User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage12

Georgians are Indigenous people!
Put Georgians back! and come to the talk page of the Indigeonous people topic. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per consensus of the RfC they are not, indigenous in the sense used by the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not edit-warring in the topics. Just put Georgians into the list. or explain yourself why Georgians are not into the list of indigenous people. Explain me now. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 22:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, that is not how it works. There was an RfC and nobody agreed with you. I don't need to give you more explanation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not your dude. And watch your language if you may! Explain yourself and present facts that says that Georgians aren't indigenous aboriginal people. I am waiting. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And waiting you will remain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand English properly? Explain why Georgians do not fit into the indigenous group. Explain it or put Georgians back there as they were into the topic. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 00:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm,, no?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Explain yourself here! Talk:Indigenous_peoples -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter
Hi Maunus, you received the newsletter because you are a member of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a Christianity subproject. Please update your membership on the roster if you are no longer active. Sorry for any inconvenience. – Lionel (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am an active member of WP:JW but not of WP:Christianity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maunus, WP:JW is a subproject of WPChristianity. See . Besides the newsletter, there are many intersections between WP:JW and WP:X, e.g. the unified template, the main Christianity-related noticeboard WT:XNB. There is an initiative to update and standardize all subproject main pages, WP:JW included. The newsletter is written for all Christianity-related editors whether they belong to WP:JW, WP:LDS or WPCatholic. Every issue we will spotlight a different WikiProject. We encourage submissions from WP:JW members. The newsletter is provided as a service to those projects who do not have their own newsletter. – Lionel (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the newsletter, it is a good service for those who want it, and a good way to promote integration of the project. I was merely surprised to receive newsletters from a project I didn't think I was a part of. No harm done, and thanks for your project work. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

..." the fictive Homo georgicus..."
Sadly, I finished my undergraduate palaeoanthropological studies before this unfortunate creature was disinterred and recruited to the causes of Gorgian nationalism, so I'm not entirely sure whether he (or she?) is fictive, or actually a new species. Google scholar seems to find mention of H. georgicus a few times, but I know only too well how often old bones get dug up, labelled, argued about and re-labelled before everyone agrees that they are never going to agree on what they are, and I'm in no position to judge even if I had access to the sources. If you're entirely sure that it isn't what it is claimed to be, I suppose the article will have to go - though proposing a 'Species for Deletion' might be rather controversial... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fossils are real but they are classified as Homo erectus now - and some people subclassify as Homo erectus georgicus' like like most people now do with Homo Erectus floresiensis. I have been teaching Human evolution to undergrads the past semesters and none of the many recent textbooks I have looked at mention Homo georgicus as a valid taxon. Some of the original articles by Lordkipanidze are cited as evidence of variability in Homo erectus though. The original typespecimen is now recognized as being pathological and not representative of the rest of its population.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its scary to think of what one might find if one were able to read the Georgian wikipedia...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, doesn't bear thinking about. I should probably get myself a current palaeoanthropology textbook, just to keep up with what they've found (or at least argued over) since I left Uni 12 years ago. No doubt they are still squabbling about the status of the Neanderthals, and H. floresiensis seems to have caused the usual ruckus - though I see from your comments that it may be going the way of the early 'Georgian', and getting relegated to a subspecies. Have the 'lumpers' of the palaeontology world finally defeated the 'splitters', or is this just a lull in the storm, I wonder? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that people have begun to realize that some degree of intraspecies variability is to be expected yes. This doesn't mean that it is less of a contentious field though, there are still many open quarrels. If you have email enabled I'll send you some of the material I have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't. If you want it send me an email then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much appreciated. Will do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think the lumpers have defeated the splitters. Both are active. But there is a tendency to describe new findings as new species, and later analysis will often lead to putting together species. As you look at Neandertal man, it has gone from a species to a subspecies and back. Being a paleontologist myself, I support the inclusion of H. georgicus in H. erectus. But H. floresiensis is far from commonly included there (some even see this species as pathological H. sapiens). I would say that it is quite commonly regarded to be a species of its own. Personally I think the differences do justify that view. Hopefully, DNA analysis will clarify the matter at some point.--Laplandgerard (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right - although I do suspect that the reason many new fossils are first classified as distinct species have more to do with publicity than with the discoverers being "splitters". I also agree that Floresiensis is less commonly included and at least the name "Homo floresiensis" is commonly used in standard textbooks, even those that argue that it is better classified as erectus - which I don't think is the case for Homo georgicus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey you!
Hey you. Where are you from? Just interested. -- Georgianჯორჯაძე 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I would share any personal information with you? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just ignore him from now on and if he keeps bothering you report him. You will always run into a few loony toons on WP once in a while. Cadiomals (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Maunus, thanks for dropping that extra info into Spanish conquest of Guatemala. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing what I've edited
If you have better information on the mtDNA genetic study than please edit it, but please don't remove what is scientifically proven study by geneticist.

Also, please understand that it did say hypothesis next to it. So until you can find something better please don't remove it.

WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 7:58, 9 march (UTC)
 * No, what you need to do is to propose the inclusion on the talkpage then we'll discuss there whether to include the genetic study and how. Keep in mind that the fact that there is a scientific study about this does not mean that we have to include it. We should use the policies of WP:RS and WP:DUE to decide whether the material is suitable. As proposed by you it seems to me that the article would be better without that material, since it is not clearly relevant or indeed even clearly intelligble. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I already did, and I will copy and paste the same thing I wrote on the talk page. " The wiki page includes the Y-DNA origin of Ainu but not the mtDNA study which is bias. The genetic information of Ainu is incomplete, however the study I edited provides good information on the origin mtDNA of Ainu. If you only include Y-DNA study but not the mtDNA study you might aswell remove the claim Ainu are haplogroup D2 and blame it on the genetic drift. Many people are asking what is the origin mtDNA of the Ainu, and the study I provided answers that question even though in the study it clearly says it's an hypothesis it's still far better than nothing. The genetic study I provided " Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Jomon skeletons from the Funadomari" revealed excellent information on ancient Jomon skeleton before the migrations of the Yayoi skeleton. This means there is an very high chance that the N9b and M7a were pre-jomon mtDNA contribution to modern Japanese mtDNA pool. Nobody (including me) it's saying that the study it's absolutely correct, but it fills in more information about the original Ainu mtDNA ".WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 8:57, 9 march (UTC)

Larry Neal Jordan
The discussion concerning what constitutes notability in re the Larry N. Jordan article is bizarre to say the least. You don't think somebody who has been a magazine publisher for 20 years of a fairly substantial circulation magazine (300,000) and for over 14 years has produced a weekly radio show aired on 52 stations across 10 states is a notable person worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Would you like me to send you links to Wikipedia entries on people who have accomplished far LESS? What is the real problem here? -- Lisa BrownLisaBrown2012 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a competition, notability is not based on accomplishment but on notability guidelines. If inclusion in wikipediw were based on merit then you are right that half of the biographies that we currently have would have to be scrapped since they are usually just about celebrities who have accomplished little of value for anyone else. As always in life the truly important people go unnoticed. Notability guidelines are here to insure that we only include articles for those who have in fact been "noticed", i.e. those about whom there is significant published coverage. Two newspaper articles and a book published on a minor press is not enough, and should not be enough since that would completely inflate the value of having the criteria. Anyone would be notable, or could buy themselves notability under those criteria. I do not doubt a second that Larry Jordan has accomplished a great deal more in his life than half of the people who have biographic articles here - but unfortunately that doesn't say much. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of your responses to heed. The one on this page or the other message you sent me. In any event, I have added another recent article about the Jordan book by linking to the newspaper. I don't know how to footnote it but maybe you could help with that. I am told there are other published articles in the last couple of years about this man and I am attempting to lay my hands on them. -- Lisa BrownLisaBrown2012 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The post on your talkpage is most recent, then one above here was made before OrangeMike made the decision to withdraw the nomination for deletion. I still do think that the case for notability is shaky, but that doesn't matter now, especially not if you find more sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply
SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Brothers Grimm
Hi Maunus - do you know anything about the Grimm brothers? I'm asking you b/c of their compilation of the Grimm dictionary and b/c of Grimm's Law. I'm trying to improve the page but all my sources have to do with fairy tales, so thought I'd wander over here and ask. Hope you're well, by the way.Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can certainly find sources about Jacob Grimm, I know a lot less about Wilhelm. But I guess the page of the "Brothers Grimm" has to be about the fairy tales and not about their individual work, which goes in their biographies. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm struggling with - there are bio pages for each brother and one for the fairy tales, so I'm thinking the Brothers Grimm page has to be written in summary style and should be an overview of everything. The dictionary and Grimm's Law is mentioned in the page, and I think it's important, but not sure how much to develop. I'll give it some thought - thanks anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the Brothers Grimm article should focus on their joint work, i.e. the fairy tales and the dictionary and don't go into detail about their individual lives and work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few biographies written of them, I wouldn't know which ones to work from without taking a thorough look. But it suggests that it wouold be possible to develop a really nice article focusing on their collaboration. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just been to the library to find a biography but my library (very small!) doesn't have what I need. I see what you mean - this could get to be a tricky page. I'll stick to the fairy tales as much as possible. Good advice! It will be a few days before I can get back to this, but I have plenty to think about in the meantime. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, I have a quick question. I'm getting the sense that the fairy tales were much more of a collaborative work than the dictionary, which seems to have been more Jacob's work, though I haven't had time to get through all the sources yet. Generally the sources mention the fairy tales, folk tales, and folklore when discussing the two brothers. Since I seem to be deleting more than adding to the page, and the "Philology" section is unsourced, what's your opinion of deleting it entirely? The dictionary is mentioned in the biography section and a "Works" section can be added as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would base that decision on what the main sources do. If they include a significant amount about the philological work then I'd use them to source the section. If they don't I'd leave it out, since as you say that was mostly Jacob's thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still searching, but hardly anything in the main sources about the dictionary. A lot about the folk tale / fairy tale methodology, and the influence on other folklorists, which I want to develop. Thinking how to deal with this, but thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally found it, but not a lot and hard to find, so I've only written a small section. Can you have a look at the Philology section and let me know if it makes sense. Also, my source mentions High German (As a young child I spoke in a German dialect, but had to learn Hochdeutsch to read and now can't remember any of it!) - on wiki it's Standard German? Hopefully I've done this correctly. And thanks for answering questions - this is a bit tricky for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven Rubenstein: a footnote.
Reading the sad news regarding Steven Rubenstein, I felt the urge to search for his works, to see where his interests lay, and what he stood for. His Steps to a Political Ecology of Amazonia caught my eye, having studied some political anthropology while at university (and of course, as being the political animal that I am). Though I've not had the chance to read it in depth yet, an interesting little footnote in turn caught my eye, as he unapologetically refers to indigenous Americans as 'Indians':


 * The use of the word “Indians” to refer to people who most definitely are not from India is one of the most well-known mistakes in the Western hemisphere, and for some this may be reason enough to abandon the word. One reason I use it is precisely because it is a mistake—not just the result of a mistake, but a mistake every time it is used, because it is thereby an example of the arbitrariness of the sign beyond perfection. I do not consider this point clever or trivial; following Eric Wolf, I believe that the starting point of good social science is to take seriously, and resist, the threat “to turn names into things” (1982:3). I say that “Indian” is an example beyond perfection because it is and at the same time is not arbitrary, for it was only at a particular time in history that people born in what are today called the Americas could have been given the name “Indians.” The word thus signifies the fractured and misguided logic of the conqueror, who has the power to make such mistakes and get away with them.

Glorious. Anyone who could write such a concise and pithy analysis of semantic imperialism, and hide it away in a footnote, deserves praise indeed. Wikipedia needs more Rubensteins. The world needs more Rubensteins. In the interests of good taste, I'll refrain from commenting on who the world needs less of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That really is a good quote, I had the pleasure of proof reading his latest piece where he uses psychoanalytic theory (and the political theory of Pierre Clastres) in the most ingenious way to make a point about how traditional Shuar culture could be characterized simultaneously by intense violence and an anarchic egalitarianism, and about how this clashed with the colonial political system where the monopoly on violence by the state was the fundamental principle. I am very sad, because I felt that I had found in him a kindred mind that I was only beginning to get to know, now it seems his writings will be the only way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, political anthropology at its best, by the sound of it. If we are only to get to know Steven Rubenstein further by his writings, at least we have the consolation that he seems to have had the ability to write, a skill sadly lacking in one or two academics I can think of ;-). If you get the chance, pass on my condolences and appreciations to his friends and family, from one who would have liked to have known him better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating this bio. I worked with slrubenstein on several of the early major content disputes at race and intelligence. Race science and sex science are the same thing in my book, so I was glad to work with someone willing to counter the spurious worldview of academic racists and academic sexists and their claims about "intelligence." Nice to know more about his off-wiki life. I hope you write more bios for prominent people in your field. Jokestress (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Andy below I have worked alot with Steve to keep the most flagrant racism out of the R&I articles as well. I agree that there are many unsavory parallels between the histories and intellectual genealogies of much sexuality research and that of most research on race and intelligence. I'm glad you approved of the biography.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice work Maunus - though I'd like to figure out how to insert a pithy quote or two into the article - if we write about sculptors, we illustrate the article accordingly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We could create a section with some selected quotes. I know some people don't like sections like that in bios, but if it's not too long it should be okay. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 06:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was the most appropriate tribute I could think of. I'm sure there will be obituaries coming out, at least in "Anthropology News" when it omes out next. They'll be good secondary sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you not only for the article, but for the beautiful note at the top of his user page. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the note you left on my talk page saying that you feel my article on Larry N. Jordan is "out of the danger zone" but I'd further appreciate it if you would take a look at the page. Several Wikipedia people have have worked with me to tighten it up. If you like it, please confirm this on Deletion discussion page. This whole process has been unbelievably time consuming to try to verify info I initially gleaned from online published sources but which for some reason haven't seem to satisfy some people! If we can't trust bonafide newspaper and magazine articles that cite information about a person, who can we trust? Anyway, this whole experience has opened my eyes, especially when someone asks for a citation but somebody else removes a link to an article that backs up the very info that has been challenged! I certainly hope to help shape other Wikipedia entries on other people in the future but I may have to take a week of vacation to do it at this rate. Would like to get the Jordan page wrapped up and since the deletion nomination was withdrawn by OrangeMike I'm not sure why the boxes are still at the top of the page? What happens next? LisaBrown2012 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Marx lost all influence when he died"
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. An obvious truth, and like all the best 'obvious truths' only obvious after someone points it out to you. Then again, like many of his time, Marx seems to had an obsession (if only metaphorically) with the spirit world, what with spectres haunting Europe, and ghosts of old revolutions wandering around the French countryside. Maybe he is still with us after all, exerting a ghostly influence from Highate Cemetery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. a thought - set it as an essay title for your students: "Marx lost all influence when he died": Discuss. See how many of them catch on ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. A spectre is losing influence all over Europe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hi in the jewish nobel laureate talk, thanks for supporting the individual selection proposal. Could you please make the word 'agree' bold so that others know you are in favor. thank you. HasperHunter (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Could you please do that in the proposal that i presented too? here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Proposal_for_deletion.2Faddition_of_names Make the agree word bold pleaseHasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Field Research
I have been quite busy that I haven't had a chance to comb through the recent expansion of the Field Research article. Plus, I am not an expert in this area. Nevertheless, I am concerned that some of the newly added materials may not necessarily be improvements. Since you have a strong background in this area, could you have a cursory look when you get a chance? danielkueh (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for notifying me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kandahar massacre
Hi Maunus,

Few days ago you suggested to rename the title of the article about the events in Kandahar on 11 March 2012, from "shooting spree" to "massacre". At the moment there is a discussion and a straw poll on this issue, with the suggestion to rename Panjwai shooting spree into Kandahar massacre. If you are still interested in this topic, you are very welcome to express your opinion there. --Potorochin (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review
Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:


 * 1) Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
 * 2) Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
 * 3) Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
 * 4) Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
 * 5) Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc ( powwow ) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

hi
How am I suppose to interpret this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&diff=next&oldid=482174863

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Interpret it as a request to stop trolling my talk page. Actually, I'll make that an instruction. Stop trolling my talk page. If you have a complaint about my behaviour, raise it in the appropriate place - but read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Me and Andy's talkpages have been haunted by a particularly nasty sockpuppet and I reverted without looking deeply into the content. Actually I realized afterwards that you were not the particular sockpuppet that I thought you were when I reverted that. So I apologize. And I also would note to and that he should avoid using that kind of language in edit summaries. But basically the civility reminder was so malformed that it looked like it was just trolling. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mesoamerican ballgame name in Nahuatl
Maunus, I un-identified "ulama" as the Nahuatl name of the game based on your comment on the Talk page: " The reason the surviving game is called ulama is that it was so named by Spaniards. ". :)  I see you have subsequently improved and honed the lead sentence.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. FYI. I wrote an email to CJLL's business address Down Under on Wednesday telling him that we missed him and hoped things were well and that we'd love to hear from him. Nothing yet. :(

A barnstar for you!

