| Revision as of 11:42, 14 May 2016 editTiny Dancer 48 (talk | contribs)272 edits →Your recent edit to Efrain Rios Montt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,321 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (719 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{nobots}} | {{nobots}} | ||
| I am not active on wikipedia any more, and am not inclined to jump up and fix stuff when someone cruises by a page I once wrote and find some detail they would like fixed at the threat of delisting it if I don't. I did my share of free work on this website. Now ] applies. | |||
| == Language == | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Hi Maunus. I don't agree with your recent change on ] where you removed an entire section. Doing this is not part of the policy in Misplaced Pages (See ]). 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 ]. Cheers. --] (]) 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.] · ] 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ==Ladykillers== | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| {{You've got mail}}] (]) 15:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == '']'' Featured Article Candidate == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| '']'' is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at ]. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 17:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Formal mediation has been requested == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-2002 Gujarat Riots 2--->The ] 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. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''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. — ] (]) 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson, Mediation Committee) | |||
| }} | |||
| == Request for mediation rejected == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | The ] concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been ]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the ], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the ] of the Committee, or to the ]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see ]. | |||
| For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 12:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Missing reference information == | |||
| A few years ago you contributed to ], including a reference to ‘Errington 2008’. Would it be possible to at least add a title name? | |||
| : — ] (]) 17:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course.] · ] 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was already in the reference section.] · ] 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==This is interesting== | |||
| Hi Maunus, don't know if you've yet, but I thought of you when I did. It's interesting. ] (]) 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!] · ] 00:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| …for your past attention at ]. 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 ] (]) 00:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Maya civilization == | |||
| Dear friend, I have noticed that your objection to my recent edit in ] 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: ].] (]) 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.] · ] 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.] (]) 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.] · ] 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.] (]) 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.] · ] 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, here is where oral tradition, as passed down by the local Indians, plays an important role.] (]) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::And that role would be something that Misplaced Pages 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.] · ] 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.] (]) 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.] · ] 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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.] · ] 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 ], 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And it's not just me: , | |||
| ::::Hey Maunus, while you're at it, could you please weigh in on this ]? Your input would be appreciated. ] (]) 13:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Block Quote used in Maya civilization == | |||
| In answer to your question, ], the article describes glyphs used for numbers, but does '''not''' explain the method used by the Maya when actually counting the numbers randomly.] (]) 01:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
| == 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 — ] (]) | |||
| :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.] · ] 00:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! I'll see if I can locate it. — ] (]) 01:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup, the ref checks out. Thanks! — ] (]) 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. — ] (]) 20:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Reversed {{angbr|{{IPA|ø}}}} is used in the ] alphabet to denote a true-mid front rounded vowel. Perhaps that's how it's used by Andersen. ] (]) 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. — ] (]) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == You might be interested == | |||
