User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage6

Advice please

Hi Maunus, I need some advice (not about your article). I've been caught up in an edit war at IB Diploma Programme and I'm not handling it very well in my opinion. One editor is very tendentious and makes what are in my view sloppy mistakes, and has turned the talk page into a rant (although I'm afraid I've been guilty of the same tonight). I've unwatched the pages and will walk away from the article, but do you have advice for dealing with such situations? Sorry, also it's sidetracked me from finishing your article that I intended to finish tonight. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of situations are really tough to handle. The best advice is to keep a cool head and not take it personal, and walk away when it becomes too much. I can't say I have been very good at following that advice myself in my encounter with Dale Chock today - but I do try because it isn't worth it to let it get to you. There are dispute resolutiojn venues but in my experience they aren't very effective unless one editor is actually using four letter words or racist insults, legal threats or stuff like that. Also it is good to keep the focus on arguments and policies and try to ignore inflammatory rhetorics. About editwars the most important is never to revert more than once or in extreme cases twice - always take it to the talk page - involve as many other editors as possible in establishing a consensus and implementing it. Don't let your own hands get dirty by reverting more than once. About Dale Chock's antics on the Otomi page - i really shouldn't let it get to me, his ideas about deleting half the content aren't based in policies and I don't think most other editors would agree - what is so aggravating is the condescending attitute he uses and that's what gets to me. I guess one just has to try to forget one's personal pride, taking offenses to one's pride by strangers on the internet isn't really conductive for anything. But it is hard. That was a little rant about my own case: you seem more patient and well balanced than me and I am sure you have what it takes to just ague your case and keep a cool head. Thanks for all your help.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, but there have been 3rs on IB Diploma Programme today --not mine, because I don't revert -- although I probably am guilty of provoking one of them. Also, the same editer User:ObserverNY left this comment on my talkpage for another editor, which is highly uncivil. The same editor has been blocked twice for 3rs, the page has been protected, yet the drama goes on. There are a lot of editors on the page, the talk page is incredibly long, but the personal insults keep coming. I try very hard to be even keeled; this is a collaborative project and we're building an encyclopedia here. Each editor has his/her strengths, but it's very hard to get caught up with people who come to wikipedia with an agenda. Will take your advice and cool myself off and return tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him that that way of interacting with other editors can get him blocked.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help with the situation above. It's calmed down a bit for now. Also, enjoy your wikibreak, and for whatever it's worth, I like the Otomi language article as is, that's why I didn't really hack at it when copyediting. Don't stay away too long! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For when you resurface, I've left a comment here. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Otomi diacritics

What I did was using combining characters. Mind you, they are a bit hit-and-miss, especially in italics. Circeus (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually what I was arguing in favor of from the start. I don't see a reason to argue in favor of IPA in examples except where the spelling is completely un-phonemic (French or English come to mind) or non-Latin. I'll see about giving a deeper read (I mildly lost interest around the grammar section for some reason) whenevr I have the time. Circeus (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully {{unicode}} formatting will force them to display properly even in italics.

I agree (if this is the issue at hand) that once the IPA is used in the phonology section, it is often more practical to use orthography for the rest of an article. kwami (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

greenlandic as a non-threatened language

Hi Maunus I've noticed that you erased twice my editing on the greenlandic language. Believe me, I've been working in the navajo reservation, navajo IS threatened as fewer and fewer children actually learn to speak it. Same thing goes for Inuktitut/Yupik as today more and more native villages turn to english. The main difference between greenlandic and all other languages in the americas, is that this is the sole example of a language that has a corresponding state(or a truly autonomous political entity) to endorse it(with a 100% of literacy rate as well). There is no similar thing in the whole of america, such that even native-majority countries such as Peru or Bolivia, still endorse spanish as their main language, and in any case those who speak the native languages are usually part of the lowest ranks in the society. If you dont agree with me for any reason, please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.51.236 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote that Greenlandic is the only language in North America that is not threatened - this is problematic for two reasons: first other North American languages such as Navajo and Inuktitut have more speakers, if you count Mexico as north America then Nahuatl, Zapotec, Mixtec, Maya all have many more speakers. (in South America Quechua, Guaraní all have many millions of spakers) Secondly number of speakers isn't the only factor to take into account when assessing endangerment - as you note also the rate of acquisition comes into play and the level of official support. It is correct that Greenlandic is the only native american language to have a complete official status backed up by a government apparatus - but again this does not necessarily mean that it is less endangered than other extremely viable languages like Maya or Zapotec that have hundreds of thousands of speakers at all age levels. The short explanation here is - it doesn't matter what you or I believe to be the least endangered language - it matters what specialists in the field think. If you can find a reference to a reliable source stating that Greenlandic is the only non-threatened language in the Americas then we can include the claim together with the reference, if not then it is only personal speculations and w can't include that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree on the inclusion of the following sentence: greenlandic is the only amerindian language to have a complete official status and as such it is far less threatened than most other languages in the americas that are usually put under a considerable pressure from neighboring european languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.51.236 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No we can't that includes the unsupported assumption that being an official language necessarily implies being less threatened than any non official language. That assumption can only be included if you have a very good reference for it. Also Greenlanidc isn't amewrindian by any means - it eskimo-aleut. We can agree that "Greenlandic is the only indigenous language of North America to have full official status". Comparing levels of endangerment can only be done by using sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single linguist that actually believes that "being an official language necessarily implies being less threatened than any non official language" is an "unsupported assumption". It's such a commonly held belief that I suspect the only reason you are arguing with me on this issue is becuase you feel you somehow possess this wikipedia article. If I started to delete every unsupported assumption you have made use of in your edits without giving well-founded references, I would probably erase more than half of the what you've written. Now, I have no intention of doing so, and I can't see any reason for you being so overprotective over articles you've been working on. By the way, the term "amerindian languages" is a common way of calling any indigenous language from the Americas(at least in the US). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.237.10 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you just met that single linguist. Take your ownership accusations elsewhere and start using reliable sources. Being a linguist I can also tell you that linguistically speaking calling Eskimo-Aleut languages Amerindian makes no sense whatsoever. For example they are not just spoken in the Americas but also in Asia.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Amerindian" always excludes "Eskimo-Aleut". (Taivo (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

My point exactly.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine

Thanks for you work Maunus. It was refreshing to see someone actually care about fixing the entry. The NRM subject area needs tons of help. Have a good break.PelleSmith (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FlG Cult

Please explain how my changes made the section a pro-Falun Gong opinion piece. I'm going to be accused of bad faith editing. I would rather die than behave dishonorably. I believe this can be dealt with with strict reference to wikipedia policies, particularly regarding neutrality, due weight, and reliable sources. It's not like I particularly care whether my version is up or not, but there are objective policies, and I might as well not edit the pages if I'm not going to actually call it as I see it with regard to all these things (in terms of policy, this article, the lay of the land when it comes to the reliable sources, etc.). By the way, I was going to say "I think it's bullshit that you just accuse me of bad faith like that!" etc. etc., but I calmed down and I think the best thing is actually just calmly and rationally going through the sources and see what comes out. This isn't a matter of drawing a conclusion we think is neutral then backfiling the sources--neutrality is a methodology, and I put my faith in the process of rational discussion. --Asdfg12345 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Its quite simply really - you change the framing of all statements that suggest that some people do see Falun Gong as a cult and make it look like this is a fringe and discredited view when the previous version established unqeuivocally that there is a very large group of people who do think it is a correct description. I don't believe you are editing in bad faith - I think you probably believe that your view is neutral. But it's not.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. yes, I do believe it is a fringe view, and I believe this can be proven with reference to reliable sources. This is not a judgement on the quality of these people or whatever, it's a purely technical thing about what sources their comments appear in, and what other sources make contradictary, different, or rejectionary... rejectional? whatever the "reject" word for the form of "contradictory" is, if you know what I mean--statements about these views, and further state that they were copied from the CCP's propaganda handbook. Let me paste the whole Johnson passage, for example. actually just go here and see it. This is purely a technical question, it's not what I think or you think, it can be sorted out with reference to intersubjective phenomena (like the amount and quality of sources (which can be measured using objective criteria)). I'll keep the sources coming, I just hope you follow the trail...--Asdfg12345 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

to begin with, btw, the most prominent proponent of these views is Singer. That's already saying something, right? --Asdfg12345 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?

This is 100% absurd. 5 people wanted to turn the page into a redirect. 9 people said -no-. That is 64%. At an AfD, that would be an easy keep. There was clearly consensus against turning a 60k page into a redirect. Constant edit warring it into a redirect is classic blanking vandalism. Your comments are so unbelievably absurd that they surely must be a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Afd and redirect is not a vote. It comes down to arguments not numbers. Redirecting is not vblanking vandalism unless it is obviously done in bad faith in this case you are in a content dispute and content disputes are never vandalism.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be calling for your desysopping when this goes to RfAr. Your views about Wikipedia are so contradictory that allowing you to have any access to any buttons is clearly dangerous. Redirecting of one page to another by definition is always vandalism unless it is done with consensus. There is no way to claim otherwise except by a 100% denial of our standards and policies. There is no way to justify their constant blanking of the page against consensus and your attempts at it show that you are not here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus: In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority. - Ottava Rima". From User:Ottava Rima/Philosophy. --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You really are gracious about it when somebody disagrees with you ottava. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree? No, your comments are destructive to the encyclopedia. There was a clear consensus against this vandalistic action and a clear statement by the community that the action was inappropriate. You fail to recognize it in a very dangerous manner. This is a clear cut case and you are pretending as if they were some how justified in blanking a 60k top priority page without getting clear consensus to do it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your misunderstanding of the most basic points of WP:VANDAL is far more concerning. If the case were so clear cut then it is suprsing that nobody seems to agree with you at ANI. Now pack your empty threats about "calling for my desysopping" away and please leave my talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough people agreed with me that they reverted the action as a violation of clear consensus. And empty threat? I've been involved in many people being desysopped for less than what your actions are. Your actions are completely destructive and show not only a lack of understanding of the subject but a complete denial of some of our easy to understand policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow i find it hard to believ that any one has been desysopped for voicing an opinion at ANI. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And as far as I can see Persian empire remains a redirect.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply because most admin have already been involved in the page nor want to wheel war. And yes, people have been desysopped for promoting an opinion, especially when that opinion is the utter promotion of vandalism and a complete affront to our consensus procedures and our policies. There was already an RfC that determined that it was not to be a redirect. There was already consensus about working towards fixing the page. There were already two proposals for rewrites. If you bothered to read the talk page, you would see that there was a large group of people working together while five users edit warred the page out of existence. So, I assume you did your job as any responder and actually looked at the history, investigated, saw all of that, and decided to speak to the contrary. Otherwise, you didn't look at it at all and decided to comment on something you had no clue about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe those nine editors should have considered that including the five dissenting editors was the only way to achieve a real consensus? The most important part of understanding WP:VANDAL is to understand what vandalism is not - vandalism is NEVER EVER edits done in a content dispute. It can be disruption, it can be trying to make a point but it is never vandalism. Editors have been de-rollbacked for claiming something to be vandalism that was clearly goodfaith editing. You should take the time to read Wikipedia:What is consensus?, which is an interesting essay describing what consensus is and isn't - it is not a policy but it makes for thought provoking reading nonetheless. Oh, and I must say that i agree wholeheartedly with your editing philosophy as presented above by Folantin - you really should try putting it in practice some day.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - including them in consensus? When 5 people want to completely delete a page, what is the "compromise"? Your response above is ridiculous. Vandalism can always deal with content. This is not a dispute of the content, this is the complete removal of a page. The fact that you cannot understand that proves that you are unworthy of adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Organ harvesting proposed merger