 * And a hearty "well done" to you!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfect
Perfect. I think I shall be forced to steal it. With attribution, of course. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

- :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OM language distinctions
Hi Maunus,

Would you have any advice for sorting out the individual Otomanguean languages? This is one of the main families, and the only one in the New World, where we don't have adequate language coverage at least at the stub level, mostly because it's impossible to tell from Ethnologue whether ISO codes are assigned based on mutual intelligibility or on ethnic identification with one's town, and also if there's any branching relationship in an unstructured list of half a hundred names. Mixtec, for example: we probably shouldn't treat it as a single language, but I don't think having 52 stubs saying "X is a Mixtec language" would be useful. Anyway, if you have any input for any of the OM branches (or for Nahua), or know of any good sources, it would be appreciated.

— kwami (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would make lists like the one we have for List of Otomi languages and List of Mayan languages, I think perhaps at this point it would be useful also with a List of Nahuan languages (and I certainly have the sources to expand that). then those lists can be the hub for gradually writing articles the individual languages for which there are resources available.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Mayan list is nice, but I have no way of making s.t. like that, because I don't know the interrelationships of the various varieties of Mixtec, Zapotec, etc. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. We were able to boil down E's list of Miao languages that way, and got a start on Thai. I could do it for Nahua using the classification we already have, if I could be sure of its correspondence to the ISO codes. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the problem with the Nahuan list is that it doesn't correspond entirely to the way others classify the different varieties, so it'll be difficult to have each article about a Nahuatl variety correspond to only one code. With the Mixtec and Zapotec varieties I'll have to look at some dialectological work and see how they classify into larger groupings - with Zapotec there is Valley and Isthmus Zapotec as the main groupings as far as I know - then we could use those classifications as a basis for the list. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't expect a one-to-one relationship. We don't do that for our other articles if we have refs contradicting it. So one Nahua language with two ISO codes and part of a third would be just fine, as would a second language corresponding to a sub-ISO code at LingList. But we need some kind of overt correspondence, since ISO3 is a primary means of identifying languages, or at least we should be able to say that it is not covered by any ISO code. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried partitioning the Nahua lects based on the classifications we use in the article, so that groups of ISO codes are hopefully closer to what we've done on other articles. However, I'm having to infer an awful lot from location and maps, since I don't have the primary sources available (I have no idea what to do with Tetelcingo Nahuatl, for example), so I'd appreciate it if you could review when you have some time. (You can start with 'dialects' in the box at Nahuatl and work down.)
 * Ok, Tetelcingo is a central dialect. Its basically similar to the other Morelos dialects except for its divergent vowel changes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On another subject, I made a bot request, which ended up here, to have a reference section added to all articles which have a language info box, as well as to add empty 'ethnicity', 'ref', and 'date' fields so it will be easier to make the current covert Ethnologue refs more apparent. (Something people have complained about in the past.) People are objecting that these would be 'cosmetic' changes, or shouldn't be done because they'd have no effect, and want to see consensus. In case you have an opinion. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Searle
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Derrida criticism to Searle". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) -Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editing tips
Can you try to format your references with publisher/date details? Bare url links need cleanup. I believe there are several tools to help you format them. For books I use this ref maker. Another thing is David Seetapun American or English because you state English and then categorize as an American.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I generally leave the url fixing to bots - they run all the time and bare urls rarely last long. One source suggested Seetapun was American, but it turnedout he was English and I forgot to change the categories. Fixed now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its the reason why I tend to use book sources as much as possible, saves me drawing them up!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a good policy, which I also tend to follow with articles for which they exist. These particular ones are news kind of articles and are best sourced with online sources. I'm sure the bots will fix the bare urls soon. I should probably take a habit of tagging the articles myself though to get the bots' attention.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Google though has an irritating habit of putting a lot of the titles in lower casing. A lot of sources I use have very long titles too from old Gentle committees reports or whatever so I'm not always willing to fix them. But if you want you can copy my monobook and put the link to the google book ref into your itinery. I also have the google translate link in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Totonacan languages page
Hi. Sorry we were in conflict editing today—I was in the process of starting the shift to Harvard citations, and I see that you were also cleaning up the bibliography (which was messy partly because I'm lazy and hate the Wiki citations templates ...). I just started a new section on the talk page for Totonacan languages that you might want to get in on. cheers Davidjamesbeck (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Kwami & Oblique
Hi Maunus,

While at a wedding yesterday when the officiating judge recited the line "I thee wed..." I got to thinking about the interesting form of that construction and whether in its original sense, thee would have been a dative or accusative (indirect object as in 'I wed you to myself' or direct object as in 'I wed (do this marrying thing to) you'). Yeah I know linguists are weird. For the hell of it, I looked up thou on WP on my iPhone only to find in the first bit of the article thou listed in the nominative and thee in the oblique. I thought argh, not again, and checked the history. Yep, the latest update had been from of course, Kwami and it had been to change the description of thee to 'oblique' (the rest of the table was wrong too with thy being listed as genitive case and thine as possessive when in fact thy not even a pronoun (it's a possessive adjective) and thine is the genitive case form of the pronoun (and for that matter even if you wanted to use possessive as a case name, it's the same thing as genitive)). What really irritates me is that yet again, not only is Kwami pushing his own ideas (that English has an oblique case) but he's taking great pains to make such changes throughout the realm of wikipedia articles. And, in regard to this oblique dispute, he's continuing to make those changes that he wants elsewhere in Wikipedia while he knows and is actively involved in the dispute and discussion of that very idea. This is not at all a one time event and as I and (if you look through talk pages, admin dispute pages, assistance requests, and the like) lots of other editors, contributors, and admins have pointed out, is the way Kwami does business on here all the time. This is not proper behavior and I am so tired of so much of the time I voluntarily contribute to improving the linguistics articles of WP taken up by trying to undo the damage repeated inflicted by this single user! Something needs to be done about this. Kwami obviously has a passion for wikipedia and contributes a huge amount of time to it and that is to be commended, but if he cannot exercise the restraint and does not possess the academic integrity and professionalism to limit his editing to those topics he first ensures consensus on and to not take it upon himself to redesign the English language and the world view of linguistics to match his personal desires, then he should not be permitted to edit the articles and he certainly should not be afforded admin abilities. This latter point is the biggest because he starts or tries to escalate just about everything into edit wars and then as an admin with other admin allies either bans the opposing user or makes sure their viewpoints are overwhelmingly knocked out of contention with little regard to the topic at hand. And the worst part of all of this is that he holds (and gets the other admins to hold) those who oppose his constant changes to a totally different standard than himself. He feels that a single article or book he's found (almost always primary sources) is enough to justify him going throughout all of wikipedia and changing things from how they exist (and often have existed for years undebated) to something new. Yet then, those arguing to undo his changes are made to prove that the pre-Kwami status quo is justified. You can say that you should be able to easily find sources for any side of a debate, but when the things that he's changing are not in their pre-Kwami form disputed or actively in debate or contention, there isn't going to be much written on them. It's like trying to search for scholarly journals supporting your argument that houseplants contain chlorophyl. Under the standards being applied currently, Kwami could argue that in fact all houseplants are filled with grape jelly and post an article he's read saying just that (and of course then go throughout every article that used to have the word chlorophyl and change it to read grape jelly). Try then finding articles out there on google scholar or jstor talking about how plants don't have grape jelly in them. You won't find them and sadly, under the standards being applied to debates over all these constant changes Kwami is making, his grape jelly version of the world would be allowed to stand because once he's made his changes, the impetus of proof is on everyone who disagrees with him and not on him to prove his points first. Ridiculous and after years of this same pattern going around and around, time for it to be put to a stop.

Please, can someone among his peers or supervisors or whatever PLEASE put a stop to this crap?Drew.ward (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to respond to this - your quarrel seems mainly to be with the policies of wikipedia that require included content to be backed by sources, and that considers sources to trump claims to personal expertise by editors. Those are very basic policies on wikipedia. Kwami is not arguing that plants are filled with grape jelly, but he is arguing in favor of an analysis of English grammar that has been proposed by many serious grammarians. His argument is backed by sources- you may have a linguistics degree (I don't know why you assume that kwami hasn't? There are quite a few academic linguists working here my self included) - but you have not been able to produce any sources in favor of your interpretation - and particularly none showing that it is the prevalent one. I would expect an academic linguist to be able to show the literature supporting her arguments. As I have said it is not the case that there is a single definitive analysis of the grammatical categories of English or of any other language - analyses are theory dependent and there are many hundred linguistic theories available to choose from. Simply saying that your particular analysis is right and Kwami's is wrong doesn't lead anywhere. I agree that Kwami is often too quick to implement his ideas widely without discussion - this is good for general efficiency, but often does leads to conflict that he doesn't wait to form consensus. To work towards a consensus in favor of your interpretation of English cases you should however concentrate more on producing supporting evidence for your explanation than on making ad hominem arguments.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that he doesn't have a linguistics degree and even if he didn't, many of our most famous linguists have been from entirely different fields or even beyond academia entirely. My problem and my complaint is with the double standard of him seeming free to make these sudden and widespread changes even when those changes are in contention and being able to do so on his own terms and sourcing only those who agree with him. This especially regarding changes from things that are in line with the general consensus view in linguistics (or in some cases when two conflicting views are presented either eliminating one view or rewording to give greater force to the one he supports) yet then the greater responsibility and greater scrutiny of sources being placed on those opposing the new changes he's made. Drew.ward (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The right way to approach a conduct issue like this would be first to try to sort it out with Kwami personally in an amiable way. If that fails then the next possibility is to start a Request for Comment on User Conduct in which a consensus can be reached about whether his editing behavior is appropriate or not. I agree that it is not a great move to make a blanket change of a wording while that wording is still being discussed. I will approach Kwami on his talk page to ask him to not do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ebionites
Given your knowledge of religion from an academic standpoint, including your disagreements with me in the past on some issues, like Penton's reliability regarding the JWs, I would welcome your input regarding content at James the Brother of Jesus (book), Robert Eisenman, The Jesus Dynasty, James Tabor, and Ebionites. Regarding the JWs, you were in fact right, Penton's book was counted as the best available book in comparison to another book by a former JW, not necessarily as one of the best books per se. In any event, thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, actually. Having reviewed the material myself, including a lot of comments on the above books and other books, there is substantial disagreement, of some kind, even in the academic community. Basically, the question seems to me to be whether the sources qualify as reliable per WP:RS. There is a long history on this particular article, as can be seen in the archives and elsewhere, of attempts of non-notable groups or authors which claim to be Ebionite "restorations" of some sort to try to have themselves or their views discussed in the article. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Nahuatl dialects map.png
My understanding was that Nahuatl culture extended as far south as Costa Rica before the arrival of the Spanish. Are you sure there were no Nahuatl dialects spoken further south than shown on your map? Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any sources placing Nahuatl into Costa Rica, the farthest southern pockets of speakers I know of were in Nicaragua.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples
I like what you did, putting Bedouin back in and wikilinking Arab tribes. But what do you think about Marsh Arabs and Negev Bedouin? Should they have their own bullet point, or just be mentioned in our new Bedouin part? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think I would prefer to see whether other sources include them under the Bedouin header.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source being used used for Negev Bedouin is about the the Bedouin generally. The Bedouin bullet point has no source, so I'm going to subsection the Negev and use its source for the current Bedouin. Thus speaketh Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for replying to my comment in a non-dehumanizing manner. I see know. Even though I disagree, I see that Wikipedia has established that and I respect that. Thank you for not insulting me or calling my comment an opinion as many others have done. I am glad that we can agree to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerchippo (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AAH
Do they really still teach that humans evolved on an arid savannah? Most of the coverage I see suggests it was much wetter, intermittent lakes, patchwork to gallery forest, etc., though with severe shifts of climate from wet to dry. — kwami (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was certainly climate changes throughout the evolution and east Africa was intermittently very wet and very dry in some periods, but most of the adaptations evident in the record strongly suggest terrestrial movement and hairlessness and sweat glands is generally ascribed to energy efficiency in a hot climate. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll find some sources regarding the environment of human evolution and add them to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting the kindness of your reply
I replied to your recent comment on Talk:Critical race theory. —Blanchette (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Micah True
Maunus, Your "weasel" sobriquet is probably right. That being said, the connotation was in the original source, and I was merely trying to avoid a "close paraphrasing" accusation, which is actually going to happen eventually. That being because amongst the 30 or so sources, there is a lot of repetition of basic facts. I was sincerely trying to avoid anything that looked liked a WP:COPY violation. So even as one steers away from one source, there is a commonality of subject matter that will lend credence to the inevitable accusation. This being particularly so as some of the reviewers at WP:DYK (where the article is in play) have their own methodology that will lead them in that direction. In any event, please feel free to rewrite it, and not just to criticize it. This is a collaboration among equals, and your input is most welcome. Have at it, please. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S., given your interest in editing matters related to Mexico, your perspective and input on this article could be very helpful. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Teamwork barnstar

 * No problem, my pleasure. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

GAs and stuff
Hi Maunus. You asked me to let you know when I'm planning on bringing stuff up to GA/FA so here's the latest:

Mixco Viejo and Mundo Perdido, Tikal are currently awaiting GA review; they're both fairly complete and I don't expect too much work to get them through to GA.

I'm currently working on Mirrors in Mesoamerican culture and might have bitten off more than I can chew there; by the amount of solid references I have available this one can probably go to FA with a lot of work. At the moment, I pretty much have Olmec and Maya mirrors covered and am working on Teotihuacan. Notably missing at the moment are detail on:
 * Tarascan mirrors
 * Zapotec mirrors
 * Mixtec mirrors
 * Postclassic Maya mirrors
 * Classic period Veracruz mirrors
 * Mirror folklore/ritual in modern Mesoamerica

If you have info, time, and the will, any help on these would be most welcome. If not, don't worry. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that is challenging - but a good topic. (you left out Aztec mirrors in the above). I'll givge it a big think through - but I really am starting from a blank I must admit. Thanks for keeping me updated on your work plans! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mura
Do you have an opinion on the question raised at Talk:Bohura language? — kwami (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

He/she... whatever
Just to clarify: BlackCab is a male. On a related topic, thanks for your interest in current developments at JW pages. BlackCab (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I think I was unconsciously identifying you with the "Sally" part of your old username. I do apologize.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
I am requesting arbitration enforcement against you regarding WP:ARBR&I. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great move. Don't post here again. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Maunus. I just looked at WP:AE. Would you consider the idea of removing or striking through the comments at Talk:Human that were cited in the three submitted diffs? That might allow the AE to be closed with no action, or at least none against you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on Whorf!
Hi there. A few years ago I remember hitting Wikipedia to get some background info on Benjamin Lee Whorf for a paper, and his page was tragically empty. I happened to stumble upon that page again just now (you edited a section of Toxoplasmosis that I edited, too) and was amazed by how much content it has now compared to back then. It looks like most of that content came from you; so from me-a-few-years-ago: thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! That kind of experience is exactly what makes it worthwhile to edit wikipedia. All the best. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of reptilian humanoids
I just noticed you removed the Aztec figures without discussion. Given that the list currently has no set inclusion criteria, and given that Quetzocoatl has been interpreted both as human and snake, there is no reason not to include him, and not, say, Zahhak. I don't mind taking him off, if some kind of standard could be adopted. But there isn't one yet and I don't really see how there could be.  Serendi pod ous  21:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know of such interpretations. I know that the name "quetzalcoatl" has been given to both antrhopomorpgic and ophiomorphoc deities - but there is no evidence that these deities are the same or were called "Quetzalcoatl" by the cultures that used it. And as far as I know there are no depictions of any deity named quetzalcoatl that combine humanoid and reptilian features.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Whorf
Just so you know, I haven't abandoned it. My editing schedule is erratic at the moment but I hope to get back there today. Btw, sorry about this. I've done similar things a few times w/ Bamse, so keep a close eye on what I'm doing. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! I am not in a hurry with that article anymore. And that sentence was badly written to begin with which was why you didn't have a chance to guess what it was supposed to mean. What did you thik about my abbreviations? I shaved off 15kb of text!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed all the trimming but I haven't looked at it closely. I'm working my way from the bottom up because for some reason that works for me in this case and then I'll work my way from the top to the bottom. Watch for inline comments and any mistakes I might introduce. I'm glad you're not in a hurry because I can only manage a bit at a time. I think it's very interesting btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Article of Andrew McIntosh
I wanted to thank you for your edits to this article, improving its neutrality. I'm currently working rewriting and expanding the biography and will ask you for feedback on a draft version in due course. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

