User talk:Maunus

Historical article sourcing, weighting, structures, etc

You mentioned that you have an interest in historical article sourcing, weighting, etc. You may like to look at WP:HISTRS which intends to produce a guideline with the same authority and pro-scholarly bias that WP:MEDRS has produced in the field of human bioscience. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am very interested in that kind of project, for me improving the quality of guidelines for sourcing is the only way to move wikipedia beyond the stage where every guy with an opinion and a library card can turn wikipedia's coverage of sensitive and controversial topics into a freakshow of minority opinions arguing with mainstream views as if they were on equal footing. I work in history, but most of my problems are in social science, religion and politics related areas - especially where all of those intersect. I really believe that creating strict guidelines for sourcing is the only way forward in controversial areas - for example by encouraging the use of mainstream topical encyclopedias and dictionaries and textbooks and review articles over research articles. Perhaps someone should start building something like that for Social sciences...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm about 2/3 years in to trying this, "other things" intercede on the project. One of the problems is specifying summaries of disciplinarity. In history it is relatively simple, we're all in one big tent of what effectively amounts to methods of analysing discourses; even when we use different methods of analysis, the methodologies are analogous. And when we have conflicts about theory, we rush back to empiricism (rush being a 5-15 year project of shit fighting). My understanding is that various social sciences have different methods, methodologies, theories and occasionally epistemologies. Moreover, this is still true within constrained fields like economics or sociology. I hope that HISTRS eventually contains some inspiring material for you, and I'd love to participate in SOCSCIRS, particularly when you're building consensus around it. One tip I got was (in paraphrase), "Write it up, and start citing it, and people will get used to it." Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That is good advice, and I will certainly keep an eye on the development of HISTRS - and interject a commenet every now and then when I feel it might help.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quenya

I see you've been struggling with the umlaut IPA there as well. Could you please have a look at my latest changes to the article? I think this looks better now, although we've lost the pronuncations in the "vocabulary" section. And I'm still at a loss when thinking about the diphtongs. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Tamil

INFLUENCE: My recent post on the subject has been removed on the ground 'Unsourced speculation'. Well ! If I am right, I remember that the famouse Indian linguist Mr.Suniti Kumar Chatterji once said, as I read in news papers long ago, that Tamils had reached the shores of England in ancient times and there were several English words roots of which could be traced to Tamil. He quoted words' naval' and 'force' had roots in Tamil words 'navai' and 'por sey'. It is astonoshing fact to look at similarities between English and Tamil words giving same meaning such as Victory( Tam.Vetri வெற்றி), kill (Tam.kol கொல்), war (Tam.por போர்), attach (Tamiடtakku.தாக்கு),one (Tam.onru ஒன்று), eight (Tam. ettu எட்டு),' in 'as preposition (Tam.il இல்) and other words I have already mentioned. Therefore the post has strong reason and base.. I am trying to bring only facts to the light and not debating.

K.Ramadurai (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but even if you do remember right, which wikipedia cannot really assume you do, Mr. Chatterji's proposed Tamil cognates in English are contradicted by all mainstream research, and could not be included untill they become widely accepted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! very polite and pleasing reply. The response do not sound like the one I got in ' Talk:Tamil language' page in the same subject. Thanks for information that Mr.Chatterji's proposed Tamil cognates in English are contradicted by all mainstream research.

K.Ramadurai (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you found it helpful. Generally anything you include in an article should be supported explicitly by a reliable source. Our policies of what is considered a reliable source is here WP:RS. There are of course words of Tamil origin in English, but these come through colonial contact. Some words in Tamil may look like English words either because of chance resemblance (coincidence) or because Tamil borrowed those word from an Indo-European language such as Sanskrit or Pali at a very early date.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD tag formatting

It appears that within the AfD template when placed in articles, there needs to be spaces between the vertical bars "|" where the page name is within the template. Otherwise, the link to the AfD is a red link. When the spaces are present, the link functions properly. I noticed this error in the template after you nominated the Ethics, schmethics article for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting "feature". I had noticed it was a redlink but never checked why.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Turns out it's a matter of purging the cache. When doing so, the red link becomes functional. Someone directed me to the information at WP:PURGE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Nazi Germany