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to comment on the proposed merger of Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners to Organ harvesting in China. There are four things I would like to say. Firstly, I believe the statement in favor of merger is problematic and represents several misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Secondly, I believe the statement against merger is not quite on point, and does not cut to the heart of the issue; even though I had written some or all of it earlier, the context was different, and I will rewrite it tomorrow to properly present the argument. Thirdly, since you have given your opinion I hope that you will be willing to defend it or otherwise engage in rational argumentation based on Wikipedia policy on the issue—I call for that here and a little bit here (but the real stuff is in the first “here.”) Fourthly, thanks and have a good day! (or night)--Asdfg12345 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

I'm in the final stages of prepping this for FAC. If you'd like to help, that's great. See Talk:Black_Hawk_War#Two_suggestions. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Otomi language

Why'd you undo your revision? Should I undo mine? Don't really know what to do on that page, but the in-line citations have been bothering me, and I don't even know whether the content is correct or not. Anyway, nice to see you back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid because i was too trigger happy - Dale changed the example without having acces to the source which it is from - that is pretty bad style, but it seems that he is right. I will check when I come back to my books. No just keep working on the article - I like to have authors names in the text that is good academic style to me, but if you don't like it I have no problem with your removal of it. As I said I am not trying to own the article - i just want changes to be made for good reasons not just because people don't like the way I do it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is good academic style to have in line citations and attributions, but for wikipedia, in my view, it should be less academic, more user friendly, and also consistent. In that section the refs are all presented as footnotes, so it seems better to maintain the consistency. Also starting a sentence with an attribution/in line cite isn't the best style for wikipedia. I'm pretty much done, but will come back again in a few days and take another run through. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translate --Der Künstler (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Epazote

Maunus, you are so fast. I had a wrong link on the etymology which I corrected later. The same as in the reference I included is stated in Gernot Katzers website, which is also cited in the weblinks. Greetings Hermann Luyken (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a correct etymology and the sources are not reliable. I have answered at your talk page in more detail.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

I just listed this at FAC. Input appreciated. The nom is here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice I will take a look. Good luck! :)·Maunus·ƛ· 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A Wikibreak? Cold turkey?? I get back from my summer break and here you go running off somewheres without us. Well, be back soon. Madman (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi! Hope you'll be back soon. I nominated Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos at WP:FAC. One of the comments requests that page numbers be added to ref. "Lippy, Charles H, Robert Choquette and Stafford Poole (1992). Christianity comes to the Americas: 1492 - 1776", which you added to the article. Unfortunately I don't have access to this book, so I cannot add them myself. Possibly also references 30 and 32 which are from the same book and have identical page numbers, should be combined in one. If you let me know the page number, I could add it to the article. bamse (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously participated in the underlying referenced Simon Dodd AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mezquitaltones.png

Thank you for uploading File:Mezquitaltones.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Tlacochcalcatl.jpg

File:Tlacochcalcatl.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Tlacochcalcatl.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Tlacochcalcatl.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

It's nice to see you back in action again. (I found that you were back just by chance; I'm not stalking your contribs or anything.) I hope you feel more comfortable now with whatever issues caused you to leave in September. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Soap, I appreciate it. It was just a general wikipedia overdose. I'll be taking it easy for awhile, but I'm rady to start editing again.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hi Maunus! Your page popped up on my watchlist, so I wanted to let you know that I'm happy to see you return. Hope you had a relaxing and productive wikibreak! Good to see you back here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this. I'm so sorry I made so many mistakes. Will be taking a wikibreak myself now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pay him any mind. He is just a troll in my opinion. He doesn't know half as much as he thinks he does and he constantly commits the same mistakes that he accuses others - he just camouflages them behind that smug selfrighteousness. You are a good copyeditor and I will be happy to work with you on any article.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective! Troll is the correct definition; and it's best to ignore trolls. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

I am inviting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group in on the discussion of Move/name change/notability/merge discussion on New England Institute of Religious Research Currently PelleSmith (talk · contribs) and Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) seem to have reached a roadblock in discourse with Cirt (talk · contribs). Any help would be appreciated! Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched Melton and turned up nothing

Maunus, you may wish to change your mind once again. I looked through every edition of Melton and turned up nothing about the New England Institute of Religious Research. I have left notes on John Carter's talk page as well as the entry. I can't say for sure that no mention whatsoever exists in the book as it is quite long, but all the entries are definitely indexed and no index of any addition turns up anything. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what John Carter responds - maybe he meant another encyclopedia. If it doesn't have an entry in any then I'll of course change my opinion back.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Language

Hello there Maunus. I see like me you enjoy cleaning up linguistics articles. I don't mind your reversion at all; I can't say as mine was much better. Actually this is the first reversion I have had on this article. I didn't expect to conduct a cleanup without some flak. I'm sure you well undertand what I mean. The things I am looking at on these articles, which they seem to have in common, are the references, the formatting, the quality of the English, the illustrations, the organization and all those details that make a good article. I'm only interested in content where the current content is unsupported, wrong, or oversimplified. So, whatever you said before I finish is likely to be said after. This one was noteworthy to me because the referencing appears to be unfinished. There's a lot of those. So, that is what I am doing here. When we can get a modicum of linguistics articles that are reasonably complete and might be good if evaluated I will move on. You probably aren't going to need your one-revert rule. I'm looking mainly for improvement. If I can't improve it, there is no point on my being on it. If you notice something that is not an improvement, go ahead and revert. I shall presume quality is your prime concern, or you would not work on corrections. By the way, Merry Christmas! Ciao.Dave (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry christmas to you too! And yes I am very happy that you are taking an interest in these articles that I agree are not in a wikipedia worthy condition. I am also sure that the wording of the "connection between language and culture" phrase can be better I just didn't think the addition of "specific" and plural made it better in this case, but rather that it gave a false sense of precision. Lets keep working on it! ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Middle East

Maunus, there's a guy edit warring at Middle East. I changed the relationship of Turkish to Turkic from "Altaic" and noted that Altaic is not a widely accepted term. He keeps reverting back to Altaic even though he's not a linguist and doesn't know what he's talking about. I need some support there. (Taivo (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for chipping in :) I always love it when someone writes, "Well, I have 15 PhDs". Reminds me of the, "Well, my dad can beat up your dad" exchanges in grade school. (Taivo (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, not much substance in that argument. That's why I usually avoid mentioning my academic credentials (which aren't that great anyway I don't even have one Phd yet) when I am in an argument with other editors, it usually just comes of as arrogant and ticks people off more. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources on Lakota language

Thank you for rating the page Lakota language. In your edit summary you mention "insufficient sourcing". Do you mean the number of sources, or their quality, or some combination of both factors? (By the way, it might be handy to have your response at either Talk:Lakota language or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. I'll watch your talk page for response, so you don't need to {{tb}}.) Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have given my rationale at the Lakota talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice; thanks again. Cnilep (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenlandic language

Haluu Maunus. Jeg har kigget på ovennævnte artikel (med din opfordring på, at kigge på grl. sætnings eksempler). To små rettelser lavede jeg. Disse eksempler synes jeg er gode, men virker firkantede (de skal de være siden de skal forklares på engelsk), og hvis nogen skal rette på dem til mere grl. daglig-tale, vil det blive alt for komplicerende. Ellers gode værktøj til dem som vil lære grl. Har du ellers andet spørgsmål (om grl. sprog) kan jeg være behjælpelig. (Undskyld min elendig dansk). Ajunnginna Qaqqalik (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

replied in case you missed it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Guaraní

Hi Maunus!

Wanting to work on a new article, I found Guaraní in the list of articles needing copyediting. Can you have a look and suggest some sources? It's potentially a decent article, but needs some work. I'm assuming you know about the subject. Btw -- Happy New Year! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to this yet. Ill look at it when Im done with Greenlandic.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually try these:[1][2][3](in Portuguese)·Maunus·ƛ· 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding to above: oddly there is a current move discussion on the talk page regarding the spelling of Guaraní which needs your expertise! See here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been resolved as no consensus - i dont feel strongly about it anyway.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting Greenlandic

Hi Maunus! I only found two problems:

• Is obligatorily a word? I couldn't think of what to replace it with, so I'm leaving it to you.
• Should indo-european be Indo-European?

It's a nice article -- one of your better ones! If you decide to try for a FAC then I'd suggest removing some of the noun plus - ing, and maybe have fewer sentences that begin with "this". I'll do another quick read through in a few days with fresh eyes. Sorry about the delay. Things got a bit busy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truth. I am quite surre obligatoriy[4] is a word. Indo-European should of course be capitalized. I am not going to nominate it for FA - I am fairly disenchanted by that process.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I didn't take it out. Sometimes when I look at a text too long things start to look a bit odd, and I need to take a break. Yes, the FA process can be a disenchantment. I only mentioned it because you've created a nice article here. But my view is that not all Wikipedia articles have to be FA, and often the energy necessary to get that status is counterproductive and can be used instead to create good articles! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I'm going to use my energy for anyway - anyway its a crying shame that there are hardly any language GA's so Ill work on those for awhile. BTW what did you mean by noun plus -ing?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to link to Tony's copyediting exercises: User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus: This series of sentences seem to have too many occurrences of Greenlandic/Danish!

• "From the time of the Danish colonization of Greenland in the 18th century to the beginning of Greenlandic home rule in 1979, Greenlandic experienced increasing pressure from the Danish language. In the 1950s, Danish linguistic policies in Greenland were aimed to replace Greenlandic with Danish in Greenlandic society. Of most importance was that post primary education and the language of government were conducted in Danish."

Five occurrences of "Danish" and six of either Greenland and/or Greenlandic which makes it hard to read. The problem, as I read it, is that you're using both the languages (Danish/Greenlandic) and the policy of the respective countries (Danish/Greenlandic) and describing society (Greenlandic). I'm not quite sure how to fix, but suggest simplification if that's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another question: Western and Eastern Greenlandic is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. Is it a proper noun, or a description (adjective) of Greenlandic? If a common noun, shouldn't it be "West Greenlandic" and "East Greenlandic"? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They are proper nouns and should be capitalized as such. Thanks.

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Maunus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. James Kari - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic

Hi there, been a while. Remember Loch Ryan? Well, we have another anti Gaelic crusader on hand, Special:Contributions/DvdScott, this time focussing on the Borders (see discussing at Talk:Selkirk. I was wondering if you might chip in as he just reverts without backing any of his ludicrous claims up. Cheers. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've chipped in. Thanks for the heads up.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Question in passing on the topic though. Is the 3R rule iron clad or are there cases when someone is being plain disruptive (like this chap) where you can ignore that? Not that I want to ignore protocol but I find people like Dvd are wasting an enourmous amount of my time that I could spend editing.. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you revert three times you can be blocked. Don't do that. Its always a bad idea to stoop top their level. If you are really in the right someone else will turn up and help support a consensus based decision.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say that but thanks ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, he also did Scottish Borders Akerbeltz (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you reckon there's any way of protecting against these ... people? All the pages in Towns in the Scottish Borders are affected (and I bet a few more not on my watchlist) and I'm beginning to get cheesed off over the amount of time we have to spend reverting pseudolinguistic crusaders. Either way, thanks for also keeping an eye! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you yet again but we have another crusader. I've responded here and here (with a long citation) but don't think I'm getting anywhere. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Basque provinces

A different sort of question, I hope you don't mind. It concernes the naming conventions of Basque provinces. They're currently a mess and there have been various attempts at sorting individual names over the years but no broad consensus really. Some, like Guipúzcoa, even use one as the page name and another in the text.