NPE
Have you heard of the concept of not edit warring? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of the concept that cleanup tags can be removed when the problem is taken care of?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or when there was no problem to begin with. Your second edit was with the default edit summary ("Undo...") with no actual explanation, that basically constitutes edit warring. (I couldn't predict that you'd be posting on the talk, sry.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP blues
The anon IP is back and has appropriated the "Time" lede. I notice there has been no discussion by this person on the talk page in order to confer or vet. So, please see recent edit history of the article. I have contacted this person on their talk page, however this person has ignored us on the article talk page so I am expecting the same. Also, this person has a new IP address each time they edit this article. So, the situation is made even more difficult. I am willing to be diplomatic on a talk page -- but this person does not confer. How do you propose I or We solve this. Thanks. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I unwatched the article I must admit - I didn't really have the patience for Stevertigo any more and the discussion on the talkpage seems to be circular. I suggest that you revert the IPs edit and start a discussion. IF he reverts you request article protetction or get him blocked for edtiwarring (which is of course not a good solution for a dynamic IP). Then I think the best think would be to make a widely advertised RfC - making sure that both editors from WP:PHYSICS and WP:PHILOSOPHY are notified.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, hadn't seen you were both already editwarring. I think protection and an rFC is in order at this point. Don't revert anymore or you might get blocked as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For myself I must say that I was not edit warring. I did try to copy edit what was there because of the contradiction and POV in the sentence. In any case, thanks for your advice -- I will try some kind of solution. And I understand why you took it off your watchlist. Regards Steve Quinn (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Greenberg
Hello Maunus. I checked out Joseph Greenberg after you mentioned it at WikiProject Linguistics. Your most recent edit, leaving in the NYT reference but giving a more accurate suggestion of what it means, seems appropriate. Let's hope it holds. I also gave a 'soft' edit war warning to the talk page for the IP address which kept reverting you; it appears to be Columbia University. By the same token, you'll want to be careful not to skirt too close to the three-revert rule. The edits seem like semi-well-intentioned stubbornness rather than deliberate vandalism to me. Cnilep (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. That's why I asked for assistance. The problem was that they didn't discuss. Also it is a problem that while the source supports the statement and the source is ostensibly reliable it is absolute nonsense to use genetic data as support for linguistic claims. It does support Greenberg's 3 wave hypothesis, but no one's really disputing that anyway, and that has been supported by genetic evidence since the 1990s. It is really rather infuriating how sometimes geneticists think they can incorporate all kinds of other fields into their domains without even being familiar with the basics of those disciplines. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's also sadly predictable how quickly inflated or misinterpreted claims from science journalists show up on Wikipedia, particularly when there is a linkable URL. Cnilep (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Polka#Etymology of the word Polka
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Polka. DocTree (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Archaeology

 * I was using the word "historical" broadly, just as you understood it: "in the past." (This was an important part of the definition that I felt was lacking.) I wasn't using the more narrow definition of history (to mean "recorded history") in which the word "history" is juxtaposed against the bizarre term "pre-history." I meant the word "history" to include all eras of human existence, but I agree that perhaps "in the past" is a clearer way of putting it if you fear others will misinterpret the word "history." Wolfdog (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the past is clearer since there is a specific subdiscipline of Archaeology known as "historical archaeology" Also some archaeologists study the very recent past, arguably not yet history.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The power of words
Words have the power we give them. Due to my perverse habit of wading into the little cesspool (WQA) and the big cesspool (ANI) and the slow lane cesspool (AN), I've been called all sorts of things. If the comments have some validity, or contain a reasonable request, I'll probably respond; if not I just swim along. More directly, not responding to an accusation of "hater" shows strength and confidence; tit for tat replies, not so much. Nobody Ent 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. Perhaps I don't have enough strength and confidence to show.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gene Weltfish
Orlady (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

page number?
Hi. Regarding new Eugenics paragr in Du Bois article: one ref is p 223 of Lewis: I dont see the material on that page in my copy. What edition is that page number from? --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah it's not the same book. Sorry about that, its from the 2001 one. I'll amend the reference. The reference system in the article is quite confusing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Human evolution fossils
I responded on the talk page. Sorry it took me a while, I am just not on here much anymore. Thanks for talking it out rather than starting an edit war. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, I've responded at the move discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for for saving me from some embarrassment, and apologies for the offending edit. I obviously should have checked the history of the tier 4 article list before attempting to add my snarky comment (and should have left out the snark anyway). The unexplained removals occurred because I unthinkingly edited the whole article rather than just adding a new section; so when I saved my edit, other edits which had been done in the meantime were removed. David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I assumed it wasn't intentional. Best regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

white people/black people
Hi Maunus - the other editor has now gone ahead and created what appear to be two new WP:POVFORK pages, White (skin color) and Black (skin color). Much of the material is basically just a copy and paste of what he previously added to the "black people" and "white people" articles and argued for in the rfc.

Note the intros:


 * "The terms white or light-skinned are used as social descriptions for humans who have light-coloured skin[1] or are marked by the slight pigmentation of the skin.[2][3]"


 * "The terms black or dark-skinned as descriptions for people are used to describe various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin relative to other lighter-skinned groups represented in a particular social context.[1][2] The term describes belonging to or denoting any human group having dark-coloured skin[3][4][5] The term is specifically used for dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Australia, and Oceania but the general definition of the term "black" extends to any humans characterized by dark skin[6]."

It is literally the same skin color-based classification scheme that he has been arguing for all along on the respective articles. This is despite the reached consensus that the "white" and "black" social constructs are independent of skin color and are to be discussed on the "white people" and "black people" articles, respectively; the biology of human skin coloration would likewise be dealt with separately. It unfortunately doesn't end there, though, because he has also apparently created a Template:Skin colors, where he links to these fork pages. I have commented on this latest development on the rfc. When and if you have the time, your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Soupforone (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can say I completely understand what is going on here - I think that basically we are all in agreement about the differences between White/Black as racial categories and dark/light as neutral descriptors of skin tones. Although we may argue about how best to describe that difference in terms of article space. I don't think I am going to get involved more beyond this point, since I am not sure what to base an opinion on.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood and thanks again for clarifying. Soupforone (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen C. Levinson
Sorry for undoing your original edit. But I don't think your latest improves things much. While SCL is definitely not American, it's not completely accurate to say he's British either. And since his biography shows him to be a thoroughly international academic, I wonder whether nationality is even relevant. I don't think saying that he's a "linguist and anthropologist" adds much either, since he's also a highly interdisciplinary scholar and the continuation of the first paragraph already lists the kinds of disciplines he's worked within. Ngio (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to make the article conform to MOSBIO. Simply saying that he is the head of the Max Planck institute doesn't strike me as very informative either. I must admit I don't know about his citizenship status and that it seems likely to be at least complicated, but if you have acces to his bipgraphic details then maybe you can explain that in the article body. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's much better now. I still think it would be better if you took out "British", since you presumably can't verify it (I don't really want to spend time looking for documentation since I don't think it should be there). Ngio (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Request
When you have the time, can you have a look at the etymology section of the Alps? I'm not sure about the bit about Albania and if it's wrong it should be cut. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting question and a well-written section. The online etymological dictionary's source seems to be linguist Frederik Kortlandt who writes: "The only example of Hittite a- < *a- which looks ancient is alpā- ‘cloud’, Gr. alphós, Latin albus ‘white’, also Gr. álphi ‘barley’, Old High German albiz ‘swan’ (cf. Melchert 1994: 147, Rieken 1999: 98). I think that this root was bor-rowed from a European substratum language because it is not found in Indo-Iranian or Tocharian, has a variant *elbh- in Slavic, has an alternating suffix -it-, -ut- in Germanic (cf. Boutkan 1998: 127) and the same suffix with an infixed nasal in Slavic in the word for ‘swan’, plays a role in Germanic mythology (cf. English elf) and is frequent in European geographical names (e.g., Alba, Albion, Elbe, the Alps). It supports the view that the Anatolians preceded the Greeks and the Phry-gians in their migration from the Ukraine into the Balkans and then into Anatolia." Kortlandt is sometimes a little controversial - I'll try to investigate more about the degree ofacceptance of these claims.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect and quote boxes
. Your intervention seem to have worked. Chaipau (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect CSDs
Hi. I see you have nominated a number of redirects as G8, dependent on a non-existent page. But they all appear to direct to a page that exists and which appears to be a valid target for the title. Am I missing something here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are redirecting common Jewish names to a list of alleged unconvicted sex-offenders. BLP. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, but that's not a CSD:G8. If there are improper BLP allegations in the target page, the correct action is to remove them, isn't it? (And then the redirects would indeed be G8able). I think that's the thing to target, not the redirects. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the redirects need to go first, since they are not the proper targets of those names as search terms - that's why I consider it G8. I've posted about the article to the BLP notice board, since it seems complicated to decide which of the included names can be included and which can't. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, the Kol Tzedek one definitely should redirect, I was wrong about that one. Sorry.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, I see what you're saying. I'm not entirely convinced they're G8, but I think BLP concerns should override admin pedantry in this case, and I think it probably is wise to delete the redirects, at least pending the outcome of BLPN discussion - I'll make it so. (And how grossly distasteful trying to feature one of them in a DYK!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - let me know if there are any more. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, lets see what the BLP people say. Some of the people have been convicted and I suppose that we can include them, but one is stated to have "had his record cleared" in turn for participating in a program for first time offenders. That is kind of a complicated one to make a decision on I think. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter Jensen (psychologist)
I removed the PROD template and sent it to Afd because it has already been proposed for deletion at least once before and contested.--ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

DYK for L. A. Ring
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hello Maunus,

Can you please look here, and on the ongoing discussion over that whole talk page and main article over the past two weeks or so, and give your appraisal of it? And also, please, can you advise on the possible courses of action, as these people will continue just wildly reverting even requests for references, based on their religiously motivated narrow sectarian agenda? Thank you. warshytalk 00:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather this is the first revert. Above I reinserted it. I've been reading on how to create the correct diffs and on the procedures, so when time comes I will be ready to report on the edit warring to the proper board. I'd just appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the contents of the dispute and how it develops? Thanks a lot for any advice you may have. warshytalk 01:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've looked briefly at the article and with no background knowledge I must say that I can't see the problem with the content. Itdoesn't look "sectarian" to me and there is a criticism section which makes it look fairly neutral. I agree ith the IP thatusing the Jewish Encyclopedia as a source may not be the best choice for an article about a competing religious group - I also wouldnt use the catholic encyclopedia as a neutral source on Martin Luther for example. If I were you I'd look for some more recent scholarly sources. If the IP keeps reverting just report him to the 3rr notice board. I understand it can be frustrating to deal ith Ip editwarriors - but generally they just don't know the rules in that regard. Calling editors "sectarian" or characterizing their religion as a "sect" generally isnt helpful, and merely escalates the dispute. best regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into this matter, Maunus. I really appreciate the time and effort you had to put into it, and I highly appreciate your professional input. I will follow your advice. Thanks again. warshytalk 14:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
It's quite heartwarming to see someone take on a really general top-level article seriously. I haven't read it through yet, but I really like what I've seen so far. I'll help out with peer reviewing, but I'm not really that up-to-date about linguistic research.

Peter Isotalo 16:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter! I don't think you need to be really up to date on linguistics, my aim has been to keep the article extremely general, with pointers to the best general literature and to the specialized daughter articles. If you just read it as a generally informed reader that will provide really valuable input. Thanks for the star and in advance for the review. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm currently reading through the article on paper for a general overview and a copyedit. I'm a fairly hands-on editor, so I'm wondering: would you mind if I corrected obvious stuff myself and limited myself to more in-depth content discussion in the peer review? From what I've seen so far, I don't think there will be that much of it. In terms of scope, the article seems to cover just about everything I would expect from a really high quality treatment of the topic.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Gramamtical gender and Tamil
Hi Manus! I've seen that you've added some information on the grammatical gender article. It's very nice to see that somebody is finally adding referenced stuff!! As you may have seen, I'm in the process of reestructuring the article and trying to source it, so many things may change, including the lead secction, that IMHO should be shorter and not containing much specific data.

It's for this reason that I would appreciate if you could move what you added to the body of the article (e.g. for the Tamil stuff I'd suggest section 7.1). Since I don't completely understand the Tamil system, I don't want to touch it myself. Once the whole article is more or less consolidated, I'll make a summary of it as a lead section, which I think is the better, easier choice. Cheers.-- Fauban  17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reacted to your request at WP:Linguistics - please don't be shy when it comes to (re)moving or altering anything I've added (I certainly don't understand the Tamil system either Corbett describes it as a natural gender system, but says that it is traditionally described as rational/irrational genders (which seems kind of sexist since apparently all female entities are classified as irrational)). it looks like you're doing really good work on that article, so thanks for that! In relation to the lead article, note that it should provide a complete summary of the article per, WP:LEAD so it is limited how short it can be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to rework the Tamil stuff a bit. Cheers-- Fauban  10:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job
Good work on responding to the Evil Duck's emissary. I think my sense of humour has been disappearing over the last year or two... garik (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * :) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't have a Copyvio noticeboard
We do see Suspected copyright violations. See also Plagiarism and Copyright problems -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Syntax
I put a link on the Kafka talk page. I'd really like to make this section of Kafka the best we can but it's not my field of expertise. If you could help out that would be greatly appreciated. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, it is very interesting. I had a cursory glance at googlescholar yesterday and didn't turn up much - but a more thorough search might turn up something useful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo
"After seeing a Yiddish theater troupe perform in October 19011, he spent th e next six months immersed in Yiddish language and "
 * Is that 1901 or 1911? Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * October 4th 1911, sorry about that. His friendship with the Polish Actor Yitzhak Löwy seems worth exploring more. On february 8th 1912 Kafka gave a speech about Yiddish language in which he lauded it as a language of culture (in spite of most people looking down on it). Perhaps because of his infatuation with one of the actresses - this meeting seems to have done more to draw him closer to his Jewish heritage than Max Brods attempts to convert him to zionism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karaim language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kumyk and Crimean Tatar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Language - reference to Forster/Renfrew paper
I noticed that earlier this month you removed a reference on Language, saying that its theory was too recent and too speculative for inclusion. I don't see why this information, published in Science (a major peer-reviewed journal) should not be considered a reliable source. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance! Tim dorf (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is of course a reliable source for the claim, but the claim is not sufficiently significant for inclusion in the main language article. The authors have no expertise in language or linguistics, their claims are rather extraordinary and are mostly backed by speculation, and we shouldn't include them until they are accepted by specialists. Just because it is published in science it doesn't mean that it is true or that everyone in science accepts it - and it certainly doesn't mean that it has to be included in wikipedia articles unless there is a consensus that the claims it makes is notable and relevant. Here is a response to their article by two of the world's best historical linguists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that Huntley and Bowern have objected to the claimed correlation between Y chromosomes and prehistoric language change. However, since Huntley and Bowern published their letter online last year, more genetics papers have now confirmed Forster and Renfrew's observation. Here is a selection: Caucasus languages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21571925 West African languages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130972 Southern African languages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22929022 (This last paper illustrates nicely the change of the language by Bantu males, but occasional retention of some of the Khoisan clicks by the surviving females.)

I suggest it would therefore be very timely for Wikipedia at least to refer to the Forster-Renfrew hypothesis, possibly adding the controversy with Huntley & Bowern, if you decide their criticism is still relevant given the new papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim dorf (talk • contribs) 20:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the main article on language should not include any recent hypothesis, only well established ones. If you want to include it I suggest you establish a discussion at Talk:Language where other editors can chime in and we can establish a consensus about whether to include genetic studies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I'll just copy this to the talk page of Language.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blurbs
Hi Maunus, I saw you comments today about the TFA blurbs. Would you mind taking a look at Today's featured article/September 12, 2012? It's an article of mine (and MathewTownsend's) and it would be nice to get another pair of eyes to read through it before it goes live. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll be happy to take a look.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So far so good?
I've read through the entire article now, noting various errors or improvements. Overall, I'm still really, really, really impressed by the article, though I think some specialized vocabulary might well be explained. Not every imaginable linguistics term, of course, but a little here and there. I've implemented about half of the minor issues I've noted, but I thought I'd just check if you think I might be doings something you don't agree with.

I'll get to my peer review comments sometime during the weekend.