| to see . You sent it to MfD; just before it was deleted, it was copied over. ] (]) 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., . Can you please look into the issue? I don't know enough about the subject. Cheers, ] (]) 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. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 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. ] · ] 07:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have now asked for that interaction ban from you. The flight in question was ]. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::History will absolve me.] · ] 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. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 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.] · ] 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. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah so do drunks and bigots - hence the confusion.] · ] 07:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't drink and I'm not a bigot. So what's ''your'' excuse? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I was raised to give folks the benefit of the doubt?] · ] 08:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Unless it's someone you don't like for unknown reasons. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 08:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Dude, assuming you were drunk ''was'' giving you the benefit of the doubt.] · ] 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". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 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.] · ] 08:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::That's funny too. And you call ''me'' sanctimonious and hypocritical? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 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.] · ] 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. ] (]) 03:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I dont think there is any good reason to revive that discussion.] · ] 04:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: And there should be no reason to repeat it Maunus. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::?] · ] 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. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::IF I were drunk myself, or otherwise cognitively impaired I might accept behavioral advice from you Amritsya.] · ] 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. ] (]) 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.] · ] 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy New Year== | |||
| I heard what happened to your fireworks last night. ] I wish you better luck this New Year. {{smiley}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Block of 86.131.23.154 == | |||
| There once was an IP address<br>It ended in 154<br>But while no Pius the First<br>It was saintly for sure<br><br>Slanderous lies on ANI it made<br>About Volkswagen and automation<br>But no one believed its claims<br>Much to the IP's frustration<br><br>Partly this was DatGuyWiki's fault<br>And the IP wanted to let him know<br>But an edit filter was also at fault<br>And the IP wanted to let the world know<br><br>Here the tale skips a boring bit<br>And leads to reviews of editors:<br><br><br><br>Philknight has been around a bit<br>DatGuyWiki element of janitors<br>Hu is Huon or Foxj the pict<br>But random victims picked<br>Jpgordon has a nazi dog<br>That ties victims in its cellar<br>HighInBc is a delightful chap<br>Who enjoys illicit intoxication<br>Ohnoitsjamie on the other hand<br>Has a willy too small for masturbation<br><br>Yours Sincerely,<br><br>The people's front for the liberation of 86.131.23.154<br> | |||
| == R&I IP == | |||
| FYI that R&I IP you mentioned on wikipediocracy is a PureVPN IP address (related to their ). There's a long term history of socks using PureVPN IPs on those pages, e.g. -- ] (]) 18:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you.] · ] 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hi== | |||
| I have nominated the recapture of El Chapo at ITN.--] (]) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == You need respect any rules of Misplaced Pages == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. ] (]) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bruno Gröning source== | |||
| *{{la|Bruno Gröning}} | |||
| Thanks for checking the potential source. Could you leave some useful quotes from it on the article talk page for editors to use? --] (]) 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Email it if you'd like. Thanks for offering to. --] (]) 23:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{user|Ronz}}, you would need to respond to my email for me to send you the paper. I can't send attachments through wikipedia's email system.] · ] 00:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks! --] (]) 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Race and intelligence == | |||
| Hi Maunus. There literally thousands of topics on which "there is no consensus on the matter", and yet we don't point that out, we merely present the different currents, without presuming that there ought to be consensus because in most cases there will never be. Be it over whether butter or maragrine is better for you, carbohydrates or proteins, link between pollutants and ADHD, between GMOs and risks to health, etc, etc, . In none of those cases, do we presume a consensus to be in the offing. To mention that there is no consensus implies that one is expected, which is editorialising and not based on scientific evidence. Regards, ] (]) 08:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : On the other hand, when reliable sources largely express something approaching a consensus, it is a good idea for the overall tenor of the article to reflect what the great majority of reliable sources say. That's just Misplaced Pages policy, and it is also good encyclopedia editing. -- ] (], ]) 20:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| ] | |||
| For undoing an edit without immediately resorting to the revert button. Hats off. | |||
