If you think it's in the article's best interest to maintain the English (v. Germanic) change, go ahead. But please do not revert everything (Tuscan, not 'Standard', Italian, and 'went' rather than 'is' l.256). golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 14:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:DRC. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that they attempted to remove the warning message you left them on their page. 78.151.142.191 ( talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
since when is the word enthenogenic used in describing buildings and animals? The meanings of the term "entheogen" were formally defined by Ruck et al. :In a strict sense, only those vision-producing drugs that can be shown to have figured in shamanic or religious rites would be designated entheogens, but in a looser sense, the term could also be applied to other drugs, both natural and artificial, that induce alterations of consciousness similar to those documented for ritual ingestion of traditional entheogens taken from the entheogenic article. Can you demonstrate a verifiable source for the the phrase Aztec entheogenic complex Semitransgenic ( talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you put your support in the discussion section instead of the survey section, I would suggest you state your opinion within the survey section. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, I see you reverted my edits to the Jesuit Reductions page. I had removed an extremely biased and generally unsourced paragraph. For example, it stated: "The Jesuits in each of these 'reductions' held absolute power, they acted through subordinates but in reality the Jesuit was lord of all he surveyed." Also, the concluding sentence ("The Indians were ruthlessly exploited for their own ends by Europeans.") conflates Jesuit missions with "Europeans." In fact, the title of its non-pincited source, The Communist Christian Republic of the Guranis, actually undercutes the suggestion that the Jesuit missions in particular were exploitative (since a commune would equitably share its revenue).
If you can source or generally support statements such as these (particularly "the Jesuit was lord of all he surveyed"), then please do so in the article. Quite frankly, I would like to hear how this paragraph can be justified. Otherwise, the sentence on non-ordination of indigenous peoples should be moved to a different paragraph, the sentence on European exploitation should be removed or re-written on the basis of relevance, and the unsourced and biased sentences should be removed outright.
-- SaabaruMM ( talk) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I'm quite aware of my mistakes on that, maybe I should have pointed out it was rather ortography than speaking itself which makes it similar (Milpa Alta speakers have said they still use classical writing). It's fine for you to correct me. We're about to develop a new phase of the Nahuatl Wikipedia, which will include some modern variants, though we're still searching native users. -- Fluence ( talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a Checkuser should be requested for the other folks, too. Nothing personal, but: User:210.19.71.60 and User:Lacrystallililcry are both recent accounts with very few edits; they suddenly appeared out of nowhere and joined the discussion on MdA's side, forming a whole "party", using "advanced" Wikipedian arguments almost identical to hers; and in the end 210 conveniently acted as more "radical" than MdA, allowing her to present her version as a compromise (a tecnhique that sockpuppeteers sometimes use).-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But User:Giovanni Giove, User:Brunodam, and User:Iamandrewrice are all known to be male (and now known to be eachother), so how can Magdalena be part of him? 78.151.145.115 ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point on the European ethnicity talk page. I hope you will also contribute to Ethnic group and Race as well as Culture. But more pressing: If you have time could you read over and comment on this discussion? I think the policy needs to be revised. After a tentative proposal, I realized I do not have enough of a perspective to make a good one. But there has been a lot more discussion since I first raised the issue, and I would really value your contribution to the discussion. This policy will have far reaching consequences for the articles you and I edit, so it is worth making sure the relevant sections of the policy are well-informed, well-thought-out and well-crafted. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the article on Chichimeca, that name was a catchall term for many groups that had in common they were not Nahua. This seems to contradict the edit you made today. I see what an expert you are from your user page. Could you go to the Acatitlan talk page and explain the ethnic terminology a little? Thanks. Hurmata ( talk) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Guy, all this revert bullshit can be avoided simply by you continuing the discussion, rather than you just taking it upon yourself to change things. Before I came into the article, the bit about the African origins was in the article, and HAS been in the article for quite some time. My additions were simply to point out the flaw in the one argument. I could have just deleted it since it is invalid, but I chose to leave the information there. Godheval ( talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I see we're getting nowhere, so I reported it here. NJGW ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you've been here long enough to know this, but I don't see a previous 3RR warning on your talk page, so I'll leave you one now. No matter how much you disagree with the other editor, edit warring is disruptive, and you've broken WP:3RR. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing. -- barneca ( talk) 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Maunus. I will do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raayen ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Maunus. I did it quick & dirty from tidbits I've collected, half of which I don't remember where they came from, so it wouldn't surprise me if some BS slipped in there. I'm not keeping all these pages on my watch list (I'm at 1300 pages as it is), so if you feel some of them need correction, please let me know. I'd be most interested in what I've missed so I can update my own material. Like the info on Paezan, which was completely new to me and a beautiful lesson on how not to do historical linguistics. kwami ( talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we want a Mura-Matanawi article apart from Macro-Warpean? kwami ( talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it was Kaufman (1994). I don't even give Greenberg credence in Africa. kwami ( talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.
People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 10:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What is your disagreement with the passage you keep deleting, and how would you reword/rework it to your satisfaction? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Please, join our discussion on the spelling of "Na-Dene" on the Na-Dene languages talk page. Thank you! -- Pe t 'usek petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, thanks for jumping in on the recent "discussion" at Wallace Wattles. Sometimes it just takes one more person to bring rabid editors in line with the more standard practice (I'm trying to be nice here). Your time and intervention is much appreciated. Madman ( talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain the reason for your revert on Maltese language. Cheers. 78.146.59.194 ( talk) 10:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I also tell you that the vord "knabo" should not be uzed if you wish to avoidd sexism (but with your historio of racism, I guess this not bother you), and instead use knabiĉo, and use "knabo" for child, even though already exist vord for child, due to Riism. 78.146.59.194 ( talk) 11:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This is old, but can I tell you this interaction will amuse me for, like, the next two weeks? A cup o' kakaw with chiles for you... ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please explainu this revert. Did you even check what it is you were reverting? I have not added anything that has discussed on talkpage. 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For Canvas. [3] [4] to help you avoid breaking edit war rule!!!!! 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 11:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The article asserts that kra is used only in lower case. I have requested citation and left a note on the talk page. If you know something about the subject, could you please weigh in? Thanks, Tomer talk 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop making out like I am trying to increase the "worth" of Punic. I have not changed anything. I have simply clarified that it is not accepted by mainstream linguistics. 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You are become increasingly tiring now, and it is annoying. You have NOT discussed this source and relexification together. 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've checked through this user's contribution history for edits made to Punic language and Maltese language. Diffs are [ [5]] [ [6]] [ [7]] [ [8]] [ [9]] [ [10]] . The user identifies himself by name, location, occupation, has a long contribution record etc. etc. and if he were the source of the trolling it would be (in my view) extremely bizarre. But three of the edits were made shortly after an edit by Kalindascopy was reverted, and the edits seem to be similar in POV. He mentions on his user page that his sister and cousin are also editors, and supplies their user names (which are inactive). He last edited 25 August (LDS Polygamy) He supplies three IP addresses used when he is too lazy to log in (his words). He edits a lot of articles on Arabic. Maybe worth asking him if he knows the trollers? Ning ning ( talk) 07:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There's been a plot to frame me? This is almost exciting. Am I off the suspects list, or will somebody be round to collect a cheek swab? Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle ( talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not one of "the accounts" as you suggested on the talkpage of the key I created, but I was the one who first taught the three of them how to use elite proxies. There are in fact three people behind the accounts, not one, as one of them seems to have gained some sort of kick out of propagandaing. One lives in America, one in Malta, and one in the UK. I was also an outside observer of the situation (having not been banned from this wikipedia), since I had vested real life interests in a certain one of the three. It was through observing this user that I came to meet the other two. A connection involving the three of them formed, and I taught them how to use a system that would make them appear to live in multiple places simultaneously (elite proxies). Two of the users also apparently decided at one point it would be fun to log into each others accounts and edit, so that a checkuser would be completely confused. This is the case with User:ItaliaIrredenta, who was used by both of them, and this is the reason the checkuser could not decide whether User:MagdelenaDiArco or User:Brunodam was behind it. Anyway, if one of them tries to frame me again, I shall give out more information about them, so let it be seen that this is the last chance. So next time, dear "Maunus", I would more than appreciate it if you didn't estimate the answer without having any single perception of what is really going on here.