Peter Isotalo 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It all looks good to me. There is definitely some repitition that could be flushed out, and I am also sure that some jargon could be avoided or better explained. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

eysenck
thx for help! -- WSC ® 22:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Peer review, English Language
Please review English Language, here, thanks!--Lucky102 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did you make a review of the English language page, while I already had one?--Lucky102 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You posted on my talkpage requesting a review and I gave you one. If you don't like the review you can just ignore it. Alternatively you could thank me. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You made another archive for it though, that's what I meant.--Lucky102 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That was because I followed the link on the talk page and not the link you posted here - I assumed they lead the same place.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

John Searle
Hello, Maunus. Since you have in the past taken an interest in the John Searle article, I thought I would let you know that there is a currently a dispute about its content that you might want to comment upon. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the situation and must say that I think I'll stay out of this one. My opinion is that I don't think it makes sense to mention a two year membership of a free speech organization in a lead that provides no discussion or description of his work or thought. The lead also isn't supposed to be a list of honors. It is supposed to be a short summary of his biography and significance as a philosopher. In short I don't think any of the lead versions that are being discussed are good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - I'll take your comments into account. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Tense and such
Hi Maunus, I just wanted to take a moment to say thanks for taking the time to post those references on my talk page and that I'm not ignoring you/them. I've had a few things come up (real life: dealing with insurance adjustors and clean up and unexpected repairs from our recent hurricane; wikipedia: being accused of edit warring for reverting a change made by Tjo3ya that was uncited) that are limiting my time on this topic. I haven't forgotten and plan to send you back a well-formed response as soon as I have the chance to put it all together the rest of the way. Cheers -- drewDrew.ward (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag in Mongoloid article
Hi Maunus. You added an "undue weight" tag to the Mongoloid article on 16 November 2011 with this edit: 

I can find no reference to this tag on the article talk page nor in the history of the talk page, so one cannot tell what particulars you had a problem with. I suspect either the problem has been corrected or you have put the article at a low priority for your attention so it may be time to remove the tag and allow prospective editors to view it with fresh perspectives uncluttered by tags. Unless you have improvements to offer I will remove the tag soon in keeping with my recent attempts to improve style and reduce clutter in that article. Regards. —Blanchette (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Phallic architecture
Hi Maunus. I was wondering if I could pick your brains regarding any anthropological slant on the newly-created Phallic architecture article. I've been having a bit of a kerfuffle over the article with it's creator/'owner', and I thought perhaps someone who might know a little more on the subject than either of us might be able to help - if only by telling us that we are both wrong. If you get a minute, could you at least take a look, or failing that, suggest someone else who could help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't "own" it, but I'd appreciate you showing me the respect Andy to work on it as I'd intended. You underrate me as an editor.. You took my initial entry as the complete thing for some reason..♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply at the orangutan talk page
FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Kafka peer review
It'd be great if you could comment at this PR. Right now it's the bottom section. Search for "I have glanced ahead" and read from there. Thanks. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Aztech mythology
A lot of her edits are problematic. I see you got a Questia account also, looks very useful. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed her edits. Questia certainly will be useful, yes. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mind Control
You recently reverted my edit on the mind control article. Zablocki states he represents a scholarly consensus; what evidence do you have to the contrary? Moreover, if Zablocki can't be relied upon here, neither can Barker, the author of the citation for the previous statement. Either both the statements should stay; or they both should go. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a false dichotomy. The mainstream view (that Mind control is fiction) should stay and the fringe view should be given only its due weight - as determined by the weighting in mainstream tertiary and secondary sources. Zablocki is on the fringe of Sociology of Religion, he has almost no leverage in the community. The article should be based on mainstream sources (such as handbooks and encyclopedia) and adopt their views - currently the article is highly biased towards Zablocki's views, giving extreme amount of undue weights to his smears of the leading scholars like Barker, Melton. Richardson, Beckford, etc. none of whom share his views. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is the very issue at hand: what is the mainstream view? As I understand it, Zablocki's view is the mainstream, not amongst sociologists of religion, mind you, about amongst sociologists in general and psychologists.  Sociology of religion, as I understand it, is on the fringe.  I don't see the article being biased towards Zablocki's views; it seems to just state what he says and what those who disagree with him say, leaving it up to the reader to decide who's right. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The study of NRM's is done within sociology of religion, which is not the fringe but the mainstream of research on the sociologty of religion, the views of other sociologists is irrelevant and in any case Zablocki's claim to majority is unsubstantiated and improbable. Zablocki's views date back to the ACM debate and have no currency in contemporary religious studies. You don't locate the mainstream by seeing who claims to be the mainstream, but by looking at position within scholarship. In order to locate the mainstream you have to use handbooks, review articles, encyclopedia entries and the like - not partisan primary sources. All such sources that I have looked at only mention Zablocki as an artefact of the 1990s ACM debates.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What sources would those be? I'm going to check out the Oxford Handbook to Sociology of Religion tomorrow.  As I understand it, study of NRMs isn't restricted to sociology of religion: philosophers, psychologists, sociologists at large, and religious studies scholars all study NRMs.  Zablocki's views are substantiated by a number of other scholars: Kent, Ware, Goodin, Ackeman, and others.  So long as handbook articles, encyclopedia articles, etc, are written by Richardson and company, Zablocki's views still seem at least as credible as theirs. You seem to judge what's mainstream simply by taking sociology of religion scholars at their word. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonm Handbook articles are written by "Richardson and Company" (a company that counts at least 20 scholars, the most influential in the study of NRMs) and not by Zablocki "and company". That is because they are the mainstream. YEs other disciplines also study NRM - philosophy studies everything for example and so does anthropology - but they are not the specialists field dedicated to this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Human evolution
What exactly is the reason for reverting my edit of the text on the aquatic models? I gave a reference, and all the authors are qualified: I - the first author - am in the last year of my PhD in paleoanthropology. I am doing since the early 1990's research on the history of paleoanthropology. The the second author (the late Phillip V. Tobias) was a leading paleoanthropologist (please check Wikipedia on him Phillip V. Tobias!!!). The last author has a PhD in behavioral ecology, wrote a MD on history of human evolution and is a medical specialist on public health. The reference I gave is peer reviewed and is part of my PhD thesis. If you don't have the qualifications to undue my text, what you are doing is imo just vandalism... Or did I miss something here? --Torrubirubi (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference is peer reviewed yes, but it's conclusion is not accepted by the scholarly community. Therefore I believe that including a large paragraph on a single paper gives undue weight to the aquatic theory of bipedalism, which is not currently favored by the paleoanthropological community as I am sure you know. I know that Philip Tobias' work is well respected, but I also know that this is not because of his views on the origins of bipedalism. You should review the policies on due weight, and also on what vandalism is and isn't. Undoing your work is not vandalism, but an invitation to collegial discussion of how best to write the article. Once we reach a consesus to include a reference to the Tobias et al paper in the article then we can include it. Your personal credentials are irrelevant, as are mine. I would encourage you to take a look at the discussion on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, also I would ask you to please disclose whether you have edited wikipedia with another account in the past?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CIA not reliable?
Are you kidding me or what? Since when is CIA Facebook considered not reliable?-- Ե րևանցի ասելիք կա՞  03:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since they don't do any censuses in Mexico and INEGI does. There is no way to count the number of "mestizos" in Mexico since that is not an objective category. The CIA factbook is dead wrong about half the time and ludicruously wrong 25% of the time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also found some real doozies in the CIA Handbook. I just hope the real CIA intel is better! — kwami (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - the CIA's utter uselessness for this sort of thing came up at one of the reference desks recently. Their data for religious belief in Cuba had the rather revealing comment: "note: prior to CASTRO assuming power".  And as for the mess they made of supposed 'data' for the same topic in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, it has to be seen to be believed.  Their 'ethnicity' data is likewise obviously compiled from whatever local source they can find - or from guesswork, by the look of it. They seem to be under the impression that the Swiss are almost entirely French, German or Italian by ethnicity,  whereas the Spanish are "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types".  I believe the technical term for this is 'complete bollocks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They also have that common foreign perception of what we Brazilians call the coffee-and-milk Brazil: 50% white and 50% black, or 200% mulatto, 5% "Indian" and 2% statues of Jesus Christ, who cares after all? 177.65.39.24 (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Amerind
I do not understand your edit to Amerind languages; it is not NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurasiatic (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the compromise resulting of a brief discussion between me and User:Medeis on the Talk:Amerind languages. Please give your reason for preferring another wording there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seee my response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Medeis#H-List μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Gigette bibliography
Maunus - you commented on the talk page of the Lords of the night article that "Adela Fernandez' book is not generally shared by specialists...Furthermore several of her sources are not authoritative, but written by minor figures, sometimes in a genre mixing fact and fiction, and frequently without citing primary sources." On her talk page she lists the books she intends to use in her complete rewrite of all articles related to Aztec mythology. You seem familiar with them. Perhaps you could comment on them and note which of them (or maybe all of them) meet the above criteria as unreliable sources. Here is the list:



Senor Cuete (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * One of them is a good work e.g. Nowotny (but it is not about Aztec mythology in general), others such as Meza are semifictional accounts. Others I am not strictly familiar with, but well enough versed with the relevant literature to know that they are not major figures. Several are outdated and superceded by a century of scholarship such as Agustin Robelo (1905), Migne (1881), and also Velazquez (1975). Others are popular or generalist works not written by specialists in Aztec mythology such as Jordan, Turner & Coulter. With the exception of Nowotny none of them would be cited in a general review of the literature on Aztec mythology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are you for judging these authors/historians? just tell, can you prove it?, otherwise can I see your sources?.--Giggette (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now "Mesoamerica mythology"? Lords of the Night?
Oh my lord!, can you tell me others "lords of the night" in some of all Mesoamerica mythologies?. --Giggette (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Giggette, read the article. There are Lord of the Nights in Mayan cosmology and calendrics, and probably in other Mesoamerican calendars as well. I haven't looked yet, but I believe the relevant reference for this woudl be Caso's comparative study of Mesoamerican calendars in the Handbook of Middle American Indians.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies ArbCom
I haven't named you as a party, but I think you might want to comment on Arbitration/Requests given your involvement a while back at Psychoanalysis. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Malmstrom
Thumbs up on removing Malmstrom from the Mesoamerican Calendars article. At one time he was cited in the Maya Calendar article and maybe he still is. The reference was online and I read it. He was so confused it was incredible. He didn't seem to really know the difference between the Long Count, Tzolk'in, Haab', etc. In addition, somewhere I have a link to an article that says that he's a leading advocate of transatlantic cultural contact being the origin of the Olmec culture, etc. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * I think his inclusion is a result of a (self?)-promotion campaign awhile back. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the new section I added to the talk page of the Maya calendar article in which I advocate removing references to Malmstrom from the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maya_calendar#Malmstrom_an_Ureliable_Source Senor Cuete (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * I read a review of his book in the 1999 issue of Ethnohistory and it was certainly not rejected as based on erroneous views of the calendar, just as being unconvincing in its argumentation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Chalchihuitlicue
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chalchiuhtlicue#Spelling.3F

Senor Cuete (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Aztec mythology
Hello, one of the fathers in aztec mythology on Wikipedia, a linguist and a "fluent speaker" of the language according to but not by reality, wondering why don't you just remove all my changes in one revert  as it was before my intervention, aristocracy.--Giggette (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do understand that you feel that your contributions are not being appreciated, that is not my intention, my intention is simply to assure that our coverage is based on the best available sources. Not all books are equally useful or authoritative. It is always a good idea to accept advice and corrections from those who have access to a broader spectre of sources than yourself. I don't claim to know everything about Aztec mythology, but I do have access to all the best sources, and I have quite a good background knowledge of Mesoamerican indigenous cultures because that is my professional area of specialization. If you want to collaborate I would be happy to share my sources information and work with you instead of simply by reverting you, but that would require that you accept that sometimes the information in your sources is out of date or based on erroneous interpretations of primary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen yourself, new books don't mean corrected info or updated. --Giggette (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, generally that is what it means. Especially when written by respected and trained professionals who build on previous scholarship and sources to achieve new understandings. That is called science. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't confused science with personal preferences, that's called favoritism. --Giggette (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I favorize good science. And i discriminate against bad and outdated scholarship. That is what wikipedia expects from its editors. Now go read some more books and come back when you have arguments, based on actual scholarly literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of common because I discriminate against bad and updated scholarship, mainly based on actual wrong scholarly literature. Thank you by your advise and I suggest you the same.--Giggette (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Tloque Nahuaque
He leído a León Portilla, pero no creo que afirme y luego niege lo que el mismo escribe, sino se estaría convirtiendo en un escritor de bolsillo como decimos en la UNAM; Además los escritos de Bernardino de Sahagún no dice que Tloque Nahuaque sea Tezcatlipoca ni los escritos del autor de La Historia de Tlaxcala donde claramente dice Tloquenahuaque sin referir a otras deidades. Hay muchos autores sobre el tema y no todos siguen una misma línea ni dan por referencia exactas para decir que esas son la únicas correctas. --Marrovi (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tu mismo te respondiste el comentario, nunca dije que mis ancestros mexicanos haya sido politeístas esas son cosas que tu quieres aclarar cuando todo mundo sabemos que los aztecas eran politeístas; hablas de la influencia que existía de la cristiandad entre los frailes, pero esa es la misma lógica de los autores contemporáneos que también están influenciados por grupos de poder y de distintas organizaciones porque les finencean sus obras, los años de investigación no les dá más crédito que autores del pasado, al fin y al cabo sus obras siguen siendo teorías y estan sujetas a crítica. Tloque Nahuaque ha sido el nombre muchos dioses aztecas, Ometeotl, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl hasta Huehuecoyotl, pero también ha sido nombrado por los escritores de forma independiente, y no se ya nos entendimos; Tloque Nahuaque no es tampoco el dios biblíco por mucho que existan semejanzas y muchas diferencias, aveces la eurocentricidad niega y denigra el pensamiento que no es europeo por querer seguir una línea continua del pensamiento crítico que tuvo su origen en los griegos y que se prolongó con la ilustración y el renacimiento.--Marrovi (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Marrovi, estas simplemente equivocado. Sahagun explicitamente menciona Tloque Nahuatque como uno de los nombres de Tezcatlipoca. Lee el articulo de Doris Heyden. La obra temprana de Leon Portilla fue probelmatico por varias razones, y afortunadamente ha ido correghiendo alguno de sus errores. El hecho de que hay muchos autores de diversas opiniones no significa que todos son correctos y todos merecen ser incluidos, sino que significa que nosotros tenemos que hacer el trabajo de verificar cuales son las interpretaciones mas comunes y mas influenciales. Hasta ahora no has presentado ninguna fuente de calidad que argumenta que TOloque Nahuaque seria un dios aparte, al contrario los fuentes todos afirman que es un sobrenombre o de Tezscatlipoca (la gran mayoria de fuentes) o de Ometeotl (Leon-Portilla).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ¿Quién dice las cosas correctas del tema, Doris Heyden o Miguel León Portilla?, y no soy conspirador, yo no me reuno con el Bildemberg, yo vivo con la gente común, estudio con la gente común y trabajo con la gente común; como Adrián Salbuchi dijera, la palabra conspiración solo la usa quien colabora para la élite, para la resitencia sería el imperialismo discreto negando así una conspiración. Claro que hay fuentes que hablan sobre Tloc Nahuac desde distintos enfoques y no niego a Tezcatlipoca como Tlocnahuac, lo que niego es que desprecias algunas fuentes por su contenido haciendo jucios de valor previos diciendo la gran mayoría.--Marrovi (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Heyden y Leon Portilla (y Guilhem Oliver y Karl Taube) estan de acuerdo: Tloque Nahuaque es sobrenombre de Tezcatlipoca. Leon-Portilla adiciona que tambien se usaba para Ometeotl, pero pocos parecen estar de acuerdo con esto. Si, desprecio algunos fuentes, porque estan equivocados o anticuados. Eso se llama sciencia, y la sciencia no es democratico. Todavia no prsentas ninguna fuente confiable que concuerda con lo que estas diciendo, que tloque nahuaque seria un dios distinto a Tezcatlipoca/Ometeotl.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ni soy contrario a tí, ni tengo la intensión de entorpecer tu trabajo, solo que me pareció muy extraño tu reacción sobre el tema y la insistencia de hacer un jucio de algo que no se estaba negando como el hecho que una autora o autor se referiera a Tlocnahuac como Tezcatlipoca y tu enérgica reacción hacia autores pasados, por ello le dí más cuerda al asunto para saber que opinión tenías con el término académico y que posturas utilizas para negar o aceptar una palabra que tiene varios matices y varios contenidos sobre lo mismo. Si ofendí pido una disculpa hacia tí, propongo poner todas las fuentes posibles sobre el tema sin ser tajante, completamente de acuerdo contigo, la ciencia no es democrática, pero tampoco avanza rápido si no se retrocede un poco analizando lo ya construído, olvidar o minimizar ciertos postulados es una trampa para la lógica y puede ser tendenciero en futuros escritos que podrían ser atacados antes de ser comprobados y esto no solo lo digo yo, también lo confirman muchos de académicos con nosotros los estudiantes y estos adquieren mayor rigor cuando se equilibran posturas en contra o a favor, crando así un mayor conocimiento; no para competir sino para concretar definiciones.--Marrovi (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no me has ofendido, y espero que tampoco yo a ti. A veces sueno muy rigido y tajante, no es mi intencion ofender ni denigrar. En este caso tal vez reaccioné más fuerte porque acabo de tener una discusion parecido con el usuario Giggette. A veces es frustrante haberse dedicado por más que una decada a familiarizarse con esta literatura a nivel profesional, y despues enfrentarse con puntos de vista que se basan en dos o tres libros anticuados y unos cuantos blogs o sitios de web. Pero asi es el proyecto de wikipedia y hay que respetar el dialogo y el derecho de todos de ser escuchados. Pero mantengo que tiene que ser la literatura academica y no interpretaciones personales, religiosos o esotericos que se representen aqui en wikipedia. Cuando hay diversas puntos de vista dentro de la comunidad de investigadores estoy de acuerdo que lo mejor es presentar todos. Pero no ganamos nada con representar puntos de vista qua ya no tiene validez scientifica como si lo tuvieran. Espero que podamos seguir discutiendo civilizadamente como mejorar nuestros articulos sobre estos temas, usando la litearatura más actual como basis. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Muy interesante que digas "familiarizarse" y luego enfrentarse con puntos de vista que según tú se basan en libros "anticuados", pero concuerdo con sobre tus reacciones al tema, con una facilidad e insistencia para hacer juicios a diversos autores y determinar una base personal que más te pareció o te gustó.--Giggette (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Una persona no llega al conocimiento con simplemente leer un libro y repetir lo, llegar a conocimiento y entendimento requiere años de analisis y de lectura de todas las diversas obras que constituye el discurso academico acerca de un tema. A mi, a nivel personal, me vale gorro si los Aztecas eran politeistas o monoteistas, si Centeotl fue masculino o femenino, o si Tloquenahuaque fue un dios o no. Pero a nivel profesional y como editor de wikipedia, me importa que el wikipedia ingles contiene la informacion mas reciente y mas autoritativa, y que no incluya especulaciones hechas por personas sin el fundamento adecuado. Si no eres capaz de tener una discusion racional a base de una evaluacion critica de la calidad de fuentes y autores, entonces no tienes lo que se necesita para ser contribuyente aqui.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ni con leer miles de libros se llega al conocimiento total porque es infinito, ni tampoco con años de análisis o información más reciente y "más" autoritativa, que por cierto las especulaciones siempre existen con el tiempo, en datos más recientes. No sé a que le llames una discusión racional cuando no comparto tus autores y fuentes, que si nos vamos a una base, pues yo dudo que lo reciente sea una base o raíz para sacar conclusiones, que de seguro tus autores recientes tienen bases antiguas, de las cuales luego sacaron sus conjeturas, que sería muy interesante saber su bibliografía. Yo no sabía que no puedo ser contribuyente en Wikipedia si no comparto tus autores.--Giggette (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No estoy diciendo que tienes que tener toda la literatura a tu disposicion, estoy diciendo que tienes que estar dispuesto a considerar que hay mejores fuentes de los pocos que tienes. Ahora por favor dejame y ve a leer mas libros, no es mi trabajo educarte. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiccionario en náhuatl
Maunus, mira te muestro el trabajo conjunto del diccionario náhuatl, estoy compilando palabras de otros idiomas mexicanos para hacerlo interesante, aún es un trabajo modesto pero va adquiriendo personalidad, te coloco dos ejemplos de las entradas recopiladas. --Marrovi (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Conozco el proyecto Huiquipedia en nahuatl y no me impresiona mucho. Me parece que han tomado muchas decisiones problematicos. Hay diccionarios muy buenos en linea, no creo que wiccionario realmente puede hacerles competencia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Es que va empezando, tiene poco tiempo que ha sido reactivado y hasta el momento hemos juntado mil palabras nahuas, pero también se está recabando de las variantes del náhuatl, usando el sistema wiccionario ya podemos traducir al maya, al tzotzil, al cochimí, al mixteco, al tzeltal, al chol, al kiliwa, al quechua, al mapuche, etc. Nunca ha sido la intención de competir con grandes diccionarios, solo es un trabajo más de revitalización del náhuatl.--Marrovi (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No lo considero asi. Revitalizacion de lenguas require la participacion de los hablantes de la lengua. La gran mayoria de hablantes no van a entender nada de lo que se esta escribiendo en la wikipedia nahuatl, porque usa neologismos que no son intelligibles, usa gramatica del Nahuatl clasico que es diferente de todos los variantes contemporaneos, y usan una ortografia que es poco parecido a lo que usan la mayoria de hablantes. Ademas la gramatica de la mayor parte de los articulos es atroz escrito por gente que no saben realmente la lengua. De mi punto de vista no ayuda a la lengua, menos a sus hablantes. Es mas bien apropriacion que revitalizacion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pues ya encontraremos gente que sabe la lengua, almenos tenemos dos hablantes nativos de Puebla y uno de Guerrero que lo han visto bien como un primer intento y nos ayudan mucho con las variantes; lo que los hablantes nativos quieren (principalmente jóvenes) es ganar espacios en la red y en todos los medios de comunicación. Veo que no viste el diccionario porque te enfocaste al clásico, además no tiene caso que existan mil libros de náhuatl si la gente no los tiene o no existe un vínculo de como obtenerlos, ahora las nuevas tecnologías acercan la información al sector popular y ese es uno de nuestros objetivos, Frank Müller y tu servidor siempre nos hemos enfocado a los adultos curiosos, niños o jóvenes y no a los eruditos, porque los eruditos ya tienen la información. Lo importante es empezar y criticar estos trabajos para que se vayan perfeccionando. saludos!! --Marrovi (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bueno, la vez pasada que visite al Huiquipedia en Nahuatl hace tiempo y hubo un solo hablante entonces. Que bueno si va adquiriendo el interes de mas personas. Es cierto que es un problema que no hay acceso a los libros. Creo que INALI esta trabajando en eso. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Asi es, INALI tiene contacto con wikipedia a través de un usuario chiapaneco, este muchacho trabaja en sofwere y también quiere que en un futuro cercano pueda haber wikipedias es tzotzil, tzeltal, etc. El problema no es que los niños sepan usar un programa en una computadora, el problema es que la herramienta es muy cara para muchas personas de comunidades nativas y más aún pagar una renta de internet, esa es la razón por la que el mestizo, pese a ignorar ciertos tópicos se ha apropiado de estos medios diseñados para lenguas que han sido marginadas.


