User talk:Mutt Lunker/Archive 5

Strand/The Strand
That individual is so anti-'The' its incredible. This argument has been going on for a very long time. Did you see my last comment in the Strand discussion? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. I'd spotted the argument a few weeks ago when making a couple of entirely unrelated edits and their viewpoint had me utterly baffled. If the point was simply to say Strand, outside of the statement of a street address, is a valid if nowadays uncommon usage, I could handle that. To claim it is in any way approaching the normal usage is beyond me. I genuinely don't think I've ever heard it employed by a native English speaker. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...was there anyone else in the argument who held an anywhere similar viewpoint? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I am a bus driver and my bus route goes through the Strand, and virtually all the time I get asked 'Do you go through the Strand?' but on rare occasions I do get asked 'Do you go through Strand?' or 'Do you go to Strand?'. So from that I can deduce that its only a select few that don't say 'The Strand' in light of what you posted on the discussion page. Anyway thank you for your reply on my section about finally agreeing to the consensus I proposed. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, hopefully that'll stay stable now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic personal naming system
When you said that this article was "essay-like", I think you missed this -


 * This article incorporates text from "Dwelly's [Scottish] Gaelic Dictionary" (1911). ((Proper names - appendix), with additions, corrections and updates)

If it's "essay-like", you can blame Edward Dwelly, because most of this article was written by him.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If your initial article was pretty much a wholesale lift from Dwelly's dictionary's appendices, so that effectively it "was written by him", what he was writing was an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Thus it requires transformation from the form of an essay to the form of an encyclopedic entry.


 * The lack of inline citations, per the second tag, may have been ok at the start, if there was no non-Dwelly content then, but, particularly as there has been a fair amount of revision of the article since, none of which has been cited, in-line citations are certainly required now to distinguish this. If it's still pretty much a, or several, block quotes from Dwelly, if it were to be attributed as such, that would clarify and put in context any essay-like tone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topple the Tyrants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kirk
Interesting quote at the beginning of your user page, very witty. Other thing : I did not no that the word kirk was still in use as a proper name. I am quite surprised. In Normandy, the word only exists as a place-name element, but with another spelling crique (with metathesis) in Anglo-Scandinavian place-names like Criquebeuf (spelled in ancient time Kriqueboth, Crikebof), Criquetot (criketoth, Kriquetot), Yvecrique "Yvo's church", parallel to Buglise "Boia's church", with Anglo-Saxon anthroponym Boia. Best regards. Nortmannus (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Not an aspect I knew at all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yoani Sanchez
An editor has questioned some of the text on the Yoani Sanchez article here. Although I think I did look at translations for at least some of  those sources when I did some copy editing on the article I don't remember the sources well at all. I could do an online translation but the syntax can be awkward. You seem to be able to read/understand Spanish. Would you like to take a look at the sources in Spanish to see if they support the wording in the text. If not no worries. I plan to look at a online translation too, but would definitely defer to someone who can actually read Spanish.(olive (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Taking a look... Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Matt. I got caught up in something else but will check it all out in a few days.(olive (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC))


 * You're most welcome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Scottish cuisine
Hi. I've moved the Scottish English tag to the Talk page, which is where it is supposed to go. And you're right about "girdle" - sorry for getting that wrong in my bit of copy editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No bother, you weren't to know - the rest was spot on! Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Debate
Thanks so much for your invaluable input on the Yoani Sanchez article! As for the Debate of the Intellectuals, do we know what was the event actually called? Surely there are other sources for it. If I'm understanding my Spanish correctly (which is highly debatable.. :) it appears that even Castro referred to it in his "Address to intellectuals". We shouldn't just take just one source and cast doubt on the name or purpose of an event. Dreadstar ☥  20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that it's called "Debate of the Intellectuals" on page 44 of this source. Dreadstar  ☥  21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Dunfermline and West Fife Demographics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Dunfermline and West Fife Demographics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Dunfermline and West Fife Demographics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per above, I've accidentally placed an AdD template on a talk page. Can I remove it or must only an admin do so? Incidentally my internet connection is very intermittent today, so I may not be able to carry out any remedial action myself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. All fixed. You could have done it yourself, no worries, but as it's a bit complicated and you have connection problems I've done it for you. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please add AFD template to actual article, NOT the Talk page
Please remove the template from the Talk page, as this has mucked up the entire nomination. The template is always added to the actual article itself. Cheers. Mais oui! (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, see above. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'd realised my boob the second I clicked "submit" but couldn't rectify it because of the connection problems. I couldn't even tell if the helpme had gone through. Again thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