Anyway, the point in hand...
Kalindoscopy was blocked a while ago. However, he has been editing during that block with one of the elite proxies. For proof, see where he accidentally uses the IP here, and then realizes, and corrects it with his account. If you check the contributions of that IP, you will see that he used the IP during the time period he was blocked, and rather a lot for that matter.
-- Mingeyqla ( talk) 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Byeitical (
talk ·
contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey there Maunus. Please see this new section at WT:MESO, for a proposal by Hoopes that some of his current students make some refereed contribs & expansions to various Maya articles- a welcome idea, IMO. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding and improving the article on Jørgen Rischel! ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus,
Long time no chat. I've moved a total of seven "list of endangered languages in x" lists into main space. They are linked at the newly stripped-down List of endangered languages. However, List of endangered languages in North America still needs a lot of help. There is a lot of (unverified) info at User:Ling.Nut/EthnicList. I also temporarily skipped over the Zapotec, Zoque and Otomi languages as they are larger and need careful attention. Any help you could offer would be deeply appreciated. Thanks Ling. Nut (WP:3IAR) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, I have been working thru our GA reviewer's thoughts on
Olmec and I realized it's all your fault! You were the one who suggested that Olmec was good enough for a Good Article. : )
But, seriously, folks, I've been thinking about his suggestions on the use of "perhaps" and "probably" in the article (see
Talk:Olmec/GA1):
I guess I like "perhaps" because it's just so short and snappy. Long clauses like those suggested seem to be fluff and not particularly helpful since the "perhaps"s and "probably"s should already be qualified by a citation. Rather than saying this to our reviewer, however, I thought I would get a 3rd opinion: yours! Give it some thought, and thanks again for all your opinions, Madman ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Maunus:
Check out the wiki article about the Atlatl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl. It looks like the IPA pronunciations are wrong. Senor Cuete ( talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete
No problem on removing the prod. The main concerns about the article were the sources and references -- of which there were none. The only items on the page were two external links: one to a UN study on using indigenous knowledge for environmental conservation, which doesn't address the issues in this article; and the second link was to the IPACC, an indigenous peoples advocacy group, which doesn't qualify as an objective reliable source. As you noted, the writing style is a problem -- POV problems exist because the tone seems reflects only the POV of IPACC rather than any other independent RS. (IPACC already has a page on WP and if this article offers nothing more than a repeat of those ideas, is there a need for this page?). I'll be interested to see your improvements. — CactusWriter | needles 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I replied on the talk page of European ethnic groups. It seems the whole immigration section needs to be carefully rewritten with sources and there are difficulties with the use of terms like Assyrian and Persian, which would not necessarily show up in a UK census for example. But all this can be sorted out bit by bit and probably fairly systematically, starting from the various geographical parts of Asia. Statistics and sources have been a perennial problem on this page. Mathsci ( talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I rather think you have confused me with the other person who was reverting the contributions of CherylMillard. I was simply asking for the contributor to source what appears to be good faith edits which is very necessary for any contributions to what as you will no doubt know is one of the most vandalised articles on wikipedia. As you have now decided to re-add these contributions I trust that you will now reference them. Cheers - Galloglass 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus,
Our moonbats are back at Burusho and Burushaski. Mind helping me police it while I request a sock check? kwami ( talk) 06:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry, if it bother you, i just pleaseing add other...but now i stopped it. if u dont mind u keep it, or r u going remove all of those or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqqalikitaaq ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What going on? telling me what your rules....?( Haqqalikitaaq ( talk) 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I replied on my talk page. Cheers. Alun ( talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I will take a look - by the way, do you know many people working in lowland south american linguistics, especially "performance" linguistics or sociolinguistics? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "soft delete" unless you just mean nominating the article for deletion. I would support that because it is absurd to have an article that is about a fringe theory that comes from one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
oi, something potentially scary is going on over here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Please consult the Wikipedia entries on Papuan languages and Austronesian languages. Just because a language is spoken in Papua New Guinea does not mean it is a "Papuan" language. (In any case, Mangga is spoken on the New Guinea side, not the Papuan side of the country.) The Buang languages, including Mangga, are Austronesian, which in the PNG linguistic context means they are not Papuan, since Papuan is a catchall label for all the indigenous languages that are not Austronesian. I did my dissertation in linguistics on the languages of that area. Joel ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus. What do you reckon, about the various Nahuatl derivation explanations that may be found for teayo, as in the archaeological site and pyramid Castillo de Teayo (Mesoamerican site)? Does the explanation given by INAFED as noted in that article—" Teayo comes from the Nahuatl te-ayo-k, which means 'tortoise atop stone' "— make morphological sense in Nahuatl? Have not been able to locate any linguistics-based sources that address the word's origins, only a smattering of guidebooks and municipal/Veracruzano governmental sites. Nothing at INAH either.
Many of those sites' explanations implicate tetl "stone" and ayotl "turtle", and from what I understand iconographic elements at the archaeological site do so as well. But the gob.mx websites vary considerably in explaining how teayo is obtained from these, & some seem to contradict themselves in several places. One part of the Veracruzano govt portal also adds ayotli "gourd" into the mix. Others say it's from wastek not nahuatl, but that seems to be mistaken as the word for turtle/tortoise in Wastek is quite different, I gather. Not that it's any big deal, more for my own edification really. Best, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 07:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
… your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-exclusive ethnic group would be very useful. Uncle G ( talk) 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can contribute to this discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Maunus- wondering if you've any or knowledge of other primary sources that give a different acct of Itzcoatl's parentage (specifically the identity of his mother), per the question posed at talk:Itzcoatl. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 06:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus, I have a small query about a Nahuatl word. Does Nahuatl have accents over the vowels? I'm putting together an article on Xochitécatl in Tlaxcala, and my (Spanish) source gives the first element as xóchitl (flower) - should that be xochitl?
Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edit. I would like to point out to you firstly, that it considered bad practice to revert without summary, and doing so can be considered vandalism. More to the point, is your revert itself. It's obvious you're simply reverting because you've seen other editers do the same. Well, after I spoke to one user, and got them to look properly at what I did, they replied indicating their support for the paragraph. I have not edited anything to do with the language being mixed/ creole - all I have done is clarified where parts of the language came from, e.g. that some was from French, and that the loanwords from Romanic languages are sometimes considered as a superstructure; all of which is referenced. If you disagree, you will have to discuss it and disprove the references. I must admit I am tired of you assuming that any edit of mine is automatically POV pushing, and hope you can learn from Pietru. Mingeyqla ( talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. If you cared to check the history of the page, you would see that Taivo was already in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. However, despite what you may think of me, I am not here to wage petty wars and disputese - my primary aim was to see that the article came out all the better for everything that is happening to it - not for the worst. Again, I ask you to assume good faith, and if not, do something about it, but you can't hover around the middle with an "oh, let's not listen to what he says because some of us think he's a sockpuppet" attitude. Mingeyqla ( talk) 20:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the precise nature of the accusations might be difficult to prove and so problematic to maintain on the page, and even if the accusers did come forward, these accusations could be considered personal. But the fact that two of the best known and arguably most powerful linguists in the world were removed from their positions and stripped of their power in this way is not an everyday event, and the public has a right to know about this. Bluerambler ( talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems we have some things in common: conozco bien a Mexico (y Guatemala), og er af danske slaegt. So whence this antipathy to Greenberg? Do Danish linguists uniformly reject the path set by old Holger Pedersen?-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Chalcatzingo ball court.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 19:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the photos. Several of the bas-relief ones are just excellent, and shockingly clear for such a difficult subject.
I quickly added one of these photos to the Chalcatzingo article and linked to a second. I plan on using the rest in a gallery. If it would be alright, I may end up moving them to Commons so that other Wikipedias could also use the photos.
Thanks again, Madman ( talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Maunus,
may I ask your help? I am a user of Wikipedia from Russia. I am interested in
Mesoamerican cultures and editor of the Native American portal in the Russian Wikipedia. At the moment, I am translating the
Pipil article into Russian. The article contains remarks on partial or total disputability of the text. Since I am not a specialist in Mesoamerican history and culture, I wonder whether the text is really wrong; it seems not to be wrong, at least according to this source:
Culture and Customs of El Salvador. Can you please help me and comment, just in 1-2 phrases? --
Dmitri Lytov (
talk) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you're in Mexico but I figure maybe down the line you may be interested in becoming a member of this organization, so I'll leave this note for you anyway.
Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 08:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Maunus. Is Macehualmej a viable autonym for "Nahua"? I have seen it used by CDI publications, but not widely mentioned elsewhere.
Does the one currently given at Indigenous peoples in Mexico (nawatlaka) have currency? I suppose much like with the Maya the concept of there being an autonym is not really appropriate.
PS. Do you have an opinion or information on whether Caxcan survives today as an identifiable cultural or ethnolinguistic entity? See discussion on the article's talk pg, and the recent edits by a new user to portray Caxcan as a current, instead of historical, group designation.
No great rush, whenever you may have some time to spare. Hope all's well in Mexico & with your fieldwork. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for coming up with alternate language for the word "whilst." I have reluctantly battled English speakers over this word before, usually unsuccessfully. I'm not sure why they are in love with it! I wish we could put this into a style guide somehow. Of course, the battle would rage for months! Not sure I have the stamina for that! :) Student7 ( talk) 12:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Maunus. How would you analyse this compound? The first part is evident; the second, I gather is sposed to come from xopēhua "to give s.o. a kick" or "reject with disdain"..? Is the ending change to -peuh 'cos it's in a compound, or..? Does the construction work morphologically?
If so, is there any justification for the alternative spelling sometimes encountered, Coatlalopeuh ?
My impression is that this is not so much a term found in genuine classical nahuatl texts, but is more likely a term dredged up circa 17thC in an attempt to give some plausibility in explaining the appearance of the word "guadalupe" in the Nican Mophua as being natively derived from Nahuatl. ie, instead of acknowledging the word (and therefore the cult at Tepeyac) as an import from Spain. Also, despite some modern revisions to the contrary Coatlaxopeuh does not reference any actual Aztec deity figure, pre- or post-conquest, and supposed connection w Coatlicue, Tonatzin et al is not valid. Instead it's something only put forward ex post facto as a nahuatl cognate for the guadalupan apparition. Is it a term actually used in this context by nahua speakers today?
Is this on the right track, or is the term actually a viable alternative name for Tonantzin? (which itself is possibly more a generic epithet than specific deity).
I was otherwise inclined to redirect this to Our Lady of Guadalupe, were it not for the fact that the term seems to be a minor cause celebre in some contemporary chicana/feminist literature, where it seems to take on almost a life of its own as a mother/earth goddess. As such there's prob scope for s.o. to expand on its adoption & use in this literature, in addition to the (alleged) conxn w the guadalupe story. Not that I'm that much inclined to do so myself, but wondered whether you think the article as it is misleads substantially on any of these points. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
wow, the "applied linguistics" section of the "linguistics" article blows goat chunks. It is horrible. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
About the sentence "This linguistic emphasis has since become more important in Australia and South America as the documentation of rapidly dying aboriginal languages has become a primary focus in many of those regions' linguistics programs." I wanted to check with you before doing anything, but is this really necessary? I think documentation is becoming more and more important everywhere, not just in Australia and South America; I know your area of expertise is in Mesoamerican langauges and I assume Taivo's is Australia, but if we arbitrarily list in whichever areas we happen to have experience in it's just going to encourage more people to come along in the future and think, "Hey, my country should be there too!" and then we'll eventually just have an overly long and not-too-useful list of everything. Rather than arbirtarily singling out some regions and ignoring others (for example, Central Asia, my pet region for language documentation, or all the various subgroups in North America), would it be better just to remove mention of specific regions and say something along the lines of "this linguistic emphasis has become more and more important throughout most of the world in recent years"? rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time and effort to create and improve articles on language and linguistics. I feel that this is an area of Wikipedia which is not really well covered. Indeed, the somewhat abstruse nature of language and linguistic theory often serves to complicate matters. However, your edits to the more historically-based articles have been very helpful. Good work! Sillyfolkboy ( talk) ( edits) Calling All Athletics Fans! 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Your recent (ongoing?) clean-up of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a very welcome improvement. I haven't read the whole page carefully, but after skimming it I am in general favorably impressed with the changes. I have one concern, though. The subsections under history - especially those devoted to Boas and Sapir - need third-party sources. I'll note Suzanne Kemmer's 'Biographical sketch' of each man as a quick-and-dirty solution until other sources are added.
