User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage11

February 2012
Welcome back, Magnus. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathsci. I'll be taking it easy awhile. I am thinking of contributing to the Women's History Month by improving an article - perhaps Margaret Mead. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Welcome back...Modernist (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back from me too! You remember that editor that was pestering me and you? See post on my page which gives a link to here! - that editor was a banned sockpuppet! Best wishes,  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I remember him. He also started pestering me by email and was definitely contributed to causing my outburst of wikirage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured that was the case. He was deliberately taunting you.  He was irrational. The only way I survived was by unwatching any article he cared about and by ignoring his threatening posts to my page. (He didn't do the email thing to me, at least.) Fortunately, that other editor, Doc, figured out who he was. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I find stories that drive our annual fundraising efforts. It's important to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me, either over the phone, by Skype, by facebook, by email, or any means you like. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project and we'll set up a good time to discuss further.

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello back
Good to see you back. I hope everything's well. Volunteer Marek 02:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot better now thanks. And likewise to you! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey. Replied; and see . Alarbus (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to happen a lot. What link are you clicking? Alarbus (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it; that's messed-up. Alarbus (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . I cut the heading as that is what makes te edit link and it makes it point at the template. The template is supposed to be subst'd but was not; quite a few out there, actually. This just removed the heading from all those page, too. Just ani-noise; thing should be deleted (ANI). Alarbus (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Uto-Aztecan languages
Why is the Proto-Uto-Aztecan phonology treated twice in the article? Also, why is the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland location in the USA/Mexico border area mentioned twice? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its because recently someone deleted the article on Proto Uto-Aztecan and merged the content into the main article without noticing that it was already there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised that that was the origin of the duplication when I checked the history. The issue is fixed now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sillero at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Logology rather than linguistics
I've attempted to paraphrase your argument, in part (or course) in order to prod people into proving it wrong with sources if they can, but you might want to make it directly yourself. Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Words without vowels

DYK nomination of Sillero
Hello! Your submission of Sillero at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgians are indigenous Caucasian people of Kartvelian Family
I've put the photo of Georgians but you reverted it back. Please, do explain yourself HERE. User:Maunus -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 12:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My biography and NPOV
Hi, and thanks for your offer to review my bio proposals. Since the current bio is not very well-written, I thought it might be easiest to try to write a fresh version myself that's WP:NPOV, with good sourcing and no WP:UNDUE issues. You can view it here: User:Jokestress/Biography

My detractors want to WP:COATRACK the bio with minutiae about the extremely complicated debate I had a few years ago with a clique of conservative academics associated with the Archives of Sexual Behavior. While it is a historically significant event, it is currently given way too much weight in my biography in terms of my overall accomplishments and press. There is an issue of balance within that paragraph and balance within the article overall. If you want a detailed summary of the controversy, I can prepare something as brief as possible, but it boils down to this: My allies and I criticized a sexologist and his book, then he and his allies criticized us, particularly my tone and tactics.