Ignoring Navarre and Biscay, which are relatively well known English forms, the other provinces have no established English forms. The question now is, if we were to start a debate on the WikiProject Basque and established naming conventions based on - well, whatever the critera shall be - would that have any authority across wikipedia? As in, if we decided there that Guipúzcoa should be Guipúzcoa, Guipuscoa or Gipuzkoa, could we then implement this across Wikipedia without having to debate this again on every single page affected? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it isn't that easy. For one thing the basque provinces are also the domain of WP:Spain and WP:France - secondly naming has to follow the relevant naming conventions on each case, and there might be different considerations to take in each case, making separate discussions necessary.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm ok. So if we discussed Gipuzkoa on the Gipuzkoa page and posted a note on WP:Spain and WP:Basque and came to a conclusion on that particular name, would that work in terms of finding an authoritative version? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Decisions are stronger or weaker depending on how many editors support them - so generate as much discussion as possible when trying to make a definitive decision (but also keep in mind that consensus can change). Generally a naming discussion of a single page is carried out on the talk page of that page - but when it has consequences for several similar articles or may be controversial as here I think involving as many interested wikiprojects as possible seems to me to be a good idea.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't I know it LOL you should follow the discussions on Yue (Cantonese) some time if you feel like tearing your hair out every 4 months. Ok, I'll try that and see if we can work something out. Many thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Popol Vuh

Could you kindly weigh in on the new discussion on PV talk page? Thanks. AmericanGringo (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit comments and some questions

Hi Maunus!

I've decided there's really not much more to do on Greenlandic language. The problem is that, generally, I find your articles to be interesting, fairly easy to read (given the technicality of the topics), and well developed. At this point, I'm afraid I'll ruin the spirit of the article by continuing, so will leave it as it is.

A couple of questions/points though. I realize it became a point of contention with Otomi Language, but the history portion of Greenlandic, in my view, could be developed more. As someone who comes to this with no knowledge of the area except the 12th century (?) Viking sagas (some of which do describe the period the Vikings, such as Erik the Red, were in Greenland), I find myself wondering what happened between that time and now. What is Greenland's relationship to Denmark, and at what period did Greenland become a Danish colony (if that is the proper term). Feel free to completely ignore these comments, as they may be absolutely irrelevant, but simply questions that popped into my head as a reader.

I'll leave a comment on the GAN review page that I'm done copyediting. If more needs to be done let me know, or find someone who is perhaps more critical than I am! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Truthkeeper, for your dilligent work! I think it is not a bad idea to expand the history section a little I'll see what I can do about that.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Fortescue

The article Michael Fortescue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP of a "linguist."

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Unitasock (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It sucks that you are prodding BLPs with no problems while the discussion is still ongoing. Especially when placing the prod taks the same amount of time as finding a ref as it did in this case. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Improving the Mexican people Article

In the talk page of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico I see that you also noticed a major problem that we are having in the Mexican people article: Race vs. Ethnicity. I have already tried to define the difference as well as the overlap of these terms in the Talk page of Mexican people. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your constructive criticism and swift GA review of Q'umarkaj, your thoughtful input has contributed to a better article. Additionally I would like to thank you for all the work you have put into Mesoamerica-related articles. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!·Maunus·ƛ· 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider

Hi Maunus! Referring to this message, I'd like you to consider that the sections mentioned by the ip are written in summary style based on the Lists of National Treasures of Japan. Most of the information is contained in a single source: Database of National Cultural Properties, but some information uses a large number of references which would be impractical to add here.bamse (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Takalik Abaj FA nom

Hi Maunus, I have expanded the intro section to Takalik Abaj and would appreciate it if you could have a look at it and drop by the FA Nom to comment. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese/Yue renaming

Just wondering, if you want to rename Cantonese (Yue) "Cantonese", what would you want to do with Cantonese? kwami (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that through. I think you should probably disregard my vote.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, have you any thoughts on what we should call Yue Chinese/Cantonese (iso3 yue) as opposed to Standard Cantonese/Cantonese? kwami (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe (Our Beloved Mother)

Ref. Our Lady of Guadalupe

On 26 January 2010 14:41/CET, you reverted my edit of 26 January 2010 13:52/CET, where I had sub-edited my previous edit of 26 January 2010 13:39/CET (Footnote on the real meaning in Nahuatl of Tonantzin (to-nan-tzin): "Our Venerable Mother"), with the following change:

• Tonantzin (to-nan-tzin): "Our Venerable Mother" => "Our Beloved Mother"

It is not clear to me from the comment appended to you edit ("revert - not an improvement") if (1) you simply wanted to revert to my first version ("Our Venerable Mother") OR (2) if you wanted to scrap even that one.

• If (1), I would obviously bow to your linguistic competence, not without informing you that I have carefully consulted English/Nahuatl dictionaries before the edit ("Our Venerable Mother" => "Our Beloved Mother")
• If (2), I will ask you to justify the reason for your action, also because, contrary to you declared observance of the "1 Revert Rule", and your declared policy ("if I revert an edit I discuss it on the talk page immediately and refrain from reverting the same edit if inserted again"), you have obviously NOT talked of the reason for your action on the Talk Page.

In any event (as per 1 Revert Rule), please contact me before taking any further action on that article.

Thank you.

Miguel de Servet (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The most important reason for my reversal was that the foot note you introduced was not sourced. I believe that if a translation of Tonantzin it should be sourced to a reliable source. Linguistically there is no clear reason to choose venerable over beloved or vice versa, the -tzin reverential suffix means both. That is why it would need a source. If you find a reliable source translating Tonantzin as one or the other then that is ok and I will not object to its inclusion, I would even suggest that it go into the main text instead of a footnote. But on the contrary the choice between which one to write is Original Research and essentially arbitrary. I am sorry that I didn't immediately discuss on the talk page, I should have done that. I will copy this discussion to the talk page of Our Lady of Guadelupe. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Maunus,

thank you for your prompt reply and clarification. As you can see from the article, I have integrated the footnote with a quotation & reference as follows:

• ("A challenge for the English translator is the suffix -tzin, heavily used in this text. On the one hand, it is a diminutive, used for children and pets. On the other hand it is reverential, used for lords and gods. ... the best default "translation formula" for -tzin is probably "beloved," since that was formerly used in English for everyone from children to monarchs, although it is now quaintly dated in virtually all contexts." Nican Mopohua: Here It Is Told, Introduction and Explanations, The Language of the Nican Mopohua, @ weber.ucsd.edu)

I believe this should do. As for putting that correct translation and backup information into the main text, I believe that info should remain in a footnote, even if it is a rather long one, because it is a linguistic digression from the main contents of the section (Historicity debate and controversies). To end with, I agree with the idea of copying this discussion the talk page of Our Lady of Guadalupe, creating a new section, which I suggest to title "Tonanzin: Our Beloved Mother"
Miguel de Servet (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RANDY

I must remember this trap :p Cheers :) (Taivo (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, keep a cool head when confronting those skeletons. :) ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the help with the Takalik Abaj nom, especially for sorting out all that linguistic stuff and, of course, for supporting the nom. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Maya language query

Hi Maunus. I've got a query about a Maya language. I'm expanding the Huehuetenango Department article from a 1992 Spanish-language monograph and it mentions the "Chalchiteco" language as being spoken in Aguacatán together with "Aguateco". Aguateco is Awakatek, any idea what "Chalchiteco" is? The Spanish wikipedia indicated that it was only recognised fairly recently by the ALMG, and there's no mention of it in the English Mayan languages article that I can see. Can you shed any light on this? Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I am sure you know the distinction between language and dialect is mostly political. In this case what seems to have happened is that since Chalchitan was originally a separate community which was later made a subject community to Aguatan the people of Chalcitan seemns to have had a need to assert their difference from the Aguatecos by having their language (which has been counted as a dialect of Awateko - to which it is most closely related) recognized as a distinct language by the ALMG. The articles es:Idioma chalchiteco and es:Chalchiteco (etnia) shed some light on this process and provides a few sources for the Chalchiteco's struggle for recognition. The ALMG is based on a policy of recognizing any group that selfidentifies as distinct and this is the same process that has resulted in the separation of Achi and Uspantec form K'iche. I doubt that Chalchitec is more different from Awakatek than Achi' is from K'iche (and they are almost fully mutually intelligible). Anyway if we want to give it its own entry in the article about MAyan languages it would be under the Ixil node as a sister language to Awateko.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had some suspicions... Simon Burchell (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GAC of National Treasures of Japan

Hi Maunus! Did you have another look at Talk:National Treasures of Japan/GA1 ? bamse (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bamse. Sorry, I've been really bogged down with work. I'll get to it over the weekend at the latest.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was just worried that you might have forgotten. bamse (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hallo,

    I've started to add articles in Danish that don't yet exist, and I'm looking for someone
to check the grammar in them.  If you have a moment, please consider reading over the danish
article for the Pure Holocaust record by Immortal to check for mistakes.

DenAntikristen (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That codex and the tests

I've taken this to the RSN noticeboard, [5]. I've also told Bellarmino (talk · contribs) to avoid using the IP address as a possible sock puppet, and will tell the IP address the same. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you know. Take a look [6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a really good and careful analysis. The site does look at least as respectable as the ones bellarmino have been presenting - but I would still prefer to read an analysis by a peer reviewed scholar.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The site is by Alberto Peralta, apparently now a doctoral candidate at ENAH. Have no problem with its content, which I think is pretty much spot on (and is used as a ref in the Codex Escalada article, think it may even have been me who added it), but it would be even better to back it up with more recognisable published sources. For eg, a lot of his points are made in Stafford Poole's The Guadalupan controversies in Mexico‎ (& prob others he's written), so at some stage would be worthwhile to go thru and cite/expand away. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If those are his credentials then I also have no objection to using him as a source. I just couldn't find his academic credentialsanywhere on the site. I think an expansion is then probably in order.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Really just to point you to Wikipedia:School_projects if you haven't seen it, you probably should use it. Doug Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Zapotec civilization

Just got a new large edit which needs attention from someone! I don't know anything worthwhile so I can't help. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'm there.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about the inline citations in this article, they are sloppy in that they don't use the full name of the book (in fact a form that isn't reflected in the title), and I'm not sure the format meets WP:CITE. I don't know if your students do technical tasks like that. One other concern, in this article neither reference is previewed in any way, are you going to check to make sure that there's no copyvio (including close paraphrasing)? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging Ashkenazi Intelligence back into Ashkenazi Jews

Hello, I've reopened the merge issue on the AJ page[7], and was wondering if you could weight in. Thanks, A.Prock 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Otomi language refs

I was doing editing to those and accidentally closed the window, so I figured instead of explaining them after the fact (which I planned to do), I'd discuss them with you prior...