Thank you for editing this page. Cnilep ( talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
As regards renaming the page, I'll think about it and add some more substantive comments. For now, I will just say that I have no objection to renaming the page. Cnilep ( talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is impolite to revert an extensive series of edits wholesale. This editor, however, is quickly developing a history of precipitous, sloppy and unsound edits that are not improving Wikipedia, and frankly I don't have time to parse each and every one to see if they are well-sourced, attractive, and incrementally better. See my several unanswered (and polite and patient) entries on the user's talk page on the subject, as well as my efforts at WP:EAR to resolve the matter. I fully appreciate that my reversion appears abrupt - and perhaps it was too much so - but if I've done a bad job of things it is not for lack of good faith effort. I welcome any more productive suggestions you may have. JohnInDC ( talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock! Oh, my. I didn't see that coming. JohnInDC ( talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thank a lot mister Maunus fr keeping my edits, and for defending me face to John, I guess my edits are justifiable for such a big and beautiful city like Copenhagen, I only improved it and now its better as you know :) between mister, can you help me in situations like this again ? thanks :) Wow Scotland ! ( talk) 15:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Maunus. My copy of Mithun (1999) arrived. Her use of sources and discussion indicate that she follows a growing consensus among those working on the various proposed Penutian languages, that they are genetically related (those in western North America north of Mexico, that is). She does that both in her short 3 page overview of Penutian, and in each of the particular language family articles. Check out how I changed the Penutian article just now, hopefully in a way that portrays her point of view, but maintains overall neutrality. Be my guest and revert, if I am out of line with this. Or do minor improvements. Or write me a note to discuss alternate ways we can portray all this. Middle Fork ( talk) 00:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
+I changed Marie-Lucie Tarpent's name from Tarpant and suggested that you tae the block quote by Haas out of the lead. It is a good quote but not really material for a wp:lead. I also think that you should mention in the lead that the various expansions to the core penutian group is what has attracted most criticism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your request to CJLL Wright for assistance in moving a page. So.. why aren't you an admin? Would you be willing to be nominated to be one? We haven't interacted in a long time but I know you'd be a fine admin and you certainly have been around here long enough. -- Richard ( talk) 06:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you beginning to understand now my degree of resignation on the article about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Those who would wax the subject are so many and persistent that attempts to temper the content with neutrality and matter-of-fact statements becomes futile, from my perspective. -- Marvin Shilmer ( talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Dude! You blocked the entire library system till some date late in August. If I want to fuck with Wiki, I can easily find a computer to do it with. Check WRIGHTS talk page under Stop Fucking Up to see a resolution to this now "old" problem.
Thank you for your comments on Central Morocco Tamazight's GAR! Regarding the status of the language in Algeria, Ethnologue implies that there is a base of speakers there, perhaps in the thousands though I can't verify that from the data I've seen. Do you think that this validates mention of Algeria's promotion of "Tamazight" to "national language" in the "status" section? Mo-Al ( talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hej, I am confused about this edit, including the summary you gave. What I did was quoting from the referenced bbc article. Therefore why "unsourced"? And I am not user:jægermester. -- Johannes Rohr ( talk) 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if my warning seemed a bit strong. It wasn't meant to insult you and perhaps I could have responded more positively to your comment on my talk page. However, DoyleCB's comment colored the discussion in an unfortunate way. As I think you've observed, there is much more going on there than in your case.
As an admin, my role in edit wars is generally not to take sides unless there is blatant disruption. I usually issue EW warnings to all parties involved if they are approaching violating 3RR. It appears that there was more going on here and your comments on my talk page were well placed.
FWIW, it's clear to me that 3RR is the easiest rule for good editors to run afoul of. I've seen a fair number of great editors end up blocked because 3RR is hard and fast, and often times they become apoplectic at the block. (I probably would too). My approach tends to be to warn early to prevent this. That's where I was coming from. Either way, good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I wanted to let you know that I didn't completely ignore your request for assistance. The problem was that my family was leaving for a weekend vacation and your situation was more complex than I could handle in the time available. Content disputes are always difficult especially when one side insists on pushing their POV instead of discussing on the Talk Page. Edit warring is always a bad idea and I usually try to observer WP:1RR, sometimes going to two reverts but I usually avoid going to three reverts.
Before leaving on vacation, I did go and look at the pages involved. However, the edit war seemed to have stopped so I figured I'd just leave things alone and see if the edit war was still going
I did consider protecting the pages involved which is my favorite way of encouraging discussion. I strongly dislike blocking editors. If I had threatened to block the edit warriors as Toddst1 did, I would have had to threaten to block you as well as Jaegermeister. That's one reason that I decided to say nothing for the time being. After noodling around for 5-10 minutes, I figured that I would do more harm than good by getting involved.
Since getting back from our mini-vacation, I have reviewed the discussion over at WP:ANI. I agree that the lack of good Dispute Resolution procedures is a weakness in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that is the way things operate around here and we just have to put up with it.
Feel free to ask me for assistance on this or other issues. Hopefully, I will be able to be of more assistance next time.
-- Richard ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You just wrote a reminder on my talk page about not "attacking" other editors. While the reminder is duly noted, I would also note that the page on tendentious editors does not propose a course of action for those editors who resume disruptive editing every few months, nor does it say what to do when such editors blatantly disregard wikipedia policy pages. My comment, to which you linked, was not intended to attack an individual, but merely to give a warning about his behavior and its contradiction of long-established Wikipedia policy. What do you suggest be done to prevent the influence of this editor, who admits to having no regard for Wikipedia's naming convention guidance? Serpent More Crafty ( talk) 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Beyond not cooperating, they have been arguing over this article for literally years. If you look at the edit history for OldMan, he edited the Humanism article heavily in January 2007, and from January 2009 to the present. [14] Likewise, Wilson Delgado edited the Humanism article heavily in January 2007, and from December 2008 to present. [15] In fact, neither really edits any articles except this one while butting heads. I'm not sure if you've read it, but the guidelines on the dispute resolution process can be found here. Personally, I think the best solution may be to have both editors agree to not edit the article (ever) again. In some extreme cases I've seen, this was on the only way to get two editors to stop edit warring on a contentious subject. ← George [ talk 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The essential aspect of McLuhan's technological humanism is that he always remained a Catholic humanist in the Thomistic tradition: one who brought to the study of technology and culture the more ancient Catholic hope that even in a world of despair (in our "descent into the maelstrom"35 with Poe's drowning sailor) that a way out of the labyrinth could be found by bringing to fruition the "reason" or "epiphany" of technological society. McLuhan's thought often recurred to the sense that there is an immanent moment of "reason" and a possible new human order in technological society which could be captured on behalf of the preservation of "civilization."
Within Christianity we find the highest and most motivated humanism. Already classic antiquity could proclaim: "Many things are wonderful in the world, but the human person surpasses them all" (Sophocles, Antigone, chorus of the first stasm). Christianity accepts and assimilates Greek humanism, and transfiguring it, transcends it to give it meaning, even in the case of the first and immediate finality of visible things, as we gather from what St Ambrose wrote: "The human person is the peak and the compendium of the universe, and the highest beauty of the whole of creation" (Exameron, IX, 75).
