User talk:Maunus

Narendra Modi

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

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

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

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

Boas and Levi-Strauss

Hi Maunus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone we know?

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

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

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

Facts

Dear Maunus,

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

Respectfully,

Kenosis247

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

Maunus,

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

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

A beer for you!

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

Human Sacrifice

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

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

Mayan languages

Hi Manaus,

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

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

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

DYK nomination of I Am Prepared To Die

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

reverts

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

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

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

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

The Wikipedia Library Survey

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

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

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

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

Invitation to join MILHIST

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

NPOV

A discussion here[1] concerns you. SpaceBobber (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]