User talk:Maunus

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



Hi Maunus. I don't agree with your recent change on Language where you removed an entire section. Doing this is not part of the policy in Wikipedia (See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with unsourced material). The section was sourced properly with the citation of the article that proposes the concepts, written by affirmed linguists. I'll revert the change. If you have further comments, please, let's discuss on the talk page of Language. Cheers. --SynConlanger (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I hasve reverted again. There is no prohibition against removing entire sections if they give undue weight to minor issues, or there are sourcing problems. There is however a policy saying that if ones bold additions are reverted one should not reinsert them without first establishing consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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.

Student7 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate[edit]

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson, Mediation Committee)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing reference information[edit]

A few years ago you contributed to SIL International, including a reference to ‘Errington 2008’. Would it be possible to at least add a title name?

Dutral (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It was already in the reference section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting[edit]

Hi Maunus, don't know if you've read about this church yet, but I thought of you when I did. It's interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did see that. There are quite a few submerged churches in Mexico, I know of two others. One was flooded by a plantation owner who wanted the native residents of the community to leave in the 19th century. The other was flooded when the Mexican government constructed the Miguel Aleman Dam in the 1950s. Maybe some day they will emerge as well. :) Stunning images!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

…for your past attention at Chicken or the egg. I did an edit today you might look at—please discuss there before reverting. (The article, in my opinion is a loss, and needs expert attention, desperately.) Le Prof [Leprof_7272] (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilization[edit]

Dear friend, I have noticed that your objection to my recent edit in Maya civilization was because it was derived from a primary source. While it is true that secondary sources are used more than primary sources, still, WP policy states explicitly that primary sources can be used occasionally. Given the importance of the passage which you reverted, would you be so kind to reconsider having it re-inserted? Just a reminder: WP:Primary sources.Davidbena (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont think the use you gave to this primary source was either necessary or sufficiently cautious. I dont think that piece of information belongs in the section, and not at all in a one sided representation from a single primary source. The question of the potential Central Mexican impact in post-classic Yucatan has a long history of scholarly debate and is not settled yet. Since this is something scholars are debating how to understand, it is not a case in which we can let the primary source speak for itself. So no, I will not reinsert it. But if you wish to argue the point further you should do so at the discussion page of the article where other editors can weigh in with their opinions and consensus can be formed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I understand your point, in general, although in this specific case, the words of Diego de Landa (our primary source for the mid-15th century history of Mayapan) are clear beyond doubt. Perhaps, though, in agreement and in full compliance with your own view on this subject, it will only give more credence to Diego de Landa's view if we also had a reliable secondary source in our reference. I shall raise the subject again on the Maya civilization Talk Page once I've found the secondary sources who recount the events as stated by Diego de Landa, and as brought down earlier by me. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The words of Diego de Landa are very much worthy of critical scrutiny, and cannot in any way be assumed to be an objective reflection of events in Maya history preceding the conquest - even if he is our main source. No modern historian would accept the accounts of friars and conquistadors at face value without critiqeuing, analyzing and interpreting them in relation to other sources. Having the discussion at the talkpage based on secondary sources is exactly the right way to do it, so that is a good way to proceed. Looking forward to seeing what you bring to the discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
My friend, had you paid strict notice to the edit suggested by me, it did not concern Mayan history as a whole, but rather the history of Mayapan's demise before the Spanish conquest. Of course, any reliable secondary source used as a reference would, in my view, have addressed the subject matter with a critical demeanor. The fact that Diego de Landa was a Spanish bishop or a "friar" is irrelevant, since his inquisitiveness about the local history of the place where he had actually lived, and which history he so kindly put down in writing, is all that really matters to us. All the best.Davidbena (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I doubt very much that any historian would agree that considering De Landa's particular perspective as a bishop and Spaniard living a century after the events he describes does not matter when trying to evaluate the accuracy of his account.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, here is where oral tradition, as passed down by the local Indians, plays an important role.Davidbena (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
And that role would be something that Wikipedia requires professional historians to assess - and the rules limiting the use of primary sources are in place exactly to prevent us from engaging in that kind of Original Research ourselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
As stated, a reliable secondary source who repeats the historical anecdote in Diego de Landa's seminal work agrees to the historicity of the event and it would not, by any means, be considered Original Research. For that matter, quoting verbatim from a primary source (albeit rarely used) is also not to be considered original research. This is plain to experienced editors.Davidbena (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please go spend your time producing those reliable secondary sources and then start a discussion at the article's talkpage. I think we are done here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your indulgence. I will give the subject further consideration when I get to the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, perhaps next week. Again, thanks for engaging me in this important discussion.Davidbena (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Biting my tongue. The irony of using the records of the man, who destroyed the Maya records themselves and prohibited any other researcher from examining them, knows no bounds. His "kindness of writing it down" is not so much appreciated here in Yucatán. Going back to my cave. SusunW (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha. Yes, he did a great disservice to anthropologists and ethnographers by burning the old books containing the Mayan language (on a wide-range of topics). Still, he enlightened us with other cultural and religious aspects known about the Maya. I say that in this unfortunate turn of events, let us take what is known about the Maya and present those facts impartially.Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your caution[edit]

I have read your caution, that said, it takes two to tango, and the editor in question did considerable damage to an article (that I was not a significant editor on, though I was involved) with unreliable sources and a tendentious argument over nothing. You and I both remember the mess that Irataba was in at its failed FAC (before you took it over and did excellent work) when an editor with a similarly casual attitude toward sourcing had an article under scrutiny. The editor you are discussing here is a similar sort; I only suggest that you look at the big picture and remember that we share a commitment to the quality of the encyclopedia. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It does take two to tango, and from what I can see Lynn is saved only by the fact that she is an equally good dancer as you. If she had been a less resilient editor your approach would have been very damaging. I don't think she has a casual attitude, I think her suggestions on the talk page shows a good understanding of the topic and the sources. In cases where she may not, the better approach is to collegially arrive at a shared understandind. I do not place the quality of the encyclopedia over the collegiality of collaborators. And I think it is a mistake to do so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have mentored many new users and try to encourage new users to become good editors. I'm all for collegiality and I wouldn't have the featured articles I have if I could not collaborate. But, I don't think that collegiality should be a WP:PACT, there is a time to back off from a losing battle, but it is a mistake to allow quality to be sacrificed just so everyone gets along; I've allowed myself to be bullied off articles in the past, and the errors can linger for years. Here, this user talks a good line, but her actual edits to the article belie her assertions; she was inserting stuff that would not pass WP:RS at FAC and probably not GA (citing to an amateur historian's self-published web page, for example). She also was pushing a fringe theory elsewhere and got called on that as well. I have been dealing with the OR and SYNTH problems with this editor for months on other articles, so my patience is thin. People who edit wikipedia have to learn that other people will edit their work and to learn it's nothing personal; I am tired of people who don't get that. Montanabw(talk) 06:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
And it's not just me: [1], [2]
Hey Maunus, while you're at it, could you please weigh in on this RfC? Your input would be appreciated. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Block Quote used in Maya civilization[edit]

In answer to your question, User:Maunus, the article describes glyphs used for numbers, but does not explain the method used by the Maya when actually counting the numbers randomly.Davidbena (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Danish source[edit]

Hi Maunus,

I've come across several Danish sources that refer to Poul Andersen "FØF". I believe it's a work on Danish dialectology, probably from the first half of the 20th century. Any idea what it might be?

Thanks — kwami (talk)

Poul Andersen was secretary in Udvalget for Folkemål, the first Danish dialectology society. He published, in 1958, a doctoral dissertation called Fonemsystemet i Øst-Fynsk (more precisely "Fonemsystemet i Østfynsk på grundlag af dialekten i Revninge Sogn"), which is probably the FØF title you have encountered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll see if I can locate it. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup, the ref checks out. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Danish phonetic symbols? I've come across a reversed ø which I don't think is in Unicode; also c with curly tail (perhaps ꞔ) and what looks like retroflex i (perhaps ᶖ). Do you know what they mean, or know of a ref that would explain them? If they're common, I could propose any missing ones to Unicode. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversed ⟨ø⟩ is used in the canIPA alphabet to denote a true-mid front rounded vowel. Perhaps that's how it's used by Andersen. Peter238 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, if canIPA is that old. But it doesn't look like canIPA otherwise. Thansk. I wrote to the journal. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested[edit]

to see [3]. You sent it to MfD; just before it was deleted, it was copied over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dardic languages[edit]

Hi Maunus, there seems to be a concerted effort by groups of editors to highlight Dardic languages, e.g., here. Can you please look into the issue? I don't know enough about the subject. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


I don't drink. If you ever again accuse me of being "drunk", I will ask for an interaction ban, i.e. that you never again refer to me in any way. And the "bigoted" charge is ridiculous. Do you remember the Muslim pilot who crashed his passenger plane on purpose? On his approach to an Egyptian airport, as I recall. The argument was used that it couldn't have been suicide because "Muslims don't do that." Only he did. The argument "Muslims don't do..." this or that is personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What you need is an ANI ban. If you dont drink I'll have to invent some other way to explain and excuse your persistent behavior characterized by low levels of wits and high levels of drama mongering. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I have now asked for that interaction ban from you. The flight in question was EgyptAir Flight 990. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
History will absolve me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see a citation for what I ever did to you, to evoke such lies from you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Look over your ANI contributions, imagine its someone else's and tell me you dont see a sanctimonious selfrighteous prat hovering over any chance of drama like a vulture over a carcass.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I sometimes raise questions that others don't like to hear. And are you saying that your best friends are substance abusers? If that's true, it's very sad, and you need to look yourself in the mirror instead of issuing unprovoked attacks against others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah so do drunks and bigots - hence the confusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't drink and I'm not a bigot. So what's your excuse? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I was raised to give folks the benefit of the doubt?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless it's someone you don't like for unknown reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Dude, assuming you were drunk was giving you the benefit of the doubt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Very funny. Now, tell me what I ever did to you, to warrant inclusion on your own personal "enemies list". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I dont keep such a list. But when I see folks being incompetent recurrently I do tell them to find something better to do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That's funny too. And you call me sanctimonious and hypocritical? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

English Language[edit]

Maunus, the problem with the English Language article citation regarding David Crystal isn't necessarily with Dr. Crystal himself. Indeed, he is recognized as an expert in his field. The problem is with the article and its citation. The article lists it as a hard range based on some sort of evidence. Mr. Crystal's own research separates out "foreign" speakers as those who are students of the language at varying levels of proficiency and a number that is "difficult to be sure about" (p 424, "A History of the English Language", Crystal, David). In this book, (and on that same page) he places the number as being somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion. He also says it could be between 600 million and 700 million (again, on the same page). Put simply, the number is not recognized by any major body because it is merely a guess. If it is to be cited here, it must be noted that it is exactly that - a guess.