If you think it's in the article's best interest to maintain the English (v. Germanic) change, go ahead. But please do not revert everything (Tuscan, not 'Standard', Italian, and 'went' rather than 'is' l.256). golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 14:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:DRC. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that they attempted to remove the warning message you left them on their page. 78.151.142.191 ( talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
since when is the word enthenogenic used in describing buildings and animals? The meanings of the term "entheogen" were formally defined by Ruck et al. :In a strict sense, only those vision-producing drugs that can be shown to have figured in shamanic or religious rites would be designated entheogens, but in a looser sense, the term could also be applied to other drugs, both natural and artificial, that induce alterations of consciousness similar to those documented for ritual ingestion of traditional entheogens taken from the entheogenic article. Can you demonstrate a verifiable source for the the phrase Aztec entheogenic complex Semitransgenic ( talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you put your support in the discussion section instead of the survey section, I would suggest you state your opinion within the survey section. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, I see you reverted my edits to the Jesuit Reductions page. I had removed an extremely biased and generally unsourced paragraph. For example, it stated: "The Jesuits in each of these 'reductions' held absolute power, they acted through subordinates but in reality the Jesuit was lord of all he surveyed." Also, the concluding sentence ("The Indians were ruthlessly exploited for their own ends by Europeans.") conflates Jesuit missions with "Europeans." In fact, the title of its non-pincited source, The Communist Christian Republic of the Guranis, actually undercutes the suggestion that the Jesuit missions in particular were exploitative (since a commune would equitably share its revenue).
If you can source or generally support statements such as these (particularly "the Jesuit was lord of all he surveyed"), then please do so in the article. Quite frankly, I would like to hear how this paragraph can be justified. Otherwise, the sentence on non-ordination of indigenous peoples should be moved to a different paragraph, the sentence on European exploitation should be removed or re-written on the basis of relevance, and the unsourced and biased sentences should be removed outright.
-- SaabaruMM ( talk) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I'm quite aware of my mistakes on that, maybe I should have pointed out it was rather ortography than speaking itself which makes it similar (Milpa Alta speakers have said they still use classical writing). It's fine for you to correct me. We're about to develop a new phase of the Nahuatl Wikipedia, which will include some modern variants, though we're still searching native users. -- Fluence ( talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a Checkuser should be requested for the other folks, too. Nothing personal, but: User:210.19.71.60 and User:Lacrystallililcry are both recent accounts with very few edits; they suddenly appeared out of nowhere and joined the discussion on MdA's side, forming a whole "party", using "advanced" Wikipedian arguments almost identical to hers; and in the end 210 conveniently acted as more "radical" than MdA, allowing her to present her version as a compromise (a tecnhique that sockpuppeteers sometimes use).-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But User:Giovanni Giove, User:Brunodam, and User:Iamandrewrice are all known to be male (and now known to be eachother), so how can Magdalena be part of him? 78.151.145.115 ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point on the European ethnicity talk page. I hope you will also contribute to Ethnic group and Race as well as Culture. But more pressing: If you have time could you read over and comment on this discussion? I think the policy needs to be revised. After a tentative proposal, I realized I do not have enough of a perspective to make a good one. But there has been a lot more discussion since I first raised the issue, and I would really value your contribution to the discussion. This policy will have far reaching consequences for the articles you and I edit, so it is worth making sure the relevant sections of the policy are well-informed, well-thought-out and well-crafted. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the article on Chichimeca, that name was a catchall term for many groups that had in common they were not Nahua. This seems to contradict the edit you made today. I see what an expert you are from your user page. Could you go to the Acatitlan talk page and explain the ethnic terminology a little? Thanks. Hurmata ( talk) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Guy, all this revert bullshit can be avoided simply by you continuing the discussion, rather than you just taking it upon yourself to change things. Before I came into the article, the bit about the African origins was in the article, and HAS been in the article for quite some time. My additions were simply to point out the flaw in the one argument. I could have just deleted it since it is invalid, but I chose to leave the information there. Godheval ( talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I see we're getting nowhere, so I reported it here. NJGW ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you've been here long enough to know this, but I don't see a previous 3RR warning on your talk page, so I'll leave you one now. No matter how much you disagree with the other editor, edit warring is disruptive, and you've broken WP:3RR. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing. -- barneca ( talk) 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Maunus. I will do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raayen ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Maunus. I did it quick & dirty from tidbits I've collected, half of which I don't remember where they came from, so it wouldn't surprise me if some BS slipped in there. I'm not keeping all these pages on my watch list (I'm at 1300 pages as it is), so if you feel some of them need correction, please let me know. I'd be most interested in what I've missed so I can update my own material. Like the info on Paezan, which was completely new to me and a beautiful lesson on how not to do historical linguistics. kwami ( talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we want a Mura-Matanawi article apart from Macro-Warpean? kwami ( talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it was Kaufman (1994). I don't even give Greenberg credence in Africa. kwami ( talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.
People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 10:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What is your disagreement with the passage you keep deleting, and how would you reword/rework it to your satisfaction? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Please, join our discussion on the spelling of "Na-Dene" on the Na-Dene languages talk page. Thank you! -- Pe t 'usek petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, thanks for jumping in on the recent "discussion" at Wallace Wattles. Sometimes it just takes one more person to bring rabid editors in line with the more standard practice (I'm trying to be nice here). Your time and intervention is much appreciated. Madman ( talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain the reason for your revert on Maltese language. Cheers. 78.146.59.194 ( talk) 10:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I also tell you that the vord "knabo" should not be uzed if you wish to avoidd sexism (but with your historio of racism, I guess this not bother you), and instead use knabiĉo, and use "knabo" for child, even though already exist vord for child, due to Riism. 78.146.59.194 ( talk) 11:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This is old, but can I tell you this interaction will amuse me for, like, the next two weeks? A cup o' kakaw with chiles for you... ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please explainu this revert. Did you even check what it is you were reverting? I have not added anything that has discussed on talkpage. 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For Canvas. [3] [4] to help you avoid breaking edit war rule!!!!! 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 11:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The article asserts that kra is used only in lower case. I have requested citation and left a note on the talk page. If you know something about the subject, could you please weigh in? Thanks, Tomer talk 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop making out like I am trying to increase the "worth" of Punic. I have not changed anything. I have simply clarified that it is not accepted by mainstream linguistics. 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You are become increasingly tiring now, and it is annoying. You have NOT discussed this source and relexification together. 78.149.202.191 ( talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've checked through this user's contribution history for edits made to Punic language and Maltese language. Diffs are [ [5]] [ [6]] [ [7]] [ [8]] [ [9]] [ [10]] . The user identifies himself by name, location, occupation, has a long contribution record etc. etc. and if he were the source of the trolling it would be (in my view) extremely bizarre. But three of the edits were made shortly after an edit by Kalindascopy was reverted, and the edits seem to be similar in POV. He mentions on his user page that his sister and cousin are also editors, and supplies their user names (which are inactive). He last edited 25 August (LDS Polygamy) He supplies three IP addresses used when he is too lazy to log in (his words). He edits a lot of articles on Arabic. Maybe worth asking him if he knows the trollers? Ning ning ( talk) 07:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There's been a plot to frame me? This is almost exciting. Am I off the suspects list, or will somebody be round to collect a cheek swab? Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle ( talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not one of "the accounts" as you suggested on the talkpage of the key I created, but I was the one who first taught the three of them how to use elite proxies. There are in fact three people behind the accounts, not one, as one of them seems to have gained some sort of kick out of propagandaing. One lives in America, one in Malta, and one in the UK. I was also an outside observer of the situation (having not been banned from this wikipedia), since I had vested real life interests in a certain one of the three. It was through observing this user that I came to meet the other two. A connection involving the three of them formed, and I taught them how to use a system that would make them appear to live in multiple places simultaneously (elite proxies). Two of the users also apparently decided at one point it would be fun to log into each others accounts and edit, so that a checkuser would be completely confused. This is the case with User:ItaliaIrredenta, who was used by both of them, and this is the reason the checkuser could not decide whether User:MagdelenaDiArco or User:Brunodam was behind it. Anyway, if one of them tries to frame me again, I shall give out more information about them, so let it be seen that this is the last chance. So next time, dear "Maunus", I would more than appreciate it if you didn't estimate the answer without having any single perception of what is really going on here.