• I was going to split "content" and reference notes (using the group feature of footnotes).
• Fixing some refs with incomplete/differently formatted elements with no reason (i.e. Bartholomew 1995, several books formatted as journal issues)
  • On this topic, the Garibay Historia de la literature náhuatl ref is missing the year. Given it had two editions (1st 1951-53, 2nd 1971), that makes it impossible for me to complete it. Adding which volume (it appears to be a two-volumes work) is concerned would be a good idea too...
• Reducing multiple links, especially to multiple time the same journal/author in references that come one after the other.
• I'm really not fond of publisher links in general either, to be honest
• Removing publisher and ISSNs for periodicals
  • Publisher info was added to the template back in 2007 (IIRC) at the insistence of a specific editor worried about users citing biased periodicals in smoking-related articles. Generally it doesn't do much good (ISSN is better for disambiguating homonymous publications), though I thought you using it to mention conference proceedings published as a journal issue in Greenlandic language was brilliantly clever.
  • ISSN is only really useful for disambiguation, or when discussing the periodical itself.
• Simplify the format parameter (just "pdf" is more than enough: it's intended to describe specifics of the file to be loaded)
• I've come to prefer treating jstor links in a fashion similar to DOIs and ISBNs using {{jstor}} after the cite template (though now that I think of it, I probably could/should put in in the id parameter...). This has the advantage of not suggesting the article is free access like the url parameter does (compare the Russel 1966 and Lastra 1996 refs for what I mean), plus you don't have to add a not-so-needed accessdate.
• OCLC numbers are great for when you got no ISBN (e.g. Hardwood 1968). Otherwise, especially where you got a DOI, they're really not that good: OCLC separates records, not books, so an ISBN search (available from the ISBN link generated by MediaWiki) is more efficient.
• What's your feeling on formating series with the series # bolded and without "no" ?

90% of those are the same sort of stuff I did in Greenlandic language (which I'll probably look over again before long. I've spotted a couple refs that could receive extra details :D), but they represent pretty extensive changes and I figure it's less trouble discussing them beforehand (I've clashed with other editors over approaches to references). Others I definitely wouldn't do with your approval:

• Would moving Bartholomew 2004 to a footnote (as with note #31 in Greenlandic and others) be okay with you?
• I have a soft spot for using titles instead of appended letters to disambiguate publications done the same year. Any thoughts? (the Palancar refs don't need them, btw, so I'll take them out)
• I'm thinking regularizing the author-year format punctuation throughout, though I'm not sure yet whether I want to use a comma-based format or a parenthetical format like in Greenlandic (which for my own peace of mind I'd have to convert too XD).

As your friendly neighborhood stalker I'll probably get round to checking out the rest of your stuff (which I really enjoy reading) again soon. If you want help looking over the refs at Zapotec civilization, give me a heads up! Circéus (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesuit Reductions

Hi Maunus! Could you keep an eye on Jesuit Reductions and lend a hand if necessary. I see the topic has been discussed at Catholic Church. I'm trying to add refs, and clean up the article, but you know much more about this subject than I do. Thanks as always. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC for funerary art

• Your input is humbly requested here. Thanks • Ling.Nut 05:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am in a process of directing my efforts where they have the most potential of improving the encyclopedia while causing me minimal stress. I am afraid I consider Catholic church a lost cause.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

phishing

See here. Crum375 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please sort this out

Please see the comment I made at WP:RFP regarding your decision and subsequent action regarding Ansar Abbasi. __meco (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This has to be sorted out

Your attitude is arrogant. Tell me specifically which reference is invalid or looks like hearsay? References are the either the contributions of the person in question, his recorded statements, or the most reputable newspaper in the country. Peterhenych (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the perceived arrogance, that was not my intention. I have adressed your concerns at Talk: Ansar Abbasi.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Marina Orlova

Thanks for the semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor government of Peru

Besides having a username against our policy, this is a clear sock puppet of Luiscabrejo. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems quite likely yes.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

His 2:21 email says "Some mayor arqueologist have reviewed my theories as very important. Please revert that as what I put that before since I can have any mayor arqueologist in Peru to put that for me if I cant do that myself. If you cant help me then I can go to a higher instance." Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we can't prevent him from doing that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I

I made extensive comments on David.Kane's edits to the lede and the rest of the article on the talk page of the MedCab case and also on David.Kane's talk page. Talk:Race and intelligence is not really being used at the moment because of Ludwigs2's decision during mediation to have one editor redraft the article in mainspace, something which I think was a very bad idea. It should have been done on a subpage of the mediation case. It's confusing for everybody, including administrators who can't necessarily follow the paper trail to the mediation talk page. The lede has in fact been decided by broad consensus on the MedCab talk page. David.Kane was breaking that consensus. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As a disinterested observer, would you mind encouraging MathSci to discuss the changes he seeks to make in the lead of Race and Intelligence on the article's talk page [8]? I want to avoid an edit war but would prefer not to be bullied. Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude. go look on the talk page of mediation for explanations. Your edits seem like fairly extreme POV-pushing, some of the worst I've ever seen on wikipedia in my editing experience. Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharkiv

Thanks for the quick action.  :) (Taivo (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

No problem, glad to help. :) ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I

I guess you are back from the field? I want to tell you how much I appreciate your recent comments at the Race and Intelligence mediation page. I have just left some of my own comments. I am in the middle of dealing with a major Revise and Resubmit issue so I have no time for this stuff, actually. But given David kane's uncertainty about how to proceed, would you consider volunteering to do the next overhaul of the article, following the feedback on David Kane's recent work? It is possible that this mediation could produce an article that will actually satisfy a wide range of editors, and I think right now we are at a strategic point. A revision that does not remove any of the verifiable information from the current article, but that makes whatever changes are required to make it NOR and NPOV compliant, would be a huge push in the right direction and i thought ALL of your comments are spot-on. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, I have given a try at including some of the points I raised in the article. I am not able to do a real overhaul, as I am not familiar enough with the hereditarian research - I will limit myself to make sure that the non-hereditarian concerns are given a voice in the article as well as the hereditarian viewpoint. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I am starting graduate studies in (Linguistic) Anthropology at Brown this fall - I can't wait to get deeper into the anthropological subject matter I think its a really good supplement to my linguistic background.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think any additions or modifications you make to the article will be a significant contribution. And congrats. and good luck on starting the program at Brown. I do not know any of the linguists there but I think Kay Warren is there and she is a great anthropologist. Anyway, it is I hear a great school. And of course in a very dynamic region. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers speak for themselves?

I appreciate your help. If you have time, can you review the article to see if there are other examples of numbers thrown around with no context, as if they speak for themslves? My understanding of the mediation agreement was that the stats on between-group IQ differences would lead the article, that it would be "data driven" in the sense that this data raises questions at least for some scholars. But the rest of the article is reviewing different possible answers and I think this distinction, between stats that raise questions, and stats that are being presented as answers, is a BIG difference. When numbers are presented as parts of answers, context - sample size, sampling method, significance ... in some cases coefficient of correlation, number of standard deviations from the norm etc. .... is essential to understanding the meaning and status of the proposed answer.

By the way I just do not understand Captain Occam and maybe e doesn't understand me, if you feel you can intervne constructively to explain my point to him (or if you think necessary, his point to me!), well, I'd appreciate it.

Do you know what your dissertation research will be on? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't have much time today and tomorrow as I am teaching all day. I'll try to chip in if I have a moment. I'll be working with ethnography of speaking in a Nahuatl community and my adviser will be Paja Faudree a young linguistic anthropologist.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

I hope you are not suggesting that - for the first time in my 7,200 content edits to wikipedia - I have somehow suddenly started adding inappropriate contentious content to wikipedia? As explained on WP:ANI, out of the blue and without consulting me, Hipocrite added the content I have been carefully preparing over 3 days. I added a small summary at the beginning, which was required. Actually, as others have suggested, various bits can be pruned and the inline citations tightened up. On the other hand what was there before was not a proper history section: unlike mine it was not a summary of secondary sources. I don't have any plans to edit anything other than the history section, which no other editor had thought of doing up until now. Without a history section there was absolutely no indication what debate had gone on, why that was and amongst whom.

I don't really mind at which point this material goes in.

I know that some editors are probably a little uneasy that the two or three main researchers in the herditarian school are closely attached to the Pioneer Fund and sister organizations (according to secondary sources). I haven't understood why they might want to suppress that information - that would be POV-pushing. Perhaps they think the debate is some kind of abstract concept, that can be described without reference to events or people. Who knows?

Adding commentary without secondary sources is not how I have understand history to be written, even in mathematics articles. In the case of this article it involves value judgements on the merits of various article, which, because of the controversial nature of the subject, has to be left up to acknowledged academic commentators in secondary sources. All the secondary source I have used are impeccable. In the case of mathemetics article, even if I roughly know chronological order without looking at a book, I always have to find a secondary source that gives the history, which can be very time-consuming. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I very much like your history section and your general approach to editing article content. What I don't like is your fairly belligerent attitude towards Ludwigs and some of the other editors, which does much to deteriorate the editing environment and polarize the debate. I know that some people have different views of what constitutes lack of civilty and how far assumoptions of good faith should be taken, but your personal comments aimed at Ludwigs and David Kane are beyond my boundaries.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chayote

Maunus: The Chayote article has two different Nahuatl derivations for the word chayote: chayotli and hitzayotli. Perhaps you could clarify this? Senor Cuete (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I've taken a look at it. hitzayotli is not a possible nahuatl word. - Some nahuatl varieties do call chayotes witzayohtli, but the source for the loanword chayote is the other word chayohtli. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

semi-protection for Mongolian name

Mongolian name is being attacked by an anonymous user over the last few days. It's always the same edit and the same revert, without any discussion. If it is an unproblematic thing to do, the article could do with a week of semi-protection. If this is still unproportional, we will just keep reverting. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A Sniper

I didn't want to bring this up on the talk page of Ashkenazi Intelligence, because it's an issue between users and not about improving the article, but I noticed you made a remark about A Sniper where he has a staunch defense of the article, but refuses to participate in improving the article. Unfortunately this is indeed the case. I have been trying to engage with him on addressing the questions I raised to him. He refused to address them, so I wanted to open up a broader discussion on the talk page, about merging this article. However he has constantly removed my merge tags, and has made it clear that he will continue to do so. I told him I would contact an admin about it if he continued, but he told me to contact an admin, and removed the tags again.

The discussion is here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A_Sniper

If you have any opinions you would like to contribute, feel free to do so because I know you have engaged with him in the past as well.

About the article, if we can address all of the points that I raised and Slrubenstien raised, I wouldn't have a problem with keeping the article as it is. It's just in the state that it's in, it's awful. ScienceApe (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he'll continue at this point.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Need a bit of help

Maunus, there are a couple of Mormon faithful pushing against the scientific POV at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. The article is a piece of garbage anyway and I've tried to get it deleted a couple of times, but to no avail. Sometimes the faithful show up and tag-team reverts to remove the scientific POV. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arb

You may like to revise your text here. It seems that your text "include explicitly include" should say "not explicitly include". Additionally, in the diff you mention, Alastair ascribes something to "L. R. of Alberta" that that editor did not actually say.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple supriya

Thought you might want to see this: [9]. Allformweek (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

She's not banned there I guess.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

LINGUIST List

Thanks for noticing the vandalism by the anon IP. If you check out his contribs, you'll see he went on an anti-Linguist List crusade a couple of days ago and removed all the cross-references to the Multitree graphs from a number of language family articles. (Taivo (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

But these "cross-references" are vacuous; follow them.24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The multi-tree is a pretty good resource for getting a birdseye view of different formulations of genetic relationship hypotheses - clearly the best and only on the web currently.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) They are not "vacuous"--they lead to the multitree charts which are quite usable for non-specialists. Indeed, I refer to them myself when I need to get an overview of the classification of some language family or other that I am not completely familiar with. (Taivo (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Example(s)?

