User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage13

NLP

I responded to your comments on Encycotadd's talk page to provide a little context. I've also largely supported your proposals on the NLP talk page. I think the PoV tag is not necessary as the current wording has been agreed, however I am leaving it for the moment as I think we can reach agreement on something more sustainable. If you check the talk page history, proposals to move the "discredited" word subject to an agreement on a stable form of words were rejected by the meat farm. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snowded, I can see that now the Sockflood has started and the RfC is likely to degenerate into nonsense. I think that if this is the case the only sane solution is to let the POV tag stand because the article really is very biased in the way it is written and reads like wikipedia trying to tell the reader what to think about the topic. It just is not NPOV - but you may be right that there is a good reason it is not. But as long as it is non-neutral it needs the tag. There are many articles that require permanent POV-tags on the wikipedia, and it seems to me like this may well be one of them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree I'm afraid on the PoV and I'm not letting that stand as its in part the goal of the meat farm. If you check we have enough support on the second alternative and the other two and I suggest we make the changes. The new ID's are just repeating their instructions (more or less identical requests) and LTMem is a clear sock puppet so I think I will pull in the admin who banned the last one if they give any more trouble. I was waiting for Lam to respond as he is one of the other main editors with considerable knowledge of the field. Make the change ... ----Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:INDENT

Howdy. Be careful of your indenting in discussions, as you're going 1-indent too far, with your responses :) GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Hey, I hope you didn't think I was being overly picky with my copyedits to Language. I just thought there was some punctuation and wording that needed to be cleared up. I think you're doing an awesome job with that article, and I encourage you to keep up the good work!! Cognate247 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought most of your copyedits were fine, although a few of them I disagreed with, I also tried to address your citation requests.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the feedback. I think things have got a little hot and bothered on the NLP talk page. I'll do my best to keep things sensible. There is a ton to do to that article though to knock it into proper shape though. Your input is very much appreciated, especially concerning the removal of pseudo-skeptic claptrap. LTMem (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I don't intend to participate in that thread -- but I think it's worth your remembering that that editor is still under a strict civility restriction stemming from the RFC. I trust you can find the archived discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten that. I should have reported him right away.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus/Frerejacques

Hi, I noted the subject of this deletion pop up on my watchlists and see you retrieved the article. Out of interest, can you point to instructions of how a normal user does a retrieve like that? Also FWIW I commented on the song's main Talk page. Though it may be that the result is still a move to wikiquote, what surprises me is that someone in the AfD said "let's do that" and then it still didn't happen. If an AfD review is opened the why of why that didn't happen might be the main benefit from review. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Only admins can restore deleted content, but most admins are willing to restore deleted content to userspace upon request. Unless of course there is a good reason that it shouldn't be located in userspace either - e.g. copyvio, blp problems etc.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, you're an admin. Thanks for the answer. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for long. ;)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Yea, you get carried away sometimes -- so what? It's called being human. Do you block anyone you shouldn't have or delete something you shouldn't have? Nope. You got sucked into a pissing contest on ANI -- like that's the first time that's ever happened? Who's going restore articles like Frerejacques if admins like you resign just cause you get stressed? The solution to wikistress is real life, not resignation under a cloud. Just log off and spend a month or two doing other things. Please go delete your stupid request on the BN board (and my comment too) and go enjoy life. Wikipedia will be here when you're ready to come back. NE Ent 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not resigning in an agitated state or because of stress, I am quite calm right now as a matter of fact. I was agitated when I argued with YRC. The basic reason I am doing it is that I don't enjoy admin work, and I don't enjoy the way any action I do (even non-administration related) is interpreted in the light of being an admin and with a different set of consequences that end up sucking my attention away from content work. I am doing it now because I need a break, but because I need to focus on content work which is my forte. Being civil to asshats is not by forte and I do believe that is the more important qualification for administrators. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the ineffable having a clue quality that separates the good from the not so good administrators. You certainly should not be doing admin stuff if it's not enjoyable to you, but there's no reason to be burning bridges you don't to. Maybe in a month, or year or two you'll change your mind. What does it cost you to been an inactive cloudless admin? NE Ent 20:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to drive by while something bigger is happening and see above. I know zero of the background, or what NE Ent is talking about, but the option of logging off for a week, or just being a Frere Jacques restorer doesn't sound too impossible. I usually have a cigar/walk in the snow and look at the rooks in such moments. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You might reconsider Maunus. If we must have admins under the current silly system, then you are someone who makes the system a little less silly. You should be an admin. That applies even if you don't use the tools much. You can still write articles and stay largely away from admin activities. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for the support. However, I am pretty sure that if I were to go through an RfA at this time it would not only fail, but fail horribly. That is enough reason to do this I think.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's no reason at all. It's the people who would oppose you on an RfA that do no good being here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I - for what it's worth...

Can I gently suggest that you don't spend much more time commenting on Oppose !votes at the current debate on AN/I - like this one? It will look like badgering to other possible opponents, and any point you might make that really needs making is likely to be picked up by someone else. If it was your own ban we were discussing you'd have every reason to speak up. As it's not, it might be wiser if you don't. Sorry if this advice is academic or unwanted, I can see you're pised off right now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Im not pissed off right now. And I think you're right. I'll withdraw.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your apparent reaction was not my intention

I fully accept that I may not be welcome here and I am genuinely sorry that I used your recent outburst as an example. It was sincerely not meant to be a personal attack as some have stated. If I had looked, I am sure I could have found similar examples from others. I had no intention of my example leading to this reaction. Please don't let my observations of apparent general double-standards lead you to such a drastic action --Senra (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any observation of a double standard you have made two observations of incivil admins, both of whom were admonished by the community. Regardless of how many examples of uncivil admins you had found you wouldn't have supported the claim you are making because you are not showing that admin incivilty is being dealt with differently from other peoples incivility. Yes some admins are incivil just like everybody else - I was one of them. The question is not whether admins are treated differently but whether incivil admins should be permitted to continue to be admins. Alot of editors like you have a chip on their shoulder about supposed admin double standards - as an editor who has edited both as an admin and a non-admin I can tell you that such a double standard does not exist. Some non-admins have have an easier time getting out of incivilty than others, some admins do too. Usually its about how many friends/enemies that editor has made for himself. However when an admin is incivil it invariably turns into drama about admin abuse and cabals and the like, instead of being about individual conduct. That makes no sense and only hurts wikipedia which in fact is badly in need of more admins. Other admins are not responsible for my own incivil behavior, I am. And I took the consequence of that. The fact that this means I no longer have to deal with those who like you drive the admin abuse circus around the encyclopedia at every given opportunity makes me happy that I made that choice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re-op

I would like to point out that there are a lot of tasks that involve sysop tools that are far less contentious and might be more to your liking. We tend to give out the tools with the expectation that they could be used fully, but some admins are better suited to some areas than others and many pick a niche and stay with whatever that is. Apteva (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter as this dispute was entirely unrelated to my being an admin and I didn't use the tools once. In my content editing I do often engage contentious topics and get in to heated disputes. I don't handle that as well as an admin should, and I probably never will.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, as long as you are not abusing the admin tools in your heated arguments, you are not necessarily in violation. While we would like admins to represent the best of us, since they are more visible, we do have to remember they are human. Well, most of them; I think NYB is a robot and Risker is certainly an advanced life form . -- Avi (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that is how it should work ideally. But I think there is good evidence that the wikipedia community in general do not wish to have admins that have proven fallible. The entire RfA process and the admin-abuse hysteria is predicated on that sentiment.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree. Secondly, once someone becomes an admin, the stress level certainly rises and allowances have to be made for that. Thirdly, my own opinion is I would much rather have someone as an admin who is aware of his or her faults, has the humility and personal integrity to realize and admit them, and the wisdom to realize when not to use the tools, than a towering fountain of hubris who has never been wrong and cannot conceive of the possibility. Maunus, I hate to break it to you, but you're human, just like the rest of the Wikipedia project (excepting bots and Mbisanz ;) ), and so you'll have a bad month every now and then. My suggestion is take a wiki or admin break, lower your stress level, read a book or 12, and recharge your batteries. Or, you might be more comfortable at a lower contribution rate, yet still help this project run smoothly. We need sysops who have "clue" :). Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's none of my business, but I don't think you should turn in the bit. By the same token, there should be some sanction for your role in the incivility. I'm not an admin, probably will never be one, but there can't be two standards, one for editors and another for admins, any more than there should be separate standards for police officers. Even so, you are a good admin, you didn't misuse the tools, and you shouldn't give it up on the basis of this incident. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"I don't handle that as well as an admin should, and I probably never will." That comment is the reason you shouldn't turn in the bit. Too many admins get a god-complex, and you haven't. We need more like you, even if you are human and make a mistake or two. GregJackP Boomer! 04:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Butting in here: Maunus, I've been trying to avoid the dramah boards but noticed the activity on your page and so, kinda, sorta, have some idea of what's going on. FWIW, and you may have reacted differently, but when less than a week ago I logged into email to find death threats (same as you had), my entire opinion about WP (which hasn't been great recently), plummeted. Even more discouraging was the lukewarm reaction in regards to doing something about that situation. Are you stressed? Yep, you are. I'm not an admin and don't work in the tough areas that you work in, but we've run into some of the same situations this year: a lot of dirty socks, and then death threats. I don't know anything about your recent run-in with YRC, or about why you turned in the tools again, but you have to realize that death threats aren't what any of us signed up for, and may be enough to send some us (myself included), around the bend. So, give yourself some down time, and think this over. My advice, fwiw. Feel free to ignore. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Very impressed

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		The Barnstar of Integrity, to Maunus, for holding himself to the highest standard and upholding the traditions and honor of the English Wikipedia admin corps. Herostratus (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm not at all familiar with the recent contretemps which led to you resigning your admin bit -- I just happened across it -- but wow, I was floored by your willingness to stand up and self-criticize your actions (whatever they were), even to the point of resigning your bit. Although you may have fallen, the honor and pride of the admin corps and the Wikipedia is burnished by your willing sacrifice.

I hope you weren't too hard on yourself. I am also a former admin, but I had to be dragged out. The integrity and high self-standards you showed may ironically indicate your worthiness to be an admin. Be that as it may, my hat's off to you, and as a former admin may I say that the best may lie ahead -- adminning is mostly annoying gruntwork, and not to be borne forever. Article work is more fun anyway, and the highest honor of all is just the title Editor, I think. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quenya

You beat me to it :) I just wanted to thank you once more for your help and cooperation with getting this article dragged to Good status. I've enjoyed working with you and I'd like to invite you to join WP:WikiProject Middle-earth, since there's more about Tolkien than just his languages.

In other, more recent news, I tip my hat to you for your dealing with you know what. I was tempted to post there as well but I felt that after closely working with you in the past my comments might have come across somewhat biased. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I enjoyed it to. My favorite Middle Earth language has always been Sindarin, and now that I have access to the sources, maybe that would be a good place to turn for future collaboration.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but right now I need a little break from linguistics. :) I may get back to you though. De728631 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your request at WP:BN

As you do not have e-mail active, I have to ask you here. Are you still interested in relinquishing your access to the administrative toolkit at this time? -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. Thanks for asking again. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• •  Done. Good luck and G-d bless. My thoughts on this action are at WP:BN. I have restored the autopatrolled, reviewer, and rollback, bits. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Maunus, There's no agenda behind this question but, if you don't mind me asking, did you used to post at (the now I think defunct) board MootStormfront? Just curious as I used to post there a bit myself some years ago quite intermittently. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

no.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Native American Mascots (Reality Check)

The article Native American mascot controversy is a topic of importance to me, and appeared both poorly written to begin with (e.g. organization), neglected (lots of dead links and little recent info); but most of all bending over so far to give both sides that it had fallen over (not NPOV).

I did not dive in and boldly edit, however, but attempted to talk with others. I am sure that I was being a nerd (as usual) in the way that I stated that, in an encyclopedia, when science disagrees with public opinion, science wins. However I cannot understand how anyone could take my analogy to evolution vs. creationism as a personal attack. I am even more surprised that apparently anyone does not agree, but think the APA resolution is an "extreme" position rather than the consensus of social scientists studying the issue. (I have since found that the associations representing Sociologists and School Counselors have issued resolutions that concur with the Psychologists.)

Second, I began my edits on a personal page, which initially brought guarded agreement from one editor. Then I was accused of planning to replace the article with my own version, and claiming ownership. This would appear to be a blatant case of NOT assuming good faith, and frankly that editor seems to be claiming ownership of the article himself. The 'female' editor (don't know how gender became an issue) adopts a more patronizing tone saying "this is not how we do it on WP". Did I not share my draft, and ask for input?

So I have made all the housekeeping changes that I can without getting into the content. I added the Indian County poll to balance the other two, which was reverted, then restored by you. Given the changes that I feel are needed, it looks like the beginning of an edit war.FigureArtist (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello ·ʍaunus·

This regards your recent activity at Native American mascot controversy. Specifically, your statement that opinion polls do not require supporting documentation. That would be true, I believe, if the poll is presented, not as a fact, but as the opinion of the publisher (in this case, Indian Country Today). Much like an Op/Ed piece. WP:NEWSORG and WP:VERIFY seem to support, to one degree or another, this position, as does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 140 #Can opinion polls be considered as Reliable Sources. I have not found any significant opposition to the use of a scientific survey (poll) with disclosed methodology from a reputable polling company being referenced as a fact. My objection to the Indian Country Today poll, is that it lacks those qualities.

I have edited the wording of the article to separate opinion from fact, while retaining the information. Let me know if you find this acceptable. Gulbenk (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't find them acceptable. Opinion polls are not statements of opinion, but statements of the result of a poll of the opinion of others.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted the Indian Country poll merely as a counterpoint to the SI article, which did not publish the details of its methodology either, but made a claim that their single poll "proved" that Native American leaders are out of touch.FigureArtist (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Country is a fine addition, what I didn't find acceptable was Gulbenk's edit which clumsily stated that the poll was the opinion of the ICT.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that this "poll" is not an expression of opinion by ICT? Do we know that the question(s) were not worded in a biased manner, to solicit a desired response? Do we know that the sample (of respondents) was not skewed to draw from a group inclined to give the desired response? Was the sample simply too small or too flawed to be valid? Were there any safeguards in place to prevent bias and manipulation? What is the value of "the opinion of others" if that opinion is manipulated? Why is it acceptable to give this "poll" (of unknown wording, size, and methodolgy) equal weight with the findings of two scientific surveys? (Methodology of the SI/Harris survey was recently added). It cannot be cited as a fact, and it may not even be a legitimate expression of opinion. I fail to see how ·ʍaunus can describe this as "a fine addition". Why is that? Gulbenk (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The only fact that we are citing is that ICT published it, and that is a verifiable fact. Whether it is incorrect or statisticaly flawed is beside the point, and in any case that is speculation. We cannot attribute something as opinion if it is not presented as opinion but as a poll. The survey is notable since ICT is the main publisher of Native American related news, which is also why it is a fine addition. The Annenberg poll strikes me as equally dubious since it samples only a handful of selfidentified Natives in each state, apparently giving equal weight to states with low numbers of natives, and with no information about tribal enrollment status etc. We can give the information about methods that is available and relevant - e.g. that the number of respondents in ICT's poll is undisclosed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Aztec precedent for the Flower Wars

I'm not trying to cause a fuss here, but I've got two citations from epigraphers/archaeologists working in the Classic Maya Lowlands and Zapotec Highlands respectively who, based on archaeological data, glosses of hieroglyphic inscriptions, and iconographic representations, have argued for ritual warfare among those polities. Specifically, they claim that special kinds of warfare were conducted aimed at capturing enemy elites for sacrifice, rather than territorial or tributary gain. If you have a citation on hand for the Aztec creation of the flower wars, would you be opposed to adding something to the effect of "Source X claims the flower wars were created as part of these reforms, however some scholars such as Y and Z argue there were analogous ritual wars in earlier Mesoamerican societies"? Here's the sources: Snickeringshadow (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Freidel, David A. "Maya warfare: An example of peer polity interaction." Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986): 93-108.
• Joyce, Arthur A. "The Founding of Monte Albán: Sacred Propositions and Social Practices." Agency and Archaeology. Edited by Maria-Anne Dobres and John Robb, Routledge Press, London (2000): 71-91.

That is very interesting and I did not know about the Arthur source suggesting this, but if I am not mistaken Freidel is talking about "venus warfare"? If this is what you mean then I believe this theory has since been discredited. Chimalpahin gives one account of how the Flower Wars were instituted between Chalco and the early Triple alliance - I don't have the citation right now but I can find it. I also think that most recent scholarship on the Aztecs consider it to be mostly a myth, because the Tlaxcaltec on their accounts do not share the Aztec depiction of this as staged battles for religious purposes rather they seem to have considered them battles for the political survival of their state (see e.g. Isaac, Barry L. “The Aztec "Flowery War": A Geopolitical Explanation” Journal of Anthropological Research Vol 39 No 4 (1983) ). I am not sure this is really important enough to discuss at the Triple Alliance article, but perhaps at the article on Flower war?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Freidal Source I was referring to his gloss of Chuc'ac or "capture" glyph. He argues that this represents a type of warfare that was an elite dominant activity with a ritualistic component to it. From my reading, it sounds like he argues it was analogous to, but not the same as, the Flower Wars. I completely agree about confining it to the main article, though. (I changed the sentence from "created" to "instigated" in the Triple Alliance article to try to side step the discussion.) When I have time I'll do a little more digging and see if I could add to it. Interesting note on Tlaxcala's perceptions of the flower wars, I had no idea. The diplomatic exchanges between them must have been insanely complicated. Snickeringshadow (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

Do you think we should make room for Scott Joplin? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I think maybe its too many already compared with some of the other sections - there are only 10 artists for example. Maybe we should have a discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For artists I think we should make room for Frida Kahlo. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. Although actually Rivera is probably a bigger name, and I would still prefer e.g. Monet. But then there are no women and no non-westerners.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah Monet and Hokusai are there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Still no women though. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. Nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added a couple of more women where they were missing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Have you looked Vital articles/Expanded lately? We could use someone like you over there! Also, could you do me a favor and check to make sure that the people you've added are at VA/E as well? (If not, just add them) pbp 02:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Do not restore personal attacks, I have every right to remove them per WP:TPG Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the right to remove entire comments that are otherwise constructive because part of it criticizes your behavior, no. You can strike out the particular personal attack and leave the rest of the comment in place. Or you could request the editor to refactor. Both are better than removing other editors valid commentary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Grundtvig

What did you mean by "fixed"? The article is still at N. F. S. Grundvig, with extra spaces and misspelling. PamD 08:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Language

You're rather a Chomskyan, then?;) garik (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not the least bit. I am actually more of an Everettian. But functionalists also believe that the capacity for language is innate (because all humans learn langauge if exposed to it in infancy), we just dont believe it determines the structure of grammar. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a false dichotomy. The idea that the capacity for language is innate (in the sense that any normal human being is capable of learning any language if exposed to it under the right circumstances) is not incompatible with language being an invention. And not only does Everett clearly seem to think it's an invention, he's also clearly talking about language in general, not individual languages: "Unlike physical fire, the cognitive fire of language did not exist before humans called it into being. And every individual and culture in the history of our race places its own mark upon this tool. It is an invention that envelops all humans. It unites. It divides. It warms our hearts. It chills our souls. It invigorates our bodies and steels young men for battle. It gives us the greatest pleasure of all—focused and ordered thoughts. We have become Homo loquax, as author Tom Wolfe calls us, or 'speaking man'. We are the masters of this raging cognitive fire."

To put it another way, we possess an innate capacity for all sorts of things, such as clothing and fire-making, but that doesn't mean they're not inventions. garik (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not the case that all humans acquire the ability to make fire or clothes within the first three years of life if raised in an environment where there is clothes and fire. The analogy doesn't hold.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, but children who are heavily exposed to clothes-making and fire-making techniques do pick them up. That said, I agree that, if language is a technology (and, as I say below, I'm also not convinced that's really quite the right term), it is a somewhat unusual one in a number of ways. garik (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if by "language" you mean something like "the cognitive architecture that allows us to have language", then it's not an invention. But that's not what I mean by "language", and I'm pretty sure it's not what Everett means either. I don't think that's a useful way to define language unless you take a Chomskyan stance. garik (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In that piece Everett is writing for a general audience and he is trying to get the point across that grammar is not determined by innate neural modules. When he says language I believe he means "grammar", which is also the way I would use it - and he would probably call the capacity something else. And his point is that grammar is specific to individual languages and the socio-cultural-historical trajectories that bring them into being and not biologically determined. I am quite sure he uses the word "invention" not to suggest that someone somewhere invented language - which is the usual implication of that word, and why I object to its use in characterizing language. "Invention" is not generally used to describe slow evolutionary processes where there is no single person who ever makes a groundbreaking discovery. I am very sure that he realizes that there is overwhelming evidence that language has not been "invented" in that sense and that he is using the word in the sense sense that its structure is a result of social conventions, not innate biological ones. His other academic writings suggest that he does. This is also the reason language is ont a technology - without language tghre woudl be no humans. Homo sapiens evolved with language and is an integral part of our species identity. It is not like clothes that you can remove (and which incidentally are not even as universal as language is among human cultures). If language is a technology then so is being bipedal and omnivorous and raising children - it is something humans do because we cannot not do it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that it would be highly misleading to think of it as an invention in the sense of some individual making a groundbreaking discovery. That's not what I was trying to say. In this context we need to think terms of a cultural-evolutionary process of invention. And while I agree that "invention" may be a poor choice of word because it might imply some groundbreaking individual inventor, I don't think that the word necessarily implies that. I think that inventions can be collaborative processes in which the "inventors" may not even be aware that they are inventing something. Rudi Keller's characterisation of language as a phenomenon of the third kind is perhaps a better way of looking at it (not the product of purely natural forces, or of deliberate human design, but a large-scale epiphenomenal result of many small-scale human behaviours).

But I'm not so certain that without language there would be no humans, although it depends what you mean by that. What I mean is I'm not 100% certain that if we were to perform the forbidden experiment, we'd get language arising in a single generation, although you'd almost certainly get communication. I suspect (albeit tentatively) that the transition from whatever communication systems would arise to something we'd be happy to call language would take a generation or two more. But that may not be what you mean. You may mean that, if human beings had never had language, we'd be very different now. I think that's certainly true, but I don't think that's incompatible with the view that language is an invention (in the broad sense of invention I think Everett intends: a long cultural-evolutionary process involving many "inventors" who may well not be aware of what they're creating) I think you're right, by the way, that the analogy with clothes isn't quite right. I think a better analogy is the use of physical hand-held tools. These too are an integral piece of our species's identity, and they've helped shape us.

In any case, I think we differ not so much in what we think language is as in how we think the word "invention" has to be understood. garik (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think we differ then in the beliefs about the likely outcome of the "forbidden experiment". My point about being not-human is that if the outcome of the experiment would be people without language ( here at least understood as a form of communication that is much more complex than that of other species) - then those people would not be humans except in the strictly biological sense. As a species we are characterized by being linguistic and cultural and the process of becoming linguistic and cultural is what has driven also our biological evolution to where it is today. Is a bird's nest technology? A mole's tunnel? A seagull's rock that it drops on a seashell? The bee's dance? I don't think any of those would fall under the label "invention" and I don't even think they would usually be considered technology. Technology is something that we can do without and still be basically the same kind of creature just at a lower technological level. Technology also includes the notion of serving a specific purpose and having been developed for that purpose through an exertion of will and craft (tekhnē). Another reason I object so strongly to the label of technology is that I think it is fundamentally wrongheaded in that it subsumes all of culture under the label technology - which reduces culture to its practical-functional uses bereaving it of the crucial role as the primary medium through which we experience the social world. The category culture should be put on articles about technology - not vice versa.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting points, and—I should say—I'm really not sure that "technology" or "invention" are really good words to describe language either (at least I don't think they're quite right). That said, I'm certainly a little happier than you are at applying such terms to some of the cultural products of other species, if not necessarily all the examples you list; I think—as I believe you do, if I understand you right—that all technologies are cultural, and I'm not sure that all the examples you list are products of culture. I'm also not sure I share your view that homo sapiens without language would not be human, or that technology cannot be species-defining, but it's been interesting to discuss this with you. Perhaps some day we'll find ourselves at the same conference and discuss it in person. garik (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are right that those are not cultural, but my point is that culture (or more specifically symbolic reasoning) is to humans what those things are to their respective species - part of the suite of traits made them able to emerge and succeed as a species. Yes, I agree it was an interesting talk - maybe we have already been at the same conference? Were you at the LSA meeting in Boston in January? Are you UK based as your user boxes suggest? There are some good linguists in Wales - I find Vyvyan Evans' work particularly interesting. And H.P. Manning's work on Welsh miner's speech comes to mind.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently New-York based, although I was UK- (Edinburgh-)based until a year or two ago. I couldn't make this year's LSA meeting, but I'm planning to attend next year's in Minneapolis, and I plan to be at CogSci in Germany this year. I find Vyvyan Evans's work interesting too. garik (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

During my time in grad school I was a fairly regular attendee of Evolang, incidentally. garik (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

I think I emailed you about Cherokee calendar. The only sources for this title are fringe astrology stuff, Cherokee ceremonial cycle can be sourced. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sorry. I did receive it, but was unsure what course of action you were advocating? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

At the moment it is not about a Cherokee calendar but a list of Cherokee names for the Julian calendar, with some nonsense about phases of the moon - I'm assuming whoever wrote it doesn't understand what the moon phases are. I was able to determine that Bruhac's book does not suggest that the Cherokee had 13 whatever, he writes about 13 moons with a section on each with a story based on different tribal traditins - the Cherokee are represented by a story about the tenth moon (can't recall which one it was) - you were right the first time, Bruhac is a red herring and I can't see how he is used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D5z3-OHbcVoC&pg=PA54&dq=cherokee+ceremonial+cycle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PvgLUdr9KafB0gXPoYCwCQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cherokee%20ceremonial%20cycle&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1062645?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101740791487

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OEbTf663pDcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP7&dq=cherokee+ceremonial+cycle&ots=_BiBTGshtL&sig=2wIxUghf2L0Q5DVRhodlrD_UD5U#v=onepage&q=cherokee%20ceremonial%20cycle&f=false

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/southern_cultures/v018/18.4.snyder.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3JH-TPFjLk4C&pg=PA349&dq=cherokee+ceremonial+cycle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PvgLUdr9KafB0gXPoYCwCQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=cherokee%20ceremonial%20cycle&f=false

Archaeoastronomy - Volumes 14-15 - Page 130 books.google.co.uk/books?id=kyArAQAAIAAJ

1999 - Snippet view - More editions

Adair understood the Cherokee calendar, which is actually two interlockingcalendars or cycles, and the use of the word ... Jones again did not credit Adair (Williams 1930:80) when Jones wrote: "The year commenced with the first newmoon of the ... 12. In Ohio today, the return of the vultures is still "an annual event that is celebrated with great fanfare" (Romain 1991:44). 13. Although Dorsey and Swanton (1912:329) list the definition of ska'lo nu'pha as a "quarter of a dollar," Rosa was ... Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A message from User:Darkness Shines

Copied from his talkpage on his request. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maunus, please accept my apology for the unwarranted attack I made on you. Having had a bad couple of weeks I took my frustrations out on you, there is of course no excuse for it, but I was in a very bad frame of mind. I hope you can accept my apology. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I took no offense at all. I do understand that you were frustrated at the outcome of the ANI discussion, and that you felt slandered, and that the rules are unfair. I also want you to know that I for one did not mean to accuse you of being a racist, I dont know you at all and though I disagree with some of your editing I do not take that to mean you are a bad person. My reason for restoring what you saw as personal attacks was that I do believe that good faith critiques of behavior should be addressed with evidence instead of removed as personal attacks. Thanks for writing, and I hope you come back to editing soon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Talk:Turkish dialects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colon-el-Nuevo

You have previously blocked User: Colon-el-Nuevo for disruptive editing on articles and talk pages related to [{Christopher Columbus]]. I think the user just doesn't get what we're saying, and I don't see how they can be a useful member of the WP community. Most recently, he's been re-adding his own theories (I think that he has admitted to being one of the major scholars in fringe Columbus theories, though I'm not 100% certain) to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. While the factual basis behind the edits isn't entirely wrong (i.e., it is another Origin Theory, and thus could probably be mentioned), his phrasing is such that it seems like this new research is clearly and undeniably correct. Would you be interested in seeing if a long-term block might be appropriate? Or would you rather the community weigh in at WP:ANI? I'm not really WP:INVOLVEd, as my mine function on those articles is to tell the fringe theorists to find RS-quality evidence that their personal fringe theory is worthy of inclusion...but there's no reason for me to take chances by making the call myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to take it to ANI as I am not currently an administrator. I would not hesitate to block him for a long period though - he has received many many last warnings.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that once I feel like pulling together the case. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Move List of important publications in anthropology

I have requested that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

R

Sorry, didn't see your reply to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#Ngombe_language_.28Central_African_Republic.29. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

L1A/L2A

Hi Maunus. I noticed your question on Cnilep's talk the other day, and I found a little bit of relevant info inside Rod Ellis's The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd ed., pp.105-109, 745-746. The second edition isn't available online, but you can see the first edition's version of pp.105-109 here, and it mostly hasn't changed. There was this 2001 study mentioned in the 2nd edition that might be of help, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Language

Not all of these are on Wikidata yet. Could you please add them before removing the interwiki links. —Ruud 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

L1 L2

I left you 2 more suggestions for L1/L2 acquisition comparisons on Mr. Stradivarius's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Quick FYI: The person who listed it as to be added or removed is the 1st supporter, so if you support as well, it's up to 2 supports. Otherwise, good edit. pbp 01:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Aztec mythology

Wow! Have you seen the Aztec mythology article as completely re-written by Gigette? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

No? It doesn't look as if it has been edited by her for awhile. You mean on the Spanish wiki? I've noticed she is editing there and that noone seems to notice/care that she is basically advancing her own OR all over the Spanish site. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. We must have forgotten to take care of that the last time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also she has created a new article with the same balderdash here;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator-Gods. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The Aztec creator gods article should be nominated for speedy deletion because of the reasons you tagged it with and because it repeats information in other articles. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Gigette is vandalizing the Aztec mythology article again. Check it out. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I read the Aztec mythology article and the individual articles about the gods and they are very different. Another difference is that the individual articles are heavily referenced and Gigette's article has none. Shouldn't it be nominated for speedy deletion? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Wittgenstein: "though this is disputed"

I was going to good-faith rollback too, but I wanted to confirm that it should be, so I tagged it with a citation needed. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. "though this is disputed" is lazy and uninformative - if he has specific people disputing Wittgensteins own view of the relation between his two main works he should present them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahuiateteo

Hello Mr.President Maunus, I'm here to ask you if I can rename "Ahuiateteo" to "Macuiltonaleque"?, I think it is more common the second name because the names of these spirits or these minor gods begin with "Macuil...", also many sources says that both names are correct, otherwise I did not create this article and I hope your exclusive wonderful and newest sources allow it. Best regards. --Giggette (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt you should make a move request on the talkpage and present your sources in support of the requested move.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

KP

You are preaching to the converted. Why not just let things on the talk page develop for now? There is method in my madness, I promise you. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be a very useful method to ask for sources. There are of course many Indian Hindu nationalist sources that repeat Monier-Williams claim that the kashmiri pandits are the "purest aryans" as if it held scientific value today 200 years later. He can produce as many of those sources as he likes and it still doesn't make it so - but it does make us have to spend time showing that they are non-reliable every time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I realise that but there is still a method. I am just not willing to share it because he'll wikilawyer about collusion etc. He's made an accusation of tag-teaming in an edit summary, which is complete nonsense but typical behaviour. I rather think you and he have had dealings previously, in which case you will probably already know this. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember having interacted with him in the past, no.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity article

Hello, Maunus. You may be interested to know that an IP has replied to you in an old discussion you had at the Gender identity article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Not partiuclarly, no. Thanks anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA

There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you pbp 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits: Narendra Modi

Please discuss changes made to the article on the discussion page first. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no such requirement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In this edit[1] you revert my edit using twinkle without supplying an edit summary or a reason for the reversion. That is not an ok way to revert good faith edits, especially not edits that have been explained in the editsummary of the one who made them. Twinkle reversions are for obvious vandalism. Recersion of any edit that is not obvious vandalism requires that at least you provide a reason in the editsummary, and at best that you start a discussion at the talk page. I was not impressed with your post to my talkpage suggesting that I am not allowed to edit the article without prior discussion. I am. And everyone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I had left a notification on your talk page. The article has been edited by several users before and there are many portions of it which are currently in dispute. In such a scenario, it is always courteous to leave a comment on the talk page before jumping in and making changes to the lead section of an article. The biography article is about an individual, not the organizations that he is affiliated with. The qualities of the organizations are best described on their own pages, which is the practice on Wikipedia. For instance, Barack Obama's page does not say that he belongs to the left-liberal Democratic Party in the United States. The would be wide generalization. Leaving English translations of the names of organizations is neither helpful nor the practice on Wikipedia (apart from the fact that the translation was wholly inaccurate). If you require assistance with editing, it is always best to seek help on the talk page of the article so that other users can, if possible, support you with your request. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't need help with editing thanks. I have been here quite some time and have a wideranging experience of editing contentious pages and I have twice as many edits as you so drop the condescenscion please. Calling the US democratic party "left liberal" is false and POV, whereas the description of the BJP that I included in fact was sourced and came from the wikipedia article about the party, as did the translations. The article on Obama does describe his political views and proposed and supported legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's my fault.

I'm sorry, it's my fault. In an effort to word the RfC as neutrally as I can, I changed the wording from a "Yes/No" question to a "anti-immigration/anti-illegal immigration" question.[2] So, it's not clear which side of the fence your !no vote falls on. Again, it's my fault. Can you please clarify which position you support? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lova Falk talk 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

	Love the shirt!
	Just got the shirt through the Merchandise Giveaway Programme. Thanks for your vote of confidence!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

About Giggette

For your information, I've asked for help there.

El Comandante (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Questioned

Excuse me, is this map File:Aztecexpansion.png yours?, authorship?, because it says "enwiki/Maunus". --Giggette (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is in the public domain. I made it many years ago based on Ross Hassigs book Aztec Warfare. It is not particularly accurate and can certainly do with an improvement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So why are you trying to support Giggette's POV, after saying you support my removal? I don't understand. Do you think that Isthmus of Tehuantepec should be included in Aztec empire, and what more reliable source than Berdan & Smith works supports it? El Comandante (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to supprt her POV, but I am suggesting that the map is not so terrible that it is better to have no map at all. A better map is better, but any map will have some degree of distortion of the actual very complex situation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

But the problem isn't that there is no more reliable map. The one created by Sémhur, based on Yavidaxiu's map, based on Arqueología Mexicana, is a reliable map (i.e. supported by various reliable sources). El Comandante (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please cite the exact page of the map(s) you used from Aztec Warfare? I can't find any global map of the Aztec empire, just maps of Aztec rulers' campaigns' route like this one, without states' boundaries. El Comandante (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't one. It is a composite of the different campaign maps. When I made that the standards for sourcing on wikipedia were very different from what they are now. It probably would be considered original research today. You could remove it from the articles where it appears if you like, but on the other hand as I said Lopez Lujan apparently thought it was informative enough that he would use it in a public talk. (I must admit I didnt know whether to be flattered or shocked when he used it)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please comment on Talk:Thought_identification

Re: John Norseen and Lockheed Martin

I'm beside myself trying to update information that I believe to be very relevent. It looks to me like several users who "hang out" at "ANI:Fringe" are working together to remove well sourced, valid, on topic material which shows the state of military research into thought identification. Outside comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Damonthesis (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Modi

I will have to undo your edit on the page, it is the fact that there were several inaccuracies, the source doesn't say that critics have argued that. It is presented as fact in the source.-sarvajna (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesnt matter it is nonsencical in the way it is currently written. And the inaccuracies may be presented as fact, but the conclusion namely "that it questions the sting operation" (which is nonsensical since it is not the opertation that is being question but the veracity of the claims) is not a fact but an interpretation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that there might be inaccuracies in the claims made in the sting operation but we should say that everything presented in the sting were correct and only critics argue that they were not, that makes no sense. Can you please make your objections more clear? -sarvajna (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is only critics (and apparently the SIT) who draw the conclusion that the existence of inaccuracies in the statements invalidates the tapes as evidence. (This is of course a ridiculous claim because the very fact that the people in the tape would boast of having participated in the violence incriminates them whether or not the details of their boasting are correct) Perhaps there are inaccuracies, but that does not necessarily invalidate the entire tape - that is a conclusion drawn almost entirely by Modi supporters, whereas Modi criticis do not draw that criticism. Furthermore the wording said that it drew into question the operation itself and not the veracity of the statements - that is meaningless. If I film you saying a lie that does not put into question the recording, only the veracity of what you say in the recording. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what was written, inaccuracies in the sting operation doesn't mean that the sting is not authentic. The sting is very much authentic but people filmed lied. -sarvajna (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I misunderstood what was written - it was a nonsense sentence. You on the other hand are not even understanding what I am saying - you are repeating what I just said but apparently believe you are contradicting me. The sentence that was in the article said that it was the operation that was being questioned, which as you apparently realize is not the case. What was questioned was whether the people filmed lied. Now take this to the talkpage, and please try to read the text closer before reverting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

FYI: I have initiated a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard to report the recent edit-warring on the Narendra Modi biography page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please do not descend to making personal attacks against your fellow users. (Although I must admit I lolled.) I don't need to link you to NPA, you know where it is. -- Y not? 22:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

[3].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The eunuch err, user in question left me no choice but to reinsert it[4]. Take action as you see fit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you are baiting me to block you. I will quote Pontius Pilate from Jesus Christ Super Star: "Don't let me stop your great self-destruction! Die if you want to, you misguided martyr!" -- Y not? 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maunus, this is unfortunate. You're much more useful unblocked. But maybe now you'll have time to clean the kitchen and finally put that laundry away. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unwarranted attack

You've written at talk:Narendre Modi: "IN fact what I want is that the article conform to WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. No "uninvolved" editor apart from Darkness Shines have intervened here. Just the hindu nationalist propaganda team lead by Yogesh and yourself." Shouldn't you not be making personal attacks? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

He is already blocked for that; that being making personal attacks on editors and not this paricular attack. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

You seem to suffer from the misapprehension that WP should be focused on writing and maintaining an encyclopedia, and that honesty is required among writers. These 48 hours will help you to reassess the reality of editing here.

Would you consider adjusting your signature? (Unless you have a financial interest in increasing diagnoses of dyslexia or personal interest in straining my eyes....) My control-F search does not find your signature. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I kind of like the signature, over the years it has kind of become ...well my signature. But I will consider changing it when i can log back in after may 31st.68.9.182.96 (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

I went looking to see if this was actually a genocide, still unsure but what has struck me is the amount of academic sources which call it the Anti- Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002. I am thinking of doing a RM on the article, what do you think are the chances of success 20:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they are slim to none aslong as the happy band of Hindu Nationalsists are allowed to maintain wikipedia as their personal playground. Apparently hardly any regular non-SPA editors care about this area of the encyclopedia. I have received no response at all in any of the RfCs or noticeboard posts I have made, which has also been a reason for my attempts to draw admin attention throug "non-conventional means". My strategy seems to have had a modicum of success.68.9.182.96 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please. How do I know that you are who you say you are? And why edit logged out? If you are who you say you are, are you not concerned that sometimes, some other people may impersonate you in this way?OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oranges, you have to assume good faith. You seem to find this difficult to do, if your various comments at Talk:Narendra Modi are anything to go by, but there are legitimate reasons for editing while logged out and, really, in this particular situation it doesn't really matter whether the IP is Maunus or someone else: you and others could simply address the points that are being raised.

FWIW, earlier this year I found myself in an unusual situation and could not log in for quite a few days; as with the present situation, I declared that I was editing as an IP. It isn't ideal, sure, but perhaps for once in your Wikipedia life you could AGF someone who holds a different viewpoint from yours? - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, your situation was very different, you answered few questions. The issues raised would not be a problem but you see this person editing from IP called some editor a joker on the page of Modi, now who is responsible for such incivility Maunus or the IP? Suppose there is a RM discussion should we expect more than one id from Munus? -sarvajna (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I got into several protracted discussions while editing using at least three different IPs. Is there a RM discussion? If you are just hypothesising then this looks like a lot of hot air, and any such issues could be addressed if/when such a situation arises. I must admit to being unsure why Maunus doesn't ask for the enforcer to be lifted but that is entirely their decision. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have given other reasons like disruption, please check ANI. Feel free to defend Maunus.-sarvajna (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am neither defending nor attacking anyone. I'm merely commenting, in part based on my own experiences. You've now raised a breach of 3RR at ANI and, yes, if it happened then that is a valid cause for concern. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush. You do not expect anyone to be enamored by your distortions of other people's usernames. Not that I expect you to show any sort of sensitivity.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am lost now. What are you talking about? - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What am I talking about? My username is not "Oranges". That's what I am talking about. :-( OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. MangoWong used to get upset about people contracting their username, although I cannot recall anyone else who has felt the same. And you are both named after fruits. How odd! - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it when ppl can me Dharma. But then its better than DD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would like all of you wankers (excluding Sitush who is a reasonable fellow) to sod off from my talkpage now. And don't come back unless it is to notify me of a discussion somewhere else. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Maunus, I dont know what you are watching. Hence pasting this notice in all possible venues. The discussion is here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Maunus! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maunus, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amit (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is me again. And I feel strongly against you using multiple IP's to push a point in a discussion. Either login or use one IP or identify yourself with some form of signature if you believe you are doing it by mistakeAmit (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP is not an "account". And I am not using multiple IPs to push a point. I am using them to communicate.68.9.182.96 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples, Tertiary Source Removal

Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because

1) they were placed there by the authors or associates of the authors as part of a campaign to advertise their articles at the expense of vandalizing Wikipedia. They made similar additions to 28 different articles, some unrelated to their expertise.

2) tertiary sources are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources, secondary sources are required.

Since you were not aware of the history of the contributors, I can understand your objections. It would be helpful if you undid your own edit. Thanks, BlueMist (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong that tertiary sources are not accepted. Secondary sources are preferred but not required. This can be seen in the policy WP:TERTIARY. Spam on the other hand is a valid reason for removal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Unfortunately, wiki policy leaves wiggle room for "more reliable" tertiary sources. It should not, although my shoulds don't matter to wiki. Unlike many secondary sources, tertiary sources are not independently peer reviewed, thus there is no way to know which ones are more or less reliable.

In this instance, the sources are pushed by two unregistered IP's, both from the Durham area, and of the 28 pages, at least 2 are about Durham U. The Encyclopedia is sold by Amazon for $328.23, plus or minus, and there are no reviews and there is no online access. I would not think that reliable.

Well, in any case, I really don't think those folk should be adding not one, but three references to this page. BlueMist (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows many sources that are not peer reviewed, and so it should. Topical encyclopedias and other tertiary sources published by academic presses are most certainly peerreviewed and their entries are written by established experts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy aside, you seem hell bent on retaining these useless, IP spammed references. Have you read the three articles? As far as I can tell, you'd have to buy their $328- encyclopedia, even then you would have no way of peer reviewing the text and its possible social or political biases. BlueMist (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty ridiculous to claim that I seem hell bent when I have already conceded that these inclusions are spam. I maybe hell bent that you shouldnt misrepresent policy when you revert good faith inclusions. We accept tertiary sources and we always have. You can get access to their encyclopedia through a library if you want to review it. It is also not a requirement for sources that they be available for purchase at a particularly economic prize.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"nonsense. several of these are reliably published"

Only one of those sources appears to be possibly reliable. The rest are unreliable. If we were looking at science rather than literary criticism I think you would more quickly agree, but the same standard of sourcing holds, these are very poor sources and there are proper venues to look for literary criticism which will undoubtedly provide good material without resorting to bad sources and synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The same standards obviously do not hold for literary criticism, no. Most literary criticism is not peer reviewed for example. Mountain astrologer is a reliable source for Astrology viewpoints. And the solution would be to find the better sources, not to remove information that is obviously true and verifiable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You were

Right about the equivalent of there being genocide deniers in the topic area, the ironic part being I now have Indian editors accusing me of being a POV pusher and trying to get my articles deleted, and just a few short weeks ago I was a pro Indian POV pusher Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, me being the director of the recruitment centre, I give you the ok to become a recruiter if you wish. I trust that you have reviewed more than 15 nominations....especially when your first was in '08.--Dom497 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese-Korean mixed children

aka Lai Đại Hàn. Are you aware of some English-language sources about this topic? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I am. A google scholar search produced two: [5][6]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Those sources talk of abandonment by father but not of rape as a common element. I suspect there's some POV pushing going on, with the only source possibly supporting that latter claim in the article being a Japanese one. (Assuming this was even based on a source.) Just another rubbish corner of Wikipedia... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you ever

decide to write about the Western perspective on events that happened (or maybe didn't) somewhere (not so) far away, then Vera Renczi would probably make a good piece. I suspect at some point a historian is going to seriously investigate a 20th century event in Europe with no dates or any names for most of the victims, witnesses, and so forth. Insofar only the Guiness Book did that, but the presses, including quite a few academic ones, keep [re]printing their truth, even forty years later. The criminology equivalent of a just so story... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Although it's not really my ballpark, I'm afraid. But you seem pretty able, you could probably improve that article a lot yourself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenland

Please, see the Greenland talk. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen and answered.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenlandic language

Please, see the talk of Greenlandic language. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Why you feel Christopher Begley, the main archeologist working in the area, is not a reliable source for a mere claim about the legend. If he isn't reliable, the whole article might as well be deleted because he is a close to an authority as there is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are quoting a website aimed at advertising. Regardless who wrote it has no scholarly validity. If begley publishes it in a peer reviewed article then that is something else. The "birthplace of Quetzalcoatl" schtick is used about dozens of places to attract tourists - usually without basis in any kind of tradition. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My initial reaction to the site was the same as yours and I avoided using it entirely. However, I warmed to it a bit after a saw multiple professors alluding to it as having authority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Between you and me

I am not upset, I assure you, because I have every confidence things will work out (and the article has been improved substantially by the process). But it is trying to have everyone descend simultaneously -- one who's upset about the image sizes (but doesn't understand image syntax, apparently), two who don't like dashes, a bunch of people who don't like hyphenation, several people who revise sentences so they don't mean the same thing anymore, one who says he doesn't have time to read the sources but wants a false balance between competent and incompetent sources.... Meanwhile an embarrassment like this [7] sails through [8]. Again, I appreciate your efforts. Deep breath. EEng (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. Just hang in there. We'll have a really good article at the end. :) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review and clarify

You posted this as a response to a thread, started by me, discussing recent changes to Phineas Gage which I had initiated. Until your contribution this thread seems to have illustrated the best in enthusiastic cooperation between editors. I will ask you nicely to correct the false impression you have left that I am disrupting the article or behaving uncollegially in any way. I don't really want (among other things) EEng's talk page turned into an argument over this: I suggest you move your comment to a new section. If you do not understand why your comment is unclear we can of course discuss further here, but I will begin by assuming "least said, soonest mended". --Mirokado (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that is a little vexing. I should have posted it in a separate thread since it has nothing to do with your obviously excellent and collegial interaction.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Resolved now as far as I am concerned. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at EEng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA reviewing

Hey Maunus, sorry to see your frustrating experience with that GA review. I hope it won't sour you on GA reviewing generally, though. An experience like the one you just had is incredibly rare, and certainly not representative of the process as a whole the way it is at FAC. (As a side note, I never would have guessed that Phineas Gage was an article primed to explode, but I suppose you never know on Wikipedia.) Anyway, thanks for giving this a review. Your work's appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for that vote of confidence. I have occasionally had similar experiences as a nominator unfortunately, which is why I really wanted to do a collaborative and friendly review with respect for the content writer and a reasonably relaxed approach to stylistics and formatting without forcing arbitrary MOS requirements onto their work. When I saw that I would no longer be able to carry out the review like that because of the sudden influx of other editors with a very different approach I did get frustrated and should probably just have taken a step back instead of starting to act as the spokesperson for the content writer (who didn't even nominate in the first place), and I do acknowledge my role in escalating the dispute. I don't think I will come back as a reviewer or nominator for a good while. For me article quality is about substance and the quality of research not the degree of conformity to an arbitrary standard of formatting. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's an easy mistake to make, and I've done the same thing; you get invested in an article you're working on, as a good reviewer in some ways should, and then it's hard to remember to step back and stay above the fray. Enjoy the break from it, but we'll leave a light on for you over at WikiProject GA--hope to see you back there sometime! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Spirited Debate

Interesting debate and you do make some good points. If you don't mind though, I'd rather continue the discussion here since the talk page of Talk:Race and genetics is getting cluttered and the focus is getting pulled away from the primary RfC focus regarding Dawkins' inclusion. That is if you want to continue. Regarding your last comment, I'm unsure whether Dawkins' and Edwards' view can be considered the minority view. But stating that race is "biologically meaningful" or "genetically significant" is a minority view, is different from stating that there is a consensus that race is not genetically significant. It is, for example, entirely possible for there to be no consensus that race is not genetically significant and for Dawkins' and Edwards' position to still also be the minority position. I'm not stating this is the case but just giving an example.

