User talk:Maunus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 10 August 2009

When writing a message the newest messages go on the bottom. Thanks.

I can Justify

When a user is a vandal, that has been WARNED BY OTHER USERS, they should be reverted. Now, my actions were slightly wrong, but this user had benn WARNED, and I also had not been. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not adress your problems with his edits on the talk page even once. I don't really think you can justify your behaviour according to policy. I also don't think you should try - saying "I'm sorry, I got carried away" would be a more appropriate response. As you can see above on my talk page I was given a (justfied) block warning for reverting three times (still observing 3RR) and not using rollback. I think you should count yourself lucky ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Culture

Are you around to help on an article? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could be. Which one?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah if you mean Language development I'd be more than happy too - I looked at that page yesterday and it was barely legible.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I have seen that page too and it needs a lot of work. But actualy, I meant this. Last year, the Culture article was a total mess, a disaster, a trainwreck - too many ill-informed people making uncoordinated attempts. I did a total overhaul, trying to treat "culture" as a concept, and primarily as an object of stuy, or as a conceptual tool used by, academics. The article is getting too big now, but at least I believe it has some coherence. My ideal would be for a few other people to work on the article until it is really good, and then decide how to spin off linked articles and make summaries.

"Linguistics" is its own topic, and I do not want to identify "culture" with "language." But theories of language have been important for how others have viewed culture, and I iknow at least some linguists (ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics) use the conce3pt of culture, or believe that they are contributing to the study of culture. So I want the article to have a section on just this: what does culture mean to linguists, and how do they study it or contribute to the study of it.

I asked as many editors at Wikipedia who work on language as i could think of, and most ignored my requests. One ditor did provide a list of quotes by linguists on the talk page -I like these quotes and find the list useful and I hope its existence makes my request more appealing to you as you already have some material to work with. But I really want a competent linguists to write this section.

A year ago, this article just reflected an incohereht range of popular opinions about culture and it did not reflect any serious research. I want to change it. Right now I think one major weakness is an explanation of the relationship and difference between language and culture. I hope you can help fix this! Thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!!!!!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the quotes there were placed by another user with an interet in linguistics; whether you find them useful or not I leave to you. When I went to graduate school I was told that there is a close relationship between language and culture: that language and culture coevolved, that language is one very important domain of culture, and that language may even be paradigmatic of culture in that anthropologists like Claude Levi Strauss and later Ward Coodenough and Charles Frake turned to the linguistics of their day to develop heories and methods for studying culture. So I just assume that an article on culture should have something about language and culture, but it is more an assumption than anything else.

The article is on culture and I do think that we need to keep the focus on culture, so I guess the question is, do linguists set about their work with a model in their minds about what culture is? Is some concept of culture an important part of the linguist's "toolkit?" Can one argue that linghistics provides a particular way to study culture? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I guess that would help point out material that should go into the article.

When I was in graduate school I was taught that ethnolinguistics studies the relationship between language and culture. Is this right? If so, I would think that the findings of ethnolinguists, or some of the findings, would be relevant to an article on culture.