 * En wikimedia no hay disposición de abrir wikipedias indígenas por ahora por el hecho de que no hay hablantes nativos de dichas lenguas, un usuario canadiense está muy atento al tema y está creando comunidad . Están atorados algunos proyectos wikipedias nuevos, mapuche, náhuatl pipil y maya ; y es una lástima que la burocrácia de wikipedia no preste atención a las lenguas indígenas.--Marrovi (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you have a look at an R&I issue?
Reported here. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. :) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest!

 * Your Language article work was exemplary! Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats...Modernist (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope to be able to catch up on the reading soon. Great work! warshytalk 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK
This DYK nomination was queried by you. I have made some alterations to the article. Would you like to have another look at the article and nomination? Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Eysenck
I don't know if you're still watching that page, but I filed an AE report over it. If you have any background information on the editing of the main players there, perhaps you should comment. I've only raised the issue in which I was involved. I don't have time to dig through their editing histories to see what else was going on, but both of its main editors have been editing in the area for 5-7 years. Actually, Sirswindon's main editing interest before Eysenck has been Talk:Pierre Laval. Paul Magnussen however has been focused on the Jensen-Eysenck area even in his first edits, 7 years ago. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Aztec warfare
Hi there!. I want to ask you something about this old contribution. In the "Combat" section you wrote: It is said that particularly during flowery wars aztec warriors would try to capture rather than kill their foes, sometimes striving to cut a hamstring or otherwise incapacitate their opponents. This has been used as an argument to explain the defeat of the Aztecs to the spanish but it is no longer considered to be probable - since sources clearly state that aztecs did kill their spanish opponents whenever they had the chance. And you added Ross Hassig (1998) Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control chapter 7 like reliable source. Then I read chapter 7 "Combat" of this book, and I couldn't find where Mr. Hassig says that "but it is no longer considered to be probable..." I am really confused because I just read this book that says: They rapidly engaged the enemy hand to hand and were well trained in running and wrestling, for their principal way of winning was no so much to kill as to capture; and they made use of the captives, as I have said, in their sacrifices [...] Note 1: The main Aztec battle objective, namely, to capture and not to kill, appropriately distinguished by Acosta, has been identified by one scholar as a major reason for the defeat of Mexica at the hands of the Spanish. But even more: in the same note says On Aztec methods of war and militarism, see Ross Hassig, ''Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. (!!) Of course, everybody knows that many Spaniards died during the conquest of Mexico. But there are several contemporary reliable sources that still says (Burke & Humphrey): "Although the Aztecs did not give up their fundamental strategy of seeking to capture Spaniards for sacrifice..." (even a child's book example: ). Please answer me: Where Mr. Hassig says that this argument is no longer considered to be probable?. Which page of Chapter 7? Jaontiveros (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Raelians
There has been some recent activity at the above article, including a move made without any apparent discussion that I can see. I would be curious regarding any input on the article and the recent changes of all sorts that have been made in it. I do have both this page and that watched, so feel free to respond in either location, although I think comments at the talk page of the article itself would probably get more attention and input from others, including the editor who has made the recent changes. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a redirect, not a page move. Please wake up John. Pass a Method   talk  22:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 recent change] to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work on those bios
Hi Maunus, I just dropped by because I had (belatedly) noticed what good work you have been doing getting some Mesoamerica-related biographies up to GA - and found your user pages blanked. Whatever your reasons for taking a break, I hope you do decide to come back... All the best, whatever you decide, and thanks for all your hard work. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC) thank you for the Habermas thing :) sincere regards Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for that assertion against the webpage reference?
What is the problem with the dedicated webpage of an international library association? Libraries have access to publications, and that association has collated the most relevant sources on the topic I have found available in a readily accessible manner. I also thought that the passage presented in that manner I posted it was concise and unimposing.

The passage I quoted summarized a point made by Haunani-Kay Trask, an important figure in the field of indigenous peoples rights.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * Then quote Trask. And preferably summarizing her view instead of quoting it. Block quotes are to be used only for cases in which the wording itself is important, it never makes sense to quote someone else's summary of a third person's statement. The library association is not really a suitable source on anything other than library related information, they are not an authority on Indigenous issues (Trask is of course). So basically the solution is to find Trask's work and include it int he article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, got it.
 * I don't have the wherewithal to get a copy of her book at present, but maybe I will at some point in the near future.
 * Note that I came across that quote in relation to researching the List of indigenous peoples topic, and found her contrast between "settlers" and "indigenous" to be relevant to the Israeli vs Palestinian dispute going on there.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * It looks interesting and relevant certainly. I am very frustrated with the israeli/palestinian issue in these articles which I consider to have basically nothing to do with the topic of Indigenous peoples, and which is halting any real progress on the articles and overshadowing actual political issues regarding indigenous peoples. Basically I don't think the article should be written so as to adress the Palestine issue, because the wide majority of sources on Indigenous people completely avoid that issue as unrelated to the topic. But Trask's distinction does seem to be relevant and useful. Thanks for taking an interest in the article anyway, and sorry if you felt my revert to be unreasonable and curt. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm still relatively new to the editing process.
 * I'd been doing a little work on pages related to theories of descent from Lost Tribes, such as British Israelism, Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestry Theory and the like when I happened upon these related discussions. I wouldn't think that the Israel-Palestine issue would be being addressed on the indigenous list page, either, but since it is--and in a big way--the conversation and positions being out forth are a study in themselves.
 * In light of the numerous conflicts and staunch resistance I've encountered in relation to editing these pages, and the indigenous list and apartheid analogy Talk pages are rather unwieldy, I've started talking to some people and noticed Nishidani's plight and an administrative action against one of the pro-Israel editors. I've had to place a half-crocked post of considerable length myself in response to being accused of spreading an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory by that individual, here.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Israel and the apartheid analogy
There is a debate on the Israel and the apartheid analogy Talk page to which you may be interested in contributing. I notice that someone has mentioned you in conjunction with Habermas, so in view that the debate relates both to the indigenous issue, if indirectly, and the topic pf public opinion and its role in a democracy, I'd welcome your input. There are a number of ideologues putting up resistance, particularly in the wake of Nishidani being out of commission for a month, as this was a debate Nihidani had played a significant role. --Ubikwit (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

RfC input needed
Hello. I notice that you made a comment on the talk page of La Luz del Mundo article. An RfC there: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo could use input from uninvolved editors. If you feel this request is contrary to the spirit of WP:CANVASSING, please disregard it. Cheers --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

FA candidate?
While you're here, I was wondering what you might think of me maybe trying to bring Bartolome de las Casas up to FA recognition in the near future, and whether you would want to be notified by e-mail if I were to do so. I think the article almost certainly qualifies, and would be at least willing to consider doing the nomination myself if need be, but I thought at least a courtesy notice to you was called for. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be happy to participate, but not as nominator. I have some additional sources piled on my desk that I've been meaning to eventually integrate. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN Credit
-- Jayron  32  21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Should_the_Palestinians_be_included_on_the_list_on_the_basis_of_tacit_UN_recognition_since_at_least_2009.3F

Evildoer187 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
Would you mind having a look at recent developments on that page. The POV pushing has come to the fore, with the most prominent of the recent onslaught of maybe 20 edits in the last 24 hours by Crock81 being to re-order the list of international organizations in a manner such as to put the UN at the bottom of the list. I have filed a request for mediation here, but am not sure if he will accept it.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * Please note, though I reverted your change to lead, I have not deleted that definition. It is now quoted in full as the first quote with in the UN subsection as a final product of the study/report by Martinez-Cobo led Working Group. It was simply too long to include in the lead, but also I thought it was not given its due by being only paraphrased. Crock81 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maunus, it would appear that Crock's edits are aimed at reducing the status of the UN vis-a-vis indigenous rights, and deprecating the primarily political nature of the recognition of indigeneity afforded to peoples by the UN. If there is a historical basis for the chronological ordering of the international organizations, fine, I will preface that section with an introduction that paraphrases that history.
 * This would appear to be an effort related to the current discussions on the Talk page of the corresponding List article. I'm aware that you are in favor of isolating the Palestinian-Israel issues, but it would appear that such a goal will be out of reach until the conflict there is settled.
 * Crock81 doesn't seem to comprehend the status of the nation state in modern history and how it relates to the issue of indigeneity. Both he and Evildoer187 would appear to be intent on playing down the nation-state status of Israel vis-a-vis the indigenous Palestinians as recognized by several references under discussion on the List article Talk page.
 * If you have time, participating in the discussion there might facilitate a smoother editing flow on this page as well.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * Revealing diatribe posted by Crock81 to EdJohnstons's Talk page--Ubikwit (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Bering
It is funny how if somebody was born in Europe and then served his whole career in Russia, he is never Russian explorer but always German, French, etc... Especially if it is somebody like Bering whose name is very important on geographical maps. However if somebody was born in Russia but then served his career in let's say US he is never Russian but always American explorer or at best Russian American.

Compare for example Igor Sikorsky who not only was born in Russia, but also created many of his aircraft in Russia, including the biggest of that time bomber. However he is never called Russian. Another example is television inventor Zvorykin, who is never called Russian inventor but American inverntor or Russian American.

Bering spent in Denmark almost none of his career as an explorer. However attempts to properly name him Russian explorer in Wikipedia are unseccessfull. Obviously he was ethnic Danish, but as an explorer he is Russian. As well obviously the expedition was personally organized by Russian Emperor whithout whom Bering could not have been able to get anywhere near Bering's Strait. It was not like Amundsen who personally organized his expeditions, raising funds etc. Peter the First thought up this and many other expeditions, and then hired Bering and others to complete them. Bering had precise orders from the Emperor where to go and what to look for.