Dawkins' and Edwards' view is heavily shared among other scientists. Whether they are the minority or the majority depends on specifically what is being asked and what scientific field is being polled and where. Even if for the sake of the argument, they are the minority position, I don't see any evidence that there is a scientific consensus, across scientific fields, that race is biologically meaningless or genetically insignificant. Scientific consensus implies near universal acceptance and I just don't see that.

The views on race among scientists tend to fluctuate widely, not only from field to field, but also from country to country. Physical anthropologists in the US today do overwhelmingly deny the existence of biological races for example, but this is in stark contrast to certain fields of biology in the US where the existence of biological races is not only overwhelmingly accepted, but often considered quite significant to their field. This is the case particularly in the research of certain diseases and disorders in the field of genetics. This is also the case in the field of forensic anthropology. The view also fluctuates widely from region to region such as in Eastern Europe. Where anthropologists overwhelmingly accept that human races exist in stark contrast to US anthropologists.[9]

In regards to your comment about the mention of race in textbooks. I'm not sure what the frequency is of the argument that race is "biologically meaningful" or "genetically significant" in textbooks today but it is continuously mentioned in major mainstream peer review journals today as detailed here.[10] But really all the controversy regarding this is due to the fact that there is no concrete scientific definitions for any of these terms. Such as "race" or "biologically meaningful" or "genetically significant". It's important to note that all the objective facts that lead to the positions mentioned by Lewontin, Edwards, and Dawkins are all universally accepted. All of them are looking at and accept the exact same data. It's only when you bring in subjective terms like "race", "biologically meaningful", "genetically significant" that the interpretations of the objective data now differ. BlackHades (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to note the reasons why different fields come to different conclusions about whether it is meaningful/significant or not. Edwards'/Dawkins' argument which is entirely gene-centric is that any correlation of genes with populations is by definition significant, no matter how minuscule, because it does show that a certain gene has spread more in one population than in another. This of course means that if we can take a group of "white people" and find out they have a slightly higher frequency of x number of genes than "brown people" then the categories of white and brown people are biologically meaningful in their sense. It does however also mean that if we take a population from Liverpool and one from Cornwall and investigate enough loci - there is likely to be a "meaningful" biological difference between those two as well. That of course doesn't mean that the distinction between cornish and liverpudlians is based on biology. But it does mean that the distinction between cornish and liverpudlians is just as taxonomically and biologically siognificant as "race". The issue with forensic and medical practitioners is that they're view of what is meaningful and significant is whether it allows them to do their job. Because in the US skin color people do tend to classify each other by race that is the kind of information that is useful to a forensic anthropologist - therefore being able to tell anatomically what racial category someone is likely to have been classified into is very useful for them. But the problem begins when they then argue that the fact that they can tell whether someone are classified as X means that X is a natural category. This is of course a logical fallacy, because it ignores the fact that the racial categorization was based on those phenotypical traits to begin with. In medicine because of the ease of classification "race" is simply being used as a proxy for geographic ancestry, and again this makes some doctors think that this proves that race is a thing. Which for the same reason as with forensic anthropologists is a fallacy. All it does is that it shows that race correlates with a thing - not that it is the cause of the thing it causes. One might say that "racial classification" and "phenotype" and "risk of disease" are three different symptoms of the same thing: geographic ancestry, which means that they can be usefully used to predict eachother, but not to prove the existence of each other. Forensic anthropologists and racial medicine proponents also tend to downplay the practical problems that result from use of race as proxies - for example the risk of undertreating populations that also have risk but fall outside of the racial category (e.g. sickle cell among mediterraneans) or stigmatizing populations that have only a slightly higher risk than the population at large. The argument made by anthropologists and geneticians studying human population history is generally that the correlation between race and population structure and history is insignificant compared to all the other parameters such as migration patterns, geographic and national boundaries, specific population events etc. because the appearance of "race" is is a symptom of those parameters and not the cause. My problem is this: we know that racial classification has a particular set of historical ideologies connected to it that we know have been and continue to be extremely harmful - and we also know that geneticians, forensic scientists and doctors can do their job just as well without using the category because they only use it as a proxy for geographic - then why not simply use the categories of populations and genetic ancestry instead of race? (which incidentally is what genetics texbooks like vogel and motulsky, and introductions to human genetic diversity, do). I believe it was Lewontin who wrote that categorizing people by race only makes sense in a racist society. Now, society is racist, which is why those categories seem meaningful to us - but wouldn't it be better to make a different kind of society where we don't make our science conform to our political categories but instead make our categories conform to science? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Image sandwich

I'm sorry the GA process was so hard on you -- not a very nice reward for volunteering. I wanted to ask, though, about image "sandwiching". I'm certainly aware that it's best to not have images at left and right of the same block of text lines, though it's not a complete no-no. What I don't understand is why this sandwiching [11] is ok but this [12] isn't. Not trying to give you a hard time -- just want to know if there's some specific guideline re sandwiching in the lead. This image is close to iconic for the Gage case, and the combination of the portrait of the man holding the iron, with the diagram of it going through his head, is unusually effective way to introduce the reader to what the article's about. That's why I'd like the diagram in the lead. EEng (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking back. I think sandwiching is sometimes ok in the body of the aryicle, but I have never seen it being accepted in the lead. I think this is because due to reading flow a left aligned image in the lead will be the first thing seen by the reader, even before the definition. The reader then on encountering the image has none of the information required for understanding its significance. I actually don't know that this is a written rule on the order of seriousness as the italicizing latin abbreviations or not, or whether one could make a case by argument that it may be acceptable in certain situations. As reviewer I would require a very good rationale indeed for dispensing with the obvious drawbacks of such a layout. You could probably somehow arrange the infobox so that it has both images - e.g by fusing them into a single file.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, though obviously this issue will have to be taken up at a later time. Now listen, I know you're trying to be supportive, but please don't engage Malevolent Fatuous anymore in my defense. Everyone knows what he is, and more importantly so does he, but reminding him of it just enrages him. EEng (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Right you are.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input.John Carter (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the discussion going to take place? I have some comments to the "religious texts" section and some more general comments if you like.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me add a dedicated section to the end of the page for discussion and drafting. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Race and genetics RfC

The section for proposals should be neutrally-worded and not favor any particular position. Aprock's insertion to that section was blatantly arguing for the proposal he favored. Such statements should be made in the comments sections, not in the intro section, which is about providing people a neutral summary of the issue and, in this case, making neutral proposals for resolving the issue. As a former admin you should already be aware of this.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then move the argumentative commentary down to the commentary section under Aprock's comment and leave the option C in place. As someone who sees fit to lecture others you should be aware that WP:TPO clearly says not to remove other peoples commentary unless they are making personal attacks - and especially not to editwar removing other people's comments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't the same as a comment and even then seemed more to me like Aprock editing BH's comment than leaving his own.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried my best to word the RfC as neutral as possible. I encouraged Aprock and others to look over my draft of the RfC 3 days before I posted it. Aprock never said a word to me. Maunus, if I inserted the following to the RfC, would you consider it appropriate or blatant cherry picking? If you consider it inappropriate, can you explain what would be the difference between this and what Aprock is doing?

Dawkins clearly disagreed with Lewontin.

"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Dawkins

BlackHades (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that Dawkins agrees with Lewontin?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Artifex was arguing that Dawkins was in complete agreement with Lewontin in Talk:Race and genetics before DRN. My point was the RfC is suppose to give a neutral summary and not cherry picked lines tagged with editor interpretation of the meaning of the cherry picked line. Even the context aside, phrases like "clearly hold" is far from neutral. BlackHades (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Artifex was clearly wrong then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@BlackHades, as you never raised the issue on the talk page, there was never anything to respond to. All you did was turn to edit warring over a very reasonable excerpt from the book. It was added after you strangely asserted "No Dawkins does not ever state his position is outside the mainstream". The quoted text clearly demonstrates that it is Lewontin's view which is mainstream, and that Dawkins is taking issue with a specific aspect of it. If you think there could be more nuance or context to the quote, that would be a reasonable thing to mention or correct. Removing it was not. aprock (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is that particular quote being added to the section for proposal C? It seems like you are trying to persuade people that said proposal, one which reflects your position in the dispute, is the correct position. Altering an RfC for that reason would be very much in conflict with the policy regarding such dispute resolution mechanisms.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest you take your concerns to the article talk page. aprock (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind being wrong, but I'd like to see a diff for the claim that "Artifex was arguing that Dawkins was in complete agreement with Lewontin..." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

[13] BlackHades (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion there is a big difference between "Dawkins [is] in complete agreement with Lewontin" and "Dawkins is in complete agreement with Lewontin's science." As the diff shows, I did not "argue" the former (because it is obviously false). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - OrangesRyellow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Mesoamerican languages
Thank you for sharing your profound knowledge of Mesoamerica, especially its rich heritage of languages and the linguists who care about them, like Benjamin Lee Whorf, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (13 August 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 161st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. Thanks also for your help with Kafka! Do you see a possibility to have your findings in a separate article, for his upcoming birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Which findings do you mean? The syntax?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Embergher article

I will work on the expansion. Thank you for your invitation! I was beginning to look at sources for him last night.Jacqke (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the invite. I was surprised how fast it came together, especially when we started editing at the same time. I will probably add to your Ranieri article too!Jacqke (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of great info in the sparks book which is available on google books.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

After I found that cubist mandolin, I am beginning to think that Emberger and his shop were as great at their art as Gibson and Lloyd Loar. I think I need to see that spark book.Jacqke (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Having owned a 1916 Gibson and a 1921 Embergher I can certainly say that in terms of sound quality and craftmanship I don't see Gibson having any particular advantage (granted I haven't had a Loar). The Embergher scalloping and the in-lay work in emberghermandolin is really amazingly done, and the sound is the warmest I have ever heard out of a flattop instrument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am currently playing a Cumbus myself right now. Like playing the the F-style and to try the European next. That mandolin article is looking much more balanced. There is a better balance of photos now, with a variety of people.Jacqke (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Q re usernames in ANI sec titles

"Sure you can have usernames, but not accusations against users formulated as if they were statements of fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)"

I didn't know that, and assume it is policy. (If one or more spurious ANI cases opened against a user have had their username in the title with such accusations formulated, but the ANI sections are archived, can the titles be modified?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that generally editing the archives is discouraged. If I were you I'd request that an admin do it, and if they think its ok they would help you out.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Marks, et al

I'm glad to see that you're still around. In the months since we crossed swords on evolutionary psychology etc, I've tried to become less confrontational. Discussions about human biological nature on the Internet, however, seem to bring out the worst in people.

Thanks for the pointer toward Jonathan Marks. I've added him to my list of experts who are firmly in the nurture camp. Everybody I read thinks that nature plays a big role in human personality, so I like to keep a list of people who disagree with me. I don't want to exaggerate the dominance of the new paradigm (innate predispositions to learn certain things). Like him, I was in school in the 80s, and I learned that there was no such thing as race. I carried that with me until 10 - 15 years ago. It just doesn't seem to be a tenable position any more, given the latest genetic evidence. We've learned a lot since Lewontin. Naturally you disagree with my conclusions, although I wonder how much of our disagreement is semantic.

Marks is an 80s-era anthropologist who writes extensively about how other people are wrong. Maybe you could help me on two points. First, are there well regarded experts whose opinions were formed after 1992 (the rebirth of evolutionary psychology) and who think that there's no genetic basis to race (or no good reason to consider human behavior from an evolutionary point of view)? I know that folks from before 1992 were against a biological understanding of human nature, but what about since then? Second, are there well-regarded anti-genetic, anti-evolutionary experts who can write extensively about recent discoveries along those lines? The proponents of EP and biological race cite all sorts of recent research and discoveries, but the detractors seem to spend all their time cutting down the research without demonstrating important new research findings of their own. I'd love to see a book about all the great new stuff that anthropologists (or sociologists) have discovered in the last 20 years that confirms their pre-EP viewpoints. Nicholas Wade, for example, criticizes anthropologists, but he spends most of his time using new research findings to demonstrate that his side is right rather than debunking the other side.

Anyway, now I'm having second thoughts about what I've written here because as nice as I'm trying to be it's still going to come across as confrontational. I'd like to think we could put our preconceptions aside and look at the facts to come to a meeting of the minds, but is that really realistic? Leadwind (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks. Marks is not in the "nurture camp" - there is no "nurture"camp and if there were there would hardly be many geneticists there. The nature nurture debate is over and has been for at least a decade. Yes, evolutionary pyschologists and hard-core neo-Darwinians didn't get the memo, and are still trying to prove that nurture is irrelevant. They are of course wrong - both are very highly relevant and the long one tries to ignore one of the fields the more ignorant one will remain. Marks is a geneticist who is entirely up to date on everything that has happened in the field since he got his PhD - just as every other professional does.Your assessment of Wade is also wrong - he is entirely a onesided debunker who most of the time doesn't even try to understand what he criticizes, and neither understands nor mentions the huge empirical holes in the data he publicizes. I have don't have a problem with you, and don't consider my self antagonistic to you - but I do have a problem with people who embrace the glorious pomises of genomics without even pausing to think whether there might be some problems to solve also. As we know morons rush in where angels fear to thread. This is how I feel about most of the fundamentalist genetics church for which Wade is an apostle. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sad to read your response and sorry to have offended you. If you and I ever try to find common ground some day, maybe we can start with the universally acknowledged fact that nurture matters. Leadwind (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be sad. We have plenty of common ground - for one our interest in this topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You and I would have more in common if one of us didn't have an interest in this topic. Leadwind (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, that may well be right. Especially if it were you. :) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please e-mail me

Maunus, when you have a moment would you please e-mail me. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:EmbergherMandola5bis.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:EmbergherMandola5bis.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [14], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

You honestly think my edits are crap? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Very many of them. I also think I have told you before. It's worse when you edit drunk though. Very often it does look like you are simply aiming for conflict and sensationalism. At first when I met you I thought you were an anti-Pakistani POV loon - now I consider your editing more of a conflict-mongering. Sometimes it works well because it draws attention to the blatant pov problems - that is a technique I have tried to use myself with mixed success - partly inspired by you. But in terms of improving the article and the encyclopedia I don't remember seeing you write what I would consider high quality, well-sourced and well-written content. I am sure you are able, but it would require a decision to make that a goal I think. Also note that I think there is a huge difference between your crap edits which although not immediately useful are at least aimed at making the encyclopedia more neutral and the extreme bullcrap edits of certain other editors who shall remain unnamed who are clearly only intended to advance their own political agenda, seemingly with both intent and malice. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have written one article which I think is good, Rape during the Bangladesh liberation war. I had always hoped to get to tp FA but I am not good enough to get there. Take a look at it, if you think it is rubbish I will withdraw from the topic area, I figure your judgement is sound. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was doing a decent job on Anti-Muslim violence in India, which has just been un-reviewed. To hell it with, I give up.

I just gave you a barnstar for that. It is good and important work and so is the bangladesh one. Even with any flaws it may have wikipedia is better of for having someone write articles about these kinds of atrocities. And very few people do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, would you like to help and try to get the Bangladesh one to FA? It would be nice to get one FA before I get my ass kicked out of here. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer not to participate in the review process anymore. Anyways it can be a good article without going through that process. But I'll be happy to take a look at it and see how it may be improved.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that, also thank you for your offer to mentor me, were you drunk at the time I just looked at the page views for the article, is 10534 in 90 days good in wiki standards? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca

Thanks for your helpful edits of the article on La Ciudad Blanca and for your comments on the talk page. The article was greatly expanded after publication of a piece by journalist Douglas Preston in the May 6, 2013 edition of The New Yorker and extensive media coverage based on press releases from a team organized by documentary filmmaker Steve Elkins. As can see from the article's citations, the source by Preston had a heavy influence on the article's content. Unfortunately, although it was published in a presumably reputable source (The New Yorker), that article actually contains a number of misleading and inaccurate statements as well as speculation presented as fact. It is a major concern of mine that the Wikipedia article, by relying heavily upon sources such as this, will contribute to creation and promotion of the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca, including its most recent embellishments. I do not think that the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca existed prior to Charles Lindbergh's claim to have spotted a "white city" from The Spirit of St. Louis during a flight over Honduras in 1927 while making a a flying tour of Mexico and Central America after his famous transatlantic crossing. The "legend" (more like a rumor) may have spread mostly because of Lindbergh's fame. It seems likely to have been based on an error of perception. The "legend" got brief and sporadic attention over several decades, contributing to one sensational tabloid story in 1940. It was probably conflated with local reports of archaeological remains that do exist in the region. However, the story of "Ciudad Blanca" did not really grow until the late 1990s, when a team led by Ted Maschal (a.k.a. Ted Danger) and "Jungle" Jim Ewing sought to promote exploration and a documentary film (that was never produced). The details are in the Wikipedia article, but it has been a struggle to prevent that article from contributing to assertions about a "legend" that has reportedly existed since at least the time of the Spanish Conquest and perhaps even from Aztec and Toltec times (which seems unlikely). In fact, evidence suggests the "legend" is relatively recent in origin but is being promoted as if it were older for non-objective reasons. I think it is important to be vigilant about this article if it is not to reify or actively contribute to the "legend" of Ciudad Blanca. Hoopes (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fascinating to be able to watch legends in the making through wikipedia, but share your concern as well. Maybe an interesting article could be written about the topic for some academic journal. *nudge nudge*. That would also improve the quality of the wikipedia article and the risk of a distorted legend forming.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudges. Yes, I've been thinking about that myself. You may be familiar with my publications about the "2012 phenomenon," which is something I think a responsible Wikipedia article played an essential role in addressing. I haven't had time to do as much scholarship on the Ciudad Blanca "legend" as I would like, but you're right. Hoopes (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#One baby, two biological fathers

Any thoughts on the above? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the article in question and added some content and sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Denmark Mandolin notability

Good call on whether Denmark had enough of a tradition to be notable in the mandolin article. I was going through systematically by finding virtuosos already in wikipedia, and using them to start building up the sections. I assumed more than one would be found. Found this article about Danes and mandolins, http://www.magiba.dk/The%20Mandolin.htm .Jacqke (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of gifted mandolinists in Denmark: Tove Flensborg and Jesper Rübner-Petersen. There are a few Mandolin orchestras as well, and John Bæk actually played the instrument in Danish 1990s folkband Kætter Kvartet. But that's about it when it comes to use of mandolin in traditional Danish music. The article you link to about Danish luthiers is really interesting and suggests that the mandolin may have occupied a greater role in the folk tradition in the early 20th century, but I don't think that is documented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded

Greetings, Maunus. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your recent participation in the VA/E topic discussions. While I have personally disagreed with one or two of your comments and !votes, I think your reasoning is sound and your voice and perspective add new value to our merry little band. I hope you find your participation rewarding enough to stick around. We need more folks like you. Cheers, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewikse - no hard feelings on the disagreement - this is almost entirely subjective which is the problem with this type of list. I've been by before, trying to argue for a broader global and temporal span. I'll likely continue be coming and going.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca

Reminding you both about 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

thx.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafka again

We talked about Kafka translation, - I now inserted the chapter in Franz Kafka works, please check and expand to your liking. - Thank you for the mandola! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda. Thank you! I haven't been reading more on Kafka since then, and it will be a while before I get time to do so I think. But I will keep it in mind!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually: Check this out: A famous essay by J. M. Cotezee called "Translating Kafka" or "Kafka: Translators on trial". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, will look, after garden work and rehearsal, sounds interesting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Luigi Embergher

Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at GabeMc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Franz Kafka works

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Indian Nation"

" This is the flag of the Northern Cheyenne tribe not of the whole Cheyenne Nation which is composed of several trib"

Fine. So why do you insist on including "Indian Nation" in the caption? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't I was trying to remove it but botched the edit. I then went back and fixed it[15].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your hidden comment on psychoanalysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychoanalysis&diff=562278087&oldid=562277763

I thought you could start a discussion on Talk:psychoanalysis. WykiP (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I am reluctant to get involved in working on that article, I think the "skeptics" have it pretty much under control. Anyways Kevin B McDonald is certainly not what one might call a wellrespected scientist - but rather a classical proponent of pseudo-scientific racism. His main "research" is the idea that Jews are evolutionarily disposed to being greedy, highly intelligent and selfserving. A classic anti-semitic canard based on no valid evidence. Presenting him as a prominent critic of pscyhoanalysis is kind of a joke.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nyborg and Biographies of Living Persons

Maunus, the statement you returned to Helmuth Nyborg's biography, including "he has argued that white people tend to be more intelligent than blacks," is referenced using a dead link. Looking through the article, I see that much of it is sourced with dead links (one section implicating Nyborg with holocaust deniers was wholly based upon two references with dead links). Please help me bring this article into compliance with wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. I made a post on the relevant noticeboard to request help with compliance here. -Darouet (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to find live links for those.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd try to help the article more too, but I don't can't bring myself to read more about him. -Darouet (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be doing some reading. I've actually had a conversation with Professor Nyborg once at a conference on intelligence research, so I can be dispassionate in looking up what the sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Women sociologists

I noticed you had weighed in on Category:Men sociologists, but had never expressed your view on its close sister cat Category:Women sociologists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I've decided not to vote in that one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Telerin

I've been working on it at User:Double sharp/Telerin, based on the Quenya article: since you GA reviewed that one, could you help? Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I'll stay out of Tolkien langs for awhile.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem.

(Incidentally, your sig has caused me to mentally call you "Hwaunus". I doubt I'll ever get rid of that association. :-P) Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

PG

I wish you'd tell me something specific about what problems you see. EEng (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Just try to compare the layout with the layout of any other article. It is a mess. There is no way for a reader to make heads of tails of it as it is currently structured. Every section starts with a block quote and an illustration that the reader has no way to understand because it is taken out of context. It seems as if you have deliberately tried to flout as many of the style guide suggestions as possible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate it if you'd post your comment on the article's Talk. Then, please, call out the specific images, and specific quotations, that you think lack context for the reader, and how you think that could be corrected. What style guidelines are violated? EEng (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mestizo

Hello. The footnotes 14-19 on the article Mestizo, which you added on 23 October 2010, are incomplete. Could you please complete them? --bender235 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The images provided are all of very well known Mestizos, so why where they reverted? Also, this is a page pertaining people of Mestizo descent and not Porfirio Diaz.

What I like about you...

...(despite your monomaniacal hypersensitivity about article layout and so on -- you and I will work that out by and by) is that you call 'em as you see 'em, without regard to personalities [16]. Thanks. Now pardon me while I get back to whitewashing the Harvard article. EEng (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Talk:Racism.
Message added 00:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We have complied with your observations here Template:Did you know nominations/Bulgarian wedding music. Please review and record. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 02:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: DYK Prep

One of the basic principles when preparing DYK sets is to strive toward a varied selection of hooks (Rule J2). The exception to this being when a holiday, significant event, or anniversary provides justification for a unifying theme. I saw your request for the three recent hooks involving Natchez individuals but could find no explanation other than your personal desire as to why they should appear together. At a minimum I would need a valid explanation to feed the inevitable and tedious discussion at Talk:Main Page about "Natchez bias" that would result from more than one of these hooks appearing in a single DYK set. --Allen3 ^talk 15:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a discussion of "Natchez bias" seems sufficiently entertaining to provide a justification to me. I have no good justification except that the individuals are family and the Natchez as a whole are an utterly neglected chapter of US history. I could promise not to propose any Natchez related DYKs for the next three months if that would make a difference.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed concern at DYK for Spectre (Blake)

Hey Maunus, I fixed your concern at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Spectre_(Blake). Is there anything else I can fix to pass the nomination?Sadads (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I dont have time to do a full review of the nomination.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Natchez and [ø ø:]

Hello,

I see that you removed all mention of [ø ø:] (mentioned with the North American symbol ö, though) from the article on Natchez. I have read the source you mainly draw from and I do not recall any mention of these phones from that source, but I did discover a source that does mention them: "Natchez and the Muskogean Languages" by Mary R. Haas.

It says that they seem to be results of some occasionally-occurring coalescences: *[eW] -> [øh] and *[ew] -> [ø:] / _ [ʔ]. And the source does provide a couple of words in which these phones occur (note that s is defined as [š]): payhööʔis ('knife'), mashööʔis ('to peel'), and mashöhsiis

Perhaps you did look into these phones some more but eventually decided not to mention them at all for whatever reason?

What say you?

Espreon (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not mentioned in Kimball's grammar sketch which is based on Haas' notes. He writes that Watt Sam had backed the vowel a to [o] after /w/, but makes no other mention of any specific vowels of Watt Sam. He also adds the vowel schwa to the inventory offered by Haas. I take Kimball's work to supercede Haas' in this regard based on a more contemporary understanding of phonology and a critical analysis of Haas' materials as it is. I can mention Haas' 1956 analysis as a note if you think that would be useful.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it could be useful.

Also, I notice you added ɘ rather than ə. Was this intentional? Sadly, I do not recall his mention of schwa and what symbol he used, and I do not have the book on hand.

Espreon (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're right it is the wrong symbol. I am not sure about the value of adding Haas' analysis as it seems to be rejected by Kimball based on contrary evidence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it may be best to mostly leave it as is. Though, unless Kimball somehow rejected the idea that these phones could have been, I do not see the harm of mentioning them and simply making note of where they are and are not mentioned and why.

Espreon (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think he reanlyzes the phones as being simply Sam's pronunciation of /aw/ and the underlying harmonizing schwa vowel respectively, but he does not say so specifically. Maybe he does in another work. I will check.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "India". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 09:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Natchez language

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What does "This history Natchez speakers were frequently multilingual in ..." mean? Specifically the leading part "This history" does not seem to go with the rest of the sentence. Perhaps there was supposed to be something between 'history' and 'Natchez'? Shenme (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Tunebo

Hey Maunus,

Do you have any refs for Tunebo? I'm trying to correlate the varieties in the lit (now in the article, more or less) with the ISO codes, without much success. There are a few correspondences at Linguist List, but one is obviously wrong and others seem suspicious. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find a couple on google scholar: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3324244 http://www-01.sil.org/americas/colombia/pubs/37538.pdf http://www.uv.es/calvo/amerindias/numeros/n7.pdf#page=10 User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The dialect guide helps. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti-conspiracy

In order to break the influence of the conspiracy on the linguistics page that you've been feeling edgy about, I advise that you read the book Introduction to Language and Grammar. It's not widely published; only a few copies have been circulated yet; but it does cover significant information on all the sections you are interested in adding to the linguistics article which includes morphology, syntax, and so on. You can then add those sections into the article. If you cannot find the book online I can make it available to you. If you give me permission I can write those sections myself once I am a little free to do so. It is a book that I highly recommend as I have taught its contents thoroughly when I was in service. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to write anything, and I don't need your introduction to language and grammar to write anything either. Thanks anyway. I don't think it is a good idea to use a book that is not widely published as a source. Try to find a book that is well known and respected among linguists if you want to write about linguistics, that way you will be able to avoid writing sections that will later have to be deleted because they contain basic misunderstandings of the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. I will keep that in mind. We will improve the article in due course of time. Do make any corrections that you can see in the meanwhile. --MrsCaptcha (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Petén

Hi Maunus,

I'm thinking of taking Spanish conquest of Petén to FAC - would you mind taking a look at it and let me know if you can see any obvious problems? I'm aware it is very long. I'll try to put together a map or two of the lakes to give a better idea of the Itza/Kowoj/Yalain region and its principal settlements. Quite a long run within the article is heavily dependent on Jones' Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom, but I don't know of anyone else who has covered those expeditions. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Simon, I love reviewing your work, but right now I am in Mexico doing fieldwork and I have sporadic internet access only, so I don't think I'll be able to do a lot of work. I am also far away from my books. If I get a chance I'll see what I can do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK - thanks anyway, and all the best with your fieldwork. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family

Hello! Your submission of Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please mark your approval with a keep tick here Template:Did you know nominations/Skagen Odde.--Nvvchar. 10:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Started discussion

At talk:Human genetic variation#Lewontin's Fallacy reverts. Alatari (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

Ok,If link is not working and reference doesnt specify such an information then what is the reason to retain it.I request you to intervene in the matter to resolve the issue.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 03:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a requirement that sources be accessible online. You can "resolve the issue" by stopping your attempts to remove any critical information about Modi on spurious grounds.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If online access is not requirement then why someone add it here most importantly in the lead which cast impression on the whole article.Are you sure his administration has been criticized firmly.It may be but not with zest.It has to be below somewhere but not in the lead section.I am not going to revert it or rearrange now but you may do it.Apologies if i have done anything wrong.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 09:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am sure his administration has been criticized "firmly and with zest".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Boas and Levi-Strauss

Hi Maunus,

The Levi-Strauss page/article on WP has a whole paragraph on the relationship, and it has been part of my information on the topic. Here is what it says on the subject:

The war years in New York were formative for Lévi-Strauss in several ways. His relationship with Jakobson helped shape his theoretical outlook (Jakobson and Lévi-Strauss are considered to be two of the central figures on which structuralist thought is based). In addition, Lévi-Strauss was also exposed to the American anthropology espoused by Franz Boas, who taught at Columbia University. In 1942, while having dinner at the Faculty House at Columbia, Boas died of a heart attack in Lévi-Strauss's arms. This intimate association with Boas gave his early work a distinctive American inclination that helped facilitate its acceptance in the U.S. ...

I think it is very important and it must have come from somewhere. Unfortunately it is also unsourced there, which is something I will try to remedy as fast/soon as I can. Regards, warshy^¥¥ 23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Sydel Silverman's "Totems and Teachers" on page 16, and it was already cited in the article just a few paragraphs above the one that Nikkimaria removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the part about Boas expiring in Levi-Strauss' arms is also very important, I think, but somehow you did not restore that part. It should be restored also. Thanks a lot! warshy^¥¥ 23:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I didnt restore it because it was already mentioned once in the same section in the opening paragraph.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone we know?

Hej Magnus (oops, back to English). I don't have a complete bestiary of Wikipedia trolls handy, but an unpleasant person with an interest in race & intelligence, editing from South Korea – doesn't that ring a bell? Favonian (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I see! Favonian (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, an old friend with a dislike for jews and communists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts

Dear Maunus,

How are my revisions a form of disinformation when they are backed up by the most recent medical scholarship, including the Physician's Desk Reference and the oral contraceptive pill labels themselves? Is not the third mechanism - atrophy of the endometrium - properly called an abortifacient mechanism rather than a contraceptive one since contraception would have already occurred in the fallopian tube? Further, is it not supported by scientific research that this third mechanism indeed is operative in some cases given the certain fact of breakthrough ovulation in many cases? Is not the operation of this third mechanism at least a likely possibility in the event of breakthrough ovulation, corroborated by the scholarly sources which I cite?

Respectfully,

Kenosis247

Hi Kenosis, I have answered on your talkpage. Generally wikipedia does not include the "most recent" medical scholarship, because that very often does lead to misinformation as new scholarship has to be vetted by the medical community before it is established as reliable medical advice. We include the most generally accepted scholarship. In anycase when your edit has been reverted it is your responsibility to work towards a consensus on the talkpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maunus,

Thank you for your helpful post on my talkpage and I look forward to further discussion on the OCP talkpage.

Kenosis247 Kenosis247 (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi Maunus - many thanks for dropping by to support the Spanish conquest of Petén FAC - the article was just promoted. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice

I think it was correct to remove from religion(islam) section, but i think it can be added to Human_sacrifice#Contemporary_human_sacrifice section instead, just like many recent events have been added, what you think? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not without a much better source than what you have been providing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mayan languages

Hi Manaus,

We have an apparent RS on the talk page that e.g. ⟨t'⟩ is ambiguous between ejective /tʼ/ and the sequence /tʔ/, and that it has been since the ALMG reform did away with using ⟨7⟩ for the latter. (Though the distinction is still made in handwriting, it no longer is in print.) Your edit summary, that "[in] the standard the apostrophe marks ejective consonants, not sequences", would seem to be incorrect. And yes, I understand that /ɓ/ is implosive, but ⟨b'⟩ is not necessarily /ɓ/ (unless that's a phonotactic constraint in all languages).

The minimal pair given in the ref is Q'eqchi' /tʼil/ 'work it' vs. /tʔil/ 'will see it', both written ⟨t'il⟩. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not enough to change the general inventory for Mayan languages, It is possible that someone has analyzed one of the 31 Mayan languages that way, but it is not the most commonly accepted analysis, and it is impossible for many of the languages. I suggest you add a foot note specifically about the ambiguous meaning of the apostophes in Qeqchi.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of I Am Prepared To Die

Hello! Your submission of I Am Prepared To Die at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! FairyTailRocks (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

reverts

The material was added to the further reading sections. Perfectly acceptable. When there isn't a further reading section, but the references are broad (e.g., include non-referenced material), it is acceptable to include. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, a specialized encyclopedia only vaguely related to the topic of the article is not an acceptable further reading. Inserting the same source across multiple articles like this looks a lot like promotion. Please only add "Encyclopedia of Libertarianism" to articles where it either supports a fact or is directly relevant as a source for the article, for example if the article is obvoiusly related to Libertarianism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you've brought it up on a noticeboard, why don't you leave the material as is in accordance with WP:PRESERVE. My gosh, these are just further reading items. But the book is well researched and written. The info is there so that other editors and readers can take a look as they please. You've got to come up with a better justification for removal than the "not used as a reference" rationale. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, further readings are added when there is a general consensus that a specific reading is pertinent to the topic of the article. Per BRD, you ought to argue your case and await the consensus. We cannot just add any tertiary source that has a minor cover of broad topics like Sexuality, Bartolome de LAs Casas or Michel Foucault - that would mean including dozens of different encyclopedias as further readings. Further readings should be specialized in the topic of the article, not in some other topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How to avoid creating VA/E adds for articles that are already VA/E

Rather than parse all the VA/E pages, just use the "What links here" function on the article you want to nominate. Set the space to "Wikipedia" and the limit to 500. Then use the "Find" function to find the Vital articles subpage it is (or isn't) on. I hope this helps. pbp 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that is a great method. Thanks! I've decided to unwatch the vitals for now though. It is just too ridiculous, it is just mob rule on subjective preferences. What it should be like is that there should be allotted quota to different topic areas and then the discussions should be held within the wikiprojects by editors using the same criteria they use for assessing article importance. This degenrates into hysteric bouts of quid pro quo all the time. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello, Maunus, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

A discussion here[17] concerns you. SpaceBobber (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

New SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Cambodian genocide

Would this fall under genocide of indigenous people? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not usuallly counted as such. Wasn´t it basically Khmer killing Khmer, in a Khmer dominated state. To the extent that any indigenous minority populations were affected it was probably not because of their minority status but because of their status within the classbased logics of Pol Pots revolution. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That is kinda what I thought, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

DYK for Tumin (currency)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Racism power relationship

I do not want this issue to be excluded out of neglect and would like your help/input inserting something into the lead to accommodate the plethora of comments on Power and Racism.--Inayity (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have sourced and drafted a few sentence which need input, Thanks--Inayity (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph rewrite.

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about working on the rewrite of the paragraph in Race (human classification) that would largely include the points you wanted to make. But with the holidays and some personal obligations, it's been difficult to find the time. I plan on working on it soon. I know you and I kind of started off on the wrong foot but I think a lot of that had to do with us using certain terminologies differently which has created a lot of confusion and misunderstanding between us. We do seem to have a lot of common ground, but in the past we were overly focused on the smaller differences we had. It's a new year and I hope we will be able to better understand each other and work together to improve these articles in order to fairly and accurately represent the scientific fields. BlackHades (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. I'm looking forward to seeing your work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

These sources for Race, IQ, Genetics

On this page, are they current and accurate and mainstream science that we could say use as a citation here?70.49.45.161 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. Its a blog. The sources it uses are just some of the same hereditarian sources that are already in the various articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, are these sources mainstream?70.49.46.54 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Depending on how you define mainstream some of them are. Others clearly aren't and they have all been selected to advance a particular pov, not to provide balanced accounts of any of the topics discussed. To be clear I don't see anything that I would consider "a good source" on that site. Some of them are notable and have been influential and have historical interest and importance. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Are there published criticisms of those sources somewhere?

Many. Which are you thinking of in particular?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have to time to get some, especially for the "race-realist" section on that site and the IQ-race thing.

There is a large body of studies criticizing and deconstructing the Jensen/Rushton/Lynn/Herrnstein+Murray stuff. Most of it is in the wikipedia articles of the respective authors and books. Checkout the articles The Bell Curve, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and J. Philippe Rushton - there are decent amounts of critical literature in those three. I don't know of particular studies arguing against Hart and Baker, but since both are just run-of-the-mill old school raciology any recent mainstream anthropology book on race would provide you with counter arguments. Brace's "Race is a Four Letter Word" and Graves' "the emperor's new clothes" are good introductions. For the relation between race and genetics I recommend anything by Jonathan Marks. For the Race and IQ stuff I would start with Nicholas Mackintosh's 2011 " IQ and Human Intelligence" (2nd Edition) which has a long and very fair summary of the field, including the problems with IQ as a concept, and IQ testing methods.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have also a feeling that this link: humanbiologicaldiversity.com, uses many of these same sources. If you have time, could you do a quick scan through and see if any sources (that aren't race-realist blogs, i.e. racialist musings of self-aggrandizing autodidacts) are mainstream, well-vetted science of today? Because I think it may all be just to push a certain agenda. Thanks.70.49.46.54 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is very clearly a depository for sources used by people with a Racist/race realist agenda and the great majority is fringe science. There are a few mainstream ones like Cavalli-Sforza, Pääbo, Pinker, Dennett, Trivers, Hamilton etc. But there are many more sources in there that fall squarely within extreme right-wing pseudoscience such like Kevin B Macdonald, Kanazawa, even Fjordman the blogger that inspired Breivik is there. And then there is a lot of the generally discredited IQ "science" by Rushton/Lynn/Jensen, and the also mostly fringe racial science of Sarich/Harpending/Cochrane. Its an impressive collection in fact, but no very few well-vetted well-respected mainstream research in there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought so, I was interested in this because race-realists with no background in these sciences, such as Steve Sailer or the other bloggers, or people like Harpending and Cochrane all are in the blogosphere and all reference each other, including people like John Derbyshire and such. I was interested especially in the scientists among them, like Harpending and Cochrane, and also John D. Hawks and Peter Frost, all who blog about science and are referenced by other race realists. Are any of them considered as mainstream and reliable academics? Are there any prudent criticisms of them?

Yeah they are a little club reproducing eachothers ideas in different venues. Harpending and Cochrane are considered mainstream academics I guess, but a lot of the racial stuff they do on the side in non-peer reviewed venues. Hawks is interesting because he is very well respected for his other work and because he comes from the Wolpoff school which is strangely ambivalent in relation to race - for them race is necessary evidence in their theory of human origins but both Wolpoff has been very vocally anti-racist and some of his students have too. Hawks is very well respected, and is a part of the mainstream dialogue on human origins. I was surprised to see that Hawks had published with Cochrane (or was it Harpending?). Sarich was also extremely well-respected for his genetic evolution work. I think mostly their racial work is being ignored, and I dont know off the top of my head of studies that deal with it head to head. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen Harpending & Cochrane's blog and they are being cited by race-realists for things related to race and IQ because of their work on Ashkenazi IQ, is that considered to be mainstream science? Or is it criticized? And do you know about Peter Frost?70.49.46.54 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Harpending and Cochranes Ashkenazi article is not considered mainstream and is not referred to except by race realists.Here is a critique. Their other book "the 10,000 year revolution" is also not referred to by mainstream paleoanthropologists - and I havent seen anyone agree with their argument that the agricultural revolution sped up evolution rates, or increased racial differences. I am not very familiar with Peter Frosts work, but I know that is work on skin color evolution is considered mainstream, even though his explanation (sexual selection for light skin and blue eyes) is not widely accepted. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here. But can you help with with this: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/ Essentially, if you can point out the problems and counterarguments for this race-realist post, I will be very grateful. Thanks.70.49.46.54 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well for starters none of the "facts" from 1 to 14 are generally accepted. Some of them are still under debate, but others have been generally rejected. The reason the author thinks those are "facts" is explained by the fact that here isn't a single non-hereditarian study in the literature list, all the counter arguments are missing, or explained by hereditarians who claim to have refuted them. Again I think you should look to Mackintosh 2011 to find the actual state of the debate. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, can I have a link to Mackintosh 2011, and if possible criticisms to specific sources used by that blog. Thank you very much.70.49.46.54 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and what is Mackintosh's general consensus on race and intelligence?

Here is a link to a page where I have quotes from Macintosh and a couple of other recent reviews of the question. Read through it and it should give you an idea both about the current consensus, the current debates and the arguments. MAckontosh 2011 is not available online, so You'd have to get it from a library.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there any problems with this as a source or in general?

