Mutt Lunker
|
Mixup at Clark
If you just double-check the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clark&action=history you will see that you reverted my proper reversion of vandalism. I have reverted your reversion, so all is well. But can you remove the notation from my talk page? Thanks! 50.174.200.16 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Beg your pardon, my error. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Walter Scott
You assume rightly. Good catch. --Antiquary (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
early modern english
I saw the thing about mad in a documentary on philology, it wasn't OR, but I'll find a source. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 19:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, fine but I think you'll be pushed to find a source that says that sense had been lost in British English (Collins and Oxford note somes senses of "mad" as British or US but not this one). I think the usage may be slightly different in Britain in that it's less likely to be without a context ("it makes me mad" rather than "I'm mad") but it is used. Also, can only find references to the origin of the word with sense "insane". Any further discussion would be best held at the article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, here's a 19th century English (as in England) dictionary which defines mad as "disordered in the mind, broken in the understanding, distracted, expressing disorder of mind, over-run with any violent or unreasonable desire, enraged, furious. An 18th century dictionary has basically the same definition, but with long s's --Monochrome_Monitor 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Scotland - Capital
Hi! Gary here, No I am okay with that....I just thought London was correct as well. Thanks for letting me know. Gary. GaryFG8125 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Scotch-Irish
This is botteville. For some reason, probably Wikipedia reaction time, I did not at first get the reason for your reversion of my changes, and hence did not understand it. Now I see, it is not that you were defending error, but that my statement appeared to you to be not comprehensive enough. It is now clear to me that fly-by changes are not going to work here, and that the topic needs research. I like doing it, I was interested in them anyway. It surely must have struck you that American Scotch-Irish does NOT mean Ulsterman, at least not in America. All that material and those statements need to be corrected, and Andrew Jackson does not belong in that article, nor Buchanan, Grant, or Jimmy Stuart or any of the rest of them, unless it is corrected. I am NOT going to start telling my relatives from Lorneville, Nova Scotia, that they are of relatively recent northern Irish extraction. Don't you agree? Moreover, Canadian Scotch-Irish does not differ from American Scotch-Irish; in fact, I never heard of such a division. We always refer to the main population of Nova Scotia as Scottish. The population of the two countries is relatively mobile. The only difference you notice is that when you cross the river at Machiasport they start saying "hey?" quite a lot, except for Quebec. I don't move very fast on these things but that is who I am and where I stand. I will take each one of your remarks seriously, but you need reasonable reasons. Ciao. I got other things to do now. I may take a break for a while. Later, whenever.Botteville (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Mutt have a chat whenever Just a quick one from Britain's point of view. In emigration terms in the 19th century, Scotish means from Scotland, Gaelic or Lowlands. Scotch-Irish means the Scottish Protestants that were put into the north of Ireland in and around the 17th century but emmigrated to America for more or less the same reasons as their Catholic neighbours. Irish means the rest of Ireland's emigration which was mainly in other parts of America. Sorry if I'm stating the bleeding obvious, but like I say happy to chat
Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoorybrig (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello sir,
What is your opinion on today's stacks? I wonder how big of an impact gozilla had on the global stacks market, depending on Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.20.198 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Cease edit warring on the page for Barbara Allen
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara_Allen_(song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.194.45 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barbara_Allen_(song), you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.194.45 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- See Talk:Barbara_Allen_(song)#Origins and revert your blanking of the tags that facts in the article are disputed. Also, as requested, read WP:BRD and provide the requested quotes from your purported sources expressly regarding origins. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Notifying you about the dispute
I have responded to your claims here, and as per wikipedia rules I am notifying you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Obstructive_IP_editor_at_Barbara_Allen_.28song.29