| ] (]) 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Se venligst denne diskussion, jeg tror vi er enige. Jeg diskuterer med vores yndlingsaversion Rmir2 om kortene på Ruslands relaterede artikler. Hvis du får tid, kan du jo give dit besyv med! ] (]) 03:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Her tror jeg faktisk jeg ville være enig med Rmir2. Jeg mener at Misplaced Pages har et ansvar for ikke præmaturt at anerkende politiske krav over erobrede områder, der stadig ikke har fuldt anerkendt status af begge parter - omstridte områder bør skraveres synes jeg.] · ] 04:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: Det er præcist det jeg argumenterer for, netop at omstridte områder skal være på kortene for begge lande, ''skraverede''. Rmir ønsker at slette , der også benyttes på en wiki. Rmir2 ønsker istedet at indsætte . Det nye kort blev, så vidt jeg kan se, indført på en wiki . Jeg har i diskussionen, adskillige gange, talt for, at vi skal vise de facto, og vise de jure. Ligesom vi gør med vedrørende ]. | |||
| ::::Ok, ja det lyder lige lovlig radikalt.] · ] 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == fyi == | |||
| ] - üser:Altenmann ] | |||
| == confused == | |||
| I'm confused, what did I do wrong? | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Marijuana_(word) | |||
| --] (]) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::You were moving around comments, which per ] is not a good idea. It is also not a good idea to copy other editors comments.] · ] 04:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Sublimis Deus == | |||
| Hejsa Maunus. Jeg kan se, at du har tilbageført min ændring på ]. Jeg er dog ikke enig i din argumentation. »Sublimis« er et adjektiv i nominativ singularis, der lægger sig direkte til »Deus«, således at »Sublimis Deus« betyder »(den) Ophøjede Gud«. Det er sandt, at selve formen »]« isoleret betragtet også kan være genitiv, men for det første bruges genitiv ikke generelt til at angive retning fra (som i "God from on high"), for det andet er »sublimis« som sagt et adjektiv, ikke et nomen, og for det tredje giver en genitivform ikke mening i den videre sætningskontekst (»]«). —] (]) 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hej {{user|Pinnerup}} - jeg læste teksten og kom selv til konklusionen at sublimis må være nominativ i den kontekst (og ablativ ville være bedre til meningen "fra") - så jeg genindførte din ændring og en mere korrekt oversættelse.] · ] 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Super :) —] (]) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Phonetic/phonemic == | |||
| ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, a script that represents sound is called phonetic (the opposite is ideographic, or semasiographic, or in the Maya case logographic). The Maya script has two types of signs, phonetic signs and logographic signs. Only modern linguists use and advocate phonemic scripts (which are also by the way within the wider category of phonetic scripts, they just represent abstract (phonological) sound units instead of concrete ones). The idea of the phoneme is a 20th century invention. No ancient scripts are phonemic, and neither are the vast majority of modern scripts. ] · ] 05:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, I'm confused—"phonetic script" redirects to ]. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 05:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, that is not a good redirect. Phonetic transcription is also a 20th century invention which relies on the idea that language has a phonological and a phonetic level. This understanding of language originated with Ferdinand de Saussure.] · ] 06:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Here are some sources where you can see the usage: | |||
| :Justeson, John S., and Lyle Campbell. Phoneticism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing. University Press of Colorado, 1987. | |||
| :Macri, Martha Jane. "Phoneticism in Maya head variant numerals." PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982. | |||
| :Nicholson, Henry B. Phoneticism in the late pre-Hispanic Central Mexican writing system. Trustees for Harvard University, 1974. | |||
| :Edgerton, William F. "Egyptian phonetic writing, from its invention to the close of the nineteenth dynasty." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1940): 473-506. | |||
| :"In the parlance of sinology, these com- ponents are called phonetics, phonetic elements, or phonetic" Unger, J. Marshall, and John DeFrancis. "Logographic and semasiographic writing systems: a critique of Sampson’s classification." Scripts and literacy (1995): 45-58. | |||
| " It has been argued that Aristotle's definition is a direct result of the nature of the Greek alphabet, which is said to be the first full-blown phonetic writing system humanity developed."(Coulmas, F., 2003. Writing systems. An introduction to their linguistic analysis, CUP.)] · ] 06:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : All right, thanks—I'd been led to believe there were no languages that employed "phonetic" scripts, as that would imply the characters represented phones rather than phonemes. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 22:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed in most languages the script aims to represent phones not phonemes.] · ] 22:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, I'll admit I'm confused. The opening line of ] at least would make this sound unlikely. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why? When people write the intuitive thing to do is to try to represent pronunciation. Thats what all children do before they learn the rules of their orthographies. Writing down phones does not require the use of an truly phonetic alphabet. I am not sure you understand what a phoneme is - it is an abstraction based on an structural analysis of the sounds considered to be distinctive in a given languages - deciding to representing phonemes requires a very high degree of linguistic theoretical sophistication. ] · ] 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: My understanding was they would write the sounds as perceived within the sound system of the language—for instance, I find it hard to imagine the Japanese developing a writing system that distingushes and (both realizations of /g/), even if they recognize them as separate phones (as many (most?) Japanese do). Would such a writing system still be called "phonetic"? ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, it would still be considered phonetic. In fact even a perfectly phonemic writing system would be considered "phonetic writing" in the sense of a type of writing system (which I understand is counterintuitive if you have learned seeing phonemic and phonetic as the main opposition in language) because both phonemic and phonetic representations represents the sounds of the spoken language (phonemic writing just represent the sounds at a different level of abstraction). But when talking about writing systems the opposite of phonetic is not phonemic, but ideographic (representing concepts) or logographic (representing whole words). Hence a non-phonetic writing system would be a picture of a cow, which can be read as representing the sound "cow", "vache" or "bos" depending on the language spoken by the person who reads it - but a phonetic writing system can only be read in a single language, because it represents the sounds (however imperfectly, subjectively, or abstractly it does so). If we use the japanese example, Japanese writing combines phonetic elements (hiragana/katakana) with non-phonetic elements (kanji) - the fact that there is subphonemic allophonic variation that is not captured by the phonetic signs does not mean that the kana system as a whole is not phonetic. ] · ] 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Okay, thanks for the explanation, and for not getting too frustrated with me. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No worries, happy to explain.] · ] 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have removed the {{tl|prod}} tag from ], which you proposed for deletion. There's a bit of relevant info on the article's talk page. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{tl|prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at ]. <!-- edited version of ] --> I've just spent too much time tracing and fixing all the redirects around this article to let it get deleted so easily. It's still quite lean but I'll try to beef it up a bit in a few days, provided I find decent sources. Thanks! ] ] (]) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for supporting my RfA == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. ] (]) 20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == ??? == | |||
| What the fuck are you doing? Are you ''trying'' to piss me off further, or just have a personal war against anything I do at the BtK article? How about some discussion before removing photos? You know I am on a 1RR restriction, you know I am trying to improve this article. You know all this and are doing something as contentious as removing a photograph that won't hurt the article one bit (it's not as if it's a BLP) if it's there while some more research is done in light of your objection to the photo. Another ] move from you. Don't you have other articles and editors to pay attention to? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :After a protracted discussion about dubious photos you go ahead and add further dubious photos without discussing them with other editors first. I realize introspection is not your forte but honestly that is just absurdly stupid. It is as if you actually want the GA review to fail.] · ] 04:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please prove the photos I added dubious. Because, if they actually are dubious, they shouldn't be in the article. Please, I look forward to your evidence. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::The link that you yourself provided explicitly states so.] · ] 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And, as I stated, I included it in error. That error has been corrected. Please, provide some kind of evidence that would be considered a reliable source saying the photo isn't authentic. Or is the UNM a good enough source for your refined sensibilities? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Shootseven already provided a print source that mentions doubts about the O'Folliard photo.] · ] 04:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Shootseven is who, exactly? An expert? Then who is he so we can verify he's a reliable source? Is he more of a reliable source than the UNM archives? I doubt it (just like I doubt he's an actual expert). You don't think all of these redlink editors popping up at the article in the last short while and going ballistic over photographs at this article and all editing Lincoln County related articles isn't suspicious? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::He is clearly a person who knows what he is talking about, and who has a wide knowledge of the literature on Billy the Kid, and who understands how one writes neutrally and objectively about history and authenticity. The source he presented is ]'s biography of BTK. And no, I assume good faith untill I no longer have that possibility. Shootseven has been knowledgeable, patient and courteous in his participation, so I have no reason to doubt his good faith.] · ] 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Right. And he was blocked for disruption and edit warring just because he's such a nice and patient guy. Whatever, I really don't give a shit anymore. You can go to bed tonight knowing you accomplished something great the last couple of days: driving someone away who has only been trying to improve an article, bring it to a higher level, and improve Misplaced Pages. I'm done. Have the last word. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 05:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::He was blocked for editwarring because he was new and didnt know the rules, and because you, the established editor, editwarred with him.] · ] 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::This statement here by Winkelvi, "You don't think all of these redlink editors popping up at the article in the last short while and going ballistic over photographs at this article and all editing Lincoln County related articles" is uncalled for. I agreed with another editor about a dubious photograph that he removed. I did not go ballistic over photographs. I have just as much standing to comment, edit, and agree or disagree with any editor here as anyone else. To suggest that something suspicious is afoot because I haven't made a user page yet? I happen to enjoy old west articles and subjects. No wonder so many new editors do not stay here very long. ] (]) 05:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maunus, could you please be a bit more careful and preview your edits on the BTK article before they go live? I edit conflicted with you over a broken reference, and I found another one where you hadn't even placed the reference tag '''at the start'''. --] ] 20:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Chesnaught555}} I am experimenting with them at present so no need for you to fix them as I am working. It is not possible to preview how linked references are working so I have to do it like this - making mistakes and fixing them as I go. I will finish the job and leave it nice and neat, but I need somentime where noone else is working on it. If you need to do other stuff on the article now, I will leave it and come back later when it is quiet.] · ] 20:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Do I '''really''' have to tell you that if you want to experiment, '''you must use the sandbox'''? Don't make your test/experiment edits live. There's a template warning about that sort of behaviour. --] ] 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fine, you can do it yourself. Good luck.] · ] 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not stopping you from doing it, I'm just letting you know that you can't make your test edits live. Is that too much to ask? --] ] 20:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is how I do this kind of edits - tweaking the errors as I go usually correcting them within minutes. I have done it in dozens of articles including featured and good articles without anyone giving me this kind of silly sermon. So have your article back with is mess of a reference system and do the edits yourself.] · ] 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Oh my goodness! Thank you for all your hard work Maunus. I am sorry that another user is giving you such a hard time. That kind of behaviour is totally uncalled for as well as quite rude. ] (]) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah, once again we see that it is not the "encyclopedia" part of "collaborative encyclopedia" that is causing us troubles.] · ] 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} {{U|Jillyjo}}, how am I being rude? I am simply saying that we cannot have test edits live on the BTK article. --] ] 14:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I will explain. First of all, these edits are not "test edits" they are part of the normal process of editing which entails making incremental changes and correcting mistakes. A "test edit' is an edit made by a newbie who is trying to learn how to edit. By suggesting that I, who has been a wikipedia editor about 8 years longer than you, was making test edits, and by using bold fonts and condescending phrasings you were being rude. Now I have had enough of rude teenagers for a while and I will be leaving the BTK article to itself. It clearly shouldnt pass with the references being in such a mess but that will be someone elses problem from now on.] · ] 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Focus on contributions, not contributors''... another basic WP policy violated right there. Yes, I am a teenager. Yes, I'm sixteen years of age. I've said it on my user page, I'll say it here. My age is no indication of my maturity. --] ] 18:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your claims of maturity are clearly exaggerated. Now sod off, and don't bother me here again.] · ] 18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's nice, Maunus. --] ] 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am nice to nice people.] · ] 19:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI discussion == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Battlefield language == | |||
| Using "cute" phrases to label your opponents is a cheap and rather uncool way of advancing your position. Resorting to such comments (Putin-bot) in an area subject to discretionary sanctions is not only likely to raise the temperature of a discussion unnecessarily but provides evidence of a battlefield mentality. Perhaps you should cease using this phrase? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not a phrase I throw around a lot. But it is apt for describing the type of editor who has maintained ] over the past several years.] · ] 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::In that case, it should be no problem not using this particular term again. Apt or not it causes more difficult than it could possibly solve. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I used it once in a private conversation with Marek, in reference to noone in particular. Then the editors opposed to Marek brought it into a conversation trying to use it to demonstrate that Marek had a "conflict of interest". I don't have any plans to pursue further editing in the Putin area, but I promise that in the future I will not use that term to describe pro-Putin pov-pushers.] · ] 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| You know the drill so I won't insult you with a template, but I'm still astonished you even for a moment thought this could be a good idea. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed deletion of Evolutionary theory and the political left == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ]. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --] (]) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ygm == | |||