To my knowledge, their coverage is overwhelmingly Ethnologue+Ruhlen (1987), neither of which is a reliable source, both of which are already available both in print and on the web. It is really just a mirror site, like any mirror of Wikipedia (and you should not be relying upon Ruhlen or Ethnologue for an overview of anything, much less upon a computer-generated mirror thereof.)24.22.142.28 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ethnologue has veered far from Ruhlen in many respects. Compare the 16th edition classification of New Guinea and Austronesian languages and you can clearly see that. But that doesn't matter for either Wikipedia or Linguist List. The Multitree is not "just a mirror". If you look at it, for many families, it includes variant classification schemes from a variety of authors. If you don't see that in the New Guinea classifications, then look at Afroasiatic, which has a plethora of different schemes encoded. But it's not Wikipedia's place to sift and choose variants that are closer to one or another scholar's version of "truth". It is to list the alternatives as published in reliable sources. Ruhlen may not be widely accepted among specialists, but it is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. (Taivo (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Korean language

There's a user at Korean language who is deleting references to sources that state unequivocally that Altaic is a widely rejected hypothesis and that Korean is widely viewed as a language isolate. (Taivo (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

I'll keep an eye on the situation there. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that :) (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

help

Can you comment here: [10] and in the next section, which is entitled Comment? I am asking you to comment solely on policy, not content. This discussoon sorely needs the cmments of others who really know policy. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

I'm not sure what you were seeing when you wrote "both reverted twice" in the page protection request. There's no edit war there--LDS blanked a section and I restored it. Once. (Taivo (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

yeah I went back and noticed that - I must have been hallucinating. Sorry.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes the first cup of coffee must be followed by a second to really get the blood pumping :) You do a lot of good work here so I'm not going to set the wolves on you, LOL. Cheers. Have a great day, my friend. (Taivo (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

RFC/U

I'm working on a draft version of an RFC on B9 Hummingbird. There are so many diffs to go through, and I could really use someone with more knowledge of the topics he edits to help locate relevant diffs. The draft is at User:Beeblebrox/RFCUdraft, feel free to add anything that seems relevant. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering is now live and awaiting certification. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The RFC has been certified and is active. If you do not wish to make a statement yourself, you can watch the page for others doing so and add your name to the "user who endorse this summary" section below the statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I had completely overlooked that. I'll comment now.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This makes me sad.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Were you intending to reply to Aprock again here? I’d like to continue working towards implementing this last major change from the mediation, but it seems like doing so might have to involve disregarding Aprock, since he’s stated pretty clearly that he’s unwilling to respond to me with anything other than personal attacks. I’d much rather actually discuss this content with him and get his feedback about it, though, so if you were intending to try and reason with him about this any more, I don’t want to interfere with that. Were you? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have a constructive discussion, it will help if you don't start your discussions with outright falsehoods. One of your standard tactics is to claim false consensus where none exists. When you're ready to discuss issues on their merrits instead of trying to ram them through on false consensus, I'll be happy to engage you seriously. A.Prock (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? When I refer to the outcome of mediation, I’m referring to the outline that we came up with at the end of it, which is here. You can see as well as everyone else can that the section I want to add is part of it, and you can also read the discussion there where most of us agreed that we needed to resolve the structure of this section, which is what I'm trying to do currently. It's a violation of WP:NPA for you to keep making personal attacks like this if you aren't able to support what you're saying about me. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, I'm not at all interested in spending my time babysitting your misrepresentations. Stop pushing your claims of false consensus, they have no bearing on the conent. Here is the previous discussion about the section which clearly demonstrates no consensus. Pointing out your past behaviour is not a personal attack. A.Prock (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was after we’d already come up with the article outline, and were trying to specifically resolve the significance section’s structure. The one which resulted in this section being in the outline was here. I know that after we’d decided on including this section, we weren’t able to reach a consensus about its structure, which is why we need to discuss its structure now. But if we hadn’t reached a consensus about this section being included at all, it wouldn’t have gone in the outline to begin with. In fact, from the comments on the outline, it looks like you approved of this section being part of the outline yourself.

I find it incredibly discouraging how little your behavior in this respect has changed since March. Most of the time you’re pretty reasonable, but whenever we discuss anything about this particular aspect of the article, you make these sweeping but nebulous accusations about what’s wrong with it and the editors who want to include it, while consistently refusing to get into any specifics. If you were willing to tell us what specific things you think need to be changed about this section, we probably would have implemented your suggested changes and added this section to the article even before mediation was finished. But instead, at the same time that you’re reminding us that there’s no consensus about this section’s structure, you’re refusing to engage in any discussion that could work towards consensus about it.

Maunus, in case it isn’t obvious: I would really appreciate your help here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@Aprock. If you are unwilling to discuss article content, but only willing to make personal comments about other editors based on lack of good faith, your participation at the Race and Intelligence article is unlikely to lead to any improvements. As the outline was an outcome of the mediation it is not unreasonable of Occam to assume that there is consensus for its contents. I realise that the mediation wasn't flawless and I don't see a reason to necessarily abide with its results if consensus can be established to the contrary. But consensus has to be built. Comment on how to improve the significance section or why it doesn't belong in the article if you believe it doesn't - anyhing else is counterproductive. If there is no consensus then build one. And disparaging comments about other editors and their behaviour without presented evidence are a personal attack according to WP:NPA. Don't make those, theres no need. If you feel exasperated about editing at Race and Intelligence take a tea break.

@Occam. You can certainly ignore every personal commentary made by other editors, keep focusing on the content and how to improve it. Try to imagine yourself being someone with the opposite viewpoint - what would they want to change about the content? Why is that particular section provocative to them? (It is to me) What could we do to accomodate those qualms?·Maunus·ƛ· 06:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a general understanding of why some people find this section provocative, but I don’t have any specific ideas of how it could be changed to make it less so, or even whether doing so would be possible without sacrificing certain information in it that’s notable and deserves to be included. I would appreciate any specific advice you can offer on the article talk page about how this section could be improved. I know you’ve commented there once already, but you weren’t specific about what you meant by ethical concerns, and you also haven’t responded to my question about whether this is the right section to talk about ethical concerns, or Bpesta22’s comment about why he thinks the image ought to be included.

If you think the section is acceptable in its current state, I would appreciate you mentioning that also. It will be easier to tell whether and when this structure has consensus if other editors can be clear about how they feel regarding it. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, could you please stay involved in the talk page for the race and intelligence article? Aprock is continuing to repeat the same claims there that you've already responded to here, and he doesn't seem willing to acknowledge what you've said in response. I'm afraid that we're going to end up in a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation here, and that as a result even after everyone's suggestions about this revision have been incorporated into it, it's going to be impossible to add it to the article without it resulting in an edit war. I would appreciate you trying to prevent that from happening. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to stay on topic. But if Captain Occam is going to keep repeating irrelevant false consensus claims to motivate his POV, I'll continue to point out that he is indeed advocating false consensus. There is no real need to discuss past consensus (imagined or real) when working on current content. A.Prock (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Maunus. You recently noted the following on the Race and intelligence talk page:

In the same vein I think the article should also mention the significance that cultural focus on different kinds of intelligence may have on the race gap, for example the fact that in tests that doesn't test G but for example creative intelligence, blacks perform considerably better.

Forgive me if it seems like I'm trying to "stir the pot". I'm not. I simply felt compelled to mention that what you've written is virtually identical to what Jensen's 1969 article concludes. To note:

If [ordinary IQ tests] are unfair, it is because they tap only one part of the total spectrum of mental abilities and do not reveal that aspect of mental ability which may be the disadvantaged child's strongest point—the ability for associative learning. Since traditional methods of classroom instruction were evolved in populations having a predominantly middle-class pattern of abilities, they put great emphasis on cognitive learning rather than associative learning. And in the post-Sputnik era, education has seen an increased emphasis on cognitive and conceptual learning, much to the disadvantage of many children whose mode of learning is predominantly associative. Many of the basic skills can be learned by various means, and an educational system that puts inordinate emphasis on only one mode or style of learning will obtain meager results from the children who do not fit this pattern. At present, I believe that the educational system—even as it falteringly attempts to help the disadvantaged—operated in such a way as to maximize the importance of Level II (i.e., intelligence or g) as a source of variance in scholastic performance. Too often, if a child does not learn the school subject matter when taught in a way that depends largely on being average or above average on g, he does not learn at all, so that we find high school students who have failed to learn basic skills which they could easily have learned many years earlier by means that do not depend much on g. It may well be true that many children today are confronted in our schools with an educational philosophy and methodology which were mainly shaped in the past, entirely without any roots in these children's genetic and cultural heritage. The educational system was never allowed to evolve in such a way as to maximize the actual potential for learning that is latent in these children's patterns of abilities.

[...]

If diversity of mental abilities, as of most other human characteristics, is a basic fact of nature, as the evidence indicates, and if the ideal of universal education is to be successfully pursued, it seems a reasonable conclusion that schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs, and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities. Accordingly, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity should not be interpreted as uniformity of faculties, instructional techniques, and educational aims for all children. Diversity rather than uniformity of approaches and aims would seem to be the key to making education rewarding for children of different patterns of ability. The reality of individual differences thus need not mean education rewards for some children and frustration and defeat for others.

I've "banned" myself from editing this article, so I won't bother you with this any further than this note. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a red herring of course, because this part of what Jensen claims is obviously and uncontroversially true. The part where he is controversial is when he suggests that this predisposition for "associative learning" (which is by the way not the same that Sternberg calls "creative intelligence" by a long shot) is biologically and racially determined. That part of his views are the problem. Everybody agrees that education should be accomodated to the cognitive preferences and abilities of the individual. But whether this is culturally (as I stated based on Sternberg, Nisbett, Neisser and many others) or genetically (as supposed by Jensen, Rushton and Lynn) is the big question - and the article is slanted towards the hereditarian view currently.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A "red herring"? Yes! Rather than suggesting that the bulk of Jensen's paper was uncontroversial and can still be considered a reliable source regarding systemic bias in education, I'm really trying to whitewash Jensen and obscure the controversial points of his paper. Well spotted. --Aryaman (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a red herring because we are not talking about the uncontroversial parts of Jensen's opinions, but about the controversial parts. And I am not stating anything about what you are really trying to do - I am stating that what you are saying doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion I am having with other parties. I am sure Jensen is a reliable source on something, but that is not what we were discussing here before you butted in.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Hi. I have long thought NPOV - the policy page, not the policy itself - had become bloated and inconsistent and confused. I am proposing a rewrite on one section here

My intention is not to change the policy at all, but to explain it more concisely, clearly, and consistently. If you have time to compare versions and comment, I'd appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Outing