That is what all speaker numbers are - guesstimates. There is no need to make a special case out of this guess.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Drunk editors[edit]

I consider myself pretty good at being able to gauge the sobriety of editors (I used to work in a bar in a galaxy, far away). So it came as some surprise to read that you suspected Baseball Bugs of drinking. He's never appeared inebriated to me, so I wonder what made you think that way about him. I can't say the same for many others, however, some of whom are arbs. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont think there is any good reason to revive that discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And there should be no reason to repeat it Maunus. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I had the same thought as Viriditas. Dropping the case is best. And that it does not reoccur is also essential. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
IF I were drunk myself, or otherwise cognitively impaired I might accept behavioral advice from you Amritsya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Something just occurred to me. If I may hypothesize: it's possible that in the culture Maunus identifies with, telling jokes all the time like Baseball Bugs does is associated with intoxication. This is likely the case. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You are close to the mark. In my culture drunkeness is associated with agressive, dramamongering, obnoxious behavior and general lack of good judgment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.

Irkutsk Fire 1879 Romanov.jpg

I wish you better luck this New Year. Face-smile.svg Caballero//Historiador 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Block of[edit]

There once was an IP address
It ended in 154
But while no Pius the First
It was saintly for sure

Slanderous lies on ANI it made
About Volkswagen and automation
But no one believed its claims
Much to the IP's frustration

Partly this was DatGuyWiki's fault
And the IP wanted to let him know
But an edit filter was also at fault
And the IP wanted to let the world know

Here the tale skips a boring bit
And leads to reviews of editors:

Philknight has been around a bit
DatGuyWiki element of janitors
Hu is Huon or Foxj the pict
But random victims picked
Jpgordon has a nazi dog
That ties victims in its cellar
HighInBc is a delightful chap
Who enjoys illicit intoxication
Ohnoitsjamie on the other hand
Has a willy too small for masturbation

Yours Sincerely,

The people's front for the liberation of

R&I IP[edit]

FYI that R&I IP you mentioned on wikipediocracy is a PureVPN IP address (related to their server). There's a long term history of socks using PureVPN IPs on those pages, e.g. [4][5][6] -- (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


I have nominated the recapture of El Chapo at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You need respect any rules of Wikipedia[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Marxism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Gorin1245 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bruno Gröning source[edit]

Thanks for checking the potential source. Could you leave some useful quotes from it on the article talk page for editors to use? --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Email it if you'd like. Thanks for offering to. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ronz (talk · contribs), you would need to respond to my email for me to send you the paper. I can't send attachments through wikipedia's email system.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Race and intelligence[edit]

Hi Maunus. There literally thousands of topics on which "there is no consensus on the matter", and yet we don't point that out, we merely present the different currents, without presuming that there ought to be consensus because in most cases there will never be. Be it over whether butter or maragrine is better for you, carbohydrates or proteins, link between pollutants and ADHD, between GMOs and risks to health, etc, etc, . In none of those cases, do we presume a consensus to be in the offing. To mention that there is no consensus implies that one is expected, which is editorialising and not based on scientific evidence. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, when reliable sources largely express something approaching a consensus, it is a good idea for the overall tenor of the article to reflect what the great majority of reliable sources say. That's just Wikipedia policy, and it is also good encyclopedia editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

For undoing an edit without immediately resorting to the revert button. Hats off.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/Ruslands grænser[edit]

Se venligst denne diskussion, jeg tror vi er enige. Jeg diskuterer med vores yndlingsaversion Rmir2 om kortene på Ruslands relaterede artikler. Hvis du får tid, kan du jo give dit besyv med! PerV (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Her tror jeg faktisk jeg ville være enig med Rmir2. Jeg mener at Wikipedia har et ansvar for ikke præmaturt at anerkende politiske krav over erobrede områder, der stadig ikke har fuldt anerkendt status af begge parter - omstridte områder bør skraveres synes jeg.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@·maunus: Det er præcist det jeg argumenterer for, netop at omstridte områder skal være på kortene for begge lande, skraverede. Rmir ønsker at slette kort over Rusland, der inkluderer Krim, der også benyttes på en wiki. Rmir2 ønsker istedet at indsætte det gamle kort over Rusland. Det nye kort blev, så vidt jeg kan se, indført på en wiki 24. mar 2014. Jeg har i diskussionen, adskillige gange, talt for, at vi skal vise de facto, og vise de jure. Ligesom vi gør med kortet over Indien vedrørende Kashmir.
Ok, ja det lyder lige lovlig radikalt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases - üser:Altenmann >t


I'm confused, what did I do wrong? --Potguru (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You were moving around comments, which per WP:TPO is not a good idea. It is also not a good idea to copy other editors comments.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sublimis Deus[edit]

Hejsa Maunus. Jeg kan se, at du har tilbageført min ændring på Sublimis Deus. Jeg er dog ikke enig i din argumentation. »Sublimis« er et adjektiv i nominativ singularis, der lægger sig direkte til »Deus«, således at »Sublimis Deus« betyder »(den) Ophøjede Gud«. Det er sandt, at selve formen »sublimis« isoleret betragtet også kan være genitiv, men for det første bruges genitiv ikke generelt til at angive retning fra (som i "God from on high"), for det andet er »sublimis« som sagt et adjektiv, ikke et nomen, og for det tredje giver en genitivform ikke mening i den videre sætningskontekst (»Sublimis Deus sic dilexit humanum genus, ut ...«). —Pinnerup (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hej Pinnerup (talk · contribs) - jeg læste teksten og kom selv til konklusionen at sublimis må være nominativ i den kontekst (og ablativ ville være bedre til meningen "fra") - så jeg genindførte din ændring og en mere korrekt oversættelse.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Super :) —Pinnerup (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Really? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a script that represents sound is called phonetic (the opposite is ideographic, or semasiographic, or in the Maya case logographic). The Maya script has two types of signs, phonetic signs and logographic signs. Only modern linguists use and advocate phonemic scripts (which are also by the way within the wider category of phonetic scripts, they just represent abstract (phonological) sound units instead of concrete ones). The idea of the phoneme is a 20th century invention. No ancient scripts are phonemic, and neither are the vast majority of modern scripts. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm confused—"phonetic script" redirects to Phonetic transcription. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is not a good redirect. Phonetic transcription is also a 20th century invention which relies on the idea that language has a phonological and a phonetic level. This understanding of language originated with Ferdinand de Saussure.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Here are some sources where you can see the usage:
Justeson, John S., and Lyle Campbell. Phoneticism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing. University Press of Colorado, 1987.
Macri, Martha Jane. "Phoneticism in Maya head variant numerals." PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982.
Nicholson, Henry B. Phoneticism in the late pre-Hispanic Central Mexican writing system. Trustees for Harvard University, 1974.
Edgerton, William F. "Egyptian phonetic writing, from its invention to the close of the nineteenth dynasty." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1940): 473-506.
"In the parlance of sinology, these com- ponents are called phonetics, phonetic elements, or phonetic" Unger, J. Marshall, and John DeFrancis. "Logographic and semasiographic writing systems: a critique of Sampson’s classification." Scripts and literacy (1995): 45-58.

" It has been argued that Aristotle's definition is a direct result of the nature of the Greek alphabet, which is said to be the first full-blown phonetic writing system humanity developed."(Coulmas, F., 2003. Writing systems. An introduction to their linguistic analysis, CUP.)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks—I'd been led to believe there were no languages that employed "phonetic" scripts, as that would imply the characters represented phones rather than phonemes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed in most languages the script aims to represent phones not phonemes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll admit I'm confused. The opening line of Phone (phonetics) at least would make this sound unlikely. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Why? When people write the intuitive thing to do is to try to represent pronunciation. Thats what all children do before they learn the rules of their orthographies. Writing down phones does not require the use of an truly phonetic alphabet. I am not sure you understand what a phoneme is - it is an abstraction based on an structural analysis of the sounds considered to be distinctive in a given languages - deciding to representing phonemes requires a very high degree of linguistic theoretical sophistication. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
My understanding was they would write the sounds as perceived within the sound system of the language—for instance, I find it hard to imagine the Japanese developing a writing system that distingushes [g] and [ŋ] (both realizations of /g/), even if they recognize them as separate phones (as many (most?) Japanese do). Would such a writing system still be called "phonetic"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would still be considered phonetic. In fact even a perfectly phonemic writing system would be considered "phonetic writing" in the sense of a type of writing system (which I understand is counterintuitive if you have learned seeing phonemic and phonetic as the main opposition in language) because both phonemic and phonetic representations represents the sounds of the spoken language (phonemic writing just represent the sounds at a different level of abstraction). But when talking about writing systems the opposite of phonetic is not phonemic, but ideographic (representing concepts) or logographic (representing whole words). Hence a non-phonetic writing system would be a picture of a cow, which can be read as representing the sound "cow", "vache" or "bos" depending on the language spoken by the person who reads it - but a phonetic writing system can only be read in a single language, because it represents the sounds (however imperfectly, subjectively, or abstractly it does so). If we use the japanese example, Japanese writing combines phonetic elements (hiragana/katakana) with non-phonetic elements (kanji) - the fact that there is subphonemic allophonic variation that is not captured by the phonetic signs does not mean that the kana system as a whole is not phonetic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation, and for not getting too frustrated with me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries, happy to explain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sesquipedalophobia, which you proposed for deletion. There's a bit of relevant info on the article's talk page. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've just spent too much time tracing and fixing all the redirects around this article to let it get deleted so easily. It's still quite lean but I'll try to beef it up a bit in a few days, provided I find decent sources. Thanks! Uanfala Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


What the fuck are you doing? Are you trying to piss me off further, or just have a personal war against anything I do at the BtK article? How about some discussion before removing photos? You know I am on a 1RR restriction, you know I am trying to improve this article. You know all this and are doing something as contentious as removing a photograph that won't hurt the article one bit (it's not as if it's a BLP) if it's there while some more research is done in light of your objection to the photo. Another WP:JERK move from you. Don't you have other articles and editors to pay attention to? -- WV 03:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

