User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 2

Braveheart historical inaccuracies, revisited
I've had to remove some of the uncited statements from the article to the discussion page again. I know that you did a lot of the citation work before, and i apologize if this means you have to do some again. each historical inaccuracy needs to be cited individually, as noting them collectively under a single citation (which is what I think happened last time) has been unsuccessful in preventing others from adding uncited info. Remember to use only those citable references that speak both of the film and the inaccuracy in question. If it doesn't reference Braveheart as being inaccurate about the point in question, it cannot be used. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy
Thanks for your comments about my recent KDY edits. I've also not been keeping an eye on it, or Wikipedia in general, recently, but happened to spot this last night and start making improvements. Some of the edits bear the traits of I. Thomson?

PS: I notice on your discussion page some debate about Balwearie HS websites; I may be able to help with any verifiability etc if need be. --duncan (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right about the familiar hallmark of most of the edits (as an aside, did you see Helping I. Thomson above?). I've got some internet access for the next few days but really should be otherwise engaged, then largely away from access until mid Feb. Will sleep easier (quite literally, sadly) knowing you're keeping watch on the article.


 * As one of the worst affected sections is Peripheral Locations and Proposed Developments it had occurred to me that this might be an idea, but I haven't had a chance to put it into action.


 * DerekShearer's recent edit re Balwearie websites helped clarify matters but if you've anything else to add, that would be good. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pectus Excavatum
Funny stuff, I was checking out the Famine Ribs thing on Google and when I went to undo it, you had already done it about 30 seconds earlier. Thanks!

Stepshep (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, seems it was just a bit of vandalism. Stepshep (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

approval of Kirkcaldy reconstruction plan
hello, again

i have recently been pondering a decision to reconstructe the introduction and history sections of the article and have asked as a favour if you would be happy enough with me to do this, since it is such a big ordeal. i would do the work in stages and post a construction tag on the article until the work was finished. most important of all, i have been listening to you and have made quite a lot of small edits such as: city centre, city centre and only theatre and music.

as part of my plans, would probably be creating new sub-sections within the history being: whaling, saltmaking, linelem and Kirkcaldy Harbour (which has been largely absent)

i also like to remove three sections:Media and Politics and regional information by moving and merging the info into modern Kirkcaldy, but i won't be lifting all of this, i plan to remove info about the former MP, Lewis Mooney and Gordon Brown's former MP seat and probably the mention of what radio stations the town can recieve all rather being irrelevant. a mention of the defunct Fifeshire Herald will be included on my behalf on Modern Kirkcaldy. the sub-section Modern Kirkcaldy will ideally focus on anything 1950-present.

a mention about the building of the police station is probably better suited in the Kirkcaldy famous buildings paragraph, where i will include the date 1902, location, built in the same style as the theatre and arcitech. the picture will go straight into the pictures section.

to keep in line with fellow articles, the info for the twin town will be removed, only for the town name, a small flag and country to replace this.

with the introduction, i would be most interested in finding sources, before i do anything else, other than put the majority of the last paragraph into the history section, for the exception of the Links Market

i plan to use the info from my Kirkcaldy books, including my Old Kirkcaldy:North, West and East one. i would not being doing this for myself, but to improve the content of this section, because like i say, it's what best for the article that counts at the end of the day and i feel the introduction and history are letting the article down. Glenrothes has a good, strong body of an article and i want Kirkcaldy to rival this.

i would although like a bit of help and assistance doing this, since i might not be able to do it all on my own, if nobody minded.

p.s. i hope the sentence about the Kirkcaldy Sports council is all right now, since i did remove the bit in question and altered the entire sentence (s). if not, then you must change it Kilnburn (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Kilnburn, nice to hear from you. Just wanted to let you know I'd seen the above. It merits a considered and detailed response which I'm not able to give right at the moment so I'll have to get back to you a bit later. If I don't get a chance to respond later tonight it may not be until the weekend but I promise I will get back to you when I can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded to the above here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

certainly, the name of the book is "Old Kirkcaldy: Central, North and West" by Eric Eunson. pictures are present on most pages, except the first three pages, that are taken up with an introduction and history of the town. there is some interesting info on the harbour, Railway Station and Kirkcaldy High School among things and i think it is a good source material. i had been aware of this for a while, but i only bought it last week in my local Waterstone's branch for intention to use here (since there is a lack of book sources on the article). i also have three Kirkcaldy Famous Folk publications and the rented "Kirkcaldy-A History and Celebration" book from the main library by the Civic Society for the defunct Ottakar's book shop.

anyone, old and new, including Duncamming and njan (i was most impressed with the addition to my Linoleum Trade sub-section, now that was definitely going in the right direction) are welcome to intervene and make edits where necessary.

well, for just now, i'm going to think about how to start writing this on a word document, then i'll copy and paste my work on the discussion page like you say and the alterations can be done here, before anything else happens. probably be this week and then i'll get it up next week, but it's going to take time for me since i don't want to rush it.