I'm a bit confused by your rationale here. It was certainly not outing, as the information is currently available on the very page you edited. The information was on his user page until it was used to verify that he had recruited a meatpuppet, whereupon he deleted it. And the information wasn't unsubstantiated. It took me half a minute to find the relevant link. A.Prock (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It was unsubstantiated because MAthsci did not include it along with his allegations. Also Cap Tain OCcam is not editing under hius ral name. I don't know how you have arrived at the conclusion that that is his blog just because he linked to it. Anyway the information is irrelevant and I would have rather rmeoved the entirity of Matschi's rant as it does no good to the debate at all but rather inflames and escalates it.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He didn't just link to it, he called it "My art and my writing" on his user page, and "I've linked to a DeviantArt community that I said belonged to me..." on the page you edited. There is no obvious identifying information on those links, although I suppose it's possible that if someone dug deep enough they could find something which identified him in real life. A.Prock (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that editors should focus on the merits of the content, rather than on unrelated personal grudges/conflicts/prejudice with contributors - the latter poisons the environment, particularly where disagreement arises. I appreciate that the concerned editor is involved in this case, but there have been at least a few other instances where Mathsci, in this dispute, has adopted a similar battleground approach with uninvolved editors, be it myself [11] [12], or others [13] [14] [15]; I'm not surprised that this dispute is still not resolved at ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking directly to the content of this section, I don't see how Mathsci's statement constitutes a personal attack or outing. With respect to your conflict with Mathsci, perhaps you should refrain from calling people stubborn and/or approach him on his talk page to resolve the issue. A.Prock (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me be more blunt then; your choice of header doesn't address the issue that Maunus refers to in his last sentence, nor does it address mine. Perhaps you're having trouble recognising the variety of problems because you've assumed that others find only 2 issues with Mathsci's approach in this instance, when in reality, there's more to it than that. As I've already substantiated with diffs, this is no more a conflict between 2 editors than it is between Mathsci and several editors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that there is a large group of SPA editors who are assiduously trying to push a minority POV. If you don't see that, that's fine. But there is no reason to attack Mathsci, or to jump into this thread and hijack it. A.Prock (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Nobody here has denied that there is an SPA problem; in fact, that was not even the issue at the centre of this thread. What is being said is that SPA problem or not, editors do not have the right to engage in battleground behavior which is why Maunus intervened. Please refrain from making frivolous claims (like you did in your last sentence). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Marriage

If you have time: this. We need more anthropologists here ... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the need as well, but I am up over my shoulders with the reading I need to do to keep up with the R & I situation and another anthropological crisis at Patriarchy - I am reading about cultural universals for that. If you have any good general theoretical texts (not so much single ethnographies) to read about the human universals debate and especially the supposed universality of male dominance of the public sphere I'd like a tip. Best.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot think of anything short and pithy on patriarchy. There is a classic article by Eleanor B. Leacock on egalitarianism in band societies in Current Anthropology - I do not have a precise citation but you should be able to find it with this info, if not let me know. I happen to believe that there are or were plenty of wocieties where men and women were equal. Leacocke and Etienne coedited a volume on gender or women and colonialism, their argument was that gender inequality is usuallyintroduced through westernization or colonialism. But I cannot think of any good theoretical texts off-hand. Leacocke wrote an introduction to Engels origins of marriage the family and private property (I am surely mixing up the title). Sherry Ortner and Whitehead (Harriet?) coedited a volume on gender and sexuality that would be worth looking at. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Commented at both articles, hope you will find time for Marriage, let me know if you want cites for anything I mentioned. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I do not know why I blanked on this. You need to read Gayle Rubin's "The Traffic of Women" in Reiter's Toward and Anthropology of Women. Also, the most important theoretical work on gender is Strathern's The Gender of the Gift it is a brilliant book but very dense and you would not need to read all of it, just the introduction and a couple of chapters but it is very very dense and abstract. Her basic view is that all the categories we use to talk about women are Western categories and we thus must not assume they apply to non-Western societies (again, problematizing the very question of whether patriarchy is universal - for her cultural relativism must be used to confound such questions). So she has chapters in which she addresses specific issues (e.g. power, or hierarchy, or whatever0 and shows how Melanesian data simply does not fit well into these categories but redirects our attention elsewhere. Finally, Henrietta moore wrote a book 9for classroom use) called Feminism and Anthropology or something like that. My recollection is it is more about women in underdeveloped countris than, say, Melanesia, but while it is dated it is the only book I know that attempts to provide a general exposition of anthropological research on women. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed talk page comments

Yes, I agree. Removing an accusation of whitewashing and conspiracy could appear to be .....well.... whitewashing and conspiracy, which I guess is exactly what Lucy wants it to look like. Will give you a call if it happens again. Thanks for the advice. Bksimonb (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead of the race article

I've posted a new section on the talk page of this article for us to discuss the changes to its lead section: Talk:Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Changes_to_the_lead. If you think this section needs to be changed from the way it was before you became involved in the article, I'd appreciate it if you could discuss the problems I've raised there with the new version. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was answering your concerns there while you typed this. :) ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive sock is back already

Hi Maunus,

It seems User:Lucyintheskywithdada is back already as User:The Same Every 5000 Years. It is obvious from his editing pattern that his intention is to make it look like I am having some sort of edit war with him so he can brag about it. In fact, he just sent me an email saying...

'What I don't understand is how you cannot get it through your acid addled brain that what you are doing me every time is handing me a gift.

You are correct. You are proving my thesis. "Look ... look at what these people are like! Media control ... deception ... historical revision ...", the hole just become deeper and deeper.'

Would be most grateful if you could clear up after him. I've filed an SPI report but made no other edits.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have answered his edit request by asking him to state specifically and backed by sources what is the problem with the current version. If he can do that then of course the article can be changed, but if he can't then there is nothing to worry about. I will of course take care of any personal attacks he might make in mainspace, although I can't keep him from emailing personal attacks to you.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for responding. However he is an indefinitely blocked editor. Is it really appropriate to offer him any further opportunity for input into any article? He has a long history of disruption and harassment.Bksimonb (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the SPI report comes up positive that takes care of that problem.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. That sounds fair. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the report did indeed come up positive. Would you be so kind as to clean up after him?. User:Jeff_G has already dealt with the articles he disrupted, only the BKWSU talk page remains.Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. :)·Maunus·ƛ· 04:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :-) And would you be able to remove the previous paragraph that he re-inserted from his previous sock? Bksimonb (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! Bksimonb (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme

Hi, and thanks for this!   — Jeff G. ツ 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

BKWSU

Hi - I guess I was a bit surprised by your actions at the BKWSU page, although I know you acted entirely in good faith. It's a delicate situation where all is not quite as it appears and which has previously been to arbitration, and when I entered that particular minefield (as a neutral admin desperately trying to prevent the whole thing going back to ArbCom) about 2 years ago I actually found that there was some merit to the recurring user's arguments. I'm not sure if you realise Bksimonb is actually a member of the organisation (and in fact has previously said he is their web manager), and hence has a COI with relation to actions on the page. (It's worth pointing out that he got the original Lucy user banned, and the "long term abuse" page was entirely authored by himself - so we have an organisation singlehandedly censoring their adversaries, basically.) He was mentioned, albeit peripherally, at the ArbCom which imposed the probation.

So in essence one is looking at two opposite POV editors/arrangements, both with some level of COI, both of whom also have some valid points. There also seems to be a question that one side is using admittedly weak Wiki policies/procedures to push their case to a level of merit it may not otherwise have, and the sensitivity of the area has kept neutral admins out. I wouldn't like to see a situation where this ends up at ArbCom again and admin actions are scrutinised for bias towards one side. Orderinchaos 05:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the COI issues which is why I didn't act untill the user was confirmed to be a sock of a banned user - removing talk page comments from banned users (especially unconstructive comments like these) is fairly standard practice. I agree that the situation at BKWSU may need extra attention to promote neutrality, but in this case where the problem was a banned user trolling a talk page I didn't see any reason to act differently than what I did. If you or any other user has constructive suggestions on how to promote neutrality at BKWSU related pages I will happily colaborate towards that end.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor terminology issue - the user is not and was not banned, they were blocked. I was around at the time that happened, and the user was engaging in good faith when they could be calmed down. I find myself thinking what I would do in this person's situation and I'd likely be pretty noisy as well. Perhaps that should actually be reviewed so that the person can contribute legitimately under one username, although in saying so, the protection for the article and edit-protected requests to modify it are also probably a good strategy if that were to be done. If they become unconstructive, there's always the option to block them again. Orderinchaos 08:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked my self how the indef block was implemented whether as a ban or a block - hence the terminology.I also haven't revised the block so I haven't made any decision about the validity of the indefinite block or whether the user should be given a good faith unblock. Is the user even requesting an unblock?·Maunus·ƛ· 08:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking the users history myself it seems that several admins have interacted with her and that the process leading to her block cannot really be said to be faulty. SHe is not requesting an unblock (probably her talkpage is locked and she has to request unblock per email). Theres not much for me to do there.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

May I also add that Lucy was blocked at a time when I was not active on Wikipedia. This isn't just a COI issue. This user was blocked for persistent disruption and harassment of other editors. Lucy has returned using many new accounts and continues to disrupt Wikipedia and harass editors. He is presently focussed on me but at least this is diverting him from griefing other editors as he did when I was absent. I have been asked not to name the editors concerned because they do not want any further attention from him. Before doing anything drastic like re-activating this account I strongly recommend looking into his history and discussing it with more admins and arbcom (since he was previously sanctioned), especially those with past experience. Bksimonb (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We are at least in agreement that the more neutral voices on this, the better in my view. (And to Maunus - just to make it clear, I wasn't accusing you of anything, and my reason for elaborating on the block was a presumption that you didn't know the circumstances.) Orderinchaos 10:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, you are just yet another admin being dragged into this by the Brahma Kumari editor to do their work with his spin.

I am sorry but if you go back to the very beginning, there was no offence, no infraction of rules. I used a user name which was disallowed or 'indef blocked' because it was too similar to a living person (Lwachowski, I think it was), once he had that, he was able to falsely represent by re-start as a evidence of socking and since then has been attempting to railroad me away from his cult's topics.

• Simon states: "May I also add that Lucy was blocked at a time when I was not active on Wikipedia." This is blatantly untrue, see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ Brahma_Kumaris.

• Like much of what he says, this is entirely untrue. He and the BKWSU IT team were already busy at work owning their topics and blocking any informed, independent voices from them.

• BK Simon B also omits to include that he was directly involved in "Chilling Effect" legal action against such open discussion of the Brahma Kumaris elsewhere on the internet. So much for good faith.

His conflations of complaint after complaint after complaint ... all the skillful use of language and policy ... time and effort invested ... and time and effort of Wikipedian admins wasted hide simple facts, what the Brahma Kumari adherents are doing is attempting to persistently control ... and water down ... their Wikipedia presence and bring it inline with their current PR and propaganda.

If you care, I can provide for you the diffs and specific details of what the Brahma Kumaris are up to with their topic. I am expert on this topic.

• Unfortunately, my experience is generally that admins are easily played, will kneejerk to the WP:COI or WP:POV grinders and have no interest nor incentive to look at the facts. And so I will not do so until you ask.