After a protracted discussion about dubious photos you go ahead and add further dubious photos without discussing them with other editors first. I realize introspection is not your forte but honestly that is just absurdly stupid. It is as if you actually want the GA review to fail.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please prove the photos I added dubious. Because, if they actually are dubious, they shouldn't be in the article. Please, I look forward to your evidence. -- WV 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The link that you yourself provided explicitly states so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
And, as I stated, I included it in error. That error has been corrected. Please, provide some kind of evidence that would be considered a reliable source saying the photo isn't authentic. Or is the UNM a good enough source for your refined sensibilities? -- WV 04:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Shootseven already provided a print source that mentions doubts about the O'Folliard photo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Shootseven is who, exactly? An expert? Then who is he so we can verify he's a reliable source? Is he more of a reliable source than the UNM archives? I doubt it (just like I doubt he's an actual expert). You don't think all of these redlink editors popping up at the article in the last short while and going ballistic over photographs at this article and all editing Lincoln County related articles isn't suspicious? -- WV 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
He is clearly a person who knows what he is talking about, and who has a wide knowledge of the literature on Billy the Kid, and who understands how one writes neutrally and objectively about history and authenticity. The source he presented is Frederick Nolan's biography of BTK. And no, I assume good faith untill I no longer have that possibility. Shootseven has been knowledgeable, patient and courteous in his participation, so I have no reason to doubt his good faith.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Right. And he was blocked for disruption and edit warring just because he's such a nice and patient guy. Whatever, I really don't give a shit anymore. You can go to bed tonight knowing you accomplished something great the last couple of days: driving someone away who has only been trying to improve an article, bring it to a higher level, and improve Wikipedia. I'm done. Have the last word. -- WV 05:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for editwarring because he was new and didnt know the rules, and because you, the established editor, editwarred with him.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This statement here by Winkelvi, "You don't think all of these redlink editors popping up at the article in the last short while and going ballistic over photographs at this article and all editing Lincoln County related articles" is uncalled for. I agreed with another editor about a dubious photograph that he removed. I did not go ballistic over photographs. I have just as much standing to comment, edit, and agree or disagree with any editor here as anyone else. To suggest that something suspicious is afoot because I haven't made a user page yet? I happen to enjoy old west articles and subjects. No wonder so many new editors do not stay here very long. Jilllyjo (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, could you please be a bit more careful and preview your edits on the BTK article before they go live? I edit conflicted with you over a broken reference, and I found another one where you hadn't even placed the reference tag at the start. --Ches (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Chesnaught555: I am experimenting with them at present so no need for you to fix them as I am working. It is not possible to preview how linked references are working so I have to do it like this - making mistakes and fixing them as I go. I will finish the job and leave it nice and neat, but I need somentime where noone else is working on it. If you need to do other stuff on the article now, I will leave it and come back later when it is quiet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do I really have to tell you that if you want to experiment, you must use the sandbox? Don't make your test/experiment edits live. There's a template warning about that sort of behaviour. --Ches (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine, you can do it yourself. Good luck.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not stopping you from doing it, I'm just letting you know that you can't make your test edits live. Is that too much to ask? --Ches (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This is how I do this kind of edits - tweaking the errors as I go usually correcting them within minutes. I have done it in dozens of articles including featured and good articles without anyone giving me this kind of silly sermon. So have your article back with is mess of a reference system and do the edits yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! Thank you for all your hard work Maunus. I am sorry that another user is giving you such a hard time. That kind of behaviour is totally uncalled for as well as quite rude. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, once again we see that it is not the "encyclopedia" part of "collaborative encyclopedia" that is causing us troubles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jillyjo, how am I being rude? I am simply saying that we cannot have test edits live on the BTK article. --Ches (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will explain. First of all, these edits are not "test edits" they are part of the normal process of editing which entails making incremental changes and correcting mistakes. A "test edit' is an edit made by a newbie who is trying to learn how to edit. By suggesting that I, who has been a wikipedia editor about 8 years longer than you, was making test edits, and by using bold fonts and condescending phrasings you were being rude. Now I have had enough of rude teenagers for a while and I will be leaving the BTK article to itself. It clearly shouldnt pass with the references being in such a mess but that will be someone elses problem from now on.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Focus on contributions, not contributors... another basic WP policy violated right there. Yes, I am a teenager. Yes, I'm sixteen years of age. I've said it on my user page, I'll say it here. My age is no indication of my maturity. --Ches (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Your claims of maturity are clearly exaggerated. Now sod off, and don't bother me here again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That's nice, Maunus. --Ches (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I am nice to nice people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Battlefield language[edit]

Using "cute" phrases to label your opponents is a cheap and rather uncool way of advancing your position. Resorting to such comments (Putin-bot) in an area subject to discretionary sanctions is not only likely to raise the temperature of a discussion unnecessarily but provides evidence of a battlefield mentality. Perhaps you should cease using this phrase? Spartaz Humbug! 14:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not a phrase I throw around a lot. But it is apt for describing the type of editor who has maintained Vladimir Putin over the past several years.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case, it should be no problem not using this particular term again. Apt or not it causes more difficult than it could possibly solve. Spartaz Humbug! 16:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I used it once in a private conversation with Marek, in reference to noone in particular. Then the editors opposed to Marek brought it into a conversation trying to use it to demonstrate that Marek had a "conflict of interest"[sic]. I don't have any plans to pursue further editing in the Putin area, but I promise that in the future I will not use that term to describe pro-Putin pov-pushers.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


seriously? You know the drill so I won't insult you with a template, but I'm still astonished you even for a moment thought this could be a good idea. Spartaz Humbug! 01:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evolutionary theory and the political left[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Evolutionary theory and the political left has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sent another. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach DRN[edit]

Since you voted in the more recent RfC, you may be interested in the discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboaard about closing the RfC. Marlindale (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


For your skill in ferreting out sockpuppets.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:JSB RfC closed, what next?[edit]

Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? Marlindale (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


I am not sure why you would want a repetitive piece of line be present there in that section which basically talks about the same thing in 2 paragraphs about RSS not being part of independence moment with factual data.  A m i t  웃   01:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please deal with content stuff at the article talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Grants idea lab[edit]

I’m not quite sure of the best practices for contributing to the grants idea lab. I just made a contribution to a proposal you started. Let’s discuss if there’s a better way to do it — was I supposed to comment on the discussion page and then added to the list or is my bold addition okay?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:I moved it to the discussion page, just so your idea isnt attributed to me. I think the talkpage is a good place to further develop the idea proposal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not see it. This is where I looked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I slightly rewrote and added my comment to the discussion page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Great. I think the system there is not very easy to navigate - I also botched the first time when I tried to create a proposal. I will write a response there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Orion's belt in Nahuatl[edit]

Hi Maunus,

Do you know if Orion's belt is a firedrill in Nahuatl? I read that somewhere, but don't know if the claim is reliable. I ask because that's what it is in Hadza (or rather, it's firedrills plural), and I wonder what motivates that image. (I could see it as three holes drilled in a fireblock, or a single firedrill, but the plural is odd.) — kwami (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a constellation called mamalhuaztli which means "firedrill", but some sources identify it as being Orion's belt and others as being Castor and Pollux. In Maya (I assume yucatec) Orion's belt is apparently called mehen ek - "the sons".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rules of thumb[edit]

Hi Maunus, good to be chatting with you. Just wanted to say I really like your Rules of thumb; I agree with almost all of them! Numbers 1 and 6 are especially good. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

They are all useful for me to return to sometimes to put things into perspective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear; they are a good take-away for me also. Since we are talking about it, I will say that I heartily disagree with number 3, although I agree that advice could be useful to others. Consistency is very important to me. I would like it if you decided that different people are built for different things, and those who make things more consistent are truly beneficial. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
People who consistently make things better are truly beneficial. Those who just make them more homogeneous are on average as damaging as they are beneficial - statistically speaking. For example if all of our articles on the periodic system gives different atomic numbers for helium, and I randomly choose one of the numbers and make it consistent across articles, then the chance of me having actually improved the encyclopedia is less than 50%. If I notice that our articles on human evolution sometimes use "hominid" and sometimes use "hominin" to describe the human family and I choose to enforce the consistent use of one of them, without taking into account that the two terms are not in fact synonymous but indicate different contexts, then my chances of damaging the encyclopedia approaches 100%. My pet-bête noire is of course users who slavishly introduce changes based on arbitrary choices between arbitrary style conventions, or who fight for removing the ability to freely use certain stylistic elements armed with consistency as the sole argument for restricting other users freedom to write following their own stylistic preferences. That is where I think it is important to note that consistency may be beneficial for the encyclopedia, but is not inherently so. For example, there is no inherent good in having the same punctuation system in two different articles, or even in consistently using British vs. American spellings of centre/center color/colour within a given article. The production of consistency, of course is not necessarily harmful either, and we should resist the temptation to make the argument that those who do (and argue about) consistency-producing edits are "wasting resources", because of course their resources are a function of their personalities and interests and could likely not be spent in other ways. In this way consistency is indeed perhaps a good, but it is not a greater good, but a minor one, relative to what I consider the main function and value of the encyclopedia. If every article on wikipedia were written in different fonts, with different punctuation conventions and with individually designed infoboxes, that would not necessarily substantively diminish the value of the encyclopedia in my opinion. On the other hand enforcing the consistent use of harvard citations in an article I consider is beneficial to most articles because it enables the functionality of clicking on a citation and seeing the reference, and because it makes it easier for future editors to use pre-existing citations without having to find the place in the text where they are defined. Perhaps the solution is that we embrace something we could call "intelligent consistency", which would be a form of consistency that consistently takes into consideration when consistency is appropriate and helpful and when it is not, and which does not make the cognitive shortcut of adopting the syllogism "consistency=beneficial". I would be all for that type of consistency. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting essay! I am glad to have read it, this is good caution for me, I will remember "intelligent consistency" and ensure I never fall into the traps you describe. I think perhaps you have been waiting for someone like me to come along! But never fear, I believe we are probably in agreement with what we each believe. For example, I'm sure you know that I am not talking about "arbitrary" or "randomly" choosing and "without taking into account" what should be applied consistently; I would use reliable sources and established convention. Also, I am not really talking about matters of style either, as often style is an interpretation of a guideline, not something set in stone, unless you are being inconsistent with a clearly stated rule in the MoS or inconsistent with your own style in a single article. I agree that consistency across articles is usually not a good idea, unless the group of articles are on the same subject that readers are likely to read together. I don't look at it as adding more homogeneity, but clarity. Now of course, you're going against guidelines if you don't let me apply consistency to a misspelled British or American word across a single article; I doubt you are saying you prefer misspelled words. I'm glad we agree that consistency may be beneficial for the encyclopedia and that consistency is never necessarily harmful. I believe you are right about my "resources are a function of their personalities" and that we should appreciate these people, especially since we are each experts at different things. The fact that you appreciate my favorite citation: the Harvard citation, shows me your heart is much like mine, as correct referencing is so important. In short, I believe we learned from each other and of course respect any differences. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Certainly I am happy you came along to ask, and push me to develop the thinking behind my rapidly scribbled rules of thumb further (I had not in fact thought out the above essay in preparation of someone asking though I can see it looks that way, but I actually had to go through the thought process in writing it, so thanks for that!). And yes, I do greatly appreciate people who take the time to make my sloppy spelling and formatting look neat! As a matter of fact I wish I had a small army of such gnomes to put to work on my dissertation right now. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are Wikignomes and there are WikiDragons! Face-smile.svg Wow, best of luck on your dissertation; yes, you will need it to be well-copy edited. Prhartcom (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Thank you, Maunus, for dealing with Sıgehelmus on the "unite with anyone" quote. I would not have been able to deal with him with such equanimity. In addition, I'm too close to the source on this. I think I added that quote to the article (I edit some sections of it a fair amount; I got interested because I live 3 miles from where he was probably born).