Finally, I was also taught that sociolinguistics is the study of the social uses of language, and reveals important aspects of social relations, social structure, etc. Is this an important part of culture? I would have thought so, but defer to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the article has a section on culture and language and it is only that section that i am asking you to draft. Of course I would welcome your edits of any other part of the article, but it is getting long and right now the most glaring weakness is the inadequate discussion of the relationship between language and culture which can be in one section. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is amazing. It is finely written and moves very smoothly from one important issue or concept to another. It is so concise and well-thought-out part of me thinks it should just be used as is. But it is also very dense and I wonder if there are some places where key concepts could be spelled out more, or whether it could be expanded and broken into subsections. Well, whether you wish to continue working n it or not is up to you, I think you have already done something great. I just wish there were more linguists at Wikipedia who would be willing to collaborate on this. Cnilep provided some quotes (which currently occupy the "culture and language" space in the article - do you see any value to these quotes, do they suggest other issues to raise, or directions for expansion?) I guess the only other thing I could suggest is to consider how you might add some of those quotes and in the process develop certain key ideas. Cnilep is the only other person with some training in linguistics who has expressde any interest and I have asked him to look at your draft too. I guess I will wait a week or so and if neithe of you have expanded on your draft, I will just put it in. Thanks, I appreciate your work, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you liked it. I wrote this in summary style and I would be very interested to flesh the subject out more in an article of its own. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with Cnilep putting it on a subpage of his page for furthe work, especially as he has made it clear you are welcome to continue editing it. I say this only because the two of you both have training in linguistics and are the only ones to express interest in working on this section. My sense is, when the two of you reach agreement about a fleshed out section, we can place it in the article - where of course anyone can edit it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he prefers it that way I guess its ok. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Kudos re Talk:Clarence Thomas. Few editors would be so willing to note a mistake (innocuous vel non) and apologize so soon after a row with the other user in another setting. An outstanding example of wikicivility and not taking things personally.

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your principled stance

I noticed you are there almost alone with that anti-Jehovah's-witness at JW articles attempting to keep thing fair, and I wanted to thank your for your time and effort.
Tell me if you think my Psalm 83:18 edits are rational. Cheers - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. There is a tugwar between antiJW's and JW's and its a little unwieldy.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban

This ban was done with no due process, inadequate discussion and zero evidence. It stinks. I want to overturn it. Do I have options? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos GA review

Hi Maunus! I started to work on your suggestions for the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos article. You'd like to have the list in the location section converted to prose. There is not a whole lot of information in this list (names of the settlements and coordinates). For a non-trivial prose (something other than one sentence listing the names separated by comma), I would need to add some information. Since the section is titled "Location" I'd probably want to add information about geographic peculiarities (location). Is that what you meant? Honestly I don't really know what to add, as the geography is very similar among the missions. There are for instance no big rivers or mountains to speak of. San Javier is situated on a hilltop but for instance San Miguel, San Rafael and Santa Ana which are not far apart from each other, don't have any distinguishing geographic features I can think of at the moment. Do you have any suggestions on what information I could add, besides saying that misssion 'x' lies 'y' kilometers to the east/west/north/south of ... ? bamse (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best at converting the location list into prose - the coordinates are sort of disturbing to the readability though, I don't know if you can think of another way to present those.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the conversion. I fixed some typos. One thing confuses me. You write: "San José...is located...in the foothills of the Gran Chaco." I am not sure what you mean by "foothills" here. The Gran Chaco is a lowland region and basically all of the map lies within the Gran Chaco region. I agree that the coordinates should be removed from the prose. They could go either into one of the tables (if applicable) or be left out completely. In any case the coordinates can be accessed through the respective settlement articles. bamse (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right, the foothills was a slipup. I'll think of something else.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nupedia

Thanks - I guess it was the experiment in centralized governance that failed!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly in three years they made 14 articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

Hi Maunus. Thanks for your messages. Is there some problem within this community? Not only have my edits been reverted as you point out, I have just been falsely alleged of being another user's sock puppet! I'd like to report this. Please give me your feedback and suggestions. Thanks. TroubledTraveler (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to report, TroubledTraveler; a user has only "expressed a suspicion", because you are behaving very similarly to a known problem user. If you really did read all the archives, then you will understand why there is not consensus for including that user's edits and you should know not to re-add them without having a real discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can an edit "belong" to any user?! Is it anything other than a co-incidence (I wonder!) that there are more than one people who might feel the same way about something? If it's not a co-incidence, obviously there is consent over that view! So everybody who wants to make changes to this article is the same person? This sounds like SERIOUS trouble to me. I don't know for whom, yet, though. For Wikipedia, or for these people on the linguistics' community. TroubledTraveler (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my talk page for bickering. Troubledtraveler, I can only suggest you do this: go to the talk page lay out your arguments, make a case that you are not supriyya even though he/she introduced edits with nearly the same wordings from many different sockpuppet accounts. If a majority of editors are convinced that your suggestions are an improvement to the page then they'll go in if not, you will have to find better arguments. Its as simpe as that.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a hlaf-hour

would you mind going here and reviwing the discussion (the second half is i think more important than my initial statement in the first half) to see if you might have any reasonable comment to add to the discussion? [1] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:Cnilep/Culture draft