Thank you. --Every 5000 Years (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I have filed an SPI report already. I get tired of having to address the same accusations over and over. I address most of them on my user page. He was banned as User:195.82.106.244 and blocked later (in my absence) as Lucy, see the block log. Bksimonb (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

R & I history

I'd appreciate your involvement in this discussion. Do you think the arguments I'm presenting for wanting to mention the Snyderman and Rothman study in that article make sense? I don't even completely understand what the basis is for the objections to mentioning this study. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you make any sense of what Mathsci is saying about this? He's insisting that we can't cite Gottfredson's commentary on the Snyderman and Rothman study because her commentary is a primary source, but I can't for the life of me understand what he's basing this on. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Update

I read your comment on my talk page and appreciate it. I stepped back from the editing some months ago for the same reason. I felt that there was too much antagonism and bias in the editing, making it very difficult to come up with an unbiased and accurate article. I recieved some encouragement and decided to try to again edit the JW article. I'm going to try to stick with it this time. Any help in editing, ideas, support, are appreciated. Thanks. Natural (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Natural

Patriarchy

Well, I know you continue to fight the good fight at R&I. Thanks to you I have been following Patriarchy which is turning into a personal essay by someone who is really confused about some things. I just made some edits, simply cutting stuff that was obviously silly, or unrelated to patriarchy, or personal-essayish. Are you still watching it or have you dropped it? I still hope you can do some edits at the marriage article some time. I have said all i have to say on the talk page; no one else cares or gets it. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Manus is this a warning on my talk page? I know that you two work together. Hopefully the problem is a simple one, ie. you did not read the discussion and see the material that was blanked. I can't be expected to know this person's status, only his behavior at this particular time. He is either biased, or mistaken. Hammy64000 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, Hammy has suggested that I have either deleted material you added to the article or that was added in response to your concerns. If you object to any of the deletions I made I hope you will tell me so we can enter into a constructive dialogue about the contents of the article. Dito, if you feel any deleted material should be restored. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just hatted one of your comments at that talkpage, as it was replying to a block-evading editor and would not make sense without the original comment. Feel free to do whatever you want with your comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Aztec article

Hello Maunus,

I took the liberty of adding information about the book of Capt. Bernal Diaz del Castillo in your article. It seems that we differ in our opinions. It was not my intention to damage your magnificent work, I merely intended to add information. I did so because in my family we keep information on the Conquistadores. We have one of the copies published in Mexico in 1961 of the book by Capt. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, published from a manuscript residing in Antigua, Guatemala. We are Altamiranos, direct descendants from Hernan Cortes and the Pizarro brothers. We have letters in our possession written by Hernan Cortes and Capt.Bernal Diaz del Castillo. Letters written when they were relatively young men. These letters in general confirm what Capt.Bernal Diaz del Castillo later documented in his book. These documents have been handed down through time generation to generation. Because of our family involvement with the politics of Mexico and Central America, we also own an exact copy of the portrait of Capt.Don Pedro de Alvarado, portrait that exists in Antigua, Guatemala, under the protection of the local government. I would be delighted to share some photos of the painting with you, in view of the fact that you are so incredibly educated about our part of the world. Please contact me if you would like collaboration. Maurice. [email protected] Azurdia1954 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you flatter me. But thanks anyway. The article isn't mine however, but a collaborative effort by many editors.If you really have letters by Cortés and Bernal Díaz del Castillo I think you should let some historians have a look at them. Currently historians are not very convinced by Díaz' work since it was written so late, but if there were earlier works written by him in existence that might change the historians view of Bernal Díaz as an unreliable source to information about the conquest of Mexico. I am much more interested in those letters than in the picture of Alvarado·Maunus·ƛ· 06:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

Post block cleanup

User:Every 5000 Years‎ has been blocked as a sock of Lucy now. Would you be able to clean up after his contribs to articles? The only edits made subsequently are to minor corrections to sections that Lucy re-instated.

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed his edits and I am not in a position to undo them. I don't believe that the editor being blocked is in and of itslf a reason to revert non-disruptive edits. Many of his edits appear to be supported by sources and are not obviously non-neutral. This should be handled as a content dispute - and I am not sufficiently acquainted with BKWSU or the literature about it to take a stance. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but how do I resolve a content dispute with a banned editor? Should I post a request on each talk page and come back after, say, a week if there is no legitimate challenge to the request from uninvolved editors? Bksimonb (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is a problem of course. I think you should probably review the edits he made and check whether they are supported by reliable sources - if they are then the material should probably be included in some way, maybe you can find a way to include it that seems more palatable to you than the way he did it. If you revert his edits or remove his material I think you should argue why you do so on the talk page so that other editors have a chance of seeing why and agreeing or disagreeing with it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I can have a close look at it and do as you suggest. Also, with regards to a block not being reason in itself to revert, do you think it appropriate for me (or perhaps someone more neutral) to seek a community ban based on what you have seen of his behaviour. Previously I believed that an indefinite block equated to a ban as per the policy on indefinite blocks but looking at the differences between bans and blocks policy it seems that there are indeed differences. Bksimonb (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus,

I provided you a clear breakdown of how and where all this started, why Brahma Kumari Simon B's initial banning/blocking thing was bogus and how it has been used to railroad ever since. I'd appreciate a response or for it taken into consideration.

• I show how there never was any sockpuppetry nor abuse of multiple accounts in the first place.

Of course, under the circumstances I am not going to walk away from it. I am sure you would feel the same.

Thank you. --Yet another 5000 years (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to help vindicate you in this. What you are doing now is clearly disruptive and you are not making a good case for denying that you were disruptive previously. If you have specific requests for well sourced edits you want to make to BKWSU articles I will happily review your proposals - but I am not going to try to get you unblocked. You are the one who can get yourself unblocked by stopping your disruptive behaviour and try to convince people that you are a valuable editor who is able to follow wikipedias rules and collaborate with other editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to give you a list of all the new topics and non-controversial editing I have created on the way to this point. In fact, if you look at all the formatting and the referencing of the BKWSU topic, I did most of that too.

But until someone looks seriously at the history of this business, the Brahma Kumari adherents deliberate part in it, it is very difficult.

• Where is the first WP:COI ... where is the first offence?

As I said, I provided you(s) with a [breakdown] of how and where all this started ... why Brahma Kumari Simon B's initial banning/blocking thing was bogus, and how it has been used to railroad ever since.

At some point someone has to look at it straight in the face ... and see what is there. --Same as 5000 years ago (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about that. Present arguments for how you want to change the article - that is what I am interested in. A COI doesn't matter if it is fully disclosed and doesn't lead to a lack of neutrality - show where you find problems with the coverage of BKWSU topics and argue your point from reliable sources. Don't just come here to argue against BKSimonb it is disruptive and useless and it will get you blocked. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. It looks like I'm being stalked/hounded by this Same as 5000 years ago account. I'm not likely to get any sensible responses from other editors on the Talk:End time and Talk:Dada Lekhraj‎‎ pages with all this ranting. I can't operate as an editor if he won't leave me any space to breath without telling all and sundry stuff to try and make me look bad. "AGF" this isn't. Would appreciate your help or, if you can't help, advice on what to do next. I don't what to go straight to ANI since you and Orderinthechaos are on the case and I want to check with one of you first. Bksimonb (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the offending posts. I have responded to the other post on Talk:End time. Since this is obviously Lucy still posting, do you have any objection to me filing more SPI reports. As far as I am concerned the community has decided he is indefinitely blocked and I have a common interest with the community to report evasion of that block. Will file in 24 hours unless you have other suggestions. Bksimonb (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and file those SPI's now, no need to wait - should be obvious for any checkuser by now.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK done. But I just noticed they were blocked already, just not tagged. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

Rvcx recently filed a request for arbitration on Race and intelligence and the related articles.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race_and_Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Captain Occam (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but

I am sorry Magnus ... but please allow Simon and I to sort this out.

He and I have known each other for years. It really is none of your business.

Besides which ... you are being played.

Thank you. --For God's sake keep out of it (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked politely ...

I asked politely Magnus ...

Now please, serious, keep your nose out other of people's business and stuff you know nothing about.

Leave us alone to sort it out ourselves.

Thank you. --I asked politely (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles WP:NINJA'd by Lucy again

Would you be kind enough to revert the damage done by User:The Wiki Undead?

Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to your post on my talk page, my objections to Lucy's edit are briefly,

1. The Brahma Kumaris are an organisation with a membership of less than a million. Should we also include every small religious organisation with a view of the "end time" in the same article?
2. Walliss is a reliable source. However the quoted text used is not Walliss' words. He is quoting the words of a splinter group yet the reference is being used as if Walliss himself said it. Here is the full context of the quote, "In the first instance, the Advance Party claim that when 'the destruction did not materialize...many Brahmins left the [University] because their hopes were dashed. Those who stayed had their faith reduced by half. They [had] sacrificed their lives in the godly institution, left their families and invested all their wealth in this cause. How [could] they go and where [could] they go? They [had] no choice but to stay because they were dependent on the institution for their bread and butter.' Next they claim that nay mention of the prophecy was removed from the murlis, becoming 'hidden from those who came after 1976', and members were told this was a test of faith'." Notice that Walliss is reporting the claims of a splinter group, not making a statement of fact. So it comes down to whether or not the claims of the "Advance Party" themselves are a reliable source.
3. The sources are always used to prove a point that people will find shocking or off-putting e.g opposing views to Hinduism, doomsday, prophesies with precise dates and times, secrecy of beliefs, people must be purified, failed predictions. Though some or most of this criticism is valid, after a fashion, as for most religions, there is always a more sympathetic way understanding it that is not represented here. What you will never see in any text submitted by Lucy is anything that shows the organisation in a positive light. For example, in one of the sources used also says, "The serenity and calm on the BKs' faces is arresting. Particularly true of youngsters such as Kiran, 20, whose face shines with goodwill and joy. 'Here our life is balanced spiritually, mentally and physically,' she says. And their collective sense of efficiency and organization is superb."[16] I am not proposing to use such a quote as I don't think it is appropriate for an encylopedia. It just struck me as being the positive equivalent of the way Lucy uses sources in a negative way.
4. Reliable sources are one requirement. Neutrality, weight and balance are also requirements. I do not believe they have been met here in the context of the article.
5. I proposed the change on the article talk page for more than one week and received no objections from other editors. I did seek consensus. I suggest that it is not unreasonable that any further revert should be done with consensus instead of ninja-style made with an attacking edit comment by a editor evading a block.
6. Banned editors may have all their edits reverted whether those edits are good or bad. I believe this is appropriate in this case because Lucy latches on to any attention he can get. Over the last week he has trolled our talk pages on an almost daily basis making constant taunts and accusations against me. I believe it escalated because he believes his campaign is somewhat successful by the attention he has received recently. If he realises that he has exhausted the patience of the community and that he has no further avenue of expression on Wikipedia then perhaps he will be more likely to give up....or just calm down a bit. At least reverting everything he does is less work than discussing the merits, or otherwise, of it. Is the fact that he is technically only indef blocked an issue?

I have your talk page on my watch list so I would be happy to continue the conversation here.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I move to bring a closure to this issue. I will wait another day for a response here, otherwise I will post my reasoning on the article talk page and wait another week for editor comments. After that week I will either proceed to undo the edit or abide by any consensus that emerges with other legitimate editors. Please appreciate I am trying my best to do the right thing here but in the absence of any feedback I will assume everything is OK. Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not answering, I can see why that may have cause you frustration. I have been extremely busy and the short time I have had for wiki purposes has been spent in an arbcom case. I understand your arguments, but I do not agree with all of them. I think the most serious one is the second one - that the source does not adequately support ther claims. I don't think there is any reason that small religions should be excluded from the article out of hand: I think a better way to determine weight is by the amount of attention a religious groups "end time" related beliefs has received - many millenial movements have been very small but have received lot of attention. I don't agree entirely with your point about it being a neutrality problem to include facts about the religion that may be off-putting or controversial to some. The encyclopedias purpose isn't to show religions in any particular light, but to describe their beliefs, practices and history. Whether people find that off putting is really beside the question. The Christian cannibalisic rite of the communion for examle may be off putting to many - but the description of the christian faith would be incomplete without mentioning it. Personally I find millenial belief systems fascinating and not off putting at all - and I think the "end times" article should provide a wide perspective on different types of millenial movements and show how they have emerged in many different epochs and from most major religious traditions - it seems logical to me to include hindu millenialist movements as well. As for how to proceed I think it is important to make sure that the information reflects the source. That is first priority - if anything written in the paragraph is wrong or false it must go. Then the next step is to rewrite the paragraph in a way that is completely neutral and in the same style as the other sections in the article. I regret I won't have mch time helping out as I am currently traveling i Mexico and have only intermittent internet access. I think it is a good idea to seek input at the talk page - maybe also posting at some related wikiprojects. That should assure that the development is well suported by the community.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Thank you for a very thoughtful answer. I agree with your assessment of how to determine weight based on how much attention a religion has received. I don't have any sources of information on that myself so I am happy to go along with the view that it is indeed notable in this article unless a different consensus is reached from other editors.