The argument is correct in so far that it is just a variation of Edwards argument also forwarded by Dawkins and others that populations can be distinguish through genetic cluster analysis, and that this is also true for racial groups to some extents. It is also true that population history affects genomes, and that for example disease risks varies by ancestry. The problem is that racial classicification is not necessarily a good guy to ancestry, and that variations in risk by population is not necessarily a very good tool for medical planning (as it risks over or underestimating individual risk to base risk assessments on group membership). There is a large literature on the problems of using race as a proxy for ancestry and ancestry as a proxy for genetic risk. There are also some problems with his argumentation - for example he uses "african" as a monolithic genetic category which is false since Africans have the highest genetic diversity of any continental populatiom. That means that by knowing that someone has 50% African ancestry we know very little about their possible genome. If we know that they are African American we can guess a little more because African Americans predominantly came from certain African populations. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is Maunus's user talk page, and he may have his own response to your kind question, but the basic issue with any blog as a source is how blogs are edited. They generally don't fit the Wikipedia reliable source guidelines at all for use in editing Wikipedia articles. Some of the very best blogs may point to useful sources that do fit the Wikipedia guidelines, but then one may as well learn to look for those sources directly, as I do at university libraries (both by looking at the dead-tree books and journals on the shelves, and by using the university library databases). It's enjoyable to pursue curiosity by using the same sources that the scholars use. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So, would there by any sources pertaining to that Razib Khan post, basically with the problems with his analysis of race being a biological construct? And also, what is the mainstream opinion of the field of whether race is a biological construct?70.49.46.54 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Read, anything by Jonathan Marks, it all pertains to that. It is a current debate whether race can be said to be biologically meaningful. Also I dont think that you are right if you think Razib Khan argues that race is a biological construct, I think he argues that it is a social construct that correlate meaningfully with biological traits. That is a mainstream view. The other mainstream view, which is predominant in anthropology is that the correlation between biological traits and social categories does not mean that the categorization is biologically meaningful, and that it is highly problematic to treat race as if it were a biological category for a large number of political, ethical and scientific reasons. To be clear I am not going to do your reading for you and find sources to use in arguments with blogs around the internet. You are going to have to read something other than blogs and race realist websites if you want to know more about this, and I have given you a lot of pointers already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to apologize, I didn't want you to do the reading for me, I just assumed you could help with what the mainstream views of the particular fields are. I did not mean to use you to find references and stuff. I assume that you already have read of all this and could give me the basic gist of this, if time permitted. Anyway, I thought that race being a biological construct was what was being argued by Razib Khan because not only the title, but Khan's association and his being cited by various race realists. But I think your summary of his argument may be correct, but I have trouble seeing the difference between these two arguments that race has a biological component to it and that there is correlation between biological race and social construct of race. Also I thought that Razib Khan was a mainstream academic due to his being cited a few times here on wikipedia and also his blog being supported by discover magazine.70.49.46.54 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Khan probably is a mainstream academic, and his argument is a mainstream argument. Lots of geneticists believe that because racial categories correlate with genetic similarities that shows that race is a biological category. The problem with that argument is that if you were to genetically test people in my street, they would also be more genetically similar than a random sample. That doesn't mean that who live in my street is biologically defined. The genetic similarity is just an artefact of the way populations work, and since genetic difference is an almost perfect correlation with geographic distance it holds that people who inhabit the same continent (or whose ancestors have inhabited the same continent) will be more genetically similar than people on other continents (the interesting exception to this rule is Africa, which has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined, a result of humans originating there). The difference between the two arguments is about whether race is defined by social processes or whether the biological processes alone have led to humans inventing the racial categories we have to day. Social scientists generally are very sure that the racial categories we know to day are random, produced by a specific history of political and social interactions between people on different continents. The categories just happen to correlate with some biological markers because of the geographical proximity of populations. The point is that if history had been different the "main racial groups" might have been different (lets say if Africans had enslaved Maoris and Native Americans and brought them to Europe). Arguing that race is primarily a biological construct suggests that there is only one possible way that human genetic diversity can be meaningfully grouped into categories - this is contrary to the testimonies of many geneticists who precisely argue that genetic similarity on the continent level is less meaningful than the many other ways in which diversity could be ordered and understood, and that it is related to specific ethical and political problems to keep perpetuating that particular classification that has done much harm in the past, and which has very little potential for doing good.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But how is it explained from that point how you can see, for example in U.S., people of different races who can be distinguished by genetics and physical morphology? Can it not be argued that these different peoples are different race based on that? Like in forensic anthropology, race is defended as a biological construct sometimes based on this. 70.49.46.54 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed often argued. The problem remains though that the morphological traits that Americans use to classify by are based on a specific history that have brought people form different continents into close contact within a specific socio-political context, so the very idea of "race" was developed based on a sociopolitical organization of peoples in to boxes and the biological traits only subsequently came to signify the membership of each socially consructed box. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, and is that related to a thing I came across, a paper, that said that continental populations/individuals are more similar to people outside the continent than within?70.49.46.54 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds incorrect since genetic difference is an almost perfect function of geographical distance. But it is true that most genetic variation occur within populations. E.g. you are likely to be genetically quite different from your next door neighbor, but someone from the other side of the planet is likely to be only slightly more different from you than your neighbor is. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's what I saw. I think the arguments also was that genetic clusters could be an artifact of deficiency in individuals who are sampled, and that dividing is hard because there is a continuous gradient like genetic variation instead of genetic clusters, along with individuals being closer to others outside their population than to other's in their population, or something along that line.70.49.46.54 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, discontinuous sampling of continuous variation is a big part of the way that cluster analysis often seems to produce well defined populations - in effect it tends to reproduce researchers preconceived ideas about what populations are or arent races. Also it is important to note that the genetic cluster concept does not have a way to define which clusters are or arent races in a non-arbitrary way. Very small amounts of genetic diversity results in defineable clusters, so that for people from Belgium might be genetically dinstinguishable from people from Luxembourg, and people from Ghent might be distinguishable from people from Antwerp. So following the cluster argumentation these groups would be biological "races" too. This is why most geneticists simply talk about populations instead of "races".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated question, but is it problematic to cite "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" by Linda Gottfredson as a source?70.49.46.54 (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends as a source for what. It is an excellent source for the opinion of Gottfredsson and some of the undersigners - at least their opinion 20 years ago when it was published - hopefully some of them have updated their opinions in the light of subsequent studies. It is fine to cite it, but it is not as it claims to be the voice of "mainstream science", but rather a claim to mainstream status from one influential faction of the mainstream that had felt demonized and marginalized in the public debates that followed the bell curve. Several of the undersigners are not considered mainstream scientists today, like Rushton and Lynn for example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For the user above, it is actually incorrect that populations individuals are more similar to someone outside the population than within. A study by Witherspoon proved that an individual can be correctly put in their population if enough markers are used 100% almost of the time. This is a vindication of race as a biological construct as people can be put in their race's genetic group very accurately, as per social definition of race. So by this, we can see that social definition and genetic race are correlated strongly.74.14.31.201 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has ever said that an individual is more similar to someone outside their population than one within. You dont understand the argument, so please stop trting to lecture people untill you do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then if a person can be assigned correctly to their biological race nearly 100% of the time, then does that not prove the biological reality of race? That is to say, it is both social and biological?74.14.31.201 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Think about your question for a moment. If you see a person on the street then can you assign them to a racial grouping with almost 100% certainty that they will themselves agree with the classification? My guess is yes. I certainly can. I can also do that based on looking at a skeleton with quite a high rate of "success". That does not however mean that the racial groupings precede the categories or that they are fundamentally biological. In the same way you are very likely to be able to tell whether a specific equine is a horse or a zebra with 100% certainty. That is not because "zebra" is a species or even a taxon. Zebra is just the label we use for equines that have a particular kind of stribed coat and live in Africa. In the same way the fact that we can assign an individual to a racial group based on how they look only means that we created the category to make that kind of classification based on looks. Since phenotype is a function of genotype it is obvious that people can be sorted also based on genes - but still it is nothing more than a socially constructed categorization of peoples phenotypes, and we could have chosen to make the categories differently, and there is no evidence to suggest that this particular categorization tells us more about human history or human variation than another classification system would. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The racial categories that we used historically show up as clusters again and again http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/bin/gr1.jpg the clusters reflect Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Amerindian and Australoid. It would be incorrect to say that this division is meaningless when it has been vindicated by finding of these genetic clusters which allow the individual to be accurately places in their race. Many other species have in-species variation similar to this. If enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions. 74.14.31.201 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is your argument with which a majority of physical anthropologists and geneticians disagree. It isfor example often the case that clusters are based on sampling, and sampling made to investigate race tends to be based on a racial sampling. Continuous smapling would give different clusters. Let's stop this discussion here, and remember that articles are built on the mainstream literature not on which ever fringe argument and claim you can dig out of right wing blogs or manuscript depositories.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable edit on Richard Lynn

I see you edit these types of articles, and was wondering your opinion on this edit which although does site a source, implies the racist notion that sub Saharan Africans breeding is "dysgenic" to the human genome. Would WP:FRINGE apply here? Thanks, Ultra Venia (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Lynn is a racist and that is his opinion. So the only question here is whether this particular opinion of his and the venue in which it is expressed is notable enough to include in his biography.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bushmen#Requested_move_12_January_2014

Hi Maunus. As you have previously expressed an interest in the matter, please can you participate in the move discussion. HelenOnline 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As you are currently about

Would you be so kind as to look at "Mediated climate change in Britain: Scepticism on the web and on television around Copenhagen" and see if the BLP James Delingpole, actually asserts "in his view, senior climate change scientists are "stooges" of Arab governments and oil and nuclear corporations" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont have access to that article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian map

Hi Maunus,

Feel free to improve the map. But currently it's a map of Russian as an official or de-facto working language (per Ethn. 17), so that's what the legend should say. Formerly it was just as "spoken", but there was no indication of what that meant. Russian is spoken in several communities in the US, Canada, China, Paraguay, etc, but they were not on the map, so what was the criterion for inclusion? I'd be fine w "spoken by >10% of the population", if you prefer s.t. like that, or really anything that's definable. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so it is Ethnologue, and I can see that they do indeed say that Russian is the de facto national working language of Estonia which is rather ridiculous in my opinion, given that the language has a very low minority status and is not even recognized as a protected minority language inspite of being spoken natively by 24% and by another 20% of the population as a second language. As far as I know no government or other official business is conducted in Russian. Do Ethnologue give a definition of what they mean by "de facto National working language" User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, and as I said, I have no problem with you finding a better source. But if we're going to have a map, it should be a map of something other than 'I think I'll color in this country blue'. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the map entirely untill you can establish consensus for a version. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you can see the source if you go to the map. I've tagged the legend with the caption "this is not what the color indicates". It's rather ridiculous to say s.t. and then to say we're wrong, but since your response is to edit-war rather than discuss things, I figured that was less confrontational. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah thats rich Kwami, you revert three different editors five times and I am the one who edit wars rather than discussing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been discussing this. You've just been reverting. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You've discussed in edit summaries prior to engaging here, just as I have. And you've broken 3rr and I haven't so get of that high horse it doesn't suit you.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On Voltaire

If you are interested, as you commented before on it. I am trying to explain that the given material is not accurate. The section of "evolving views", on talk page, it the presented quotations are really unsourced and cannot be confirmed by reliable sources at all, cant find even a single source other than wikipedia page itself. These quotes were promoted by IPs on Mahomet (play). Yet there are number of reliable sources, adding that how others viewed these plays as, especially by Napolean, to be very negative. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont know what you are talking about?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Genetics and race bloggers

Hey, I was reading through the discussion you had previously on this topic, sorry you had to close it. I was wondering especially about Razib Khan, you seem to think that he's a mainstream academic, with mainstream arguments. It seems that Khan does not actually have a background in the fields in particular, putting him essentially on the same position of Steve Sailer with him being a HBD blogger. Related to R&I, he used to be a big supporter of Amren, especially on his old blog. The HBD bloggers all seem to link to him and speak of him and Steve Sailer as the paramount representatives of HBD as an academic field. But I was interested in how you thought that Khan's argument in favor of race being a biological construct (that's what I assumed he was arguing) and which particular researchers support it, and what the main opposing mainstream arguments were. BTW I found this link about Razib.Wajajad (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Razib Khan and didn't really investigate him just didnt see anything in the piece that suggested that he wasn't a mainstream academic. You can see what I thought of Khan's argument in my archive where the discussion is now located. Is something going on in some forum somewhere on the net that is bringing a lot of attention to my talkpage all of a sudden?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Is something going on in some forum somewhere on the net that is bringing a lot of attention to my talkpage all of a sudden?" Not that I know of :P. Does anyone use that argument for race being biological other than Edwards and Dawkins? What is Cavalli-Sforza's view on race today? Steve Sailer apparently called one of Cavalli-Sforza's books a "HBD" book.Wajajad (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few geneticists that do. Cavalli-Sforza does not any longer, but explicitly states that genetic history is too complex to be well described by the race concept, and he also explicitly recognizes the importance of culture and history in formulating the standard racial categories. If "HBD" is human bio diversity, then Cavalli-Sforza is a HBD book but so are hundreds of other books that describe human biodiversity as a real phenomenon that has patterns and structures but which does not support the race concept.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Human bio diversity in the way I use it is basically a neologism invented by Steve Sailer, basically another euphemism for race-realism. So if Steve Sailer uses HBD (only he and other race-realist bloggers really do) to describe a book, he probably believes that it vindicates his position. But how are you using human bio diversity in this case? Correct me if wrong, but doesn't (or didn't) Cavalli-Sforza believe that race has some correlation with underlying biology (or I think that was Steve Sailer asserting it using the former's research, not sure)174.88.32.123 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Human biological diversity is a field of studies within physical anthropology and anthropological genetics that studies how traits and genes are distributed in human populations. For example the study of how sickle cell trait and malaria has intereacted to produce a specific pattern of genetic diversity (which is non-racial) is a finding from those disciplines. As is the finding of how human pastoralism and the genes for lactase persistence have co-evolved. Actual experts in Human biological diversity know that genetic diversity is clinal, overlapping and does not support the idea of essentalist racial categories. Cavalli-Sforza did argue for correlations between racial categories and biological diversity in his early work, but he doesn't anymore [18][19]. Maybe if someone says human biodiversity and not human biological diversity, then that sugests the activist stance that human biological diversity should be "conserved" in parallel to the standard discourse on biodiversity. This of course is a view that goes hand in hand with racism and segregation all the way back to Madison Grant. Of course it is logically incoherent as gene flow in fact increases diversity at the genetic level and only decreases the number of distinct populations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

For you

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your fantastic work on Natchez revolt, and for your contribution by way of that article to Wikipedia's coverage of colonial American history. Cdtew (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I second this barnstar. Thank you, Maunus. The article would not be featured if it weren't for you. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God

Hi, sorry, I totally didn't notice your comments on A Contract with God...somehow it got lost on my watch list. I'll get on it all in the next couple days. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A new Sesardic, Neven citation

You can see here, I'd like to cite this to the Race article but it is protected, what is your opinion on this source and what can be extrapolated from it?70.31.155.210 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Sesardic gives a very cogent presentation of the "race realist" argument. I don't consider any of his arguments against Hochman to be valid, for example the way that he finds it legitimate to simply disregard ethical considerations in the choice of terminology, but they are coherent and reasonable in within their own logic. I dont think anything can be extrapolated from it, there are no new arguments. It shouldn't be cited without citing Hochman as well - but my guess is that with time they both will be cited in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet

Edit warriors are back. — kwami (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cant be bothered, sorry.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's okay. Article protected for now. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiregional origin of modern humans

Hi,

You added "out of date" and "too few opinions" tags to the Multiregional origin of modern humans page about 18 months ago but I couldn't find any talk page discussion about what the actual problems are. Do you still feel these tags are necessary? If so, can you please outline the issues you see (on the article talk page is probably the best place) and/or point me to some sources with the up to date info and other opinions so I can work towards removing the tags.

Tobus (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence citation

This work by Razib Khan could be cited by articles like Heritability of IQ Also, a race citation— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.155.210 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps but not in wikipedia. We try to avoid to cite random peoples blog posts on controversial topics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a discover magazine mediated newsblog, and the writer is Razib Khan, you can see his credentials on google scholar.

He's a graduate student in genetics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Recognized as authority on human genetic variation and race & intelligence by people like Steven Pinker, John Hawks, Greg Cochrane, Henry Harpending, Jerry Coyne and many others.174.95.171.228 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats sounds very interesting, given that his only published work is on cats. He must be a very promising graduate student. When he gets an article on race and intelligence through peer review then we will certainly see if it is worth citing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You really owe it to yourself and to the Wikipedia project to read better literature on this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what can be better than the aforementioned academics? What, if any, problems do you see with Razib's article?

Weiji, have you had a chance to look at the info I posted on your Talk page?

You, Maunus, and others here might also be interested to learn that a prominent researcher in the field has informed me that he and his team have taken a closer look at Richard Lynn's work on East Asian IQ and discovered that the IQs there are not nearly as high as claimed. This researcher has published critiques of Lynn's work in the past and is among those cited in Wiki articles on the subject (he also appears on your IntelligenceCitations page), so I have no reason to believe he is lying or wrong. I don't know when he plans on publishing his findings on East Asia, but he expressed dismay over the fact that so many scholars, including critics of Lynn who should have known better, accepted Lynn's claims about a higher East Asian IQ at face value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.171.228 (talk • contribs)

I am not interested in personal communications, blog posts, or political activist web sites. Please don't post more about this kind of thing on my talkpage, I am not interested. I am only interested in having our pages on race reflect the most well respected mainstream literature. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained in any way how Razib Khan is not a well respected mainstream academic, there is no reason not to cite him

Feathered Serpent article

Hi im editing in good faith, not vandalising, nor trying to start an edit-war.

What im adding a list of books where authors describe quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent) as a dragon.

I've seen tons of wikipedia articles that use GOOGLE BOOKS as reference.

If you think this is not correct, please explain me how can i meet your personal criteria to maintain my edit, because as i see it im not doing anything wrong.

greets

Yeah, I know you are editing in good faith. To learn how to cite sources properly you can read WP:CITINGSOURCES - it is not my personal criteria. But even if you cite the sources properly your edit does not work, because it is not correct that most sources describe Quetzalcoatle/Feathered Serpent as dragon like. Soe do, but not all. Since it is not a generally accepted description, we should not make it part of the definition. With proper sources we can state that "X has decribed the deity as dragon-like" or something like that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)

Hello fellow vital project member, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the almost 100 articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike, I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (I listed my ideas on my own talk page, here). Carlwev (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I added Miriam Makeba under "Folk and popular music", but not under "non-English language singers." Please feel free to correct this if I'm mistaken. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed that went through. Where she is located is of minor importance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

mathsci

Currently under full site ban: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Request for clarification (October 2013) NE Ent 23:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I know.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Monomyth category

Hi! I've started a discussion on the monomyth category on this talk page. Let's continue there. --Devadatta (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Great idea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And I've taken him to ANI because he is mass removing it from articles without discussion. See for instance The Oxford Companion to World Mythology[20] which doesn't mention Campbell. He isn't actually looking to see if the articles are discussed in terms of monomyths by reliable sources, he's just reverting. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

"Subtiaba-Maribo"

Hi Maunus,

Do you know anything of Maribo/Maribichicoa/Guatajiguala? Sapir thought it might have been Subtiaba, or perhaps closest to Subtiaba, and Campbell apparently questioned that, but I can't find any details. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. I'll take a look when I have a moment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For hard work and high quality. bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know where our paths have crossed exactly, but happy you liked my work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wtf? listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Wtf?. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Wtf? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mixtec

Hi,

Not claiming it's the native name, or even a native name, but I've seen "Ñudzahui" in the lit as a synonym for Mixtec, sometimes without explaining that's what it means. Sure, it's used in the sense of "the language of the Ñudzahui", but it still might be something people need to ID. AFAIK, none of the names you provided are used as an English name for Mixtec, or for the complex as a whole. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ñu means people, tu'un means language, dzavui means rain (not sure in which variety). So Ñudzahui refers to the people of the rain, and tu'un dzavui to the language of the rain. It is of course likely that someone somewhere in the literature made the simple translation mistake of using the word for the people also for the language given that in Spanish and English they are the same. That doesnt mean we need to repeat that mistake. Much less in the infobox. The nomenclature is discussed in the section about that and Ñudzahui is not mentioned. Yavidaxiu whose edit you undid, is coincidentally a native speaker. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned as the name (yes, of the people) in the naming section as "Classical Mixtec", which basically just means colonial sources, though as usual in English, the name of the people can be used for the language. Good to have native speakers here. I'm doubtful listing dozens of local variants of the endonym does much for the article. Certainly good to have them in the individual Mixtec-language articles, though. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The mention of Classical mixtec says does not say that ñu dzavui means Mixtec language, but that tuun ñu dzavui does, i.e. "language of the mixtec people". It makes no sense to say that "I speak Englishmen" or that "I speak German people" in English. It does make sense to say I speak mixtec, but that is opnly because it is borroed from the Spanish which uses Mixteco as an adjective, though the original Nahuatl also referred only to the people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ken Ham

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Sorry if "wordiness" rubbed you the wrong way. Your proposed language was good, clear, readable prose. I meant no offense. I am an advocate of a highly concise summary in the lead. I disagree with your characterization "slogans". These are personal differences in editorial style and opinion and I am more than open to compromise. I think you are making a valuable and balanced contribution to the discussion and sincerely hope you continue to participate. I would like to see some of the content you are suggesting for the lead in the body with some expansion and sources. I will look for the sources and if you are interested I can post what sources I find here (I'll likely post them to the talk page anyway). I am more of a red pencil editor and researcher than a writer so if I find material that you could adapt to prose I think it would benefit the article. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and of course characterizing the pithy prose strategy as writing in slogans was also hyperbole on my part. I do think it reads very bad when skeptical type editors insist on appending "which is considered pseudoscience" or "which has no basis in modern science" to every sentence that mentions one of their pet peeves. It makes for poor prose and can be avoided by simply describing belief as belief, fringe theory as fringe theory and science as science. I think wikipedia would do good to maintain a view of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria. Ham's business is in the latter of course.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Please clarify your way of approaching this revert?

I see that you have deleted my previous request for comment on repeatedly reverting my edit here on your talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMaunus&diff=603489665&oldid=603489081

And I see that you have reverted one more of my edit on another article, when I noticed I have stopped. I would want to understand your concern before making similar edits.

This time, here is my edit summary: Indian independence movement: The citation has no validity as "internal Congress report published in 1947" and it does not mention the content on page 135. Please reinstate with valid reference only.

When you reverted you gave this edit summary: Undid revision 603493570 by Jyoti.mickey (talk) reinstating, please dont remove referenced content in this aggressive way, if you must then add a citation request tag.

My questions is when I have provided in the summary "The citation has no validity as "internal Congress report published in 1947" and it does not mention the content on page 135." then why should I leave it around with citation needed tag? That book is definitely not a "internal Congress report published in 1947" and the content was not available in referenced place so I considered removing it. Can you please clarify your viewpoint? Jyoti (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please conduct further discussions at the talkpages of the articles in question. Whether or not the book that is cited IS the report is irrelevant since it may very well mention the report. I am currently investigating that, but you leave me little time with your aggressive removal fo anything you can find an excuse for removing. You clearly do not check the books to verify the citations, or look very far for other ones so I have to do that now and reinstated the citeable material you have removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I already said "when I noticed I have stopped.". I take objection to your wild accusation "You clearly do not check the books to verify the citations" -- I did. I will wait for you to cross-check. Jyoti (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your good edit at president page.

Hi Maunus; Your recent good edit for subsection title refinement at the Obama page was brought to question about neutrality. The new title looked usable and possibly you could look at the Talk page there and leave a drop-in comment. Perhaps you could glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Contract w God excerpt page 18.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Contract w God excerpt page 18.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spørgsmål

Er du Dansker? Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ja.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ban

You proposed a ban w/o providing any evidence. Would you provide some page links so we know what you're talking about? — kwami (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is there for everyone to see in your edit history, and in your long history of of disputes and grievances over undiscussed controversial moves. I am sorry about this, you know I respect you as an editor and linguist, but it is just getting too ridiculous what you and Skookum are fueling. You also know that I generally agree with you in relation to move requests, but move warring is disruptive for everyone, and helps noone. Ideally you would both simply agree not to move any articles but to file move requests and then let admins do the moves - but somehow I dont think such a mutual agreement is likely to happen. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There was Halkomelem, where I contributed *one* move in a move war. At least recently, where else is there? I would appreciate it if you specified what you're talking about.

I've also been trying to get people involved. If people agreed on the changes that Skookum wants, fine, I just don't think we should move ≈5,000 articles without some actual consensus. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please answer. You say I've been move warring in Native American language articles. In the past month, I've done that once. You've never complained on my talk page, you've never emailed me saying I need to cut it out, nothing. If you're going to call for a ban, the least you can do is present the evidence. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I really would like an answer. Not something from two years ago, since I stopped those moves when people got irritated, but something relevant to today. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right you have only moved warred once in this month on the Halkomelem article. Skookum has been doing it more recently, and you more in the past. Given the circumstances I couldnt ask for just one of you to be sanctioned. I hope you understand.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't. Responses should be proportional. — kwami (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt seem likely that there will be any response.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I lost my adminship because of something like this: There was a move request (for a city, nothing to do with languages), and someone closed the discussion and moved the article to what was clearly not the consensus name, people complained, and I moved it to the obvious consensus. Because I used my admin tools to do so (though without being aware I was doing so, since the move button looks the same either way), it was "wheel-warring". Someone brought me up on charges, the discussion was rather silly and didn't seem to be going anywhere, so I presented my case and didn't pay it much more attention. Meanwhile another admin moved the article back to the obviously consensual name I had moved it to, and most people were happy (it's still there today). Months later, after I'd forgotten there even was a case, I was stripped of my adminship, and was even told that although it was a trivial matter, I deserved it because I hadn't been sufficiently engaged in my own defense. So God knows what's going to happen here. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots

Dude my line just provide balance and is not biased. U can improve language if u want. It provides another side and otherwise whole para and line by Martha Nabbassum is indeed biased.(talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your line does not provide balance but bias, and it gives an undue degree of detail for the lead. Get consensus before inserting it again. If you keep editwarring to get your text in you will likely just be blocked.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And no, Nussbaums statement is not biased, it is a summary of the views of experts on the matter. That is the opposite of bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Who decided the consensus ? U people just give threats of Blocking to prevent your biased article from edit. So, if Martha's statement is not biased . How is SIT's report biased. My line is properly sourced. (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the talkpage. There is a thread about whether to include Nussbaum or not. There was no consensus to remove her statement. The SIT report is already mentioned in the lead, and there is no advantage to adding more detail of it in the lead. IF you wish to include that material you should start a thread on the talkpage and there gain consensus for your proposal. WIkipedia pages are not changed through editwarring, and you will be blocked for it. Not because of your viewpoint but because you dont follow wikipedias policies about editing as your talkpage clearly shows.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend, just because I'm reorganizing things doesn't mean the paragraphs are removed. Nearly all of the material is still there, just into different paragraphs. For example, the VHP material is now organized together, even though that meant splitting it up slightly. I'm not just copy-pasting things here. That article has zero organization as it stands.The-Postman (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend, please follow our policies and get consensu prior to carrying out edits likely to be controversial. Lay out yuor vision for how to improve the organization of the article. You will gain nothing by attempting to "organize" the article unilaterally. Wikipedia doesnt work that way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What material has been removed? I will gladly reinsert what you find.The-Postman (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at all your edits together I can see that you are right, it was only the last edit that removed material that was already inserted below. I apologize. Still you need to get consensus before making significant and contoversial changes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I thank you, sincerely, for relenting. I'm going to put out there that I honestly know very little about this topic and have very little vested interest in this. I pulled up this page when Modi came in the news recently and was just floored at this article. It is extremely well-cited, but it's a mess. My goal here is to remove no, if any, content, even where bizarre, but just to place similar topics together. The "government involvement" thing runs through every line of the page, which is not only biased, but also prevents a reasonable look at any of the individual topics. I swear I'm not some Hindu nationalist.The-Postman (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lack of vested interest is a good thing, it is also my lack of interest that makes me limit my efforts on the article to countervailing the vested interests of hindu nationalist editors. I agree that it is a mess, but you would help everyone by outlining your plan for reorganizing it on the talkpage before proceeding with large scale cleanup.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Uto-Aztecan

I see you have worked on Uto-Aztecan languages, great. Is there any hope of sourcing the sentence I have re-added? At least it appears correct to me ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that it is a very important inclusion, I think it is possible to source the significance of Sapirs comparative work - but since he also did important work on Algic and other families I am not sure that it will be easy to cite it specifically about his Uto-Aztecan work (which consists basically in two articles).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, if you think that Uto-Aztecan does not stand out in his comparative work and that the sentence is better left out, feel free to remove it again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure. Uto-Aztecanists certainly found his two Uto-Aztecan papers impressive, but all the statements I can find are about his comparative work in general. At this point I'll let it stand.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Classic Maya collapse

You've probably seen my edit here after an IP pointed out we were linking to the wrong person. There had been no source and I've fixed that. But the whole section seems untidy and a bit OR. Could you put this on a todo list? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think I am watching that actually. I'll take a look when I have a chance. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 3 June 2014

(UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinker

Hi, I'm not quite sure where we've got to on this one - are you waiting for someone to do something? I think your comments on the article have been addressed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I saw you were doing some work in response to my comments, but didn't want to rush you. I'll take a look at it over the next days.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:VA/E/A and Piano

The strings in a piano are not strummed or plucked. A piano is a percussion instrument. pbp 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The areticle states that it is considered as either in different systems.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I watched piano strings being plucked in several concerts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Mesoamerican languages
Thank you for sharing your profound knowledge of Mesoamerica, especially its rich heritage of languages and the linguists who care about them, like Benjamin Lee Whorf, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (13 August 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 161st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - thank you also for help with Kafka and memory, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for Natchez revolt! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome Gerda!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Level 4 vital articles list of 10,000 articles

Hi, Maunus,

I see that amid your other busyness you are participating in the editor discussion about the level 4 vital articles list. May I ask your help as I suggest restructuring the list of psychology articles based on resources hosted by WikiProject Psychology? Comparably, I would be glad to look into and comment on suggestions you make on the anthropology articles once you have had time to look at those. I've already suggested some trims (I will eventually suggest additions) to the list of organisms articles, and I would be delighted to see more editor comment on those. I think I've said what I have to say about the sports figures already, and there are a lot of other categories on the 10,000 list that need work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposal you talk about? Ive proposed addition of some vital psychology articles in the past. I am not sure wikiproject importance and vitality amounts to the same thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Så begynder "showet" om ID igen på da wiki, med Rmir2 som medaktør.

PerV (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I believe that WP:BURDEN means it is Jyoti's responsibility to prove he is worthy of inclusion; I've taken it to the noticeboard, though, because he is being rather recalcitrant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Since you commented at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#The State of GAC, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Formal decision on nomination limit. Most people who commented on the initial discussion do not seem to be following this page, because the formal decision has gotten very few responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Hello. You removed my addition of as " too tangential" Care to elaborate? The reason why I added this link is that a number of criminal transmission of HIV cases have been delayed or not pursued because of political correctness: the perpetrators were Black immigrants and complained of institutional racism of police and media. See e.g. Simon Mol, or this one, where publishing the photo led to complaints from politicians, who by doing so were, precisely, politically correct:

The first case of criminal HIV infection in Finland was that of Steven Thomas, a Black US citizen from New York, who was convicted in 1997 in Helsinki for knowingly infecting Finnish women with HIV during 1993–1996. In January 1997, Finnish police published Thomas' picture in newspapers and stated that Thomas may have infected tens or even hundreds of Finnish women with HIV. Seventeen women said they had been in unprotected sexual contact with Thomas.

"Some Finns, including leading politicians, voiced concerns about privacy rights and said publishing the picture risked labelling a whole group of foreigners or black people as suspicious. Finland has a very low rate of HIV infection and a relatively very small black population. "

References

Zezen (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• The see also section is not a place where editors can dump links to any article that they personally consider to be an example of the topic of the article. That would get unwieldy very quickly, and also it wouldnt be useful for the reader who in each case would have to guess at how a specific link relates to the topic. In your case it is even more problematic because the view that each case is in fact a case of political correctness is likely to be contested. What is political correctness for you may be simply ethical behavior and commonsense for someone else. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly tangential. It's only your interpretation that this is political correctness. Your sources don't say that it is. And at Simon Mol I've now reverted you twice. Your claim that Mol is a parallel "cases" (your word) is original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I note there is a substantial amount of unsourced material at Simon Mol. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

" substantial amount of unsourced material " Which claims are unsourced? I will be happy to fix the sources. There are fortunately many newspaper reports available - see the Polish page of this article. Zezen (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph starting "On 6 March 2007" and there is no way Wikipedia should be stating that a newspaper proved something. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, I've tried to remove some OR at Simon Mol but it's been reinserted by Zezen, a Mikemikev sock and an IP. I've taken this to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've raised some sourcing issues concerning Mol at WP:RSN#Criminal transmission of HIV, Blacks & political correctness. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA?

FA is a big step, as we discussed before, but don't you think that a GA nomination of language would be pretty easy? You won't be forced to jump through the hoops of a full FAC and I think it could easily pass as is. The article easily deserves that distinction. If anything, I think it'd be a boon to the general readership to see at least some sort of mark of quality.

Just a suggestion, though. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 10:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but you nominate it please, no? I'll participate from the sidelines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Just jump in if discussion gets too complicated.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

POV sources are not Wikipedia reliable sources except for limited uses

The real problem with Mankind Quarterly as a source for any Wikipedia article except about itself and some aspects of the biographies of contributors is that it is a POV source, and thus not a reliable source for most kinds of factual statements per WP:RS: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." There are reliable sources that point out that Mankind Quarterly has never been careful about its editorial practices, notably Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) and later writings by the same author. Certainly, it would be a poor use of sources to rely on a Mankind Quarterly book review to evaluate a book pushing the same point of view as Mankind Quarterly itself, but in fact Mankind Quarterly has often been used to promote books that would get very little favorable notice otherwise. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Weiji, that is incorrect. POV sources can be used fine in so far as they are reliable for the topic at hand. Indeed ALL sources represent a POV. There is no view from nowhere. For Mankind Quarterly that pretty much means that it is only a reliable source regarding the view of authors who publish in Mankind Quarterly, in the same way that blogs can be used as sources for the views of their authors. The question then becomes whether the views of their authors are so notable that they merit inclusion. It does not seem to me that Lynn's 2010 article has received any attention outside of the small circle of his immediate professional network. What makes Mankind Quarterly different from e.g. the APA journal is not that the former is POV and that the second isn't, but that the second can be relied on to reflect the perspective of a large and influential body of professionals who also vouch for the factuality of specific data in the work (making it a reliable source for facts), whereas the former reflects the perspective of a small minority and does not have a good record of fact checking. It is important to separate the question of POV and bias from the question of reliability for facts and established scientific consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to check for sources; let's be very careful about BLP issues per Wikipedia policy

Maunus, if you look back at the article edit history, you will attempts on the Hereditarianism article to label living authors as "hereditarians" solely because they have published on human behavior genetics topics. It seems probable to me that some such persons also have "hereditarian" views as defined (currently with poor sourcing) by the article, but it is also plainly clear in the professional literature that some persons who engage in that research neither self-designate nor are designated by others as "hereditarian." That being the state of the professional literature, it is wise for us to source each and every claim that someone is hereditarian in point of view, especially any living person. Of course I will not object to well sourced edits from the keyboard of any editor. It would help the article immensely to have more good sources identifying who is aligned with exactly what position, as it is probably not true that all people who accept the designation "hereditarian" agree on all subissues connected to that point of view. We should check the sources, and find out the individual facts one by one. I can even suggest a source, namely one of the latest newly published books I am reading, Aaron Panofsky (7 July 2014). Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-05859-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help). I would not say that this book is the last word on its subject, but the author has conducted extensive interviews with living persons and a remarkably thorough literature search to see what current behavior genetics researchers say about their own field. Not everyone who works in that field of research has a "hereditarian" position, not by far. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So why are you intent on removing Murray and not the 7 other unsourced additions, including his coauthor of the worlds best known hereditarian work?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I just said in my edit summary, a dead person has a different application of WP:BLP from a living person. (And it's plain enough to someone who follows the scientific literature on the topic, as I do, that Herrnstein's point of view was always distinct from Murray's.) Meanwhile, if this is such a plainly obvious point, why has no one come up with a reliable, published source, as WP:BLP requires? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bell Curve has two authors. Only one of them is dead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think that "hereditarian" is such a controversial term that it needs to receive BLP attention. I think you are here, again, picking the wrong fight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"In the past few years hard-line hereditarians such as Arthur Jensen and the authors of the controversial book The Bell Curve- Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray- have continued vigorous debates with those who maintain that environmental influencs on IQ are very strong..."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I was glad to see you reminding other editors about Wikipedia core policies

Hi, Maunus,

I guess we both watchlist a user talk page where the user says he is "not interested" in points of view other than his own, even if they are reported in reliable sources. That's too bad, as a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and there is a lot to learn by reading the best reliable sources. I've changed my personal point of view on lots and lots of issues over the years as I read more widely and gain in age and life experience. Thanks for reminding onlookers there about core Wikipedia policies. I continue to stand by the idea that I'm a fallible human being, and reasonable people might disagree with any of my edits, for any reason, but the way forward for Wikipedia is for all of us to bind ourselves to referring to the reliable sources on any topic that Wikipedia treats, so that articles improve, regardless of what each of our individual opinions is. (P.S., I am rather amazed that another editor was looking for "prurient" sources on that same user talk page. Perhaps his spelling correction program did him in.) See you on the wiki. As always, feel free to visit my user talk page (or, as appropriate, an article talk page) to let me know what you think about my edits, and to recommend sources or improvements in my general editorial approach. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

TFA

Hi again, Maunus. Good news: Natchez revolt is now at Today's Featured Article requests. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I hope it comes up soon. Maybe on the anniversary on november 29th. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We've run into a little scheduling issue, but it should get worked out. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America

Thanks for creating this. I agree with you that it is helpful to expose these people and ideas. Are you able to find more members/trustees/donors? Also, when did it end?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

One source says it was "short lived" I tend to assume that it slowly faded away after the victories with the 1924 racial integrity act, and probably was completely gone by the time that the public started becomong disenchanted with racialism and eugenics prior to the American entry in WW2.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Lots of people are still racist, but they don't say it openly. I myself was a victim of racism and antisemitism in Nashville for example; and they were all Democrats, some of them with PhDs btw. I'd be very interested if you were able to find more people from Tennessee connected to this organization. Hopefully we will be able to expand this page as we find more references.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I didnt mean to suggest that racism disappeared, I was only referring to the Anglo-Saxon clubs and public support for eugenics. I am very aware thatracism, social darwinism and eugenics still exists. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a continuum with Virginia Abernethy and others. Btw, are you interested in creating Peace Movement of Ethiopia, a black organization who agreed with Cox and supported repatriation?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the article about Marcus Garvey a bit to reflect his correspondence with Cox, but otherwise no, I dont think I would be interested in writing that article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to work on it. I am finishing a book today, so not right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Earnest Sevier Cox. How do you know he did not support them if he worked with them? And where does it say he worked with Marcus Garvey? (There might be a source for that; it's been a long day. But while creating the Peace Movement of Ethiopia, I only saw that one mentioned.)Zigzig20s (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You havent read the sources. I will be interested in conversing with you when you have.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Peace Movement of Ethiopia is fully sourced and the sources say he started working with them in 1934 (it is that precise!), but I'm not sure any sources say he worked with Marcus Garvey. If you don't have any sources for it, why did you add it?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Go away, I dont find you amusing anymore. Come back when you have read the many many sources at the article about Cox.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-read them now; I did say it had been a long day. No need to be aggressive.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When people are dense or dissimulative I get impatient.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Race classification socking

There are multiple South Korean IP socks going on over at the race classification talk. I opened a case, and also link to another user-account owned by this person. I think most people know who this is of course. He was socking over at Rationalwiki which recently caused the race entry talk pages there to be protected because of excessive vandalism. Since those pages are on lock-down, it looks like he has increased his socking activities here in the last week or so. FossilMad (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. He gets hyperactive every now and then. Then usually a rangeblock is put in effect and he calms down for awhile.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The case is still open [21] and has not been checked. But thanks for response. FossilMad (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I am not an admin or checkuser I cant do much about it. Probably you should try Dougweller (talk · contribs) instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

NRM manual of style

As you are a member of the New religious movements work group, I thought I should bring to your attention the fact that someone recently gutted the New religious movements Manual of Style. I have found this article to be quite helpful in editing articles related to NRM's. I reverted the edit but that was re-reverted (if there is such a word) quite soon aver my reversion.

Perhaps, all that is needed is that the name of the article should be changed from "Manual of Style" to something more appropriate (e.g. General guidance for articles on NRM's or something similar). However, I really would prefer not losing the guidance and thought that I should bring this to the attention of those in the work group. Taxee (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I didnt know we had such a manual.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is your claim that further reading references are somehow disfavored on Wikipedia? Where does policy say that?

Hi, Maunus,

I'm rather surprised that a sourced edit that adds information to the encyclopedia from a reliable source would be reverted by you. On what ground? The Wikipedia Manual of Style subsection on article Further reading sections reads, in full, "Further reading Contents: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." The further reading reference I just added to one article (which is little edited, perhaps because few Wikipedians know of sources for it) does not duplicate any reference from the references or external links section of that article, provides specific page numbers for the part of the book that is about the article subject. What could possibly be objectionable about that, especially in light of the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability? You seem to be remembering a "consensus" that was erroneously announced after a 2010 RfC initiated by users who were subsequently site-banned or topic-banned as meat-puppets of earlier site-banned users. Adding further reading references to an encyclopedia is in fact a professionally recognized editorial practice of all the better dead-tree encyclopedias. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding further references is not a sourced edit that adds information. Though it would be a welcome change if you started adding information to the encyclopedia instead of just using it as a link depository. You also apparentl misunderstand BRD, I reverted your bold edit and you started editwarring instead of discussing. Regarding further reading, particularly adding controversial books about topics that are not directly relevant for the topic of the article is problematic. You have previously been told so by a good number of editors who have stated that your way of understanding the purpose of the further reading section is flawed. It is not a place to dump links to random books that put the topic in a certain light. It is a place to add books that are directly relevant to the topic at hand. If Tucker mentions Critz george then edit the article using the source. But Tuckers book is not about Critz George and does not mention him particularly prominently. And stop editwarring. Inclusions to the further reading section is subject to editorial consensus just as everything else is. So dont readd it without consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The book mentions George specifically on the cited pages, which were written based on a number of sources that the author carefully cites. (Do you have the book at hand, as I do?) Adding further reading references is one of many possible editorial actions on a Wikipedia article that is approved by Wikipedia policy. Turning books that were formerly used as further reading references into actual article text references is also a good idea, and is my typical intention if I first add a further reading reference to an article (which both puts the article on my watchlist and alerts other editors looking on to a source that in good faith I think is useful). No one here has time to do everything at once, and anyway there is there is no deadline for making further useful changes, so what is the objection to adding a further reading reference to any article? The book is and always will be directly relevant to the topic at hand, and would be useful to any reader of the article trying to find out more about George. I will note for the record that I started out editing on Wikipedia by adding sourced content directly to article text, with inline citations to review articles or textbooks, but I often found that it was reverted instantly by I.P. editors (you can check my contributions history for that, I'm pretty sure), without editor discussion, and then it occurred to me that it might be more collaborative with other editors to first of all share the sources, as I often do on article talk pages or in further reading sections, so that editors who follow edits on controversial articles can check sources first, if they please. But I haven't heard a rationale here for why I shouldn't be able to proceed just as any other editors does when following Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources by using those sources one way or another to inform readers of Wikipedia about what the reliable sources say about this or that article topic. I have to specifically disagree with your statement that "Adding further references is not a sourced edit that adds information." That's not what the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests, and that is certainly not what the practice of professionally edited dead-tree encyclopedias suggests. I'll read your other latest edits as we continue to discuss this collaboratively. Please explain why adding reliable sources (as contrasted with deleting them) could ever be a good idea for the improvement of Wikipedia. If we can't simply reach agreement with each other about this (as I hope), what channel would you suggest for having other editors comment on the issue? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To get more input, you can request a third opinion at WP:3O or create an RfC at the talkpage. It should be obvious that adding a reference is not adding sourced information, it is adding a source in the hope that others can access or add the information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a really interesting DYK nomination

Hi, Maunus,

I enjoyed looking at your work on Earnest Sevier Cox (in hindsight, I see that you had been discussing related edits here on your talk page with another Wikipedian) after catching notice of your DYK nomination for the expanded article. That's a great hook. Luckily, I have several of the sources at hand as I check the DYK nomination, so I've just expressed my judgment that the article is ready for DYK featuring, and I hope to see it on Wikipedia's home page soon. Keep up the good work. Feel free to let me if you make other article expansions like that--one of the toughest issues in the DYK process is finding reviewers who know a particular topic, and I'd be glad to help for as long as I have relevant sources in my office. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the encouragement. I don't like to recruit DYK reviewers as that often comes to look like one hand washing the other, but I may let you know if a nomination is languishing in the queue in the future. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that was a surpriseingly quick turnaround.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Natchez revolt, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 30 November 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which ... I did some minor copyediting on that blurb. Using the figures of 230 and 20 from the article, I said "230 of 250", but that may not be right, please check it. If you like my tweaks, you may want to make the same changes to the article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin proposal

Robert McClenon has asked Jimbo out your proposal at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Thought you would want to know. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting. :) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I supported your admin proposal, User:Maunus. I registered my support, and posted some comments challenging the basis for (what seemed to be) logically-fallacious opposition. I guess it's not so surprising how many reactionaries there are, and how either scared they are, or how willing they are to cultivate fear in others to preserve the status quo... Azx2 09:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Wanted to drop by to ask if you wanted to keep this discussion open for full 30 days or if you'd rather it be closed. The opposition seems pretty clear, but if you'd like to keep it open to get broader opinions on your proposal, I can respect that. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Morphological typology

What do you propose be added to the article? My contributions to it have only been in the areas of reorganization and content additions, yet you must've known about the page beforehand and never had any problem with it. Tezero (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I had never seen it before just now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm surprised, that's all, especially since you were the one who added the four basic categories to the expanded vital article list. I have seen some discontent among scholars about these categories, which is why I added the last section, but I don't know of any dominant metrics of classification outside the traditional one. Tezero (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That is because morphological typology is a tiny field in linguistics, hardly anyone thinks it makes sense to consider morphological form in isolation from grammatical function - so almost all typologists work with morphosyntax as a whole. Which is why I dont think adding morphological typology is a good idea. The reason the macrotypes could be considered vital is because all linguists know them and sometimes use them as general reference points, and primarily because they are the most widely known way of classifying languages typologically outside of linguistics. Try to read Crofts "Typology and Universals", in section 2.3. he describes "Morphological typology" describing it basically as an historical phenomenon of the 19th century which was refined by Sapir and Greenberg in the 20th century and then essentially abandoned for a more funcitonal approach.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

I've been pronouncing your username as /mɔnus/. Is this correct? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I pronounce it /'mɑwnus/, the Danish pronunciation of my first name "Magnus".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Endonym of Hopi language

Hello Maunus, two years ago, you added the endonym of the Hopi language. WHere did you find this word? I do not speak at all Hopi but from the title of the dictionary Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni, I would say that the word for "Hopi language" is something similar to "Hopìikwa". This last word matches quite well with what I found in A Concise Hopi and English Lexicon by David Leedom Shaul who states that "-qwa" means "in the language of". The example which is given is "Hopiikwa in Hopi". Of course, the best way to be sure would be to have access to Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni. What do you think about that? Pamputt (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the endonym in the dictionary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok in that case, could you add the dictionary as a source for this endonym (precise the page if possible). Thank you in advance. Pamputt (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont have access to it now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility issues over on my talk page

Hi Maunus. Your latest contribution to the discussion about consensus building over on my talk page may be a violation of wikipedia guidelines on civility. As such, I just thought I would pop over here and recommend that you remove some of the language in that post. In my view it does not add anything to the discussion and only serves to hurt your credibility. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We all make stupid mistakes sometimes and it shouldnt be a problem to point that out. If you had just stopped to look at what it was you were reinserting and who was challenging I wouldnt have had to do that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Racialism

I have not cherry picked the scientific research. All the scientific articles say 'race' is a social construct, and cladistic research or ancestral research is more accurate. The three citations the other people are using have been mis-cited (I cite to and quote from one of those articles). Although some geneticists think that self-identification of 'race' can be useful for epidemiological reasons, that in no way contradicts what the other articles say. I agree with your edit to eliminate the use of the word 'scientific' and have simply moved the citations to another section of the article so it makes sense and is uncontroversial.

thanks?

So now I have to manually clean up the ridiculousness of a POV pusher. Look at his/her contributions. Majority are in the area of... well, to be politically INcorrect, they are about making Native Americans look "better" and damn the truth or any references. I can understand wanting to put the truth of what happened to natives all around the world, but this editor has an obvious POV, along with bad editing and a lack of references.Camelbinky (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Also- unless policy has changed recently, I do not have to cite templates on dubious claims that are uncited, they can be removed. I actually did fight to make it where you would have to research yourself and look to add citations before removing dubious claims, however I was out !voted. Yes, I'm a hypocrite, but if you insist that I have to manually clean up this editor's monstrosity of additions of dubious nature and POV pushing and removing of good information with uncited material, I'll simply bring the editor to the attention of a noticeboard or AN/I and let admins clean his/her mess up and or block him/her. This is ridiculous. I'd rather try to reform the editor than make him/her be "punished". The contributions are crap.Camelbinky (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I know Parkwells as a fine editor with expertise in the history of American minorities (not just natives). Also an editor who is willing to collaborate and use high quality historical sources. Nothing of what is included is monstrous or obviously dubious which is why you need to actually make an argument instead of just hurling invective. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(I'm drawn into this conversation because Maunus's talk page is on my watchlist.) I too can attest that Parkwells is a responsible Wikpedian who refers to reliable sources. (I am not at all aware of what is going on in the article under discussion in this talk page section.) I think if everyone stays calm and carefully checks reliable sources, any differences of opinion about what is to be said in article text can be resolved constructively, with Wikipedians on "all sides" learning something from one another by referring to the sources each Wikipedian recommends. Oh, and happy new year to all of you and thanks for your volunteer work in maintaining and improving the encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Article in question had no references added yet over 1,000 characters added. That's not being responsible.Camelbinky (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking you up on your offer. Help!