oh and before i go, here's what i was meaning by a "major" construction tag 

so long, then until we speak again. Kilnburn (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

well, that's better you got in touch with me, because i would have delved into dangerous waters about this tag business. i know that there is nothing wrong with the info contained in the article, i just think the article can be better presented

anyway, concerning the revamp, i have already written six pages on a MS Word document (with references noted) and i should have the Phase 1 part, uploaded on the Kirkcaldy discussion board probably somewhere close to the beginning of May, once i get it all sorted out. Kilnburn (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

oh no, i would never upload six pages of info at one time (i haven't actually finished there, i probably plan to have 8 at the end of this, then i'll decide to do a second draft and break down all the info into phases, which i will upload seperately, once it has been approved of, i upload the next when you ask for it and so on)

yep, ducan can help (if he has enough time though on his hands) to assist. i would appreciate that very much.

although i thought i would tell you this, so you know. according to "Old Kirkcaldy: Central, North and West", the author states the town being founded c.1095 by Malcolm III who purchased all the nearby lands for Dunferline Abbey. now i had this info previously with a source on the page and it was deleted. all the other websites about Kirkcaldy have this info and the authour does mention that he did a lot of studying at the Central Library, hence he probably found this. i'm not sure what to do about this. i'll leave it with you. Kilnburn (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

right, i have now written eleven pages (but will probably go up to about thirteen as i still need to do bits and pieces) just to keep you up to date with the recent developments. don't worry, because i have a dictionary and thesaurus and i will watch my spelling and grammar

Phase I, will probably be uploaded towards the end of the week on here and on the discussion board for everyone to see. if i decide to hold it back, i'll let you know. Kilnburn (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, i know, it is 1075 not 1095.

maybe my source claiming the town was founded in 1075 from a Scottish author and Scottish publication is probably the best bet to go with. i don't think i would entirely belief the encyclopedia of Scotland (particularly, if the author(s) see Scotland through English eyes). i'm also going to check the encyclopedia Britannia, if i can and see what they say about the origin of the town Kilnburn (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

right, just to keep you up to date with events.


 * i am still working on the revamp areas (new sources have been added and i have revised/cut down Phase 1 since, but i haven't put anything else up)
 * still toying with the removal of the politics and regional information, media and employment, but i wish to leave this for now, until you see the finished product
 * i plan to start/write new articles on the industries of Kirkcaldy; history of Kirkcaldy; Michael Nairn; list of people from the lang toun and schools of Kirkcaldy to tie into the Kirkcaldy article, much like what Dundee has
 * i have joined wikipedia commons and have uploaded, for the time being, some pictures, one of which i want to put on the article. i wish to delete some of my own on the Kirkcaldy article and upload them here, so they still exist, but i'm sure they are already on there, i haven't checked. i'm going to put a limit of the no. of pictures i upload, at the moment, i wish to add three/four more. anyway, this will be interesting to see what ones you might wish to upload, particularly if it is an old picture of the harbour

oh, i have also got hold of some info and pictures of Balwearie High School

i'll here from you again soon. for now, look after yourself. Kilnburn (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, right i'll need to do go through the copy editing process. although, to be frank, i have had a bit of a struggle (because i keep forgetting to type in the correct forumlaes for the sources) but my determination to improve the article ensured i didn't want to let myself down, i'm going to use this as experience. i have though been watching is that the source material matches with the wording of the info i submit.

still got three more phases to do, i've only started the third one (with the introduction) so i'll see how it goes from here. got a little bit of work to do though, on my word package for a new economy section (to include employment, town centre and out-of-town shopping facilities), which i'm thinking about at the moment. stand-alone articles, such as industries of Kirkcaldy, schools of Kirkcaldy and a possible Kirkcaldy history time-line) are for future consideration. Kilnburn (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

right, seen your reply. i'm going to have to spend more time on that with the citing of the quote, it's not as easy as i thought. anyway, i still have to do work with religion, famous lang tounians, sport (finding additional references + tidy-up), education (extending the section) and going to add new sections: geography and climate (thanks to jazz84) Kilnburn (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

hello ml,

well what was four months of hard work to get the article up to that standard. it is looking a lot better than it was and i feel proud that i made a huge contribution

anyway, to answer a question of yours, the reason why i put the citations at the end of sentences was to make the text clearer - with many citations all over the way and multiple ones being linked to a sentence you just couldn't read it, that's why i did it.