I'm currently reading up on some sources to get an idea how the BKWSU view of the end times is generally reported. There seem to be quite a few new books I wasn't previously aware of I can see online now. Like you, I'm quite occupied at the moment but hope to be able to give it more attention next week. I would welcome any input you may have on the article talk page. The plan is to proceed as you suggest, that is, remove any stuff based on misused sources etc and re-write the paragraph in a neutral way.

Hope you are enjoying your travels in Mexico! Best regards, Bksimonb (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Article desperately needs help from fair-minded, intelligent editors

Would you mind taking a look at List of cult and new religious movement researchers and encouraging other fair-minded, intelligent editors you might know to do the same? An editor who may not know much about the topic seems to have taken "ownership" of the article and is ignoring criteria for inclusion that have been in place for years. Admittedly, it is a controversial topic, but it seems obvious that someone actually being a researcher (having both had the requisite training as well as actually conducting at least one research study on the topic) would be required. -DoctorW 02:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean up request

Hi Maunus,

Not sure if you are still away from the Internet. Another sock of Lucy appeared and made disruptive edits to articles Special:Contributions/Time_served. He has been blocked now but would appreciate a third party cleans up after him to diffuse his personal targeting of me.

1. End time The changes I made along the lines you suggested were reverted
2. Cults and governments Restored something I removed some time ago because the reference was just a link to the BK's own UN-related website and didn't support the contentious claim being made
3. Dada Lekhraj Date diddling and insertion of bias using words like "claimed". Basically undid your previous revert.
4. Robin Gibb Re-insertion of a paragraph that was removed by Orderinchaos due to BLP concerns

I saw you were active yesterday, but if I don't hear in a day then I will ask on ANI. Just thought I'd call you first since you are familiar with the case.

Regards, Bksimonb (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems someone has taken care of it already. Thanks for the notice.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange Zapotec request

Maunus,

Do you happen to have a contact who's involved in developing Zapotec on the web? I'm locale leader for Gaelic on Mozilla and I noticed that about 10 years ago, someone translated 90% of the strings for Firefox into Zapotec and then vanished. It would be a pity if that got stuck there forever and I'm trying to find at least one internet-savy Zapotec speaker who'd be interested in taking it on or at least passing the word on? Cheers, Akerbeltz (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm let me modify that, on closer inspection, very few strings have been translated into Zapotec, but someone added a lot of Spanish instead. So it would be a lot of work actually... more like 99% to be done. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoght, but I don't know any internet savy zapotec speakers, or in fact any zapotec speakers at all. But I guess since it turned out not to have been so close to completion afterall I guess it doesn't matter, now.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sad but true... thanks for response though! Akerbeltz (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation on the race and intelligence articles.

I see you are busy in off-Wiki life, but I just wanted to say thanks for your calm and civility in discussions about editing on the very contentious articles related to race and intelligence. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

nks. I hope that after the arbcom racket has calmed down it'll be possible to make some improvement there.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV proposal

M, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with "naivyal" apparent nahuatl dialect

Hi! I read your comment on my talk page and i need your assistance. I dont know what specific dialect of Nahuatl (or possibly a very similar other non-nahuatl, Uto-Aztecan) i have an orthagraphic transcrption chart of. I spoke with a family freind last time i was in mexico and he speaks what he called "naivyal" which he said is the pronounciation of "nahuatl" and i assumed that it was simply classical nahuatl. However this is not the case. I am having an extremely difficult time trying to figure out what language it is. I am fairly certain that it is a nahuatl based language; many words sound similar or are the same words, but what specifically interested me was the fact that the "v" sound was common and most times replaced the "w" sound (usually written "hu" or "uh") although the "w" sounds was sometimes still pronounced. I know that the "v" sound is very uncommon in nahuatl languages as is the "ʒ" and "θ" sound. Most "a" sounds are pronounced with a following "i" producing a "ai" sound. I have several hand written documents in the language and he was taught a standardized romanization of it in school so im sure that it is listed somewhere in the public school system of mexico or at least the SIL ethnolouge. If you have any idea what branch of nahuatl that this is or if it is something different. The most common sounds seemed to be "v", "a", "ai", "n", "ya", ng", "e", "l", "r", "vs" and "sxh"(pronounced like nahuatl "x" but with an "s" before.) It seems to have a Zapotec based orthgraphy concerning certain sounds ("x" means ʒ and xh means "ʃ"). He has lived in the DF his whole life and he fully understood what IPA characters produced which sounds so i'm assuming that this langaue wa standardized using the IPA chart (because they have a character for every differnt IPA sound that the language uses. It may be tone based but he didnt really know what a tonal language was but most vowels can be combined with a circumflex diacritic that changes the pronounciation so i think it may be. I would really like to learn more about this language. It sounds quite different than most amerindian languages i've heard and is an especially nice sounding one so I would greatl apprieciate you're assittance. I a small list of words written in it so if you have time to help me that would be really cool. Thanks - Rahlgd (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also here is a piece of sample text i had him translate for me, to hopefully start a language test of this language. The first segment was the text as he romanized it, the second is a self produced phonetic pronounciation of it, and the third section is the english sentence that i had him translate it from:

Vɧmyěɽʒîkhyö, sřäskǎdtǐɣŋ ɣ̌ɧ Ǎʒäustkǐɽŋłäŋ Vsǎyästɨrgɽǔft, ɽöh kzɧxhǫryeŋʈ ǎŋ lyülɧckǎʒirvya vsǎ wölftɧ vsieuzɽâsxht Käʒtǐlyäŋvstěŋɧêɧ vsǎ jsɧxhtěghkɣ̌ɧ sxʈeu ǎŋ ztvěhř ʒɧsxhtöwuɣrvêŋɖ xülʈsǎɧvstě hsǎŋ ksǎyatkǒlyä vzyösɧbřǫdemzǎydt gsaŋ vrîstɧisxhê ǎŋst .

V'myeirzhik'yoh sra'eskaid-tee'ung uh aizhaust'keerng'tlang vs'ayahst-ir-groo'eeft, roh kz'sho'er'yengt aing lee'yul-skaizh'irv'ya vsai wohlf't vs'ee-ih-yuhz'ras'sht kaz'zh-teel'yahng'vsteing'e vsai dzh's'shteiq'kuh szhte-yu aing zv'teir z'zh'shtoh'wuhr'veng'd zhyult'sai hi'saing ksayat'koil-ya vzyohs'browedemzaid't g'sang vrist'ishe aingst.

Mexico is a country in north america and is the largets spanish peaking nation on earth and is one of the worlds largest economies and has a population of one-hundred-eleven million people.

Below is a IPA table i made based on the information i have:

Vowels

	Ж	A	Ä	Ǎ	Ą	E	Ě	Ę	Є	I	Ǐ	İ	Ï	Ɨ	O	Ǒ	Ö	Ө	Ӫ	Ǫ	U	Ǔ	Ü	Ų	Ʉ	Ʊ	Ү	Ұ	Ɣ	Ɣ̌	AU	EU
short	ɑi	æ	ɑ	ɔai	a	ɛ	e	ɘ	ə	ɪ	i	ɯ	ɪ̈	ɨ	ɔ	oi	o	ɵ	œ	ø	y	yi	jʉ	ɶ	ʉ	u	ʏ	ʊ	ʌ	ɐ	ay	eʊ̈
long	ɒiː	æː	ɒː	æiː	aæː	ɛǝː	eiː	ɘː	əɛː	ɪː	iː	ɯɪː	ɪ̈ː	ɨɪː	oɔː	oɔiː	oøː	ɵː	œː	ɔøː	yː	ʉiː	jʉː	ɶː	ʉː	uː	ɔʏː	ɔʊː	ʌː	ɐː	aʉː	ejʊ̈ː

Circumflex Vowels

	Â	Â̌	Â̈	Ê	Ê̌	Î	Î̌	Î̈	Ô	Ô̌	Ô̈	Û	Û̌	Û̈	ÊU
short	ɑ̃/ɒ̃	ɔɑ̃i	ɑ̃ː	ɛ̃/ɘ̃	ẽ	ɪ̃	ĩ	ɪ̈̃	õː	õɔi	õːø	ỹː	ɐ̃ỹi	j̃ʉ	ɛ̃ʉ
long	ɔ̃/ɑ̃ɛ	æ̃i	ɔɑ̃ː	ɛ̃ː/ɘ̃ː	ẽi	ɪ̃ɛ̃ː	ĩɪ̃ĩ	ɪ̈̃ ɪ̃	õʉ	ɔ̃øːi	œ̃ʉː	ỹʌ̃ː	ʌ̃ỹi	j̃ʉʊː	ẽj̃ʉʊː

Consonants

	Labial	Coronal				Dorsal			Glottal
		dental	alve	postalv	retflex	Palatal	Velar	Uvular
Nasal	M[m]	N[n] NT[nt]					Ɲ[ŋ] ƝT[ŋt]
Plosive	P[p] B[b]	T[t] D[d] ST[st] SD[sd] DT[dʈ] TD[tɖ]			Ʈ[ʈ] Ɗ[ɖ]	Ṡ[c]* Ɉ[ɟ]*	K[k] G[ɡ]	Ǩ[q] Ǧ[ɢ]	Ӈ[ʔ]
Fricative	F[f] V[v]	Ћ[θ] Ђ[ð]	S[s] Z[z] C[ts] J[dz] VS[vs] VZ[vz]	XH[ʃ] X[ʒ] Č[tʃ] J̌[dʒ] SXH[sʃ] Ʒ[zʒ]	Š[ʂ] Ž[ʐ] Ś[ɕ]* Ź[ʑ]* Ć[ʈʂ] J́[ɖʐ] Ĉ[tɕ]* Ĵ[dʑ]* SX̌H[sʂ] Ǯ[zʐ] SH[sɕ] ZH[zʑ]	Ȟ[ç] Ǵ[ʝ]*	KH[x] GH[ɣ]	Ɽ[ʁ] Ӄ[χ]	H[h]
Approximant	v̌[ʋ]		R[ɹ]		Ŕ[ɻ]*	Y[j]	w̌[ʍ] W[w]		SXY[ɧ]
Trill			Ř[r]
Latfric			Ł[ɬ] Ƚ[ɮ]
Latapp			L[l]/[ɫ]	L[ɭ]			Λ[ʟ]

• An asterisk means that the sound is not native but is commonly used in loanwords and foreign words, mainly from Spanish and Zapotec.

Thanks for asking. This is not one of the 62 officially recognized indigenous languages of Mexico - it seems to be a constructed language possibly invented by your friend. It is most ceryainly not any living Uto-Aztecan language - and no dialect of Nahuatl. All transcription schemes used for indigenous Mesoamerican languages are based either on Spanish orthography or on IPA - no latin american language uses characters from the cyrillic script to transcribe its sounds.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Berber

There's a proposal to merge the Atlas lects of Berber, in case you're interested. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy

Hi, I made a query about the use of sources in this article at WP:NOR/N.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)