BTW, I'd love to see this article be promoted to "Good Article", but I don't have time right now to work on it much, and I'm sure it needs improving (some sections more than others). If you have any interest, it would be great. Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't say equanimity is my primary forte, although I try to practice it as much as possible. I added some context to the quote, which I think should settle Sighelmus concern (albeit misplaced) and provide the reader with an even better understanding of Douglass' convictions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan:: I dont consider myself a party since I dont have any plans to edit the article or participate in the discussions about it. So I am not going to participate, but I dont think that should count against the mediation process being accepted - I think you should just remove me as a party to the dispute.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on Talk:Pain in crustaceans[edit]

Hi. Your recent edit on Talk:Pain in crustaceans appears to have been inserted between already existing posts. This makes the chronological development of the page a little confused. Would you be prepared to consider moving your posting? All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text refactored[edit]

Dear Maunus:

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of refactoring the quoted letter from Mark van Stone at Talk:Maya civilization#Coment from Mark van Stone regarding the interpretation of his 2011 article. As you can see above lines with a leading space do not wrap the text around, thus making the sentences overflow the screen to the far right. The best technique for really long quotes is to use the {{quotebox}} and insert two <br /> at the start of each paragraph/newline, which is what I did here. No other changes were made to the text. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of refactoring the quoted letter from Mark van Stone at Talk:Maya civilization#Coment from Mark van Stone regarding the interpretation of his 2011 article. As you can see above lines with a leading space do not wrap the text around, thus making the sentences overflow the screen to the far right. The best technique for really long quotes is to use the {{quotebox}} and insert two <br /> at the start of each paragraph/newline, which is what I did here. No other changes were made to the text. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries, as long as the text is the same it shouldnt be a problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Last call at Bach page[edit]

Your opinion at the Bach talk page RfC has recently been hatted. The RfC is about to close if you can revive your strong comment there. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Der Brænder en Ild[edit]

I've added parts about Jens Dennow and his wife Gerda Neumann's tragic plane crash, a bit about the farm used in the film, sourced the plot section and added two more reviews, including one from Berlingske. For these reasons, I've re-nominated the article for GA-status. Wish me luck! Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, you might also be interested in this. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[edit]

hello, while I continued to transliterate a text, that user has come reverting, I explained why to stop, but he went on reverting. Can you please help me? thanks Mariandyn (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Kmoksy and Esc2003[edit]

These two users Kmoksy and Esc2003 have started a huge war edits, already warned but continueing to revert the warnings. Please help Manaviko (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

About women[edit]

Hi Maunus, I think your Idea about Getting Academic Reviewers is very important. It is what I'm plannig to do with the project about gender gap that you will find at this link It would be great to have your support. Thank you,--Kenzia (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Racism: Thank you for suggestion[edit]

Thanks for the suggestion on the environmental racism in europe page. I am more than happy to consider adding some concise definitions if it helps gives clarity. I have a few really good and very concise definitions / quotes in mind. I totally acknowledge that Environmental racism can be a broad and shifting term, so I am always happy to engage in dialogue.

best,Sturgeontransformer (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Sturgeontransformer

I just noticed that some additional context has recently been added to the introduction. Much appreciated. I might consider adding to / re-wording it slightly, but overall, it looks good to me!

thanksSturgeontransformer (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)sturgeontransformer

Los Bybys[edit]

I know this website, what is your relation with this page?, this page talking about killed man in Teoloyucan, in this note hasn't got a mention about Tequixquiac with the group. This is joke or only mention for Los Bybys?--Marrovi (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are trying to say. The man who died in Teoloyucan was a member of the Bybys, which is what the article says.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Not is relevant this information for the Tequixquiac article, maybe Teoloyucan.--Marrovi (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You are being dense. It is a source that supports the fact that you added to the article namely that the Bybys were formed in Tequixquiac. If the Bybys are relevant for the article, then so is the source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This theme is topic only for Los Bybys article, no relevant information in Tequixquiac article.--Marrovi (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Then please either remove the information about los Bybys from the Tequixquiac or supply a better source for that piece of information. And stop posting unsourced information and stop adding sources that do not support the information provided. I am not going to be very patient with you as long as you are repeating the exact same behavior that got you blocked from the Spanish wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I return in August to Spanish Wikipedia, buy you don't know a conflict, is very difficult to understand all. I have not put that reference, I have no obligation to remove it, if you think that is a reference, can leave it. --Marrovi (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Al parecer no está enterado de la resolución definitiva de bloqueo permanente de XanaG. Sigue pensando que va a volver. Regards! --Akapochtli (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Puedes hacer lo creas conveniente, eres una persona libre y estás en la Wikipedia libre (me gusta hacer valer ese objetivo central con el que inició este proyecto), yo no acostumbro hacer amenazas, ni me valgo de opiniones de terceras personas para determniar jucios, ni acostumbro reprimir a las personas valiendome de influyentismos, ni me pongo como juez para determinar las conductas humanas, esa no es el trabajo de un editor ni de un investigador. Pues no entendí a que te refieres con Tlaxcala, tal vez si me lo explicas lo puedo entender. Que tengas una bonita tarde; regards.--Marrovi (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia no es un espacio libre. Esa una enciclopedia con reglas que han puesto la comunidad. Si no quieres seguir las reglas que existen no puedes ser parte del proyecto de la enciclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Me queda muy claro que esto no es un espacio de contenido libre, no sé ¿Por qué sigue llamandose free encyclopedia?, pero bueno eso es otro tema. No he venido hacer revolución ni a reformar la Wikipedia, ni a inponer normas, sé que aquí hay ciertas reglas (aunque algunas muy ambiguas) que deben respetarse, eso es obvio, no estoy cuestionando a la wikipedia. Yo te hice una pregunta ¿Cúal es el problema de bandera de Tlaxcala? no la has respondido aún, es necesario para que se pueda emitir un argumento en base a referencias. No creo que esto se parezca a lo de un asesinato comentido en Teloloyucan de un cantante grupero que no tiene nada que ver con artículo llamado Tequixquiac, el cual su lógica de contenido debe seguir otras categorías como lo dice las propias reglas de wikipedia ¿Así de claras son las referencias que respaldas? Tampoco me interesa dedicarme al chisme (fulano dijo, me dijeron, etc.) o irme al son de la tambora, solo concretemos a resolver ¿Cuál es el problema de Tlaxcala el cual no entendí?, olvidate si no edito o editaré en Wikipedia española, ¿Quiero saber cómo tú crees que debe editarse el artículo, qué debe contener y que información podemos dejar en Wikipedia y cual se debe discriminar?, los artículos son muy distintos en cada temática, es mejor ocupar el tiempo en cosas más concretas y de beneficio a la Wikipedia y no política barata.--Marrovi (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