i have though been advised by another user, that i need to have a good look at both the demographic and education sections (which i strongly agree with) i have got a user who i have consulted coming to do copy editing work on Sunday. then, i wish to submit the article for a peer review to see if Kirkcaldy has any chance of moving up to FA status (i would much rather it would fail so i could learn what improvements need to be made, before another submission can be made anytime from two to six months away. if the article moves up to high importance within B status, that would be a good start) Kilnburn (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

helpme

Protection tags
I may have mis-read Protection policy but I though only administrators could put these tags on. A non-administrator has semi-protected the Kirkcaldy article, in what could be seen as a tactic to block further (good faith) edits by a non-registered user. Any views on this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! That page is not actually protected, and as such I have removed the protection tag. Any user can add the tags, but only administrators can actually (have the technical ability to) protect the page. I'm about to leave a note to that user explaining the situation. :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left the note - I'm just assuming good faith at this point. If that user causes trouble, I'm sure you know where to go. :D (WP:ANI) :-)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Haggis
I restructured the Haggis article because as it offered an entirely fixed view of a subject which by its nature can never have one explination. In my view, splitting each aspect of the general story better represented the nature of the subject. In addition it allowed for easier addition of other common lines for each general section of the story. I know my grammar may not be great, and I have no problem with someone going in and rewording the entire thing, even further changing the structure, but what you appear to have done is thrown away the whole edit and gone back to the "This is the way it is and that's that" style. It does not work.

In addition, the section title "Haggis abroad" makes no real sense, it does not refer to anything that is abroad, it only makes reference to a questionnaire answered by tourists, and though "Tourism" may not be entirely perfect, I feel it at least makes a little more sense.

If you feel my structure sucked please feel free to structure the article your own way, but it needs fixed in any case.--Delta-NC (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would these count as stable citations    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta-NC (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The first and third ones are probably okay but the second one is intended to be humorous rather than encyclopedic about the myth and looks like a self-published source, so not really acceptable. If you can find something in print (not self-published), that type of source is usually best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The second is a good example of how the tale is adapted often, though I agree not a great citation. Also somewhat inappropriate (I don't know if you happened to notice the secret message within the title of that particular page) --Delta-NC (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland review
Scotland national football team has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Please alarm anyone else involved. Domiy (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy
i saw your post on the talk page and although, i generally feel myself i have taken the article as far as i can. i do have access to the majority of sources and it is really me at the end of the day that can really only sort it. i am not going to get away with this easily, but i have decided to remain committed even if i wish to do other work elsewhere. i will have a look at info with claify tags. Kilnburn (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

right i'll have to get that sorted Kilnburn (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Highland Cathedral
this is not a revert it is a good faith edit and is every bit as worthy of being mentioned as the tune which I concede is better known and therefore entitled to be given pre-eminence. I have also refrained from adding the Gaelic Lyrics as per Wikipedias's non-English language policy. I hope this will sort the matter out once and for all although I am happy to revise or reference or cite. I deleted The terry mehan stuff as it could not have inspired the tune for the reason i stated. I suspect that references to him should have been placed by the lyrics, if indeed they merit incusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.58.179 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments on your talk page and that of Highland Cathedral. This article is about a tune which happens to share its name with a church. If there is a connection between the two you must establish it and cite it, whether or not you are "happy to". I concur regarding the Mehan deletion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given perfectly reasonable explanation for the inclusion of the Church of Scotland information. If this was a msuical secion of wikipedia, which i hope it is not I would not have included it. If, as i believe, it is a general encyclopedia, it is improper to delete genuine references which are credible and relevant. I am afraid that if I continue this at the moment I will start taking it personally and i am off to my bed. Maybe in the morning i will be able to see your point.78.151.58.179 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy (recent edit)
what i don't understand about a stub being placed at the end of the sentence about the settlement of Kirkcaldy is there already a reference for this info in demography. i don't want to put another reference to confirm this info since i was told by another user that the introduction should only be used as a summary of the main article and therefore not as a place to make note of references (which should really be dealt from then after across the body of the article). For example, if you look at the introduction of Dundee you will see what i mean - there is all but one reference. Kilnburn (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi K, when you refer to a "stub" are you referring to the dubious and original research tags I've placed on the sentence regarding a supposed "Kirkcaldy conurbation"? You are correct that references are not supposed to be in the intro but my intention with the tags was not a request for refs. I'm querying the concept of a supposed Kirkcaldy conurbation, a term that implies that all these settlements "form one continuous urban and industrially developed area", which they do not. If this is your thesis and terminology, it is original research (so has no place here), if it is someone else's I reckon it is a dubious usage of the term/plain wrong. This applies equally to the repetition of this assertion in the Demography section (which I hadn't spotted), though if you could find a reliable citation for the concept of a Kirkcaldy conurbation including Burntisland, Kinghorn and Auchtertool it would go here, not in the intro. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shinty hurling
In reply - I removed the unreferenced tag, because there was already one reference at the end of the article. It wasn't properly tagged, but it was there.

There are a lot of articles with "no reference" tags, which would be better tagged with "additional references needed". I have had several articles tagged myself, because I created them before I knew how to use footnotes. Some contained web links, and some a bibliography at the end.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned, that reference was added after the tag was placed. The tag was thus appropriate when added. I mean this light-heartedly rather than with the tartness the paraphrase may give it but I "wish people would check the revision history before making snippy edit summaries". Aye, Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)