I'm working on the termination policy and need some other editors to weigh in. Looks like anyone else who was working on this page stopped looking at in in 2011. If you could read through the Talk:Indian termination policy sections on Republican Administrations?, 14 Termination Laws, Number of tribes/bands terminated?, and Arthur V. Watkins and offer any insight or comment, it would be very much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. It is getting a little late outhere, so I will take a look tomorrow. I have looked a little at it before and thoughtit looked good, but I will see if I have any suggestions tomorrow.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not dealing with this

You claim it's a content dispute, I claim it is rampant disruption which is in fact the purview of AN/I and that's where I'm taking your edit war. Consider this your notificationCamelbinky (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone is as impervious to reason and collegiality as you are being here that is where every dispute will end.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The second "shit"

I commented as a lurker because I saw your name. Once I got to the second "shit" I stopped reading and stated the obvious. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Something definitely ticked off Camelbinky in a major way, but I was happy to see that they were a big enough person to stand back and de-escalate even having gotten as far as he did on high steam. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help and support on Schenectady, New York and the AN/I; I got interrupted while working on 'Schenectady' and had added the cites first to Schenectady Massacre, intending to come back to the other. Found a better source for the data on the Schenectady Massacre, so substituted that. (Missed much of the AN/I and discussion until today; have had a friend in the hospital.) Other comments on article TP.Parkwells (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please meet me in talk

Please would you meet me the Roger Pearson (anthropologist" talk section?--gh38999 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I was writing my reply as you were writing your second one, which caused an edit conflict. It should be inserted now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "I DONT EVEN NEED TO GIVE A RATIONALE" comment

You've made that comment several times. I was just quoting the most recent one, and the all caps was your emphasis, not mine. Your input to this project is invaluable and your suggestions to Rekishi make sense, but to me there is a pattern of you not holding yourself up to the same standards you expect of others and accusing other people of behaviour you have shown yourself in the past. For instance, you suggest that people compare what they're proposing to what is already on the list; but some of the things you say here make me wonder whether you normally bother familiarizing yourself with the relevant part of the list before you !vote. Cobblet (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never tried to badger a voter into making or changing a rationale. That is what you were doing in that thread, and what I was pointing out is that there IS no rule that a vote should have a rationale, they are just votes, and we are not forming consensus. I think there should be a requirement for rationales and that it should be a consensus based process. For that reason I will keep using my right to oppose to push proposers to at least formulate an actual rationale for their proposal. You are right that I have had a tendency to not familiarize myself sufficiently with what is on the list before proposing and voting.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for badgering you, but I pick on you because you are so outspoken in what is or isn't the right way to do things relative to everyone else. Don't get me wrong; by and large I think you are right about such things and your ideas have made the list better. Perhaps you are also right that what we do is fundamentally different from pure consensus-building, but I think the nature of the current discussions on the page suggests that many participants use it as a component of the process. IMO an oppose !vote that lacks a rationale beyond "I don't think so" does not contribute anything more to a discussion than a proposal that lacks a rationale. Indeed I've been guilty of doing both in the past, but I try my best to avoid that nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

For me oppose is the default state for adds and support the default for removes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

German Guatemalan

Soy el creador de un 90% de las paginas de Euro-centroamericanos (Germanonicaraguense, italocostarricense, Hispanomexicano) etc, pero en otra cuenta no en IP, y mis referencias son del CIA, los clubes europeos y libros de historia, no vengas con pajas!, y no me vengas a decir que lo que estoy haciendo esta mal, porque yo soy historiador, gracias y no vuelva a editar German Guatemalan a menos que tenga una referencia valida

• Importa muy poco lo que hayas creado de páginas. Lo que importa es la relevancia de los enlaces que usas como referencias. Un blog escrito por ti mismo jamás es una referencia válida. Si eres historiador expectaria que seas capaz de referir fuentes no escritos por ti mismo, publicado en revistas o editoriales académicas.También expectaria que fueras capaz de tener una discusión civil sin usar insultos y expletivas. Es un simple hecho que lo estas haciendo mal, en términos de tu conducta poco colaborativa y en términos de tu uso de referencias. Lo que vas a tener que hacer ahora es 1. dejar de introducir los cambios que ya dos editores han puesto en duda 2. ir a la pagina de discusion y tener una discusión civil presentando fuentes que apoyan a tu argumento. A no hacer eso va a haber necesidad de buscar intervención administrativa y te puedo garantizar que no te va a favorecer. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • EQUIVOCADO:QUE DESGRACIA!, YA ME HABIA TOPADO CON ESTO EN WIKIPEDIA EN ESPANOL, AHORA EN INGLES, ME DISCULPAS PERO COMO PUEDES LLAMAR A MI TRABAJO BASURA (EN POCAS PALABRAS), YO SOY UN JOVEN DE 24 ANOS, VIAJE DESDE ESPANA HACIA GUATEMALA, TENGO MUCHO DINERO, SOY HISTORIADOR Y TENGO LA PIEL BLANCA, YO PIENSO QUE SU IGNORANCIA Y COMPLEJOS NO HACEN VER CON CLARIDAD MI TRABAJO, YO NO ME GUIO DE PAGINAS CUALQUIERA, QUE SE ME ANTOJE EN INTERNET? (A SI VA, ES MAS FACIL BUSCAR EN ALGUN LADO DE INTERNET, DONDE TODO EL MUNDO PONE LO QUE QUIERE, A SI VA, ES MAS FACIL, AUNQUE LOS LINKS SEAN ROTOS, PERO SERA MAS FACIL INVERTAR LA INFORMACION VERDAD, A SI VA!) (SARCASMO), PUES YO NO HAGO ESO, YO ME GUIO DE LIBROS QUE TENGO EN MI CASA, TRABAJE EN VARIAS EMBAJADAS DE VARIOS PAISES, YO CUANDO PRESUMO DE ALGO, ES PORQUE LO TENGO, Y SI TENGO EL INTELECTO PARA DESCRIBIR UNA EXCELENTE INFORMACION LO PRESUMO, Y LO PRESUMO Y SE LOS RESTRIEGO EN SUS CARAS A USTED, A LOS ADMINISTRADORES Y PUTOS BIBLIOTECARIOS, PARA QUE VEAN LO QUE ES TENER BUENAS PAGINAS, INCLUYENDO TEXTOS QUE DIGAN LA REALIDAD DE LAS COSAS, Y A MI ME PELA LO QUE DIGAN SI ES RACISMO LO QUE PONGO O NO, YO PONGO LO QUE ES, ASI QUE VAYA ACONSTUMBRANDOSE A MI TRABAJOI, Y A MI MARGEN

Me vale madres tu dinero y tu color de piel, pero tu actitud y arrogancia si es intolerable. Si tienes tantos libros usalos como fuentes, citalos, no sitios de web sin relevancia. Si hicistes tus propios investigaciones publicalos, en otro lado y tal vez servirán de fuentes en el futuro. No parece que entiendes muy bien como funciona wikipedia, y supongo que eso también es la causa de tus problemas en la wiki española. Usamos fuentes publicados, no investigaciones propios. Trabajamos colaborativamente buscando consensus, no con insultos y groserias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pues, gracias por sus sugerencias :) las tomare en cuenta, y perdón si soné algo vulgar o grosero :$, lo que pasa es que yo ya estoy acostumbrado a tratar con subdesarrollados que viven con fanfarronerías (en especial a los latinos), pero se lo vuelvo a repetir, si yo presumo de algo, es porque de verdad lo tengo, ACLARO: la mayor parte de mis fuentes que pongo en mis paginas son de los libros que tengo en mi casa, no confio tanto del internet, aunque aveces uso google books, ademas en German Guatemalan, gran parte de la pagina le di neutralidad pero su referencia es Deutchland en la Verapaz, porque ese sitio web, contiene informacion de algunbos libros buenos, vealo por usted mismo, gracias

Tomalo a la talkpage, y ahi lo discutimos. Pero debes saber que sitios de blogs por lo general no son fuentes aceptables, y menos cuando se trata de informacion controvertida. Y sigamos la platica en ingles, porque esto si es la wikipedia angloparlante, yo solamente te estaba acomodando, ya que no parecia que dominabas el ingles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ya puedo discutir sobre la poblacion de guatemaltecos alemanes étnicos, en la pagina de discursion, perdon por el retraso, pero por evadir un bloqueo de una semana me dieron 2 semanas, saludos

Request for involvement

This probably takes some explaining. At the recent ArbCom case regarding Landmark Worldwide I suggested that maybe it might be possible to get together a group of editors with some broad experience of wikipedia and knowledge of the general topic area to get together and review the sources available on the topic with the intention of ultimately starting a broader discussion, probably through RfC, about the issues involved. It is more or less in line with a proposal I made for something like a "content" committee, which would probably be more reasonably called a "comment" committee, given the role I think RfC and the hopefully wide variety and number of editors might play in the real outcome of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. ArbCom itself requested some broader input in the topic area in its decision.

I was thinking of editors around here who might have some sort of broad experience in the social/religious issues involved and you were one of the first names that came to mind for maybe taking part in reviewing information presented and evaluating sources and the like. If you would have any interest in maybe taking part in this sort of test run for such a committee, I would obviously welcome it. I haven't actually started a separate section on the article talk page yet, because I wanted to see if there were any responses from the individuals I was considering, or, potentially, anyone else who might be interested. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am always open to participating in content disputes that require sound research of sources in order to find balance and neutrality - especially as you know in topics that fall within an anthropological domain such as many social, religious, biological, historical and political controversies. Whether this is on a committee or simply on a talkpage I am likely to participate if anyone invites me, especially if the topic interests me, and controversial topics usually do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What does "Not Patrolled" mean?

Maybe a silly question, but I wrote an article about the Choctaw Youth Movement and I see this message "!This new page is not patrolled." Is that a good thing? A Bad thing? Something I don't need to worry about? Something I should worry about? :P Thanks for you help. Someday, maybe I won't ask sooo many newbie questions. SusunW (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Champollion

I gave it a quick skim. Fortunately, I recently got Andrew Robinson's biography of Champollion. There are some small points on which Robinson disagrees, and other things I think should be included in the article. I can add them once I find the time—maybe on the 24th or 25th. I believe it could qualify as a GA with a little bit of work. A. Parrot (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have skimmed Robinson's biography and was a little put off by what I read as a slight pro-Young bias. I will take a look at it again. Although I don't think Robinson is necessarily to be considered more authoritative than e.g. Adkins & Adkins, but where they agree we can certainly put in both views. And any information that Robinson has but which the Adkins's don't can of course be supplied. I also want to expand the section on the expedition quite a bit. I am also going to read the biography by Hartleben which is freely available through google.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The main point of disagreement that came to my mind was the meeting with Fourier when Champollion was 11. Robinson says that neither Champollion, Champollion-Figeac, or Fourier mentioned the episode in their own writings. He seems to think Hartleben invented the story, perhaps based on actual contact between Fourier and the Champollions in 1804–1806, when Jean-François was a little older. He implies elsewhere that Hartleben's biography is rather overenthusiastic, though he gives it credit for being the most extensive biography out there.

As for pro-Young bias, I really don't see it. Robinson's postscript says: "Having written a biography of Young, I find my sympathies acutely divided. As must be plain to the reader, I salute Champollion for his self-confidence, his fanaticism for a single cause, his courage, his sense of humour and his joi de vivre. Young attracts me for his modesty, his wide-ranging interests, his honesty, his analytical powers and his love of moderation." He acknowledges that Champollion did the great majority of the work in deciphering hieroglyphs, and the only point on which he seriously faults Champollion is his refusal to acknowledge his debt to Young's small but crucial steps with hieroglyphs. Young's biggest contribution to Egyptology actually seems to have been his work on Demotic, which, as Robinson notes, led John D. Ray to call Young the decipherer of Demotic. (For the record, I generally sympathize more with Champollion than Young because Egypt was his passion, as it is for me, and unlike Young he didn't write off Egyptian religion as superstition.)

Anyway, I don't regard Robinson as more authoritative than any recent biography, but I think it's important that articles be based on more than one source in order to get a variety of viewpoints. For that reason, I'd be more comfortable still if you or I could obtain another recent treatment of the subject, like Richard B. Parkinson's Cracking Codes or Ray's The Rosetta Stone and the Rebirth of Ancient Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that is interesting because I actually looked in Hartleben to find that story of the meeting with Fourier. I agree entirely that the incorporation of as many biographies as possible is desirable to get a broad consensus based view. I will see which ones I can find at my library.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm very happy to happy to have you around here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Wikipedia Indo-European Award
		Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Half Barnstar
		For your collaboration with Jsayre64 (talk · contribs) on the Featured Article Natchez revolt, you are hereby awarded the Left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Obligatory alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Xicalcoliuhqui

Hi Maunus; I don't know if it is on your watchlist or not, but someone has posted a Nahuatl-language query over at Talk:Xicalcoliuhqui, and I thought it would be something you could easily deal with. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you, that's exactly what I was looking for! — Alammana (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jean-François Champollion

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So What Are You Getting Your Sweetheart for Valentines?

Some gift ideas. --Taivo (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That is always a gamble, and as it turns out I tried that particular idea and she didn't like it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Joshua Jonathan was paying attention ;) --Taivo (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the UK

Thanks for providing some outside input on Somalis in the United Kingdom. Middayexpress has come back with some further comments on the census religion data, in case you're interested in participating further. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your input the other day. The religion issue seems to be settled, but the education discussion rumbles on. I don't know if you have any interest in contributing further, but it's just two of us debating at the moment and it's not going anywhere, seemingly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really interested enough to participate further I must say. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I can't say I blame you! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mainstream scholars"

You know, "mainstream scholar" is not synonymous with "whomever agrees with me." I've often asked people who cite the mythical "mainstream" in support of their edits to substantiate their claims using reliable sources, but they are never able to do that. There's really no point in trying to improve any of the race & IQ articles when you and TheRedPenOfDoom are just going to tag team to purge any material that offends your delicate sensibilities.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read a lot of reviews of Lynn and Vanhanen, the only favorable ones are by people who are obviously their comrades-in-arms. Mainstream scholarsin psychometrics are people like Hunt, Flynn, Mackintosh, Dolan, Wicherts, who are pretty much located in as neutral a space is possible in the hereditarian debates. And they are unanimously dismissve of Lynn and Vanhanen on theoretical, methodological and empirical grounds.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Jensen, J.P. Rushton, Garett Jones, Michael McDaniel, Joel Schneider, Heiner Rindermann, James Thompson, Richard Dickerson, and Gregory Christainsen are some of the scientists that have endorsed many aspects of Lynn's thesis. To cast their views aside as somehow "non-mainstream" is the worst sort of POV pushing.

Even Lynn's critics are much more equivocal in their views if you actually bother to read them. Hunt, for example, has written:

"We conclude that in spite of the weaknesses [of] several of their data points Lynn and Vanhanen's empirical conclusion was correct [...] Our data support the major empirical conclusion put forward by Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) and Lynn and Mikk (in press); that measures of the cognitive competence of residents of a country predict the economic status of that country."--Hunt & Wittmann (2008)

"Are some nations smarter than others? If they are, does it make any difference? The gist of this article is that the answer to both questions is 'yes.' [...] Future developments in molecular and behavior genetics may identify [IQ] genes, and at that time it will be possible to make a scientifically justifiable statement about international differences in the potential for intelligence. As of 2012, no such statement can be made. This does not mean that no such differences exist. It means that the extent of a genetic contribution to international differences in GCA is unknown at present."--Hunt (2012)

How does someone who is "overwhelmingly critical" and "dismissive" of Lynn's thesis write that "Lynn and Vanhanen's empirical conclusion was correct" and that genes conceivably contribute to national differences in IQ?--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are being ridiculously selective in these quotes. Hunt considers Lynn and Vanhanens data to be useless. The second quote actually says that explicitly - they asked a meaningful question, but did not contribute to answering it in the least. That L&V are right in that there is a correlation between National IQ and wealth is a surprise to noone - this correlation just doesnt show what Lynn and Vanhanen thinks it shows because it is not biological, since as Hunt, Rinderman and others have demonstrated it is mediated by education. This is the mainstream view: that Lynn and Vanhanens basic ideas was not horrible, but that they botched it by using flawed data, flawed methods and erroneously saw it as supporting a hereditarian hypothesis that was not actually tested by their data. I know hardcore hereditarians like you dont like the fact that they are not within the mainstream of their field. The correct thing to do about that would be to address the critiques by the mainstream, instead of keeping on doing research that is ethically and methodologically undefensible. POV pushing is trying to depict scholars like Lynn and Rushton as if their views are considered to be within the mainstream. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "hardcore hereditarian." My views are quite ordinary in differential psychology and behavioral genetics. I was not selective with Hunt quotes. My point was to show how ridiculous it is to claim that he is "dismissve of Lynn and Vanhanen on theoretical, methodological and empirical grounds." The datasets collected by Lynn, Rindermann, Wicherts, Hunt, etc. are so highly collinear that one of them cannot be branded "useless" without rejecting the others. Lynn has sometimes suggested a heritability of 50 percent for global IQ diffs, elsewhere he has been more circumspect, but at this point we obviously can have only Fermi estimates on this. Hunt has written that the heritability of racial differences in obviously non-zero, but has not suggested effect sizes. The idea that other researchers have rejected Lynn's thesis is simply false. There's a lively scholarly debate about these issues, and to characterize it as Lynn versus the Mainstream (tm) is just nonsense.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly several different views in the mainstream. But Lynn's is not one of them, and it has indeed been roundly critciized as unsound in the extreme by all of the scholars you mention. Including Hunt, Rinderma etc. The alleged collinearity is a non-argument, if I make up data that happens to correlate well with actual empirical data that does not validate my invention. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Three-quarter-million award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring language (estimated annual readership: 750,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Peter Isotalo 18:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Genetic evidence for Indo-Aryan migration

Not wanting to poke that hornet's nest again, but I thought it was curious how Bladesmulti kept beating the "genetic evidence is crucial" drum, when the distribution of Haplogroup R-M17 shows exactly the pattern expected from the Kurgan theory: Eastern Europe and India. That doesn't itself prove the point, but it sure is compatible with it. "There is no genetic evidence for a migration" sounds like there is some genetic evidence that is not compatible with it (as opposed to evidence that can be interpreted either way), and that's exactly what he tried to argue. But the ancestral clade Haplogroup R-M420 is actually dated to less than 18,500 years old, so there is a real possibility of people entering India much later than 40,000 years ago, and quite possibly as late as 4000 years ago. Compare Kurgan culture#Genetics: given the association with European traits, an Eastern European origin is actually far more likely than a South Asian one. I'm not sure if Bladesmulti fails to appreciate that. I don't know how you can look at this evidence and say "there is no genetic evidence for a migration". The genetic evidence is actually stronger than expected. Ironically, there's far more R-M17 in South Asia than in France or Spain (this might be because the Atlantic Seaboard was Indo-Europeanised relatively recently; R-M17 reflects all Indo-European migrations until the Late Bronze Age)! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti and a couple of other editors there have been consistently misrepresenting the literature, including recent genetic studies. It is obvious to anyone with a clue about genetics that the distribution is exactly what one would expect, - the only point of some contention is the dating of the northern migrations, and it is only one of the indian researchers who has been quoted in a publication by the Infinity Foundation as saying that his findings "disprove" the Indo-Aryan migration scenario. They really have no case at all, and it would be better for the encyclopedia if they wer not allowed to contribute to this area where they clearly have a POV agenda and too little competence to be helpful.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Gorilla 'sign language'

There is a discussion on Talk:Koko (gorilla) regarding the extent to which the claims regarding this ape's supposed acquisition of sign language have been accepted by the scientific establishment. I'm fairly sure that it has been the subject of some controversy, but don't really have access to useful online sources. I was wondering whether you might be able to help either with sources, or by commenting on the talk page yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement on SAT page needs a cite

Hi Maunus,

You added the following to the SAT page: "Furthermore the SAT is equally predictive of overall job and educational performance for minority and for White students."

Everything I've seen from independent sources states otherwise. I tagged it with the citation needed tag. Do you have a citation for it? Thanks.--TDJankins (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for the edit you are talking about? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks to you!

Thanks so much for the comment you left for Critical Race Theory, and for being so supportive with your knowledge! We are taking Wikipedia slow and my students will be working in their sandboxes for the most part. We will be doing most of our wiki work in the next couple of weeks, and I will definitely encourage my students to use you as a resource. with great appreciation! DaneAmanda (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

New

Hi am just new here...and I have so many things to write about and contribute on this esteem platform...I just want to acknowledge your work and I must say I was thrilled by what you wrote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raheem ah (talk • contribs)

Manuel da Silva Rosa‎

I assume this is on your watchlist. THave you viewed some of the other language wikis on him? Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't on my watchlist, no, and I havent looked at other wikis no. I'll take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethn. 18

Ethnologue 18 is out. I've been junk-mailing the volunteers at WP:LANG to help out, but thought I'd spare you. Still, anything you notice that needs updating would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

As one of the largest active contributors to the 2002 Gujarat riots area, a vote here would be appreciated, in either direction. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Pueblo peoples or Ancestral Puebloans?

Hi there. You don't know me, but I've noticed that you have an interest in Indigenous people topics. I was wondering what you though of the article title Ancient Pueblo peoples. It seems to me that the most common term today for them is Ancestral Puebloans. Ancient Pueblo peoples seems like a poor choice, even Ancient Puebloan people would be better. I am considering suggesting a move, but I wanted to get some feedback first. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think Ancient Pueblo people is a poor choice? I can't say I've noticed "Puebloans" gaining traction (much less ancestral). You would need some kind of supporting evidence for the argument to convince me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Park Service calls them Ancestral Puebloans. We also have another article: Puebloan peoples. Here are a few books that call them Puebloans: [22], [23], [24]. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that the term exists. An ngram shows the term "puebloan" and "pueblo people" to be equally common today. What is the rational for choosing puebloan over pueblo people? I don't understand the concern.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it a concern, but Ancestral Puebloans is simpler and closer to what they probably prefer. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What do we know about what modern Pueblo people prefer their ancestors to be called? That would also be a possible argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I visited the region last summer, and everyone used Ancestral Puebloans, not Pueblo people, which I think is outdated. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe you, but anecdotal evidence and personal experience doesnt work for wikipedia purposes though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok here is an argument that works, google scholars has 495 hits for "ancestral puebloans" and 175 for "ancient pueblo people".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So, does that mean you support a page move? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, there may be other considerations to make as well, but I think it shows that having the discussion is a good idea. You should make a page move discussion at the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see there is already a discussion taking place on the talkpage, maybe you should chip in there. I have.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've now also commented there, but that discussion looks stale. Is there an accepted method for inviting people to the move discussion, such as an RfC, or is that overkill? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added a formal move discussion, yuo can add your support there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Maunus! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy yo help. :) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-Engineering Culture

Hi Maunus, hope you're having a good 2015 so far. Just stopping by to mention that I'm impressed by your ambition to revise the Culture article and by the work you've already done. And to share some thoughts. Contemplating a similar overhaul of News, I'm realizing how challenging it can be to work on these big abstractions. One issue is that language differences have a big effect, and can correlate with a selection bias in sources. (I.e., is there an Igbo word/concept for "culture"? What's their historical perspective on the issues involved?) On the plus side, there's probably a lot of great material on the wikipedias in other languages.

It occurs to me that you might be interested in the topic known as Counterculture—something with maybe a little more heft than a mere subculture, ha ha. As far as the political uses of culture—a topic of assured interest— there's an interesting book called The Cultural Cold War (by Frances Stonor Saunders). A related category is economic uses of culture, about which Captains of Consciousness (by Stuart Ewen) is informative. Both of these books are, relative to your huge topic, limited in scope, so they may not make the top of your list. But I guess the takeaway might be that advertising, public relations, and propaganda can have a significant top-down effect on culture.

OK, looking forward to seeing where you take this thing. aloha, groupuscule (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi groupuscule and thanks for keeping an eye on my work. Your suggestions are well taken - and certainly the idea of culture as a tool of hegemony and resistance (counterculture) will feature in the article. I am less sure that there will be room to discuss the topic of cultural variability in concepts of culture - while interesting it is not the topic of a body of literature to my knowledge. The challenge with this kinds of articles is that they need to coverage huge amount of ground in a very superficial manner - while still having some level of information value. I have worked a lot on Language and Human where I have developed my approach to these broad articles which consists mainly in identifying the topics that intersect significantly with the main topic and then finding the most solid overview sources on each topic to give a short summary of the main ideas in each intersectional topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Right on, right on. Regarding the economic and political powers mentioned in my comment above: even more obvious than these influences on culture in the capitalist countries, have been the overt, "scientific", constructions of culture in the communist countries. The Cultural Revolution leaps (forward) to mind as a notable event in this realm. (Linked from there are Cultural Revolution (Libya) and the "Islamic", not Marxist, Iranian Cultural Revolution.) There doesn't seem to be a great overview of Soviet culture (though see Category:Soviet culture), but I understand they also had some pretty heavy top-down, deliberate culture creation. Anyway, I'm getting a lot of good information for News; still figuring out how to organize it. Chronological vs. thematic being the biggest question. Maybe you'll want to give it a glance after some of the material goes up there. groupuscule (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Grolier Codex GAN

Hi Maunus,

What with the Core Contest, it slipped my mind that we were in the middle of the Grolier Codex GAN - is there anything outstanding? It's not urgent, so whenever you have time (and I don't mind waiting until the CC is over), but I think I responded to each of your points. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely forgot! Sorry about that! I will conduct the final review this moment. My apologies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Maunus, I wasn't expecting such a rapid response! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

If you're interested and have the time, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please contact me

Hello! I am working on a news feature story about the use of "consists of" in articles. I notice that you specifically have a disclaimer on your User Page saying that you use the phrase. Could you please reach out to me at your earliest convenience at Keltym@CBSNews.com Thank you! NOLANY (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean "comprised of" right? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mexican language pops

Re. this,[25] do you mean that the Mexican census is not a RS, or that that site is not a RS of the Mexican census? — kwami (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean the site, the personal website of a historian. Use INEGI or INALI directly instead, their statistics are the best for all Mexican languages and easily accessible. This ebook by INALI gives recent and fairly reliable speaker data. It has data from the 2010 census I believe, and the next census should come out sometime next year.·maunus · snunɐɯ·

Could you check whether the estimate of 8 speakers of Ixcatec language is reliable? Quite different from the 190 per INALI. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would use INALIs data. Alternatively we could ask Mwswanton (talk · contribs) whom I believe is working with the language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I emailed them. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Also, Mixe languages: I just noted the number of "Mixe" and "Popoluca"; perhaps you can interpret it better. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Mixe of Oaxaca.

Some Popoluca are Zoquean (Texistepec, Sierra and Ayapanec), and the Mixean Popoluca languages (Oluta and Sayula) are not considered Mixe languages (but part of the Mixean branch of Mixe Zoque), so the Mixe languages should only include the Oaxaca Mixe languages. Unfortunately the INALI book combines both the Zoque popolucan and Mixe popolucan languages into a single group (but the only one of the popoluca languaes with a sizeable population is Sierra Popoluca). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I counted 90% as Zoque.

Another divergent estimate at Mocho language: < 30 vs 106. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent censuses have been more tenacious in searching for speakers of the minor languages I believe, and perhaps more generous in classifying people with less than native competence. Another case is the (in)famous Ayapaneco case where received wisdom says there are only two speakers but in reality there are around 40 speakers of different degrees of fluency.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Possible problem with Tacuate language: Ethn. says the term is pejorative. Odd for it to be used in the census if it is (and Ethn. is often wrong in these judgements), but if so, should we ignore INALI for that language? Or might some Tacuate have reported their language just as "Mixtec"? — kwami (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never been able to figure out Tacuate, it seems some groups have started using it recently as a way to get more visibility for their variety. Again I would follow INALI - they pretty much know what theyre doing even when theyre doing it wrong.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Finished. If you want to ping me when the new figures come out, I'll update them. Or if there's something similar for Guatemala. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to. Thanks for your work!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Or the US or Canada. We have nice data for British Colombia, but that's pretty much it. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Cox

I feel like bringing up Cox in the talkpage conversation was very inappropriate, completely off topic, and an attempt to shame me for not jumping to conclusions.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand it might feel that way, and I will agree to depersonalize the debate from now on. On the other hand I felt that claiming to be colorblind while having an evident and sustained interest in protecting White Southern gentlemen from being labeled as racists is both disingenuous and inappropriate. If you feel I am being unfair maybe you can show me where you have advocated more diverse perspectives. That would strengthen your claim to being the voice of colorblind neutrality. Alternatively you could just argue based in policy and sources instead of bring up irrelevant legal perspectives and filing one request after the other (called forumshopping in WP jargon) in a case where your viewpoint is clearly in the minority. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to convince you that I am color-blind. I just am. The legal experts are cited and not irrelevant. But let's not wax on about that. I see you are interested in Mexican-American history. Would you like to create some articles about the early Mexican settlers of Los Angeles and their ranches? For example, Beverly Hills, California was Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas and it belonged to Maria Rita Quinteros Valdez de Villa. I don't know if there is sufficient published research about her specifically, but she was born in California as early as 1791, so it sounds interesting. She might have been the granddaughter of Luis Manuel Quintero (is there a portrait of him anywhere that we could add to his infobox?).Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in Mexican American history actually. I dont know what gave you that impression. And I also have no shortage of articles to work on. But thanks, anyway. Lets just leave it at that and continue improving the encyclopedia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You wrote a comment about Chicano Studies on the talkpage. Can you please in-line every sentence of the first paragraph at Vance Muse and also provide a clear reference for the expression "far right", or is that your opinion? My understanding is that most racists in history have all been left-wing. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the page is interesting btw. But the tone really needs to be improved.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your understanbding is stupid and wrong. And if you read the many many sources I have provided you will find all the information in the article including "far right". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do in-line every controversial statement you make about an individual. Please don't call me 'stupid'--is this another personal attack? Moreover, please let us know which reference uses the phrase "far right". One shouldn't have to spend half an hour going through every single reference to check if it's a made up phrase or not.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Maunus. I noticed that you are interested in linguistics, so I was wondering if you have access to this source: Hinton, Leanne (1979). "Irataba's Gift: A Closer Look at the ṣ> s> θ Soundshift in Mojave and Northern Pai". Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Papers in Linguistics 1: 3–37. The title seems to imply that Irataba had some phonetic influence on the Mohave language, but I don't know how to track down this source. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a rather obscure journal, but I may be able to access it through my university library. I;ll give it a try.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver:, I have requested it through the library, but it will take a couple of days for it to get here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks, Maunus! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Roger Pearson (Anthropologist), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Will you please do it, then?

Sorry, I'm not a participant, and I just started throwing scads of stuff into archive 16. Would you please archive it, then? (re: this) With respect, Red Slash 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't. You need to pay attention to which discussions are still open and which are moot before archiving anything. Generally an admin would start closing the discussions that are no longer active.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've done it. Seems someone else other than you had already archived the ongoing RfC on small caps use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

English grammar

Thanks for alerting me, Maunus. Yes, I would like to add some things. I'm finally becoming freer of client work (it's an annual cycle), so will be there soon. Tony (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi, Maunus. I don't have access to Hunt 2010:428. I accept your removal of the {Cn}.

A different problem remains: much of the next section of the article, "Health and nutrition," directly contradicts the claim in "Socioeconomic environment" that, "excluding extreme conditions, nutritional and biological factors that may vary with SES have shown little effect on IQ." These two sections should be harmonized somehow; I suggest a qualifying phrase in front of the assertion I just quoted. Any thoughts on the matter? Surfscoter (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what Hunt writes on page 428: "SES cannot be the sole explanation for the gap because SES measurements do not fully account for the differences, SES is itself confounded with intelligence, and SES is itself a statistical abstraction of several variables: parenting practices, Gap is greatly reduced and no longer statistically reliable when not just child's score is considered but also parent's scores - three best predictors was occupational status of household head, mother's verbal comprehension test score and nature of interaction with child. (Yeung & Conley 2008)"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Surfscoter:: I've worked a little on the section in question, let me know if you find it to be an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus:: Brilliant. Thanks for the clarifying edits. Surfscoter (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Urupa vs. Uru-Pa-In

Hey Maunus,

Can you tell if Urupa (a synonym for Oro Win per Ethnologue, separate Chapacuran language per Campbell etc.) is the same as Uru-Pa-In (Tupian language of an intermittently contacted people per Ethnologue, synonym for Urupa per Aryon Rodrigues)? Wondering if the articles should be conflated. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Urupa seems to be relatively well established as a Chapacuran language, Dixon and Aikhenvald mention it as such and cite Nimuendaju. They don't mention Uru-Pa-In though, and that seems to be the dubious language of the two.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Glottolog has Uru-Pa-In as unattested, so, given that it's supposedly a synonym, I was wondering if it might be a survival of Urupa. Best to leave it alone unless there's a clear ref. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilization

Hi Maunus - thanks for reading through Maya civilization, and tweaking where necessary. I would say though, that the first sentence should be past tense, since the Maya civilization as discussed in the article no longer exists; that's not to say that modern Maya aren't civilised of course, or that they don't hold onto a wealth of tradition, but all the hallmarks of their civilization effectively ended with the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I know many Maya who would disagree with that. How do you tell when a civilization is gone? I can see the dilemma though, since it conflicts with received wisdom and many sources. All the Hallmarks of ancient Greek culture are gone too, but we distinguish between ancient and modern Greek culture. Following that usage, and the usage of many contemporary books on the Maya, I think maybe you could write "Ancient Maya civilization was".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - I'll change it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe "Pre-Columbian"? 1500 CE isn't very ancient, and the word make me think you're talking about Pre-Classic or at best Classic. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lots of books say use the phrase "Ancient Maya" for the Classic period civilization (250-900) - for example the main textbook. Including the preclassic and formative we are talking simultaneous with "Ancient Rome" ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

However, the article does cover the Postclassic - but I'm happy with either suggestion ancient/pre-Columbian; they are both pretty clear as to the scope of the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would say that the fact that the Roman empire also existed in the 16th century doesnt make Roman civilization less ancient. Pre-columbian works as well but it comes across to me as somewhat Euro-centric, that simultaneous European civilizations can be Ancient but New World civilizations are only defined by when they were colonized. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But when people speak of the fall of Constantinople, they don't describe it as "Ancient Rome". "Ancient" seems fine to me for Classical, but not the city states that fell with the Spanish conquest. — kwami (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Civilization" and the art of being "civil" of course means something rather different today on wikipedia ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's okay to use the current edition, really.

I have Trudgill and Hannah 2008, it's easy to obtain, and it's a good source for many sections of the article. I took care to check preexisting citations of the earlier edition and will be using it for further work on other sections. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it won't do. You cite the edition that you use. I cannot cite an edition that may be different from the one I am using. If you use the 2008 version we will have to cite both. Please do not change my citations to the new edition. At the very least untill I am finished with writing the sctions where I use it as a source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

English V2 Response

Sorry it took me so long to respond, anyway I am ready to talk about that V2 issue of the English page; I think it is appropriate to put it in the "Syntax" section (although I would prefer it on the main page). Also since it is technically still in use, it's is not all relic. Wizymon (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, as I said it is not something that introductions to English tend to spend a lot of space describing (or rather any space at all), so I think it belongs in a more specialized context, such as in the article on English grammar or English clause syntax. Also it is necessary that you find sources for all statements and examples that you want to include. I would consider it a relic, because it is not the main syntactic pattern of the language, in the way it is in German and Scandinavian. Rather it is restricted to idiomatic contexts and in contexts of marked syntax, such as focus constructions etc. What we have in English is a language that sometimes allows the substitution of S with another constituent which then creates a structure where the verb is in second position, but not a V2 language. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba

Hi Maunus, I've put this fairly long comment on the Irataba peer review and am hoping you can help parse what I'm trying to say in terms of balancing the page so that it fully presents Mohave culture at a time when whites were encroaching through to the period the tribal reservation was established. You have far more scholarly experience and language than I have, but I'm not at all unfamiliar with the Arizona tribes. I'm not sure I'm explaining what I'm trying to say very well. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input at the peer review. Irataba is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Strikes me as a quite odd reaction to the ongoing exchange. Surely it is better to have that kind of thing solved before a FAC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought it had been resolved? I do think the peer review had gone on much longer than usual already though and it was beginning to exhaust RO especially. My original concern when I began editing it was too much bloat about Mohave customs and not enough bio info and focus on Irataba. I think there's already a great deal of background info for a biography and don't want to overcook it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern about exhaustion. A quick FAC nomination is unlikely to alleviate that risk imo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm anticipating a tough FAC anyway though. I would be grateful though if you could edit it and resolve what you see as an issue yourself. Rationalobserver I trust Maunus on this. As I said though I don't want to go into too much general background info, that was my primary concern originally. If something is vital though then that's a different story. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, in case you haven't seen this pdf, thought I'd leave it here for you. I've only read the first page but it's fairly clear re the tribal split. I guess I unwatched your page or something because I missed the discussion above. FWIW - I do have subject knowledge, but, well this is WP, and whatevs. Sorry btw for pulling you in. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a very good source, I have been solving some of the issues with Rationalobserver, who is quite amenable to constructive suggestions and interventions. Like you I think it is important to convey the political significance of Yara tav and his role in the split of the Mohave and the creation of the Colorado River reservation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read it all now. It's an excellent, succinct, easy-to-read overview spanning about 25 years, and the changes wrought in the region during those years. It explains his relationships with other tribes, the reasons for the tribal split, his efforts at peace within his tribe, other tribes and with whites. It presents important context and perspective. I'm about to go off-line but maybe either Blofeld or RO will see these posts and follow up. I don't believe any of the points I've raised haven't been constructive (double negative!), particularly in terms of finding and helping to parse sources. Yesterday the pace was overly quick to follow, so I decided to check back later at which point the article was at FAC. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another, see pages 195-99. They were promised irrigation from the river (of course the water all goes to SoCal now) but this explains how the location for the reservation was chosen, that Yara tav disagreed with Poston, and the introduction and failure of irrigating the desert. V. interesting. Done now, thanks for letting me use your page as link repository. Victoria (tk) 00:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is now more detail about the Colorado River Indian Reservation at Irataba#Colorado River Indian Reservation than there is at Colorado River Indian Reservation. If I've missed anything important, I encourage you to add it. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For this fantastic addition to Irataba and the teamwork that led to it! FTR, Squeamish Ossifrage found the source and told me about it at the peer review. So this took three Wikipedians to pull off, and it's now one of the best things in the article, so thanks for following though! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

FTR

Some time ago user Mastcell and Anthony Cole showed interest in looking into RO's previous account/s. Yes, I launched an SPI with the belief RO was ItsLassieTime because the MO is similar in terms of sourcing, etc., but I did not accuse RO of wikistalking. I now know that RO is not ILT. I've apologized and offered to help - I can't go beyond that. In the meantime a lot of drama unfolded, the dispute was taken to various pages, a bunch of people got blocked (unfairly in my view) and an admin almost desysopped.

RE: Irataba - I'm interested, have subject knowledge, feel strongly that it's a page with a lot of potential but needed a bit more balance and context. I watched as at least five or six people on my watch were "invited" to a PR - I've since unwatched all those pages. After thinking long and hard about the implications of posting to the PR, I decided that someone had to say something along the lines of the comments I posted. These were not meant to exhaust or sabotage but to explain that context was lacking. When the PR was closed I didn't have to leave the sources I'd found here, I could have just thrown up my hands and walked away. But I'm interested enough in the subject to believe we should make that page as good as we can. I would have edited it myself, but I expected the reaction wouldn't be good, and given the reaction to posting to the PR and reaction to having you use these sources underscores my belief. All I can do is thank you for stepping in, but we've worked together in the past and I knew you'd understand the context I sought.

In the end it should be about content and not editor. I prefaced this by pinging a few people, because it's been too much about blaming other editors and not taking responsibility. I'm all for FACs being collaborative - have written a few of those myself - but that isn't possible when people get locked out - especially when the editors being locked out have subject knowledge. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think some GF and empathy would go along way to make this easier. RO was clearly affected by your distrust and you should be able to understand that they are a little shaken by that and may react in ways that are not optimally conducive. Instead of letting the bad relaiton between you two ruin this I think that it would be best if you both let it slide. And here I mean really slide, with no bad feelings, just the shared understanding that there were some misunderstandings and bad interactions, but that really were all here to achieve the same goal. I myself have had some bouts with Dr. Blofeld at times, but neither of us are letting that get in the way of the main goal. You are a good editor, your critiques are well thought and considered. You have a good overview of how to write an effective article. RO seems to me to be less experienced and need some help in producing the best possible article, and with understanding critiques, but they have a really good drive towards getting work done, and they are willing to dig into the sources. I am happy to play the role as a mediator as far as I can and try to make sure that everyone's concerns are adequately converted into article text. It seems to me that most of the problems here are based on over-interpretations and misinterpretations of eachothers intents and statements. I have not seen anyone involved here that struck me as acting in bad faith or as not sharing the final goal of improving the article as much as possible. Given that, it should be possible to achieve. Thanks for your help, and for pointing me towards those excellent sources. I hope you like the way I am using them, and if you have suggestions on how to improve it feel free to post them here if you still prefer not to participate directly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"RO seems to me to be less experienced and need some help in producing the best possible article". If she is so inexperienced, then why did RO have the confidence to deep six this FAC back in October, like a month after she started editing? [26] That causes a great many very hard feelings, and RO made no attempts to reconcile. And now she's back registering a "support" in an article that Victoria and Ceoil are involved with.[27] After her heavy harassment of Ceoil recently, that's not a good move. EChastain (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I assume good faith untill the burden of evidence makes it impossible. I have not yet been privy to all information in this case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my post. RO's just been blocked for six months, per breaking her promise when she was blocked around a month ago for harassing Victoriaearle, Ceoil, Eric Corbett, Casliber and many others. EChastain (talk)

No worries. You probably were right to be skeptic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Irataba

• Don't know where to post this Maunus, but fyi I ordered that book about Olive Oatman from the library last week. I think that material should stay in but with context, which requires reading the book, and it's coming through interlibrary loan so will take a bit. Ping me if it comes up or you need info. I'm glad to see you shepherding through; the page is worthy, as I mentioned in the PR. Victoria (tk) 02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Hi Maunus, question to you: given all that's happened in the past day or so, and given comments such as these, [28], [29], how would you feel about withdrawing the Irataba FAC. I know you're working on a large page for the Core Contest, and having done that myself, I know the amount of effort that's required. I don't think my PR was "deficient", nor do I think people have to be invited to make comments about our content if it's to achieve FA status. Furthermore I brought some fairly good sources to the table, am still waiting for the book about Oatman to arrive, so I think that might the best thing right now. There's really no deadline, and it would give you all a chance to do the necessary reading without having to rush. Victoria (tk) 21:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I don't see a need to withdraw it really. I also don't see anything deficient with your PR, other than one comment you made which was mistaken about the publication history of Kroeber & Kroeber and which RO misinterpreted. But I also don't see those comments as having any bearings on the review, since RO will no longer be participating. I consider the article to be very close to the standard, and consider the main task ahead to consist in improving the coherence between sections and the sense of context. I have Mifflin's book on Oatman if that is the one you mean, and it is not particularly important as a source for Irataba (it mostly summarizes Kroeber and Kroeber's work). Let's keep the review on, although I will not begin to work seriously untill after the weekend. And then see what happens from there. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Kroeber I left here, which I assume it what you're using, came from a pdf and I never mentioned it at the PR. I do mean Mifflin, and if you've seen it, then I'll not bother. That's good to know - it hard to tell from g-books. Ok, will ignore as people say to me. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No I meant the Kroeber & Kroeber 1973 which at one point you said was unlikely to be a good source because the publication date didnt match A. L. Kroeber's lifespan (it was not a reprint but posthumously published by his son) and which RO apparently overinterpreted to mean that it could not be used at all.[30].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a different situation. I didn't realize at the time that C.B Kroeber edited his father's work. The bibliographic entry didn't mention C. B. as editor, so I wrongly assumed that a mistake had been made. These things happen. Victoria (tk) 22:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, not a problem with the PR which seems to have been mostly complicated by RO's overreactions to critique and comments.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"would you feel about withdrawing the Irataba FAC." In case I'm mistaken I'm the nominator here Victoria...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Violence against Muslims

Since you're now involved in the wrangling over that template, you may have views to express at this discussion, where the aforementioned template was nominated for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you certain about that topic ban? I thought he had been banned as well, but he has been editing Indian pages so widely, under the scrutiny of so many editors, that I thought that it surely much have been lifted; see this, Indian articles are all over it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

He is still listed as being subject to an indfinite topic ban at the list of active sanctions [[31]]. If it has been lifted the lifting has not been logged, and there is also no mention of it being lifted on his talkpage. He does have a long history of egregiously violating the topic ban though. He would get a long block if someone requests enforcement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here Sarvajna was warned for being on "thin ice" with his own POV pushing behavior.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it seems to me that he certainly should be reported; that is a ridiculous list of topic ban violations. Dear god, that is certainly several hundred. I already have one AE case open, else I would report him this minute. WP:ER has been misleading before, though, has it not? I've asked Fut.Perf. Not seeing the warning about Sarvajna, though; it appears to refer to Mrt3366, who was indeffed following an AE case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry Blade of Northern Light, subsequently added mention of Sarvajna in this edit[32].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Well, that's pretty clear, but always hardest to report someone for this sort of crap; else many of our colleagues would not still be around. And might I respecfully suggest striking your last at the log. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My last what?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Never mind now; Sarvajna responded already. Would you consider report YK, if the TBAN turns out to still be in effect? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Only if he breaks it again. I gave him a chance in the comment I put on his talkpage, I intend to honor that offer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is fair; but that offer was a personal one, so once this mess gets sorted out, I might go ahead and report him myself (not for this edit, but for the several hundred that came before it). Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that Yogesh was blocked for violating the topic ban by LaserBrain in 2013 (who warned that "Your next violation may very well result in an indefinite block or community ban."), the block notice and denial of unblock request is still on his talkpage. No notice that the ban has been lifted has been filed on his talkpage. And I have personally reminded him of the topic ban once since then[33].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Although I just realized his block is actually narrower than I thought; "Indian History" would mean Modi is not covered, right? Maybe I need to rethink this, although it says "broadly construed," so still probably in violation for many of them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Modi's current term is not considered covered, but the topic is "broadly construed" so Modi's role in the Riots definitely are because those were the discussions that led to the topic ban.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So everyone still having fun then? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Most certainly. Anyone seen the tit-for-tatting that followed? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, where?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here; [34], [35], and on several others listed on that template. The template really needs to be broken up into several smaller ones, and the extraneous stuff removed; but that aside, it's being pointily put into the 2002 page, as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More Irataba

Looking good! So what books have you got hold of? How much more do you think you can glean from them?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think quite a bit actually. :) You'll see me cite them. I havent gotten Frank Waters yet, but I wouldnt cite that anyway. Mostly I am trying to clarify the exact political context, and the relations between the Mohave, The US and the different neighboring tribes. And OIrataba's role in that mess.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, the context. Great stuff!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Rose-Baley Party had 400 odd settlers? I'd thought it was more 100. Also can you ensure that any content added is immediately verifiable in the citations? If there's sentences before a citation which are not in the source underneath they need separate citations I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope I mixed up the numbers, the source (Hunter 1979) says 200 settlers and 400 cows, not the other way round. Thanks for catching that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds more like it :-) Don't other sources say 100 rather than 200 though? If the figure is disputed I think a footnote should be given here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It was the first time I saw a number, and the source seems reliable at least regarding the affairs of whites.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"As head of the Colorado River band of Mohave, Irataba continued to lead his people in their interactions with neighboring tribes. Irataba's main strategy was to pursue peaceful relations with the surrounding tribes, and to cooperate actively with the US authorities. Nonetheless, Irataba worked to help the Yavapai and Walapai as conflict with Paiutes and Chemehuevi broke out again. " what's the source for this? I can't see it in the Woodward source unless I'm mistaken. What is your general view on the Woodward source Maunus? You don't seem convinced it's a great source here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is from Kroeber 1965. I havent looked at Woodward yet, but I will later today. It is "library use only" for some reason.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hokay. It'll need another copyedit once done, but I think most of your changes are good. I disagree though that we should ignore what was reported at his death. Burning a village might be a questionable claim, but several publications documented it, a footnote saying it was claimed should suffice. I can understand some of Montana's concerns about portraying them as savages but I also think it is important to report what has been reported, true or false. Have you seen this too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is an excellent article about Mohave funeral rituals that mentions nothing of the sort, this is clearly a racist attempt to depict the Mohave as irrational savages. I object very strongly to including this primary source. This is exactly the kind of thing that requires us to be wary of using primary sources. All sources agree that the funeral ritual is by cremation and that it includes the deceased's possessions, and that should be noted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Copenhagen School

Hvorfra ved du dog alt det om Dansk Funktionalisme?? TheEsb (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Det er da fordi jeg er dansk funktionalist. ;) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas Thompson also "Dansk Funktionalisten"? warshy ^(¥¥) 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think they would consider themselves that. Neither would I by the way, though I was trained that way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an English WP entry that possibly explains "Dansk Funktionalisme"? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the article that I mostly wrote and which TheEsb was referring to: Copenhagen School (linguistics). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Now it makes complete sense. I like that is starts from Sructuralism, since I also, in my own studies (which do not focus on linguistics per se), start from there. It is an evolving contemporary stream of thought in Philosophy, and in Linguistics and Anthropology, since Saussure and Levy-Strauss also went back and forth from one the other themselves, I believe. I wonder how much the historical Copenhagen School I referred to also owes to Structuralism. Warm regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any clear relation to structuralism in the theology/history movement, except that some of its text critical moves have their roots in Hayden White's work, which was used some elements of structuralist narrative analysis. But I think it is more based on the narrative turn within post-modernist/post-structuralist historiography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I once studied Hayden White's "Metahistory" quite in depth for one of my graduate courses in history, but I'll need to brush up on it a bit again, since it did not over time register any deep marks in my thinking, apparently... I mean, I was in the end much more impressed by Foucault and Levy-Strauss, as it shows. Yes, the historical Copenhagen school would be definitely post-structuralist as the term is now currently used, as we would probably also be. Nice exchanging some philosophical impressions with you. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Irataba round 2

Seeing as how Rationalobserver has asked me not to post at her talk page, I will respect that request, but I am following the content discussion. I found an obituary of Scrivner that may be helpful; It says nothing about a doctorate but clearly identifies him as a missionary. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And this source notes he was apparently 1/4 Chickasaw. Looks like he got a master's degree, but it was in education. Anyway, may assist you in assessing the source material. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, having read the review of his book, and seeing that it coincided with my own rather negative evaluation, I will definitely not be depending on it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

How much more have you got to do now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am waiting for Frank Waters' book to arrive, but I don't think it will cause many more revisions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: You may as well re-review it now then if you're still up for it. I'd be happy to review yours currently at FAC too if you'd like?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Email me, I have some sources I want to discuss.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, due to a collision of RL and the assorted wiki-dramas going on now (all noticed at my talk page), it will be a few days before I get to this - at least if you want me to use my brain cells in a thoughtful and focused manner! But I'd be glad to re-review. Montanabw^(talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

English language

I see that for some reason the usual automated bot message has not been sent alerting the nominator that a GAN review has been opened, and I send you this note instead. My first lot of comments are at Talk:English language/GA3, and more will follow tomorrow, I hope. Happy to enlarge on any points if wanted. Tim riley talk 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You !voted support under the "oppose" section, just FYI. I've moved your support to the "support" section. Epic Genius (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wondered why I apparently was the only one who thought it was a good idea. :)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Evovled vs developed

Are you sure you haven't gotten your terms backwards? Evolution is all about change—if it has a different meaning in this context, I can assure it it will go over most readers' heads, in which case the sentence should be recast. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Humans evolved in Africa. That does not mean that they do not continue to develop and evolve elsewhere. In the same way English evolved, in the process that took Anglo-Saxon dialects into the English language in England. It then spread and developed elsewhere, evolving into Scots in Scotland for example.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my point: English has evolved and continued to evolve in Britain, and has also continued to evolve everywhere else it's spoken. "Evolve" doesn't mean "first came about"—that's why it's a poor choice of words. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of its meanings, the most exact one: "to come about as the result of an evolutionary process". The other meaning "undergoing a continued process of change" is better and more precisely stated as "develop", which does not imply a resulting change of state as "evolution" does. A species is said to have evolved in the place where it first becomes distinct from its ancestor species. The same is how one speaks about language evolution. English evolved from Anglo-Saxon in England. Scots evolved from Northumbrian English in Scotland. Nothing weird about the formulation, which I have by the way now changed to "first evolved in England" to make it absolutely crystal clear what sense of evolve is meant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that "the most exact" meaning of "evolve" is "to come about as the result of an evolutionary process": you're definition doesn't even exist online. But whatever, you've got your wall up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with critique or constructive suggestions, but I do not simply accept criticisms that are based on the assumption that the deliberate choices I make when I write articles such as word choices or how much or how little information to include are a priori wrong. Constructive critique starts from understanding why a given choice was made, and then seeing how a different choice might lead to a better result. If you have never heard the word "evolve" to mean "come into existence as the result of an evolutionary process" then I dare say that your experience in English academic usage is severely lacking.