Maunus, in a recent edit summary reverting my mistaken correction you wrote: "but he [the source] does not say there was a plan to 'eradicate christianity' but to subordinate it - you are misrepresenting again." It seems that misrepresent suggests an intentional act. I'd suggest you are not assuming good faith. I do see your point now after seeing the text, but I don't think it misrepresents the text any more than the one you and the other editor are advancing. My edit is no more a misrepresentation than is the other edit. The source does not say what his edit states either. Is he misrepresenting, are you? It currently reads: "To what extent there was a actual "plan,"[23]... remains contested." That is stating that Bonney is saying on p. 10 that the existence of a plan to eradicate Christianity is open to question. P. 10 simply doesn't say that. Bonney might or might not hold that point of view, but he doesn't address the issue on that page. He merely says whether a plan to subordinate the churches to the Nazis existed before the rise to power is open to question. Bonney is saying there is a question about when the plan (granted, to subordinate not to destroy) existed. He is not saying, at least on that page, that the existence of a plan (to destroy or subordinate) is open to question. He is simply not saying what he is cited for: that the existence of a plan to destroy Christianity is a matter open to question. In light of the primary title of his book "Confronting the Nazi war on Christianity", he may not hold that position at all. I'm going to edit so that it comports with his actual statement, as both my edit and the one advanced by you and the other editor "misrepresent" the source. I also have a question for you. To what extent are admins supposed to be partisans in article disputes? I don't know what is required of admins, but it seems more sensible to me when they act as neutrals when acting as administrators. Mamalujo (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as I am not using my admin tools I can edit normally like anyone else - I am only an administrator when I act as an administrator - which I do not do in disputes in which I have become involved. It is a often a subjective question to know when one goes from being uninvolved to involved - and I appreciate your bringing the question to my attention. You may be right that the word "misrepresent" suggests a lack of good faith - this lack however is caused by a consistent pattern of you representing sources in a particular tendentious way - across a wide range of articles. I actually don't think you are doing this consciously - but you are quite consistently misrepresenting sources in a way so that they seem to support a particular idea, even when they do not. And no I do not think that the current wording misrepresents he does say that the question of when a plan to subordinate Christianity existed at some point - but he quite clearly does not think that there was ever a plan to eradicate Christianity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit of clarification was a clear improvement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Race

In an effort to maintain my mental health I have unwatched articles about Race, at least for a while. This does not mean that I endorse wikipedia's current coverage of topics related to race, but rather that it is so bad that I don't have the energy to do what is required to improve it. I direct anyone who is interested in actually scientifically valid information about race to visit the American Anthropological Association's website: understanding race or the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on race.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thanks so much for mostly standing up for me against the many who were not showing integrity regarding the rules of WP. God bless you. WalkerThrough (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia that may be of eventual interest

Recent activity popped up on my watchlist, reminding me that I had once contemplated a similar equation and discovered that A + B = C. Detailed math proofs available upon request. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Was Otomi language the last time you went to FAC? Because you do know you were seriously trolled on that review, don't you? Anyway, I thought the background/history was interesting, I'm terrible when it comes to the technicalities of the linguistics but I'm willing to sweep through again with a copyedit. Or anything else you've done. I thought the Greenlandic language looked in pretty good shape too. Might be worth a revisit. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was the last time, and yes I realize a certain user wasn't there to help - but I haven't caught good vibes any of the other times I've been at FAC - it has been some years since I've nominated anything, but it doesn't seem to me the issues have gotten better. Both Otomi and Greenlandic I consider viable candidates - and Bartolomé de Las Casas or Derek Freeman could become so. But what I like is writing content not playing copyedit minion of FAC reviewers so these days I just try to work up the content to a state where I feel it is maximally helpful to a reader - then I leave it alone. I honestly don't want to go through FA reviews with any of those unless somebody else is vetting it for style and I just have to take care of the content and sourcing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I might have a look at Bartolomé de Las Casas - from a peek, looks very interesting. I think it's best to collaborate and have one person focus on the content and another on the nit-picky stuff. Please don't ever hesitate to ask me. You were an inspiration when I first started here. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think so too. I'd like to collaborate with you again, it was a great pleasure to work on the Jesuit missions with you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wicca

