User talk:Maunus

Feathered Serpent article

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

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

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

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

greets

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

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)

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

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

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

mathsci

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

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

Monomyth category

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

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

And I've taken him to ANI because he is mass removing it from articles without discussion. See for instance The Oxford Companion to World Mythology[1] which doesn't mention Campbell. He isn't actually looking to see if the articles are discussed in terms of monomyths by reliable sources, he's just reverting. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Subtiaba-Maribo"

Hi Maunus,

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Template:Wtf? listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Mixtec

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Talk:Ken Ham

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

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

You're invited!

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

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

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

Please clarify your way of approaching this revert?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your good edit at president page.

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

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

⚠

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

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

Notice of RfC and request for participation

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

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

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

WWII infobox

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

Spørgsmål

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

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

Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2002 Gujarat riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uto-Aztecan

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

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

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

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

Classic Maya collapse

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

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

(UTC)

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

Pinker

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

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

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

WP:VA/E/A and Piano

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

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

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

Precious again

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

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

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

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

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

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost

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

Level 4 vital articles list of 10,000 articles

Hi, Maunus,

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

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

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

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

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

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

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

Notification

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

Political Correctness

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA?

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

Just a suggestion, though. :-)

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

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

Done. Just jump in if discussion gets too complicated.

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

POV sources are not Wikipedia reliable sources except for limited uses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Maunus,

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

TFA

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

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

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

Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race classification socking

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

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

The case is still open [2] and has not been checked. But thanks for response. FossilMad (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

NRM manual of style

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

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

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

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

Hi, Maunus,

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

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

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

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

That's a really interesting DYK nomination

Hi, Maunus,

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

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

ITN credit

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

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

Today's Featured Article: Notification

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

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

Admin proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Morphological typology

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

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

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

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

Hey!

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

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

Endonym of Hopi language

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

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

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

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

Civility issues over on my talk page

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

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

Racialism

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

thanks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not dealing with this

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

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

The second "shit"

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

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

Thanks

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

Please meet me in talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German Guatemalan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for involvement

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

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

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

What does "Not Patrolled" mean?

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

Champollion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png		The Wikipedia Indo-European Award
		Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC

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