El problema es que escribiste (otra vez) una section entera llena de informacion acerca de una tema y despues agregaste una fuente que no contiene nada de la informacion que adicionaste. Eso no es solamente adicionar informacion sin fuente, pero es enganosamente hacer parecer que la informacion si tiene fuente cuando la verdad es que no. En las semanas pasadas te he cachado hacer esta forma de trampa mas que cinco veces. Fue exactamente por esta falta de integridad de tus contribuciones que te bloquearon en, y por la cual seras tambien bloqueada aqui si lo sigues haciendo. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Para terminar pronto ¿Quieres que quede el artículo de Bandera de Tlaxcala?, porque si el objetivo es anular el artículo, entonces estamos perdiendo el tiempo, lo hubieras anulado y se acabó la discussion, ya no hay nada que discutir. Hay que ser como la gente inteligente, aprovechar el tiempo; lo que debe eliminarse pues que se elimine, no malgastarlo en intrigas y acusaciones de lavaderos, ya estoy leyendo lo que se considera fuente primaria en inglés, luego te paso mis dudas para que me ayudes intepretar el contenido.--Marrovi (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ningun articulo puede quedar en la enciclopedia que tiene solamente fuentes primaria. Eso es basico. Ninguna informacion puede incluirse en una articulo que no tiene fuente. Eso es otra cosa basica. Si hay que ser inteligente y no malgastar el tiempo, por eso no estoy feliz por tener que seguir tus contribuciones para arreglarlas para que esten conformando a reglas basicas que tu ya deberias conocer y entender. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yo te caí en lo del asesinato de Teoloyucan, acusar es fácil pero darse cuenta que uno también comete errores, no es tan fácil y menos que nos lo digan los demás; pues no fue el bloqueo por lo que tu dices, fue para conservar la sana convivencia con los acusantes porque llegaron a estresarse de tantas preguntas que les hice y que no pudieron responder (por su falta de conocimiento a muchos temas) y que buscaban eleminar encontrando todo aquello que respaldara sus argumentos en base a las reglas, obvio que eso los estresó porque no es fácil seguir las reglas sin cometer errores, pero el bloqueo dura medio años para que avanzaran sin cuestionamientos que ponga en duda su proceder, el bloqueo se me dio como una especie de vacaciones para que mejore una buena convivencia con los editores y no los evidencie en su ignorancia, sin embargo se llegó a un acuerdo en el que se volverán abrir los artículos eliminados para no dejar mal parada a la Wikipedia de tanto despretigio que ha recibido del ramo académico, monitoreando el contenido, eso es muy bueno porque los involucrados se voverán expertos en los temas. Obvio que a río revuelto hay ganancia de pescadores, no faltó el que se aprovechó de la situción para hacer leña del árbol caído involucrando a las personas en base a los argumentos, pero bueno no soy un inbécil para no entender como a veces opera la mente humana.
Pues ya nos vamos entendiendo, así es como debes explicar los problemas, no hay ambigüedades y tienes toda la razón, me agrada esa forma de como lo has explicado. No voy discutir si los demás editan sin referenciar fuentes, o si sus fuentes son un tanto cuestionadas, he visto una gran cantidad de artículo que yo no he editado y que tienen ese problema, pero de ahora en adelante me concretaré a lo mio, recuerda lo que enseñaron tus vecinos, Si me respetas yo te respeto, si no me respetas no esperes que yo te respete, dejemonos atrás las evideciaciones, los trinquetes (complots) y los despretigios. Como decimos en México; solo hablando al chile (de manera directa y sin adornos) se evitan los problemas y surgen las amistades. Eso también lo aprendí en Europa, nadie es digno de confienza y de tu amistad hasta que no le conozcas lo suficiente, son los años (paciencia), la lealtad, las cosas que compartas y una noche de cervezas frías (creo que tienen que ser varias noches y tardes cheleras) lo que hace a los buenos amigos para toda la vida.--Marrovi (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
He revisado las discusiones en y tus contribuciones. Es obvio que no fue simplemente por politicas, pero tambien porque la mayoria de tus contribuciones son altamente problematicas y no siguieron las reglas. Estaban repletas de investigacion original y falsificacion de referencias. Si no puedes entender o aceptar eso será dificil que mejores tu situacion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
He estado pensando que el artículo de las banderas mexicanas pueden copiar el mismo patrón de artículos similares, en las que se incluye, una descripción general, historia, protocolo, diseño y variantes, esa era la línea que intentaba desarrollar, pero no entendí ¿cómo pretendes abordar el desarrollo del artículo?, tal vez tengas una mejor propuesta para ampliar el artículo, me gustaría saberla.--Marrovi (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Cualquier articulo puede incluir solamente informacion que aperece en fuentes confiables publicadas. Si hay una fuente que describe el diseño y da la historia, protocolo entonces se puede incluir, si no entonces no. Para cada pieza de informacion por mas pequeño que te parezca tiene que haber una fuente y la fuente tiene que citarse y la informacion que incluyes tiene que apegarse fielmente a la informacion que incluye la fuente. Es basico y no-negociable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Podrías ayudarme a explicarme como se desarrolla esta parte del pilar, personal essays. Es complicado, porque muchos temas no son de dominio popular, de hecho ciertos temas pueden ser nuevos para algunos pero viejos para otros, no es fácil determinar objetivamente como evaluar el tema. Hay artículos más que investigados como los DE videojuegos, ciudades, biografías, cosas de química, matemáticas, física, geografía, biología, temas que hasta pueden ser aburrido editarlos por la cantidad de información existente en línea, pero hay otros que están aquí y que nadie los comenta, no porque sean buenos sino por ignorancia del tema y muchas veces te encuentras a usuarios expertos en pokemón y pornografía comentando seriamente sobre temas de medicina, política o semiótica que editan doctorantes o estudiantes de maestría, que algunas veces parecen ensayos o artículos de revista científica y no temas enciclopédicos.--Marrovi (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"personal essays" no es un pilar. Personal essays son articulos que no son enciclopedicos porque están escritos en una forma que representa las perspectivas, opiniones, evaluaciones, y conocimientos del autor mismo y no representa informacion objectiva o publicada en fuentes confiables.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Eso lo sé, que no es un pilar, pero me puse a leer esa parte y quería saber ¿cómo es que aquí lo desarrollan?, la verdad no siempre se puede concretar con un pinchazo de computadora, es bastante relativo pero me ha quedado claro, muchas gracias. Sigo leyendo, luego te escribo otros detalles, see you later, Maunus.--Marrovi (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Una pregunta ¿Tú estudiaste en México o en Dinamarca?, te pregunto esto porque estoy iniciando mi protocolo para tesis doctoral y terminando mi grado de master; debo buscar universidades que esten vinculadas con el urbanismo o la geografía humana, conozco algunas pero siempre es bueno ver otras opciones.--Marrovi (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
An advice? do not waste time trying to show Marrovi how to do things, because it just goes in one ear and out the other. 100% refractory. Strakhov (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why you reverted my edition in Franz Boas?[edit]

Why you reverted my edition in Franz Boas?

I was Interpreted the Franz Boas metaphors and the metaphors of his disciples and passed to an content which Wikipedia should spread, an objective content, not subjective Franz Boas metaphorical content. - (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC).

It was not clearly intelligible, it had no sources and it came across as fairly dubious. Suggest your change at the discussion page, and argue for why you think it should be included. I cant say I even understand what you are trying to say here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to say here that I what interpreted the Franz Boas metaphors an passed to an objective content with more normal vision of world. - - (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC).
I still dont understand it. What metaphors? And what is the source where you have read this?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


Acabo de dejar un mensaje aquí, el problema es más serio de lo que crees, te deje un mensaje en la Wikipedia en español también. Hemos revisado alrededor de 400 artículos de Marrovi, 170 borrados y los otros se han reescrito por completo, hoaxes, tergiversación de fuentes, fuente primaria, datos erróneos, etc. Fue expulsado de Wikipedia en alemán y bloqueado un año en Wikipedia en italiano, me avergüenza reconocer que se dieron cuenta antes que nosotros.

Aquí puedes ver como el artículo Santiago Tequixquiac, creado por Marrovi en diferentes Wikipedias y borrado en español, presenta datos diferentes y erróneos en cada una de sus versiones.

Me parece que debes llevar el caso a una instancia superior.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Gordon Wasson article[edit]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Your recent edit to Efrain Rios Montt[edit]

I'm not sure, but I think that you may have misread a New York Times article from 2013 as being about 2016. I don't know enough about the subject to be comfortable making a change, so I thought I would give you a heads up. (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! You are absolutely right, that explains whay I hadnt heard about this from other media. Embarassing, but I guess it comes down to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Thanks for the heads up! I have self reverted of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I accidentally thanked you for an edit. How can I remove it? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont think that is possible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Genocide of indigenous peoples[edit]

I've created a section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue ("Smallpox Blankets Revisited"). JordanGero (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for the edits you did on the "Genocide of indigenous people" article. I'm not sure if you've read my most recent additions to the article's talk page, but your edits are perfectly consistent with my position relative to the contested wording, namely lack of reliable sourcing for the 1837 smallpox blanket distribution, as well as contextualizing Amherst's racist and genocidal language within Pontiac's War (without such contextualization, the wording seemed to imply that Amherst up and decided to execute biological warfare against various indigenous populations for no particular reason). My comment regarding "reversion" of the material was prior to noticing your edits. Anyways, thank you again for intervening and editing appropriately! JordanGero (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I think it is a little odd that you think Amherst's language needs particular explaining. His stance was very common with colonists throughout the Americas and was not necessarily motivated by contexts of indigenous aggression (which in anycase were usually a response to aggression by colonists). I removed the sentence on the causes of the 1837 epidemic pending my access to sources - particularly Mann's account which I know is highly critical, so a sentence or two may yet be written about that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Without mention of Pontiac's War, Amherst's statements appear as if he approved biological warfare against indigenous populations et al., and for no particular reason, so I think it was appropriate to have Pontiac's War, or at least the Siege of Fort Pitt, mentioned, given that the quotations derive from such incidents. I agree that his sentiments were common to colonists during those periods, but the dialogue in question is still the product of a specific incident, and without such mention attains significantly greater revilement, significant enough for contextual inclusion. The difference itself is subtle, and though it does not change the genocidal nature of the rhetoric, sets it in proper historical circumstance. As far as colonial aggression in general goes, that is the bellwether of most European colonization efforts in history, such that Amerindian aggression against colonizers is seen de facto as a response against foreign encroachment and land usurpation. And if there is a reliable source found that supports smallpox blanket distribution by the US Army (or other agency) to the Mandan in 1837, I would welcome its addition. It makes little sense to me to support such claims with works that have been discredited and debunked (i.e., Churchill's claims, which were thoroughly dissected by Thomas Brown- see talk page of the article for links). JordanGero (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


This edit [7] introduced text from What happened? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I hadnt realized that it was copyvio, I just thought it was the most sensible part of the article on totemism. I'll remove it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems Corbievreccan already removed it. The article does need the material, but of course not as a copyrights violation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

English language[edit]

Hello! I'm happy to discuss differences of opinion about the edit I made recently to English language page. Can you clarify what your disagreement was? I only cited the Labov article to confirm that American dialect variation is increasing, which it certainly also says in his new book (which I have only limited access to). Is that what your contention was about or was it something else? Wolfdog (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I donøt have access to the book right now since I am away from the library. But if you could tell me exactly what the book says about increasing diversity that would be great. The thing is that 1. there is a rather large literature stating that dialect diversity is diminishing across both America and the UK, due to standardization through the media. And 2. the edit seems to confuse dialect and accent (since soundshifts such as the northern cities vowel shift do not create new dialects, but only new accents). So if you could present the evidence on the talkpage we can discuss how to best move the article forward together. Thanks for reaching out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Labov on his website says "Sociolinguistic research on linguistic change in progress has found rapid development of sound changes in most urbanized areas of North America, leading to increased dialect diversity. It appears that the dialects of New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis, Dallas and Los Angeles are now more different from each other than they were 50 or 100 years ago." At the start of Chapter 1 of his new Dialect Diversity in America, Labov similarly writes that "People tend to believe that dialect differences in American English are disappearing, especially given our exposure to a fairly uniform broadcast standard in the mass media. [...] This overwhelmingly common opinion is simply and jarringly wrong. The research reported here will demonstrate that the reverse is actually the case. New sound changes in progress are driving the regional dialects of English further and further apart, so that people from Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Philadelphia, and New York speak more differently from each other now than they did in the middle of the 20th century." Wolfdog (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so Labov himself is not distinguishing between dialect and accent - that is a bit of a problem since we are trying to maintain that difference consistently in the article. I would suggest writing that accents are increasingly diversifying - but it will be internally inconsistent in the article to say that dialects are..·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that Labov seems to conflate accent and dialect... strangely. Whichever fix you feel is the best solution for the article is what I'd be happy to enact. Wolfdog (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


I would appreciate your comment here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Jensen is back on his article's talk page again, now saying that you "invented rules", and he has also brought in another sock to challenge me concerning the citation tag (the least important of them, of course) in order to distract from the real issue. I'm merely a fledgling editor—what do you suggest can/should be done? Can you guide me in opening a sock puppet invesigation and/or requesting some sort of administrative intervention or...? WikiEditorial101 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He has been controlling the article for a while (using it for example to bully the girl who showed how terrible his article about discrimination against the Irish is), I dont think there is anything particularly that can be done. I doubt he is using sockpuppets, he doesnt need to since he has friends. I find his disregard for the COI policy appalling, but there isnt much that can be done unfortunately. I have unwatched the article and the BLP noticeboard and will not be participating further.