Reading your closure rationale, I was amused to see "slightlæy". Was this intentional or a typo? and if a typo, how does one accidently type it? Talkback or reply at my talk, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah; I forgot to look at your infoboxes, so it didn't occur to me that you might not be using an English keyboard. We can only type them by turning on num lock, holding down alt, and pressing 0230 on the numeric keypad — rather difficult to type by accident, unless you're trying to type ç or Ü, which are close to 0230 :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Danish script in an English article - you'll have the diacritics police paying you a visit! Seriously, thanks for closing the MfD with such a well argued rationale. As a knowledgeable editor in the field, I could as you point out have improved the portal rather than nominating. I chose the latter because of the amount of work it needs and the lack of traffic I assumed was passing there (based on edit frequencies.) Maybe someone else will improve it; I'm no deletionist so would be happy if they think the time is well spent. Thanks again! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The peculiarity of your close really shows how oddly the Portal namespace is treated. I wonder what kind of reaction or precedent we might expect from a "conditional delete" close.--~TPW 16:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is peculiar - but the lack of actual deletion criteria for portals make it very difficult to have any kind of policy based rationale. In this case I noted that both keep and delete voters agreed that the portal was potentially good, but needed a lot of work. I meant my close to provide incentive to actually do something about that. I am not afraid of the precedent - even if it does set a precedent I don't see how it could be damaging to have deletions conditional on progress within an established time frame. Had it been an article I would have probably offered to restore it to someone's user space - but being a portal with 100+ live links from articles, that didn't seem like the right solution either.

All told, it was a good, and bold, close. I'm not particularly afraid of the precedent, either; I'm more curious if we'll see it used as a rationale again by others.--~TPW 17:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, as another editor has made a great start in clearing out the walls of text and making this portal look usable, can I withdraw my nomination - or at least suggest that the improvements are such that it need not now be deleted? I will try to lend a hand there on maintenance now that there is obviously some interest from other editors. Thanks for your creative close which prompted this development! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to witdraw - the case is already closed. I won't delete it if there is any signs of progress.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick Ross edits

Hi Maunus. I saw that you reverted my edits to Rick Ross (consultant) saying that I removed the "juvenile delinquency" and gave a misleading edit summary. If you look closely at the edits I made, I did not remove that material from the 'Early life' section; I moved it into the controversy section that I created. My edit summary said that I added material and a section, which is what I did. I also rearranged some material so I guess I should have said that as well. I hope that with this explanation, we can change it back to the version that I had because all of the material I added was well sourced. Thanks. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi LogicalFinance, yes I admit the editsummary was mistaken - I realized when looking better at the diff. Nonetheless I think it is a very bad idea to take all the negative material into its own section. It should be integrated into the relevant sections dealing with Ross' life. Guidelines suggest that separate sections on criticism is a bad idea. I do think the material you added was wellsourced and merits inclusion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Abbas

Just a note to tell you I have sent a copy of the THE article to you by email. From your comments on the article talk page, I get the sense that you haven't read it (my apologies if I'm wrong on that). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I had read, it but then I couldn't find it again - so thanks for sending it. I can see I was perhaps wrong that there were no institutional consequences - however usually in my nec of the woods universities publish statements when issuing consequences such as suspensions - why didn't Birmingham U?. I think there are some obvious problems with the article: For example weasel words: "plagiarism "was found" in his book", with no note about who found it or how they came to know (was it the journalist who found it just now, or was it in one of the tribunals?). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the standard practice in Britain; there is nothing at all out of the ordinary in the fact that Birmingham didn't issue a public statement, indeed it would have been very much out of the ordinary if they had done so. As for "problems with the article" -- WP:OR suggests that we wouldn't get into that, particularly as no-one would worry that the THE is not a reliable source. In any event, it's clear from the article that it was an internal tribunal that found him guilty of plagiarism -- there's nothing to suggest it was Melanie Newman's judgment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cristero

