User talk:Maunus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not open closed archives[edit]

If you've followed the discussion at psychoanalysis you will see that it these type of insults have come over a number of days, and are clearly not aimed at improving the article. Please refrain from removing hats in the way you did. If we really want to improve the article we can most assuredly do so by engaging in civil discourse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO and commonsense, you shoudln't archive other peoples comments in a discussion in which you are yourself involved, it is rarely helpful and tends to inflame rather than assuage conflict. One of the users whose comments you hatted directly expressed disagreement with your assessment of my changes to the lead, and with you hatting your statement came to stand as the last word. That is not a reasonable way to edit a discussion in which one is involved. Your archiving also deleted a section by another user, please be more careful. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Allele or Variant of unknown significance[edit]

Hi! I'm a newbie, so I may easily be doing something wrong. I see on my watchlist that you asked a question on the talk page of VUS, yet I don't see it on the talk page itself, so I'm answering it here. sigh. Anyway, your question apparently was "Do we mean allele of unknown significance?" The answer is yes, to people with even a little training in genetics, allele is the best term, but since the VUS reports are being read by poets, etc, with no training, the term variant is used. DennisPietras (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the questoin because it seemed to me upon reading the other article that this is specifically about variant genes, not variant alleles - i.e. only variant alleles that also are known to have a different product (a different protein than another allele) but where the change in protein causes no discernible difference in phenotype. Is this not the case?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey Maunus-- in light of this month's Inspire Campaign that I'm running, any interest in trying to reboot your idea for a new peer review process? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) are you thinking of the academic peer review proposal I made last time (which can be started at any time by any group of volunteers willing to do the work) - or the much more ambitious proposal for review reform that you linked to (which will require a full community discussion and consensus to be implemented)?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably more the former to start, but I do see that as a stepping stone for the latter. I read over the discussion of the more ambitious proposal briefly, and I agree with some opinions there that implementing that is going to take a multi-stage RfC. I'm willing to help with that effort, if you need some support thinking through the logistics of putting it all together (I recently did the same with an idea from the previous campaign that resulted in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Protect_user_pages_by_default). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Marks[edit]

Thanks for noticing my edits on Marks. I think he's hopelessly misguided by his politics, but as a WP editor I say what the source say. His idea that humans have an incessant drive to categorize is a great example of 20th-century, non-biological thinking about human cognition. Let me offer my edits as evidence of my even-handedness. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a little funny to consider the work of a biological anthropologist and geneticist to be an example of "non-biological thinking". But the edits were good, thanks for doing good work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Y'know if you want me to semi-protect your talk page I'll do that. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Nah, he usually takes a break after a few back rounds of back-and-forth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]

I'm pretty sure the editor who added material there is copying it from somewhere else, possibly translating it - and that's not the only article where it may be happening. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it and some material from another article and asked him to explain his sources and if copied where it's from. I see he's never engaged on a talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:, thanks for doing that - the information was partially correct, but required some sources for complete verification. Probably better to revert it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeg havde ganske vist lantin i 2.. real[edit]

@Maunus:Men det er vel omkring 50 år siden. Så jeg er ikke sikker på jeg fik fat i meningen. Men der stod vel lidt Cato-agtigt noget i retning af "i øvrigt mener jeg Rmirum bør udstødes" Det er vi vist ved at være flere og flere der mener! --PerV (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@PerV: Netop.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi - I'm told you know something about cultural issues, any chance you could take a quick look at this and my comments on the talk page (and maybe the recent deleted one). Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish someone would call me a "fresh thing", but I dont get that a lot htese days.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, fresh thing. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Languages you speak?[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to know more about you. To me (from my experience), you are a Danish person who extensively admires his own language, the Danish language, to the point that you analysed it in a linguistic field. It also seems that you have a good grasp of English too. But my question is, what other languages are you able to speak. I am from Sydney, Australia, and has English and Scottish roots in me — an avid linguist and language learner (check my user page). – AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 11:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly admire the Danish language, but I am Danish and a linguist by training so it is natural for me to write about that. I also wrote most of the article on English for that matter. You can find my professional website from my user page and it will give you some more information about what languages I work with. You can also see my collection of userboxes here if you prefer that format.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
¡Nunca supe que podéis hablar español!AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 11:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Classification of English[edit]