copyediting on Kirkcaldy
thanks a lot for your copyediting. last night, i spend a lot longer doing my edit than i anticipated whilst collecting all the refs. on the Historic Scotland website

anyway, do you think i should add info on how the burgh developed; the annual Adam Smith lecture and the recent purchase of the Old Kirk by the Old Kirk Trust. i'm in consideration about the latter one. Kilnburn (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nae problem. I guessed something like that had happened and wanted to make sure we didn't keep on clashing.


 * By the way I've decided to look at each section in turn but started with last one and am working up (simply because I've done some ad hoc copyediting swoops in the dim and distant past but on those occasions had started at the beginning and only got part way through). The upshot is, you'll have a good idea which section I'll be tackling next on the basis of my last edit, so double check before you save if you plan to edit in the same section.


 * Development of the burgh, the lecture and the trust sound like they may well be worthy of addition in the future. I don't really know a great deal about the latter two though. This might entail some pretty large changes though, particularly regarding burgh development. Would it maybe be better to get the existing material absolutely spot on? It sounds like it's well within reach of FA status and any major edits now might delay progress towards that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

yep, i was actually thinking that any major edits would get in the way. that is the last thing i would want to end up with.

what i do know about the Adam Smith Lecture is it held in the St Bryce Kirk by an important figure in the world of business or economics and has been running since 1973 (250th anniversary of his death). also while i remember, there is interest in setting up a heritage centre dedicated to Smith, following this year's lecture. the other issue is that just last week, the Old Kirk Trust, supported by a £75 million donation from John Sim, the son of a long-serving former minister, managed to purchase the Old Kirk. the trust are interested at looking at other uses for the building such as a possible heritage centre; use as a music school and concerts and community use for groups in the town. Kilnburn (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

just to let you know, i'm going to submit the article as a copy edit candidate. thanks for the help, much appreciated once again. Kilnburn (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok - will try and pick up where I left off with the ce if I can but have been and am likely to be busy/away for a while. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Neds
Hi Mutt, Thanks for adding an improved definition of Neds to the British slang article. The sources I had didn't appear to differentiate much between the two. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. There does seem to be a significant current stream, possibly more in western Scotland, which seems to use ned and chav as if they were synonymous, and concentrates on the mode of dress as much as anything, but when I was a kid there was none of that aspect and it was pretty much any tough, delinquent, hooligan or petty criminal, potentially of any social class, and that usage is still current. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and it's prompted me to do some work on the neds article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