If you have never heard the word "evolve" to mean "come into existence as the result of an evolutionary process": Maunus, you can clearly see I've said no such thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on earning the Million Award by improving the English language article

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring English language (estimated annual readership: 3,200,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It was fun working with you on this article. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Irataba

Maunus, Irataba has been restarted now due to the extensive changes. I'm not prepared for you to continue to expand it anymore and have reviewers come and support and then it have to be restarted again. Do you just have the Sherer book to do now? This can't continue to keep being expanded while the FAC is going on. How much more are you planning on adding? If you can give me some indication of when you can complete your work on it I'll make a note at the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just got the Sherer book now. I don't plan, I just write as I read. I can wait untill the review is over if you want. The FAC looked stale to me. None of the people requesting further work seems to have looked at it again. I still haven't gotten the Waters book. Sorry about the restart, but even without my recent changes it is true that the article has bvasically been rewritten during the review.169.228.146.30 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I really think it's best you use those books and make it as good as possible and then it can be renommed. I believe that when an article is nommed it should be fully completed and comprehensive as possible. I'm withdrawing it. If you don't continue with it I'll renom myself at a later date. I do hope you'll return and stick with it. It really can't keep undergoing such changes while the FAC is running.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that seems to be a good idea - we can always individually request the people who already supported to look at the article again when you renom it. What I am finding is that RO seems to have read quite selectively - so that a lot of important information is not used, even from the books they have used to support other specific facts. For example the attack on Iratabas ranch was left out, - which seems necessary to understand the process of subjugation. Also the number of settlers killed in the Rose-Baley party was highly exaggerated, and didnt note that the second family were killed by Hualapais and Mohaves acting independently. So I do think it is a good idea that I look through the remaining sources as well. 169.228.146.30 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I did take a good look in google books and newspapers myself but in the UK access to a lot of sources isn't possible and there's still books not scanned in google books of course. His biographical material is sketchy but it seems there were some gaps to be filled in you're seeing in your books. I think we can produce the best possible article on this, it's important that you read as much as possible I think. I hope you return after your break and continue with it, and we can renominate it in a month or two. It's already come such a long way and I think it's a worthy subject.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree.169.228.146.30 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yay! Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

on the Million award! That's impressive, my friend. Also FYI, the edit war has resumed after the page protection expired. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I am on a wikihiatus, having enabled the wikibreak enforcer, I can only edit through my IP and not access my watchlist. I do this to wind down a little. I dont think it is a good idea for me to edit the india pages logged out though. But presumably an admin is going to lock the page again. The editwar of course will continue as long as the clique of pov pushers are here.172.0.128.110 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. God knows I've considered doing that. It's cooled down for the time being, they're less inclined to pick a fight with Regents Park than myself. Enjoy the break, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, I will respond to your request about my Wikipedia page shortly (and please forgive me if I have responded to you in the wrong place or in the wrong manner). Best, Steve. Stevenpinker (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning your comment

Hello. As I agree with your comment here [36], I reply here. Yes, we should focus on the argument at hand. Still, it is rather tedious when one user repeats the same questions over and over again when they have already been answered. Not that anyone has to agree with the answer, but then I'd expect the user to at least explain why and move forward and not just keep repeating. And when the same users goes to look at your edit history to stalk you to begin editing articles they never edited before but that you frequently edit just for the pleasure of opposing you, and repeat the same behavior there as well, then it get's a bit annoying. Of course we should always try to put negative feelings like that behind us.Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It can be tedious, definitely when one feels that another user is going in circles. But I know as well as anyone that acting on that frustration is just likely to increase the problem. When I realize I am getting too frustrated to focus on the arguments, I tend to go on a wikibreak - although sometimes not before I have caused more problems by airing my frustration in unconstructive ways.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, of course. Which is why I've brought the issue to ANI and stayed out of any edit war on any of the articles, which is no doubt what the user hoped to drag me into. I later find out that this same behavior is repeated by the same user at articles I'm not involved in as well. Yes, we should step away when frustrated. But this particular user seems to frustrate a lot of people and to cherish the drama. I don't doubt the user has made valuable contributions, but I'd dare say their net contribution given how much disruption he causes and on how many articles he claims ownership and edit wars against anyone opposing his version. It's not helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the discussion I have never experienced Peter in that way myself, on the contrary I have always found him to be reasonable and helpful and amenable to argument. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is good. I have never seen that, but my experience is limited to his edit warring at Sweden and Melee and his stalking me to List of languages by native speakers to start opposing me there after I "dared" to edit against him on Sweden. If he is more responsible on other articles, all the better. I trust your more extensive experience, and I hope to see that helpful behavior as well someday.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think laying down the stick at ANI might be a good way to signal good faith, which might speed up Peter's ability to be reasonable with you. Sometimes when we are in "fight or flight" mode, other editors become enemies. Putting down the stick is a good way to get back to normal editing mode for everyone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, today alone Peter has reverted you, has reverted me and has reverted a third user at Sweden, all the time insisting that his is the consensus version even though he is alone in saying so, and we are all wrong. That is not indicative of the behavior you ascribe him, I'm afraid.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

?

The 1523 date was removed unilaterally by a single user without any discussion.[37] No one else has disagreed with it, including Jeppiz.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is clearly wrong. Everyone disagrees that its meaningful to consider 1523 the date of establishment or independence of Sweden. It is simplyone of those dates like accession to EU where something politically significant happened to Sweden. It is clearly incorrect to consider it the establishment or foundation of Sweden as a country. By the same token, Sweden would be "established" again if it ever leaves EU. Why donøt you chill out a little on those Swedish/Melee articles? You seem to be in a very tense gear, I know what that feels like, and it is not comfortable. Help me work on some language history instead! Peder Syv, Stød, Peder Laale, Danish dialects etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the importance of the conflicting perspectives here: is there an unbroken line between the first appearance of medieval kingdoms and their modern "ancestors"? Most historians tend to avoid making any definitive claims about this, so I prefer not having dates at all. If anything, most tend to focus on the transition from medieval kingdoms based on personal loyalties and feudal bonds to bureaucratic fiscal-military states. It's not all that problematic to put the start date of the modern centralized, nation state to 1523. I see no problem discussing whether it's valid or not, but it's definitely not comparable to joining the EU.

I'll have a look at Danish dialects, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to have a look at yet! We need to create it from scratch. I agree that all foundation claims are problematic because what was founded is fundamentally different from what exists today - but in this case historians and common folk pretty much seem to agree that there is some kind of ethnic and political continuity from the Svear and untill today. Just as you I think it is a problematic narrative, that overstates continuity and ethnic roots, but those kinds of narratives are insanely popular worldwide for some reason.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well common folk suck and are clearly wrong. :-p

I fiddled around with Danish language#Dialects a bit. But I really don't know anything about that except all the Scanian brouhaha. If you lead the way, I'll surely follow.

Have you considered writing anything about Henrik Harpestræng? I'm thinking about uploading his "Liber Herbarum" to Commons.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently I mostly stick to early Danish philologists, in preparation for a total rewrite of History of Danish and then of Danish language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Never did get hooked on biographies myself. I'll keep the Danish articles watchlisted, then. Maybe I'll actually be inspired to bring Swedish language up to snuff. I mean, God forbid that the language of honor and heroes be upstaged by a bunch of coughing word-turners!

Peter ^Isotalo 22:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tula/Toltec misunderstanding

I wasn't trying to school you in anything, but somebody made me dig up a page number for the name of Ives' ship, the Explorer, because although the cite was from his report, the following page number didn't explicitly state the ship's name. That's all I meant about Ferdon's theory, that the cite that followed did not mention Tula, so the topic sentence was not supported by the refs that followed. All I was trying to do was avoid adding anything that was not supported by the refs. I understand what you meant, but it seemed like WP:V issue, since it wasn't in the cited source. Will you please consider finishing your review? RO^(talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am finished with the review. Don't worry about the Toltecs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But I've added lots of stuff since you last looked, and it would be so great to get your opinion on the cultural aspect in particular, because I think I've done an acceptable job of improving the article based on your previous PR comments about that. I promise I won't argue about anything, even when I know you are wrong, which is like never anyway. Did you like the background section ([38])? RO^(talk) 23:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Irataba FAC

I've taken the liberty of adding your name here. Hope you're up for some scrutiny! RO^(talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The article is definitely ready, but as a co-nominator I cant support it of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but it's even better to have you as a co-nom anyway! RO^(talk) 17:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't feel I can review this as an FAC either. My own personal view is that a person with substantial edits - even if not a co-nom - shouldn't do the FAC review. And I did so much on the previous one, also. I don't have fresh eyes and someone who DOES have fresh eyes is a better reviewer. That said, I'm basically supportive and I think it can pass this time around, so long as RO stays cool-headed when the critics hit. I'm willing to assist at the FAC with some of the requests if they fall within something I'm comfortable doing. Maunus, you definitely do deserve to be a co-nom on this and RO did right to add you! Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Peder Syv DYK review

Can you take a look at my comments/suggestions at the DYK raview page?
While reading the article for the review, I copy-edited the page a bit and added a couple of {{clarify}} tags where I was not sure of the intended meaning. Also, I wasn't sure if Hellested would have one or more parish priests, and therefore whether "the parish priest" or "a parish priest" is the correct usage. Please review my changes to make sure that I didn't introduce any content errors. Fun read! Abecedare (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Champollion article

Dear Maunus, I appreciate all the work you've done on Jean-François Champollion article. It's a good article, and I enjoyed reading it. But at the same time, I think some of the paragraphs are a bit long. In general, when a new subject is broached, new paragraph is in order. That's all I did, I spaced out some of these paragraphs for clarity of reading.

But I don't insist that I'm right. Lots of these things are a matter of opinion, of course. All the best. Y-barton (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but can see that in practice we disagree on what is a new topic. I never use as short paragraphs as the ones you apparently like, with only one or two sentences, and I also dont generally see such short paragraphs in most high quality articles. In my view it makes for choppy disconnected prose and makes the article less coherent and makes it harder for the reader to read the article fluently and maintain overview on the progression. The way I generally craft paragraphs is by having a topic sentence first, and then a progression of sentences that shed new light on the topic in different ways. For example the paragraph you broke up was entirely about the presentation of the letter to Dacier. Each sentence referred back to that same topic. I do appreciate your copy edits to the article very much, but would appreciate if you would not break the paragraphs apart unless they really include completely different topics. If you are in doubt about specific cases maybe you can suggest it on the talk page and we can discuss how to proceed? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The article by the way is currntly listed for GA review. And another problem with breaking up paragraphs is that GA reviewers tend to require a citation for each paragraph, and when you break apart a paragraph it is not clear that information in one paragraph is supported by the citation in the next. So by breaking up the paragraph you create work for me when the reviewer asks requests citations for the new paragraphs, or potentially you put the article at risk of failing the review because of the presence of paragaraphs that appear to be unsupported by citations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Maunus. I appreciate your concerns in light of this new info you've given. As I say, often it's a matter of opinion. I just like to say honestly that when I first read this article, I felt there's not enough highlighting of important issues. That's why I added some additional headings. So I just contributed the best way I knew. But I'd better stay away from this article for a while. Best wishes. Y-barton (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought your introduction of subheadings was fine, and definitely those sections were very long, and your headers do serve to highlight important aspects. Please do keep working on the article, and improving it. Whenever we disagree on style I am sure we can figure out amiably and collaboratively how best to move forward. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

use of ones legs

Thank you for that remark. - I once said that those who dislike a certain accessibility feature (with seven letters which I am not supposed to mention) as aesthetically not pleasing, probably also disagree with access ramps for buildings. I like Beethoven ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Peder Syv

Harrias ^talk 14:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AAT - Westenhöfer edit

Hi Maunus,
Just wanted to say thanks for the Westenhöfer edit before my account gets deleted again. I noticed that you had checked the Westenhöfer-National Socialist association comment, and probably couldn't find any evidence to support it (I couldn't either after searching). I have to say, I was quite surprised by this, because I had started to assume that all changes from an AAT supporter would automatically be assumed to be wrong, but you must have checked this, so I'm very glad to see some thorough checking, to get facts right. I think saying Westenhöfer was a Nazi probably would be working against the anti-AAT community anyway, because, as we all know from Godwin's Law, the first person to call their opponent Hitler, loses.
For the sake of fairness, regarding the issue of him being anti-Darwin, I think there is a citation for that on the actual Westenhöfer page, so it does seem like it could be true. I'm not sure why, because AAT relies on adaptations over time, and hence Darwinian thinking. Unfortunate, but I think I'd have to look at the issue some more to fully understand his thinking.
Just out of interest what made you decide to look into the Westenhöfer issue? Was it because it was the subject I got most angry about on Neil's page? Or did you check through my other six changes which were all reverted under the Attenborough-gate saga? (still not sure why this is such a sticking point that it was singled out, rather than any of my other six changes, but never mind). Aquapess (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually look into it, it just seemed entirely irrelevant to the issue, and simply an attempt to discredit him by association. Even if he was a Nazi or worse that fact would be irrelevant in relation to the validity of his theory. Many European biologists were anti-Darwinians in that period, preferring instead different vitalist theories.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Champollion GAN

For some reason the bot seems to have failed to add the usual message to the nominator's page, so I'm adding this note to tell you I have left some comments at Talk:Jean-François Champollion/GA1. Best, Tim riley talk 10:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Why Alice Dreger not a partial non-partisan source about Chagnon?

Alice Dreger is a long-time and accomplished researcher in the field of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology and has done much research in bioethics and about scientific controversies. You claim in talk that she's only representing her own biased opinion, but it seems to me to be a wrong statement because she's one of the most unbiased secondary sources on the whole matter and she comes from a neutral background to the issue of Napoelon Chagnon.

She is not unbiased at all, she has been a long time opponent of the post-modern turn in cultural anthropology, including "social constructionism". She is a proponent of a "scientific" approach to anthropology and is a natural ally of Chagnon who also cpostonsiders himself to be a "scientist" and opposed to the "soft" antiscience post-modern anthropologists. Indeed most accomplished evolutionary psychologists would naturally be biased in favor of Chagnon and against the anthropology establishment. She is very much a party in the "science wars" betweeen sociobiology/evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology. her claim to neutrality is disingenuous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, there are many who use Chagnon as a source who are completely neutral to that whole controversy, like this article for example. That academic article, by the way, can be used as a source for many articles about Nature vs. Nurture, Human culture etc. These researchers who have basically no connection to Chagnon are citing him and arriving to his conclusions independently which means that Chagnon's view (and E. O. Wilson's view) is highly mainstream in all the relevant fields and amongst the releveant scholars

Nonsense, The1000year explosion is in no way "neutral" it is a highly partisan controversial and problematic theory, by two avowed allies of Chagnon and human sociobiology and vocal critics of cultural anthropology. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

CRIT museum

So, did you find a bunch of interesting stuff there? RO^(talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they didn't allow pictures to be taken unfortunately. And their exhibit on Irataba had just been taken down for moving. But I bought volume one of "Dreamers of the Colorado" a collection of articles about Mohave culture and history (including some of the articles we've already used). This will be useful for future edits. If you ever travel to the area I recommend the Bluewater Hotel, its cheap mid-week and it is amazing to be able to wake up early and go swim in the river.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's too bad you missed out on the Irataba exhibit, but it sounds like a fun field trip nonetheless. Did you get a chance to speak with any Mohave elders? RO^(talk) 18:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but I probably will on my next trip. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA

Hi Maunus, I saw your quick fail and certainly understand it given the tag and RfC. I nominated this article last December and there were no such issues at the time. Of course, I don't want to nominate it again and have it wait in a queue for that long again, and risk something else derailing the nomination at the last minute. If I do nominate it for GA again once the issues are cleaned up, do you mind reviewing it at that point? I can make another mention here on your talk page once that happens. The centennial of Frank's lynching is August 17 of this year, and I was hoping for a Today's Featured Article on that day, but unfortunately it doesn't seem likely at this point. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to review it once the article is stable. Please give me a hint when you renominate it. It is not far from FA quality in terms of the formalities, so once the neutrality issues are handled then perhaps an FA are within reach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your expertise

As you're an expert in the field and an experienced Wikipedia editor, i would like to hear your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn. A review of the recent changes to Wusun would also be helpful. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your hard work and patience in promoting Irataba to FA! Well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	The Irataba article wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is today if not for your hard work and researching expertise. Thanks for being patient while fixing the glitches! RO(talk) 16:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

White nationalism

In this edit, you restored this to the lead-

"The primordialists view it as a result of a common cultural, religous, philosphical, family and ethnic background causing them to feel more for each other."

Mind removing it? It's the same sort of issue you have with the removal of the other content, consensus needs to be gained for its addition. It isn't mentioned in the body of the article, and doesn't seem notable enough for the lead. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This next edit you did, takes care of it. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It seems to lack some context though to be entirely intelligible or inline with the rest of the article. And also probably checking the sources might be in order as they are notobviously about "white nationalism"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Why did you revert my removal of unreliable source for Ehsan Jafri?

Please provide an explanation or revert back the change asap.

• The content is sourced, and there is no reason to consider it unreliable given that the same statement has been widely reported.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

English phonology

Regarding your recent reversion of my edit to English phonology, I'd like to say that a) I don't see where else in the article Northeastern accents are described b) if the Northumbrian Burr article is right, the /ʁ/ phoneme is not completely extinct (at least outside Tyneside), and the article should be edited accordingly. Esszet (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else has fixed it. Esszet (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I actually thought it was the main article on English when I made the edit.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

White nationalism = Nazism

I'm still waiting for your response on the talk page on white nationalism. None of the sources sited states that white nationalism are the same as nazism. Neither do a white nationalism in any way say it's the same. I will also state; if a liberal kills and hates, does that make all liberals murderers and haters? Do that make liberals a hate group? Do the same count for conservatives? Olehal09 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said what I am going to say on that topic, that you insist on not understanding it is not my problem. The article does not say that white nationalism and nazism is the same, but Nazism is clearly both historically and ideologically closely related. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In what way? White nationalism is a movement that only wants a homeland for whites. The nazis were expansionalist, belived in the superiority of germanians (what they thought to be aryans. And myth of them coming from Atlantis). That slavs, gypsis and jew were undermench ( sub-human). In what way are they related historicaly? You are either uninformed, or just orwellian. From olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That word you use..."Orwellian", I don't think it means what you think it means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Orwellian refers many different things. But here I think your peers ( not you ) are this because you are using language to effect peoples feelings and limit their thoughts. Newspeak. And misinforming about history for the some end. Olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Jukka Siikala

Can you find enough on this Finnish anthropologist to create a stub? I cited him in Sapalewa River.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact would you be interested in finding 10 missing Scandinavian anthropologists and putting them up on the WP:Intertranswiki board?♦ Dr. Blofeld

I don't know many Scandinavian anthropologists I am afraid. As for Siikala I cannot find any sources suggesting notability - a finnish speaking editor may be better able to. He doesn't seem to be a very influential anthropologist outside of Finland.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

TFA

9 June 2015

Carl Nielsen made

Main Page history

and you were part of

working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl PR

Hello. I know you said you finished your PR, but the article has almost doubled in size since you last commented. Is there any chance you'd be willing to take another look? RO^(talk) 16:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest

	Second Prize
	Dear Maunus, congratulations for your joint effort on the second-prize-winning entry English language in the March 2015 running of the Core Contest. A member of wikimedia UK will be in touch soon with details about the Amazon voucher. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your prize. I'm sorting out the prizes from Wikimedia UK. As it's in the form of an Amazon voucher, could you please email me at richard.nevellwikimedia.org.uk so that I can send it to your email address. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Hebrew

Hi Maunus. So, you think the POV of the ELL2 and other sources like that should be ignored for the intro to the WP article? Maltese has more loans, but the history of Israeli is very different. I suspect that people are still struggling with a way to describe it, just as they did with creoles 50 yrs ago, since every author seems to use different wording. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It should definitely be ignored in the infobox, depending on its prominence in the literature it should have coverage in the body of the article and possibly a mention in the lead. But not in the infobox. Could you show any other sources that explicitly consider Modern Hebrew not to be a semitic language but a mixed language in the linguistic sense. Also I dont have access to ELL so could you please let me know exactly what it says about the classification of MH, and who wrote the entry?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It was Zuckermann. He presents it as a hypothesis, but the preferred one. But it belies the claim that his work is fringe - you could hardly ask for a more mainstream source than ELL.

The intro and conclusion of the article are as follows. (Between is a grammatical description.)

Hebrew, Israeli

G Zuckermann, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Basic Information

The Israeli language (a.k.a. Modern Hebrew) is one of the official languages – with Arabic and English – of the state of Israel, established in 1948. It is spoken to varyingdegrees of fluency by its 6.8 million citizens (as of September 2004) – as a mother tongue by most Israeli Jews (whose total number slightly exceeds 5 million), and as a second language by Muslims (Arabic speakers), Christians (e.g., Russian and Arabic speakers), Druze (Arabic speakers), and others.

Hebrew (see Hebrew, Biblical and Medieval) was spoken by the Jewish people after the so-called conquest of Israel (c. 13th century B.C .). Following a gradual decline (even Jesus, ‘King of the Jews,’ was a native speaker of Aramaic rather than Hebrew), it ceased to be spoken by the 2nd century A.D . The Bar-Kokhba Revolt against the Romans, which took place in Judaea in A.D. 132–135, marks the symbolic end of the period of spoken Hebrew. For more than 1700 years thereafter, Hebrew was comatose – either a ‘sleeping beauty’ or ‘walking dead.’ It served as a liturgical and literary language and occasionally also as a lingua franca for Jews of the Diaspora, but not as a mother tongue.

Israeli emerged in Eretz Yisrael (or Palestine) at the beginning of the 20th century. Its formation was facilitated by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, schoolteachers, and others to further the Zionist cause. Earlier, during the Haskalah (enlightenment) period from the 1770s to the 1880s, writers such as Me´ndele Mokhe´r Sfarı ´m (Shalom Abramowitsch) produced works and neologisms which eventually contributed to Israeli. However, it was not until the early 20th century that the language was first spoken.

The genetic classification of Israeli has preoccupied linguists since the language emerged. The traditional school argues that Israeli is Semitic: (Biblical/Mishnaic) Hebrew revived. Educators, scholars, and politicians have contributed to this assumption, linking the history of language to the politics of national revival. The revisionist position, by contrast, defines Israeli as Indo–European: Yiddish relexified, i.e., Yiddish (the revivalists’ mother tongue) is the ‘substratum,’ whilst Hebrew is only a ‘superstratum’ providing the lexis and lexicalized morphology (cf. Horvath and Wexler, 1997). A more recent hypothesis is that Israeli is a hybrid language, both Semitic and Indo–European. It argues that both Hebrew and Yiddish act equally as its primary contributors (rather than ‘substrata’), accompanied by many secondary contributors: Russian, Polish, German, Judeo–Spanish (Ladino), Arabic, English, etc. (see Figure 1). Although Israeli phonetics and phonology are primarily Yiddish and its morphology is mainly Hebrew, the European contribution to Israeli is not restricted to particular linguistic domains and is evident even in its morphology.

[Figure 1: ISRAELI an top, with YIDDISH and HEBREW underneath as primary contributors, as well as influencing each other, and Ladino, Arabic, Russian, Polish, German, English, etc. as secondary contributors both to YIDDISH and HEBREW and to ISRAELI.]

Thus, the term ‘Israeli’ is far more appropriate than ‘Israeli Hebrew,’ let alone the common signifiers ‘Modern Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew’ tout court (cf. Zuckermann, 1999, 2003, 2005).

Grammatical Profile

...

Concluding Remarks

The grammatical profile of Israeli demonstrates its binary nature, which has important theoretical implications for many branches of language science: contact linguistics, sociolinguistics, language revival/survival, linguistic genetics and typology, creolistics, and mixed languages. Genetic affiliation – at least in the case of (semi-)engineered, ‘nongenetic’ languages – is not discrete but rather a continuous line. The comparative method and lexicostatistics, though elsewhere useful, are not here sufficient. Linguists who seek to apply the lessons of Israeli to the revival of no-longer spoken languages should take warning.

Israeli affords insights into the politics not only of language, but also of linguistics. One of the practical implications is that universities, as well as Israeli secondary schools, should employ a clear-cut distinction between Israeli linguistics and Hebrew linguistics. Israeli children should not be indoctrinated to believe that they speak the language of Isaiah – unless the teacher is referring to the 20th-century Israeli polymath and visionary Isaiah Leibowitz. Although revivalists have engaged in a campaign for linguistic purity, the language they created often mirrors the very cultural differences they sought to erase. The study of Israeli offers a unique insight into the dynamics between language and culture in general and in particular into the role of language as a source of collective self-perception.

• Zuckerman's view is not the mainstream view (although he has personally pushed it a lot here on wikipedia), his position is similar to those who argue that English is a mixed language in terms of position relative to the mainstream - an interesting and controversial hypothesis that is not generally considered in classifications. Also it doesnt seem to me that he actually claims that the revisionist position is "preferred". He is arguing that the continuity with biblical hebrew should not be overstated for purist, political or religious reasons, which is a reasonable argument, but which does not really have anything to do with the genetic classification. Every historical linguist knows that genetic descent is not discrete but a continuum - and yet experts in language contact and mixed languages do not consider Hebrew to be in that end of the spectrum. Also the fact that it is in ELL doesnt really mean anything in terms of status of the argument, Zuckerman is presenting his own view not the editor's. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He does describe it under genetic classification. You reverted "mixed", which of course violated NPOV, but what about something closer to the old stable version, like "revitalised Mishnaic Hebrew or hybrid Hebrew–Yiddish", or whatever wording would best capture the two views? There are problems with giving simple genealogical trees for languages that do not have simple genealogical descent, like creoles, conlangs, standardized forms, and revitalized languages. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So...? — kwami (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are bigger problems in privileging non-mainstream controversial classifications.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ELL2 is pretty mainstream. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Zuckerman's viewpoint published in it is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

This user has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian on 24 June 2012.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Stød

Wow, that's a fantastic work. Thanks! Peter238 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Iøm glad you liked it. You do great work on phonology yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing my best :) Peter238 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO^(talk) 17:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Ling.Nut

Hey maunus, this is Ling. Long time no chat. Saw you at FARC. I was actually trying to save cochineal, but then I had the question that I listed... See you around! • Lingzhi♦(talk) 09:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted your work. I will take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • I think the dye section should be moved to the carmine article.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it does require an in situ summary in the Cochineal article. The dye is also often called cochineal and it is the only reason the animal is significant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Musicians on WP:VA

While I totally understand if you have other priorities these days, would you mind taking a look at this proposal? (The nominator also proposed adding Louis Armstrong and Igor Stravinsky, which passed.) I only ask you because you've expressed an opinion on this issue in the past and there hasn't much participation on that page in the last couple of months. Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think adding Armstrong was a good idea, and I've always argued classical composers are over-represented. I can see valid arguments for considering Verdi and Tchaikovsky more important than Stravinsky, and arguments for the opposite as well. But basically I think the VA project is too futile to warrant time expenditure, since the fact that there is no established criteria for determining what makes something vital means that any effort at improving the list based on one view of vitality is likely to be reversed as soon as a new group of editors espousing another view comes along. The result is that we end up adding and removing the same topics over and over.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that's a potential problem, I don't think it's been much of an issue in practice. (One could say the same thing about improving the contents of Wikipedia itself.) Honestly what matters to me is not so much the exact choice of articles in some cases, but that there is a general sense of balance to the list. I supported the proposal in question because I think it improves that. Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it has been a major issue all along actually.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA renom

Hi Maunus, I'm thinking about renominating Leo Frank for GA now that the user that was responsible for the NPOV dispute has since been blocked indefinitely and the article is semi-protected to protect against sock puppetry. You had quickfailed it in May, but the issues have since been resolved. I posted on the article talk page to make sure there were no objections, and once I create the GA2 page I'll let you know. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks for the help! Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Tonystewart14:, I am glad the issues have been resolved. And I'll be happy to review it, when I have a little more time than I do in the next few weeks, if noone else has started the review by then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Maunus: I just requested a 2nd opinion for this article as there was another reviewer who picked it up, but hasn't reviewed it fully after two weeks and I didn't get a response on his talk page. Furthermore, there were some concerns about the reviewer raised by another major contributor. If you have time and wouldn't mind, I'd greatly appreciate you picking it up. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14:, seems to me that the issue with the GA review suggests that the previous concerns have not in fact been resolved. I am not going to review the article untill they are. That will be when the current reviewer says that they are not going to finish the review and that they will not pursue the conflict over the edits. The article has to be stable in order to qualify, and in my experience some articles just never become sufficiently stable for that to happen. Perhaps this is one of those.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems like this editor is stalling the GA nomination, first by volunteering to review the article under dubious circumstances, and then not completing the review or responding to me. I hope he either returns or it becomes apparent that he will not respond quickly enough. If it's the latter case, my concern is this might take a long time and add to a consistent history of sabotage on the article. As he died 100 years ago as of next Monday, stability shouldn't be a major concern, but for some reason it is. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog

Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll refrain though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wessel

Wikipedia has this policy of neutral point of view. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question is not non-neutral. We also have the policy against editwarring by the way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for my sake, you truly believe that including the word "tyranny" im the sentence would NOT be non-neutral? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, in reference to the policies of Nazi Germany I think the vast majority of people would consider that accurate. Why did you name this section "Wessel"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I was wrong. You're smart, I'm stupid. You win, I give in. Happy editing! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Wessel", btw, was a typo, meant to write Klemperer. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Maunus. Now the dust has settled on the Maya civilization FAC, I just wanted to say many thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for supporting its promotion - after an epic haul it made FA at the weekend. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Tthank you, Simon! You are doing wonderful and dedicated work, and the FA was fully deserved.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Irataba

Thank you for your part in it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015

At Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 25 July 2015 you have raised behavioural issues.

Please discuss these at User talk:Andrewa#Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Keilana (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The MoS on animate pronouns: Say or Nay?

I'm told that not all of my pings went through, so this is to inform you that your name has been cited on a list of Wikieditors who hold the opinion that the MoS should not explicitly state that animate pronouns are standard for fictional characters. If this is not correct, please feel free to remove or alter the entry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

2002 gujarat riots talk page problem

That was a sub-section i started but similar issue was already being addressed in another sub-section. Another user got upset that similar discussions are running on multiple subsections. Feel free to put entire sub-section back to it's original place. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

European Colonization of the Americas

So can you revert the edit you did regarding Mann on the European Colonization of the Americas page, given that you stated you confused Mann for someone else?

Also, I am obviously of the belief that "seize" is an inappropriate descriptor for the context of that paragraph, and you seem to be believe "acquire control of" is also inappropriate. I am willing to consider a middle ground. Do you have any suggestions? What about "take control of/over"? If the editor consensus ends up preferring "seize" to "acquire control of", I will suggest a change to "take control of/over", but if you have another suggestion, let me know. JordanGero (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Of course, I forgot to do that. I don't think a word can be chosen or rejected outside of a specific context, so the RfC as i intend it is more about the principle of considering "seize" to be an inherently loaded term, which I do not think it is. It is clearly appropriate for some contexts of colonization, and may be inappropriate for others. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

¿This is reality?

• Primer referencia monográfica, 1973.
  Primer referencia monográfica, 1973.
• Monografía de Tequixquiac, 1999.
  Monografía de Tequixquiac, 1999.
• Monografía de Tequixquiac, 1999.
  Monografía de Tequixquiac, 1999.

This a bibliography about Contradanza de las Varas [39] Is a Spanish Christian dance, no indigenous or aztec dance, is similar as other Spanish dances [40] [41].--Marrovi (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No dudo de que existe la danza y que es de origen española. Pero ese fuente por lo primero no dice lo que tu escribiste. No dice que por ejemplo que es de Galicia. No dice que llegó en 1552 pero 1652. Etc. No puedes adicionar tus propias ideas a lo que lleva el texto eso es "Investigacion Original" WP:OR. Tambien tienes que citar la fuente tal y cual como es - en este caso parece ser la monografia municipal de Tequixquiac. Yo considero que estos monografias son fuentes admisibles para cosas basicas, pero muchas muchas veces contienen informacion erronea - asi que si alguien pone en duda alguna informacion de esa fuente entonces hay que buscar una mejor. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pues si tienes razón, pero son las únicas fuentes impresas; esto es cultura, por eso no aparece en blogs comerciales o webs, hay publicaciones locales que han hecho un importante rescate de documentación, pero no son libros de venta ni estan patrocinados por editoriales prestigiadas, lo que hace que no se ajuste a las condiciones comerciales y legales de Wikipedia. Pienso que al momento solo las monografías son la únicas publicaciones que pueden ajustarse a las condiciones mercantiles que se exigen aquí. Pues las mejores referencias son que ha publicado la UNAM en Acatlán, pero no estan en línea, solo es consulta impresa en biblioteca.--Marrovi (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Lo siento pero asi son las reglas. No toda informacion cabe dentro de la wikipedia. Si no hay publicaciones confiables sobre ello, no se puede incluir. Puedes usar los libros que existen en bibliotecas - no tienen que estar en linea. Pero debo decir que no me haces sentir mucha confianza que eres competente para usar esos libros debidamente ya que cuando usas la fuentes que si existen en linea parece que usas solamente una parte de lo que dicen, y adicionas otra parte de tus propias ideas. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pues la monografías estan en bibliotecas no hay problema de anexalas a los textos, ya quedó resulto esto.--Marrovi (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Las monografias normalmente tambien se encuentran en linea. Pero es muy importante que no adicionas informacion adicional que no se encuentre en las fuentes. Tuve que quitar mucho texto para incluir solamente lo que estaba en la monografia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

En la nueva monografía será publicada en dos años más, estan apoyando al cronista municipal actual dos historiadores que han sido contactados para obtener el rigor academico de una publicación que durará 10 años vigente. Pero mientas no se imprima este nuevo documento, las monografías anteriores segirán siendo las que usaremos aquí en Wikipedia, así como todo lo que se vaya encontrado en publicaciones de pdf.--Marrovi (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

State flags in Mexico.

Te explico, las banderas de Tamaulipas y Quintana Roo si existen y hay legislación que las avala, pero yo pedí su borrado porque las banderas blancas no van a trascender como la bandera de Jalisco, la bandera de Tlaxcala o la bandera de Yucatán. Los pendones blancos no tienen la profundidad de simbolismo como las tres mensinadas aunque haya leyes estales que las mensiona y les da un protocol.--Marrovi (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Las banderas tmabien necesitan fuentes que establecen que son notables. No son suficientemente notables para incluirse solamente porque existen. Si no hay fuentes confiables escritas sobre ellas, no se pueden incluir.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Todo en esta vida necesita fuentes para ser verificable, pero tú dirás cuales se ajustan a las reglas.--Marrovi (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Si, absolutamente todo necesita fuentes. Yo los propuse para ser borrados, veremos que dice el consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ya te ubiqué, creo que eres el danés que vive en San Diego, al parecer te tengo agregado en facebook como Magnus.--Marrovi (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Si, so yo. No mencione tu nombre porque no se si prefieres el anonimato. Ya no vivo en San Diego, pero en Mexico.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Me puedes llamar como gustes, pero me agrada más el nickname, además la mayoría de las personas prefieren usar su nickname por ser más corto.--Marrovi (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Realmente mi mejor experiencia para conocer al mundo fue haber estado en Alemania, los alemanes me enseñaron muchas cosas que me han servido para no andar sin rumbo por el mundo. Me dijeron que a los europeos los debes tratar de la misma manera como te traten, la lógica de respeto no funciona como la de las comunidades indígenas o la de los pueblitos mexicanos, en Europa cada persona busca su espacio como parte de una vida individualista, no esperes hacer comunidad, que te ayuden o te admiren, el respeto aquí se gana peleando por tu espacio, si eres necesario te usarán si no eres necesario te batearán, por eso tú debes hacer tus propias cosas y trabajar arduamente sin descanso. Usa la lógica inversa, si un persona te dice que le caes bien, es porque le desagradas, si una persona te dice que le caes mal es porque siente cierta admiración por tí. Mientras sigas las reglas del otro serás su amigo incondicional, pero el día que intentes crear tus reglas ese día tendrás muchos enemigos (aquí te debes ganar tu espacio), el europeo le gusta rodearse de gente fuerte e inteligente, si eres un lamebotas o halagador como los que no tienen identidad propia y ven a Europa como el origen, te convertirás en su esclavo de por vida; si el europeo ve que lo vez como un igual, lo contradices pero mides fuerzas, puedes convertirte en uno de su mejores amigos al paso de los años y serás un camarada de por vida. La hipocrecía es la regla del mundo occidental, por eso debes ser cortés y agradecido; debes ser un buen guerrero, pero la ira y la pasión no es lo que impera, por eso debes ser constructivista y propositivo para que se respete tu espacio y tus ideas. La confienza es como la virginidad, si la pierdes ya no la recuperas, solo tu trabajo te respaldará para recuperar respeto. La buena y la mala fama la debes usar a tu favor, la mejor manera de derrotar a una persona es dejar de hacer buenos y malos comentarios sobre esta o este y mantenerla enterrada en el pasado sin recuerdo alguno, al fin que las masas olvidan pronto, solo la gente inteligente reconoce el pasado y lo sucedido. El talento despierta envidias entre algunos de los que te consideran amigo, estos son los principales enemigos que te delatarán sin piedad, por eso debes aprender a callar mucho de lo que sabes y a divulgarlo en el momento adecuado.

Afortunadamente existen aún las comunidades indígenas y de ellos aprendemos otros valores, sobre todo como defenderse cuando no se tiene poder, dinero e influencias. Todos somos parte de un todo, nadie está de más y nadie es inecesario, si no lo puedes hacer otro lo hará porque todo es parte de una misma causa; lo que le duele a mi hermano a mi me duele, todos somos uno solo; el mal de destruye así mismo por eso no debes cambiar las cosas, deja que las cosas siguan su propio rumbo; disfruta de todo y alegrate de ver la naturaleza y la vida como un niño, solo así harás grandes cambios, no estés solo, haz comunidad y aprende a convivir con las diferencias.--Marrovi (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No entiendo exactamente tu punto con esto. Creo que tus ideas sobre los europeos son algo estereotípicos, no creo que te ayudarán en el mundo real.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Parecen esterotipos pero resultan reales, es muy evidente senitir que al europeo no le gusta que gente de otros lugares se sienta igual a ellos. Si me quedo callado no creen que sea mexicano, piensan que soy español, portugués, turco o de un país Mediterráneo, y los comentarios que he escuhado hacia personas árabes, orientales o latinoamericanas no son halagadoras, en Paris y en Praga he escuchado comentarios racistas sin percatarse que gente de América Latina estamos presentes. Pero conmigo la gente de Europa ha sido muy cordial, gentil, amigable, respetuosa y me han integrado en roles sociales (fiestas, eventos, circulos universitarios o grupos de trabajo), pero no han corrido con la misma suerte muchas personas latinoamericanas que han cruzado el charco e inclusive familiares que han ido de vacaciones, el trato ha sido racista y bastante grosero. --Marrovi (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Aja, y por eso todos los europeos son asi. Por suerte se muy bien que no todos los mexicanos son como tu.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

¿Cómo son los pasos para dar nombramientos de bibliotecario y cúal es trabajo?

Hola Maunus, Buenos días; te escribo porque cabo de ser bloqueado en náhuatl por Akapochtli, tú ya fuiste bibliotecario, me gustaría saber ¿Cuáles son los pasos para solicitor ser un bliotecario?, ¿Qué hace el bliotecario? Existe algún compadrazgo, o movimiento de influencias o modo sencillo de tener tal solicitud con solo pedirlo? porque no ha recibido nuestro nombramiento dentro de la comunidad que edita en Wikipedia náhuatl, porque hay otros candidatos que si son hablantes nativos de la lengua y podría tomar tal liderazgo, e más hasta yo podría solictar también ser bibliotecario para que haya más neutralidad y no permitir que gente como Akapochtli, venido de una fuerte resentimento hacia mi persona, haga lo que se le antoje y empiece a exigir lo él no es capaz de dar respeto, y todavía lo exije como si no tuviera una larga cola que le pisen y ahora lo hace haciendo uso de su poder [42].--Marrovi (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Estoy leyendo la políticas en español, me imagino que son similares, además estoy leyendo esta parte [43], porque en Wikipedia náhuatl no se ha hecho una votación para bibliotecarios ni nombramientos en los que estamos de acuerdo, solo se han elegido al azar y desconozco como es que de buenas a primeras es bibliotecario Akapochtli. Desde luego que no estoy en contra de que sea bibliotecario, pero ya empezó hacer uso del poder que se ha dado en contra mía, no tardó ni cinco minutos para buscar hacer un bloqueo inmediato, él sabe que yo soy el mayor editor de Wikipedia náhuatl, esa ha sido su principal envidia y su odio hacia mi persona por eso no pierde la oportunidad para atacarme, pero bueno, acepto su bloqueo y sus condiciones, pero quiero solicitar también mi nombramiento como bibliotecario de Wikipedia náhuatl, he custodiado también esta Wikipedia y mi trabajo es bueno, no puedo permitir que una persona quiera tratarme como se le dé en gana y ahora lo haga con poder dado de forma misteriosa.--Marrovi (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

¿Tú crees que es necesario mover influencias con adminstradores de varias wikipedias para ser un nuevo administrador? Porque Lourdes Cardenal nunca ha editado en Wikipedia náhuatl y autoriza un voto a favor de Akapochtli ¿Es válido hacer eso? [44] --Marrovi (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Tú sabes que en Wikipedia náhuatl, no somos amos y señores de los bloqueos, los sabotajes, las guerras de ediciones como en otras wikipedias, pero las pocas personas que quedamos y editamos en esta Wikipedia somos muy trabajadores, allí tienes a Cuiatl y a Tepoxteco (el único hablante nativo), discutimos planteamientos pero no nos descalificamos ni nos metemos con la familia de nadie, hacemos lo que se puede y tratamos de invitar nuevos editores que si sean hablantes nativos, pero están decepcionados de como son las políticas en Wikipedia, no quieren ser controlados por los llamados bibliotecarios (eso va en contra de ciertos valores) y tampoco sus líderes comunitarios y profesores encuentran en Wikipedia utilidad alguna a su vida cotdiana, he platicado con algunos de ellos exponiendoles que Wikipedia puede ser una herramienta más de revitalización, pero no responde a sus necesidades (si usan Wikipedia lo harían en español, pero también me dicen que lo que allí se edita está muy lejos de describer lo que son sus comunidades), pero bueno sigo optimista en encontrar alguna comunidad de habla materna que si quiera usar la Wikipedia, Totlalilli era un editor de habla nativa (originario de la Sierra de Puebla), pero le decepcionó como funsiona Wikipedia y que no veía aspiraciones de crecer desde su lengua materna en Wikipedia mientras haya admnistradores que no sean nativos (desde luego que nunca he sido admnistrador o bibliotecario). Akapochtli no es hablante nativo como tampoco lo soy yo, no puede engañar a la gente de gran conocedor de náhuatl porque en facebook los verdaderos hablantes nativos no entienden el náhuatl de Akapchtli y no lo avalan como buen náhuatl. Akapochtli asegurá que me controlará bien ahora como bibliotecario y que con Battroit haran un gran trabajo ¿Pero Battroit conoce el idioma náhuatl?. Si Tepoxteco siendo hablante nativo de la lengua ha costado trabajo areglar la Huiquipedia para que sea lo más apegada al habla nativa, ¿cómo lo harán Akapochtli y Battroit si no son hablantes nativos?, ojalá hagan un buen trabajo porque el náhuatl se lo merece, si yo soy un estorbo me hago aún lado, lo importante es que el náhuatl tenga espacios dignos de difusión y sea hablado por más mexicanos cada día, políticas de a peso de bibliotecarios no revitalizará una lengua que amamos muchas personas, por mi parte yo voy a estar más ocupado en el posgrado, realmente me interesa echarle más los kilos al pre-inicio del doctorado que ponerme a discutir con grupos de élite de Wikipedia española que se sientes amos de las ediciones y se atreven a controlar lo que cada editor debe hacer.--Marrovi (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ya hemos platicado en facebook y agradezco mucho tu labor académica para rescatar las lenguas indígenas de mi país, eso no tiene valor y mucha gente te lo ha de agradecer; creo que también amas estos idiomas tanto como muchos de nostros. Duele que mis paisanos mexicanos no se interesen por las lenguas indígenas y más doloroso es que muchos hablantes nativos quieran dejar de hablar sus lenguas maternas debido a que muchos han sido víctimas del racismo en su propio país.--Marrovi (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Cada wikipedia tiene sus propias reglas por como se nombran los administradores. Tambien tienen sus propias reglas acerca de como justificar bloqueamientos. Tu has sido bloqueado en 4 diferentes wikipedias, por 4 diferentes administradores. Eso significa que el problema no esta con los administradores pero contigo. Si no cambias tu forma de editar, tomando en cuenta las reglas de como editar y los consejos y admonociones de otros editores no se quedará con 4 bloqueos. Yo admiro también tu pasión por las lenguas indígenas, pero como editor y como estudioso te falta muchisimo en seriedad, rigor y entendimiento. Eso se puede arreglar, pero solamente si se estudia y aprende con humilidad - ahi es donde debes poner tus esfuerzos. Escribir nuevos articulos y contribuir mas contenido sin el debido nivel de conocimiento del proceso de edicion y del estudio estén presentes. Asi que si aplaudo tu decision de estudiar el posgrado. Muy buena suerte con eso. Pero por favor no sigues editando la wikipedia a menos que mejores muchisimo tu nivel de seriedad.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

En Huiquipedia también se hacen votaciones, te comparto la página [45]. Aquí es donde se eligen todas las cosas importantes a través de votos; Akapochtli no pasó por esta votación, debió haber avisado que quería ser admnistrador para que votemos y se le diera esa encomienda, se saltó no solo las reglas de Huiquipedia, también las de Wikipedia en general por eso ya se está tomando cartas en el asunto. Rosymonterrey no es ninguna autoridad en Wikipedia náhuatl porque no edita en Wikipedia náhuatl y no puede tomar deciciones ni proponerle nada a Akapochtli sin que Cuaitl, Tepoxteco (que si son editores, aunque no frecuentes) y los pocos editores se enteren de que habrá bibliotecarios, Rosymonterrey es mexicana legalmente pero no tiene ningún vínculo con la cultura mexicana o náhuatl y muy probablemente tampoco tenga dominio del idioma mexicano o náhuatl; desde luego que es bienvenida a la Wikipedia en mexicano pero siempre y cuando quiera aprender este idioma de su país. De buenas a primeras lo eligieron y ya te diste cuenta que abusó de dicho cargo que le asignaron y por eso ya se están tomando cartas en el asunto, además de que su elección como admnistrador fue un fraude (no se supo nunca como lo eligieron dentro de Huiquipedia) y no pasó por votaciones y esas son las reglas de cada Wikipedia.