Anyway, the point in hand...
Kalindoscopy was blocked a while ago. However, he has been editing during that block with one of the elite proxies. For proof, see where he accidentally uses the IP here, and then realizes, and corrects it with his account. If you check the contributions of that IP, you will see that he used the IP during the time period he was blocked, and rather a lot for that matter.
-- Mingeyqla ( talk) 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Byeitical (
talk ·
contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey there Maunus. Please see this new section at WT:MESO, for a proposal by Hoopes that some of his current students make some refereed contribs & expansions to various Maya articles- a welcome idea, IMO. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding and improving the article on Jørgen Rischel! ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus,
Long time no chat. I've moved a total of seven "list of endangered languages in x" lists into main space. They are linked at the newly stripped-down List of endangered languages. However, List of endangered languages in North America still needs a lot of help. There is a lot of (unverified) info at User:Ling.Nut/EthnicList. I also temporarily skipped over the Zapotec, Zoque and Otomi languages as they are larger and need careful attention. Any help you could offer would be deeply appreciated. Thanks Ling. Nut (WP:3IAR) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, I have been working thru our GA reviewer's thoughts on
Olmec and I realized it's all your fault! You were the one who suggested that Olmec was good enough for a Good Article. : )
But, seriously, folks, I've been thinking about his suggestions on the use of "perhaps" and "probably" in the article (see
Talk:Olmec/GA1):
I guess I like "perhaps" because it's just so short and snappy. Long clauses like those suggested seem to be fluff and not particularly helpful since the "perhaps"s and "probably"s should already be qualified by a citation. Rather than saying this to our reviewer, however, I thought I would get a 3rd opinion: yours! Give it some thought, and thanks again for all your opinions, Madman ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Maunus:
Check out the wiki article about the Atlatl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl. It looks like the IPA pronunciations are wrong. Senor Cuete ( talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete
No problem on removing the prod. The main concerns about the article were the sources and references -- of which there were none. The only items on the page were two external links: one to a UN study on using indigenous knowledge for environmental conservation, which doesn't address the issues in this article; and the second link was to the IPACC, an indigenous peoples advocacy group, which doesn't qualify as an objective reliable source. As you noted, the writing style is a problem -- POV problems exist because the tone seems reflects only the POV of IPACC rather than any other independent RS. (IPACC already has a page on WP and if this article offers nothing more than a repeat of those ideas, is there a need for this page?). I'll be interested to see your improvements. — CactusWriter | needles 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I replied on the talk page of European ethnic groups. It seems the whole immigration section needs to be carefully rewritten with sources and there are difficulties with the use of terms like Assyrian and Persian, which would not necessarily show up in a UK census for example. But all this can be sorted out bit by bit and probably fairly systematically, starting from the various geographical parts of Asia. Statistics and sources have been a perennial problem on this page. Mathsci ( talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I rather think you have confused me with the other person who was reverting the contributions of CherylMillard. I was simply asking for the contributor to source what appears to be good faith edits which is very necessary for any contributions to what as you will no doubt know is one of the most vandalised articles on wikipedia. As you have now decided to re-add these contributions I trust that you will now reference them. Cheers - Galloglass 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus,
Our moonbats are back at Burusho and Burushaski. Mind helping me police it while I request a sock check? kwami ( talk) 06:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry, if it bother you, i just pleaseing add other...but now i stopped it. if u dont mind u keep it, or r u going remove all of those or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqqalikitaaq ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What going on? telling me what your rules....?( Haqqalikitaaq ( talk) 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I replied on my talk page. Cheers. Alun ( talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I will take a look - by the way, do you know many people working in lowland south american linguistics, especially "performance" linguistics or sociolinguistics? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "soft delete" unless you just mean nominating the article for deletion. I would support that because it is absurd to have an article that is about a fringe theory that comes from one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
oi, something potentially scary is going on over here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Please consult the Wikipedia entries on Papuan languages and Austronesian languages. Just because a language is spoken in Papua New Guinea does not mean it is a "Papuan" language. (In any case, Mangga is spoken on the New Guinea side, not the Papuan side of the country.) The Buang languages, including Mangga, are Austronesian, which in the PNG linguistic context means they are not Papuan, since Papuan is a catchall label for all the indigenous languages that are not Austronesian. I did my dissertation in linguistics on the languages of that area. Joel ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus. What do you reckon, about the various Nahuatl derivation explanations that may be found for teayo, as in the archaeological site and pyramid Castillo de Teayo (Mesoamerican site)? Does the explanation given by INAFED as noted in that article—" Teayo comes from the Nahuatl te-ayo-k, which means 'tortoise atop stone' "— make morphological sense in Nahuatl? Have not been able to locate any linguistics-based sources that address the word's origins, only a smattering of guidebooks and municipal/Veracruzano governmental sites. Nothing at INAH either.
Many of those sites' explanations implicate tetl "stone" and ayotl "turtle", and from what I understand iconographic elements at the archaeological site do so as well. But the gob.mx websites vary considerably in explaining how teayo is obtained from these, & some seem to contradict themselves in several places. One part of the Veracruzano govt portal also adds ayotli "gourd" into the mix. Others say it's from wastek not nahuatl, but that seems to be mistaken as the word for turtle/tortoise in Wastek is quite different, I gather. Not that it's any big deal, more for my own edification really. Best, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 07:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
… your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-exclusive ethnic group would be very useful. Uncle G ( talk) 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can contribute to this discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Maunus- wondering if you've any or knowledge of other primary sources that give a different acct of Itzcoatl's parentage (specifically the identity of his mother), per the question posed at talk:Itzcoatl. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 06:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Maunus, I have a small query about a Nahuatl word. Does Nahuatl have accents over the vowels? I'm putting together an article on Xochitécatl in Tlaxcala, and my (Spanish) source gives the first element as xóchitl (flower) - should that be xochitl?