| {{YGM}} | |||
| ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Sent another. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach DRN == | |||
| Since you voted in the more recent RfC, you may be interested in the discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboaard about closing the RfC. ] (]) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| ] | |||
| For your skill in ferreting out sockpuppets. | |||
| ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
| == Talk:JSB RfC closed, what next? == | |||
| Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? ] (]) 01:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == RSS == | |||
| I am not sure why you would want a repetitive be present there in that section which basically talks about the same thing in 2 paragraphs about RSS not being part of independence moment with factual data. <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 01:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Please deal with content stuff at the article talkpage.] · ] 01:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Grants idea lab == | |||
| I’m not quite sure of the best practices for contributing to the grants idea lab. I just made a . Let’s discuss if there’s a better way to do it — was I supposed to comment on the discussion page and then added to the list or is my bold addition okay?--]] 17:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Sphilbrick}}I moved it to the discussion page, just so your idea isnt attributed to me. I think the talkpage is a good place to further develop the idea proposal.] · ] 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not see it. is where I looked.--]] 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I slightly rewrote and added my comment to the discussion page.--]] 18:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok, Great. I think the system there is not very easy to navigate - I also botched the first time when I tried to create a proposal. I will write a response there.] · ] 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Orion's belt in Nahuatl == | |||
| Hi Maunus, | |||
| Do you know if Orion's belt is a firedrill in Nahuatl? I read that somewhere, but don't know if the claim is reliable. I ask because that's what it is in Hadza (or rather, it's firedrills plural), and I wonder what motivates that image. (I could see it as three holes drilled in a fireblock, or a single firedrill, but the plural is odd.) — ] (]) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a constellation called ''mamalhuaztli'' which means "firedrill", but some sources identify it as being Orion's belt and others as being Castor and Pollux. In Maya (I assume yucatec) Orion's belt is apparently called mehen ek - "the sons".] · ] 23:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks! — ] (]) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Rules of thumb == | |||
| Hi Maunus, good to be chatting with you. Just wanted to say I really like your Rules of thumb; I agree with almost all of them! Numbers 1 and 6 are especially good. Best, ] (]) 04:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :They are all useful for me to return to sometimes to put things into perspective.] · ] 04:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good to hear; they are a good take-away for me also. Since we are talking about it, I will say that I heartily disagree with number 3, although I agree that advice could be useful to others. Consistency is very important to me. I would like it if you decided that different people are built for different things, and those who make things more consistent are truly beneficial. ] (]) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::People who consistently make things better are truly beneficial. Those who just make them more homogeneous are on average as damaging as they are beneficial - statistically speaking. For example if all of our articles on the periodic system gives different atomic numbers for helium, and I randomly choose one of the numbers and make it consistent across articles, then the chance of me having actually improved the encyclopedia is less than 50%. If I notice that our articles on human evolution sometimes use "hominid" and sometimes use "hominin" to describe the human family and I choose to enforce the consistent use of one of them, without taking into account that the two terms are not in fact synonymous but indicate different contexts, then my chances of damaging the encyclopedia approaches 100%. My pet-bête noire is of course users who slavishly introduce changes based on arbitrary choices between arbitrary style conventions, or who fight for removing the ability to freely use certain stylistic elements armed with consistency as the sole argument for restricting other users freedom to write following their own stylistic preferences. That is where I think it is important to note that consistency may be beneficial for the encyclopedia, but is not inherently so. For example, there is no inherent good in having the same punctuation system in two different articles, or even in consistently using British vs. American spellings of centre/center color/colour within a given article. The production of consistency, of course is not necessarily harmful either, and we should resist the temptation to make the argument that those who do (and argue about) consistency-producing edits are "wasting resources", because of course their resources are a function of their personalities and interests and could likely not be spent in other ways. In this way consistency is indeed perhaps a good, but it is not a greater good, but a minor one, relative to what I consider the