Hi, could you not have maintained all the amendments i made to the text, for example through correcting the wording or making the text better readable? For example why delete the Low German example sentence, the three Frisian languages, the North Germanic languages? In my opinion it would be better to maintain all that doesn't contradict any source because the classification section is somehow quite bad. We are not even told which language is most closely related to English after Low German. Also wouldn't it be better to mention Scots and the Irish dialects first (as most closely related languages), and not Frisian? ArchitectMan (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

From my point of view the main problems was not with the style and wordings but with the fact that the edits were unsourced and contradicted the the sources already used. For revisions of that kind I think you should present sources on the talkpage and make sure that there is consensus among the editors that your proposed changes are good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And what about the example sentence in Low German? ArchitectMan (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

what is the source for it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do translations also have to be sourced? ArchitectMan (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, particularly when they are in languages that are not commonly taught. I have also removed the two other unsourced example sentences - since they were both unsourced and essentially superfluous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You even want an English to German translation to be sourced. The example sentences were illustrations. The classification section is now much worse than before your edits. ArchitectMan (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is much better than before your edits. So if you have suggestions to improve it take it to the discussion page and we will find a solution that we can all consider an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, since i don't know if you are still reading the English language talk page, i'd like to ask you two questions: 1. Would you agree that this sentence: "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..." should be changed to: "Low German (Low Saxon), which evolved from Old Saxon, is also closely related..." because a) Low German is an official language in Germany, and is regarded as one language there, and b) "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages" is equal to "Gallo Romance and its descendent French languages", what sounds confusing, and c) there is also an inconsistence since Old Frisian is not mentioned before the Frisian languages. While you already said that you think it would be tangential and basically irrelevant to the article if Low German is being referred to as one or many languages, i still don't know if you would agree with mentioning Low German before Old Saxon. Another user suggested not to mention Old Saxon at all, but I don't know if this would be an improvement, and i'd also be interested in your opinion concerning that. 2. There is still this "but" in this sentence in the introduction: "It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages...". I suggest changing the "but" to "and". What you already said about this was that you wouldn't think that the sentence as it is now suggests that English has been influenced by Frisian, and that it would be very clear from the "but" that the influence is specifically from Germanic languages other than those to which it is most closely related. While I agree with you on that, I still think that this "but" gives the sentence the connotation that the reader would have thought, if there wouldn't be this "but", that English should have been influenced by Frisian, just because it is most closely related to it. To avoid this impression, i think it would be better to write "and" instead of "but". ArchitectMan (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@ArchitectMan:, the trick in general is to find the sources and follow what they do. So if you want to convince me that some wording is better it will be esier to do so if you can show that other reliable sources do as you suggest (for example mentioning Low Saxon before Low German etc.). I think the idea of changing "but" to "and" is good, and will go ahead and implement it right away.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So would you agree that the "but" in the sentence: "It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages particularly Norse, as well as by Latin and Romance languages, particularly French." should be changed to "and", because the "but" gives the sentence the connotation that the reader would have thought, if there wouldn't be this "but", that English should have been influenced by Frisian, just because it is most closely related to it? ArchitectMan (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in your opinion concerning this "but" or "and". Do you also think that this "but" should be changed to "and" or do you think the sentence is better with "but"? The sentence with "but" sounds as if the reader would assume that English has been influenced by the Frisian languages. ArchitectMan (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the classification section, there is this sentence: "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..." 1. This contradicts the "Low German" article, in which Low German is being referred to as one language. 2. Wouldn't it be better to just write Low German, because there is an inconsistency within the classification section, since Old Frisian other than Old Saxon isn't being mentioned. I would also be interested in your opinion about that. ArchitectMan (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you please 1. raise the discussion at teh article talkpage so everyone can give their input, 2. present the sources that you consider most authoritative or accurate on classification of west germanic. There is little point in us sharing our personal opinions about clkassification here, where noone else will read it and without being supported by reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I wrote all of this on the talk page already, but 1. only one other user but you responded there, and 2. you did not respond there anymore. The headline on the talk page is: Classification. 1. Concerning the first point, if the "but" should be changed to "and", on the talk page you answered that you wouldn't think that the "but" should be changed to "and". When I asked you a second time, on your talk page, however, you answered that it would be good to change the "but" to "and". 2. Concerning the sentence "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages...", you answered that you wouldn't care changing "Low German languages" to "Low German language", since it would be "tangential" and "basically irrelevant" to the article. Then, another user suggested not to mention Old Saxon anymore, because it would be too precise for the lay persons consulting the article. However you did not reply to that. So can the sentence be changed to: "Low German/Low Saxon is also closely related..." instead of "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..."? ArchitectMan (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just make the change, I for one will not revert it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this sentence: "Particular dialects of Old and Middle English also developed into a number of other English (Anglic) languages, including Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland." Would it be ok for you if "English (Anglic) languages" would be changed to just "Anglic languages", because "Anglic languages" is more common than "English languages". If "English languages" would be more common, then English would have to be classified like: Germanic-->West Germanic-->Anglo-Frisian-->English-->English what actually would sound quite strange. ArchitectMan (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lower Chinook Language[edit]