messed up citation
I added some material to an article but appear to have messed up the citation as the formatting displays the test incompletely or incorrectly, the links don't work and I've evidently gone about including a quote incorrectly. It's not as if I haven't done this before; maybe I'm too tired to be editing today. Any ideas where I've boobed or who can help me work it out? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially, incorrect information is added to the template. Why are you using a template for citing television or radio programs and episodes in this article? Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 18:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm citing information from a television documentary. Why do you say the information is incorrect? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure that a documentary equates to a television episode. Try using this template for documentaries. Template:Cite video. The link provides documentation for each field. Overall, just make sure not to deviate. The problem with use of the episode template was the deviation from guidelines for content entered in the fields. When the template was asking for a link to a Wikipedia article, you added an URL to off-wiki content. Hope this helps, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 19:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nailed it, thanks: the urls placed in the wrong fields. Fixed now. It's an episode in an arts series. Thanks again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BBC Alba
I just wanted to say good job on keeping the BBC Alba page clear of vandalism. You may want to be careful though as the last few reverts from the same user with the sentence about wasting money does not really constitute vandalism. The sentence could well be true. It would be more appropriate to revert it and state that it is unsourced POV and uses weasel words. Nevertheless, thank you for your hard work! JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thanks though I have to say I can't say I share your viewpoint. Clearly the edit is weasely and POV, so we're agreed on that, but the provocative way it is worded, with no attempt at objectivity would stretch credibility that it is purely down to inexperience and ignorance of policy (whether these play any part or not). Whether the statement is true or otherwise is neither here nor there (after all it's verifiability, not truth, which counts) if it's expressed in such terms and with no support. Good on you for your attempt to bring the IP to the path of righteousness though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy
me again. checked the info about the thin drift on the geography section and i know that would have come from the source, Kirkcaldy Local Plan, planning issues booklet from 1980. i don't own this, but did look at this in the library, prior to submitting the info on the article at the time. i can remember though that the source did not indicate the term, thin drift but did mention basalt fragments. i was wanting to use my own words. what about the other sentence in question concerning its clarification, the one that talks about relatively low-lying ground near Invertiel and to the east of Boreland. would it be better to remove the two sentences?

while i'm here, do you know how to create a full picture made up of a collage of four or five smaller pictures for an infobox? (like what they have on Glasgow and Glenrothes) this is something i think would be good for the article and the current picture looks very similar to the one on the geography section, but only smaller. Kilnburn (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for brevity (busy):


 * If you can get the exact wording from the booklet for me I'll see if I can work out a re-wording. It doesn't seem to quite stack up as it's worded but seeing the actual source wording might clarify.


 * The mention of the town's shape is fair enough but I don't understand the connection with the remainder of the sentence, mentioning that two of the many areas adjoining the outskirts are low lying. They're not especially low-lying compared to many other adjoining areas so that second part doesn't seem very significant to me. Again, what was the source and what exactly did it say in full?


 * Sorry, don't know about the pictures. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

right i have found out that the info actually came from the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy: Development Plan from 1954 and not from Kirkcaldy Local Plan, Planning Issues Booklet from 1980. the sentence relatively low-lying ground to the south-west near the neighbourhood of Invertiel and to the east of Boreland should read relatively-flat ground to the south-west beyond Invertiel and to the east of Boreland. the other sentence an area to the south-west of the town, south of Raith Estate and Invertiel is practially impossible to build houses upon because of the thin drift and the existance of basalt fragments should read something like an area to the south-west of the town, south of Raith Estate and Invertiel makes house building extremely difficult because it is full of balsalt fragments. i hope that helps you out. Kilnburn (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's a start. The article and the sources thus have quite significant differences then and they may be too old to be relevant any more, over half a century later.


 * The first piece of text talks about flat ground, very much not the same as low-lying ground. I'm still not clear what you wish to convey by including the text - what is the point you wish to make by mentioning that the ground is flat close to but two, out of many, points adjacent to the town? I can't guess from the context because there isn't really any; it doesn't look like a full sentence but only one clause and I don't know what that section of the booklet is discussing. Even if the significance of having a couple of pieces of flat ground close to a town is established, there are plenty of other flat pieces of ground close to Kirkcaldy. Also, the extent of the town was rather different in 1954.