main function and value of the encyclopedia. If every article on wikipedia were written in different fonts, with different punctuation conventions and with individually designed infoboxes, that would not necessarily substantively diminish the value of the encyclopedia in my opinion. On the other hand enforcing the consistent use of harvard citations in an article I consider is beneficial to most articles because it enables the functionality of clicking on a citation and seeing the reference, and because it makes it easier for future editors to use pre-existing citations without having to find the place in the text where they are defined. Perhaps the solution is that we embrace something we could call "intelligent consistency", which would be a form of consistency that consistently takes into consideration when consistency is appropriate and helpful and when it is not, and which does not make the cognitive shortcut of adopting the syllogism "consistency=beneficial". I would be all for that type of consistency. ] · ] 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Interesting essay! I am glad to have read it, this is good caution for me, I will remember "intelligent consistency" and ensure I never fall into the traps you describe. I think perhaps you have been waiting for someone like me to come along! But never fear, I believe we are probably in agreement with what we each believe. For example, I'm sure you know that I am not talking about "arbitrary" or "randomly" choosing and "without taking into account" what should be applied consistently; I would use reliable sources and established convention. Also, I am not really talking about matters of style either, as often style is an interpretation of a guideline, not something set in stone, unless you are being inconsistent with a clearly stated rule in the MoS or inconsistent with your own style in a single article. I agree that consistency across articles is usually not a good idea, unless the group of articles are on the same subject that readers are likely to read together. I don't look at it as adding more homogeneity, but clarity. Now of course, you're going against guidelines if you don't let me apply consistency to a misspelled British or American word across a single article; I doubt you are saying you prefer misspelled words. I'm glad we agree that consistency may be beneficial for the encyclopedia and that consistency is never necessarily harmful. I believe you are right about my "resources are a function of their personalities" and that we should appreciate these people, especially since we are each experts at different things. The fact that you appreciate my favorite citation: the Harvard citation, shows me your heart is much like mine, as correct referencing is so important. In short, I believe we learned from each other and of course respect any differences. All the best, ] (]) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Certainly I am happy you came along to ask, and push me to develop the thinking behind my rapidly scribbled rules of thumb further (I had not in fact thought out the above essay in preparation of someone asking though I can see it looks that way, but I actually had to go through the thought process in writing it, so thanks for that!). And yes, I do greatly appreciate people who take the time to make my sloppy spelling and formatting look neat! As a matter of fact I wish I had a small army of such gnomes to put to work on my dissertation right now. ] · ] 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, there are Wikignomes and there are WikiDragons! {{smiley}} Wow, best of luck on your dissertation; yes, you will need it to be well-copy edited. ] (]) 23:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Douglass == | |||
| Thank you, Maunus, for dealing with Sıgehelmus on the "unite with anyone" quote. I would not have been able to deal with him with such equanimity. In addition, I'm too close to the source on this. I think I added that quote to the article (I edit some sections of it a fair amount; I got interested because I live 3 miles from where he was probably born). | |||
| BTW, I'd love to see this article be promoted to "Good Article", but I don't have time right now to work on it much, and I'm sure it needs improving (some sections more than others). If you have any interest, it would be great. Paulmlieberman (]) 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I can't say equanimity is my primary forte, although I try to practice it as much as possible. I added some context to the quote, which I think should settle Sighelmus concern (albeit misplaced) and provide the reader with an even better understanding of Douglass' convictions.] · ] 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Formal mediation has been requested == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Vladimir Putin--->The ] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016. | |||
| Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. — ] (]) 22:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :{{ping|TransporterMan}}: I dont consider myself a party since I dont have any plans to edit the article or participate in the discussions about it. So I am not going to participate, but I dont think that should count against the mediation process being accepted - I think you should just remove me as a party to the dispute.] · ] 23:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Your edit on Talk:Pain in crustaceans == | |||
| Hi. Your recent edit on Talk:Pain in crustaceans appears to have been inserted between already existing posts. This makes the chronological development of the page a little confused. Would you be prepared to consider moving your posting? All the best. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == text refactored == | |||
| Dear Maunus: | |||