Thanks for providing a cite for that; I suspected there was a reason but there was no citation provided. Should we do something about Pima people? Ogress 02:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I try not to get in to moving articles on ethnic groups around. It is always contentious. But if you like you can try setting up a move discussion and then we can see what happens.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


I was just at Winkelvi's user page while considering reminding them about how posting biased RFC questions is a weak form of canvassing, and I noticed there is a pretty brutal attack on you sitting right on their user page. You aren't named, of course, but Googling the text quickly revealed you as the target of the WP:POLEMIC. I detest such abuse of user pages (I recall something similar was done to me -- I was named on that user's page, mind you) and have found that a quick ANI thread deals with it pretty handily. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I stand by that characterization of them as an editor, so I can't really fault him for standing by it too. The funny thing of course is that they are themselves frequently abrasive and at least in the context where the quote is taken from used copious personal attacks and aspersions. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the background, so I don't know if I agree with your characterization, but it is ridiculous to claim that anything in the quote is "non-AGF" or a "personal attack". To be fair, my polemicist was placed under an indefinite TBAN and IBAN by ArbCom for constantly calling another user "paranoid", "insane", "pathological", "psychopathic", and so on, and then when my case with them came to ArbCom it never even occurred to me to request he be sanctioned for doing the same thing again. The things we do for AGF... Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The context is here. This exchange happened after they had written several pages aggressively accusing several editors of being sockpuppets, having conflicts of interest or being incompetent, refused to collaborate or even listen to suggestions for how to improve the article, and had editwarred to insert unsourced contested content into the article that was being GA reviewed. For what it is worth, I dont have any personal ill-will towards Winkelvi now, so it is not something I am interested in pursuing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


Because I have determined to no longer comment at the Billy the Kid talk page thread to which you just responded, I won't ask there. My question is in regard to your comment, "I think you should stop the review and let someone else take it over." Am I missing something? I thought BlackJack was doing the GAR. I realize he has said he's going to be on a break for the remainder of this month, but I was unaware that anyone took up as reviewer in his absence. Does your comment mean Carlstak has taken over the GAR? -- WV 19:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that is my misunderstanding then - I simply confused the two usernames. I will fix it. Sorry.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor[edit]

I've discovered a long-term editor is adding truly unsettling (scholastically speaking) material to pages related to the Mediterranean area. Her name is MrsKirshan and she has provided some truly spectacular edits. I just reverted one and then I reviewed her user edits and, well, look at this and this and this... that's just the last day or two. She says she's interested in something about the Romanians and ancient Dacia and she's adding this uncited stuff about Turkish being related to Semitic and English "javelin" being derived from the "Arabic and Maltese" word for mountain.

I'm mostly retired, I do not have the spoons to deal with this level of word salad NOTHERE user. She's got a history of blocks for synthesis and I just can't tackle a problem user. I mostly fix wikilinks, grammar, and recently I appear to discover All The Trolls during my boring janitorial edits. You deal with linguistic issues and are very active and perhaps can examine this issue or perhaps know people who can? I just can't deal with it. I left a brief response to her on talk:Derzelas but she's been around since 2007 and gotten in much trouble over the years for edit warring and I literally cannot handle a problem user, I am beyond burnt out.

If I've misjudged your role and activism or community connexion levels and you would like me to reach out to someone else, please let me know and I'll try to find someone else who can help because I absolutely cannot deal with this but it's clear that there's at least three articles and I suspect many more. Ogress 23:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This looks worrisome, but it is a bit out of my area of speciality. I think that probably ANI is the best place to deal with this type o problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Any suggestions how to proceed? This is wildly outside my area of expertise and my spoons. I don't want to just drop this but I'm not capable in terms of time and effort of putting in a researched case about a problematic user. Ogress 06:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I will see if I can find some time to review their contributions, then I'll see what to do about it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor MrsKrishan (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC): Thank you both for supplying your reasons for reverting my contribution re: archaic Thracian deity venerated in Odessa. I intend to continue synthesizing late antiquity Syro-Roman religious practices (Edessa was Helleneized Sanliurfa -- Seleukis' Macedonian hometown) mediated by a shared ethnography/linguistic culture influenced by prior Parthian suzerainty and Sarmatian customs, passed along the Silk Road to Russian Manchuria via Nestorian astronomer-scientists in the Sassanid court. Will use my Sandbox to avoid edit-warring. Will streamline and add cites for associations drawn re: triliteral nomenclatures Persian: اژدها (eždeha), apothecary symbol ʒ (dram, drachma); Old Church Slavonic ѯ ('60' in Greek numerals and geometry iscoceles triangle, cursive variant of Ξ Xi, Qing, Wang 王 3 horizontal strokes representing Heaven, Man and Earth) Drač, δραχμή, dracula, Derzalas and Dersu Uzala. Appreciate your time in arguing merits of abiding by rules in publishing for global readership, no offence intended MrsKrishan (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTHESIS which very clearly tells you that you are not allowed to synthesize pieces of information to publish novel interpretations of already existing data. This is a kind of Original Research, and wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research. You really anbsolutely have to understand and abide by these policies if you wish to continue editing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You have been warned on multiple occasions for this behavior according to your talk page. Just glancing at your talk page shows that in 2012 you were warned about synthesis, original research, verifiability, and reliable sources multiple times. That was four years ago. Yet here you boldly state, "I intend to continue synthesizing". Ogress 18:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

English edit revert[edit]

Why did you revert my edit; I edited it because "interrogative pronouns" is extremely misleading; only 2 out of 5 of those are actually pronouns; the remainder are adverbs as well as most "interrogative pronouns" are actually adverbs; wouldn't make more sense and accuracy to use "words" instead of "pronouns"? Wizymon (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The section has been further changed by another user and there is active debate on how best to rewrite the section on the talkpage. Lets discuss this there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Sorry my friend ..wrong page and person. :-) Moxy (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I did have time to utter "wtf?", but all is good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what's the opposite of a hereditarian?[edit]

What's the term for someone who thinks that heredity plays a negligible role in human differences? I really want to know. "Environmental determinist"? Can we add that to the hereditarianism page, with a citation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to some hereditarians the opposite would be a "standard social scientist" - but I think environmental determinist probably also could work and in some contexts "behaviourism". I think the article clearly needs work, but I am not sure that specific piece of information is what it needs most.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
A google scholar search suggests hereditarianism is opposed to environmentalism. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I take it you're an environmentalist? If hereditarianism means that heredity has a major effect, and if environmentalism means that environment has a major effect, than I'm both. Aren't you? They're not really "opposites", are they? Does "environment" include exposure to prenatal testosterone? Or to a mother's H-Y antigen? Also, if hereditarianism deserves a page, does environmentalism need one? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
We've talked at some length in the past about nature v. nurture and I have given fairly detailed expositions of my personal views, which I don't think can be adequately labeled "environmentalist" - and which doesn't matter here anyway. The point here is that we need to go by sources, and literally dozens of sources describe enviromentalism and hereditarianism as the two poles on a continuum of views.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Btw, Environmentalism has a page, it is just about another - better known - ideology of the same name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
So is there a page for "the opposite of hereditarianism"? Or for the school of thought you ascribe to? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No, there is not. Not unless you count the strawman at Standard Social Science Model, which is in some ways the "opposite of hereditarianism" - except noone actually believes in the blank slate idea that Tooby, Buss and Pinker caricatures - but really we have talked so much about this that I cant muster any energy to repeat the discussion. You realize of course that wikipedia requires sources to support articles on a topic, so the key to write the article you are thinking about is to find the sources that describe it and then base the article on those.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think that this conversation would be productive for long. It sounds like you're saying that hereditarianism is universally accepted as true, since the opposite it something that no one believes. I don't expect a reply because the conversation is over. Thanks, by the way, for fixing my autocorrect error on the Jesus FAQ. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If that is what it sounds like I am saying to you, then something odd is happening to the soundwaves between my mouth and your ears. Seems to me that I am speaking with 64 bit color resolution and you are only receiving black and white, which hinders communication quite a bit. And no worries on the infobox/inbox thing. Happy to help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Supercuidado..... :O[edit]

......Porque Marrovo esta usurpando comentarios para colocarlos acá [8] [9] [10]. --Cenovo (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Primero que nada, muchas gracias porque me has estado apoyando en la mejoría de los artículos de mi región, debo estar muy agradecido porque las ediciones se están haciendo bien, y ese es el objetivo para wikipedia. Si tengo una especie de paranoia porque te puedes dar cuenta que hay gente que no tiene buenas intensiones hacia mi y es más que evidente, la verdad ya no sé de donde viene el golpe, por eso no se baja la guardia (sé perfectamente cuando ElreydeEspana usa cuentas apócrifas y también sé cuando Yavidaxiu usa cuentas apócrifas, ambos tienen estilos distintos de agresión). Si tú crees que te he faltado el respeto, pues te pido de forma atenta una disculpa. Tu puedes revisar y analizar mis ediciones, no tengo problema con ello, entiendo que no soy de tu simpatía por algunos detalles, pero también trata de entenderme; el burro no era arisco, lo hicieron. Estamos en contacto.--Marrovi (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Mesoamerican languages
... you were recipient
no. 161 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky[edit]

Thank you so much for your reply on the Talk Page of the Noam Chomsky article. Although I have strong feelings about Chomsky’s political musings, they are totally irrelevant to this note. I read a scathing article by someone named Keith Windschuttle written for some (apparently) online publication entitled The New Criterion. Ostensibly, it is a review of an anti-Chomsky political tome. However, the author goes further and savages Chomsky’s academic career and his linguistics research that has brought him such renown in certain intellectual circles. Basically, Windshuttle equates (my analogy based on his arguments, not his) those who form a sort of cult of Chomsky’s linguistics theories to self-styled art sophisticates who drooled over a painting deemed a “masterpiece of modern art” only to later discover that the painting in question had hung upside down in a museum for two years before anyone noticed.