Best regards, Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edit. I would like to point out to you firstly, that it considered bad practice to revert without summary, and doing so can be considered vandalism. More to the point, is your revert itself. It's obvious you're simply reverting because you've seen other editers do the same. Well, after I spoke to one user, and got them to look properly at what I did, they replied indicating their support for the paragraph. I have not edited anything to do with the language being mixed/ creole - all I have done is clarified where parts of the language came from, e.g. that some was from French, and that the loanwords from Romanic languages are sometimes considered as a superstructure; all of which is referenced. If you disagree, you will have to discuss it and disprove the references. I must admit I am tired of you assuming that any edit of mine is automatically POV pushing, and hope you can learn from Pietru. Mingeyqla ( talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. If you cared to check the history of the page, you would see that Taivo was already in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. However, despite what you may think of me, I am not here to wage petty wars and disputese - my primary aim was to see that the article came out all the better for everything that is happening to it - not for the worst. Again, I ask you to assume good faith, and if not, do something about it, but you can't hover around the middle with an "oh, let's not listen to what he says because some of us think he's a sockpuppet" attitude. Mingeyqla ( talk) 20:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the precise nature of the accusations might be difficult to prove and so problematic to maintain on the page, and even if the accusers did come forward, these accusations could be considered personal. But the fact that two of the best known and arguably most powerful linguists in the world were removed from their positions and stripped of their power in this way is not an everyday event, and the public has a right to know about this. Bluerambler ( talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems we have some things in common: conozco bien a Mexico (y Guatemala), og er af danske slaegt. So whence this antipathy to Greenberg? Do Danish linguists uniformly reject the path set by old Holger Pedersen?-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Chalcatzingo ball court.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 19:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the photos. Several of the bas-relief ones are just excellent, and shockingly clear for such a difficult subject.
I quickly added one of these photos to the Chalcatzingo article and linked to a second. I plan on using the rest in a gallery. If it would be alright, I may end up moving them to Commons so that other Wikipedias could also use the photos.
Thanks again, Madman ( talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Maunus,
may I ask your help? I am a user of Wikipedia from Russia. I am interested in
Mesoamerican cultures and editor of the Native American portal in the Russian Wikipedia. At the moment, I am translating the
Pipil article into Russian. The article contains remarks on partial or total disputability of the text. Since I am not a specialist in Mesoamerican history and culture, I wonder whether the text is really wrong; it seems not to be wrong, at least according to this source:
Culture and Customs of El Salvador. Can you please help me and comment, just in 1-2 phrases? --
Dmitri Lytov (
talk) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you're in Mexico but I figure maybe down the line you may be interested in becoming a member of this organization, so I'll leave this note for you anyway.
Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 08:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Maunus. Is Macehualmej a viable autonym for "Nahua"? I have seen it used by CDI publications, but not widely mentioned elsewhere.
Does the one currently given at Indigenous peoples in Mexico (nawatlaka) have currency? I suppose much like with the Maya the concept of there being an autonym is not really appropriate.
PS. Do you have an opinion or information on whether Caxcan survives today as an identifiable cultural or ethnolinguistic entity? See discussion on the article's talk pg, and the recent edits by a new user to portray Caxcan as a current, instead of historical, group designation.
No great rush, whenever you may have some time to spare. Hope all's well in Mexico & with your fieldwork. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 05:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for coming up with alternate language for the word "whilst." I have reluctantly battled English speakers over this word before, usually unsuccessfully. I'm not sure why they are in love with it! I wish we could put this into a style guide somehow. Of course, the battle would rage for months! Not sure I have the stamina for that! :) Student7 ( talk) 12:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Maunus. How would you analyse this compound? The first part is evident; the second, I gather is sposed to come from xopēhua "to give s.o. a kick" or "reject with disdain"..? Is the ending change to -peuh 'cos it's in a compound, or..? Does the construction work morphologically?
If so, is there any justification for the alternative spelling sometimes encountered, Coatlalopeuh ?
My impression is that this is not so much a term found in genuine classical nahuatl texts, but is more likely a term dredged up circa 17thC in an attempt to give some plausibility in explaining the appearance of the word "guadalupe" in the Nican Mophua as being natively derived from Nahuatl. ie, instead of acknowledging the word (and therefore the cult at Tepeyac) as an import from Spain. Also, despite some modern revisions to the contrary Coatlaxopeuh does not reference any actual Aztec deity figure, pre- or post-conquest, and supposed connection w Coatlicue, Tonatzin et al is not valid. Instead it's something only put forward ex post facto as a nahuatl cognate for the guadalupan apparition. Is it a term actually used in this context by nahua speakers today?
Is this on the right track, or is the term actually a viable alternative name for Tonantzin? (which itself is possibly more a generic epithet than specific deity).
I was otherwise inclined to redirect this to Our Lady of Guadalupe, were it not for the fact that the term seems to be a minor cause celebre in some contemporary chicana/feminist literature, where it seems to take on almost a life of its own as a mother/earth goddess. As such there's prob scope for s.o. to expand on its adoption & use in this literature, in addition to the (alleged) conxn w the guadalupe story. Not that I'm that much inclined to do so myself, but wondered whether you think the article as it is misleads substantially on any of these points. Saludos, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
wow, the "applied linguistics" section of the "linguistics" article blows goat chunks. It is horrible. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
About the sentence "This linguistic emphasis has since become more important in Australia and South America as the documentation of rapidly dying aboriginal languages has become a primary focus in many of those regions' linguistics programs." I wanted to check with you before doing anything, but is this really necessary? I think documentation is becoming more and more important everywhere, not just in Australia and South America; I know your area of expertise is in Mesoamerican langauges and I assume Taivo's is Australia, but if we arbitrarily list in whichever areas we happen to have experience in it's just going to encourage more people to come along in the future and think, "Hey, my country should be there too!" and then we'll eventually just have an overly long and not-too-useful list of everything. Rather than arbirtarily singling out some regions and ignoring others (for example, Central Asia, my pet region for language documentation, or all the various subgroups in North America), would it be better just to remove mention of specific regions and say something along the lines of "this linguistic emphasis has become more and more important throughout most of the world in recent years"? rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time and effort to create and improve articles on language and linguistics. I feel that this is an area of Wikipedia which is not really well covered. Indeed, the somewhat abstruse nature of language and linguistic theory often serves to complicate matters. However, your edits to the more historically-based articles have been very helpful. Good work! Sillyfolkboy ( talk) ( edits) Calling All Athletics Fans! 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Your recent (ongoing?) clean-up of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a very welcome improvement. I haven't read the whole page carefully, but after skimming it I am in general favorably impressed with the changes. I have one concern, though. The subsections under history - especially those devoted to Boas and Sapir - need third-party sources. I'll note Suzanne Kemmer's 'Biographical sketch' of each man as a quick-and-dirty solution until other sources are added.
