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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you think we should make room for Scott Joplin? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Do not restore personal attacks, I have every right to remove them per WP:TPG Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:00, 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)
What did you mean by "fixed"? The article is still at N. F. S. Grundvig, with extra spaces and misspelling. Pam D 08:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You're rather a Chomskyan, then?;) garik ( talk) 02:49, 1 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)
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)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1062645?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101740791487
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/southern_cultures/v018/18.4.snyder.html
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)
Copied from his talkpage on his request. Black Kite ( talk) 20:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. p b p 01:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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
Gigette is vandalizing the Aztec mythology article again. Check it out. Senor Cuete ( talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you p b p 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss changes made to the article on the discussion page first. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 03:57, 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'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)
Lova Falk talk 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
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) |
For your information, I've asked for help there.
El Comandante ( talk) 15:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, is this map File:Aztecexpansion.png yours?, authorship?, because it says "enwiki/Maunus". -- Giggette ( talk) 18:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
I will have to undo your 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. 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)
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)
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) |
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)
Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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) |
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)
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)
Please, see the Greenland talk. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 13:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please, see the talk of Greenlandic language. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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. 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)
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)
Dawkins clearly disagreed with Lewontin.
"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Dawkins
I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - OrangesRyellow -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 06:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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'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)
Maunus, when you have a moment would you please e-mail me. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
You honestly think my edits are crap? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
Any thoughts on the above? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Reminding you both about 3RR. Dougweller ( talk) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
On 2 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luigi Embergher, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one of the luxurious model 8 mandolins of Italian luthier Luigi Embergher was purchased by Maria Feodorovna, Empress of Russia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luigi Embergher. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On 3 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franz Kafka works, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that translators of Franz Kafka's works must cope with ambiguous words like Verkehr, which refers both to traffic and sexual intercourse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Kafka works. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
" 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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Psychoanalysis&diff=562278087&oldid=562277763
I thought you could start a discussion on Talk:psychoanalysis. WykiP ( talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I wish you'd tell me something specific about what problems you see. EEng ( talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
...(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 29 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natchez language, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Natchez language had a specific way of speaking used for impersonating a cannibal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natchez language. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
OK - thanks anyway, and all the best with your fieldwork. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
At talk:Human genetic variation#Lewontin's Fallacy reverts. Alatari ( talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
On 24 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lewis Henry Morgan's editor refused to let him dedicate Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family to his two dead daughters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. p b p 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
A discussion here [17] concerns you. SpaceBobber ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
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_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet. Dougweller ( talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
Would this fall under genocide of indigenous people? Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
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.)
On 5 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tumin (currency), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Tumin is an alternative currency used in the municipality of Espinal, Veracruz, Mexico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tumin (currency). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are there any problems with this as a source or in general?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Maunus. As you have previously expressed an interest in the matter, please can you participate in the move discussion. Helen Online 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
Edit warriors are back. — kwami ( talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
The Original Barnstar | |
For hard work and high quality. bobrayner ( talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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/?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)
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)
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)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Er du Dansker? Jonas Vinther ( talk) 18:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(UTC)
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)
The strings in a piano are not strummed or plucked. A piano is a percussion instrument. p b p 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
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 Pumpkin Sky Prize, - thank you also for help with Kafka and memory, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
PerV ( talk) 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, [1] 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. [1]
"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)
" 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi again, Maunus. Good news: Natchez revolt is now at Today's Featured Article requests. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 10 November 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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've been pronouncing your username as /mɔnus/. Is this correct? Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 notification Camelbinky ( talk) 20:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 would you meet me the Roger Pearson (anthropologist" talk section?--gh38999 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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'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) |
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)
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) |
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.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)
On 31 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean-François Champollion, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jean-François Champollion's (pictured) first major publication on the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was reviewed anonymously by Thomas Young, his main rival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean-François Champollion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Some gift ideas. -- Taivo ( talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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! |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Another divergent estimate at Mocho language: < 30 vs 106. — kwami ( talk) 00:36, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
"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)
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)
So everyone still having fun then? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Hvorfra ved du dog alt det om Dansk Funktionalisme?? TheEsb ( talk) 22:29, 8 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)
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)
How much more have you got to do now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( talk page stalker)Yay! Montanabw (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 20 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peder Syv, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peder Syv's publication of proverbs and folk songs helped establish Danish as a literary language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peder Syv. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Harrias talk 14:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
So, did you find a bunch of interesting stuff there? RO (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your hard work and patience in promoting Irataba to FA! Well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
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) |
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)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why did you revert my removal of unreliable source for Ehsan Jafri?
Please provide an explanation or revert back the change asap.
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)
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)
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
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's a fantastic work. Thanks! Peter238 ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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.