Let's compromise here and call Bering Danish Russian (which I myself find absurd but at least you cannot call it biased) same way they call Sikorsky and Zvorykin Russian Americans. Rozmysl (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Get a source that call him "a Russian explorer" and you may have a case. Columbus was not a "Spanish explorer" because he worked for the Spanish, and Bertel Thorvaldsen was not an "Italian sculptor" because he worked his whole adult life in Rome. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar search ""Vitus Bering" "Danish explorer"" = 99 hits (many of which say "in Russian service"), ""Vitus Bering" "Russian explorer" = 64 hits, most of which are not referring to Bering at all, and all the ones that are seem to be prefixed "Danish born" or similarly. You have no case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * True! And thanks!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your comments! I like the Hopi Time page a lot & hadn't known of its existence before--let alone the NFC languages page & that I'm cited on it! my 15 minutes of fame or something... seems we are interested in a lot of the same topics so I look forward to more collaboration in the future. Wichitalineman (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention on Maya calendar
Wow! That was fast! Thanks for your contribution. With the collaboration of the community, I hope this article will eventually be promoted to GA or FA in near future. hookjaw (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

 * Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AGF
I already have many reasons to not believe in Tomcat7's good faith. Aside from the close paraphrasing and outright copying of de.wiki's close paraphrasing, Tomcat7 has added false references to a source he does not have. He even states such a matter. Though if you want it in another article, please see Talk:Golden Eagle Award or the ANI. Tomcat7 has deliberately copied text from Google translate into the article for his GA. I think we can assume that this is a problem and its not an AGF error on my part. Please see it for yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I donøt think you know what good faith means. It means that we assume that TomCVat is trying to help wikipedia not to hurt it. I have seen no evidence that would even remotely suggest that he is not trying his best to help the encyclopedia. Your accusations of "false references" are at best highly exaggerated and at worst themselves false. It is not a false reference to translate a wiki article and assume good faith from the original author and simply keep the references in place we do that all the time and it is not problematic unless one tries to nominate them for DYK, GA or similar. The rest of the alleged "false references" clearly do support the statements they were supporting and I donøt know why you would call them false references except out of personal animosity. You need to step back from this issue and have a cup of tea, because right now you are making yourself look worse than the person you have a problem with, and you are not helping yourself or the encyclopedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving in a few minutes, so I'll make this quick so I can see your reply. He ADDED inline citations to a page where there were none from the original article. I checked the source, it is NOT in there. Also, please check his blatant copying from Golden Eagle Award it is line for line from the Google translated document. I did AGF until I realized he was lying through his numerous edits, he even claimed to have it 'clearly referenced'. I think I can make a strong case about it. Though this blatant one is very concerning.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible to make copyright violations and close paraphrasing in good faith, for example it is not clear to most people that a translated texts counts as a derivative work. The solution is to helpfully explain that to them, not to accuse them of crimes against wikipedia. You say he added inline citations to an article where there were none which article are you referring to? Your allegations regarding the Eckenfelder article (the german article has references to Schnerring), the Folk Singer article and the Abel Prize article I have been able to check and they were unwarranted - so i am not impressed with your source checking skills as I were able to find the information in the sources that you claimed did not support the claims. Where did he add further problematic references? To the Golden Eagle award? Give me a diff and I will check it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is his translation, additional ones are added here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Eckenfelder&diff=508179900&oldid=508113105] "Around this time, Christian Landenberger trained there, too. " Not in the source, Landenberger is mentioned on page 81 for the first time. Another is, "Their meeting point was the "Arzberger Keller" (Arzberger basement). " This reference is not in there either. I gotta jet out, but the sources for the pages listed on the de.wiki one are also problematic. He may have translated those in good faith, but adding these two sources alone were additions and were false. He never even had the book.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What does page 81 say about Landenberger then? Did he or did he not train there? Does the book mention Arzberger Keller on another page? Is it possible that it is just the page numbering that is problematic? I wouldn't judge these too harshly unless you have reason to believe that the statements are false. Yes, he shouldn't have added sources without checking them, but he was clearly feeling defensive because of the massive onslaught of accusations, and made a dumb mistake. We should help each other improve as editors, not turn small mistakes into large conflicts and dramatic accusations. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can ascertain in 1878 Landenberger did train with Oskar Hölder in Rottweil where Eckenfelder also trained.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment here about the Landenberger matter. Please read it carefully, it gets complicated.
 * 1) There is a difference between the content being wrong and the reference not supporting the prose. The comment while true, was not addressed in the text as the inline citation pointed out.
 * 2) Tomcat7 according to the diffs I've posted show that Tomcat7 added those inline citations during the translation. Long before I ever got to read it. So he was not under stress. Remember, I do not doubt the content, I am calling the reference false as it is not supporting the material it says it supports.
 * 3) From your post above, you assumed incorrectly that the errors were made after my concerns were raised, they were done back on August 19th. Tomcat7 added them without 'stress' from me or over any accusation.
 * 4) I AGF until Tomcat7 lied about the sourced material. I removed the citation here, noting that the page does not mention that content. Tomcat7 replaces it and condenses the two lines with the edit summary 'poor style citation needed, clearly referenced'. Tomcat7 was attesting that it was clearly referenced. It was not. I was looking at the book. While the content does exist, it wasn't on that page. This is how I knew Tomcat7's assertion of it being correct was false. Tomcat7 admitted to not having the source as well.

Moving on to the Abel Prize.


 * 1) First diff.  "The Abel Prize complements the Holberg Prize in the arts, humanities, social sciences, law and theology." This is not supported by the then listed ref.  That was the concern. This has since been addressed.


 * 1) Second diff.  It is not the first link as you referred to. It was, "The award ceremony takes place in the Atrium of the University of Oslo Faculty of Law, where the Nobel Peace Prize was formerly awarded (1947–1989)." Which was cited to this ref.  That is not there. This has since been fixed.

Please confirm that those lines exist, as they were the lines discussed and the lines for which the issue was raised. I removed both of those and placed the citation needed tag. and. So please, consider the issues raised and confirm for yourself that the content and the refs supported the matter. I can update the RFC/U to make it clearer about this if you had a hard time understanding which pieces.

Lastly, I am not out to get Tomcat7 blocked, I just want him to refrain from using Google Translate to translate works in accordance with WP:RFT and to refrain from copying the content from Google translate directly into the article as noted at the Golden Eagle awards. I also want Tomcat7 to be honest in translating documents and not add inline citations that are not present in the original document. That is all. I did not realize till late today that Tomcat7 is not a 'native' or 'professional' English language contributor, so I will try to close the ANI and will attempt to discuss it further with him. I've said it half a dozen times already, I don't want him blocked and I don't want him punished. I have other thoughts, but I will pause now, so you can respond. I rather do this piecemeal if I can, so we don't have more misunderstandings. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not going to try to excuse TomCat7's sloppy editing, that has got to stop, but I do think there is a difference between bad faith and being sloppy and that the two should be dealt with differently. Regarding the Abel prize I think the problem is pretty small: the first fact is something that is obviously true but which doesn't appear, and the second is true except it should be "Aula" instead of Atrium. Sometimes when we know stuff to be true it is tempting to be sloppy and just make a general reference to a website where we assume the information is located somewhere. This is what I think happened. Regarding Eckenfelder I can't pretend to know why he added those references with erroneous pagenumbers, when the information is accesible through google books. But again the information was true, and only the erroneous referencing was the problem. It strikes me as the better approach to ask why he added that or where he found the information than to accuse him of lying and sabotaging the encyclopedia. TomCat also has a point when he says that "not every sentence needs a citation" - only statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged need explicit citations. If they are challenged correct refs should of course be supplied. Often when finding unsupported but true statements it makes more sense to simply find the correct source, instead of tagging the article and putting the task on someone else's shoulders. I applaud your decision to stop seeking sanctions and instead move forward through discussion. I'll be happy to mediate if that becomes necessary at any point. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sloppy editing is one thing, as long as it is not malicious, it can be watched, but it is concerning on GA and FA articles. Tomcat7 doesn't have the source, and I do not believe he was aware of the Google Books matter. Sadly, I can only disprove the cites because I have the Google Books source. My German is also not that great. The Holder one for Eckenfelder is on page 15 though. The one you found in the other source is good. I couldn't find it in the other. The Keller one, was mentioned on page 80. Paraphrasing aside to the source, I didn't doubt the content. I just knew the citations were wrong. I use the term 'false' as in Boolean false, not there, not as in fake. Bad word choice I guess, even 'wrong' sounds bad. I need to find a non-ambiguous term for it. Sadly, its the reason why I couldn't fix the Eckenfelder article. Google books is useless at providing citations, but I do see the snippets. So I'm in the same boat as you with that source. Though if I may defend myself here, the first two paragraphs essentially need them for every sentence. A run through shows many contentious claims, being an illegitimate child born out of wedlock, being made a citizen at the age of 4, having a child out of wedlock with a woman 14 years older then him. Having a relationship with a woman 18 years younger then him which is 'embarrassing' to the town. I focused on those. Though the biographers comments should be sourced as well per the policy.
 * Also. I didn't want to be mean, but I do tend to require heavy citations for every GA review I do. See Talk:SMS_Leipzig/GA1, I've been on Parsecboy about the exact same thing as I did on the Eckenfelder article in which a bit of an editorial I found. And I'm being tough on Niemti for the prose in his GAN. Talk:Dead_or_Alive_5/GA1 I do check things well and I do have fairly strict line to the criteria because I do not want to get another 'this article has problems' post for not being thorough enough in my checks. If I catch it, I don't let errors slip by easily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with your attitude towards the standard of GA reviews, that article was not even close to be ready and you handled it exactly as I would have. It was only when faced with his odd response that it started to be come difficult. About the wording I tend to say "sources that do not support the statements", but I guess false could be a useful shorthand, although it did sound more judgmental to me. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

YOU ARE A LIAR
User:Maunus you are being such a poopieface I am so upset that you deny the existence of the Nation of Hispanic while you perpetrate the lies of Castilie. Notice how Castilie is a red link. Your lies are despicable. I will get you and right all the wrongs you have made! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.93.142 (talk • contribs)

I vandalized? Oh my gosh you are crazy. You are ridiculous. I can hardly look at your face right now. Stop harassing me before I show Wikipedia all the lies you have been trying to tell the world.--24.184.93.142 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me.
--24.184.93.142 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Tomcat (7) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Tomcat (7) 14:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Hank Harrison
In the interest of WP:BRD, I've replied. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. It is not a blp violation - exactly because it is well sourced to multiple sources one of them being the subject himself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also excuse me if I am not too concerned - this guy started his own biography article and then tried to keep it free from negative information while at the same time he selfpublishing three hundred pages of slander and libel against his own a daughter including accusations of murder with zero supporting evidence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gardner and the Florentine Codex
I wanted to include this quote because the article never really explains why Quetzalcoatl is described as having a beard. Gardner quotes Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble's translation of an account of Quetzalcoatl given in the Nahuatl language in the Florentine Codex. (I would just cite the book directly, but it's not on Google Books or anywhere else I could find.) Furthermore, Gardner is a scholar who has studied Nahuatl and I don't think he would misrepresent Anderson and Dibble. As far as the passage being about a statue, Sahagún's retelling of the story in Spanish explicitly refers to Quetzalcoatl's "statue".

So, what's the best way to work this information into the article? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We should quote Anderson & Dibble directly. And we also shouldn't randomly pick one of the many descriptions of Quetzalcoatl in the Florentine, just because it is the one that explains why Mormons have claimed that the deity was bearded like Jesus. If we are going to have a section on depictions of Quetzalcoatl the Florentine Codex it should be a summary of everything that is said about the him in the book.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I went through the Florentine Codex and this is what I found about Quetzalcoatl, sorted by page number in the 1938 edition:


 * Volume 1
 * 267 Quetzalcoatl described as a king who "was esteemed and had as a god"
 * 267 Description of statue of Quetzalcoatl
 * 267 Description of prosperity under Quetzalcoatl
 * 268 Quetzalcoatl did penance by pricking his legs and sprinkling the blood on Agave plants
 * 268 Quetzalcoatl bathed at midnight in the spring Xipacoya
 * 268 Quetzalcoatl gets stick, a necromancer visits him
 * 270 "Quetzalcoatl was like a priest and did not have children"
 * 279 Quetzalcoatl looks at himself in the mirror and declares "Now I am old!"
 * 279 Quetzalcoatl leaves handprints and buttprints in the rock he sits on, as though it were made of mud
 * 280 Quetzalcoatl throws his jewls into a spring
 * 280 Necromancer gives Quetzalcoatl wine and he drinks it
 * 281 Quetzalcoatl's servants die, Quetzalcoatl cries
 * 281 Quetzalcoatl makes underground houses and also sets there a large stone which only he can move
 * 319 Quetzalcoatl "was God of the winds"
 * 350 Quetzalcoatl was "God of the winds and of the whirlwinds"
 * 350 The witches "when they wanted to rob some house made the image of Quetzalcoatl"


 * Volume 2
 * 114 Quetzalcoatl called "our lord and son"
 * 198 "our son Quetzalcoatl has taken from you a rich plumage"
 * 212 "You were raised and conceived in your house, which is the place of the supreme gods of the great lord and the great lordess that are above the nine heavens; may our son Quetzalcoatl do you mercy, who is in all places; now may the goddess of water be with your mother"

Of these, the only real physical description of Quetzalcoatl is the Spanish paraphrase of the Nahuatl description I copied into the article. The closest thing to a physical description besides this is Quetzalcoatl's excalamation "Now I am old!" on volume 1 page 279. The rest of the references to Quetzalcoatl are legends about things that he did, things that happened to him, or descriptions of how he was worshipped. So I think it should be okay to put the physical description of Quetzalcoatl in the article, although we may want to include some of the other folklore from the Florentine Codex also.

By the way, I was wondering if you knew what exactly the relationship is between Quetzalcoatl and Ce Acatl Topiltzin. Are some of the descriptions of Quetzalcoatl in the Florentine Codex actually descriptions of Ce Acatl Topiltzin? What are the main primary sources that describe these two figures? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine research to begin with. If we need a physical description then we could include the text Gardner cites, but with some more context - especially if what is being described is a particular statue of Quetzalcoatl and not the deity (and in that case doesn't it make more sense to show a picture of a statue?). Regarding the Topiltzin Ce Acatl question that is hard, I don't think anyone knows. Some scholars believe Topiltzin was an historical Toltec ruler of Tollan, and others believe those are just myths about Quetzalcoatl, and that they Topiltzin Ce Acatl is just another name for the deity, using his calendar birth date. Camilla Townsend has argued that there is one set of myths about a wandering King called Huemac or Topilitzin, who in later colonial texts come to be identified with the deity Quetzalcoatl, but in the earlier texts are not related to that set of myths. I've felt more convinced by the latter group since I don't think the Aztecs really had a distinction between myth and history in the way we do. Another thing to keep in mind is that Quetzalcoatl was also a priestly title - the two high priests of Tenochtitlan were both called Quetzalcoatl, and probably the priests of other cities too (one would at least assume those of Cholula). Also we know that the Aztecs didn't distinguish between the God and his impersonators, Gods took on human forms as parts of rituals. This all makes it very difficult to talk about the physical appearance of the God who was probably more characterized by his attributes and garments than any specific physical traits. The main sources for the Topilitzin myth are the historical chronicles Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas, Annales de Cuauhtitlan, the Texcocan annales of Ixtlilxochitl and the Tlaxcalan ones of Muñoz Camargo. I am happy to see that someone is taking a serious interest in these articles, please keep it up. I am not myself available to do much at the moment, but please let me know if you have any specific things I can assist you with.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Cherokee
Thanks, but this is a mess now. I don't understand what is going on here. There are authentic Cherokee moon ceremonies. I can't find any evidence for the existence of a Cherokee calendar - that is, their own specific calendar not simply a translation of the normal Gregorian calendar. Why the rename? And although I think it's a separate issue, why can't I find "spaces on the back of the turtle with the 13 yearly phases" in any reliable book on the Cherokee? Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your input please
Maunus,

I understand that you do not want to be actively involved in Wikipedia anymore but I really think you should leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. It's about Tomcat. You seem to believe in his integrity or at least be more optimistic when it comes to his editing practices. I'm not. I think he's selfish and arrogant, which is why I didn't add my two cents. It probably would not have made him more open to what everyone is saying. Can you please try to talk to him again so that he can be more inclined to not abuse WP:GAN (you'll see why I say "abuse" when you read the discussion). Considering that he didn't revert/delete the message you left on his talk page and since he supported your summary on the recently closed RFC, you might be the only editor that can actually get through to him... again. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Linguistics in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Linguistics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

MarkMysoe
Hallo, I've just found the record of my previous attempt to raise this editor's disruptive editing at ANI (1 October 2012): Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770. Just in case it's useful in any further discussion. I don't know why my previous archive search didn't find it. Pam D  22:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

your spellchecker is doing it wrong
It's "I can haz toolz back pleeze?" ;-). (Glad to see you're feeling better). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl
Thanks for your reply earlier. I guess my big question is what the primary sources are that describe Quetzalcoatl, and how the name "Quetzalcoatl" came to refer to an actual feathered serpent. Unless there's some further description in its Nahuatl sections, the Florentine Codex seems to always speak of Quetzalcoatl as a king, not an anthropomorphic snake. (The whole subject is altogether very confusing...)

Also, I suspect that the statue spoken of in the Florentine Codex no longer exists, or no one knows where it is. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are basically no sources that describe Q as an anthropomorphic snake, all speak of him as a human or humanlike deity. The feathered serpent appears as a symbol from the earliest Mesoamerican civilizations and reaches a height in Teotihuacan. Probably none of these places the feathered serpent was called Quetzalcoatl, since they didn't speak Nahuatl. The feathered serpent cult spread out from central Mexico in the epiclassic, there is a paper by Ringe et al in Ancient Mesoamerica about that. One very good Aztec source of Q the deity is "Codex Chimalpopoca" with the creation myth "Legend of the five suns", also the creation myth in "Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One of my long time ambitions is to clarify the issue of "white gods" and beards, eg Viracocha. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been clarified to my satisfaction that in both cases it is simply a mirror representation of the white peoples' megalomania projected onto indigenous cultures.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I meant get this into their articles with decent sources. And I forgot to say I'm pleased you've got the mop again. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome "back".
I'm sort of coming back after a sort of break myself. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Enderlein
Hello,

can you explain what issue have you detected on Ortrun Enderlein? I explained the situation on the nomination page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have detected the issue that you have a history of abusing the GA processes by renominating immediately after a quickfail. You have been told this is inappropriate yet you keep doing it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a legitimate reason. I have resolved the issues, why should I wait 1 months, as you suggested?--Tomcat (7) 20:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I am leaning more and more to suggesting that you should be banned from GA all together. The GAN process is about creating better articles, not about amassing points for the wikicup. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was nommed prior to the Wikicup, so I won't stress it. AGF and all. Tomcat7 you did not resolve the issue, you cannot even correctly state the controversial call even when it is provided in the current sources. According to the reports the 'snow test' a horribly flawed and subjective test was done prior to the run, then it was put in the snow. Then once the run was done only then the matter of disqualification come up. Even aside from his hate of East Germany, and the matter of bribery and corruption, you back the whole vaporizing snow matter even when the reports stated it melted, not hissed and vaporized. And quite frankly, since 1964 that blow-torch to victory method was prohibited and the procedure of cooling the sled anyways would negate the effect. The article makes no attempt to detail the controversy as in the sources, so I take much issue with it. You haven't fixed it, don't act like you have. Maunus quelled my fury last time, but everyone's patience runs thin. The Fyodor Dostoyevsky matter seems pretty clear cut about the abuse of process, as noted at WT:GAN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gerard Depardieu
Hey man, wake up. It is time to change protection level of this article. It is starting to get silly now.Cruks (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations (2nd nomination)
Please withdraw your nomination to delete this list article, so the discussion can be closed. Here's an example of a withdrawal (usually placed at the end of a discussion):


 * I withdraw the nomination – your (reason and) signature.