Lourdes Cardenal nunca ha editado en Wikipedia náhuatl y autoriza un voto a favor de Akapochtli ¿Es válido hacer eso? [46], a esta usuaria nunca se le ha visto editar en Wikipedia náhuatl, no creo que tenga dominio del idioma mexicano o nahuatlahtolli; por lo tanto, tampoco tiene autoridad de votar o elegir a Akapochtli como bibliotecario, es necesario ver como fue su elección y quienes votaron porque se sospecha que hubo un acto de corrupción e influencias, Akapochtli no puede ser elejido desde Wikipedia española, tampoco puede saltarse las reglas de Huiquipedia conectandose con Battroid y pedir ser bibliotecario por Rosymonterrey, eso tampoco está permitido en Huiquipedia o ¿tú crees que sí?--Marrovi (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Tu concentrate en tu propia conducta Marrovi. En problema es la pesima calidad de tus aportaciones, no es la legitimidad de los administradores que te bloquean. No sigues mas este asunto aqui por favor.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Pero violó las reglas de elección de Huiquipedia y pidió su nombramiento desde Wikipedia en español, tú mismo aceptaste que cada Wikipedia tiene sus reglas, eso no está permitido, cómo es que exije seguir las reglas si las violado con influencias, por eso ya fue notificado.--Marrovi (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Tu has violado reglas basicas en 5 wikipedias. Concentrate en eso. No me hables mas de tus problemas con los demas en otroas wikipedias. Lo voy a borrar. Esto es la wiki ingles. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Son tres, solo alemán, español y náhuatl, es todas las demás edito (náhuatl fue una venganza, la cual ya estoy notificando).--Marrovi (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Y italiano y Ingles. En ingles aun no estas bloqueado, pero no tardará si no cambias tu postura y merjoras tus contribuciones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Language

Hi Maunus. I don't agree with your recent change on Language where you removed an entire section. Doing this is not part of the policy in Wikipedia (See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with unsourced material). The section was sourced properly with the citation of the article that proposes the concepts, written by affirmed linguists. I'll revert the change. If you have further comments, please, let's discuss on the talk page of Language. Cheers. --SynConlanger (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I hasve reverted again. There is no prohibition against removing entire sections if they give undue weight to minor issues, or there are sourcing problems. There is however a policy saying that if ones bold additions are reverted one should not reinsert them without first establishing consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ladykillers

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Student7 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson, Mediation Committee)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing reference information

A few years ago you contributed to SIL International, including a reference to ‘Errington 2008’. Would it be possible to at least add a title name?

— Dutral (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It was already in the reference section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting

Hi Maunus, don't know if you've read about this church yet, but I thought of you when I did. It's interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did see that. There are quite a few submerged churches in Mexico, I know of two others. One was flooded by a plantation owner who wanted the native residents of the community to leave in the 19th century. The other was flooded when the Mexican government constructed the Miguel Aleman Dam in the 1950s. Maybe some day they will emerge as well. :) Stunning images!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

…for your past attention at Chicken or the egg. I did an edit today you might look at—please discuss there before reverting. (The article, in my opinion is a loss, and needs expert attention, desperately.) Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.154.39 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilization

Dear friend, I have noticed that your objection to my recent edit in Maya civilization was because it was derived from a primary source. While it is true that secondary sources are used more than primary sources, still, WP policy states explicitly that primary sources can be used occasionally. Given the importance of the passage which you reverted, would you be so kind to reconsider having it re-inserted? Just a reminder: WP:Primary sources.Davidbena (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont think the use you gave to this primary source was either necessary or sufficiently cautious. I dont think that piece of information belongs in the section, and not at all in a one sided representation from a single primary source. The question of the potential Central Mexican impact in post-classic Yucatan has a long history of scholarly debate and is not settled yet. Since this is something scholars are debating how to understand, it is not a case in which we can let the primary source speak for itself. So no, I will not reinsert it. But if you wish to argue the point further you should do so at the discussion page of the article where other editors can weigh in with their opinions and consensus can be formed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand your point, in general, although in this specific case, the words of Diego de Landa (our primary source for the mid-15th century history of Mayapan) are clear beyond doubt. Perhaps, though, in agreement and in full compliance with your own view on this subject, it will only give more credence to Diego de Landa's view if we also had a reliable secondary source in our reference. I shall raise the subject again on the Maya civilization Talk Page once I've found the secondary sources who recount the events as stated by Diego de Landa, and as brought down earlier by me. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The words of Diego de Landa are very much worthy of critical scrutiny, and cannot in any way be assumed to be an objective reflection of events in Maya history preceding the conquest - even if he is our main source. No modern historian would accept the accounts of friars and conquistadors at face value without critiqeuing, analyzing and interpreting them in relation to other sources. Having the discussion at the talkpage based on secondary sources is exactly the right way to do it, so that is a good way to proceed. Looking forward to seeing what you bring to the discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My friend, had you paid strict notice to the edit suggested by me, it did not concern Mayan history as a whole, but rather the history of Mayapan's demise before the Spanish conquest. Of course, any reliable secondary source used as a reference would, in my view, have addressed the subject matter with a critical demeanor. The fact that Diego de Landa was a Spanish bishop or a "friar" is irrelevant, since his inquisitiveness about the local history of the place where he had actually lived, and which history he so kindly put down in writing, is all that really matters to us. All the best.Davidbena (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt very much that any historian would agree that considering De Landa's particular perspective as a bishop and Spaniard living a century after the events he describes does not matter when trying to evaluate the accuracy of his account.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is where oral tradition, as passed down by the local Indians, plays an important role.Davidbena (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And that role would be something that Wikipedia requires professional historians to assess - and the rules limiting the use of primary sources are in place exactly to prevent us from engaging in that kind of Original Research ourselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As stated, a reliable secondary source who repeats the historical anecdote in Diego de Landa's seminal work agrees to the historicity of the event and it would not, by any means, be considered Original Research. For that matter, quoting verbatim from a primary source (albeit rarely used) is also not to be considered original research. This is plain to experienced editors.Davidbena (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please go spend your time producing those reliable secondary sources and then start a discussion at the article's talkpage. I think we are done here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your indulgence. I will give the subject further consideration when I get to the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, perhaps next week. Again, thanks for engaging me in this important discussion.Davidbena (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Biting my tongue. The irony of using the records of the man, who destroyed the Maya records themselves and prohibited any other researcher from examining them, knows no bounds. His "kindness of writing it down" is not so much appreciated here in Yucatán. Going back to my cave. SusunW (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yes, he did a great disservice to anthropologists and ethnographers by burning the old books containing the Mayan language (on a wide-range of topics). Still, he enlightened us with other cultural and religious aspects known about the Maya. I say that in this unfortunate turn of events, let us take what is known about the Maya and present those facts impartially.Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your caution

I have read your caution, that said, it takes two to tango, and the editor in question did considerable damage to an article (that I was not a significant editor on, though I was involved) with unreliable sources and a tendentious argument over nothing. You and I both remember the mess that Irataba was in at its failed FAC (before you took it over and did excellent work) when an editor with a similarly casual attitude toward sourcing had an article under scrutiny. The editor you are discussing here is a similar sort; I only suggest that you look at the big picture and remember that we share a commitment to the quality of the encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It does take two to tango, and from what I can see Lynn is saved only by the fact that she is an equally good dancer as you. If she had been a less resilient editor your approach would have been very damaging. I don't think she has a casual attitude, I think her suggestions on the talk page shows a good understanding of the topic and the sources. In cases where she may not, the better approach is to collegially arrive at a shared understandind. I do not place the quality of the encyclopedia over the collegiality of collaborators. And I think it is a mistake to do so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have mentored many new users and try to encourage new users to become good editors. I'm all for collegiality and I wouldn't have the featured articles I have if I could not collaborate. But, I don't think that collegiality should be a WP:PACT, there is a time to back off from a losing battle, but it is a mistake to allow quality to be sacrificed just so everyone gets along; I've allowed myself to be bullied off articles in the past, and the errors can linger for years. Here, this user talks a good line, but her actual edits to the article belie her assertions; she was inserting stuff that would not pass WP:RS at FAC and probably not GA (citing to an amateur historian's self-published web page, for example). She also was pushing a fringe theory elsewhere and got called on that as well. I have been dealing with the OR and SYNTH problems with this editor for months on other articles, so my patience is thin. People who edit wikipedia have to learn that other people will edit their work and to learn it's nothing personal; I am tired of people who don't get that. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And it's not just me: [47], [48]

Hey Maunus, while you're at it, could you please weigh in on this RfC? Your input would be appreciated. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Block Quote used in Maya civilization

In answer to your question, User:Maunus, the article describes glyphs used for numbers, but does not explain the method used by the Maya when actually counting the numbers randomly.Davidbena (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Danish source

Hi Maunus,

I've come across several Danish sources that refer to Poul Andersen "FØF". I believe it's a work on Danish dialectology, probably from the first half of the 20th century. Any idea what it might be?

Thanks — kwami (talk)

Poul Andersen was secretary in Udvalget for Folkemål, the first Danish dialectology society. He published, in 1958, a doctoral dissertation called Fonemsystemet i Øst-Fynsk (more precisely "Fonemsystemet i Østfynsk på grundlag af dialekten i Revninge Sogn"), which is probably the FØF title you have encountered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can locate it. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the ref checks out. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Danish phonetic symbols? I've come across a reversed ø which I don't think is in Unicode; also c with curly tail (perhaps ꞔ) and what looks like retroflex i (perhaps ᶖ). Do you know what they mean, or know of a ref that would explain them? If they're common, I could propose any missing ones to Unicode. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversed ⟨ø⟩ is used in the canIPA alphabet to denote a true-mid front rounded vowel. Perhaps that's how it's used by Andersen. Peter238 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, if canIPA is that old. But it doesn't look like canIPA otherwise. Thansk. I wrote to the journal. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested

to see [49]. You sent it to MfD; just before it was deleted, it was copied over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dardic languages

Hi Maunus, there seems to be a concerted effort by groups of editors to highlight Dardic languages, e.g., here. Can you please look into the issue? I don't know enough about the subject. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I don't drink. If you ever again accuse me of being "drunk", I will ask for an interaction ban, i.e. that you never again refer to me in any way. And the "bigoted" charge is ridiculous. Do you remember the Muslim pilot who crashed his passenger plane on purpose? On his approach to an Egyptian airport, as I recall. The argument was used that it couldn't have been suicide because "Muslims don't do that." Only he did. The argument "Muslims don't do..." this or that is personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What you need is an ANI ban. If you dont drink I'll have to invent some other way to explain and excuse your persistent behavior characterized by low levels of wits and high levels of drama mongering. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now asked for that interaction ban from you. The flight in question was EgyptAir Flight 990. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

History will absolve me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for what I ever did to you, to evoke such lies from you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Look over your ANI contributions, imagine its someone else's and tell me you dont see a sanctimonious selfrighteous prat hovering over any chance of drama like a vulture over a carcass.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes raise questions that others don't like to hear. And are you saying that your best friends are substance abusers? If that's true, it's very sad, and you need to look yourself in the mirror instead of issuing unprovoked attacks against others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah so do drunks and bigots - hence the confusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't drink and I'm not a bigot. So what's your excuse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was raised to give folks the benefit of the doubt?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's someone you don't like for unknown reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, assuming you were drunk was giving you the benefit of the doubt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Very funny. Now, tell me what I ever did to you, to warrant inclusion on your own personal "enemies list". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont keep such a list. But when I see folks being incompetent recurrently I do tell them to find something better to do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's funny too. And you call me sanctimonious and hypocritical? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

English Language

Maunus, the problem with the English Language article citation regarding David Crystal isn't necessarily with Dr. Crystal himself. Indeed, he is recognized as an expert in his field. The problem is with the article and its citation. The article lists it as a hard range based on some sort of evidence. Mr. Crystal's own research separates out "foreign" speakers as those who are students of the language at varying levels of proficiency and a number that is "difficult to be sure about" (p 424, "A History of the English Language", Crystal, David). In this book, (and on that same page) he places the number as being somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion. He also says it could be between 600 million and 700 million (again, on the same page). Put simply, the number is not recognized by any major body because it is merely a guess. If it is to be cited here, it must be noted that it is exactly that - a guess.

That is what all speaker numbers are - guesstimates. There is no need to make a special case out of this guess.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Drunk editors

I consider myself pretty good at being able to gauge the sobriety of editors (I used to work in a bar in a galaxy, far away). So it came as some surprise to read that you suspected Baseball Bugs of drinking. He's never appeared inebriated to me, so I wonder what made you think that way about him. I can't say the same for many others, however, some of whom are arbs. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont think there is any good reason to revive that discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And there should be no reason to repeat it Maunus. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought as Viriditas. Dropping the case is best. And that it does not reoccur is also essential. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

IF I were drunk myself, or otherwise cognitively impaired I might accept behavioral advice from you Amritsya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me. If I may hypothesize: it's possible that in the culture Maunus identifies with, telling jokes all the time like Baseball Bugs does is associated with intoxication. This is likely the case. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You are close to the mark. In my culture drunkeness is associated with agressive, dramamongering, obnoxious behavior and general lack of good judgment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.

I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Block of 86.131.23.154

There once was an IP address
It ended in 154
But while no Pius the First
It was saintly for sure

Slanderous lies on ANI it made
About Volkswagen and automation
But no one believed its claims
Much to the IP's frustration

Partly this was DatGuyWiki's fault
And the IP wanted to let him know
But an edit filter was also at fault
And the IP wanted to let the world know

Here the tale skips a boring bit
And leads to reviews of editors:



Philknight has been around a bit
DatGuyWiki element of janitors
Hu is Huon or Foxj the pict
But random victims picked
Jpgordon has a nazi dog
That ties victims in its cellar
HighInBc is a delightful chap
Who enjoys illicit intoxication
Ohnoitsjamie on the other hand
Has a willy too small for masturbation

Yours Sincerely,

The people's front for the liberation of 86.131.23.154

R&I IP

FYI that R&I IP you mentioned on wikipediocracy is a PureVPN IP address (related to their my-kln1.pointtoserver.com server). There's a long term history of socks using PureVPN IPs on those pages, e.g. [50][51][52] -- 78.151.145.67 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I have nominated the recapture of El Chapo at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You need respect any rules of Wikipedia

Your recent editing history at Marxism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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. Gorin1245 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bruno Gröning source

• Bruno Gröning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for checking the potential source. Could you leave some useful quotes from it on the article talk page for editors to use? --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Email it if you'd like. Thanks for offering to. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs), you would need to respond to my email for me to send you the paper. I can't send attachments through wikipedia's email system.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi Maunus. There literally thousands of topics on which "there is no consensus on the matter", and yet we don't point that out, we merely present the different currents, without presuming that there ought to be consensus because in most cases there will never be. Be it over whether butter or maragrine is better for you, carbohydrates or proteins, link between pollutants and ADHD, between GMOs and risks to health, etc, etc, . In none of those cases, do we presume a consensus to be in the offing. To mention that there is no consensus implies that one is expected, which is editorialising and not based on scientific evidence. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, when reliable sources largely express something approaching a consensus, it is a good idea for the overall tenor of the article to reflect what the great majority of reliable sources say. That's just Wikipedia policy, and it is also good encyclopedia editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For undoing an edit without immediately resorting to the revert button. Hats off.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/Ruslands grænser

Se venligst denne diskussion, jeg tror vi er enige. Jeg diskuterer med vores yndlingsaversion Rmir2 om kortene på Ruslands relaterede artikler. Hvis du får tid, kan du jo give dit besyv med! PerV (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Her tror jeg faktisk jeg ville være enig med Rmir2. Jeg mener at Wikipedia har et ansvar for ikke præmaturt at anerkende politiske krav over erobrede områder, der stadig ikke har fuldt anerkendt status af begge parter - omstridte områder bør skraveres synes jeg.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@·maunus: Det er præcist det jeg argumenterer for, netop at omstridte områder skal være på kortene for begge lande, skraverede. Rmir ønsker at slette kort over Rusland, der inkluderer Krim, der også benyttes på en wiki. Rmir2 ønsker istedet at indsætte det gamle kort over Rusland. Det nye kort blev, så vidt jeg kan se, indført på en wiki 24. mar 2014. Jeg har i diskussionen, adskillige gange, talt for, at vi skal vise de facto, og vise de jure. Ligesom vi gør med kortet over Indien vedrørende Kashmir.

Ok, ja det lyder lige lovlig radikalt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases - üser:Altenmann >t

confused

I'm confused, what did I do wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marijuana_(word) --Potguru (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You were moving around comments, which per WP:TPO is not a good idea. It is also not a good idea to copy other editors comments.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sublimis Deus

Hejsa Maunus. Jeg kan se, at du har tilbageført min ændring på Sublimis Deus. Jeg er dog ikke enig i din argumentation. »Sublimis« er et adjektiv i nominativ singularis, der lægger sig direkte til »Deus«, således at »Sublimis Deus« betyder »(den) Ophøjede Gud«. Det er sandt, at selve formen »sublimis« isoleret betragtet også kan være genitiv, men for det første bruges genitiv ikke generelt til at angive retning fra (som i "God from on high"), for det andet er »sublimis« som sagt et adjektiv, ikke et nomen, og for det tredje giver en genitivform ikke mening i den videre sætningskontekst (»Sublimis Deus sic dilexit humanum genus, ut ...«). —Pinnerup (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hej Pinnerup (talk · contribs) - jeg læste teksten og kom selv til konklusionen at sublimis må være nominativ i den kontekst (og ablativ ville være bedre til meningen "fra") - så jeg genindførte din ændring og en mere korrekt oversættelse.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Super :) —Pinnerup (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Phonetic/phonemic

Really? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a script that represents sound is called phonetic (the opposite is ideographic, or semasiographic, or in the Maya case logographic). The Maya script has two types of signs, phonetic signs and logographic signs. Only modern linguists use and advocate phonemic scripts (which are also by the way within the wider category of phonetic scripts, they just represent abstract (phonological) sound units instead of concrete ones). The idea of the phoneme is a 20th century invention. No ancient scripts are phonemic, and neither are the vast majority of modern scripts. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused—"phonetic script" redirects to Phonetic transcription. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is not a good redirect. Phonetic transcription is also a 20th century invention which relies on the idea that language has a phonological and a phonetic level. This understanding of language originated with Ferdinand de Saussure.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here are some sources where you can see the usage:

Justeson, John S., and Lyle Campbell. Phoneticism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing. University Press of Colorado, 1987.

Macri, Martha Jane. "Phoneticism in Maya head variant numerals." PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982.

Nicholson, Henry B. Phoneticism in the late pre-Hispanic Central Mexican writing system. Trustees for Harvard University, 1974.

Edgerton, William F. "Egyptian phonetic writing, from its invention to the close of the nineteenth dynasty." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1940): 473-506.

"In the parlance of sinology, these com- ponents are called phonetics, phonetic elements, or phonetic" Unger, J. Marshall, and John DeFrancis. "Logographic and semasiographic writing systems: a critique of Sampson’s classification." Scripts and literacy (1995): 45-58.

" It has been argued that Aristotle's definition is a direct result of the nature of the Greek alphabet, which is said to be the first full-blown phonetic writing system humanity developed."(Coulmas, F., 2003. Writing systems. An introduction to their linguistic analysis, CUP.)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks—I'd been led to believe there were no languages that employed "phonetic" scripts, as that would imply the characters represented phones rather than phonemes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed in most languages the script aims to represent phones not phonemes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit I'm confused. The opening line of Phone (phonetics) at least would make this sound unlikely. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? When people write the intuitive thing to do is to try to represent pronunciation. Thats what all children do before they learn the rules of their orthographies. Writing down phones does not require the use of an truly phonetic alphabet. I am not sure you understand what a phoneme is - it is an abstraction based on an structural analysis of the sounds considered to be distinctive in a given languages - deciding to representing phonemes requires a very high degree of linguistic theoretical sophistication. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding was they would write the sounds as perceived within the sound system of the language—for instance, I find it hard to imagine the Japanese developing a writing system that distingushes [g] and [ŋ] (both realizations of /g/), even if they recognize them as separate phones (as many (most?) Japanese do). Would such a writing system still be called "phonetic"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would still be considered phonetic. In fact even a perfectly phonemic writing system would be considered "phonetic writing" in the sense of a type of writing system (which I understand is counterintuitive if you have learned seeing phonemic and phonetic as the main opposition in language) because both phonemic and phonetic representations represents the sounds of the spoken language (phonemic writing just represent the sounds at a different level of abstraction). But when talking about writing systems the opposite of phonetic is not phonemic, but ideographic (representing concepts) or logographic (representing whole words). Hence a non-phonetic writing system would be a picture of a cow, which can be read as representing the sound "cow", "vache" or "bos" depending on the language spoken by the person who reads it - but a phonetic writing system can only be read in a single language, because it represents the sounds (however imperfectly, subjectively, or abstractly it does so). If we use the japanese example, Japanese writing combines phonetic elements (hiragana/katakana) with non-phonetic elements (kanji) - the fact that there is subphonemic allophonic variation that is not captured by the phonetic signs does not mean that the kana system as a whole is not phonetic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation, and for not getting too frustrated with me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, happy to explain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sesquipedalophobia

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sesquipedalophobia, which you proposed for deletion. There's a bit of relevant info on the article's talk page. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've just spent too much time tracing and fixing all the redirects around this article to let it get deleted so easily. It's still quite lean but I'll try to beef it up a bit in a few days, provided I find decent sources. Thanks! Uanfala Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

???

What the fuck are you doing? Are you trying to piss me off further, or just have a personal war against anything I do at the BtK article? How about some discussion before removing photos? You know I am on a 1RR restriction, you know I am trying to improve this article. You know all this and are doing something as contentious as removing a photograph that won't hurt the article one bit (it's not as if it's a BLP) if it's there while some more research is done in light of your objection to the photo. Another WP:JERK move from you. Don't you have other articles and editors to pay attention to? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

After a protracted discussion about dubious photos you go ahead and add further dubious photos without discussing them with other editors first. I realize introspection is not your forte but honestly that is just absurdly stupid. It is as if you actually want the GA review to fail.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please prove the photos I added dubious. Because, if they actually are dubious, they shouldn't be in the article. Please, I look forward to your evidence. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The link that you yourself provided explicitly states so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And, as I stated, I included it in error. That error has been corrected. Please, provide some kind of evidence that would be considered a reliable source saying the photo isn't authentic. Or is the UNM a good enough source for your refined sensibilities? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Shootseven already provided a print source that mentions doubts about the O'Folliard photo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Shootseven is who, exactly? An expert? Then who is he so we can verify he's a reliable source? Is he more of a reliable source than the UNM archives? I doubt it (just like I doubt he's an actual expert). You don't think all of these redlink editors popping up at the article in the last short while and going ballistic over photographs at this article and all editing Lincoln County related articles isn't suspicious? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He is clearly a person who knows what he is talking about, and who has a wide knowledge of the literature on Billy the Kid, and who understands how one writes neutrally and objectively about history and authenticity. The source he presented is Frederick Nolan's biography of BTK. And no, I assume good faith untill I no longer have that possibility. Shootseven has been knowledgeable, patient and courteous in his participation, so I have no reason to doubt his good faith.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. And he was blocked for disruption and edit warring just because he's such a nice and patient guy. Whatever, I really don't give a shit anymore. You can go to bed tonight knowing you accomplished something great the last couple of days: driving someone away who has only been trying to improve an article, bring it to a higher level, and improve Wikipedia. I'm done. Have the last word. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for editwarring because he was new and didnt know the rules, and because you, the established editor, editwarred with him.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This statement here by Winkelvi, "You don't think all of these redlink editors popping up at the article in the last short while and going ballistic over photographs at this article and all editing Lincoln County related articles" is uncalled for. I agreed with another editor about a dubious photograph that he removed. I did not go ballistic over photographs. I have just as much standing to comment, edit, and agree or disagree with any editor here as anyone else. To suggest that something suspicious is afoot because I haven't made a user page yet? I happen to enjoy old west articles and subjects. No wonder so many new editors do not stay here very long. Jilllyjo (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, could you please be a bit more careful and preview your edits on the BTK article before they go live? I edit conflicted with you over a broken reference, and I found another one where you hadn't even placed the reference tag at the start. --Ches (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: I am experimenting with them at present so no need for you to fix them as I am working. It is not possible to preview how linked references are working so I have to do it like this - making mistakes and fixing them as I go. I will finish the job and leave it nice and neat, but I need somentime where noone else is working on it. If you need to do other stuff on the article now, I will leave it and come back later when it is quiet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Do I really have to tell you that if you want to experiment, you must use the sandbox? Don't make your test/experiment edits live. There's a template warning about that sort of behaviour. --Ches (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine, you can do it yourself. Good luck.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you from doing it, I'm just letting you know that you can't make your test edits live. Is that too much to ask? --Ches (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is how I do this kind of edits - tweaking the errors as I go usually correcting them within minutes. I have done it in dozens of articles including featured and good articles without anyone giving me this kind of silly sermon. So have your article back with is mess of a reference system and do the edits yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Thank you for all your hard work Maunus. I am sorry that another user is giving you such a hard time. That kind of behaviour is totally uncalled for as well as quite rude. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, once again we see that it is not the "encyclopedia" part of "collaborative encyclopedia" that is causing us troubles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jillyjo, how am I being rude? I am simply saying that we cannot have test edits live on the BTK article. --Ches (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will explain. First of all, these edits are not "test edits" they are part of the normal process of editing which entails making incremental changes and correcting mistakes. A "test edit' is an edit made by a newbie who is trying to learn how to edit. By suggesting that I, who has been a wikipedia editor about 8 years longer than you, was making test edits, and by using bold fonts and condescending phrasings you were being rude. Now I have had enough of rude teenagers for a while and I will be leaving the BTK article to itself. It clearly shouldnt pass with the references being in such a mess but that will be someone elses problem from now on.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Focus on contributions, not contributors... another basic WP policy violated right there. Yes, I am a teenager. Yes, I'm sixteen years of age. I've said it on my user page, I'll say it here. My age is no indication of my maturity. --Ches (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claims of maturity are clearly exaggerated. Now sod off, and don't bother me here again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, Maunus. --Ches (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nice to nice people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Battlefield language

Using "cute" phrases to label your opponents is a cheap and rather uncool way of advancing your position. Resorting to such comments (Putin-bot) in an area subject to discretionary sanctions is not only likely to raise the temperature of a discussion unnecessarily but provides evidence of a battlefield mentality. Perhaps you should cease using this phrase? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not a phrase I throw around a lot. But it is apt for describing the type of editor who has maintained Vladimir Putin over the past several years.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it should be no problem not using this particular term again. Apt or not it causes more difficult than it could possibly solve. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I used it once in a private conversation with Marek, in reference to noone in particular. Then the editors opposed to Marek brought it into a conversation trying to use it to demonstrate that Marek had a "conflict of interest"[sic]. I don't have any plans to pursue further editing in the Putin area, but I promise that in the future I will not use that term to describe pro-Putin pov-pushers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

seriously? You know the drill so I won't insult you with a template, but I'm still astonished you even for a moment thought this could be a good idea. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evolutionary theory and the political left

The article Evolutionary theory and the political left has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

ygm

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sent another. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach DRN

Since you voted in the more recent RfC, you may be interested in the discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboaard about closing the RfC. Marlindale (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your skill in ferreting out sockpuppets.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:JSB RfC closed, what next?

Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? Marlindale (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RSS

I am not sure why you would want a repetitive piece of line be present there in that section which basically talks about the same thing in 2 paragraphs about RSS not being part of independence moment with factual data.  A m i t  웃   01:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please deal with content stuff at the article talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Grants idea lab

I’m not quite sure of the best practices for contributing to the grants idea lab. I just made a contribution to a proposal you started. Let’s discuss if there’s a better way to do it — was I supposed to comment on the discussion page and then added to the list or is my bold addition okay?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:I moved it to the discussion page, just so your idea isnt attributed to me. I think the talkpage is a good place to further develop the idea proposal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see it. This is where I looked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I slightly rewrote and added my comment to the discussion page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Great. I think the system there is not very easy to navigate - I also botched the first time when I tried to create a proposal. I will write a response there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Orion's belt in Nahuatl

Hi Maunus,

Do you know if Orion's belt is a firedrill in Nahuatl? I read that somewhere, but don't know if the claim is reliable. I ask because that's what it is in Hadza (or rather, it's firedrills plural), and I wonder what motivates that image. (I could see it as three holes drilled in a fireblock, or a single firedrill, but the plural is odd.) — kwami (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a constellation called mamalhuaztli which means "firedrill", but some sources identify it as being Orion's belt and others as being Castor and Pollux. In Maya (I assume yucatec) Orion's belt is apparently called mehen ek - "the sons".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rules of thumb

Hi Maunus, good to be chatting with you. Just wanted to say I really like your Rules of thumb; I agree with almost all of them! Numbers 1 and 6 are especially good. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

They are all useful for me to return to sometimes to put things into perspective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear; they are a good take-away for me also. Since we are talking about it, I will say that I heartily disagree with number 3, although I agree that advice could be useful to others. Consistency is very important to me. I would like it if you decided that different people are built for different things, and those who make things more consistent are truly beneficial. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

People who consistently make things better are truly beneficial. Those who just make them more homogeneous are on average as damaging as they are beneficial - statistically speaking. For example if all of our articles on the periodic system gives different atomic numbers for helium, and I randomly choose one of the numbers and make it consistent across articles, then the chance of me having actually improved the encyclopedia is less than 50%. If I notice that our articles on human evolution sometimes use "hominid" and sometimes use "hominin" to describe the human family and I choose to enforce the consistent use of one of them, without taking into account that the two terms are not in fact synonymous but indicate different contexts, then my chances of damaging the encyclopedia approaches 100%. My pet-bête noire is of course users who slavishly introduce changes based on arbitrary choices between arbitrary style conventions, or who fight for removing the ability to freely use certain stylistic elements armed with consistency as the sole argument for restricting other users freedom to write following their own stylistic preferences. That is where I think it is important to note that consistency may be beneficial for the encyclopedia, but is not inherently so. For example, there is no inherent good in having the same punctuation system in two different articles, or even in consistently using British vs. American spellings of centre/center color/colour within a given article. The production of consistency, of course is not necessarily harmful either, and we should resist the temptation to make the argument that those who do (and argue about) consistency-producing edits are "wasting resources", because of course their resources are a function of their personalities and interests and could likely not be spent in other ways. In this way consistency is indeed perhaps a good, but it is not a greater good, but a minor one, relative to what I consider the main function and value of the encyclopedia. If every article on wikipedia were written in different fonts, with different punctuation conventions and with individually designed infoboxes, that would not necessarily substantively diminish the value of the encyclopedia in my opinion. On the other hand enforcing the consistent use of harvard citations in an article I consider is beneficial to most articles because it enables the functionality of clicking on a citation and seeing the reference, and because it makes it easier for future editors to use pre-existing citations without having to find the place in the text where they are defined. Perhaps the solution is that we embrace something we could call "intelligent consistency", which would be a form of consistency that consistently takes into consideration when consistency is appropriate and helpful and when it is not, and which does not make the cognitive shortcut of adopting the syllogism "consistency=beneficial". I would be all for that type of consistency. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting essay! I am glad to have read it, this is good caution for me, I will remember "intelligent consistency" and ensure I never fall into the traps you describe. I think perhaps you have been waiting for someone like me to come along! But never fear, I believe we are probably in agreement with what we each believe. For example, I'm sure you know that I am not talking about "arbitrary" or "randomly" choosing and "without taking into account" what should be applied consistently; I would use reliable sources and established convention. Also, I am not really talking about matters of style either, as often style is an interpretation of a guideline, not something set in stone, unless you are being inconsistent with a clearly stated rule in the MoS or inconsistent with your own style in a single article. I agree that consistency across articles is usually not a good idea, unless the group of articles are on the same subject that readers are likely to read together. I don't look at it as adding more homogeneity, but clarity. Now of course, you're going against guidelines if you don't let me apply consistency to a misspelled British or American word across a single article; I doubt you are saying you prefer misspelled words. I'm glad we agree that consistency may be beneficial for the encyclopedia and that consistency is never necessarily harmful. I believe you are right about my "resources are a function of their personalities" and that we should appreciate these people, especially since we are each experts at different things. The fact that you appreciate my favorite citation: the Harvard citation, shows me your heart is much like mine, as correct referencing is so important. In short, I believe we learned from each other and of course respect any differences. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly I am happy you came along to ask, and push me to develop the thinking behind my rapidly scribbled rules of thumb further (I had not in fact thought out the above essay in preparation of someone asking though I can see it looks that way, but I actually had to go through the thought process in writing it, so thanks for that!). And yes, I do greatly appreciate people who take the time to make my sloppy spelling and formatting look neat! As a matter of fact I wish I had a small army of such gnomes to put to work on my dissertation right now. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are Wikignomes and there are WikiDragons! Wow, best of luck on your dissertation; yes, you will need it to be well-copy edited. Prhartcom (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Douglass

Thank you, Maunus, for dealing with Sıgehelmus on the "unite with anyone" quote. I would not have been able to deal with him with such equanimity. In addition, I'm too close to the source on this. I think I added that quote to the article (I edit some sections of it a fair amount; I got interested because I live 3 miles from where he was probably born).

BTW, I'd love to see this article be promoted to "Good Article", but I don't have time right now to work on it much, and I'm sure it needs improving (some sections more than others). If you have any interest, it would be great. Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't say equanimity is my primary forte, although I try to practice it as much as possible. I added some context to the quote, which I think should settle Sighelmus concern (albeit misplaced) and provide the reader with an even better understanding of Douglass' convictions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan:: I dont consider myself a party since I dont have any plans to edit the article or participate in the discussions about it. So I am not going to participate, but I dont think that should count against the mediation process being accepted - I think you should just remove me as a party to the dispute.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on Talk:Pain in crustaceans

Hi. Your recent edit on Talk:Pain in crustaceans appears to have been inserted between already existing posts. This makes the chronological development of the page a little confused. Would you be prepared to consider moving your posting? All the best. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text refactored

Dear Maunus:

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of refactoring the quoted letter from Mark van Stone at Talk:Maya civilization#Coment from Mark van Stone regarding the interpretation of his 2011 article. As you can see above lines with a leading space do not wrap the text around, thus making the sentences overflow the screen to the far right. The best technique for really long quotes is to use the {{quotebox}} and insert two <br /> at the start of each paragraph/newline, which is what I did here. No other changes were made to the text. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of refactoring the quoted letter from Mark van Stone at Talk:Maya civilization#Coment from Mark van Stone regarding the interpretation of his 2011 article. As you can see above lines with a leading space do not wrap the text around, thus making the sentences overflow the screen to the far right. The best technique for really long quotes is to use the {{quotebox}} and insert two <br /> at the start of each paragraph/newline, which is what I did here. No other changes were made to the text. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries, as long as the text is the same it shouldnt be a problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Last call at Bach page

Your opinion at the Bach talk page RfC has recently been hatted. The RfC is about to close if you can revive your strong comment there. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Der Brænder en Ild

I've added parts about Jens Dennow and his wife Gerda Neumann's tragic plane crash, a bit about the farm used in the film, sourced the plot section and added two more reviews, including one from Berlingske. For these reasons, I've re-nominated the article for GA-status. Wish me luck! Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, you might also be interested in this. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

173.33.203.215

hello, while I continued to transliterate a text, that user has come reverting, I explained why to stop, but he went on reverting. Can you please help me? thanks Mariandyn (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Kmoksy and Esc2003

These two users Kmoksy and Esc2003 have started a huge war edits, already warned but continueing to revert the warnings. Please help Manaviko (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

About women

Hi Maunus, I think your Idea about Getting Academic Reviewers is very important. It is what I'm plannig to do with the project about gender gap that you will find at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great to have your support. Thank you,--Kenzia (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Racism: Thank you for suggestion

Thanks for the suggestion on the environmental racism in europe page. I am more than happy to consider adding some concise definitions if it helps gives clarity. I have a few really good and very concise definitions / quotes in mind. I totally acknowledge that Environmental racism can be a broad and shifting term, so I am always happy to engage in dialogue.

best,Sturgeontransformer (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Sturgeontransformer

I just noticed that some additional context has recently been added to the introduction. Much appreciated. I might consider adding to / re-wording it slightly, but overall, it looks good to me!

thanksSturgeontransformer (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)sturgeontransformer

Los Bybys

I know this website, what is your relation with this page?, this page talking about killed man in Teoloyucan, in this note hasn't got a mention about Tequixquiac with the group. This is joke or only mention for Los Bybys?--Marrovi (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are trying to say. The man who died in Teoloyucan was a member of the Bybys, which is what the article says.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not is relevant this information for the Tequixquiac article, maybe Teoloyucan.--Marrovi (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are being dense. It is a source that supports the fact that you added to the article namely that the Bybys were formed in Tequixquiac. If the Bybys are relevant for the article, then so is the source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This theme is topic only for Los Bybys article, no relevant information in Tequixquiac article.--Marrovi (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Then please either remove the information about los Bybys from the Tequixquiac or supply a better source for that piece of information. And stop posting unsourced information and stop adding sources that do not support the information provided. I am not going to be very patient with you as long as you are repeating the exact same behavior that got you blocked from the Spanish wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I return in August to Spanish Wikipedia, buy you don't know a conflict, is very difficult to understand all. I have not put that reference, I have no obligation to remove it, if you think that is a reference, can leave it. --Marrovi (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Al parecer no está enterado de la resolución definitiva de bloqueo permanente de XanaG. Sigue pensando que va a volver. Regards! --Akapochtli (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Puedes hacer lo creas conveniente, eres una persona libre y estás en la Wikipedia libre (me gusta hacer valer ese objetivo central con el que inició este proyecto), yo no acostumbro hacer amenazas, ni me valgo de opiniones de terceras personas para determniar jucios, ni acostumbro reprimir a las personas valiendome de influyentismos, ni me pongo como juez para determinar las conductas humanas, esa no es el trabajo de un editor ni de un investigador. Pues no entendí a que te refieres con Tlaxcala, tal vez si me lo explicas lo puedo entender. Que tengas una bonita tarde; regards.--Marrovi (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia no es un espacio libre. Esa una enciclopedia con reglas que han puesto la comunidad. Si no quieres seguir las reglas que existen no puedes ser parte del proyecto de la enciclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Me queda muy claro que esto no es un espacio de contenido libre, no sé ¿Por qué sigue llamandose free encyclopedia?, pero bueno eso es otro tema. No he venido hacer revolución ni a reformar la Wikipedia, ni a inponer normas, sé que aquí hay ciertas reglas (aunque algunas muy ambiguas) que deben respetarse, eso es obvio, no estoy cuestionando a la wikipedia. Yo te hice una pregunta ¿Cúal es el problema de bandera de Tlaxcala? no la has respondido aún, es necesario para que se pueda emitir un argumento en base a referencias. No creo que esto se parezca a lo de un asesinato comentido en Teloloyucan de un cantante grupero que no tiene nada que ver con artículo llamado Tequixquiac, el cual su lógica de contenido debe seguir otras categorías como lo dice las propias reglas de wikipedia ¿Así de claras son las referencias que respaldas? Tampoco me interesa dedicarme al chisme (fulano dijo, me dijeron, etc.) o irme al son de la tambora, solo concretemos a resolver ¿Cuál es el problema de Tlaxcala el cual no entendí?, olvidate si no edito o editaré en Wikipedia española, ¿Quiero saber cómo tú crees que debe editarse el artículo, qué debe contener y que información podemos dejar en Wikipedia y cual se debe discriminar?, los artículos son muy distintos en cada temática, es mejor ocupar el tiempo en cosas más concretas y de beneficio a la Wikipedia y no política barata.--Marrovi (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

El problema es que escribiste (otra vez) una section entera llena de informacion acerca de una tema y despues agregaste una fuente que no contiene nada de la informacion que adicionaste. Eso no es solamente adicionar informacion sin fuente, pero es enganosamente hacer parecer que la informacion si tiene fuente cuando la verdad es que no. En las semanas pasadas te he cachado hacer esta forma de trampa mas que cinco veces. Fue exactamente por esta falta de integridad de tus contribuciones que te bloquearon en es.wiki, y por la cual seras tambien bloqueada aqui si lo sigues haciendo. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Para terminar pronto ¿Quieres que quede el artículo de Bandera de Tlaxcala?, porque si el objetivo es anular el artículo, entonces estamos perdiendo el tiempo, lo hubieras anulado y se acabó la discussion, ya no hay nada que discutir. Hay que ser como la gente inteligente, aprovechar el tiempo; lo que debe eliminarse pues que se elimine, no malgastarlo en intrigas y acusaciones de lavaderos, ya estoy leyendo lo que se considera fuente primaria en inglés, luego te paso mis dudas para que me ayudes intepretar el contenido.--Marrovi (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ningun articulo puede quedar en la enciclopedia que tiene solamente fuentes primaria. Eso es basico. Ninguna informacion puede incluirse en una articulo que no tiene fuente. Eso es otra cosa basica. Si hay que ser inteligente y no malgastar el tiempo, por eso no estoy feliz por tener que seguir tus contribuciones para arreglarlas para que esten conformando a reglas basicas que tu ya deberias conocer y entender. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yo te caí en lo del asesinato de Teoloyucan, acusar es fácil pero darse cuenta que uno también comete errores, no es tan fácil y menos que nos lo digan los demás; pues no fue el bloqueo por lo que tu dices, fue para conservar la sana convivencia con los acusantes porque llegaron a estresarse de tantas preguntas que les hice y que no pudieron responder (por su falta de conocimiento a muchos temas) y que buscaban eleminar encontrando todo aquello que respaldara sus argumentos en base a las reglas, obvio que eso los estresó porque no es fácil seguir las reglas sin cometer errores, pero el bloqueo dura medio años para que avanzaran sin cuestionamientos que ponga en duda su proceder, el bloqueo se me dio como una especie de vacaciones para que mejore una buena convivencia con los editores y no los evidencie en su ignorancia, sin embargo se llegó a un acuerdo en el que se volverán abrir los artículos eliminados para no dejar mal parada a la Wikipedia de tanto despretigio que ha recibido del ramo académico, monitoreando el contenido, eso es muy bueno porque los involucrados se voverán expertos en los temas. Obvio que a río revuelto hay ganancia de pescadores, no faltó el que se aprovechó de la situción para hacer leña del árbol caído involucrando a las personas en base a los argumentos, pero bueno no soy un inbécil para no entender como a veces opera la mente humana.

Pues ya nos vamos entendiendo, así es como debes explicar los problemas, no hay ambigüedades y tienes toda la razón, me agrada esa forma de como lo has explicado. No voy discutir si los demás editan sin referenciar fuentes, o si sus fuentes son un tanto cuestionadas, he visto una gran cantidad de artículo que yo no he editado y que tienen ese problema, pero de ahora en adelante me concretaré a lo mio, recuerda lo que enseñaron tus vecinos, Si me respetas yo te respeto, si no me respetas no esperes que yo te respete, dejemonos atrás las evideciaciones, los trinquetes (complots) y los despretigios. Como decimos en México; solo hablando al chile (de manera directa y sin adornos) se evitan los problemas y surgen las amistades. Eso también lo aprendí en Europa, nadie es digno de confienza y de tu amistad hasta que no le conozcas lo suficiente, son los años (paciencia), la lealtad, las cosas que compartas y una noche de cervezas frías (creo que tienen que ser varias noches y tardes cheleras) lo que hace a los buenos amigos para toda la vida.--Marrovi (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He revisado las discusiones en es.wiki y tus contribuciones. Es obvio que no fue simplemente por politicas, pero tambien porque la mayoria de tus contribuciones son altamente problematicas y no siguieron las reglas. Estaban repletas de investigacion original y falsificacion de referencias. Si no puedes entender o aceptar eso será dificil que mejores tu situacion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He estado pensando que el artículo de las banderas mexicanas pueden copiar el mismo patrón de artículos similares, en las que se incluye, una descripción general, historia, protocolo, diseño y variantes, esa era la línea que intentaba desarrollar, pero no entendí ¿cómo pretendes abordar el desarrollo del artículo?, tal vez tengas una mejor propuesta para ampliar el artículo, me gustaría saberla.--Marrovi (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cualquier articulo puede incluir solamente informacion que aperece en fuentes confiables publicadas. Si hay una fuente que describe el diseño y da la historia, protocolo entonces se puede incluir, si no entonces no. Para cada pieza de informacion por mas pequeño que te parezca tiene que haber una fuente y la fuente tiene que citarse y la informacion que incluyes tiene que apegarse fielmente a la informacion que incluye la fuente. Es basico y no-negociable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Podrías ayudarme a explicarme como se desarrolla esta parte del pilar, personal essays. Es complicado, porque muchos temas no son de dominio popular, de hecho ciertos temas pueden ser nuevos para algunos pero viejos para otros, no es fácil determinar objetivamente como evaluar el tema. Hay artículos más que investigados como los DE videojuegos, ciudades, biografías, cosas de química, matemáticas, física, geografía, biología, temas que hasta pueden ser aburrido editarlos por la cantidad de información existente en línea, pero hay otros que están aquí y que nadie los comenta, no porque sean buenos sino por ignorancia del tema y muchas veces te encuentras a usuarios expertos en pokemón y pornografía comentando seriamente sobre temas de medicina, política o semiótica que editan doctorantes o estudiantes de maestría, que algunas veces parecen ensayos o artículos de revista científica y no temas enciclopédicos.--Marrovi (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"personal essays" no es un pilar. Personal essays son articulos que no son enciclopedicos porque están escritos en una forma que representa las perspectivas, opiniones, evaluaciones, y conocimientos del autor mismo y no representa informacion objectiva o publicada en fuentes confiables.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Eso lo sé, que no es un pilar, pero me puse a leer esa parte y quería saber ¿cómo es que aquí lo desarrollan?, la verdad no siempre se puede concretar con un pinchazo de computadora, es bastante relativo pero me ha quedado claro, muchas gracias. Sigo leyendo, luego te escribo otros detalles, see you later, Maunus.--Marrovi (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Una pregunta ¿Tú estudiaste en México o en Dinamarca?, te pregunto esto porque estoy iniciando mi protocolo para tesis doctoral y terminando mi grado de master; debo buscar universidades que esten vinculadas con el urbanismo o la geografía humana, conozco algunas pero siempre es bueno ver otras opciones.--Marrovi (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

An advice? do not waste time trying to show Marrovi how to do things, because it just goes in one ear and out the other. 100% refractory. Strakhov (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why you reverted my edition in Franz Boas?