Slrubenstein has moved your section on language and culture to Culture. I am therefore going to request that the page we had been using for revisions, User:Cnilep/Culture draft, be deleted. If you would like to keep the page, or to move any content there to your own user space, please let me know. If you have no objection to deleting the page, I will request speedy deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats fine. Wel'll just edit it in mainspace.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK

Not a prob...I do the same. Funny thing...While you were correcting my spelling, I was correcting someone else. LOL! --Buster7 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Also....just noticed that it was your comment that I moved from Areas of Reform to Buster7/Incivility. Hope that was OK?--Buster7 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

It's been a pleasure working on the Chiquitos article. The topic is interesting and Bamse has done a great job with the article. All I've done is straighten out the prose. Thanks for your work on the review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Truthkeeper88. Thanks for your good suggestions, edits and work on the review. bamse (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Because the guy remove references and put his own numbers in the article Copenhagen? Im not the one who make edit war. --JHF1000 (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to make an editwar I am afraid.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it two of us. But it takes more than two to tango. Or something like that. --JHF1000 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can't even comprehend what a three-person tango would look like :p (Taivo (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

yes I think more than one but less than three is the usually preferred Tango set up. Anyway I warned both of you so there is no need to be sour - just go to the talk page and discuss. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I wasn't one of the parties to the conflict, I just noticed that special "more than two to tango" comment and had to share a good laugh. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, the both of you was to JHF1000 and the other guy in the editwarring couple.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on ANI

Thanks for your constructive comments on the ANI thread on David Fuchs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking me. :) I had to resist making a pun about the "nicht so wohltemperierte Fuchs"·Maunus·ƛ· 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

refs

Hi Maunus. Yep, I thought that TfD discussion & outcome to be a hard call too. A couple of the exchanges were frustrating, felt like dealing with strangers who've unaccountably taken an instant dislike to something about you, and nothing you actually say or do can penetrate the wall of preconceived self-rectitude. It took a little spell or two off-wiki to regain some sanity & perspective after some of those exchanges, let me tell you.

But at least, the practical outcome looks like the functionality can be retained, just to have it merged with another template that also provides bibliography formatting options. Personally I don't see a great need to combine them, but it can be done and there might even be some benefits down the track. So I've added the indent functionality to {refbegin} as an option, works just the same as before, except you'd use {refbegin|indent=yes}. Just a bit of tedium in going thru them all to convert.

So while I think some good arguments could be made for a DRV, and I certainly toyed with the idea of going for a review, if only to see if someone independent could actually hear and read what was being said-it wld prob be more trouble than it's worth to pursue. Mind you, only as long as the functionality can be retained and operate as simply & conveniently as before. Cheers,--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the refbegin|indent option on Otomi language and it actually looks better imo. I guess its ok then - but really frustrating, and I can't wrap my head around how no delete arguments were based in policy and still the closing admin swayed that way (the count was 7 keep / 10 delete) and more than half the arguments of the delete side was "it is ugly". ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the opportunity to trim down the default indent size a little, & think it looks better too.

I fully agree that we could use some serious revisions and clarifications about "MOS-compliant" citation/referencing systems in the general case (not just this particular aspect), and a much much better description of what those referencing systems actually are and the rationales/advantages/disadvantages of each. From the beginning on wikipedia referencing systems have grown more or less organically, without really any overarching plan or prior assessment & decision about the best ways to do it. It's been subject to the development/augmentation of technical capabilities, & the documentation & description of rationales has likewise lagged.