The recent edits to my bio by User:Bali ultimate are the perfect iteration of the policy problem I mention on the noticeboard, where someone with a grudge tries to offend me by messing with that article. I think the content issue should get resolved first, and once there's a stable version, I can address the problematic behavior. Consider that draft one giant edit request. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Jokestress, I am sorry but I can't keep my promise of inserting that material. At this point I have decided to stay out of the dispute. I am particularly discouraged by your post to WLU's talkpage vaguely suggesting that you have information that identifies him. It may be unintended but that kind of statement has considerable chilling effect for people who have read the Dreger article (and who are of course unable to know the degree to which it is correct). I edit under a disclosed identity for which reason I cannot allow myself to get involved in this issue anymore. It is too complicated for me to comfortably untangle, and I am not comfortable getting involved given the possibility that doing so might affect me privately and professionally.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries if you don't feel comfortable, but WLU stated here that his username is associated with the university he attended. I don't want to provide the diffs because WLU is trying to turn this into some sort of justification of his actions toward me. The whole thing is a big mess of long-standing grudges. Again, I appreciate your input! Jokestress (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly seems to be, and I am not comfortably certain that I am able distinguish right from wrong in that mess. My instinct is to be sceptic of attempts to medicalize boundaries between majority and minority groups in society - Psychology certainly has a long history of doing just that, with serious consequences. I watched one of the videos that you posted and I thought you made some very good points about the problems with scientificness that kind of psychology. But then again this issue, as you say, at this stage seems to be more about personal grudges than about dialogue between academic viewpoints, and I don't feel I need to be a part of that. I also do think that it is important that wikipedia should not be providing a platform for leveling attacks against individuals - regardless of the quality of their viewpoints. in this way the fact that User:Luwat (an acquaintance of yours?) has now removed WLU's additions is perhaps for the better, even though it means that the informational value of the biography is limited. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Luwat (whom I don't know) is a fairly new editor whose edits were quickly reverted by Bali ultimate. Luwat will unfortunately probably be blocked and/or driven from the project before it is all done. I'll probably end up doing an OTRS or something. I think it's pretty clear to me this is not about article content, but about editors who have an ax to grind with me, despite their protestations. I have seen this happen on a lot of BLPs over the years, especially BLPs of Wikipedia editors. Once this content is resolved, I am going to see about making some policy changes about editing biographies in response to interaction with the subject on Wikipedia. I think having something in place would be useful. Again, thanks for your earlier input, and happy editing! Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ms. James -- I'd never heard of you til a few days ago. That article is lilttered with poor sources (TV guide and its like, on the one hand, your personal pages, on the other, and pages of activists who agree with you). The NYT and a peer-reviewed academic journal have taken note of your activist tactics and they strike me as relevant -- particularly since i see a mirror in the tactics you're using against me and one or two others on wikipedia. You have not once addressed the question of why they are bad sources in the main, or even indicated you dispute the contents of the edits. Perhaps you eventually will.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda in the PRC
This made me laugh. Maybe a bit cruel, but still funny. I am often at a loss in dealing with (presumably well-meaning) editors who are in over their heads.Homunculus (duihua) 00:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be cruel, but he hasn't exactly een polite in his communication either, he basically stonewalled me when I politely requested him to undo his move on his talkpage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that exchange. I think you were admirably restrained. Anyways, I'm happy to let him have the last word, because I don't think he is bold enough to actually move the page back against consensus (which he is clearly now aware of). This doesn't seem like a deliberately disruptive editor to me. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 00:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment
I respect you and do not want to cause an issue here, but I disagree with your statement "The fact is that the topic matter that mostly preoccupies Ferahgo". A quick look at my contributions will show that I have done almost nothing else at Wikipedia over the past year besides improving and creating paleontology/evolution articles, and I dislike having my edit history inaccurately categorized that way. I would appreciate if you could try to reference my editing history in a more accurate manner. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, thanks for correcting me. I have redacted my statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Western betrayal and 'sic'
Hi, thanks for your comments on VM's page. Unfortunately, he was wrong: 'sic' was necessary because the quote was obviously defective and, it turns out, from a bad translation - see here for details. Better translations use "British". It should have been obvious to VM from the start that my point was valid, but instead of investigating the erroneous use of "English divisions" (there were none in WW2), he preferred to just undo my edit (with no edit summary I reiterate). Bye. Malick78 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sic is not necessary unless there is an actual potential for confusion - which there wasn't in this case - making your insertion of it mere pedantry. Good research is necessary however, and part of that is looking for better translations if one has reason to expect that a translation is questionable - well done that you took the trouble to do that. Now if the original had in fact said English division that would have been the original language and the "sic" would have been inappropriate editorializing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, seriously, racist comments like "Have we now established that Poles can't be relied upon to differentiate between England and Britain? " should warrant a civility block on sight. Volunteer Marek  20:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be ANI or WQA. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Danish folk music
I wanted wanted to stop by and thank you for editing the template! I know a lot more about Irish and American folk music than Scandinavian forms, so any corrections you can make to the Scandinavian music templates I created would be most welcome. Cheers! :) Dan Cottrell (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a really good idea to make it, so thank you yourself for that! And it will serve as a list of articles for creation - many of the Danish dance types have no articles yet - for example the important Hopsa and Sønderhoning. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Human
It is very natural for humans to perform gender with clothes. Indeed the vast majority of human populations does so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC) It is pervasive, yes; however, it is not natural. Performing "cigarette" is pervasive; however, it is not natural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.165.229.242 (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, everything humans do is natural by definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whorf again
Hi, I was just going to post here. If you don't mind I think I'll sandbox the section I just worked on because I had some trouble parsing it in a few places. I think it can be simplified even more, but needs a little thought. So I'll throw it in a sandbox and work it there slowly and you can watch/edit. Also, I'm wondering whether it would make more sense for that section to be moved down below the work section. I've been working my way from the bottom up so it makes sense to me, but for the reader to get to the anti-Whorfian argument before understanding his work might cause a little confusion. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable point. It might make sense stylistically to append it as a "reception and legacy" kind of section. I'll try to keep an eye on your sandbox. Great work though and thanks for doing it!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I need to break for from it for a bit, and the servers are slow today too, so I'd rather do it in one big sandbox edit here. Essentially I still think it can be trimmed down a bit, word by word, and some of the concepts maybe simplified, but I won't know until I really dig in. The nice thing about a sandbox is that if you hate what I do to it we can just delete and go with what's in mainspace. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Time... is on your side?
Hey Manus,