 * The second sentence is also significantly different. "Extremely difficult" in 1954 may not be so difficult now and falls far short of "practically impossible" in any period. I'm not sure if the basalt fragments mean individual pieces of basalt in the soil, in which case, if they are large this might mean somewhat of an annoyance to remove, rather than bordering on the impossible. If the intention is actual outcrops of basalt, that would be more problematic for building but to describe outcrops as fragments would be odd. I believe there are plans to build on a piece of land roughly between Invertiel Farm and Balwearie School, which is in the broad area mentioned. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i'm glad though that the two sentences have been removed.

while i'm here, i'm just wondering where a good place would be to fit in info about the pottery industry in Linktown, Sinclairtown and Gallatown and if i should add a religion section to the article (considering there is some info on the Old Kirk, there is nothing on St Brycedale's Church) i'm planning to add some info of the church to landmarks, but will that be enough? Kirkcaldy certainly does have it's fair share of churches! Kilnburn (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, pottery industry material would fit under Economy: "A note on traditional or former sectors". Likewise cover Religious sites (probably more appropriate a title than the broader-in-scope "religion") in its own section probably, rather than under Landmarks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

hello again. other than the work i have to do for the economy section (pottery, linoleum, MGT), are there any areas that still need to be addressed on the article? i could reinstate info on the annual temperatures of the town. looked at a couple of sources. best one is from The Met Office, but it is for Edinburgh. is it good enough? also what about Adam Smith? should i mention in the famous people section that he was baptised in The Old Kirk in 1723 and whom wrote the book Wealth of Nations at 220 High Street?

also i want to keep this brief, but i did take a picture of the slope leading down to the Beveridge Park Pond a while back and would like to upload it, if you are happy enough for the collage. Kilnburn (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the brevity - think I'm about to come down with something. Nothing vital springs to mind but I'll have a think about it.


 * There was nothing wrong with the previous meteorological source but the text in the article appeared to be a substantial misinterpretaion of it. Unless the Met Office source states that data for Edinburgh apply to Kirkcaldy, I wouldn't use it. I don't imagine that overall there are massive differences between them but we can't assume and there are numerous factors which may make a difference e.g.: altitude, physical geography, orientation to prevailing winds, difference in size of the settlements has an effect on temperature, etc..


 * The Smith baptism may be worth mentioning in the section on the Kirk, not in the bit about Smith. That Wealth was written in Kirkcaldy is of note.


 * Look forward to seeing yer Bevvie Park photie. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

right i've uploaded this picture. before i even think about putting it in the collage, i'm going to add it to your main page so you can have a look at it and see if it any good. i am also going to add info on Ebenzer Brown's time as minister of St Brycedale (father of Gordon Brown) to the article in the landmarks section. Kilnburn (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)



I've moved it to here. It's good. Pond, not lake, though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

got you're message and i have now sorted out the edits. about the famous book written by Smith at the house, the source Historic Scotland said along the lines of that Smith wrote the book at the site of his mother's house at 220 High Street. i was wanting to make reference to the fact he wrote a book at a house at 220 High Street which no longer exists. thanks for that, though. will get the info on the annual temperances of the town done. when that is completed, will there be any other edits that i need to sort on the article, before i consider putting the article forward for FA. what do you think? p.s. i am going to upload pictures of the Merchant's House and Old Kirk Tower to your talk page. Kilnburn (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Thanks for your comments. I'm keen to resolve the issue. The last thing I want is an edit war or to feel like i'm competing for "who has the best pictures".

Mcwesty (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nae bother. I'm sure you'll both sort it out if you discuss any proposed changes to each others work first. As mentioned, I'm happy if you want an outside opinion; and I can always stot yer heids thegither, should that be warranted! (Sure it won't but.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mutt, ive posted a few "collage" examples for Kirkcaldy on my userpage using images provided by Kilnburn. I would welcome your thoughts on them as a neutral 3rd party. If im honest I dont think the images do Kirkcaldy justice. Any suggestions on images to use would also be very welcome.

Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are my first impressions, and with the proviso that any criticisms made do not imply I feel I could do any better myself! I have found some of the photos that have been used in the collage but not all so don't know which have been cropped and which haven't.


