for English people. I would ask him if he thinks Hungarians are West Slavs because they cluster most closely with them genetically and don't share much similarity with other Uralic/Turkic peoples genetically at all.


 * As for Islam I have absolutely no involvement in that whatsoever. I don't know what that has to do with ethnolinguistic classification whatsoever unless Muslims consider themselves an ethnoreligious groups like Jews do now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"in the future I will endeavor NOT to" "(accuse) you of views you do not possess". That endeavour's not going too well for you, here or at Talk:English people... Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"So, e.g., all anglophone people, in the Commonwealth, the wider former British Empire and elsewhere, having adopted English or had it thrust upon them, have become "Germanic peoples" have they? It is the language which is Germanic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)"

Selective memory, eh? Again, I would ask you how exactly you would classify the English people if not as West Germanic ethnic group. Are you perhaps confusing the concept of an English ethnic group with the geographic region of England and the idea of a civic nation? Are you just flat out denying an English ethnic group exists at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

George Pirie
I am unclear of your issue with this article as a Professor of Mathematics for an extensive tenure at one of Britain's foremost universities certainly is a claim to fame in most eyes and outstrips the majority of such postured articles on Wikipedia. But I do get the impression this is a jab at me rather than the article?--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The place to address this is at the Afd.


 * I'm rather puzzled as to why you are of the belief that this is a personal matter, rather then one of substance, but, as you are, I'll hazard a guess. Your talk page was added to my watchlist yesterday automatically when I Afd-ed another article. Twinkle automatically notifies the creator of the article and that, apparently, was you. My preferences are set to add pages to my watchlist that I have edited, hence your talk page was added. Your edit lisitng the George Pirie article on your talk page today consequently appeared in my watchlist; that is what drew my attention to it. Nothing personal. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ownership of articles - public
Ok, Mr Mutt Lunker. I am an expert on the subject matter. I spent an hour on it this evening and had not finished editing an article or adding references. I am as entitled as you to edit.

I am a registered member of the Irish Pipe Band Association and affiliate member of the Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association.

Wikipedia are trying to encourage new writers and content improvers and this is the third time you have vandalised my articles and improvement attempts.

I am complaining you at every level to the associations and at Wikipedia for absolute vandalism.

Regardless of whether I am still learning the ropes on Wikipedia to ensure my article is in line with the rules, your actions are downright rude and illogical.

The content I had referenced before you destroyed it was public information verifiable everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic Musician (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As you have been told, you must provide reliable sources. Expert or not (and judging by the dubious myths you propounded in your earlier post here, that assertion seems bold), editors here do not count as a WP:RS. If what you say is "public information verifiable everywhere", you will have no difficulty providing your sources then. I have spent considerably more than an hour dealing with these edits of yours and in making the polite and detailed response regarding the problematic aspects of your assertions in the thread above. I received no repsonse from you and you carry on adding unsourced and often questionable material. Do not sling my patience back in my face; you may receive less from other editors. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Tea
UK and Irish tea culture grew simultaneously and were inter-linked, the main UK tea drinking culture is linked into he first paragraph, which seems sensible, a link in the also list at the bottom to the analogous Irish culture doesn't seem out of place or not needed as a helpful link. Halbared (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at the relevant talk page, not here, and, if you do, address the points I have actually raised. Self-revert your contested edit while you are at it, pending discussion and consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finally doing so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I tried to post while you were posting. I had already reverted. While it's being discussed.21:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you...
Didn't right on my talk page. If you want to discuss a particular issue, take it to the relevant topic page. Alssa1 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A warning, such as for warring, goes on the user's talkpage and should not clutter the article talk page, being a different matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And why are you warning me rather than taking the Bold Edit from 18 August to talk? You did not follow WP:BRD procedure when you made that edit, so I find it a little bit hypocritical that you're giving warnings based on that principle. Alssa1 (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Talk:English people. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

English people
Howdy. The best way to avoid the 'nation/not nation' argument, would be to describe England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland as constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear as to why this is being raised here rather than at the article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If I raised it at the article talk page? I would be subject to personal attacks. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Would my memory be correct in that you have been in trouble in the past, possibly under sanction, regarding the promotion of your views about the topic of these islands in general, possibly more specifically the terminology? I can always refresh my memory but it would be easier if you laid it out. Having a one-to-one discussion which is not about a one-to-one matter but an article-specific one, in order to avoid scrutiny, does not seem an advisable course of action. That aside, discussion would have to move back to the article talk page anyway. Regarding the term "constituent country", again I can refresh my memory but I seem to remember significant criticism of aspects of the term's suggested use and the the way it was being promoted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did go through a difficult time in the past, concerning British terminologies. Anyways, you can go forward (or not at all) in anyway you see fit, at English people. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Were sanctions involved? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Years ago, but long since expired. Perhaps, it's best you stay away from that article (concerning that topic) & not risk going through the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you link the details please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd have to check my contrib history, to when my British/Irish topic ban existed. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest it would be better if you did for me. You must be able to quickly locate a link to the ban at the very least. Should you be expressing contrition somewhere for attempting to advance your views by contacting me in this manner? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find the link. But, it's best I drop the subject. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That isn't very convincing. Shall you note the existence of this thread at Talk:English people or shall I? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're going to? Good. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New section
The sound does sound like the Flower of Scotland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgPRJ9bcOps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Hegazy337259 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * As requested several times, discuss this at the talk page of the relevant articles until a consensus is reached. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What version can we use then? Scottish play bagpipes so can we use the bagpipes version? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE2xPO0xLQM Or something better than any of those versions above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Hegazy337259 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, please discuss this at the talk page of the relevant articles, not here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

English invention of baseball
You keep claiming the discussion is incoherent. What exactly is incoherent? Do you require another language? The Englishmen who developed baseball in the English colonies were, yes, English. They developed the game that was earlier invented in England. Even when they developed it further, they were still Englishmen or Anglo-Americans. No one has provided any other source, anywhere, that the game was invented by another culture or ethnic group. Human Taxonomist (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion regards an article and it should be kept there; scattering it across two articles and an individual's talk page is not helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not your opposition, I am interested in listening to your perspective to come to an agreement. But simply dismissing everything I am saying as "incoherent" is extremely unhelpful. I will not restore my version in any case until there is a consensus. I understand individuals can't reply immediately, but waiting weeks for the opposing side in a disagreement is not acceptable either as per Wikipedia policy. Human Taxonomist (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are addressing things I have said at another talk page so the appropriate place to do so would be there. Per above, it is not helpful to scatter the discussion across multiple pages. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)