In a recent lengthy discussion at WT:CITE it was apparent, to me at least, that a number of folks are wedded to their own particular way of doing it (prob dependent upon what was around when they first came here) but seem simply unaware that there are other equally valid ways. There also seems to be a lot of confusion/conflation of two elements that ought to be recognised as distinct: the citation element (how some given statement in the text is associated with a source) and the reference element (the full expression and identification of some source work used or consulted).

Partly I'd attribute this to the—IMO, disorganised—presentation of the various methods at the MOS & CITE pages. The way I see it, we really only have two classes of citation/referencing systems—those that use bibliographies, and those that don't. I think a lot of the confusion might be cleared up if that were to be spelled out a little clearer in the guidelines.

In the present situation with that refindent tfd, at the moment maintenance of that functionality as an option in that other template is not being impeded. As long as that's the case I'd rather not stir the pot with a DRV, thus far the closer has been reasonable/agreeing to migration of the indent functionality. While I'd still stand by those arguments advanced in favour in the TfD as anything other than "ilikeit" ones, there'd be more to lose than gain by pressing with a DRV, RFC or fuller documentation of the closing rationale (IMO at least).

If down the track someone does raise an issue w having the indent functionality retained as a template option, that'd be a different story. Personally I think objections to hindent wld be harder to justify, the "references-small" function of {refbegin} itself is not something mandated or recommended in MOS from what I can see. If there's persistence maybe then's the time for DRV or RFC.

I'd rather get the migration completed, and update the refbegin template doco. After that, I think it would be a good idea to engender some discussion at WT:CITE on clarifying MOS/CITE recommendations and systems, in the general and overall case, along the lines as I've outlined above. I think the whole system needs clarification, not just this hindent element, & focusing back on that TfD first might muddy the waters. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Morocco Tamazight

I'd be more than happy to work on this article. Would you like to alert the editor that I'll be copyediting, or shall I? Also, thanks for the compliments! I enjoy copy editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do it - I am sure he'll be happy for the help he has struggled with it alone for awhile. :)·Maunus·ƛ· 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article and have a quick question: I'm seeing organizational issues that need to be addressed before tackling the prose. Would you agree? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should probably take a look at the GA review I made here and the subsequent peerreview here.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Pretty much along the lines of my assessment. Fascinating topic, and basically well done. I think I can get it into shape, but need to spend a little time thinking about how to go about it. Thanks for thinking of me for this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: I've read the Nahuatl article (very nice!) and then looked at some dialect specific languages such as Scottish Gaelic and Bernese German. Any other suggestions for articles to read? Reading a GA language article would be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Ottawa language for a recently passed language GA (it failed an FA run because of prose problems), Canadian Gaelic is an older GA that treats a specific dialect of Gaelic - much like central Morocco Tamazight. I am currently working on Otomi language that I want to take to GA level (it's very much a work in progress) - if you want to take a look at that as well and brush up the prose that would be excellent. I still need to fill in several sections though and get the maximum out of the many references I've assembled.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles I've written that could use a brushover to get closer to GA status are Mesoamerican languages and Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. Those will keep me very busy, and hopefully help with conceiving a good org. structure for Tamazight. I was hoping to see a native American language in the list -- the Hopi dictionary might be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa and Otomi are both native american.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got caught up with seeing the Hopi dictionary. I believe I might know some people who worked on that project, and definitely some who worked on the Lakota Dictionary. At any rate, Morocco first, after reading the articles. Time to log off. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but having looked at the article history, prefer the previous leads that were more to the point, rather than the overly long lead that exists now. I've tried a quick rewrite of the lead (flipping some paragraph order and breaking up paragraphs where I'd prefer to see less text) here but it's still very dense text. My suggestion is to trim it down by deleting the last two paragraphs and incorporate the information into the text of the article, but not if you want to see a more expansive lead for the review. Am asking because your review mentions rewriting the lead as per WP:LEAD. This is a long winded way of asking whether the lead needs a complete rewrite? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would probably be a good idea. Remember that the structure of the lead must mirror the structure of the rest of the article quite closely. There should be no information in the lead that is not also in the body - and the weighting of material in the lead should reflect the weighting in the article. Those are the most important guidelines imo.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. That's what I realized as I was working on the text. I think I'm good to go now, and shouldn't have to bother you again. I'll also post on the article talk page as I go along. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patzin