Why you reverted my edition in Franz Boas?

I was Interpreted the Franz Boas metaphors and the metaphors of his disciples and passed to an content which Wikipedia should spread, an objective content, not subjective Franz Boas metaphorical content. - 201.81.64.163 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC).

It was not clearly intelligible, it had no sources and it came across as fairly dubious. Suggest your change at the discussion page, and argue for why you think it should be included. I cant say I even understand what you are trying to say here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to say here that I what interpreted the Franz Boas metaphors an passed to an objective content with more normal vision of world. - - 201.81.64.163 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC).

I still dont understand it. What metaphors? And what is the source where you have read this?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hola

Acabo de dejar un mensaje aquí, el problema es más serio de lo que crees, te deje un mensaje en la Wikipedia en español también. Hemos revisado alrededor de 400 artículos de Marrovi, 170 borrados y los otros se han reescrito por completo, hoaxes, tergiversación de fuentes, fuente primaria, datos erróneos, etc. Fue expulsado de Wikipedia en alemán y bloqueado un año en Wikipedia en italiano, me avergüenza reconocer que se dieron cuenta antes que nosotros.

Aquí puedes ver como el artículo Santiago Tequixquiac, creado por Marrovi en diferentes Wikipedias y borrado en español, presenta datos diferentes y erróneos en cada una de sus versiones.

• Castellano fundación 1168, aquí esta a 160 kms de Toluca, en 2010 contaba con 22 676 habitantes, altitud 2215
• Aleman fundación 1592, altitud 2150 m,
• Catalan fundación 16 de abril de 1531 en 2005 contaba con 21 859 habitantes, superficie 80,34 km², altitud 2450
• Portugues 120 km da cidade de Toluca, en xxxxx contaba con 18 389 (el artículo fue creado en 2010), area 492,13 km², altitud 2410 m
• Ingles en 2010 contaba con 39 864 habitantes

Me parece que debes llevar el caso a una instancia superior.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Your recent edit to Efrain Rios Montt

I'm not sure, but I think that you may have misread a New York Times article from 2013 as being about 2016. I don't know enough about the subject to be comfortable making a change, so I thought I would give you a heads up.

50.100.2.196 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You are absolutely right, that explains whay I hadnt heard about this from other media. Embarassing, but I guess it comes down to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Thanks for the heads up! I have self reverted of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I accidentally thanked you for an edit. How can I remove it? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont think that is possible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Genocide of indigenous peoples

I've created a section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue ("Smallpox Blankets Revisited"). JordanGero (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for the edits you did on the "Genocide of indigenous people" article. I'm not sure if you've read my most recent additions to the article's talk page, but your edits are perfectly consistent with my position relative to the contested wording, namely lack of reliable sourcing for the 1837 smallpox blanket distribution, as well as contextualizing Amherst's racist and genocidal language within Pontiac's War (without such contextualization, the wording seemed to imply that Amherst up and decided to execute biological warfare against various indigenous populations for no particular reason). My comment regarding "reversion" of the material was prior to noticing your edits. Anyways, thank you again for intervening and editing appropriately! JordanGero (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think it is a little odd that you think Amherst's language needs particular explaining. His stance was very common with colonists throughout the Americas and was not necessarily motivated by contexts of indigenous aggression (which in anycase were usually a response to aggression by colonists). I removed the sentence on the causes of the 1837 epidemic pending my access to sources - particularly Mann's account which I know is highly critical, so a sentence or two may yet be written about that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Without mention of Pontiac's War, Amherst's statements appear as if he approved biological warfare against indigenous populations et al., and for no particular reason, so I think it was appropriate to have Pontiac's War, or at least the Siege of Fort Pitt, mentioned, given that the quotations derive from such incidents. I agree that his sentiments were common to colonists during those periods, but the dialogue in question is still the product of a specific incident, and without such mention attains significantly greater revilement, significant enough for contextual inclusion. The difference itself is subtle, and though it does not change the genocidal nature of the rhetoric, sets it in proper historical circumstance. As far as colonial aggression in general goes, that is the bellwether of most European colonization efforts in history, such that Amerindian aggression against colonizers is seen de facto as a response against foreign encroachment and land usurpation. And if there is a reliable source found that supports smallpox blanket distribution by the US Army (or other agency) to the Mandan in 1837, I would welcome its addition. It makes little sense to me to support such claims with works that have been discredited and debunked (i.e., Churchill's claims, which were thoroughly dissected by Thomas Brown- see talk page of the article for links). JordanGero (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

This edit [53] introduced text from http://www.britannica.com/topic/totemism-religion What happened? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I hadnt realized that it was copyvio, I just thought it was the most sensible part of the article on totemism. I'll remove it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems Corbievreccan already removed it. The article does need the material, but of course not as a copyrights violation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

English language

Hello! I'm happy to discuss differences of opinion about the edit I made recently to English language page. Can you clarify what your disagreement was? I only cited the Labov article to confirm that American dialect variation is increasing, which it certainly also says in his new book (which I have only limited access to). Is that what your contention was about or was it something else? Wolfdog (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I donøt have access to the book right now since I am away from the library. But if you could tell me exactly what the book says about increasing diversity that would be great. The thing is that 1. there is a rather large literature stating that dialect diversity is diminishing across both America and the UK, due to standardization through the media. And 2. the edit seems to confuse dialect and accent (since soundshifts such as the northern cities vowel shift do not create new dialects, but only new accents). So if you could present the evidence on the talkpage we can discuss how to best move the article forward together. Thanks for reaching out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Labov on his website says "Sociolinguistic research on linguistic change in progress has found rapid development of sound changes in most urbanized areas of North America, leading to increased dialect diversity. It appears that the dialects of New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis, Dallas and Los Angeles are now more different from each other than they were 50 or 100 years ago." At the start of Chapter 1 of his new Dialect Diversity in America, Labov similarly writes that "People tend to believe that dialect differences in American English are disappearing, especially given our exposure to a fairly uniform broadcast standard in the mass media. [...] This overwhelmingly common opinion is simply and jarringly wrong. The research reported here will demonstrate that the reverse is actually the case. New sound changes in progress are driving the regional dialects of English further and further apart, so that people from Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Philadelphia, and New York speak more differently from each other now than they did in the middle of the 20th century." Wolfdog (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so Labov himself is not distinguishing between dialect and accent - that is a bit of a problem since we are trying to maintain that difference consistently in the article. I would suggest writing that accents are increasingly diversifying - but it will be internally inconsistent in the article to say that dialects are..·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree that Labov seems to conflate accent and dialect... strangely. Whichever fix you feel is the best solution for the article is what I'd be happy to enact. Wolfdog (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

IQ

I would appreciate your comment here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jensen

Jensen is back on his article's talk page again, now saying that you "invented rules", and he has also brought in another sock to challenge me concerning the citation tag (the least important of them, of course) in order to distract from the real issue. I'm merely a fledgling editor—what do you suggest can/should be done? Can you guide me in opening a sock puppet invesigation and/or requesting some sort of administrative intervention or...? WikiEditorial101 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He has been controlling the article for a while (using it for example to bully the girl who showed how terrible his article about discrimination against the Irish is), I dont think there is anything particularly that can be done. I doubt he is using sockpuppets, he doesnt need to since he has friends. I find his disregard for the COI policy appalling, but there isnt much that can be done unfortunately. I have unwatched the article and the BLP noticeboard and will not be participating further.

Pima

Thanks for providing a cite for that; I suspected there was a reason but there was no citation provided. Should we do something about Pima people? Ogress 02:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I try not to get in to moving articles on ethnic groups around. It is always contentious. But if you like you can try setting up a move discussion and then we can see what happens.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Polemic?

I was just at Winkelvi's user page while considering reminding them about how posting biased RFC questions is a weak form of canvassing, and I noticed there is a pretty brutal attack on you sitting right on their user page. You aren't named, of course, but Googling the text quickly revealed you as the target of the WP:POLEMIC. I detest such abuse of user pages (I recall something similar was done to me -- I was named on that user's page, mind you) and have found that a quick ANI thread deals with it pretty handily. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I stand by that characterization of them as an editor, so I can't really fault him for standing by it too. The funny thing of course is that they are themselves frequently abrasive and at least in the context where the quote is taken from used copious personal attacks and aspersions. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the background, so I don't know if I agree with your characterization, but it is ridiculous to claim that anything in the quote is "non-AGF" or a "personal attack". To be fair, my polemicist was placed under an indefinite TBAN and IBAN by ArbCom for constantly calling another user "paranoid", "insane", "pathological", "psychopathic", and so on, and then when my case with them came to ArbCom it never even occurred to me to request he be sanctioned for doing the same thing again. The things we do for AGF... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The context is here. This exchange happened after they had written several pages aggressively accusing several editors of being sockpuppets, having conflicts of interest or being incompetent, refused to collaborate or even listen to suggestions for how to improve the article, and had editwarred to insert unsourced contested content into the article that was being GA reviewed. For what it is worth, I dont have any personal ill-will towards Winkelvi now, so it is not something I am interested in pursuing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

Because I have determined to no longer comment at the Billy the Kid talk page thread to which you just responded, I won't ask there. My question is in regard to your comment, "I think you should stop the review and let someone else take it over." Am I missing something? I thought BlackJack was doing the GAR. I realize he has said he's going to be on a break for the remainder of this month, but I was unaware that anyone took up as reviewer in his absence. Does your comment mean Carlstak has taken over the GAR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that is my misunderstanding then - I simply confused the two usernames. I will fix it. Sorry.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor

I've discovered a long-term editor is adding truly unsettling (scholastically speaking) material to pages related to the Mediterranean area. Her name is MrsKirshan and she has provided some truly spectacular edits. I just reverted one and then I reviewed her user edits and, well, look at this and this and this... that's just the last day or two. She says she's interested in something about the Romanians and ancient Dacia and she's adding this uncited stuff about Turkish being related to Semitic and English "javelin" being derived from the "Arabic and Maltese" word for mountain.

I'm mostly retired, I do not have the spoons to deal with this level of word salad NOTHERE user. She's got a history of blocks for synthesis and I just can't tackle a problem user. I mostly fix wikilinks, grammar, and recently I appear to discover All The Trolls during my boring janitorial edits. You deal with linguistic issues and are very active and perhaps can examine this issue or perhaps know people who can? I just can't deal with it. I left a brief response to her on talk:Derzelas but she's been around since 2007 and gotten in much trouble over the years for edit warring and I literally cannot handle a problem user, I am beyond burnt out.

If I've misjudged your role and activism or community connexion levels and you would like me to reach out to someone else, please let me know and I'll try to find someone else who can help because I absolutely cannot deal with this but it's clear that there's at least three articles and I suspect many more. Ogress 23:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This looks worrisome, but it is a bit out of my area of speciality. I think that probably ANI is the best place to deal with this type o problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions how to proceed? This is wildly outside my area of expertise and my spoons. I don't want to just drop this but I'm not capable in terms of time and effort of putting in a researched case about a problematic user. Ogress 06:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I will see if I can find some time to review their contributions, then I'll see what to do about it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor MrsKrishan (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC): Thank you both for supplying your reasons for reverting my contribution re: archaic Thracian deity venerated in Odessa. I intend to continue synthesizing late antiquity Syro-Roman religious practices (Edessa was Helleneized Sanliurfa -- Seleukis' Macedonian hometown) mediated by a shared ethnography/linguistic culture influenced by prior Parthian suzerainty and Sarmatian customs, passed along the Silk Road to Russian Manchuria via Nestorian astronomer-scientists in the Sassanid court. Will use my Sandbox to avoid edit-warring. Will streamline and add cites for associations drawn re: triliteral nomenclatures Persian: اژدها (eždeha), apothecary symbol ʒ (dram, drachma); Old Church Slavonic ѯ ('60' in Greek numerals and geometry iscoceles triangle, cursive variant of Ξ Xi, Qing, Wang 王 3 horizontal strokes representing Heaven, Man and Earth) Drač, δραχμή, dracula, Derzalas and Dersu Uzala. Appreciate your time in arguing merits of abiding by rules in publishing for global readership, no offence intended MrsKrishan (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTHESIS which very clearly tells you that you are not allowed to synthesize pieces of information to publish novel interpretations of already existing data. This is a kind of Original Research, and wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research. You really anbsolutely have to understand and abide by these policies if you wish to continue editing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been warned on multiple occasions for this behavior according to your talk page. Just glancing at your talk page shows that in 2012 you were warned about synthesis, original research, verifiability, and reliable sources multiple times. That was four years ago. Yet here you boldly state, "I intend to continue synthesizing". Ogress 18:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

English edit revert

Why did you revert my edit; I edited it because "interrogative pronouns" is extremely misleading; only 2 out of 5 of those are actually pronouns; the remainder are adverbs as well as most "interrogative pronouns" are actually adverbs; wouldn't make more sense and accuracy to use "words" instead of "pronouns"? Wizymon (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The section has been further changed by another user and there is active debate on how best to rewrite the section on the talkpage. Lets discuss this there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sorry my friend ..wrong page and person. :-) Moxy (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I did have time to utter "wtf?", but all is good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what's the opposite of a hereditarian?

What's the term for someone who thinks that heredity plays a negligible role in human differences? I really want to know. "Environmental determinist"? Can we add that to the hereditarianism page, with a citation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to some hereditarians the opposite would be a "standard social scientist" - but I think environmental determinist probably also could work and in some contexts "behaviourism". I think the article clearly needs work, but I am not sure that specific piece of information is what it needs most.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A google scholar search suggests hereditarianism is opposed to environmentalism. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it you're an environmentalist? If hereditarianism means that heredity has a major effect, and if environmentalism means that environment has a major effect, than I'm both. Aren't you? They're not really "opposites", are they? Does "environment" include exposure to prenatal testosterone? Or to a mother's H-Y antigen? Also, if hereditarianism deserves a page, does environmentalism need one? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We've talked at some length in the past about nature v. nurture and I have given fairly detailed expositions of my personal views, which I don't think can be adequately labeled "environmentalist" - and which doesn't matter here anyway. The point here is that we need to go by sources, and literally dozens of sources describe enviromentalism and hereditarianism as the two poles on a continuum of views.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, Environmentalism has a page, it is just about another - better known - ideology of the same name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So is there a page for "the opposite of hereditarianism"? Or for the school of thought you ascribe to? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, there is not. Not unless you count the strawman at Standard Social Science Model, which is in some ways the "opposite of hereditarianism" - except noone actually believes in the blank slate idea that Tooby, Buss and Pinker caricatures - but really we have talked so much about this that I cant muster any energy to repeat the discussion. You realize of course that wikipedia requires sources to support articles on a topic, so the key to write the article you are thinking about is to find the sources that describe it and then base the article on those.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think that this conversation would be productive for long. It sounds like you're saying that hereditarianism is universally accepted as true, since the opposite it something that no one believes. I don't expect a reply because the conversation is over. Thanks, by the way, for fixing my autocorrect error on the Jesus FAQ. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If that is what it sounds like I am saying to you, then something odd is happening to the soundwaves between my mouth and your ears. Seems to me that I am speaking with 64 bit color resolution and you are only receiving black and white, which hinders communication quite a bit. And no worries on the infobox/inbox thing. Happy to help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Supercuidado..... :O

......Porque Marrovo esta usurpando comentarios para colocarlos acá [54] [55] [56]. --Cenovo (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Saludos

Primero que nada, muchas gracias porque me has estado apoyando en la mejoría de los artículos de mi región, debo estar muy agradecido porque las ediciones se están haciendo bien, y ese es el objetivo para wikipedia. Si tengo una especie de paranoia porque te puedes dar cuenta que hay gente que no tiene buenas intensiones hacia mi y es más que evidente, la verdad ya no sé de donde viene el golpe, por eso no se baja la guardia (sé perfectamente cuando ElreydeEspana usa cuentas apócrifas y también sé cuando Yavidaxiu usa cuentas apócrifas, ambos tienen estilos distintos de agresión). Si tú crees que te he faltado el respeto, pues te pido de forma atenta una disculpa. Tu puedes revisar y analizar mis ediciones, no tengo problema con ello, entiendo que no soy de tu simpatía por algunos detalles, pero también trata de entenderme; el burro no era arisco, lo hicieron. Estamos en contacto.--Marrovi (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

Mesoamerican languages
... you were recipient no. 161 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Thank you so much for your reply on the Talk Page of the Noam Chomsky article. Although I have strong feelings about Chomsky’s political musings, they are totally irrelevant to this note. I read a scathing article by someone named Keith Windschuttle written for some (apparently) online publication entitled The New Criterion. Ostensibly, it is a review of an anti-Chomsky political tome. However, the author goes further and savages Chomsky’s academic career and his linguistics research that has brought him such renown in certain intellectual circles. Basically, Windshuttle equates (my analogy based on his arguments, not his) those who form a sort of cult of Chomsky’s linguistics theories to self-styled art sophisticates who drooled over a painting deemed a “masterpiece of modern art” only to later discover that the painting in question had hung upside down in a museum for two years before anyone noticed.

Since Windschuttle’s accompanying review of Chomsky’s political views leaves no doubt that he is anything but unbiased in judging Chomsky’s academic career (and I have no idea what his qualifications are for making such an assessment), I was wondering if his “the emperor has no clothes” critique of Chomsky’s work has any validity. Since you seem qualified to judge such matters, perhaps you might care to read this review/article at your convenience and briefly summarize the reasons why you either agree with the author's savage criticism of Chomsky’s linguistic theories and work or why you think the former is all wet. If not, thanks anyway for your time on the Talk Page which is most appreciated. Here is the link:

Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, personally I tend to agree more with Chomsky's politics than with his linguistics. But I dont think it is quite fair to say that it is a case of the emperor having no clothes. When Chomsky developed his ideas in the 1950s and early 60s they were very novel and had great promise for teaching us new and important things about language. Today I think evidence has failed to support his theory, and that we are currently in a period of transition towards new theoretical paradigms that are not based on Chomsky's theories. Nonetheless, given the way that science works, even flawed theories contribute to the progress of science, simply because flawed theories also produce the research that eventually make it possible to reject them, and reach better knowledge. This is the difference between pseudoscience or "emperors new clothes science" and actual science in my opinion. And on that account Chomsky's linguistic theories have been extremely important in that they have sparked tonnes of research into important questions - basically formulating the research agenda for linguists (both those who agree with Chomsky and those who dont) for the past 50 years. And some of the insights and findings that come directly from Chomsky probably also will be carried on into the new emerging paradigms, even if they are likely to disagree 100% with his basic assumptions about what language is and how it works.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time of which I shall take no more. As I said, Chomsky’s political views are totally irrelevant to my curiosity in this matter. As I have absolutely no qualifications to assess the value of Chomsky’s strictly academic career, I deeply appreciate your obviously educated opinion on such matters. You are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia and such is most appreciated. Best regards, always.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

edits

It would be nice if you would improve my edits rather than reverting them. Benjamin (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting them is an improvement. I don't think the material you are trying to add is necessary, the fact that English has taken many many loanwords over the years is already clear from the article. Calling this a "strength" is just a subjective judgment that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Gunnar Myrdal

Hello! I saw your edits on Gunnar Myrdal. I relation to this, could you have a look att the edit I made at Crisis in the Population Question. I understand that Franz Boas is one of your fields of expertise. Edaen (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hola.

Hola, soy nuevo y vengo de wikipedia en catalan y wikinoticias en español. Por favor, dame bienvenida, en mi disc. Saludos. --Nobita931 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Gracias por darmela. Tambien me gustaria preguntarte: ¿COmo puedo usar TW (Twinkle)? LO tengo activado en las preferencias y no salen los botones. Saludos. --Nobita931 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No lo se, es la verdad. Creo que tal vez tienes que tener permiso para usar herramientas automatizadas.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ayúda

Soy nuevo, recien empece a editar en wikipedia el pasado 13 de jUlio y me gustaria que me explicaras:

1- ¿Como me puedo unir al wikiproyecto de anime y manga? Es que me interesa.

2- Tambien me gustaria que me pasarás un link a una pagina en la que se listan los artículos por crear, porque me gustaria colaborar con el contenido de los artículos y no solamente con las reversiones.

Un saludo. --Nobita931 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Otra cosa: ¿Esta wiki tiene paginas como el tablon de anuncios o el cafe de wikipedia en español?

Quisiera que me pasaras un link a ellas en caso de que existan de verdad. --Nobita931 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tambien quiero que veas este mensaje que le deje a MarcoAurelio y decirte que marrovi borro el aviso que le diste en su discusion de sus articulos. saludos. --Nobita931 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Solamente ve a la pagina del proyecto y adicionate a la lista de participantes. 2. No hay una lista general con articulos por crear, pero algunos wikiproyectos los mantienen - no se si el proyecto de manga lo hace. No se que es el cafe de wikipedia en la en.wiki, pero tenemos el WP:TEAHOUSE. Aqui esta perimitido que un usuario borre los mensajes en su pagina de discusion, solamente significa que ya lo leyó.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Review/Assessment

Regarding [57], I've often thought this. I've given a few campus talks about Wikipedia and I feel ridiculous describing the assessment scale: Stub, Start... C, B? GA, FA? Maybe A, depending on the project? I've never appreciated the rift between GA and FA (in terms of culture, not quality). I feel like articles should enjoy a common review process that places them on a logical quality scale, with reassessment happening by nomination when called for. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate in developing a proposal for a single consolidated review process. I think now that we have so few active reviewers it is a little silly to squander them by having som many segregated processes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Butting in: I've often thought we should use a rubric. But developing rubrics are second nature (almost) for me, so it just seems easier; I suppose it could be more difficult for others. Victoria (tk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, something like a rubric would be great. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Core Contest

	Equal Fourth Prize
	To Maunus, for work on Danish language in the 2016 Core Contest. A voucher will be on its way soon.... Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your win! Could you contact me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk with the email address you want your voucher to be sent to? Thank you,Karla Marte(WMUK) 14:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Very nice work. Congrats! Victoria (tk) 20:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually thought that the work I did no Tycho Brahe was much better - and I had hoped they would consider my work on both articles as a single entry. But thanks!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fairly fascinating article. I started reading through the other night, but was tired so I'll have to come back to it. I looked at all of the pictures though! Btw - belated congrats on the fancy sleeves and hood. Victoria (tk) 23:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Borrar mi PU

Hola, soy User:Nobita931 pero perdi los datos de acceso a mi cuenta. Por favor, borrar mi pagina de usuario. Te prometo que soy yo. Preguntale a alguien con los derechos de check-user. Borrala por favor. Cordialment.e --37.15.172.194 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No. No quiero ser parte de esos juegos tontos.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Muy sensible, !digo yo! ;) Zezen (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Aqui el sensible soy yo, al no quererme borrar mi PU y responderme ese amargo y agridulce mensaje, magnus. 112.210.5.224 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the civility, objectivity and equanimity displayed by this self-revert of this hairy Racism Wiki entry. Zezen (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiconference and Indigenous Peoples Day

Hi Maunus, I sent you an email asking if you might be interested in helping with how Wikiconference could incorporate themes for Indigenous Peoples Day, October 7-10, 2016 in San Diego. Hope to hear back from you , or leave me a message on my talk page. Wikiconference link -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up from FAC discussion

Maunus, I didn't want to post again at WT:FAC because I figured we'd both had our say there, but I'd like to understand your position a little better, so if you're willing I'd like to continue the conversation here. It seems you have an image in your mind of how FAC should work. Can you elaborate on that? In other discussions I've had about FAC (and some other WP processes) one issue that seems to come up frequently is that with volunteer resources it's very hard to direct labour. That is, rather than moving effort to where it's needed, it's often necessary to either accept there's insufficient effort to get something done, or to accept that it can't be done in an ideal way. I'd like to understand what you have in mind, and how it would address the resource issue, which I think is at least as much a problem at FAC as it is at other processes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit of a hobby horse for me to point out that I think the reviewing culture of FAC (and peer reviewing in general) is problematic and not maximally conducive to attracting new writers or generating enough FA articles. I have made a bit of a habit of of injecting this viewpoint into discussions about reforming the FAC and other review processes. My basic perspective is that the way many reviewers seem to approach the review is that their role is to "set the bar" that nominators must then make articles pass to get the gold star (or GA emblem). The reviewer is responsible for not letting substandard article get the emblem. This means that for a new nominator, not one who already has a social network that includes the reviewers, the social configuration of a review is basically "the nominator vs. the reviewers" in a sort of gauntlet. I think some people believe that academic reviews are like this, and there is a degree of truth to that since academics accrue personal prestige and professional advancement through publishing and maintaining a high level of quality in their journal, though as I mentioned in my experience good academic reviewers realize that everyone wins when the review results in the improvement and publication of an article. But in wikipedia, as opposed to academia, the focus really is not about accumulating personal prestige, but rather it is to collaboratively improve the encyclopedia. Therefore it is even more a case in which everyone wins when the article is improved and the nominator learns how to write better and goes on to become a future contributor of more FAs. Therefore when we think about the way that a collaborative encyclopedia differs from academic publishing, really the peer review philosophy needs to be different to be sustainable. In academia people publish because they have no choice, and they maintain high standards because high standards translates directly into professional advancement. In wikipedia there is no so such driving need for anyone to create high quality articles, and if it is too much of a hassle and not sufficiently gratifying they simply decide not to. This is why most editors do not write FAs, and why many nominators who feel discouraged by aspects of the review process (whether because they cannot achieve the quality, or dislike the type of negative interaction that sometimes takes place at the review) decide not to do it again. This means that using the academic review model at a collaborative encyclopedia is inherently unsustainable. Imaginary digital gold stars are not enough to maintain a supply of quality focused writers if achieving them feels like an individual ordeal rather than as collaborative project where colleagues support one's own ambitions of creating high quality content about topics of interest. Hence, as you see I am not talking about moving resources around (although I do think we are wasting resources with so many different unconnected review processes), but about more effectively recruiting, training and retaining high quality writers and future reviewers. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this; I don't have an immediate response, but I think I understand your position better. Can you point me at an example of a review, for FAC or elsewhere, that is an example of the reviewer behaving as you feel they should behave? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I would have to use myself as an example just so I dont have to read a bunch of reviews to find someone else to use as the good example, the best example I can think of immediately is the review history of Natchez Revolt which was the second FA of the nominator and failed two reviews before being co-nominated by the original nominator and myself who had opposed promotion in the second review. The point here is that when we oppose, that means we see a way to improve an article - and I believe that when we see how to improve the article we also have a responsibility for making those improvements and contribute to making the article the best it can be. I am sure other reviewers similarly help renominating articles that needed more work, and I also realize that one cannot always do this for lack of time, knowledge interest etc. But I think it is important to dissolve the confrontational configuration of reviewer<>nominator and instead concptualize the relation as that of a collegial partnership for the good of the encyclopedia. I think this is exactly why the Wikiproject approach to reviewing works (when wikiprojects are active), and why the "clique" approach to writing and reviewing (where a group of likeminded editors write and mutually review articles of common interest) - and why the "lone first time nominator against the internal quality assessment review board" approach to reviewing does not. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That does clarify it; thanks. Putting the mentoring proposal, and issue of mandatory vs. voluntary mentoring, to one side for the moment, what do you think could be done at FAC to move the process in the direction you envisage? I would certainly agree that if every reviewer took it upon themselves to work with the nominator to improve the article to FA level, and if there were enough reviewers to do this for every nominated article, the encyclopedia would benefit. It sounds like from your comments above that you would agree that there aren't enough capable (or willing) reviewers for this to happen. If that's so, what should happen instead? Looking through the Natchez Revolt reviews, I see that your oppose was polite and informative, but no more so than the typical opposes I see for current FACs. If I may cite my own reviews as an example, take a look at climatic regions of Argentina, which I think was not ready for FAC, or my ongoing PR of Eega. Are these reviews in line with your preferred approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think more than the tone and content of the comments in the review, what is interesting is how reviewers interact with the articles. Some editors participate actively in implementing solutions to the problems they see, others merely state "this needs to be fixed for me to support" - sometimes without offering very concrete ways of improving. I think the "brilliant prose" requirement is among the worst culprits in this sense- it is sometimes used in a way that is reminiscent of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.

So firstly, I would remove this from the FAC criteria and instead say that it should be written in correct understandable English without excessive Jargon. And then I would add a note that reviewers are expected to actively edit to improve prose rather than oppose based on prose quality (many good reviewers already do this). I suppose there may be times when failing an article on prose is warranted - if it is not sufficiently intelligible for others to even improve it for example, but I think most articles nominated are not.

Then, I would change the instructions to the reviewers to include mention that they are encouraged to fix issues by actively editing the article, and change as much of the wording as possible to disslove the reviewer/nominator distinction in the way the process is described.

But really, I would like to reform the process completely. With a couple of more farranging proposals.

1. As you note increased expectations to participate actively in reviews is likely to result in fewer reviewers. This in my view can be counteracted by consolidating the review processes into a single process where all reviewers, and all nominations for all quality benchmarks are part of a single process. Ideally we would have a single cumulative rubric stating the the basic minimum requirements for an article to get status as DYK, GA, FA. Then any review would seek to gain a consensus about the quality of a given article relative to the rubric - this would mean that reviewers could make a quick jdugment and form a consensus about whether the article currently passes the bar for a given status. The role of the nominator would be to propose that article X qualifies as a particular level, and the function of the review to form a consensus about the level of the article - whether higher or lower than the level proposed. In such a review an article could be proposed as an FA and instead receive a GA status. this would combine the reviewers who currently participate in all the different separate review processes into a single pool of reviewers. It would also train current DYK and GA reviewers in the FA process.

2. I would make it so that the process for a review is like the following: A proposer proposes an article e.g. "I would like to get this article to GA status" then the proposal is listed. However the review process does not begin untill a predetermined number of other editors (maybe 1 for DYK, 2 for GA and 3 for FA) sign up as participants in the improvement process. These editors together make up the team that will collaborate to get the article to a given status. When they have a consensus that the article meets the criteria, they push the article to a !vote (similar to an RfC or RfA) which will determine if the community agrees with their assessment - the FA directors will gauge consensus in each !vote. Articles that do not attract other interested participants in the review will remain inactive and will be delisted after a period (maybe six months). This will mean that some articles will never be reviewed because there is no interest in improving them - I think this is OK - and it will hopefully make articles on minor and obscure topics less successful in the review process than articles that have a wider interest (which I think are underrepresented at FAC).

3. I would really like to add an external review to the process in which a stable version of an article that is considered to be close to FA status is presented to an external academic topic expert who reviews it and give suggestions for improvement. This I think is necessary because wikipedians often are not sufficiently conversant with scientific fields and the literature to adequately review and critique the research that the article authors have done on a topic - and hence GA and FA reviews often focus on formalities rather than on content. I think experts tend to focus on content when they review. This could be simply a check box in the rubric ("Has the article undergone an external review?" yes/no, or maybe "has an external reviewer vouched for the article" [this type of review might be harder to achieve] ) - and it might be a requirement for advancing to the final FA vote - or it could be a new level of quality above the current FA level. Those are the three major changes I would make to the review process. (I have made a proposal for external expert reviews at the meta wiki idea lab and many editors there liked it [58]) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a lot to think about; I'll try to respond before too long. In the meantime I should mention that the "brilliant prose" requirement is no longer part of the FA criteria; it was dropped about three months ago. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yay!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And another quick note to say that your grants idea is interesting, and to link to this, which I wrote a few years ago on a somewhat similar topic, in case you are interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Greetings, Maunus. I noticed you made a post related to this discussion at GAN. While I don't have the data you're looking for, I'd be interested in hearing more about any reform effort. I've participated a little at PR, GAN, and DYK, and I recently nominated my first FAC; so I don't have the experience or knowledge to undertake anything, but I've felt enough discomfort at some aspects of each of those processes that I'd like to learn more. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93: I am developing a proposal for reform here: User:Maunus/PeerReviewReform. Comments and suggestions and criticism is more than welcome.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll drop by there. Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, not sure this is the right place to post, but I thought I'd let you know that I noticed you'd posted about this somewhere (there's much too much going on at the moment and I've not had to time to read any of the proposals but generally share your concerns). I took a quick peek and noticed you'd tried to ping me and others and thought you should know that it didn't work. At least I didn't get the notification. When I have time I'll start reading through. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that pings don't work unless you sign in that edit. If the signature is added in a later edit, as happened here, no pings happened. The fix is to delete the section and re-add it as a single edit; that should work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Victoria for letting me know, and thanks Mike for teaching me how to fix it!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

is restoration of pasterski article to version before attack possible?

see last entry of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackmcbarn

notice UVAL appears to have created the page to take pasteski down, then possibily VPNed in through UMichigan computer system as another user to gut the page

see if you can fix Strominger page as well

166.170.223.5 (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are referring to? It doesn't look to me as if there are any attacks on the page.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

they took out her 'latina pride' quote, they took out her two seminal ideas/'known for' they took out most of the media coverage

can you restore it to the way it was on August 1st? In total they took out nearly 6000 characters.

Ah, ok. I'll take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Consistency is not a greater good

Hello Maunus, I'm Ling.Nut. Long time no chat. Following on the item "Consistency is not a greater good" on your user page, may I ask a question? I think that cite book (and related templates, e.g. cite journal) should have three additional flavors: cite book apa, cite book mla and cite book chicago. All three formats should be available as templates that interact with other aspects of Wikipedia in every way identical to cite book (but merely display differently).... The rationale behind this is that under the current template regime, cite book implicitly forces one and only one format on all users; the effect is greatly intensified by the related facts that only cite book plays well with VisualEditor, and VE is the imposed default editing environment. VE is therefore forcing users new and old to use cite book, covertly forcing a single standard citation format across Wikipedia. Thus scholars from different fields cannot use the format common in their field, which runs counter to your statement that "Creating consistency across incomparable contexts may in fact be detrimental."... How do you feel about this idea? Tks and see you around.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I hate visual editor and don't use it so I don't know much about its finer points - but isn't it also possible to simply write up a bibliography in text in the visual editor. How can it force people to use the templates? I think that definitely it is not a greater good to have a single house citation style as some editors believe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Templates enforce consistency, and various scripts give big red warnings when template fields have been incorrectly populated. Writing out scores of citations by hand is inherently a very very error prone chore. For just a single example, there is currently a dustup at one content review page (I guess I started it, but with ample reason, as several editors have confirmed) because an article was supposed to be in MLA, but too many cooks spoiled the broth as several editors tried to add refs, and it was a steaming pile of wrongness. The prob here is that we don't have an MLA template, but we should. This is not just a one-off case; systemically, cite book forces a single standard upon everyone.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly support a request to add a parameter for MLA, APA, and Chicago formatting to the cite book template. Generally my impression is that template builders don't share my view of consistency and are reluctant to introduce optional parameters into the templates, but if consensus is for it maybe they would.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) My feelings exactly. Consistency within a given article is beneficial, but uniformity across all articles and all disciplines is detrimental. Therefore templates per se can be beneficial, but having one and only one (i.e, cite book) for all disciplines is detrimental. The prob here is that if there is a motion to create new templates (or introduce new parameters) that create MLA, APA and Chicago options, the template maintainers will immediately shout it down for reasons unknown and unknowable (and perhaps not even the same reasons as they are willing to explicitly state). So I am hoping to see how many editors agree with the idea. thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Washo language

Maunus, if you have a minute, would you look at Washo language? There's a guy there who is using his misinterpretation of a page out of Mithun's survey to mess with the consonant chart and replace a glottalized c' with ć because he can't correctly read the poor photocopy on a web site and thinks that's what a c with a superimposed apostrophe is. He refuses to read the Talk page and is edit warring. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed FAC mentoring scheme

Following discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage and with the agreement of the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have finalized a "page of instructions" relating to the proposed voluntary mentoring scheme for new FAC nominators. The final draft can be viewed here.

We hope to begin the scheme shortly, on a trial basis. However, I think it would be unwise to go live until we have around a dozen or so potential mentors signed up – I hope many more than that will sign eventually. As your contribution to the discusssion indicated that you generally favoured the idea of a voluntary mentoring scheme, I am now inviting you to add your name to the list of possible mentors on the instruction page. I emphasize that the extent to which you commit yourself to this scheme is entirely a matter for you; you incur no specific obligation by adding your name. If anything about the scheme is not clear to you, please drop me a note and I'll try to explain. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I haven't taken 5 articles through FAC yet though, only four. When I get one more I will certainly consider signing up, and I do think the proposed system is a good idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you interested in this? In September I'm gonna renew my editing efforts. The big fear is fail per 1e, but if the sentence or two I intend to devote to criticizing Churchill is spelled out R-E-A-L-L-Y P-L-A-I-N-L-Y then maybe the Churchill-haters will deign to leave it be.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi:, thanks for the offer, but I think I will have to pass though the topic is certainly worthy of a GA and within my extended sphere of interest. nonetheless, I would need to do too much reading for it to be feasible right now, but I will keep an eye on its progress, and maybe chip in later.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Maddieson et al. (1993)

You're right, there are less than five authors, so we should simply list their surnames. Shame on me. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No shame necessary. Even when there are more than five authors, you should list the first five in order for the link to the bibliography to work - it will automatically render as "et al."- but the bibliography will show all the authors.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's only a matter of using the harvid template the way I did - check my edit again, you'll see you're still redirected to the full citation. I must admit I'm a fan of that, as it considerably shortens the citation in the edit mode without any changes for readers at all. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that a recently added functionality?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been around for at least a year if not longer, so not really. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

How does it disambiguate between two multiple authored papers with same first author and year but different second authors? Also thanks for bringing this to my attention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Simply type a, b etc. immediately after the year (so 1993a, 1993b, etc.), like you'd do in other cases. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add: the letter is necessary only in the harvid template, as the ID you put there acts like a barcode, and will be displayed in the article as a normal short citation. You don't have to add it to the normal year. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

But I wouldnt use 1993a, 1993b unless all the authors are the same. But if I have "Johnson, Smith, Johnson 1993" and "Johnson, Smith, Smith 1993" then how does it do it? Do i have to add a and b after the year in the biblioggraphy?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Template:Harvcoltxt#Large numbers of authors, you should use it only when there are five or more authors, otherwise just list all of the surnames. Let's imagine citation pairs such as "Johnson, Cannavaro, Reid, Jacobsson, Mendez (1993)" and "Johnson, Smith, Gonzalez, Schneider, Kowalski (1993)". The harvid of the former should be Johnson et al. (1993a), whereas the latter should be called Johnson et al. (1993b), then you just go on and use those in the article itself. As I said, the harvid is kind of a barcode, it links to the full citation whenever you use the "codename", which is why touching the "normal" year is not needed - the only short citation that is displayed is the text and year you choose...

Another option is to go on listing the surnames until the first differing one shows up, so that our first harvid would be Johnson & Cannavaro et al. (1993), whereas the latter would be Johnson & Smith et al. (1993). As you can see, the letters after the year are skipped, because they're useless in this case. I'm not sure how standard it is though, you should consult other users. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you mean I need to set the harvid= parameter as the name and then call the name I gave. Ok, that makes it a considerably less attractive option to me. But thanks again for teaching me all this, I will not interfere with your reference naming practices again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but you were actually right to interfere (again, see Template:Harvcoltxt#Large numbers of authors) ;) I don't have a particular problem with being told I'm wrong. Cheers. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post articles undue?

The second argument in the revert "recentism" may have some point - But on the other hand the entry of Turkey in the Syrian civil war is a major development, for better or worse. But I strongly refute, that my text is "undue". Please read the Washington Post articles, my sentences were almost quotations of the major sentences at the beginning! --Fb8cont (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On 24 August 2016, Vice President Joe Biden visited Turkey and declared, that the U.S. will cut all U.S. support for its Syrian Kurdish allies, if they do not comply with Turkish demands that they withdraw to the east of the Euphrates. It is feared that the Turkish incursion into Syrian territory held by the Syrian Kurds could undermine Washington’s efforts to eradicate the Islamic State’s presence in Syria.

The article is about the person Barack Obama - events in Syria in which he is not directly involved are not very relevant for his biography - especially not when they are so recent that it is impossible to assess how they may affect his presidency or legacy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But the passage Barack Obama#Syrian Civil War is insufficient, till today it even lacked a link to the main article Syrian civil war. Isn't the entry of Turkey into the war (with the U.S. administration's official consent) more important for the U.S. than the killing of an old man? - But the whole passage about the Syrian civil war is shorter than the passage about Barack Obama#Osama bin Laden! Isn't that strange?! --Fb8cont (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And if one were to allege that Bin Laden had a high symbolic value, then read the article David Ben-Gurion who was the prime minister of Israel at the time of the successful capture-alive of Adolf Eichmann. That passage needed only 3 sentences and no picture (->570 bytes). And the article about bin Laden? 8 long sentences, one picture and one audio video. With references 6163 bytes of wiki-code. Wasn't E. a much bigger monster when he had power than b.L.? And while Israel was able to get E. alive, the U.S. forces didn't even seriously try to get b.L. alive. That also reflects that b.L. wasn't really important for the administration. But for Wikipedia it's more important for the presidency than the whole Syrian civil war section (3368 bytes). And the entry of Turkey who is now fighting against the Syrian Kurds, perhaps the only sincere allies of the U.S. in that conflict isn't even worth mentioning?! --Fb8cont (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant for Barack Obama's personal biography at this point, and we will not know if it will be untill some source which is specifically about him as a person mentions it. I am myself highly disheartened by the global community's failure to support the Kurds and their insistence on allying with Erdogan's regime in spite of it being basically ISIS with a friendly face. This however does notmean that this is relevant for Barack obama's personal biography - it may be more relevant for the article Presidency of Barack Obama·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In many ways, Presidency of Barack Obama is like a shadow of the Barack Obama article. Compare 2.945 million pageviews vs. 0.065 million pageviews] in the last 90 days. --Fb8cont (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedia articles are not here to achieve maximum visibility of recent developments tangentially related to the topic - wikipedi articles are here togive the best possible general summary of their topic. The events in Syria are tangentially relevant to Barack Obama's life. If you wish to continue argueing for inclusion you should do it at the article's talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it is good to have these parallel structures: Barack Obama#Presidency (since 2009) (109 kB) and Presidency of Barack Obama#Policies (178 kB) have the same topics. The comparison of the byte counts reveals that the personal article is also used to portray his policies, even the "tangentially ones" (Is the killing of bin Laden important for his life??). --Fb8cont (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that fifty years from now a biography of Obama will include mention of the killing of Bin Laden than it will mention Biden's visit in Turkey. But it is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a crystallball, and we can simply wait untill we know how future biographies treat the issue before we include it in the article. But now, really you must go to the talk page to continue if you must, I will not answer here anymore. Decisions and discussions about the article are made at the article's talkpage, not at mine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

GAR for Tycho Brahe

Tycho Brahe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

As I mentioned on the re-assessment page, the reviewer who took on the initial GA review is a very new editor having been here for just over a month. They haven't successfully contributed any GA's and weren't sufficiently familiar with GA expectations to give you a full review. As such, I have taken on the task of completing a GAR for the article. As a start the most pressing issues are with 2c and 6a. After those concerns are dealt with I'll move on to other criterion piece by piece with the intention of getting the article to GA status. I'll also be notifying the Wikiproject's who may be interested in participating. Ping me if you know of any other major contributors who may also be interested in participating in the GAR. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Unproductive heat at MOS

Maunus, if you believe SMcCandlish is being uncivil, why not use your powers of persuasion and conciliation to bring about a better environment for negotiation? It's going nowhere at the moment. Tony (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

True.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

multiregional hypothesis

If you ever want to team up to get this page straight, let me know. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance looks like it is pretty well developed and cites a lot of the relevant literature. Anything in particular you would like to straighten up about it? I havent read much about how the multiregionalists have responded to the most recent genetic data and the neanderthal and denisovan admixture findings - it seems that would require some restructuring of the hypothesis.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Maunus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is pointless going any further going down the "race" road with this person, maunus. They are *totally* uninterested in the science. -Darouet (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right, unfortunately this kind of editor pops up with a fairly regular frequency at that particular article and we have to dance a little while to their pipe before their agenda-driven disruption becomes blatant enugh that someone blocks them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The "agenda" of refuting Marxist pseudoscience with biology. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

With 60 years old biology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus:Please check and possibly re-add the RfC title. It contradicted the section title and was therefore very misleading. Thank you!--*thing goes (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

English language

Good day i just wanted to tell you that it is strange that in the very long lead of English language, the languages of the same language branch are not mentioned (Frisian, Dutch and German). It is also not mentioned that the English language derives its name from the Anglia peninsula in Germany. I wonder which facts could be more suitable for the lead apart from the language branch and the countries in which a language is spoken.TheLusatian (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion would be better had at the article discussion oage. I will copy your message there, if you don't mind.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Neanderthal talk

Hi! In case i deleted your edit, i wish to apologize. I did not actively mark anything and removed it. There was an edit conflict, which i accepted. All the bestWikirictor (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes, in fact you deleted it twice. I realize it wasnt on purpose but it was a little frustrating.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi again! i have draft for a new Neanderthal lead section here:User:Wikirictor/sandbox. Would be nice if you have a look. ATBWikirictor (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

[59] This is kind of a crazy suggestion, but bear with me. Why don't you ask a fucking biologist about it rather than edit this encyclopedia as if you were one. Just an idea. Sally T (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Templeton and Graves are fucking biologists, so are the dozens of other biologists who I've cited on the talkpage. And aren't you yourself an English teacher of sorts Mike?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Templeton and Graves are both hostile towards the race concept. Can you reference "0.25 Fst" being applied anywhere outside Templeton and Graves applying it to humans? No, because it's academic fraud. You edit the article by cherry picking academic frauds who fabricate a conclusion you like. You are an utter disgrace. In fact American anthropology since Boas is one long running joke. One that isn't funny. Sally T (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are "hostile" because it is wrong, as most geneticists agree. As for the chery picking of frauds, I think we have seen enough of that from you and your pioneer funded alt-right friends that we don't really need to take your accusations that seriously.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 350 articles in just six days. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!. Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

English language

Hi, this sentence in the lead "its vocabulary is primarily influenced by other Germanic and Romance languages, particularly by the French language" is wrong, since the Germanic vocabulary in English isn't there because of other Germanic languages, but because English is a Germanic language itself. Better would be: The English language has a considerably larger amount of Romance vocabulary than other Germanic languages, because many English words are French loanwords. Its grammar and core vocabulary, however, are Germanic. Also, the languages English is related to still are not mentioned in the lead even though you wrote it on the talk page.TheLusatian (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No. In addition to Norman French, English has absorbed vocabulary (including core vocabulary) from North Germanic languages as well as from Low German. But I will work on the wording today, see if you like it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ok and please also write about the related languagesTheLusatian (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Frisian, do you think it is necessary to mention wider than that?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

at every other language article there are more languages mentioned in the lead. please write one sentence about related languages and in a second sentence the vocabulary.TheLusatian (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Another project

Hey... I was just thinking, I hope you're not chapped about the FAR/FARC of... what article was it? I don't recall... I can be harsh sometimes; perhaps a little too harsh... And the reason I dropped by here was to say that I'm considering working on two projects. The first I've already told you about. The second would be Social constructionism.. although I might wanna work on something not quite so broad... perhaps academic writing... yes, that one looks somewhat more manageable.. Anyhow, lemme know if you wanna chip away at something together. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I am neither chapped nor miffed, I was a little worried you might have been by my own harshish words in the discussion of "decorative" quote boxes. I am sort of taking a Wikibreak, and I have an article Tycho Brahe up for GAR so I should be working on that firstly (but I have to pull myself together and go to the library etc.). I think Social Constructionism is a hard article to work on, not just because it is broad but also because it is one of those terms that have come to be defined mostly by its critics (many of whom never understood what it meant in the first place). I have it on my watchlist and may be inspired to work on it when I see you doing something to it. ;)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Progress on that page probably won't be a straight path, but circling back and forth improving things. I may not choose that one as it may be a bit of a steep climb. Other pages related to rhetoric etc. may present a smoother course... But if I edit there, and you see me making mistakes, please do jump in. :-) Later  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Blog

En tu blog (cuyo link das en tu pagina de usuario) hay un apartado que dice about me (sobre mi) y aparte de los comentarios hay una foto de una persona, pero parece una pintura, pregunto: ¿Eso es una foto tuya o es una pintura? Saludos --112.210.5.224 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Es una foto de mi enfrente de una pintura.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bringing Champollion to FAC

Hello there, while reading the Champollion article and then its GA review (yes I read old GA reviews...), I stumbled upon what you wrote: "So if you or anyone else is interested in nominating it I would be supportive as long as I can focus on sourcing and content and someone else focuses on the formalities". I happen to think the Champollion article is close to FA quality, in addition I have a bit of experience in the matter with 5 FA articles under my belt. I thus propose that we do the final FA push, if you agree I will scan and fix the article for MOS issues (e.g. isbn lacking on books, check for double wl etc.) in the next few days and then post it with you as FAC. I might also be able add a few sources, to avoid over-reliance on Adkins & Adkins, which could attract criticism (alternatively I can send you the sources as you said you are ok with concentrating on content). What do you think? Iry-Hor (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am game. Thanks for looking at it and being willing to work on it with me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok nice! I will start with isbn stuff, pretty obvious and tedious but must be done. I have seen a few facts that are not referenced, e.g. the fact that Champollion's father was a drunkard. Might be worth browsing google books for references here. I will do so in any case. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I should have access to both Adkins & Adkins and Robinson and if need be also Hartleben at my university library. Just put in CN tags where you think they are needed then we can supply them as we go along. I should mention that I will be traveling from next sunday and two weeks on, so my preferred time frame for nominating would be early december.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries about the time, I would rather have it done in months and pass than go to FAC in a week and fail. My main worry is the over-reliance on Adkins, I just hope we could have a more diversified background of sources, as this is sometimes brought up at FA. Since Young's contribution to Champollion is still a matter of debate, we will need to make sure the article is really neutral there (that does not necessarily mean giving equal weight to all academic opinions on the matter, rather giving a weight proportional to academic consensus, while mentioning dissenting opinions). I will see if I can find sources in the Champollion article of Redford's Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Adkins and Robinson are mostly in agreement about the relative contributions of Young and Champollion - as you know Robinson also wrote (first) a biography of Young so his perspective is better informed relative to Young than the Adkins' is. Hartleben is a hard source to use well since while it is extremely detailed it sometimes mixes hearsay and hagiography with fact and it is hard to disentangle - however because of its monumental status untill the recent biographies it may merit more citations than it currently has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So I have just squeezed out as much info as I could from Redford's Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, notably a few more facts about various professional appointments that Champollion received. I think the relative (small) role of Young is well represented in the article, even Bianchi says that modern consensus is that Champollion owed very little to Young's work, if anything. In any case, I am just trying to have more diversity in the sources. Also I am not sure if the Weissbach sources can be deemed academic and reliable? Iry-Hor (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think being academic is a requirement for sources, but I do think Weissbach is sufficiently relkiable for non-controversial stuff. I haven't seen her really contradicting anything found in the better biographies, though her work is a little more prone to a sensationalist tone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok perfect, so now I will see if I can get some more info from the French article, in particular more sources. The (English) article is really good overall, I think it will ultimately pass FA. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you want to request semi-protection for this page?