Hi Maunus, I've been trying to look for a good source for the Lower Chinook Language (also known as Chinook Proper, not the Chinook Jargon language). I've found some sources such as Omniglot and a book by Franz Boas called "Notes on the Chinook Language". Boas' explanation of the language seems rather complex in his composition, and I am not sure if Omniglot is an accurate source. If Omniglot is not an accurate source, where can I find one, and do you have any knowledge on how to consider what the dialect of the language would sound like based on other various sources? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, Omniglot is never a good source. Its underlying sources are of varying quality and it's simply not considered scholarly by scholars. Boas' phonological descriptions, in general, are not phonemic and are overly phonetic in nature. While his morphological descriptions are excellent, you have to wade through his complex phonetics to get at them. There simply isn't a good modern grammar of Chinook. However, according to Michael Silverstein (the expert on Chinookan), the phonemic inventories of all three varieties--Chinook, Kikst, and Kathlamet--are identical and he lists that inventory in the reference here: Michael Silverstein. 1990. Chinookans of the Lower Columbia. In Wayne Suttles (ed.), Northwest Coast, 533-546. Smithsonian Institution, Washington: Washington: Smithsonian Institution. --Taivo (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @Fdomanico51997:, thanks for reaching out. I agree with Taivo that references like Omniglot and similar online sources that are not created or maintained by scholars should be avoided - in many cases I think no phoneme inventory is better than an erroneous or dubious one. I also agree that Silverstein's work on Chinookan is probably the best source on the phoneme inventory, and that if you use Boas you have to make sure to show that his representation and inventory of sounds is not a phoneme inventory but an inventory of phones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision of Avi Avital[edit]


I was just getting started with revising the article Avi Avital, when I noticed my most recent change was already deleted. At issue was that the article is not about traveling virtuosi. My problem with the deletion is that that section is but a small part of a larger expansion. Avital is indeed part of an energetic movement that is indeed doing now what the tracking virtuosi did then, bringing energy into the mandolin music scene. You deleted what will probably be an introduction to a larger section of his place in modern classical and folk music expansion of the mandolin. If you're dead set against expansion, please let me know, and I'll figure something out.Jacqke (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jacqke, if I had noticed that it was you who had written the section I probably would have let it stay - but as it was unsourced and didnt seem related I just removed it. Feel free to insert it again if you are going to add sources that show how the section is relevant to Avital's life and career.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again

Just wanted to let you know I didn't keep the material with the new material I added. It was a bit too far off subject. I appreciate your having considered it.Jacqke (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could write a stand alone article about the mandolin virtuosi of the early 20th century?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


Hey Maunus, thanks for your latest edit to Nahua peoples... my feeling had been that in saying that colonists used violence against indigenous religious practice, without mentioning that the religious practices themselves may have been violent, was an unbalanced view of the colonists. Your edits show an appreciation for this point, which I appreciate. (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts at English language[edit]