Hope to see you join! Harej ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 @ 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)
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)
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami ( talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has this policy of neutral point of view. Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for your part in it, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Keilana ( talk) 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Student7 ( talk) 15:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
…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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 heard what happened to your fireworks last night.
I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
I have nominated the recapture of El Chapo at ITN.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
For undoing an edit without immediately resorting to the revert button. Hats off.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (
talk) 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases - üser:Altenmann >t
I'm confused, what did I do wrong?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Marijuana_(word) -- Potguru ( talk) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Really? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
" 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
For your skill in ferreting out sockpuppets.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}} 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? Marlindale ( talk) 01:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks! — kwami ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
thanks Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)sturgeontransformer
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)
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)
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)
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).
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.
Me parece que debes llevar el caso a una instancia superior.-- Rosymonterrey ( talk) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
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!
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)
Hi, I accidentally thanked you for an edit. How can I remove it? Tiny Dancer 48 ( talk) 11:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 would appreciate your comment here.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 08:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry my friend ..wrong page and person. :-) Moxy ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) |
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)
......Porque Marrovo esta usurpando comentarios para colocarlos acá [54] [55] [56]. -- Cenovo ( talk) 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Mesoamerican languages | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 161 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
It would be nice if you would improve my edits rather than reverting them. Benjamin ( talk) 23:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
see last entry of /info/en/?search=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)
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.
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)
( ←) 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)
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
If you ever want to team up to get this page straight, let me know. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 02:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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 best Wikirictor ( talk) 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Clearly Mikemikev is vandalizing as an IP. Maybe consider semi-protection. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Link to exact quote in those articles where it says that. I'll be waiting. Thanks. Bulldog123 22:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources:
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)
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)
@ Maunus: Feel free to join in the discussion at WP:AWNB#creeping wheatbelt. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
·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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
And what about the example sentence in Low German? ArchitectMan ( talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Do translations also have to be sourced? ArchitectMan ( talk) 18:10, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there a way to purchase them online, or find e-Book copies of them? Fdomanico51997 ( talk) 17:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great, thanks for letting me know. Fdomanico51997 ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 - First Prize | |
Congratulations Maunus for improving Aztec for the benefit of readers everywhere! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Maunus, did you get the book for the Lule Sami language yet? Fdomanico51997 ( talk) 06:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to you. I pinged you there: [63] Montanabw (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
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:
|lang=
might be needed.|display-authors=
|orig-year=
;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)
@ 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.
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you think we should make room for Scott Joplin? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Do not restore personal attacks, I have every right to remove them per WP:TPG Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:00, 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)
What did you mean by "fixed"? The article is still at N. F. S. Grundvig, with extra spaces and misspelling. Pam D 08:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You're rather a Chomskyan, then?;) garik ( talk) 02:49, 1 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)
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)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1062645?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101740791487
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/southern_cultures/v018/18.4.snyder.html
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)
Copied from his talkpage on his request. Black Kite ( talk) 20:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. p b p 01:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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
Gigette is vandalizing the Aztec mythology article again. Check it out. Senor Cuete ( talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete
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)
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)
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)
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)
There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you p b p 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss changes made to the article on the discussion page first. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 03:57, 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'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)
Lova Falk talk 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
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) |
For your information, I've asked for help there.
El Comandante ( talk) 15:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, is this map File:Aztecexpansion.png yours?, authorship?, because it says "enwiki/Maunus". -- Giggette ( talk) 18:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
I will have to undo your 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. 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)
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)
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) |
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)
Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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) |
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)
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)
Please, see the Greenland talk. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 13:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please, see the talk of Greenlandic language. -- Mahmudmasri ( talk) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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. 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)
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)
Dawkins clearly disagreed with Lewontin.
"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Dawkins
I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - OrangesRyellow -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 06:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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'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)
Maunus, when you have a moment would you please e-mail me. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
You honestly think my edits are crap? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
Any thoughts on the above? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Reminding you both about 3RR. Dougweller ( talk) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
On 2 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luigi Embergher, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one of the luxurious model 8 mandolins of Italian luthier Luigi Embergher was purchased by Maria Feodorovna, Empress of Russia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luigi Embergher. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On 3 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franz Kafka works, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that translators of Franz Kafka's works must cope with ambiguous words like Verkehr, which refers both to traffic and sexual intercourse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Kafka works. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
" 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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Psychoanalysis&diff=562278087&oldid=562277763
I thought you could start a discussion on Talk:psychoanalysis. WykiP ( talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I wish you'd tell me something specific about what problems you see. EEng ( talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
...(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 29 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natchez language, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Natchez language had a specific way of speaking used for impersonating a cannibal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natchez language. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
OK - thanks anyway, and all the best with your fieldwork. Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
At talk:Human genetic variation#Lewontin's Fallacy reverts. Alatari ( talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
On 24 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lewis Henry Morgan's editor refused to let him dedicate Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family to his two dead daughters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. p b p 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
A discussion here [17] concerns you. SpaceBobber ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
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_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet. Dougweller ( talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
Would this fall under genocide of indigenous people? Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
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.)