ps. Could you validate my reasoning/interpretation of nahuatl morphology at Talk:Patzin pls, if u get a chance. I think it's correct, but can't be sure. Saludos amigo, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

policies

We can discuss this off-wiki if you would like. But I see my actions as consistent with my beliefs: we want to recruit new editors, and support new editors. When I write "editor" I mean someone who wants to work on articles. In my experience, newbies who go straight to policies at best lack the experience required for the kind of judgment that is needed to maintain effective policies. I do not believe in institutionalized hierarchies. But I think it is common sense that someone should edit on what they know about, or are willing to learn. If you know about linguistics, please, contribute to articles on linguistics. If you do not know much about linguistics but are willing to do the research, that is grand too. But if an article on shifters is an article on a concept in linguistics, what are policies "about?" They are about the proper functioning of Wikipedia, and people who edit them ought to know a lot about the functioning of Wikipedia - or be willing to learn. No one is prevented from this, and we all learn this knowledge the same way: by working on articles, getting into conflicts, getting out of conflicts, and working more on articles. I think we should do everything possible to encourage this, especially among newcomers. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing we don't know how many edits he has made as an unregistered user (as we know studies show that unregistered users supply the highest quality content). Judging from his edithistory he is preoccupied principally with policy and wikipedias inner working - that might suggest that he has prior experience as an IP editor. Anyway what I take issue with is the somewhat condescending tone of your comment and what seems to unnecessary force in admonishing him. If his arguments aren't valid then I think its ok to say that (in this case he merely made suggestions that I don't see how can be of any harm), but I don't think it is ever ok tell a fellow contributor to "Shut up Donny, you're out of your element"(quote from The Big Lebowski). I don't mean to be annoying about it, nor will I pursue this any further either on or off-wiki I just wanted to tell you how I perceived that particular comment of yours.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to work on my tone. I respect your opinion. But perhaps one day we will discuss this further off-wiki. I admit this: my views were formed by my growing sense that he really does not understand how things work at Wikipedia. Then again, this is a time of change and it looks like there are many editors who would like to see policies like NPOV go. I could well be in a minorty trhat is rapidly growing bigge (er, smaller) .... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Sure. Do we let the AfD page itself be automatically archived, or will you archive it, or do you want me to do something there? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets automatically archived once a day right? If you want to archive it thats fine. You can also archive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aoption parenting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At-risk students that I also closed.18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

Closing AfDs

I noticed that you have closed some recent AfDs. Just to let you know, {{subst:afd top}} (or {{subst:afdt}}, however you call it) goes above the section header. This way, the AfD collapses correctly. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - i was wondering about that. thanks for enlightening me. :)·Maunus·ƛ· 21:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:NAC, non-admins should only close unanimous or near-unanimous "keep" AfDs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I thought any editor "in good standing" (whatever that means) could do it. I guess I'll just have to stop then, not enough unanimous keeps to make patrolling worthwhile. I hope noone will object t my closures. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as a non-admin, you don't have the technical ability to delete articles, so an admin would have to come back and delete the article anyways. However, non-admins can be helpful; User:Ron Ritzman is an example of one who closes and relists AfDs a lot. You are an editor in good standing, and can still help with the (uncontroversial keep) closes or relists if you want to. I did plenty myself before I became an admin: [2]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abrasive

I'm aware that my matter-of-fact approach to editing may be seen as abrasive. However, there is no intention to make anyone feel 'downtrodden' when I don't agree with them, just as they shouldn't feel elated if I do agree with them. My negative opinions of edits have equal (just as much/little) importance to my positive opinions of edits, and I try to consistently back up my arguments logically. To date, no one has complained when I have bluntly agreed with them. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk War