1. Your edit summary was misleading, I assume you accept that. 2. I added cites. 3. "Overdetailed" is not a reason to revert. You are displaying a bias for the WP:STATUSQUO. At least the part about the leveling of strong verbs should be included, it is silly to mention "dreamt" without talking about bide. I don't want to edit war over this, but I advise you to read about how wikipedia is supposed to handle these situations. (WP:RV) --Monochrome_Monitor 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, overdetailed is a very good reason to revert in an article that is about a gigantic topic with many subarticles. You also did not add cites for most of what you added. And yes, I am showing a bias for the status quo because a team of quite competent editors collaborting over a period got it to the stage where it is now at with a lot of workd and research involved. Further developments should be improvements - and all involved in the article should agree that they are improvements. If you would propose your major changes on the discussion page and present arguments and sources for them, getting towards improving the article would be better. Note that I have gotten "thank yous" for all of the recent reverts I have done on the article from several different editors. Also you should read WP:BRD which shows how wikipedia should handle reverts. You made bld edits to an article, they were reverted, so now we discuss and seek consensus for how to improve the article. First you need to argue for why your changes are improvements- and then show the sources that support them. Furthermore, if you look through the archives you will find that there were specific reasons the statements aboyut pork/swin, beef/cow, and sheep/mutton were not included in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you see what I wrote on the talk page? I do think noting the morphological leveling of strong verbs is an improvement. And I did add citations. This is WP:CIRCULAR, but if you want to learn about it, we have an article at morphological leveling. And I'm aware of BRD, I just didn't think my edit was bold.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources you added were naked urls of the online etymological dictionary and an essay at aeon. Those are not sources that are of comparable quality to the rest of the level of sourcing in the article. If editors keep dropping by adding low quality references (without formatting them) and whichever details they find to be particularly interesting, then in a short while the article will not even qualify as GA anymore, much less be eligible to become an FA. Besides both of the topics you mentioned were already described in the article, you just added detail and examples. But this is how to resolve this: propose the changes at the discussion page of the article, and if there is a consensus among editors that they are an improvement, then we add them back. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The leveling of strong verbs was not mentioned at all, actually. It is a much more notable phenomenon than dreamt being written as dreamed.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Language[edit]

Hi Maunus- I am trying to edit the Turkish Language wikipedia entry for a course in Linguistics that I am enrolled in- I read your GA review of the page and decided to focus on improving the description of the section on vowel harmony, as well as the description of verbal morphology. I know it has been some time since you looked at this, but do you have any suggestions for me? Thanks! Umbereenbmirza (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Swazi language[edit]

Hi Maunus, I have been trying to look for a good language source for the siSwati language of Swaziland. The Phonology section is empty and needs more information. I have looked to see if there are any valid web sources or ebooks available, but I have not had any luck. Do you know of any good sources for the language that I can come across. I may need help. Thank you. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fdomanico, I would try and get a hold of some these books throug interlibrary loan if I were you: Handbook of Siswati, Introduction to Siswati phonetics, Grammar of Swazi. They may not be very easy to come by, but these look like good sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to purchase them online, or find e-Book copies of them? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You can buy the siswati handbook on and alibris.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Would love you to take a look at this article[edit]

Hi, would appreciate your feedback on this article, which was slated for deletion by a culturally inexperienced editor. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to assess that kind of article's notability - it really comes down to the independent sources available. I would tend to vote "keep" based on the sources present at this point - certainly we have less notable or significant articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. If you'd put those two cents here. Thank you.--A21sauce (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tongva language[edit]