If, after reading the comments as to why the article should be kept, you still feel it should be deleted, please point out to the rest of us the policies or guidelines that the list violates, and how it violates them.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 07:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

taking you up on your offer
Hi Maunus, I'll take you up on your offer. I was wondering if you could kind of help guide me in the right direction on where to start and how to go about getting an existing article to GA status. The article I was looking to improve is El Cid. Any advice on how to get started would be much appreciated. dain  talk   17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dainomite, sure of course, happy to help. If you want to start working El Cid towards GA status first you should review the guide for nominating good articles, and particularly the Good article criteria. In relation to the article on El Cid, it seems to me that its great weakness at the moment is the lack of inline sources. For GA every paragraph should have at least one source cited inline. It will probably take some research to find the major academic works on El Cid and make sure to use the best available literature. Also the article seems to me like it may not be comprehensive - it seems quite short for a major historical personality. If I were you I would start by doing the basic research, and then go on to source and expand the article. Then once I was sure that the article is well sourced and comprehensive then I might nominate it for a Peer Review, and then when that is done take it to WP:GAC for nomination. Please don't hesitate to contact me for specific guidance through the process. best regards, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the quick reply. Looks like I have some homework to do. How do I distinguish lackluster books written by authors that are unusable sources from good books written by authors that are usable sources. Dumb question I know >.< Also, I stumbled across something called an "A-class article" what's that? I've never seen one before. I saw it was between GA and FA on the quality scale but I couldn't find anything about how it's supposed to be better than a GA or any process about how that's done.  dain   talk   15:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing good sources from bad ones is of course not easy - it requires familiarizing oneself with the body of literature in general and see whcih sources are widely used and which are ignored. I'd encourage looking at a few recent sources from reputable presses and see what they cite. A-class articles are used by some wikiprojects (notably the Military history project) to designate articles that have gone through a project internal review in preparation for the FA review - they are supposed to be articles that have been confirmed to be closer to the FA requirements than to the GA requirtements through a rigorous peer review process. Most projects don't have a process for making A class reviews and so don't use them - they just go from B class to GA to FA.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrmm, this might be difficult with El Cid since I'm presuming a lot of sources will be in spanish. Oh well, I'm sure there will be plenty of books etc on him, it will be just a matter of sifting through them. Is there a good way to search for recent books about him? Or am I literally googling his name and seeing what books were written about him then going from there? Thanks for the info about the A class articles as well, very handy.—   dain -  talk   17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books and Google scholar are very good ways of starting to find one's way around the scholarship - also WorldCat and other library searches. I don't recommend a stanard google search, you'll probably just get wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors. Also beware of books based on wikipedia on google books though, they should be easy to spot.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks much for all your help Maunus. —    dain -  talk   16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with 2012 phenomonen
Dear Maunus,

I enjoyed our humors discussion about the NASA photos. I am glad you found some humor in it.

But, I am being serious now. There is a loggerjam on the subsection I proposed and you had a weak agreement with an ‘’’Aftermath’’’ sub section. Please would you give guidance or weigh in. Please see the talk subsection. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've kind of looked at it and I don't really have anything to add. There has to be a consensus among the editors that there are sufficient sources that talk about the aftermath to merit a section. If there isn't enough sources now then the best may be to wait for new sources to come out about the 2012 phenomenon and see how they treat it·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Should this comment be refactored then?
Seems like a straightforward BLP violation to me, but I agree that most of the comment was directed at criticism of the article, with just a bit at Spence herself. Should it be refactored instead? --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll look over all the other ones I removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkish language
Hi there. You don't speak Turkish, do you? --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No I don't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Data from RS
I saw your comments on Turkish lamguage. I agree that the said Factbook is not a reliable source for ethnic issues; not only because they do not have access to more information than anybody else but also because they have their own POV and could use the facts the way an organisation of that type would like to. Anyway, a POV-pushing user imposed that source for the infobox of Turkey and that issue could possibly attract your attention. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The best way to avoid POV pushing from different sides is to stick to using academic publications as sources. For numbers of speakers generally the Ethnologue is the best source, but it also has its problems, and sometimes forms its estimates in odd ways. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero on the roof
... I wonder if that's an allusion to Fiddler on the Roof? At any rate I find his comments to be deeply offensive and don't think it's worth engaging on his talk. Just my opinion of course, but I'm thinking of asking John to block talk page access if he continues to use his talk as a forum - which WP is not. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is such an illusion. And yes, it is offensive, but it is more offensive that he doesn't realize it. I know they say that WP is not a forum, but I actually am not sure this makes sense, we are not discussing for discussion's sake but in order to determine how to represent a topic in the encyclopedia. With a topic such as ethnicity that takes a lot of discussion. BUt you are right I should let it go.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really have issues with these kinds of comments . It's one thing to discuss ethnicity in general I suppose and I know you do a lot of that, but when people start with the "you're going to get breast cancer because you're unfortunate to carry a Jewish (unclean?) gene" - then, yeah, I have problems. I can unwatch - but I haven't come through this completely unscatched myself and still have some comments I'd like to add when my time frees up a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The 88 comment was almost so absurd it was funny, though perhaps not for the accused I imagine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's frightening is that the 88 was so quickly recognized. mentioned to me over a year ago and I laughed it off then, but maybe it's more recognizable that I realize. I do feel very naive in terms of things like that. I have a fair number of edits and don't really want to change my user name, but might be necessary.  Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm back. Would you be interested in working up, expanding, polishing, this section as a proper etymology section. The article does need some work and that seems a good place to start. I haven't the time at the moment, or the proper sources, but am hoping that you might. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Race (human classification)
Gave him a formal warning. Of course you are at 3RR also but I'm sure you know that. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually the last one was the result of an edit conflict - hence the identical editsummary. I'll selfrevert.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "it is argued" of course obscures the very broad consensus about this and is a weasel term.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Heya
Hey Maunus, I was wondering if you could give me some quick input. While I'm waiting on some books on El Cid to get in I'm expanding/working on the United States Air Force Combat Control Team article and I was wondering if this is a useable WP:RS. link. I wound up finding it after looking at some sources that were used on these pages. Thanks again! —   dain -  talk   18:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for calling me a liar too, I sincerely hope you feel better for a spot of gratuitous abuse. Perhaps I should single you out, follow you around and try to make diffs look like you tell lies. You might then get an inkling of just how unpleasant it is. Thanks for nothing. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for adding insult to injury, that was not my intention. If Gaba p has stalked and told lies about you, then you should provide evidence for that, not question his right to defend himself against your claims. I didn't call you a liar. I said that it is ok to call someone out on telling untruths if that is what they do. I admittedlly haven't looked deep into the differences, but it strikes me as a very bad strategy to ask whether calling you a liar is ok. It is Ok to call a liar a liar. Whether you or Gaba p are liars is a matter of empirical investigation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But you did add insult to injury, I'm not interested in strategies, I would just like to be treated with respect the way I treat others. And really i have already provided evidence of WP:HOUND previously but if you fling lots of accusations around, throw in a few diffs that no one really checks then you get away with it, because as you say nobooby looks deep into the differences.  You know what I could do the same to you if I wanted to, I can tell you for nothing that its a very effective strategy for someone being disruptive and antagonistic.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say I haven't been faced with users using that strategy so I know it is often effective (without claiming to know whether Gaba p is in fact doing that), and I do regret having made comments at the discussion without having made myself familiar with the whole story. I offer my sincere apologies for my untimely involvement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology. By the way I was born and bred in Glasgae, if you're ever in Glasgow I suggest a few drinks followed by a curry at the Wee Curry House.  I'm sure you can learn the difference between combative and normal modes of speech.  Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For info . Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'd like that lesson very much. I liked watching Taggart a lot when I was a boy so I do know a little bit about Glaswegian communication styles, but I may have been inattentive regarding the comativeness/normal distinction. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense comments
Please don't call my comments "nonsense". You may not understand them—or I may be my fault by not having explained myself well. You may understand what I mean perfectly but simply disagree with where that leads you in the discussion. Any of that is OK. But, please, it's not civil to call another's good faith comments "nonsense". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do have a habit of expressing disagreement by beginning my comment with "nonsense", I do think what you say about race/ethnicity is misguided nonsense, but you are right I don't need to start the comment with that assertion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what one means when one says "race". There is not one sole meaning, of course. I'm using the term to essentially mean "phenotype". Any other meaning than that I think can fairly be included with "ethnicity". If it's just a linguistic habit of yours to use the word nonsense in disagreement, that's fine with me and I won't be offended. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably a bad habit because it does come across as overly confrontational, and probably means that some disputes are escalated when I would rather de-escalate them. Regarding the topic at hand, I am of the view that US census categories are designed to align with phenotype not with ethnicity, which I consider to be about cultural identity. The US census bureau simply started using "ethnicity" as a euphemism for race when they realized that such a categorization could be seen problematic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see; what I don't understand is why the category in question cannot an appropriate ethnic categorization—take or leave the census bureau. Surely not everyone who self-identifies as Asian American is talking solely about phenotype—surely some are talking about ancestry, culture, language, and so forth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except there is no Asian culture or language, and Asian ancestry again just means phenotype - or it would be a more specific ancestry. Just like "European ancestry" just means "white". Otherwise why isn't there a "European American" ethnic group?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's true—it just seems to me that there are an awful lot of cultural-type institutions that group themselves under the rubric of "Asian American"—such as the Asian American Arts Centre. Maybe that's simply because the organization would be too small if it was subdivided or limited to more specific ethnicities, but there is an entire category for Category:Asian-American culture, and it seems legitimate to me to speak of such a thing, beyond simply an agglomeration of Japanese-American culture, Chinese-American culture, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are of course an Asian-American movement that strives to form a cohesive identity for Asian-Americans, but the categorization is not about that - it simply assumes that any one with Asian ancestry and US nationality can be identified as an Asian-American whether or not they participate in the cultural movement. If the category were for individuals who participate in the building of Asian-American culture or who otherwise can be shown to identify with the Asian-American community then I wouldn't mind the category - but in practice that category is just going to be a racial category of Americans with "mongoloid ancestry". By the way, how many Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshi do you think consider themselves "Asian-Americans" or identify with Asian American cultural movement? According to the US census apparently they belong to that group. Do you think many Pakistanis will be tagged with the Asian-American category? If they are tagged with the category why is it a useful mavigation category to group together Japanese Americans, Indian Americans and Korean Americans? There is something incoherent about how people are arguing in that discussion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the category has issues, but deletion doesn't have to be the answer. It could quite easily be converted into a category of the type you mention, or limited in some other way. Given the mass of other categories for Asian American issues, it doesn't seem to make sense to single the people category out for deletion. Categories are a blunt tool and not good with nuance and there are often problems with definitions and categories' contents expanding beyond the proper limits, but this is not a unique issue to this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo
Hi there! I cordially invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim violence in India
Can you, should you have time look here and add a few extra bits for balance? Two of the sources he mentioned on my talk page I will need to get from a library, and I cannot get to that for about a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that Varshney and Brass sources?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the DYK he pointed to Brass, on my talk page he recommended these, Making India Hindu (essays by different authors). "The Geography of Hindu Right-Wing Violence in India" (in Violent Geographies) – contains some discussion of relationship to anti-Muslim violence globally. "History, emotions and hetero-referential representations in inter-group conflict: the example of Hindu-Muslim relations in India". Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Toral Varia is not with the BBC? She is Senior Special Correspondent at Outlook Magazine & Senior Associate Editor at Rediff.com currently. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But she was when she wrote it.

Your proposal to move the article is now the new excuse to stop the article going forward as a DYK, I would appreciate your commenting on my response to your proposal, cheers. 12:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of the Bull's Blood
I need help with the citations I added.Hierophant443 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't recreate articles that have been determined to be non-notable without substantial new sources. The sources you have added from the Daily Princetonian and the Rutger's Centurion and Youtube are not sufficient to establish notability. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're going to ignore the New York Times, New York Observer, The Week, and U.S. News & World Report?Hierophant443 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless they write something substantial about the order instead of just mentioning it in passing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca
Thanks for your interest and your comments regarding the article on La Ciudad Blanca. It seems clear to me that this is the case of a fantasy that has garnered some level of interest (as have so many other "mysterious" topics featured on The History Channel and the like) as well as having become the object of obsession by would-be discoverers of a "lost" El Dorado. I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but it's clear that it can be abused as a tool for making mountains out of molehills for fun and profit. Unfortunately, in this case, amateur seekers of fame and fortune enchanted by romantic fantasies of finding gold in an imagined "White City" (that may be little more than a misperception by a famous aviator) seem likely to do actual harm to the archaeological record. Public education is required. Hoopes (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one consider wikipedia editorship a part of my public service responsibilities as a scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

About our discussion
I wouldn't be present tomorrow, but i will be back probably sunday, sure in monday. Czixhc (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for letting me know. I don't have time self at present to do substantial workon the article, but I'll keep an eye on your progres.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I do agree that the Race and Intelligence article did need a lot of changes and many of the changes you made were positive but I still have a few concerns on some of your edits. Our differences might be due to our assessment of the scientific fields as was noted by Atethnekos. In my overview of published scientific papers, I see it as much more disputed regarding the varying positions and you appear to believe there's a clear solid majority. In regards to the anthropology fields, you would be right but I don't believe the psychology and biology fields have joined the anthropology fields on the same level to the same extent and there is more dispute in these fields. Some positions that may be well accepted in anthropology, appear to still be heavily disputed in the fields of psychology and biology. I do think our discussions were very helpful though. I already spent way more time on this today than I was planning to so I think I'm done for the night. I'll go through scientific journals tomorrow and come up with some reliable secondary sources that would be important and relevant. BlackHades (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * R&I doesn't exist as a field of research in Anthropology, or in Biology, the consensus I am describing is that of the discipline of Psychology. Perhaps in the subfield of intelligence testing, there is a more even division between hereditarians and environmentalists, but I think you will find that this is also changing. If you disagree you should show me some recent psychology textbooks or handbooks where the hereditarian view is favorably represented. Don't go by stand alone research articles, but by reviews that show how those articles are received. And try to avoid the obvious pioneer folks, as none of them are really well regarded within their field. The ISIR, which Hunt describes as "the conservative wing of intelligence research" where Gottfredsson is now President, is also a minority group within the discipline and seems likely to be taking up the mantle from the pioneer fund that appears to be defunct with Rushton's death.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the field of psychology then there is absolutely not a consensus. Not even close. There are 3 different camps in the field of psychology. Those that believe average racial IQ gaps are caused by both genetics and environment, those that believe that it's all environment, and those that believe there is not enough evidence at this point to draw any conclusions. There is definitely not a consensus for any one of these 3 positions. It can even be argued that all 3 could be the minority and there is no majority view as all 3 could fall under the 50% threshold. The all environment view you're pushing for was the smallest minority of these 3 groups twenty years ago, and likely still the smallest of the 3 groups today. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim that it is the majority view, you should be able to provide concrete sources that explicitly states so which you haven't done. For example, it's not hard to find a source that states evolution is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific fields, or that global warming is accepted by scientific consensus, etc. If you want to claim the all environmental position is the majority viewpoint, you should be able to provide a source that explicitly states so. I doubt such evidence even exists as countless editors have requested such evidence from other editors that make this claim and they never get anything back in return.


 * I already provided countless secondary sources that state the genetic/environmental position is the majority position. You don't want to accept any of them? Okay fine. But you should then be able to come up with secondary sources that explicitly state that the all environmental position is the majority position exactly like I've been able to. If you cannot, then this assertion of yours is just nothing more than personal view and holds absolutely no weight as far as wikipedia.


