User talk:Mutt Lunker

Stovies

Not sure why you reverted my edit on stovies. My copy was based on etymologies in various print and online dictionaries and the fact that the Scots word was in use (albeit with a slightly different meaning) before the modern French word étuvé developed. For example, the Chambers Dictionary (which is Scottish) states that ‘stovies’ comes from ‘stove’. Billtkd (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Billtkd, the appropriate place to discuss an article is the article talk page. If you want to discuss it further, please do so there but my answer would be that you removed material supported by what are clearly reliable sources, McNeill and Collins. They may or may not be wrong but they are reliable, and it is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth that counts. You provided a personal opinion in your edit summary but no citations in support. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Mutt Lunker. Thank you for your work on Cuddy (fish). Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824:Thanks, now addressed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I was wrong

Greetings, Mutt. I sincerely apologize for my latest errors in editing the articles on the linguistic evolution of the Scots language. Although I had good intentions in updating the information and adding references, my efforts have not been successful, and ended up making these next 3 mistakes:

1. Initially, I aimed to align the references in both the articles of "History of the Scots language" and the history section of the "Scots language", but I encountered inconsistencies due to differing contexts (summary vs. full article).
2. Afterwards, my anachronistic edits did not accurately reflect the original sources and were poorly organized. Rather than aiding comprehension for casual readers, these changes may have ended up confusing them.
3. And lastly, despite having read the sources that clarify where the English immigrants who settled in the Scottish Lowlands originated from, I included them without adhering to an encyclopedic format. I recognize that this was a mistake, and I still need to learn how to properly reference lengthy historical texts.

As you can see, while I have stopped making certain mistakes, I inadvertently created new ones that could be perceived as edit-warring. Furthermore, I found out that "Midlands" as one of the regions that the English migrants originated from was actually correct, but that was in another source that I already changed in the two articles, we both didn't know what the source was from, now I understand. Mr. Information1409 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)