I've been trying to look for good sources on the Tongva (Gabrielino) language. I'd like to be able to find a source on the pronunciation or the phonology. I can't seen to find reliable sources on the language, and the phonological information provided on here on Wikipedia, seems too complex and needs a citation. I don't know if's information on pronunciation is correct or if possible, do you have knowledge on the language where you could modify the information, or recommend me a good source? Thank you, please let me know. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The best sources on Tongva are by Pamela Munro and the group of tongva language revivalists. I believe they have a website. I will find it for you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This source[1] has a phoneme inventory based on J.P Harrington's notes - in the first footnote.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the information. I've been trying to read what the phonemes are in the handbook. What do the fricatives/stops /ṣ/ and /c̣/ mean? Are they other symbols for /tʃ/ and /ʃ/? I'm also confused by one of the approximants. One of them sort of looks like a dental fricative /ð/. What do those IPA symbols represent though? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not completely clear - I think they are retroflexes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This source by Munro, seems to be the one where she describes the phonology and practical orthography of the language as it is currently being practiced: Munro, Pamela. 1989. Gabrielino: Language of the Indians of Los Angeles. News from Native California. 3.2. 27-28. I can't access it immediately, but I can write her and see if she has a pdf copy I can share with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fdomanico51997:, Munro shared a chapter on Tongva phonology from her forthcoming book with me, and allowed me to share it with you and to cite it in the article. You can send me an email through the wikipedia email system, then I will respond and send the chapter to you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maunus, thanks so much for your help! I appreciate you contacting the publisher of the article to request a pdf copy! My email is so you can send me the file. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for African languages[edit]

Hello, I had found a site in French that is based off of a book published by the UNESCO Regional Office in 1993, and edited by Rhonda L. Hartell, entitled "Alphabets des langues africaines". If the whole site is based off the book, how accurate could the source be? I have the link right here: Is it a good source? Please let me know. Thanks. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks relatively reliable, so it can be used. But for some individual languages there are going to be better sources (for example dedicated phonological descriptions), in those cases you need to use the better source. But for those languages where there are no better phonological descriptions available, I think you can safely use this source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for letting me know.Fdomanico51997 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest[edit]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Metawiki:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Nahuatl Wikipedia 2[edit]

Hello, good mornig; this page is about second closing projects for Nahuatl Wikipedia, you know about this theme, is necessary your opinion. Thank you very much. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can close a wikipedia like that, it will be hard that anyone would accept closing an active wikipedia. I don't have an opinion myself -other than suggesting that lots of native speakers ought to start using the wikipedia, changing it to something that is more useful for their purposes, reclaiming it from the non-native speakers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Stød occurence[edit]

Can you please review this page and add and change the facts as needed? It would be really appreciated as I’m trying to read Danish better. — AWESOME meeos * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 07:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article on alt-right subverting Wikipedia articles on race and I'm looking for sources[edit]

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. RedHermit1982 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw you in a number of Talk pages on race-related topics. From your other contributions, I'm guessing you have an anthropology background? Anyways, you seem like a good source for my article, which is about how "race realists" are trying to push their agenda by making subtle tweaks to Wikipedia articles.

Core Contest[edit]

Aztec Sun stone depicting their concept of the universe.JPG Core Contest - First Prize
Congratulations Maunus for improving Aztec for the benefit of readers everywhere! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Many thanksCasliber (talk · contribs), what an honor. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: Can you email me so I can email back voucher (as it is an attachment) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of editing in under-represented areas of Wikipedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MX submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Maunus is a leading editor in the areas of Languages and linguistics, Mesoamerican culture, and Native American history. He has been around for years and has promoted an abundance of Featured Article content, including Nahuatl, Mayan languages, Natchez revolt, among others. His contributions, User:Maunus/Userpage/Contributions, are impressive. His work in this under-represented area of Wikipedia is among the best I've seen.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Aztec woman speaking.jpg
Maunus was original Image uploader
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning November 26, 2017
Languages and linguistics, Mesoamerican culture, and Native American history are his expertise. A veteran editor that has promoted an abundance of Featured Article content. Broadens under-represented area of Wikipedia.
Recognized for
His contributions
Notable work(s)
Nahuatl, Mayan languages, Natchez revolt
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Many many congrats Maunus. A well deserved award. Enjoy your week! MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENYing Mikemikev[edit]

Hi Maunus.