Clearly Mikemikev is vandalizing as an IP. Maybe consider semi-protection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Maunus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Logan Article

Hello. You undid my edit on Logan (film) due to lack of consensus but we had WP:3O. Kailash29792 agreed with adding the image.CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agreed to let the image stay if sources were placed next to the text (like the image here). Kailash29792 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

CerberaOdollam (talk · contribs) I do not see Kailash297292 agreeing to include it. I see him requesting sources demonstratin that the picture is famous and significant. I have not seen you produce any such sources. They are absolutely necessary for your proposed fairuse rationale to be acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

But we already have 3 reliable sources here and I can insert more credible sources too.CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont think they are the kind of sources that establish notability. They are just par of the movie's hypemachine. We are not here to publish advertisements for moviecompanies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"promoting" white supremacism

Link to exact quote in those articles where it says that. I'll be waiting. Thanks. Bulldog123 22:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

U seerius? Your google skills are weak.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Croatian linguists

Here are some reliable sources:

• [60]
• poseban slavenski jezik - Hrvatski jezični portal - Znanje
• Vuk i Danicic - Razlike izmedju srpskog i hrvatskog jezika - Tripod

Nope.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The NPOV page

I missed the RfC on "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It looked like consensus was against removing it, which I tend to agree with, but there was also sentiment for a rewrite. I've recently encountered new editors who read that and try to justify defamation on the grounds that NPOV (i.e., the POV they perceive as neutral) overrides BLP. That line is also cited as an excuse to ignore consensus. Trouble ensues.

We all know that that's not how NPOV is applied, but it shouldn't take ten years of marinating in Wikipedia's editing ethos to understand how to interpret that sentence. IAR is another pillar, and whether openly acknowledged or not, it's frequently used to deal with this sort of thing, but IAR is a bad thing to cite in a discussion with an argumentative new editor. I think the line as it's presently constituted, though pithy, is a problem. Do you have any suggestions on how it might be parsed to better describe the extent of NPOV vis-a-vis BLP and consensus? Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problems it creates are real. I don't think it is justified or justifiable to claim in any way that NPOV is above consensus - because there is no other way except consensus to determine what is and isnt neutral. NPOV rests on the pillar of consensus and cannot possibly conflict with it. So removing at least the "nor by editor consensus" part is completely necessary. The rest is pretty much meaningless. I cannot see anyway to salvage it by rewriting - except maybe by some other strong statement such as "there are no circumstances under which it is acceptable that an article do not comply with this policy".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

please

explain Wheatbelt_(Australia) - it is neither geographically or agriculturally a single unit in the generic way it has been described and quite geographically diverse, it would help if is there any particular reason why you wished to add that? JarrahTree 02:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I added it because "wheat belt" was being used to describe the location of towns outside of West Australia. That was confusing since wikipedia only had an article about the WA wheatbelt. That is why the article was necessary. I don't care what happens with the article or its contents, as long as the situation in which "wheatbelt" towns are found in East and South australia, but there is no wheatbelt there does not occur.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: Feel free to join in the discussion at WP:AWNB#creeping wheatbelt. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Mitch Ames (talk · contribs), no thanks, I will let people who know the term and Australian geography solve the problems.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation and reply JarrahTree 09:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, you should take the IBAN offer

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban. If it winds up being indefinite, I'll help you appeal it in six months' time or immediately after the next time the issue comes up. You and I (and User:Calton, User:Black Kite and User:Arthur Rubin) know there is a problem with Rjensen's edits, and it will come up again. I've counted, and it comes up on average at least once every three months. If you support an IBAN it will conclusively prove that the problem is not, as Rjensen and Alanscottwalker contend, you hounding Rjensen.

I know from experience how easy it is to game IBANs, but if you notice him manually reverting your edits or blanking your comments from previous interactions, report him and ping me; if you seem to be right, I will back you up. Or heck, you could even email me the evidence and if I find it convincing I'll report him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot recollect why I am stalking this page, but I would like to offer a bit of friendly advice. Do NOT publically report any person you are in an IBAN with, no matter what they are doing. Doing so is actually a violation of the IBAN and may attract further sanctions. Hope this helps. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: You are wrong. Reporting IBAN violations is explicitly covered under WP:BANEX (interaction bans do not apply to [...] asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party). Otherwise IBANs would only be enforceable by random good samaritans noticing that a user is violating an IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thank you for this. I must have been misinformed in the past. I once interpreted WP:Banex in exactly the same way as you, but I was informed it was exactly the "good samaritan" scenario that prevails. I would provide details of this conversation, however, I suspect it would violate my IBAN. Thanks for the advice. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• A future without interactions with RJensen certainly does sound enticing, but it sort of looks like that discussion is going nowhere - I shall refrain from involving myself. 94.127.54.10 (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Help in the lede of Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies

Maunus, could you give a hand on this article's lede? Taking it on strides. I already made a request for help in the talk page. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Maunus applies NPOV

Proponents of the water is wet doctrine or concept claim that their belief is correct,[1] however, critics point out that the vast majority of the doctrine is false.[2] Critics note that their claim suffers from circular logic, and accuse proponents of using ad hominem to further their argument.[3] Believers often lash out aggressively at those who point out that water is, in fact, dry. "Wet" water is often an assumed position, by definition,[4] and therefore critics argue the proponent's argument is flawed, in definitional terms.[2] Ice, for example, is one of the 15 known crystalline phases of water[1] which, at -204°C, is often described as dry at that temperature.[5] As a result, proponents of the "water is wet" dogma are seen by some as ill-informed on the nature of water.[6] The main proponents of this dogma work in water-related industry,[7] leading some to believe that the water is wet concept is more likely propaganda.[8] 94.119.64.42 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Dream Garden by Maxfield Parrish & Louis Comfort Tiffany

·maunus ,

I wish you the best this holiday season.

May the new year bring you nearer to your dreams.

BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not open closed archives

If you've followed the discussion at psychoanalysis you will see that it these type of insults have come over a number of days, and are clearly not aimed at improving the article. Please refrain from removing hats in the way you did. If we really want to improve the article we can most assuredly do so by engaging in civil discourse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO and commonsense, you shoudln't archive other peoples comments in a discussion in which you are yourself involved, it is rarely helpful and tends to inflame rather than assuage conflict. One of the users whose comments you hatted directly expressed disagreement with your assessment of my changes to the lead, and with you hatting your statement came to stand as the last word. That is not a reasonable way to edit a discussion in which one is involved. Your archiving also deleted a section by another user, please be more careful. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Allele or Variant of unknown significance

Hi! I'm a newbie, so I may easily be doing something wrong. I see on my watchlist that you asked a question on the talk page of VUS, yet I don't see it on the talk page itself, so I'm answering it here. sigh. Anyway, your question apparently was "Do we mean allele of unknown significance?" The answer is yes, to people with even a little training in genetics, allele is the best term, but since the VUS reports are being read by poets, etc, with no training, the term variant is used. DennisPietras (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the questoin because it seemed to me upon reading the other article that this is specifically about variant genes, not variant alleles - i.e. only variant alleles that also are known to have a different product (a different protein than another allele) but where the change in protein causes no discernible difference in phenotype. Is this not the case?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Maunus/PeerReviewReform

Hey Maunus-- in light of this month's Inspire Campaign that I'm running, any interest in trying to reboot your idea for a new peer review process? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) are you thinking of the academic peer review proposal I made last time (which can be started at any time by any group of volunteers willing to do the work) - or the much more ambitious proposal for review reform that you linked to (which will require a full community discussion and consensus to be implemented)?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably more the former to start, but I do see that as a stepping stone for the latter. I read over the discussion of the more ambitious proposal briefly, and I agree with some opinions there that implementing that is going to take a multi-stage RfC. I'm willing to help with that effort, if you need some support thinking through the logistics of putting it all together (I recently did the same with an idea from the previous campaign that resulted in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Protect_user_pages_by_default). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Marks

Thanks for noticing my edits on Marks. I think he's hopelessly misguided by his politics, but as a WP editor I say what the source say. His idea that humans have an incessant drive to categorize is a great example of 20th-century, non-biological thinking about human cognition. Let me offer my edits as evidence of my even-handedness. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a little funny to consider the work of a biological anthropologist and geneticist to be an example of "non-biological thinking". But the edits were good, thanks for doing good work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Y'know if you want me to semi-protect your talk page I'll do that. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, he usually takes a break after a few back rounds of back-and-forth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

I'm pretty sure the editor who added material there is copying it from somewhere else, possibly translating it - and that's not the only article where it may be happening. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it and some material from another article and asked him to explain his sources and if copied where it's from. I see he's never engaged on a talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, thanks for doing that - the information was partially correct, but required some sources for complete verification. Probably better to revert it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeg havde ganske vist lantin i 2.. real

@Maunus:Men det er vel omkring 50 år siden. Så jeg er ikke sikker på jeg fik fat i meningen. Men der stod vel lidt Cato-agtigt noget i retning af "i øvrigt mener jeg Rmirum bør udstødes" Det er vi vist ved at være flere og flere der mener! --PerV (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@PerV: Netop.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Latino

Hi - I'm told you know something about cultural issues, any chance you could take a quick look at this and my comments on the talk page (and maybe the recent deleted one). Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish someone would call me a "fresh thing", but I dont get that a lot htese days.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, fresh thing. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Languages you speak?

Hi, I just wanted to know more about you. To me (from my experience), you are a Danish person who extensively admires his own language, the Danish language, to the point that you analysed it in a linguistic field. It also seems that you have a good grasp of English too. But my question is, what other languages are you able to speak. I am from Sydney, Australia, and has English and Scottish roots in me — an avid linguist and language learner (check my user page). – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 11:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly admire the Danish language, but I am Danish and a linguist by training so it is natural for me to write about that. I also wrote most of the article on English for that matter. You can find my professional website from my user page and it will give you some more information about what languages I work with. You can also see my collection of userboxes here if you prefer that format.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

¡Nunca supe que podéis hablar español! – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 11:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Classification of English

Hi, could you not have maintained all the amendments i made to the text, for example through correcting the wording or making the text better readable? For example why delete the Low German example sentence, the three Frisian languages, the North Germanic languages? In my opinion it would be better to maintain all that doesn't contradict any source because the classification section is somehow quite bad. We are not even told which language is most closely related to English after Low German. Also wouldn't it be better to mention Scots and the Irish dialects first (as most closely related languages), and not Frisian? ArchitectMan (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

From my point of view the main problems was not with the style and wordings but with the fact that the edits were unsourced and contradicted the the sources already used. For revisions of that kind I think you should present sources on the talkpage and make sure that there is consensus among the editors that your proposed changes are good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And what about the example sentence in Low German? ArchitectMan (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

what is the source for it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do translations also have to be sourced? ArchitectMan (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, particularly when they are in languages that are not commonly taught. I have also removed the two other unsourced example sentences - since they were both unsourced and essentially superfluous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You even want an English to German translation to be sourced. The example sentences were illustrations. The classification section is now much worse than before your edits. ArchitectMan (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is much better than before your edits. So if you have suggestions to improve it take it to the discussion page and we will find a solution that we can all consider an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, since i don't know if you are still reading the English language talk page, i'd like to ask you two questions: 1. Would you agree that this sentence: "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..." should be changed to: "Low German (Low Saxon), which evolved from Old Saxon, is also closely related..." because a) Low German is an official language in Germany, and is regarded as one language there, and b) "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages" is equal to "Gallo Romance and its descendent French languages", what sounds confusing, and c) there is also an inconsistence since Old Frisian is not mentioned before the Frisian languages. While you already said that you think it would be tangential and basically irrelevant to the article if Low German is being referred to as one or many languages, i still don't know if you would agree with mentioning Low German before Old Saxon. Another user suggested not to mention Old Saxon at all, but I don't know if this would be an improvement, and i'd also be interested in your opinion concerning that. 2. There is still this "but" in this sentence in the introduction: "It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages...". I suggest changing the "but" to "and". What you already said about this was that you wouldn't think that the sentence as it is now suggests that English has been influenced by Frisian, and that it would be very clear from the "but" that the influence is specifically from Germanic languages other than those to which it is most closely related. While I agree with you on that, I still think that this "but" gives the sentence the connotation that the reader would have thought, if there wouldn't be this "but", that English should have been influenced by Frisian, just because it is most closely related to it. To avoid this impression, i think it would be better to write "and" instead of "but". ArchitectMan (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@ArchitectMan:, the trick in general is to find the sources and follow what they do. So if you want to convince me that some wording is better it will be esier to do so if you can show that other reliable sources do as you suggest (for example mentioning Low Saxon before Low German etc.). I think the idea of changing "but" to "and" is good, and will go ahead and implement it right away.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So would you agree that the "but" in the sentence: "It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages particularly Norse, as well as by Latin and Romance languages, particularly French." should be changed to "and", because the "but" gives the sentence the connotation that the reader would have thought, if there wouldn't be this "but", that English should have been influenced by Frisian, just because it is most closely related to it? ArchitectMan (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in your opinion concerning this "but" or "and". Do you also think that this "but" should be changed to "and" or do you think the sentence is better with "but"? The sentence with "but" sounds as if the reader would assume that English has been influenced by the Frisian languages. ArchitectMan (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the classification section, there is this sentence: "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..." 1. This contradicts the "Low German" article, in which Low German is being referred to as one language. 2. Wouldn't it be better to just write Low German, because there is an inconsistency within the classification section, since Old Frisian other than Old Saxon isn't being mentioned. I would also be interested in your opinion about that. ArchitectMan (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you please 1. raise the discussion at teh article talkpage so everyone can give their input, 2. present the sources that you consider most authoritative or accurate on classification of west germanic. There is little point in us sharing our personal opinions about clkassification here, where noone else will read it and without being supported by reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I wrote all of this on the talk page already, but 1. only one other user but you responded there, and 2. you did not respond there anymore. The headline on the talk page is: Classification. 1. Concerning the first point, if the "but" should be changed to "and", on the talk page you answered that you wouldn't think that the "but" should be changed to "and". When I asked you a second time, on your talk page, however, you answered that it would be good to change the "but" to "and". 2. Concerning the sentence "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages...", you answered that you wouldn't care changing "Low German languages" to "Low German language", since it would be "tangential" and "basically irrelevant" to the article. Then, another user suggested not to mention Old Saxon anymore, because it would be too precise for the lay persons consulting the article. However you did not reply to that. So can the sentence be changed to: "Low German/Low Saxon is also closely related..." instead of "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..."? ArchitectMan (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just make the change, I for one will not revert it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this sentence: "Particular dialects of Old and Middle English also developed into a number of other English (Anglic) languages, including Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland." Would it be ok for you if "English (Anglic) languages" would be changed to just "Anglic languages", because "Anglic languages" is more common than "English languages". If "English languages" would be more common, then English would have to be classified like: Germanic-->West Germanic-->Anglo-Frisian-->English-->English what actually would sound quite strange. ArchitectMan (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lower Chinook Language

Hi Maunus, I've been trying to look for a good source for the Lower Chinook Language (also known as Chinook Proper, not the Chinook Jargon language). I've found some sources such as Omniglot and a book by Franz Boas called "Notes on the Chinook Language". Boas' explanation of the language seems rather complex in his composition, and I am not sure if Omniglot is an accurate source. If Omniglot is not an accurate source, where can I find one, and do you have any knowledge on how to consider what the dialect of the language would sound like based on other various sources? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, Omniglot is never a good source. Its underlying sources are of varying quality and it's simply not considered scholarly by scholars. Boas' phonological descriptions, in general, are not phonemic and are overly phonetic in nature. While his morphological descriptions are excellent, you have to wade through his complex phonetics to get at them. There simply isn't a good modern grammar of Chinook. However, according to Michael Silverstein (the expert on Chinookan), the phonemic inventories of all three varieties--Chinook, Kikst, and Kathlamet--are identical and he lists that inventory in the reference here: Michael Silverstein. 1990. Chinookans of the Lower Columbia. In Wayne Suttles (ed.), Northwest Coast, 533-546. Smithsonian Institution, Washington: Washington: Smithsonian Institution. --Taivo (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Fdomanico51997:, thanks for reaching out. I agree with Taivo that references like Omniglot and similar online sources that are not created or maintained by scholars should be avoided - in many cases I think no phoneme inventory is better than an erroneous or dubious one. I also agree that Silverstein's work on Chinookan is probably the best source on the phoneme inventory, and that if you use Boas you have to make sure to show that his representation and inventory of sounds is not a phoneme inventory but an inventory of phones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision of Avi Avital

Hi,

I was just getting started with revising the article Avi Avital, when I noticed my most recent change was already deleted. At issue was that the article is not about traveling virtuosi. My problem with the deletion is that that section is but a small part of a larger expansion. Avital is indeed part of an energetic movement that is indeed doing now what the tracking virtuosi did then, bringing energy into the mandolin music scene. You deleted what will probably be an introduction to a larger section of his place in modern classical and folk music expansion of the mandolin. If you're dead set against expansion, please let me know, and I'll figure something out.Jacqke (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jacqke, if I had noticed that it was you who had written the section I probably would have let it stay - but as it was unsourced and didnt seem related I just removed it. Feel free to insert it again if you are going to add sources that show how the section is relevant to Avital's life and career.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again

Just wanted to let you know I didn't keep the material with the new material I added. It was a bit too far off subject. I appreciate your having considered it.Jacqke (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could write a stand alone article about the mandolin virtuosi of the early 20th century?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Peace

Hey Maunus, thanks for your latest edit to Nahua peoples... my feeling had been that in saying that colonists used violence against indigenous religious practice, without mentioning that the religious practices themselves may have been violent, was an unbalanced view of the colonists. Your edits show an appreciation for this point, which I appreciate. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts at English language

1. Your edit summary was misleading, I assume you accept that. 2. I added cites. 3. "Overdetailed" is not a reason to revert. You are displaying a bias for the WP:STATUSQUO. At least the part about the leveling of strong verbs should be included, it is silly to mention "dreamt" without talking about bide. I don't want to edit war over this, but I advise you to read about how wikipedia is supposed to handle these situations. (WP:RV) --Monochrome_Monitor 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, overdetailed is a very good reason to revert in an article that is about a gigantic topic with many subarticles. You also did not add cites for most of what you added. And yes, I am showing a bias for the status quo because a team of quite competent editors collaborting over a period got it to the stage where it is now at with a lot of workd and research involved. Further developments should be improvements - and all involved in the article should agree that they are improvements. If you would propose your major changes on the discussion page and present arguments and sources for them, getting towards improving the article would be better. Note that I have gotten "thank yous" for all of the recent reverts I have done on the article from several different editors. Also you should read WP:BRD which shows how wikipedia should handle reverts. You made bld edits to an article, they were reverted, so now we discuss and seek consensus for how to improve the article. First you need to argue for why your changes are improvements- and then show the sources that support them. Furthermore, if you look through the archives you will find that there were specific reasons the statements aboyut pork/swin, beef/cow, and sheep/mutton were not included in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you see what I wrote on the talk page? I do think noting the morphological leveling of strong verbs is an improvement. And I did add citations. This is WP:CIRCULAR, but if you want to learn about it, we have an article at morphological leveling. And I'm aware of BRD, I just didn't think my edit was bold.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources you added were naked urls of the online etymological dictionary and an essay at aeon. Those are not sources that are of comparable quality to the rest of the level of sourcing in the article. If editors keep dropping by adding low quality references (without formatting them) and whichever details they find to be particularly interesting, then in a short while the article will not even qualify as GA anymore, much less be eligible to become an FA. Besides both of the topics you mentioned were already described in the article, you just added detail and examples. But this is how to resolve this: propose the changes at the discussion page of the article, and if there is a consensus among editors that they are an improvement, then we add them back. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The leveling of strong verbs was not mentioned at all, actually. It is a much more notable phenomenon than dreamt being written as dreamed.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Language

Hi Maunus- I am trying to edit the Turkish Language wikipedia entry for a course in Linguistics that I am enrolled in- I read your GA review of the page and decided to focus on improving the description of the section on vowel harmony, as well as the description of verbal morphology. I know it has been some time since you looked at this, but do you have any suggestions for me? Thanks! Umbereenbmirza (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Swazi language

Hi Maunus, I have been trying to look for a good language source for the siSwati language of Swaziland. The Phonology section is empty and needs more information. I have looked to see if there are any valid web sources or ebooks available, but I have not had any luck. Do you know of any good sources for the language that I can come across. I may need help. Thank you. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fdomanico, I would try and get a hold of some these books throug interlibrary loan if I were you: Handbook of Siswati, Introduction to Siswati phonetics, Grammar of Swazi. They may not be very easy to come by, but these look like good sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to purchase them online, or find e-Book copies of them? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You can buy the siswati handbook on Amazon.com and alibris.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Would love you to take a look at this article

Hi, would appreciate your feedback on this article, which was slated for deletion by a culturally inexperienced editor. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to assess that kind of article's notability - it really comes down to the independent sources available. I would tend to vote "keep" based on the sources present at this point - certainly we have less notable or significant articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. If you'd put those two cents here. Thank you.--A21sauce (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tongva language

I've been trying to look for good sources on the Tongva (Gabrielino) language. I'd like to be able to find a source on the pronunciation or the phonology. I can't seen to find reliable sources on the language, and the phonological information provided on here on Wikipedia, seems too complex and needs a citation. I don't know if nativelanguages.org's information on pronunciation is correct or if possible, do you have knowledge on the language where you could modify the information, or recommend me a good source? Thank you, please let me know. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The best sources on Tongva are by Pamela Munro and the group of tongva language revivalists. I believe they have a website. I will find it for you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This source[61] has a phoneme inventory based on J.P Harrington's notes - in the first footnote.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the information. I've been trying to read what the phonemes are in the handbook. What do the fricatives/stops /ṣ/ and /c̣/ mean? Are they other symbols for /tʃ/ and /ʃ/? I'm also confused by one of the approximants. One of them sort of looks like a dental fricative /ð/. What do those IPA symbols represent though? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not completely clear - I think they are retroflexes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This source by Munro, seems to be the one where she describes the phonology and practical orthography of the language as it is currently being practiced: Munro, Pamela. 1989. Gabrielino: Language of the Indians of Los Angeles. News from Native California. 3.2. 27-28. I can't access it immediately, but I can write her and see if she has a pdf copy I can share with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fdomanico51997:, Munro shared a chapter on Tongva phonology from her forthcoming book with me, and allowed me to share it with you and to cite it in the article. You can send me an email through the wikipedia email system, then I will respond and send the chapter to you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maunus, thanks so much for your help! I appreciate you contacting the publisher of the article to request a pdf copy! My email is frankiedomanico597@gmail.com so you can send me the file. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for African languages

Hello, I had found a site in French that is based off of a book published by the UNESCO Regional Office in 1993, and edited by Rhonda L. Hartell, entitled "Alphabets des langues africaines". If the whole site is based off the book, how accurate could the source be? I have the link right here: http://sumale.vjf.cnrs.fr/phono/. Is it a good source? Please let me know. Thanks. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks relatively reliable, so it can be used. But for some individual languages there are going to be better sources (for example dedicated phonological descriptions), in those cases you need to use the better source. But for those languages where there are no better phonological descriptions available, I think you can safely use this source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know.Fdomanico51997 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Metawiki:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Nahuatl Wikipedia 2

Hello, good mornig; this page is about second closing projects for Nahuatl Wikipedia, you know about this theme, is necessary your opinion. Thank you very much. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can close a wikipedia like that, it will be hard that anyone would accept closing an active wikipedia. I don't have an opinion myself -other than suggesting that lots of native speakers ought to start using the wikipedia, changing it to something that is more useful for their purposes, reclaiming it from the non-native speakers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Stød occurence

Can you please review this page and add and change the facts as needed? It would be really appreciated as I’m trying to read Danish better. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 07:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article on alt-right subverting Wikipedia articles on race and I'm looking for sources

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.RedHermit1982 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw you in a number of Talk pages on race-related topics. From your other contributions, I'm guessing you have an anthropology background? Anyways, you seem like a good source for my article, which is about how "race realists" are trying to push their agenda by making subtle tweaks to Wikipedia articles.

Core Contest

	Core Contest - First Prize
	Congratulations Maunus for improving Aztec for the benefit of readers everywhere! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanksCasliber (talk · contribs), what an honor. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: Can you email me so I can email back voucher (as it is an attachment) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of editing in under-represented areas of Wikipedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MX submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Maunus is a leading editor in the areas of Languages and linguistics, Mesoamerican culture, and Native American history. He has been around for years and has promoted an abundance of Featured Article content, including Nahuatl, Mayan languages, Natchez revolt, among others. His contributions, User:Maunus/Userpage/Contributions, are impressive. His work in this under-represented area of Wikipedia is among the best I've seen.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Maunus was original Image uploader

Maunus

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 26, 2017

Languages and linguistics, Mesoamerican culture, and Native American history are his expertise. A veteran editor that has promoted an abundance of Featured Article content. Broadens under-represented area of Wikipedia.

Recognized for

His contributions

Notable work(s)

Nahuatl, Mayan languages, Natchez revolt

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Many many congrats Maunus. A well deserved award. Enjoy your week! MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENYing Mikemikev

Hi Maunus.

How would you feel about deleting the "discussion" at Talk:Race (human categorization)#Ancestry based classifications lack biological validity? Mike and his socks (another one of whom just showed up) need a dose of the silent treatment. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot assume straight out of the gate that anyone who comes to those pages with a pro-race viewpoint is Mikemikev (for example he has never mentioned Darwin before). But if it is demonstrated that it is Mikemikev, then feel free to delete it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Maunus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Undskyld

Tillad mig at undskylde for det, jeg sagde, gjorde Den dag i ugen . Min opførsel var ekstremt uhensigtsmæssig, umodne og manglede respekten for andre. Min opførsel var pinligt, men jeg lærte at ingen værdsat min dårlige opførsel. I fremtiden har jeg til hensigt at bremse mine tankeløse handlinger og lære at tilpasse min adfærd til miljø og situation. Jeg beklager igen for mine handlinger, og jeg håber, at vi kan sætte sagen bag os. Jeg glæder mig til at lærer fra, dig igen Hvis du har nogle tanker i dette, er du velkommen til at dele det med mig. Jeg skriver dette for at søge tilgivelse for min opførsel. og min handling var helt ubesværet for. Jeg er virkelig ked af det jeg gjorde. Jeg skulle have talt med dig først i stedet for at snakke grimt til jer. du vil ikke tro hvornår Jeg forstod, at dette kun skete på grund af en lille misforståelse, jeg følte mig meget skammelig. Jeg indså, at det var min fejl, at jeg ikke stolede på jer, og så gjorde jeg sagen lige værste ved at opføre mig som jeg gjorde. Jeg føler mig skyldig i hele sagen.  Jeg forstår, at du ikke vil tale med mig. Jeg vil bare fortælle dig, at , jeg kan meget lide dig virkelig, og jeg er meget ked af mine handlinger. Jeg forsikrer dig om, at jeg aldrig vil gentage denne form for mishandling igen.   Med venlige Hilsen David Ngoviet Conmade1 (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

French translation for "Langage humain" from Language

Dear Maunus, from the article statistical overview, I saw that you are the main contributor for the article Language. First, thank you very very much for this excellent work ! I wanted to inform you that I have translated most of this article in order to recycle/complete the French article "Langage humain" ([62]). Besides, I would like to consult you for a related question. I have translated and added the sections of the English version until sections 6.2 ; and I intend to translate and add also section 6.4. However, I think that the other sections (6.3, 6.5 and the rest after 6.5) refer to the concept of "langues" in French, rather than language, and therefore I will leave them out. Please let me know if you think it's a good idea. Don't hesitate to come and comment on the overall translation if you are interested, I would really appreciate your editing. My background is in psychology and psycholinguistics, rather than linguistics, and though I hope that my translation is fair, I had here and there some hesitations on how to best translate some words or phrases. My intention is to consult and add French litterature as well, for the French readers, and also to add final a section on Language impairments (currently a list). Best regards, Cathrotterdam (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Cathrotterdam, many thanks for translating the article and for reaching out. I do understand the difficulty in translating the article and its topic into French where there is a distinction between langage and langue. I think all of section 6 is about "langage" and in fact is the section that describes how "langage" comes to produce "langues" when the human capacity for langage is exercised in the social contect of a cultural community (which it ineviutably always is). Perhaps section 6.6. on contact does rely too much on the role of interaction between languages (langues) in the plural, to make for an easy translation and perhaps it could be reduced to a sentence in the preceding section on language change (language change, of course also is a feature that is relevant for langage, because it tells us something about the way langage works. But maybe the section it will need some restructuring to fit the French conceptualization - and that may not be something you are interested in doing yourself. I will take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Maunus, I'll carry on with the translation of these two sections left (Culture and Change), and see how to link the last one to the French articles on "langues". Best, Cathrotterdam (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

English language

Hi, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand are now mentioned twice. ArchitectMan (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

removed the repetition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The countries where English is spoken most widely as native language should be mentioned in the first sentences. That's why i wrote: English is spoken most widely as native language in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, and New Zealand, and it is also widely spoken in some areas of the Caribbean, in many African states, and in South Asia (notably India). In your version, the English-speaking countries aren't mentioned in the first sentences, and South Africa and India aren't mentioned either. ArchitectMan (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It should be mentioned in the paragraph about demographics and distribution. The lead is a summary of the article with a paragraph allotted to each main section, and represented in the same order as in the article. And it does mention "some areas of Afria and South Asia", which is fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but South Africa is the only country where there are more English native speakers than in the English-speaking countries of Ireland and New Zealand, and therefore it should be mentioned as well. ArchitectMan (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 13:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Lule Sami language

Hi Maunus, I've been trying to do contribute to the Wikipedia article regarding the Lule Sami language of the Sami peoples of northern Norway and Sweden. I've found sources on Glottolog, one in particular, Lulesamisk grammatik by Nils Eric Spiik, 1989. I do not know where to find the source, or any other sources regarding the language. I would like to be able to list the phonology of the language. Do you happen to have any knowledge or sources regarding the language? I would be interested to know. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've found this book "Susanna Angéus Kuoljok. 2003. Lulesamiska, ett hotat minoritetsspråk i Skandinavien" and I've ordered it through my university library. I will let you know what I find when I get it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Maunus, did you get the book for the Lule Sami language yet? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, actually I forgot about that. I wonder why it is taking so long.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Of interest

This discussion may be of interest to you. I pinged you there: [63] Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will stay out of that particular hornet's nest for now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

aztec

Saw this in GA but I don't wanna be the one to do a GA review. I also put a couple comments in article talk but they were ignored. This article may have/seems to have a relatively large number of problems in its footnotes/references:

Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 8 without) [Location not needed if publisher's name includes it, e.g., University of Calcutta].

Not to point out the obvious, but on several sources, a |lang= might be needed.

Miguel Leon Portilla (2000). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Eduardo Noguera (1974). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

"Azteken". Winkler Prins encyclopedia Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Berdan, Frances (1982). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

Berdan, Frances F.; Blanton, Richard E.; Boone, Elizabeth Hill; Hodge, Mary G.; Smith, Michael E.; Umberger, Emily (1996). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. This one could perhaps also use |display-authors=

Bright, W. (1990). Sort error, expected: Boone, Elizabeth Hill (2000-); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Boone, Elizabeth Hill (2000). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. Sort error, expected: Bright, W. (1990-);

Burkhart, Louise M. (1997). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Carrasco, David (1982). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

Gillespie, Susan D. (1998). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?; Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (9 with; 5 without);

Hassig, Ross (1985). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Hassig, Ross (1988). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Hassig, Ross (1992). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Hirth, Kenneth G. (2016). Missing ISBN;

Kaufman, Terrence (2001). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

León-Portilla, Miguel (1992) [1959]. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

León-Portilla, Miguel (1963). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?; Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;

Lockhart, James (1991). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. ALSO Lockhart, James (1993). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?; (in English) (in Spanish) (in Nahuatl) … OK so it looks like most works by the same author are listed descending order... except these two, which are ascending

López Austin, Alfredo (1997). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo (1987). Missing ISBN;

McCaa, R. (1995). Sort error, expected: Matthew, Laura E; Oudijk, Michel;

Miller, Mary; Karl Taube (1993). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.

Ortíz de Montellano, Bernard R. (1983). & then Ortíz de Montellano, Bernard R. (1990). OK so it looks like most works by the same author are listed descending order... except these two, which are ascending

Matthew, Laura E; Oudijk, Michel R. (2007). Missing ISBN;

Schroeder, Susan (1991). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Smith, Michael E. (2008). Missing ISBN;

Smith, Michael E. (May 2005). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

Smith, Michael E.; Montiel, Lisa (2001). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;

"Smith, Michael E, "Life in the Provinces of the Aztec Empire", Caution: Missing ref= anchor?; Missing access date;

Zantwijk,Rudolph van (1985). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw your experimentation with the script for checking inconsistencies, but frankly I think it would make more sense for you to fix those minor formatting things (who cares about missing ISBNS?) instead of listing them here and at the talkpage. This is FA level stuff, but shouldn't be an issue for a reasonable reviewer at GA level. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing ISBNs are important. :-) But yes, I wondered if GA gave a hoot about such things. Well, Mike Christie said they do. I don't know. But anyhow, good luck with your nom. later! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The article has much bigger problems than missing isbns, there are entire sections without citations. I probably hadn't thought it through when I nominated it - I basically just wanted the review to be a reason to keep working on it - and get some more eyes on it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Either point me to the most helpful book or 2 with Preview available on Google books, or email me the most helpful one or two pdf articles, and I will try to fill in a few missing citations for you... but I can only help a little here and there... what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica .. or User:Simon Burchell (I won't ping because I don't know if his area of interest meshes precisely with the topic... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it would be quite helpful if you fixed the formalities with citation and bibliography stuff that I find to be tedious, and if you were to carry out any formatting stuff that you think would make the article more sound. I have access to the [Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199341962.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199341962] and I can email you any individual chapters that you may find necessar.ygoogle preview here. I haven't pinged Simon because I have been hoping he would conduct the review, and I didnt want it to look like collusion. Any thing you can do to the improve the article, wille be appreciated and motivate me to work on it more.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• But I don't know which chapter etc. would be the most help the most helpful in adding cites. You can send me the ones that would be helpful. You may need to look for unreferenced text eetc. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Marrovi

Buenos días. Maunus; te escribo en castellano porque se que comprendes muy bien mi lengua materna.

No me molesta que de manera reiterada escribas que fui bloqueado en Español o Náhuatl; no estas mintiendo ni me estas calumniando, es cierto; lo que me molesta es que intentes utilizar este argumento para aventajar y demostrar que tu tienes la razón y los demás estamos equivocados; al menos este acto es considerado un acto bajo en mi sociedad porque utiliza los errores o la mala reputación para desprestigiar a las personas, haciéndose pasar uno mismo por gente inmaculada y buena solo porque no ha incurrido en los mismos errores de los demás.

Lo que escribiste en Wikiproject:Mexico no fue exclusivamente la causa de mi bloqueo, fueron muchas las causas de las que gente sin escrúpulos se valió, haciendo uso de su poder y de la demagogia política, para hacerme a un lado y lograr los bloqueos. Es cierto que yo incurrí en muchos errores, pero también es cierto que la envidia, el coraje y la política sucia fue utilizada por esta gente; al grado de conspirar a mis espaldas para maquinar un baneo general. Afortunadamente gente de la misma wikipedia, en diversos idiomas, se comunicó conmigo y me mandó toda la información desleal que se estaba cocinando en mi contra, porque ellos y ellas consideraron que tampoco era bueno para la imagen de Wikipedia lo que se estaba acordando en mi contra a mis espaldas.

Yo participo en política y me gusta también el debate, pero entre las reglas de juego, las cosas salen contraproducentes cuando la estrategia es manchar y evidenciar a las personas con el fin de aventajarles o dañarles. Acepto que hice las cosas mal en algún momento, pero eso no es una escusa para no mejorar las cosas, soy un gran legionario, tengo muy buenos principios familiares y académicos que los hago valer siempre, soy un puma (UNAM), por ende debo respaldar el avance de la ciencia y la tecnología, y mi lealtad es hacia la Máxima Casa de Estudios de México.

No tengo nada en contra tuya, estoy enterado que eres un buen académico y que tienes grandes conocimientos sobre las culturas precolombinas de mi país, he leído algunas de tus publicaciones. También estoy enterado que tiene una buena relación con Akapochtli y que le dejaste escribir un artículo en tu espacio. Yo respeto vuestra amistad, allí no puedo meterme y ustedes sabrán porque se estiman, pero si quedé bastante enfadado con los actos de este usuario, afortunadamente cada que escuche mi nickname o mi nombre, lo va pensar dos veces antes de actuar en mi contra, yo no soy el payaso de nadie. Yo no tengo la necesidad de hablar mal de nadie ni de tí, me gusta decir las cosas de frente y no me cierro a no hacer nuevas amistades, pero si no le simpatizo o le incomoda mi persona, na pasa nada, me basta con que sepas que no hay nada en contra tuya.Marrovi (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sabes que, tu idea de una conspiración en tu contra es absurdo. Los problemas que has tenido han sido por causa de tu propia conducta. Yo no te puse mas trabas aqui en el wiki inglés porque parecia que habias finalmente enténdido lo que se te estaba diciendo, y que habias cambiado tu modo de actuar. Ahora estás de regreso en lo mismo. Por lo tanto esto va a ser la ultima vez que me pongo a arreglar la basura que metes en la wiki, y va a ser la ultima vez que intento hacer que entiendas. Eso no tiene absolutamente nada que ver con Akapochtli, pero todo que ver con tus pésimos articulos que sigues escribiendo al parecer sin conocer o entender las reglas y practicas de como escribir articulos en este espacio, y sin escuchar o seguir los consejos y adminociones que recibes tan frecuentemente. Yo no tengo nada en contra tuyo tampoco, seguro eres muy buena persona y tu interés por las culturas autótonas de tu país es admirable. Pero aqui estamos escribiendo una enciclopedia, y estamos intentando hacer que sea de alta calidad. La verdad es que tu inglés ni siquiera esta al nível para que contribuyas aqui - aunque eso se puede arreglar más fácil que los otros problemas contus contirbuciones. Tienes que parar de hacer lo que estás haciendo y por lo menos hacer un esfuerzo para aprender como es que se hace bien.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Gracias por quitar lo que tu mismo llamas basura en el artículo Teotlalpan, que bueno que yo no edité todo lo que tu has eliminado, eso vino de una traducción en español que hizo el propio autor de la versión castellana y que yo simplemente lo dejé allí para no caer en el juego del intolerante o del mugrido que sabotea el trabajo de los demás, me da gusto muchos de mis textos los consideras apropiados y de carácter enciclopédico; o al menos correctos, me queda claro que no tengo dominio nativo del idioma inglés, pero me alegra que si puedes entender mi pésimo inglés. Yo también pensé que la idea de una conspiración era algo absurdo, pero la ingenuidad se me quitó al leer y al escuchar todo lo que escribía a mis espaldas pensando que todo mundo actuaba de buena fe. Si no leyera a Noah Chomsky me sería muy difícil entender como es que se puede manejar el discurso para hacer buena o mala a una persona, con la simple política del buen vecino basta para decir; mira, aquí se demuestra que tú eres el problema, mira como te dicen las cosas todo mundo y tú no haces caso, tú eres el malo, nosotros no. No quiero entrar en detalles filosóficos, etimológicos y epistemológicos de palabras como basura, pésimo o alta calidad, ya que abría una seria contradicción al llamar enciclopedia libre a la wikipedia; de entrada para que exista una excelencia de edición, se debería tener un consejo de expertos en cada tema y que sean estos los únicos que deberían editar los textos y el sentido que le quieren dar a un artículo, en relación a sus conocimientos, sus valores, sus principios y sus políticas empresariales en donde la masa crítica o los lectores comunes nos ocupemos solo a leerles y jamás a discutir u opinar, así si abría esa alta calidad que se desea, algo que hacemos de igual forma en las universidades, donde al alumnado no se le permite injerencia en los programas e estudio, ellos solo reciben de forma inductiva el conocimiento que desea la academia o considera pertinente, si el alumnado interviene en todo, se cae a pedazos el trabajo serio y todo se vuelve un trabajo pésimo. Con este comentario termino mi discusión y ahora me centro a hacer las cosas acorde a vuestras políticas. Gracias por escucharme y gracias por tomar en cuenta mi trabajo, eso me hace sentir bien y me hace pensar que eres una gran persona.Marrovi (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marrovi:, deja en paz a maunus y a la gente de wikipedia. Ya has hecho bastante daño y bastante vandalismo e incluso has hecho llorar a un niño con Asperger. 37.15.238.59 (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Maunus, gracias por darle Una lección a marrovi.

Are you this guy?

If you are the guy mentioned here, and you want this account to be named, drop me a note. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am the guy, I don't mind either way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will add it to The Signpost. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question—and, if the answer was yes, to say thank you. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hans Jørgen Uldall

Hi, since I see you're a Dane, linguist, and active Wikipedian, would you be able to tell me what the name of Hans Jørgen Uldall would be transcribed according to our Help:IPA/Danish key? [hans jɶɐ̯n̩ ˈuldælˀ] was my initial guess, another editor suspects it's [hanɕɶɐ̯n̩ ˈulˌdæːˀl]. What was also perplexing us was that in a recorded pronunciation of the name on Forvo /l/ sounded much more like a glide than like a lateral, with an [e]-like quality. Can Danish /l/ be realized as a vocoid (or at least be palatalized)? If so, could you point to a source so we can add that piece of information to Danish phonology?

While we're at it, the aforementioned user is also looking for the pronunciations of Nina Grønnum and Jørgen Rischel, but Schwa dk, who was once accepting requests for Danish pronunciations, seems no longer active on Wikipedia. Can you step in for them for a second and transcribe these names? I promise I won't inundate you with requests. ;) Thanks! Nardog (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I say ['hans 'jɶɐ̯n̩ ˈuldælˀ], ['nina 'gʁɶnɔm] and ['jɶɐ̯n̩ 'ʁiɕl̩]. I don't hear anything palatalized or vocoid in the l in the recording, but it probably is not completely voiced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! (By /l/ I meant the second /l/ at the end, by the way, in case it wasn't clear.) Nardog (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the transcriptions! Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I can see that you've changed [ˈuldælˀ] to [ˈuldæˀl]. Did you mean to write [ˈuldæːˀl]? Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is conventional to have length - though I don't think there is actually a length contrast before stød.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There isn't, at least not in SD. I've changed the transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)