Since Windschuttle’s accompanying review of Chomsky’s political views leaves no doubt that he is anything but unbiased in judging Chomsky’s academic career (and I have no idea what his qualifications are for making such an assessment), I was wondering if his “the emperor has no clothes” critique of Chomsky’s work has any validity. Since you seem qualified to judge such matters, perhaps you might care to read this review/article at your convenience and briefly summarize the reasons why you either agree with the author's savage criticism of Chomsky’s linguistic theories and work or why you think the former is all wet. If not, thanks anyway for your time on the Talk Page which is most appreciated. Here is the link:

Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, personally I tend to agree more with Chomsky's politics than with his linguistics. But I dont think it is quite fair to say that it is a case of the emperor having no clothes. When Chomsky developed his ideas in the 1950s and early 60s they were very novel and had great promise for teaching us new and important things about language. Today I think evidence has failed to support his theory, and that we are currently in a period of transition towards new theoretical paradigms that are not based on Chomsky's theories. Nonetheless, given the way that science works, even flawed theories contribute to the progress of science, simply because flawed theories also produce the research that eventually make it possible to reject them, and reach better knowledge. This is the difference between pseudoscience or "emperors new clothes science" and actual science in my opinion. And on that account Chomsky's linguistic theories have been extremely important in that they have sparked tonnes of research into important questions - basically formulating the research agenda for linguists (both those who agree with Chomsky and those who dont) for the past 50 years. And some of the insights and findings that come directly from Chomsky probably also will be carried on into the new emerging paradigms, even if they are likely to disagree 100% with his basic assumptions about what language is and how it works.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time of which I shall take no more. As I said, Chomsky’s political views are totally irrelevant to my curiosity in this matter. As I have absolutely no qualifications to assess the value of Chomsky’s strictly academic career, I deeply appreciate your obviously educated opinion on such matters. You are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia and such is most appreciated. Best regards, always.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


It would be nice if you would improve my edits rather than reverting them. Benjamin (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting them is an improvement. I don't think the material you are trying to add is necessary, the fact that English has taken many many loanwords over the years is already clear from the article. Calling this a "strength" is just a subjective judgment that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Gunnar Myrdal[edit]

Hello! I saw your edits on Gunnar Myrdal. I relation to this, could you have a look att the edit I made at Crisis in the Population Question. I understand that Franz Boas is one of your fields of expertise. Edaen (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Hola, soy nuevo y vengo de wikipedia en catalan y wikinoticias en español. Por favor, dame bienvenida, en mi disc. Saludos. --Nobita931 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Gracias por darmela. Tambien me gustaria preguntarte: ¿COmo puedo usar TW (Twinkle)? LO tengo activado en las preferencias y no salen los botones. Saludos. --Nobita931 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No lo se, es la verdad. Creo que tal vez tienes que tener permiso para usar herramientas automatizadas.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Soy nuevo, recien empece a editar en wikipedia el pasado 13 de jUlio y me gustaria que me explicaras:

1- ¿Como me puedo unir al wikiproyecto de anime y manga? Es que me interesa.

2- Tambien me gustaria que me pasarás un link a una pagina en la que se listan los artículos por crear, porque me gustaria colaborar con el contenido de los artículos y no solamente con las reversiones.

Un saludo. --Nobita931 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Otra cosa: ¿Esta wiki tiene paginas como el tablon de anuncios o el cafe de wikipedia en español?

Quisiera que me pasaras un link a ellas en caso de que existan de verdad. --Nobita931 (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tambien quiero que veas este mensaje que le deje a MarcoAurelio y decirte que marrovi borro el aviso que le diste en su discusion de sus articulos. saludos. --Nobita931 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Solamente ve a la pagina del proyecto y adicionate a la lista de participantes. 2. No hay una lista general con articulos por crear, pero algunos wikiproyectos los mantienen - no se si el proyecto de manga lo hace. No se que es el cafe de wikipedia en la, pero tenemos el WP:TEAHOUSE. Aqui esta perimitido que un usuario borre los mensajes en su pagina de discusion, solamente significa que ya lo leyó.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Regarding [11], I've often thought this. I've given a few campus talks about Wikipedia and I feel ridiculous describing the assessment scale: Stub, Start... C, B? GA, FA? Maybe A, depending on the project? I've never appreciated the rift between GA and FA (in terms of culture, not quality). I feel like articles should enjoy a common review process that places them on a logical quality scale, with reassessment happening by nomination when called for. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate in developing a proposal for a single consolidated review process. I think now that we have so few active reviewers it is a little silly to squander them by having som many segregated processes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Butting in: I've often thought we should use a rubric. But developing rubrics are second nature (almost) for me, so it just seems easier; I suppose it could be more difficult for others. Victoria (tk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, something like a rubric would be great. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Core Contest[edit]

Nyhavn-Copenhagen-Denmark-flag.jpg Equal Fourth Prize
To Maunus, for work on Danish language in the 2016 Core Contest. A voucher will be on its way soon....

Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your win! Could you contact me at with the email address you want your voucher to be sent to? Thank you,Karla Marte(WMUK) 14:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Very nice work. Congrats! Victoria (tk) 20:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I actually thought that the work I did no Tycho Brahe was much better - and I had hoped they would consider my work on both articles as a single entry. But thanks!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a fairly fascinating article. I started reading through the other night, but was tired so I'll have to come back to it. I looked at all of the pictures though! Btw - belated congrats on the fancy sleeves and hood. Victoria (tk) 23:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Borrar mi PU[edit]

Hola, soy User:Nobita931 pero perdi los datos de acceso a mi cuenta. Por favor, borrar mi pagina de usuario. Te prometo que soy yo. Preguntale a alguien con los derechos de check-user. Borrala por favor. Cordialment.e -- (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No. No quiero ser parte de esos juegos tontos.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Muy sensible, !digo yo! ;) Zezen (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For the civility, objectivity and equanimity displayed by this self-revert of this hairy Racism Wiki entry. Zezen (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiconference and Indigenous Peoples Day[edit]

Hi Maunus, I sent you an email asking if you might be interested in helping with how Wikiconference could incorporate themes for Indigenous Peoples Day, October 7-10, 2016 in San Diego. Hope to hear back from you , or leave me a message on my talk page. Wikiconference link -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up from FAC discussion[edit]

Maunus, I didn't want to post again at WT:FAC because I figured we'd both had our say there, but I'd like to understand your position a little better, so if you're willing I'd like to continue the conversation here. It seems you have an image in your mind of how FAC should work. Can you elaborate on that? In other discussions I've had about FAC (and some other WP processes) one issue that seems to come up frequently is that with volunteer resources it's very hard to direct labour. That is, rather than moving effort to where it's needed, it's often necessary to either accept there's insufficient effort to get something done, or to accept that it can't be done in an ideal way. I'd like to understand what you have in mind, and how it would address the resource issue, which I think is at least as much a problem at FAC as it is at other processes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit of a hobby horse for me to point out that I think the reviewing culture of FAC (and peer reviewing in general) is problematic and not maximally conducive to attracting new writers or generating enough FA articles. I have made a bit of a habit of of injecting this viewpoint into discussions about reforming the FAC and other review processes. My basic perspective is that the way many reviewers seem to approach the review is that their role is to "set the bar" that nominators must then make articles pass to get the gold star (or GA emblem). The reviewer is responsible for not letting substandard article get the emblem. This means that for a new nominator, not one who already has a social network that includes the reviewers, the social configuration of a review is basically "the nominator vs. the reviewers" in a sort of gauntlet. I think some people believe that academic reviews are like this, and there is a degree of truth to that since academics accrue personal prestige and professional advancement through publishing and maintaining a high level of quality in their journal, though as I mentioned in my experience good academic reviewers realize that everyone wins when the review results in the improvement and publication of an article. But in wikipedia, as opposed to academia, the focus really is not about accumulating personal prestige, but rather it is to collaboratively improve the encyclopedia. Therefore it is even more a case in which everyone wins when the article is improved and the nominator learns how to write better and goes on to become a future contributor of more FAs. Therefore when we think about the way that a collaborative encyclopedia differs from academic publishing, really the peer review philosophy needs to be different to be sustainable. In academia people publish because they have no choice, and they maintain high standards because high standards translates directly into professional advancement. In wikipedia there is no so such driving need for anyone to create high quality articles, and if it is too much of a hassle and not sufficiently gratifying they simply decide not to. This is why most editors do not write FAs, and why many nominators who feel discouraged by aspects of the review process (whether because they cannot achieve the quality, or dislike the type of negative interaction that sometimes takes place at the review) decide not to do it again. This means that using the academic review model at a collaborative encyclopedia is inherently unsustainable. Imaginary digital gold stars are not enough to maintain a supply of quality focused writers if achieving them feels like an individual ordeal rather than as collaborative project where colleagues support one's own ambitions of creating high quality content about topics of interest. Hence, as you see I am not talking about moving resources around (although I do think we are wasting resources with so many different unconnected review processes), but about more effectively recruiting, training and retaining high quality writers and future reviewers. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking about this; I don't have an immediate response, but I think I understand your position better. Can you point me at an example of a review, for FAC or elsewhere, that is an example of the reviewer behaving as you feel they should behave? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I would have to use myself as an example just so I dont have to read a bunch of reviews to find someone else to use as the good example, the best example I can think of immediately is the review history of Natchez Revolt which was the second FA of the nominator and failed two reviews before being co-nominated by the original nominator and myself who had opposed promotion in the second review. The point here is that when we oppose, that means we see a way to improve an article - and I believe that when we see how to improve the article we also have a responsibility for making those improvements and contribute to making the article the best it can be. I am sure other reviewers similarly help renominating articles that needed more work, and I also realize that one cannot always do this for lack of time, knowledge interest etc. But I think it is important to dissolve the confrontational configuration of reviewer<>nominator and instead concptualize the relation as that of a collegial partnership for the good of the encyclopedia. I think this is exactly why the Wikiproject approach to reviewing works (when wikiprojects are active), and why the "clique" approach to writing and reviewing (where a group of likeminded editors write and mutually review articles of common interest) - and why the "lone first time nominator against the internal quality assessment review board" approach to reviewing does not. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That does clarify it; thanks. Putting the mentoring proposal, and issue of mandatory vs. voluntary mentoring, to one side for the moment, what do you think could be done at FAC to move the process in the direction you envisage? I would certainly agree that if every reviewer took it upon themselves to work with the nominator to improve the article to FA level, and if there were enough reviewers to do this for every nominated article, the encyclopedia would benefit. It sounds like from your comments above that you would agree that there aren't enough capable (or willing) reviewers for this to happen. If that's so, what should happen instead? Looking through the Natchez Revolt reviews, I see that your oppose was polite and informative, but no more so than the typical opposes I see for current FACs. If I may cite my own reviews as an example, take a look at climatic regions of Argentina, which I think was not ready for FAC, or my ongoing PR of Eega. Are these reviews in line with your preferred approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think more than the tone and content of the comments in the review, what is interesting is how reviewers interact with the articles. Some editors participate actively in implementing solutions to the problems they see, others merely state "this needs to be fixed for me to support" - sometimes without offering very concrete ways of improving. I think the "brilliant prose" requirement is among the worst culprits in this sense- it is sometimes used in a way that is reminiscent of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.
So firstly, I would remove this from the FAC criteria and instead say that it should be written in correct understandable English without excessive Jargon. And then I would add a note that reviewers are expected to actively edit to improve prose rather than oppose based on prose quality (many good reviewers already do this). I suppose there may be times when failing an article on prose is warranted - if it is not sufficiently intelligible for others to even improve it for example, but I think most articles nominated are not.
Then, I would change the instructions to the reviewers to include mention that they are encouraged to fix issues by actively editing the article, and change as much of the wording as possible to disslove the reviewer/nominator distinction in the way the process is described.
But really, I would like to reform the process completely. With a couple of more farranging proposals.
1. As you note increased expectations to participate actively in reviews is likely to result in fewer reviewers. This in my view can be counteracted by consolidating the review processes into a single process where all reviewers, and all nominations for all quality benchmarks are part of a single process. Ideally we would have a single cumulative rubric stating the the basic minimum requirements for an article to get status as DYK, GA, FA. Then any review would seek to gain a consensus about the quality of a given article relative to the rubric - this would mean that reviewers could make a quick jdugment and form a consensus about whether the article currently passes the bar for a given status. The role of the nominator would be to propose that article X qualifies as a particular level, and the function of the review to form a consensus about the level of the article - whether higher or lower than the level proposed. In such a review an article could be proposed as an FA and instead receive a GA status. this would combine the reviewers who currently participate in all the different separate review processes into a single pool of reviewers. It would also train current DYK and GA reviewers in the FA process.
2. I would make it so that the process for a review is like the following: A proposer proposes an article e.g. "I would like to get this article to GA status" then the proposal is listed. However the review process does not begin untill a predetermined number of other editors (maybe 1 for DYK, 2 for GA and 3 for FA) sign up as participants in the improvement process. These editors together make up the team that will collaborate to get the article to a given status. When they have a consensus that the article meets the criteria, they push the article to a !vote (similar to an RfC or RfA) which will determine if the community agrees with their assessment - the FA directors will gauge consensus in each !vote. Articles that do not attract other interested participants in the review will remain inactive and will be delisted after a period (maybe six months). This will mean that some articles will never be reviewed because there is no interest in improving them - I think this is OK - and it will hopefully make articles on minor and obscure topics less successful in the review process than articles that have a wider interest (which I think are underrepresented at FAC).
3. I would really like to add an external review to the process in which a stable version of an article that is considered to be close to FA status is presented to an external academic topic expert who reviews it and give suggestions for improvement. This I think is necessary because wikipedians often are not sufficiently conversant with scientific fields and the literature to adequately review and critique the research that the article authors have done on a topic - and hence GA and FA reviews often focus on formalities rather than on content. I think experts tend to focus on content when they review. This could be simply a check box in the rubric ("Has the article undergone an external review?" yes/no, or maybe "has an external reviewer vouched for the article" [this type of review might be harder to achieve] ) - and it might be a requirement for advancing to the final FA vote - or it could be a new level of quality above the current FA level. Those are the three major changes I would make to the review process. (I have made a proposal for external expert reviews at the meta wiki idea lab and many editors there liked it [12]) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a lot to think about; I'll try to respond before too long. In the meantime I should mention that the "brilliant prose" requirement is no longer part of the FA criteria; it was dropped about three months ago. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yay!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
And another quick note to say that your grants idea is interesting, and to link to this, which I wrote a few years ago on a somewhat similar topic, in case you are interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Greetings, Maunus. I noticed you made a post related to this discussion at GAN. While I don't have the data you're looking for, I'd be interested in hearing more about any reform effort. I've participated a little at PR, GAN, and DYK, and I recently nominated my first FAC; so I don't have the experience or knowledge to undertake anything, but I've felt enough discomfort at some aspects of each of those processes that I'd like to learn more. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Vanamonde93: I am developing a proposal for reform here: User:Maunus/PeerReviewReform. Comments and suggestions and criticism is more than welcome.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, I'll drop by there. Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, not sure this is the right place to post, but I thought I'd let you know that I noticed you'd posted about this somewhere (there's much too much going on at the moment and I've not had to time to read any of the proposals but generally share your concerns). I took a quick peek and noticed you'd tried to ping me and others and thought you should know that it didn't work. At least I didn't get the notification. When I have time I'll start reading through. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that pings don't work unless you sign in that edit. If the signature is added in a later edit, as happened here, no pings happened. The fix is to delete the section and re-add it as a single edit; that should work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Victoria for letting me know, and thanks Mike for teaching me how to fix it!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