On 5 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tumin (currency), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Tumin is an alternative currency used in the municipality of Espinal, Veracruz, Mexico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tumin (currency). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are there any problems with this as a source or in general?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Maunus. As you have previously expressed an interest in the matter, please can you participate in the move discussion. Helen Online 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
Edit warriors are back. — kwami ( talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
The Original Barnstar | |
For hard work and high quality. bobrayner ( talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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.)
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/?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)
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)
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)
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Er du Dansker? Jonas Vinther ( talk) 18:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(UTC)
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)
The strings in a piano are not strummed or plucked. A piano is a percussion instrument. p b p 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
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 Pumpkin Sky Prize, - thank you also for help with Kafka and memory, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
PerV ( talk) 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, [1] 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. [1]
"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)
" 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi again, Maunus. Good news: Natchez revolt is now at Today's Featured Article requests. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 10 November 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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've been pronouncing your username as /mɔnus/. Is this correct? Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 20:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 notification Camelbinky ( talk) 20:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 would you meet me the Roger Pearson (anthropologist" talk section?--gh38999 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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'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) |
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)
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) |
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.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)
On 31 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean-François Champollion, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jean-François Champollion's (pictured) first major publication on the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was reviewed anonymously by Thomas Young, his main rival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean-François Champollion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Some gift ideas. -- Taivo ( talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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! |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Another divergent estimate at Mocho language: < 30 vs 106. — kwami ( talk) 00:36, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
"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)
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)
So everyone still having fun then? Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Hvorfra ved du dog alt det om Dansk Funktionalisme?? TheEsb ( talk) 22:29, 8 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)
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)
How much more have you got to do now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
( talk page stalker)Yay! Montanabw (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 20 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peder Syv, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peder Syv's publication of proverbs and folk songs helped establish Danish as a literary language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peder Syv. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Harrias talk 14:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
So, did you find a bunch of interesting stuff there? RO (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your hard work and patience in promoting Irataba to FA! Well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
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) |
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)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why did you revert my removal of unreliable source for Ehsan Jafri?
Please provide an explanation or revert back the change asap.
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)
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)
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
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's a fantastic work. Thanks! Peter238 ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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.
Hope to see you join! Harej ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 @ 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)
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)
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami ( talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has this policy of neutral point of view. Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for your part in it, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Keilana ( talk) 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Student7 ( talk) 15:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
…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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 heard what happened to your fireworks last night.
I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
I have nominated the recapture of El Chapo at ITN.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
For undoing an edit without immediately resorting to the revert button. Hats off.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (
talk) 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases - üser:Altenmann >t
I'm confused, what did I do wrong?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Marijuana_(word) -- Potguru ( talk) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Really? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
" 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
For your skill in ferreting out sockpuppets.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}} 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? Marlindale ( talk) 01:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks! — kwami ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
thanks Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)sturgeontransformer
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)
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)
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)
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).
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.
Me parece que debes llevar el caso a una instancia superior.-- Rosymonterrey ( talk) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
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!
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)
Hi, I accidentally thanked you for an edit. How can I remove it? Tiny Dancer 48 ( talk) 11:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 would appreciate your comment here.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 08:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry my friend ..wrong page and person. :-) Moxy ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) |
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)
......Porque Marrovo esta usurpando comentarios para colocarlos acá [54] [55] [56]. -- Cenovo ( talk) 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Mesoamerican languages | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 161 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
It would be nice if you would improve my edits rather than reverting them. Benjamin ( talk) 23:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
see last entry of /info/en/?search=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)
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.
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)
( ←) 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)
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
If you ever want to team up to get this page straight, let me know. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 02:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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 best Wikirictor ( talk) 12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Clearly Mikemikev is vandalizing as an IP. Maybe consider semi-protection. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Link to exact quote in those articles where it says that. I'll be waiting. Thanks. Bulldog123 22:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources:
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)
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)
@ Maunus: Feel free to join in the discussion at WP:AWNB#creeping wheatbelt. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
·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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
And what about the example sentence in Low German? ArchitectMan ( talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Do translations also have to be sourced? ArchitectMan ( talk) 18:10, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there a way to purchase them online, or find e-Book copies of them? Fdomanico51997 ( talk) 17:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great, thanks for letting me know. Fdomanico51997 ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 - First Prize | |
Congratulations Maunus for improving Aztec for the benefit of readers everywhere! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Maunus, did you get the book for the Lule Sami language yet? Fdomanico51997 ( talk) 06:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to you. I pinged you there: [63] Montanabw (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
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:
|lang=
might be needed.|display-authors=
|orig-year=
;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)
@ 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.
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 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)
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)