Worked the lead. Pls give it a look. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi intelligence

I just posted my own view, which would be for a merger with another article. Or deletion. If you agree with my motion to merge, you could start an RfC. Or I could do another AfD attempt. This is of course ths spawn of the race and intelligence article, which I and a few others fought many wars over to ensure it not violate NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit war warning

Thank you for your sharp eyes and keeping an eye on edit-warring practices. My reverts have been discussed on the article's talkpage and other editors agree with that. Having said that, I now leave it to others to revert again. Again, thank you for your sharp eyes and attention. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heeding my suggestion. Even if the other side is editing disruptively it is always better not to get ones own hands dirty. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the situation is more complex that it may have appeared. The intentions of my edits were not to war. We are done with editing for now.--Asdfg12345 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that I am not in a position to see the whole issue, but you were both editwarring which was what i reacted to. I am not taking sides in the dispute. Now it would be best if you go and solve the complexities of the issue on the talk page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Please kindly give me the link to where you did this as I could not locate it over at AN/I. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

theory

It is not a theory. In the physical and life sciences, a theory is a model of some portion of the world such that relationships within the model enable us to formulate propositions with observational consequences in the world (in the physical sciences, these are usually measurable i.e. changes in the model correspond to changes in quantities of something in the world). Such theories thus open up new lines of investigation. The conjecture about Ashenazi Jews is not a theory, although it relies on the language of another theory (the modern synthesis of Darwin and Mendel). But it does not produce any propositions that can be falisfid or confirmed and it does not open up new lines of inquiry. It is in no way a scientific thory. It is merely speculation by a couple of guys who happen to be scientists. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but the word theory has a usage outside of science as in conspiracy theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Hi Maunus. If it's ok by you, it would give me great pleasure to nominate you for RfA. If you can allow me a couple days to set up the page, then when you've filled out your statement and you are ready (ie are able to set aside a contiguous period of a week or more for availability in responding to Qs) then we'll activate it and away we go.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I accept, I was reluctant in the past, but after watching Admins at work for awhile I am confident that I can contribute positively to wikipedia with the admin tools. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Citeshort

Im so sorry. I was not aware that those types of references would be skrewed up with the AWB. Im going through the 600+ articles now to find if that occurred in any other instances. Im sorry and thank you for bringing that to my attention--Tim1357 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think mostly it has been taken care of.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review: Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos

Hi! Just to let you know that I put up Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos for peer review. bamse (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I saw it got a lot of useful copyedits today.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Had not even noticed you'd been there until pulling an old version from history. Anyway, feel free. Your edits were helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lame Excuse

I have two books available at Amazon, etc. and have been published in over 30 magazines for 180 plus artcles and column pieces. My work appears in several books. My original research on the "galactic alignment", a term I coined is in a 1991 issue of Mt Astrology Magazine. I believe you are just using this as an excuse to harass me. Back off. MARDYKS.

I said publish in reliable sources. And up untill this pont harrassment has been mostly your game.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't take shit from assholes. Your spelling sucks. untill? harrassment ? and you're an editor? Back off.

Play Fair

I just read the Mayanism section and it is all opinion. It is highly biased and borders on "hate" for the New Age. There is not one bit of verifiable research in the entire piece. So please stop being a hypocrite and using lame excuses to harass my contributions. I'm contributing to help educate people about 2012. Something needed on Wiki because it has nothing really helpful or substantial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 I have two books available at Amazon, etc. and have been published in over 30 magazines for 180 plus artcles and column pieces. My work appears in several books. My original research on the "galactic alignment", a term I coined is in a 1991 issue of Mt Astrology Magazine. I believe you are just using this as an excuse to harass me. Back off. MARDYKS.
 :I said publish in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. And up untill this pont harrassment has been mostly your game.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
+I usually don't take shit from assholes. Your spelling sucks. untill? harrassment ? and you're an editor? Back off.
 == Play Fair ==