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

Btw, I like how at the top of your page it says "WELCOME TO MY USERPAGE. NOT MUCH TO SEE HERE.", and then it has those two awesome images right up top. Volunteer Marek  14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

x3. Volunteer Marek  14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of "Danish traditional music" for DYK

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Danish traditional music.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mexico

I hate to be negative, but one reason I dont work on articles like this one is that everyone and his brother wants to throw his two cents in. Not vandalism, but too many cooks spoil the soup. I really dont want to put weeks of time into an article only to have to spend time constantly after defending my work and/or watch it get picked apart, little by little. If/when Wikipedia decides to "freeze" articles (proposed changes) after they reach a certain level of quality, Ill be more than happy to work on this article, Mexico City and Mexican foodThelmadatter (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of why I am asking you though - I am working there currently and the only other editor and I have a history of mutual antagonism. I was hoping that perhaps you could be a gentle voice of reason. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi Maunus, since you were adminning yesterday's fracas, and quite well I think, I'd like to ask you to follow up on this post left on Ceoil's page. I've had a look at One Ton Depot (talk · contribs) contribs and it looks like an alt account of Alarbus (talk · contribs). The One Ton Depot account seems to have been abandoned, so not really any wrong doing, but still, I think when editors can cause that amount of disruption we should have a full sense of their contribs. I'm punting this to you, because Ceoil is rightly contrite and wants to get back to content. I'm a bit less contrite to be honest. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a bit less to be contrite about, so that is fine. Looking at it I don't like what I see, but I don't know how to address it exactly. I want to assume good faith with the admin mention - I will assume it is simply a coincidence since she is involved with template editing a lot. The other two users do look uncomfortably similar.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated topic: this section of Don Quixote is difficult to understand. I assume it makes sense to you, but I'm wondering whether there's a way of writing it more clearly. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that - it's much better. Back to the Hemingway situation: I've asked RexxS here to bring the discussion about the sequence of events to a place where I can participate and am asking the same of you. Having a discussion about me on a page where I'm not welcome isn't very productive. You and RexxS are always welcome to my page and of course the talkpage is also available. Thanks for understanding. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in a conversation with Rexxs - and particularly not a conversation about you. I'm not going to pursue that further in any location. My statement was to Alarbus and it wasn't about your conduct but his/hers. RexxS is entitled to his opinion about the validity of my statement. I do of course reserve the right to disagree with it - but I will continue to do so silently.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should be silenced. I think your points are valid, but it's hard to see myself being discussed in a place where I'm unable to respond, if you can understand that. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between being silenced and just shutting up. Anyway the discussion was not about you, but about a principle.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Postclassic Maya Highlands

Hi Maunus, Spanish conquest of Guatemala is undergoing GA review, and as part of that the reviewer is asking about the sourcing of this map. I've replied with my understanding of the situation at Talk:Spanish conquest of Guatemala/GA1, I'd appreciate it if you could drop by at the review page (section 6) and clarify. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus - I've dropped the info into the image description. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wicca 2

Would you delete Portal:Wicca per your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wicca? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Many improvements have been made. I withdraw this request. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you add a post-closure comment to the MfD noting that the improvements were made to your satisfaction? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Best regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Huastec and Tzotzil

Tonantzin Carmelo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Tongva

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification

FYI: After being advised by you to take a break from the Natalie Wood article (and agreeing to do so after announcing he would leave the article), User:MathewTownsend has returned to that article and is, in my opinion, editing disruptively (see diff here). Lhb1239 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that removing one word (see diff here), and giving an explanation in the edit summary, is editing disruptively? Do You think a revert was the proper way to handle the situation? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)