Thank you for editing this page. Cnilep ( talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
As regards renaming the page, I'll think about it and add some more substantive comments. For now, I will just say that I have no objection to renaming the page. Cnilep ( talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is impolite to revert an extensive series of edits wholesale. This editor, however, is quickly developing a history of precipitous, sloppy and unsound edits that are not improving Wikipedia, and frankly I don't have time to parse each and every one to see if they are well-sourced, attractive, and incrementally better. See my several unanswered (and polite and patient) entries on the user's talk page on the subject, as well as my efforts at WP:EAR to resolve the matter. I fully appreciate that my reversion appears abrupt - and perhaps it was too much so - but if I've done a bad job of things it is not for lack of good faith effort. I welcome any more productive suggestions you may have. JohnInDC ( talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock! Oh, my. I didn't see that coming. JohnInDC ( talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thank a lot mister Maunus fr keeping my edits, and for defending me face to John, I guess my edits are justifiable for such a big and beautiful city like Copenhagen, I only improved it and now its better as you know :) between mister, can you help me in situations like this again ? thanks :) Wow Scotland ! ( talk) 15:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Maunus. My copy of Mithun (1999) arrived. Her use of sources and discussion indicate that she follows a growing consensus among those working on the various proposed Penutian languages, that they are genetically related (those in western North America north of Mexico, that is). She does that both in her short 3 page overview of Penutian, and in each of the particular language family articles. Check out how I changed the Penutian article just now, hopefully in a way that portrays her point of view, but maintains overall neutrality. Be my guest and revert, if I am out of line with this. Or do minor improvements. Or write me a note to discuss alternate ways we can portray all this. Middle Fork ( talk) 00:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
+I changed Marie-Lucie Tarpent's name from Tarpant and suggested that you tae the block quote by Haas out of the lead. It is a good quote but not really material for a wp:lead. I also think that you should mention in the lead that the various expansions to the core penutian group is what has attracted most criticism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your request to CJLL Wright for assistance in moving a page. So.. why aren't you an admin? Would you be willing to be nominated to be one? We haven't interacted in a long time but I know you'd be a fine admin and you certainly have been around here long enough. -- Richard ( talk) 06:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you beginning to understand now my degree of resignation on the article about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Those who would wax the subject are so many and persistent that attempts to temper the content with neutrality and matter-of-fact statements becomes futile, from my perspective. -- Marvin Shilmer ( talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Dude! You blocked the entire library system till some date late in August. If I want to fuck with Wiki, I can easily find a computer to do it with. Check WRIGHTS talk page under Stop Fucking Up to see a resolution to this now "old" problem.
Thank you for your comments on Central Morocco Tamazight's GAR! Regarding the status of the language in Algeria, Ethnologue implies that there is a base of speakers there, perhaps in the thousands though I can't verify that from the data I've seen. Do you think that this validates mention of Algeria's promotion of "Tamazight" to "national language" in the "status" section? Mo-Al ( talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hej, I am confused about this edit, including the summary you gave. What I did was quoting from the referenced bbc article. Therefore why "unsourced"? And I am not user:jægermester. -- Johannes Rohr ( talk) 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if my warning seemed a bit strong. It wasn't meant to insult you and perhaps I could have responded more positively to your comment on my talk page. However, DoyleCB's comment colored the discussion in an unfortunate way. As I think you've observed, there is much more going on there than in your case.
As an admin, my role in edit wars is generally not to take sides unless there is blatant disruption. I usually issue EW warnings to all parties involved if they are approaching violating 3RR. It appears that there was more going on here and your comments on my talk page were well placed.
FWIW, it's clear to me that 3RR is the easiest rule for good editors to run afoul of. I've seen a fair number of great editors end up blocked because 3RR is hard and fast, and often times they become apoplectic at the block. (I probably would too). My approach tends to be to warn early to prevent this. That's where I was coming from. Either way, good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I wanted to let you know that I didn't completely ignore your request for assistance. The problem was that my family was leaving for a weekend vacation and your situation was more complex than I could handle in the time available. Content disputes are always difficult especially when one side insists on pushing their POV instead of discussing on the Talk Page. Edit warring is always a bad idea and I usually try to observer WP:1RR, sometimes going to two reverts but I usually avoid going to three reverts.
Before leaving on vacation, I did go and look at the pages involved. However, the edit war seemed to have stopped so I figured I'd just leave things alone and see if the edit war was still going
I did consider protecting the pages involved which is my favorite way of encouraging discussion. I strongly dislike blocking editors. If I had threatened to block the edit warriors as Toddst1 did, I would have had to threaten to block you as well as Jaegermeister. That's one reason that I decided to say nothing for the time being. After noodling around for 5-10 minutes, I figured that I would do more harm than good by getting involved.
Since getting back from our mini-vacation, I have reviewed the discussion over at WP:ANI. I agree that the lack of good Dispute Resolution procedures is a weakness in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that is the way things operate around here and we just have to put up with it.
Feel free to ask me for assistance on this or other issues. Hopefully, I will be able to be of more assistance next time.
-- Richard ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You just wrote a reminder on my talk page about not "attacking" other editors. While the reminder is duly noted, I would also note that the page on tendentious editors does not propose a course of action for those editors who resume disruptive editing every few months, nor does it say what to do when such editors blatantly disregard wikipedia policy pages. My comment, to which you linked, was not intended to attack an individual, but merely to give a warning about his behavior and its contradiction of long-established Wikipedia policy. What do you suggest be done to prevent the influence of this editor, who admits to having no regard for Wikipedia's naming convention guidance? Serpent More Crafty ( talk) 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Beyond not cooperating, they have been arguing over this article for literally years. If you look at the edit history for OldMan, he edited the Humanism article heavily in January 2007, and from January 2009 to the present. [14] Likewise, Wilson Delgado edited the Humanism article heavily in January 2007, and from December 2008 to present. [15] In fact, neither really edits any articles except this one while butting heads. I'm not sure if you've read it, but the guidelines on the dispute resolution process can be found here. Personally, I think the best solution may be to have both editors agree to not edit the article (ever) again. In some extreme cases I've seen, this was on the only way to get two editors to stop edit warring on a contentious subject. ← George [ talk 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The essential aspect of McLuhan's technological humanism is that he always remained a Catholic humanist in the Thomistic tradition: one who brought to the study of technology and culture the more ancient Catholic hope that even in a world of despair (in our "descent into the maelstrom"35 with Poe's drowning sailor) that a way out of the labyrinth could be found by bringing to fruition the "reason" or "epiphany" of technological society. McLuhan's thought often recurred to the sense that there is an immanent moment of "reason" and a possible new human order in technological society which could be captured on behalf of the preservation of "civilization."
Within Christianity we find the highest and most motivated humanism. Already classic antiquity could proclaim: "Many things are wonderful in the world, but the human person surpasses them all" (Sophocles, Antigone, chorus of the first stasm). Christianity accepts and assimilates Greek humanism, and transfiguring it, transcends it to give it meaning, even in the case of the first and immediate finality of visible things, as we gather from what St Ambrose wrote: "The human person is the peak and the compendium of the universe, and the highest beauty of the whole of creation" (Exameron, IX, 75).