User talk:Maunus

{ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

{nobots}}

Language

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

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

Ladykillers

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing reference information

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

— Dutral (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It was already in the reference section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting

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

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

Thank you

…for your past attention at Chicken or the egg. I did an edit today you might look at—please discuss there before reverting. (The article, in my opinion is a loss, and needs expert attention, desperately.) Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.154.39 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilization

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

I dont think the use you gave to this primary source was either necessary or sufficiently cautious. I dont think that piece of information belongs in the section, and not at all in a one sided representation from a single primary source. The question of the potential Central Mexican impact in post-classic Yucatan has a long history of scholarly debate and is not settled yet. Since this is something scholars are debating how to understand, it is not a case in which we can let the primary source speak for itself. So no, I will not reinsert it. But if you wish to argue the point further you should do so at the discussion page of the article where other editors can weigh in with their opinions and consensus can be formed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand your point, in general, although in this specific case, the words of Diego de Landa (our primary source for the mid-15th century history of Mayapan) are clear beyond doubt. Perhaps, though, in agreement and in full compliance with your own view on this subject, it will only give more credence to Diego de Landa's view if we also had a reliable secondary source in our reference. I shall raise the subject again on the Maya civilization Talk Page once I've found the secondary sources who recount the events as stated by Diego de Landa, and as brought down earlier by me. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The words of Diego de Landa are very much worthy of critical scrutiny, and cannot in any way be assumed to be an objective reflection of events in Maya history preceding the conquest - even if he is our main source. No modern historian would accept the accounts of friars and conquistadors at face value without critiqeuing, analyzing and interpreting them in relation to other sources. Having the discussion at the talkpage based on secondary sources is exactly the right way to do it, so that is a good way to proceed. Looking forward to seeing what you bring to the discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My friend, had you paid strict notice to the edit suggested by me, it did not concern Mayan history as a whole, but rather the history of Mayapan's demise before the Spanish conquest. Of course, any reliable secondary source used as a reference would, in my view, have addressed the subject matter with a critical demeanor. The fact that Diego de Landa was a Spanish bishop or a "friar" is irrelevant, since his inquisitiveness about the local history of the place where he had actually lived, and which history he so kindly put down in writing, is all that really matters to us. All the best.Davidbena (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt very much that any historian would agree that considering De Landa's particular perspective as a bishop and Spaniard living a century after the events he describes does not matter when trying to evaluate the accuracy of his account.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is where oral tradition, as passed down by the local Indians, plays an important role.Davidbena (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And that role would be something that Wikipedia requires professional historians to assess - and the rules limiting the use of primary sources are in place exactly to prevent us from engaging in that kind of Original Research ourselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As stated, a reliable secondary source who repeats the historical anecdote in Diego de Landa's seminal work agrees to the historicity of the event and it would not, by any means, be considered Original Research. For that matter, quoting verbatim from a primary source (albeit rarely used) is also not to be considered original research. This is plain to experienced editors.Davidbena (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please go spend your time producing those reliable secondary sources and then start a discussion at the article's talkpage. I think we are done here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your indulgence. I will give the subject further consideration when I get to the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, perhaps next week. Again, thanks for engaging me in this important discussion.Davidbena (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Biting my tongue. The irony of using the records of the man, who destroyed the Maya records themselves and prohibited any other researcher from examining them, knows no bounds. His "kindness of writing it down" is not so much appreciated here in Yucatán. Going back to my cave. SusunW (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yes, he did a great disservice to anthropologists and ethnographers by burning the old books containing the Mayan language (on a wide-range of topics). Still, he enlightened us with other cultural and religious aspects known about the Maya. I say that in this unfortunate turn of events, let us take what is known about the Maya and present those facts impartially.Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your caution