I know you bowed out of the big debate that was going on over at Talk:Time, but it looks like we're finally having more of a civil and productive collaboration and less headbutting argument, and wondered if you might want to stop by and give your opinion on where things are heading now, since you were so involved in the early stages of this discussion. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That journal
See Wessex Institute of Technology,,. It's got legitimate editors though. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear - "an educational institute offering higher degrees validated by the University of Wales". Sadly no longer the case, I suspect, since UoW got into deep doo-doo over 'validating' all sorts of dubious institutions - indeed the current status of UoW itself isn't entirely clear - see Talk:University of Wales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just type in "Wessex Institute of Technology" and "scam", or "WIT Press" and "vanity" into Google and you'll have plenty of reading material. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter - it is clearly published and written as a scientific paper. Lots of scientists publish crap articles that nobody believes. Some even become famous for it. That doesn't mean we can list their crap in their publication lists. That is not an endorsement of the work or the publisher.

K'iche'
Just wanted to say hi, since it looks like you're the most active editor over there. I'm hoping to add some more stuff on phonology and maybe also morphosyntax as I get the chance. But I'm pretty new to this whole Wikipedia thing. So, uh, be gentle with me if I do something totally asinine? :) Dvelleman (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, anything you need to know just ask. Its great to have more mesoamerican linguists on board!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you can look at some of our good and featured language articles if you want inspiration for how to structure the article on K'iche' - for example Nahuatl, Greenlandic language, Otomi language, Swedish language. All the best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
Hi, sorry about the edit conflicts. I think I've finished with this article now. By the way, just a tip. If you get an edit conflict message, you can always scroll down to your version of the article, copy the bit you've edited, and paste it back into the current version of the article. That way you don't have to retype your edits again. ---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Many Thanks to some agreement: Gawain
True, however, there are different points to his death before the regnum, some might say he vanished with Arthur to Avalon, but, it is not to assume other edits as idiotic, until then Cagwinn should not step into some users who believ it was from earlier sources, let us say we let this one go, however if you do let this one go,there is a source showing it was from Lancelot, however in any case all users must respect sources from earlier documents, or there is not anything "idiotic" as some user's naive opininated fact maybe. Thank you,

RFCU comment
Per the instructions at the top of the RFCU page, it's my understanding your comment with regards to YRC's response should go either on the talk page or in your own outside view section; I'd appreciate you moving the comment. Thanks. Nobody Ent 16:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving your comment to the outside view section under Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Hope this is OK - please feel free to change it if not. Prioryman (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, your comment about YRC needing psychiatric help was a bit excessive. I'd suggest that you refactor it. Prioryman (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)