 * Regarding the clock tower on the town house, I do actually think it is a recognisable feature, simply because its distinctive shape and colour can be seen projecting above the surrounding buildings from very much further away in the town than the rest of the town house. In a collage, one distinctive detail of a featured scene might hit out more than showing the whole scene. That said, looking at thumbnails of some of the other photos of the townhouse, showing a fuller picture, including the building, would probably also work - maybe this one, for instance, possibly cropped portrait style to remove the part of the shot to the right of the clock tower?


 * I quite like the shot of the Beveridge park pond but I'm not sure I would have recognised it without you mentioning on Kilnburn's talk page that there was a picture of the park. Maybe a longer shot of the same scene or perhaps one including, or partially including, the pond from the slope at the back of the park would be more distinctive.


 * I'm not keen on the shot of the Auld Kirk, partly because of the choice of view, partly that it is cropped too close. I'd agree, the view from the foot of Kirk Wynd as at Undiscovered Scotland is a good one. The surrounding buildings give it context and it's nice seeing the clock face from that angle. There are also alternative shots on Commons, including ones by Kilnburn, which are preferable to the one chosen.


 * The Maggie's Centre and Merchant's House shot are fine, the latter maybe a touch on the dark side.


 * I'm not keen on the one of the esplanade as the dominant feature seems to be the red footpath, followed by the undistinguished shelter on the left. The cropped version is probably an inprovement but I think there's probably a better view of the esplanade possible.


 * Of the two collages you have done, I prefer the second. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about offending me, I welcome constructive criticism. I think your point on the Beveridge Park pond image is valid. It could be a pond anywhere? I think there's a need to find a picture that better defines the pond as being in Kirkcaldy.

I agree with your points on the esplanade and Auld Kirk images. Hopefully we can find better ones soon. In the meantime im going to upload the collection of pics on the Kirkcaldy article.

Cheers, Mcwesty (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to know - my proviso was directed to you both by the way. Aside from anything in my comments, it is still a nice wee collage, it's just that there is some room for improvement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)



right i have uploaded two pictures above, one of the Old Kirk Tower and the other, Merchant's House. i would like to add the pictures of the Old Kirk Tower, Merchant's House and the Bevvie Park to the collage, but what do you and mcwesty think? are these pictures good enough for the collage? Kilnburn (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

e-mail
just to let you know, mutt i have sent an e-mail to you. Kilnburn (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Iyengar Yoga
Hi Mutt

Thanks I am researching that youtube link to a Iyengar video. If it had legal permission would you think that link would be useful for the page ? If this is a nuisance just let me know. I have been practicing Iyengar yoga but somehow took 2 years off and seeing that video re-ignited my interest in yoga again.

I did find it for sale thru this website: http://www.yogaware.com/video.html

Cheers, Art art@rain.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artnyoga (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can establish that the YouTube site is not in breach of copyright, it would probably be a useful link. However you must establish this beyond all doubt and I would be very surprised if the video is not copyrighted or if the site has permission to use it, particularly knowing how they deal with books, audio and video available at the Ramamani Institute in Pune. It doesn't inspire much confidence that they've spelt Iyengar incorrectly. Make sure you're fully aware of the issues, starting at WP:COPYLINK. The fact that the video is on sale is likely, if anything, to indicate more strongly that it is copyrighted material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality
Thanks for sending me that link - I was looking for the guidelines earlier. What I had been doing was reverting edits by the User Poshseagull who had been changing many articles from British to English, without any explanation. It seems one user going round changing masses of articles to English is wrong. The other part to this, was they were changing to English, but then keeping the link to United Kingdom, which as far as I can see is bound to cause further confusion. My take on the subject is that the info box nationality section should say British (as per passport) however the prose should take whatever form the subject regards themselves as. Uvghifds (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce
bone structure can actually indicate a lot but perhaps it's not that important! Thanks --Cormag100 (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To state his "bone structure shows he spent a lot of time on horseback and was brought up to wield weighty weapons" is clearly not supportable. I guess it may indicate whether he had the capability to do so but that is speculation and does not indicate whether he did or not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)