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

It does take two to tango, and from what I can see Lynn is saved only by the fact that she is an equally good dancer as you. If she had been a less resilient editor your approach would have been very damaging. I don't think she has a casual attitude, I think her suggestions on the talk page shows a good understanding of the topic and the sources. In cases where she may not, the better approach is to collegially arrive at a shared understandind. I do not place the quality of the encyclopedia over the collegiality of collaborators. And I think it is a mistake to do so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have mentored many new users and try to encourage new users to become good editors. I'm all for collegiality and I wouldn't have the featured articles I have if I could not collaborate. But, I don't think that collegiality should be a WP:PACT, there is a time to back off from a losing battle, but it is a mistake to allow quality to be sacrificed just so everyone gets along; I've allowed myself to be bullied off articles in the past, and the errors can linger for years. Here, this user talks a good line, but her actual edits to the article belie her assertions; she was inserting stuff that would not pass WP:RS at FAC and probably not GA (citing to an amateur historian's self-published web page, for example). She also was pushing a fringe theory elsewhere and got called on that as well. I have been dealing with the OR and SYNTH problems with this editor for months on other articles, so my patience is thin. People who edit wikipedia have to learn that other people will edit their work and to learn it's nothing personal; I am tired of people who don't get that. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And it's not just me: [1], [2]

Hey Maunus, while you're at it, could you please weigh in on this RfC? Your input would be appreciated. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Block Quote used in Maya civilization

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Danish source

Hi Maunus,

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

Thanks — kwami (talk)

Poul Andersen was secretary in Udvalget for Folkemål, the first Danish dialectology society. He published, in 1958, a doctoral dissertation called Fonemsystemet i Øst-Fynsk (more precisely "Fonemsystemet i Østfynsk på grundlag af dialekten i Revninge Sogn"), which is probably the FØF title you have encountered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can locate it. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the ref checks out. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Reversed ⟨ø⟩ is used in the canIPA alphabet to denote a true-mid front rounded vowel. Perhaps that's how it's used by Andersen. Peter238 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, if canIPA is that old. But it doesn't look like canIPA otherwise. Thansk. I wrote to the journal. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested

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

Dardic languages

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

ANI

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

What you need is an ANI ban. If you dont drink I'll have to invent some other way to explain and excuse your persistent behavior characterized by low levels of wits and high levels of drama mongering. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now asked for that interaction ban from you. The flight in question was EgyptAir Flight 990. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

History will absolve me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for what I ever did to you, to evoke such lies from you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Look over your ANI contributions, imagine its someone else's and tell me you dont see a sanctimonious selfrighteous prat hovering over any chance of drama like a vulture over a carcass.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes raise questions that others don't like to hear. And are you saying that your best friends are substance abusers? If that's true, it's very sad, and you need to look yourself in the mirror instead of issuing unprovoked attacks against others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah so do drunks and bigots - hence the confusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't drink and I'm not a bigot. So what's your excuse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was raised to give folks the benefit of the doubt?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's someone you don't like for unknown reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, assuming you were drunk was giving you the benefit of the doubt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Very funny. Now, tell me what I ever did to you, to warrant inclusion on your own personal "enemies list". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont keep such a list. But when I see folks being incompetent recurrently I do tell them to find something better to do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's funny too. And you call me sanctimonious and hypocritical? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

English Language

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

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

Drunk editors

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

I dont think there is any good reason to revive that discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And there should be no reason to repeat it Maunus. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought as Viriditas. Dropping the case is best. And that it does not reoccur is also essential. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

IF I were drunk myself, or otherwise cognitively impaired I might accept behavioral advice from you Amritsya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me. If I may hypothesize: it's possible that in the culture Maunus identifies with, telling jokes all the time like Baseball Bugs does is associated with intoxication. This is likely the case. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You are close to the mark. In my culture drunkeness is associated with agressive, dramamongering, obnoxious behavior and general lack of good judgment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Amazing! Go on. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

AP, for your own sake and ours, please find something to do that does not involve the talk page comments of Maunus, Kautilya, or myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Stop following me? --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)