 * The "avoid pioneer folks" is an absurd request and similar to the constant demands of some editors on another article I'm active in. The anti-GM activists on the genetically modified food controversies article that constantly demand the "there is broad consensus that GM food pose no greater risk than conventional food" text be taken down because GM food studies are funded by GM corporations and that any study funded by GM corporations should be taken down despite the fact they're published in highly mainstream journals. Or the argument made by climate change deniers that state that positions stated by climate scientists should be discarded because they simply want more funding. Such points are absolutely irrelevant to wikipedia. As I've previously stated, as editors, we are not to question or discuss why WP:reliable sources say what they say. This is strictly forbidden by wikipedia policies. We are to report what WP:reliable sources say, that's it. Not why or how it got there. If a position shows up repeatedly in WP:reliable sources, it must be given due weight. BlackHades (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mainstream sources say otherwise. You haven't provided a single one yet, whereas my textbook sources and review articles clearly show that you are wrong. Even within the field of intelligence testing there seems to be a consensus that environmental influences are well established and the genetic influence at this point is purely hypothetical. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are arguing something else entirely from what I'm requesting. I'm not requesting a source that states there are some established environmental influences. I'm requesting a source that states the all environmental position is the majority view. BlackHades (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I advice you to avoid Pioneer folks like Lynn and Rushton is because they are considered extremists and pseudoscientists by many and are clearly not well respected within the field (some like Bouchard and Lykken are a much more accepted, and Jensen certainly is respected as a person and scientist though I don't see many people agreeing with his conclusions, Gottfredsson is a bit more difficult to assess).  You also seem to be conflating two arguments: one is the cause of individual differences in IQ the other is the racial gap. Everyone knows that individual differences are hritable and that individual IQ i probably 50/50 genetic environmental. But the racial gap is an entirely different thing. Even Hunt says that he believes the gap is accounted for by environmental factors only. And all mainstream sources agree that there is no empirical evidence in favor of a genetic influence on the gap, whereas there is plenty of evidence for different kinds of environmental influence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa! Wait. You think Hunt supports the all environmental position?? Please tell me what you think Hunt is saying here:


 * <blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:2em; display:table;">"Rushton and Jensen and Lynn are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true”--Hunt, E. (2011). Human intelligence. pg 434 New York: Cambridge University Press
 * BlackHades (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that does seem like I was wrong there, I remembered reading him saying that in an interview, but I can't find it now. In anycase, I suggest you find a review article or textbook or similar high quality tertiary source that agrees with Hunt there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Human Intelligence" is already a high level textbook. You seem to have the misconception that the all environment position has more support than it actually does. Nisbett is an extreme source. Many reliable secondary sources make this clear. You should remember that many well known environmentalists, like Wicherts and Flynn, still leave at least a small window open for possible genetic contributions regarding racial IQ gaps. Nisbett does not at all. This is what makes him different and extreme. BlackHades (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take your statements serious as soon as you begin to provide sources in support of them which usually you don't bother to do. Show me those many reliable secondary sources that see Nisbett as extreme. As far as I can tell he is as mainstream as they come. Of course the mainstream "leaves open a possibility" - so does Nisbett when he is not writing popular books but scholarly articles. Simply believing that the entire gap can be explained by environment is not extreme. It would be extreme if he said that it was impossible for there to be a genetic component. I don't think I've seen Nisbett say that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already have. I don't know why you still continue to ignore them. I provided Hunt here and I provided more in talk with the link I sent you previously that had several sources highly critical of Nisbett. I could of course find more but when you've shown you'll disregard any source that attacks a position you favor, is there a point? Should I be spending more time digging up more reliable secondary sources knowing that you'll automatically disregard them anyways? BlackHades (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. Please show the many secondary sources that call Nisbett extreme. When did you send me sources?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that a statement is extreme is not the same as calling the person extreme or outside of the Mainstream.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the material here is in the right order.
I have been quite careful, what looks wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the material could be organized more logically, by first mentioning in the first paragraph the most influential and relevant inquiries and show the weight of the findings, also the ones that contradict the mainstream. And then go on to summarize them chronologically? It seems a little random to start head first with the HRW and State Departments, before even describing the chronology of inquiries and how they have differed or agreed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rearrange that lot. I am currently langers thanks to the d of the NHM and as usual the guys from the IWM came along to tell us how much we suck Really gotta love those guys, thought me a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

VE
See Category:Wikipedians_who_have_turned_off_VisualEditor. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your New Lead
I hope you don't mind the small change I made to your new lead. Those two sentences just seemed far too similar. BlackHades (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are similar at all, they are making to completely different statements. Its difficult not to see that edit as working to strengthen your POV by denying that there is a general consensus in favor of environmentalism. But I am not going to revert it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to misinterpret my intent. It has nothing to do with my POV. For example, in the genetically modified food controversies, I've been in strong support there for keeping the line:


 * "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food."


 * Even though several editors have on numerous occasions tried to remove this line, I strongly supported keeping this statement because this is what WP:reliable sources consistently state. Even still, I went ahead and removed this line as redundant. So I hope you understand it's not about POV but what appears to be similar and redundant text. BlackHades (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The intent is actually irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the effect on the article. And it has the effect of downplaying the quite strong consensus that the environmentalist view has better empirical support than the hereditarian views.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority support some environmental factor. This is absolutely correct. But all this seems to already be there in that 1st sentence. When it states "several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence", with this statement, it's already a given that a majority accept environmental explanations. I do find the 1st sentence itself a little bit misleading however. While there is no question environmental factors do contribute toward the gap and the majority do accept this, however, as the APA stated, accounting for test bias, socioeconomic status, culture, etc does very little to close the gap and there's little direct empirical support overall for environmental explanations. This should be made more clear. It might be better to replace these lines with the APA text that there is little direct empirical support for environment explanations and no direct empirical support for genetic explanations. Most evidence either for environmental or genetic right now are indirect. BlackHades (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is wrong, there is abundant empirical support for different environmental influences. This has of course been published in the decade and a half since the 1996 APA report. Before the Bell Curve the pioneer fund grantees were almost alone in conducting this kind of empirical research, but since the Bell curve debates more mainstream researchers have contributed to the field with empirical studies of environmental factors that were never considered for study by the pioneer folks. Since then there has not been similar empirical advances for genetic arguments, which continues only to have circumstantial support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The APA position hasn't changed much and it still remains their position until they decide to change it. There are known environment factors for individual differences in IQ but how much of it actually directly relates to average IQ differences between groups still remains largely a mystery. Many of the environmental arguments also has problems relating to properly identifying cause and effect which have yet to be settled. For example, the argument that those in higher SES having higher average IQ. While this is true, this itself doesn't say much about the role of genetics and environment. Are those that genetically have higher IQ more likely to obtain jobs that provide higher SES or does higher SES cause a rise in IQ? Or is it a combination of both? This still remains largely an open question in the field. One aspect that the APA acknowledged however, is that when comparing whites and blacks at equally high SES, the IQ gap doesn't appear to close at all. The APA have also stated that IQ differences does not relate to any obvious test bias and that IQ tests are equally valid predictors of achievement of both whites and blacks. A statement that have been repeatedly affirmed by other reliable sources years after the APA. While the majority do accept some environmental factor in the cause of average IQ differences between groups, there still remains very little direct empirical support for environmental factors. If you feel this is incorrect, could you provide sources showing evidence of direct empirical support for environmental explanations as it relates directly to the current existing IQ gaps between groups that are nearly universally accepted today? BlackHades (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do feel you are incorrect. The sources are already there, Ive presented them on the talkpage. You should read them. Now, I think we should discontinue this discussion here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your AE request
I've closed it. As a result, please take care not to make allegations of misconduct without providing on-point, convincing evidence in the form of diffs. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all kinds of misconduct can be shown in a diff. It is for example not possible to show that subtle but consistent misrepresentation of sources or consistent attempts to bias the article in favor of a particular view is taking place through simple diffs. Especially not if the diffs are not reviewed by someone who knows the field and the sources. By making the particular call you did, you basically made it impossible to seek sanctions for violations of the the R&I case remedy six - in essence suspending it. Given that that particular remedy has lead to sanctions for other editors presenting similar conduct, I hadn't a chance to know that you would find my evidence unconvincing. Mathsci's evidence regarding BlackHades' misporotrayal of Nisbett as if he was a fringe figure was not about BLP being violated but about advocacy and about the field of research being systematically misrepresented. I think that you made a mistake by giving the request a superficial treatment, seemingly without substantial acquaintance with the topic area and its historical problems.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The more straightforward explanation is that Sandstein doesn't have the time or inclination to wade through the morass. I'm surprised to see him characterize the request as he did, especially after I asked him point blank to say whether or not this was something that could be handled in AE.  aprock (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how I interpreted the result also. What I dont understand is why he didnt let someone else do it then.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful edits in several controversial articles
Hi, Maunus,

I'm just stopping by to say thank you for encouraging editors to use the best reliable sources for editing articles on the more controversial race-related topics. Those have long needed better sourcing. Feel free any time to suggest updates to my source list specifically on those topics. In turn, I will be doing more article edits now that I've done the extensive update to IQ classification (which long needed better sourcing) and as I finish preparing for parent workshops on gifted education that I will be presenting for the next two weeks. (Preparing for those workshops gave me a lot of time to dig into the latest professional sources on human intelligence and IQ testing.) I look forward to working collaboratively with you and with other editors on a variety of articles that can be improved by sourcing them to better sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Weiji, for your support. I also look forward to collaborating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Frungi (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your request for a review of the Moctezuma RM
See User talk:BDD. Since you requested the move review, perhaps I should have asked you first. It seemed to me that, at least in terms of numerical vote, the MRV was ready to be closed, but I actually don't understand how the MRV closer could address what you are requesting without asking for a re-run of the whole move discussion. The MRV closer surely can't rewrite the original move-closer's closing statement. Am I overlooking a more logical option? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I opened the move review because I found the closers remarks to be partial and based on a specious interpretation of policy that caused him to discount valid arguments, and I wanted to see if others agreed with this assessment because I feared the close would set precedent. I later realized that apparently commentators ar MRV dont see it as their job to evaluate whether a closing rationale is based in a solid interpretation of policy but only to assess whether a close should be endorsed or overturned. So when I saw that no one was apparently going to answer my actual question I just stopped following the discussion, and instead started a policy RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. One possible closing of the MRV discussion would be to overturn it from "no consensus to move" to "consensus not to move" - which I think would be the result if valid arguments against the move are not discounted. Or you could overturn it and write a new closing rationale based on the outcome of the move discussion. Another option for closing could be simply to say "endorse close" - as there seems to be a majority of participants in the review who simply think it's fine. A third option would be to simply close it as "wrong venue for policy discussion". You're the admin so its up to you. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Civilization
I wonder if you would have a few minutes to have a look at the above article. A few suggestions could go a long way and the importance of the article is pretty obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions for Discourse community?
Hey Maunus,

A while back you suggested that discourse community was based in the philosophies of Foucault and Bourdieu. Do you have any references about the connection, or any intuition about where to go looking? As far as I can tell these discourse community folks are coming out of genre theory. I'm probably including Swales' definition in my dissertation so I'm interested in following up with some more background reading at some point--which would also help me improve the article...Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, yeah I remember that. I think that you are right and that Swales and Nystrand perhaps were not primarily influenced by French theory, my comment probably stemmed from the fact that the idea of discourse and speech communities exists in anthropology and linguistics in a different meaning based on Bourdieuan practice theory and the Foucoultian conceptualization of discourse. Not having read Swales I can't say what concept of discourse he works with, but it might be one based in a more Hallidayean tradition and Systemic Functional Linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, there's definitely some overlap with SFL and Halliday. Always get confused when Foucault gets mentioned so wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious! Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not certain of the context, but Habermas might deserve a seat at the table in this discussion.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your message
My (belated) thanks for letting me know about this AfD. I’ve not been around for a while, so I couldn’t comment, though I have to say I’m still in two minds about this article. There was a suggestion the first time around that the whole thing was a hoax (on Rutgers, or Princeton, that is; not WP) which, if anything, made it more interesting to me; but its probably better to keep it than go through this create/discuss/delete process we’ve had up to now. At least the article has some sources now. Anyway, thanks again, Moonraker12 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Help
Hi.I need help on this BLP issue added controversy section without adding authentic source.diff I've removed the section.There is no authentic source to confirm this controversy and one source added is more like blog source.I'm not sure on wiki policy on authentic source. I really appreciate any help you can provide.

Regarding your revert in the demographics of mexico article
Don't revert my additions again, it is confirmed by the study that is already cited in the article: (page 5, table 2). To bring half assed information which might alter the real meaning of the original source is against wikipedia's policies, thank you. Czixhc (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talkpage. I will revert it again if you reinsert it without consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need, to add half-assed information is against wikipedia's policies, if you insist on reverting it i'll take this to the noticeboard for incidents. Czixhc (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the one adding half-assed poorly written material so do me a favor and take it to the notice board.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is poorly written material? it's written as it is said in the study: (page 5, table 2, titled: "Percentages of common haplotypes shared between Mexican and HapMap populations") I don't see why there is a need to take this to any noticeboard, you have no reason to revert it at all, let's not make this as unpleasant as it was in the "Poverty on Mexico" article ok?. Czixhc (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah I had forgot that that was you. You are apparently exercising your lack of knowledge of English grammar, statistics and genetics again. It is poorly written because it is not in English, and because it misrepresents the study and makes it clear you don't understand genetics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's written on english (page 5, table 2, titled: "Percentages of common haplotypes shared between Mexican and HapMap populations") it's the same study that is already cited on the article, i just added the CNN one to add variety in the article (and because it's the same study, but simplified), why do you say that the study that i'm linking here it's not in english? are you full in your 5 senses? if you don't right now just don't worry, i wont take any offense from this misunderstanding. Czixhc (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what language the sources are in, I read Spanish at least as well as you read English. I am talking about the text you inserted which is not in correct English. It is often more difficult to write in a second language than it is to read it - which is why I don't contribute much to the Spanish wikipedia even though I speak the language everyday. Maybe you should contribute to the Spanish wiki instead of here. I don't know why you are obsessed with trying to misrepresent statistical studies to make it look as if Mexico is a country of rich white peeple with hardly any poverty or African genetic admixture but it is not going to work. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That don't changes that this study that is on english (page 5, table 2, titled: "Percentages of common haplotypes shared between Mexican and HapMap populations") clearly states that the mexican population shares 81% of haplogroups with european people, you clearly goofed and though that CNN was the main source but it's not, and it's alright, i goof too from time to time, just relax a bit. Czixhc (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew the main source was INMEGEN, and that you were relying on CNN's halfchewed summary of it. That doesn't mean that the information is pertinent, correct or well written or that it should go in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let's use the INMEGEN information, it's the same anyway, therefore it's as correct as the rest of the information that is already cited. Czixhc (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because it is irrelevant, badly written and misrepresents the conclusions of the study. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, explain how is that this (page 5, table 2, titled: "Percentages of common haplotypes shared between Mexican and HapMap populations") is badly written if it's in the same study. Czixhc (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You also don't understand English do you? Its YOUR text in pidgin English that is badly written and which will not go into the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the problem is the grammar you should correct it, not remove it, write it by yourself if you want, but the information musr be included, it's part of the study and without it the real meanin of the source is misinterpreted. Czixhc (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A better idea would be to remove the INMEGEN study altogether. The information you are trying to include is irrelevant for demographics which is the topic of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would imply to remove any genetic information in the article because that article is on which it is based, are you sure? Better to remove the population genetics section altogheter don't you think? Czixhc (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not object to that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, now that we are starting to act in a civilized manner I have to ask you to stop reverting the poverty in Mexico article, the sources that you consider "fake" happen to be World bank data and parametters set by mexican government, and the CONEVAL itself, you are also violating the status quo already acheived weeks ago. Czixhc (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you dropped using the preliminary study by INEGI instead of the world bank and CONEVAL then I have no problem. There was no consensus I just left the conversation because you were being obnoxious.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you were bothered on read it you would have seen that the definition of poverty used is the one used by the CONEVAL . Czixhc (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you already reverted it, that's cool, i believe there is some lessons for us on this incident, for you, to not be that hot blooded at the moment of reverting edits and to check sources first; for me, to be less assertive. Czixhc (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Maunus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-Vatsan34 (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Derrida Article
Stop deleting my edits without any justification! The issue of excessive quoting can and will be addressed by paraphrasing the many abstruse quotations from Derrida not by arbitrarily deleting quotes which serve to fairly represent Searle's position. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have presented sufficient justification. Donøt reinsert it but take it to the talkpage for discussion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did take my proposal to the talkpage before I made any changes. No objections were posted so I proceeded with my porposed edits.  I acted in good faith.  Given that you didn't respond to my postings on the talkpage of the Derrida article the onus falls on you to present a case against my edits before removing them.  You have provided no case and my edits conform with all relevant policy and guidelines so you lack sufficient reason to summarily delete them.  I am able to paraphrase the excess of quotations and to translate them into clear English so your original justification would have been addressed in due course.  What I object to is the misrepresentation and defamation of Searle and that is what I addressed.  I am willing to discuss the matter on the talkpage as I have been before I made any changes.  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Beginning talk for Cherokee Nation or Mexico
Maunus, you commented "please dont reinsert material of challenged factual accuracy."

Please read reversions before commenting.

I reverted the material that you deleted and then edited it to provide long culturally accepted, factual, unimpeachable, Smithsonian ethnological references. Aniyunwiya (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Aniyunwiya
 * It doesn't matter. You need to discuss and get consensus on the talkpage before reinserting it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)