Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 28 August 2019

Archives

2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011. 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018. 2019

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)

• I did erase one reference as well. Hey, it is probably a redirect anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/Fritter

Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

References

1. Varley, Ciaran. "Some of the amazing things you can get in chip shops around the UK and Ireland". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 20 July 2019.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Cassandrathesceptic (talk · contribs). 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 Misplaced Pages 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 @Drmies:, 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 Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139 and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages 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:

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.Mutt Lunker