is restoration of pasterski article to version before attack possible?[edit]

see last entry of

notice UVAL appears to have created the page to take pasteski down, then possibily VPNed in through UMichigan computer system as another user to gut the page

see if you can fix Strominger page as well (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are referring to? It doesn't look to me as if there are any attacks on the page.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

they took out her 'latina pride' quote, they took out her two seminal ideas/'known for' they took out most of the media coverage

can you restore it to the way it was on August 1st? In total they took out nearly 6000 characters.

Ah, ok. I'll take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Consistency is not a greater good[edit]

Hello Maunus, I'm Ling.Nut. Long time no chat. Following on the item "Consistency is not a greater good" on your user page, may I ask a question? I think that cite book (and related templates, e.g. cite journal) should have three additional flavors: cite book apa, cite book mla and cite book chicago. All three formats should be available as templates that interact with other aspects of Wikipedia in every way identical to cite book (but merely display differently).... The rationale behind this is that under the current template regime, cite book implicitly forces one and only one format on all users; the effect is greatly intensified by the related facts that only cite book plays well with VisualEditor, and VE is the imposed default editing environment. VE is therefore forcing users new and old to use cite book, covertly forcing a single standard citation format across Wikipedia. Thus scholars from different fields cannot use the format common in their field, which runs counter to your statement that "Creating consistency across incomparable contexts may in fact be detrimental."... How do you feel about this idea? Tks and see you around.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I hate visual editor and don't use it so I don't know much about its finer points - but isn't it also possible to simply write up a bibliography in text in the visual editor. How can it force people to use the templates? I think that definitely it is not a greater good to have a single house citation style as some editors believe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Templates enforce consistency, and various scripts give big red warnings when template fields have been incorrectly populated. Writing out scores of citations by hand is inherently a very very error prone chore. For just a single example, there is currently a dustup at one content review page (I guess I started it, but with ample reason, as several editors have confirmed) because an article was supposed to be in MLA, but too many cooks spoiled the broth as several editors tried to add refs, and it was a steaming pile of wrongness. The prob here is that we don't have an MLA template, but we should. This is not just a one-off case; systemically, cite book forces a single standard upon everyone.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I would certainly support a request to add a parameter for MLA, APA, and Chicago formatting to the cite book template. Generally my impression is that template builders don't share my view of consistency and are reluctant to introduce optional parameters into the templates, but if consensus is for it maybe they would.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(undent) My feelings exactly. Consistency within a given article is beneficial, but uniformity across all articles and all disciplines is detrimental. Therefore templates per se can be beneficial, but having one and only one (i.e, cite book) for all disciplines is detrimental. The prob here is that if there is a motion to create new templates (or introduce new parameters) that create MLA, APA and Chicago options, the template maintainers will immediately shout it down for reasons unknown and unknowable (and perhaps not even the same reasons as they are willing to explicitly state). So I am hoping to see how many editors agree with the idea. thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Washo language[edit]

Maunus, if you have a minute, would you look at Washo language? There's a guy there who is using his misinterpretation of a page out of Mithun's survey to mess with the consonant chart and replace a glottalized c' with ć because he can't correctly read the poor photocopy on a web site and thinks that's what a c with a superimposed apostrophe is. He refuses to read the Talk page and is edit warring. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed FAC mentoring scheme[edit]

Following discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage and with the agreement of the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have finalized a "page of instructions" relating to the proposed voluntary mentoring scheme for new FAC nominators. The final draft can be viewed here.

We hope to begin the scheme shortly, on a trial basis. However, I think it would be unwise to go live until we have around a dozen or so potential mentors signed up – I hope many more than that will sign eventually. As your contribution to the discusssion indicated that you generally favoured the idea of a voluntary mentoring scheme, I am now inviting you to add your name to the list of possible mentors on the instruction page. I emphasize that the extent to which you commit yourself to this scheme is entirely a matter for you; you incur no specific obligation by adding your name. If anything about the scheme is not clear to you, please drop me a note and I'll try to explain. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I haven't taken 5 articles through FAC yet though, only four. When I get one more I will certainly consider signing up, and I do think the proposed system is a good idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you interested in this? In September I'm gonna renew my editing efforts. The big fear is fail per 1e, but if the sentence or two I intend to devote to criticizing Churchill is spelled out R-E-A-L-L-Y P-L-A-I-N-L-Y then maybe the Churchill-haters will deign to leave it be.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi:, thanks for the offer, but I think I will have to pass though the topic is certainly worthy of a GA and within my extended sphere of interest. nonetheless, I would need to do too much reading for it to be feasible right now, but I will keep an eye on its progress, and maybe chip in later.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Maddieson et al. (1993)[edit]

You're right, there are less than five authors, so we should simply list their surnames. Shame on me. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No shame necessary. Even when there are more than five authors, you should list the first five in order for the link to the bibliography to work - it will automatically render as "et al."- but the bibliography will show all the authors.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It's only a matter of using the harvid template the way I did - check my edit again, you'll see you're still redirected to the full citation. I must admit I'm a fan of that, as it considerably shortens the citation in the edit mode without any changes for readers at all. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Is that a recently added functionality?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It's been around for at least a year if not longer, so not really. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
How does it disambiguate between two multiple authored papers with same first author and year but different second authors? Also thanks for bringing this to my attention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Simply type a, b etc. immediately after the year (so 1993a, 1993b, etc.), like you'd do in other cases. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to add: the letter is necessary only in the harvid template, as the ID you put there acts like a barcode, and will be displayed in the article as a normal short citation. You don't have to add it to the normal year. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
But I wouldnt use 1993a, 1993b unless all the authors are the same. But if I have "Johnson, Smith, Johnson 1993" and "Johnson, Smith, Smith 1993" then how does it do it? Do i have to add a and b after the year in the biblioggraphy?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Per Template:Harvcoltxt#Large numbers of authors, you should use it only when there are five or more authors, otherwise just list all of the surnames. Let's imagine citation pairs such as "Johnson, Cannavaro, Reid, Jacobsson, Mendez (1993)" and "Johnson, Smith, Gonzalez, Schneider, Kowalski (1993)". The harvid of the former should be Johnson et al. (1993a), whereas the latter should be called Johnson et al. (1993b), then you just go on and use those in the article itself. As I said, the harvid is kind of a barcode, it links to the full citation whenever you use the "codename", which is why touching the "normal" year is not needed - the only short citation that is displayed is the text and year you choose...
Another option is to go on listing the surnames until the first differing one shows up, so that our first harvid would be Johnson & Cannavaro et al. (1993), whereas the latter would be Johnson & Smith et al. (1993). As you can see, the letters after the year are skipped, because they're useless in this case. I'm not sure how standard it is though, you should consult other users. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you mean I need to set the harvid= parameter as the name and then call the name I gave. Ok, that makes it a considerably less attractive option to me. But thanks again for teaching me all this, I will not interfere with your reference naming practices again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem, but you were actually right to interfere (again, see Template:Harvcoltxt#Large numbers of authors) ;) I don't have a particular problem with being told I'm wrong. Cheers. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)