How would you feel about deleting the "discussion" at Talk:Race (human categorization)#Ancestry based classifications lack biological validity? Mike and his socks (another one of whom just showed up) need a dose of the silent treatment. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot assume straight out of the gate that anyone who comes to those pages with a pro-race viewpoint is Mikemikev (for example he has never mentioned Darwin before). But if it is demonstrated that it is Mikemikev, then feel free to delete it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Maunus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Tillad mig at undskylde for det, jeg sagde, gjorde Den dag i ugen . Min opførsel var ekstremt uhensigtsmæssig, umodne og manglede respekten for andre. Min opførsel var pinligt, men jeg lærte at ingen værdsat min dårlige opførsel. I fremtiden har jeg til hensigt at bremse mine tankeløse handlinger og lære at tilpasse min adfærd til miljø og situation. Jeg beklager igen for mine handlinger, og jeg håber, at vi kan sætte sagen bag os. Jeg glæder mig til at lærer fra, dig igen Hvis du har nogle tanker i dette, er du velkommen til at dele det med mig. Jeg skriver dette for at søge tilgivelse for min opførsel. og min handling var helt ubesværet for. Jeg er virkelig ked af det jeg gjorde. Jeg skulle have talt med dig først i stedet for at snakke grimt til jer. du vil ikke tro hvornår Jeg forstod, at dette kun skete på grund af en lille misforståelse, jeg følte mig meget skammelig. Jeg indså, at det var min fejl, at jeg ikke stolede på jer, og så gjorde jeg sagen lige værste ved at opføre mig som jeg gjorde. Jeg føler mig skyldig i hele sagen.  Jeg forstår, at du ikke vil tale med mig. Jeg vil bare fortælle dig, at , jeg kan meget lide dig virkelig, og jeg er meget ked af mine handlinger. Jeg forsikrer dig om, at jeg aldrig vil gentage denne form for mishandling igen.   Med venlige Hilsen David Ngoviet Conmade1 (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

French translation for "Langage humain" from Language[edit]

Dear Maunus, from the article statistical overview, I saw that you are the main contributor for the article Language. First, thank you very very much for this excellent work ! I wanted to inform you that I have translated most of this article in order to recycle/complete the French article "Langage humain" ([2]). Besides, I would like to consult you for a related question. I have translated and added the sections of the English version until sections 6.2 ; and I intend to translate and add also section 6.4. However, I think that the other sections (6.3, 6.5 and the rest after 6.5) refer to the concept of "langues" in French, rather than language, and therefore I will leave them out. Please let me know if you think it's a good idea. Don't hesitate to come and comment on the overall translation if you are interested, I would really appreciate your editing. My background is in psychology and psycholinguistics, rather than linguistics, and though I hope that my translation is fair, I had here and there some hesitations on how to best translate some words or phrases. My intention is to consult and add French litterature as well, for the French readers, and also to add final a section on Language impairments (currently a list). Best regards, Cathrotterdam (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Template:UserCathrotterdam, many thanks for translating the article and for reaching out. I do understand the difficulty in translating the article and its topic into French where there is a distinction between langage and langue. I think all of section 6 is about "langage" and in fact is the section that describes how "langage" comes to produce "langues" when the human capacity for langage is exercised in the social contect of a cultural community (which it ineviutably always is). Perhaps section 6.6. on contact does rely too much on the role of interaction between languages (langues) in the plural, to make for an easy translation and perhaps it could be reduced to a sentence in the preceding section on language change (language change, of course also is a feature that is relevant for langage, because it tells us something about the way langage works. But maybe the section it will need some restructuring to fit the French conceptualization - and that may not be something you are interested in doing yourself. I will take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Maunus, I'll carry on with the translation of these two sections left (Culture and Change), and see how to link the last one to the French articles on "langues". Best, Cathrotterdam (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

English language[edit]

Hi, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand are now mentioned twice. ArchitectMan (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

removed the repetition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The countries where English is spoken most widely as native language should be mentioned in the first sentences. That's why i wrote: English is spoken most widely as native language in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, and New Zealand, and it is also widely spoken in some areas of the Caribbean, in many African states, and in South Asia (notably India). In your version, the English-speaking countries aren't mentioned in the first sentences, and South Africa and India aren't mentioned either. ArchitectMan (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It should be mentioned in the paragraph about demographics and distribution. The lead is a summary of the article with a paragraph allotted to each main section, and represented in the same order as in the article. And it does mention "some areas of Afria and South Asia", which is fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but South Africa is the only country where there are more English native speakers than in the English-speaking countries of Ireland and New Zealand, and therefore it should be mentioned as well. ArchitectMan (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)