| I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of ] the quoted letter from Mark van Stone at ]. As you can see above lines with a leading space do not wrap the text around, thus making the sentences overflow the screen to the far right. The best technique for really long quotes is to use the {{tl|quotebox}} and insert '''''two''''' <code><nowiki><br /></nowiki></code> at the start of each paragraph/newline, which is what I did here. No other changes were made to the text. ] (<small>KTOM's ] & ]</small>) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of ] the quoted letter from Mark van Stone at ]. As you can see above lines with a leading space do not wrap the text around, thus making the sentences overflow the screen to the far right. The best technique for really long quotes is to use the {{tl|quotebox}} and insert '''''two''''' <code><nowiki><br /></nowiki></code> at the start of each paragraph/newline, which is what I did here. No other changes were made to the text. ] (<small>KTOM's ] & ]</small>) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::No worries, as long as the text is the same it shouldnt be a problem.] · ] 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Last call at Bach page== | |||
| Your opinion at the Bach talk page RfC has recently been hatted. The RfC is about to close if you can revive your strong comment there. Cheers. ] (]) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| =='']''== | |||
| I've added parts about Jens Dennow and his wife Gerda Neumann's tragic plane crash, a bit about the farm used in the film, sourced the plot section and added two more reviews, including one from '']''. For these reasons, I've re-nominated the article for GA-status. Wish me luck! Best, ] • (]) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :], you might also be interested in this. Best, ] • (]) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == 173.33.203.215 == | |||
| hello, while I continued to transliterate a text, that user has come , I why to stop, but he went on reverting. Can you please help me? thanks ] (]) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Kmoksy and Esc2003 == | |||
| These two users and have started a huge war edits, already warned but continueing to revert the warnings. Please help ] (]) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == About women == | |||
| Hi Maunus, I think your Idea about Getting Academic Reviewers is very important. It is what I'm plannig to do with the project about gender gap that you will find at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great to have your support. Thank you,--] (]) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Environmental Racism: Thank you for suggestion == | |||
| Thanks for the suggestion on the environmental racism in europe page. I am more than happy to consider adding some concise definitions if it helps gives clarity. I have a few really good and very concise definitions / quotes in mind. I totally acknowledge that Environmental racism can be a broad and shifting term, so I am always happy to engage in dialogue. | |||
| best,] (]) 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Sturgeontransformer | |||
| I just noticed that some additional context has recently been added to the introduction. Much appreciated. I might consider adding to / re-wording it slightly, but overall, it looks good to me! | |||
| thanks] (]) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)sturgeontransformer | |||
| == Los Bybys == | |||
| I know this website, what is your relation with this page?, this page talking about killed man in Teoloyucan, in this note hasn't got a mention about Tequixquiac with the group. This is joke or only mention for Los Bybys?--] (]) 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I dont understand what you are trying to say. The man who died in Teoloyucan was a member of the Bybys, which is what the article says.] · ] 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Not is relevant this information for the Tequixquiac article, maybe ].--] (]) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are being dense. It is a source that supports the fact that you added to the article namely that the Bybys were formed in Tequixquiac. If the Bybys are relevant for the article, then so is the source.] · ] 16:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :This theme is topic only for Los Bybys article, no relevant information in Tequixquiac article.--] (]) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then please either remove the information about los Bybys from the Tequixquiac or supply a better source for that piece of information. And stop posting unsourced information and stop adding sources that do not support the information provided. I am not going to be very patient with you as long as you are repeating the exact same behavior that got you blocked from the Spanish wikipedia.] · ] 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I return in August to Spanish Misplaced Pages, buy you don't know a conflict, is very difficult to understand all. I have not put that reference, I have no obligation to remove it, if you think that is a reference, can leave it. --] (]) 02:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea what you are talking about.] · ] 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Al parecer no está enterado de la resolución de XanaG. Sigue pensando que va a volver. Regards! --] (]) 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Puedes hacer lo creas conveniente, eres una persona libre y estás en la Misplaced Pages libre (me gusta hacer valer ese objetivo central con el que inició este proyecto), yo no acostumbro hacer amenazas, ni me valgo de opiniones de terceras personas para determniar jucios, ni acostumbro reprimir a las personas valiendome de influyentismos, ni me pongo como juez para determinar las conductas humanas, esa no es el trabajo de un editor ni de un investigador. Pues no entendí a que te refieres con Tlaxcala, tal vez si me lo explicas lo puedo entender. Que tengas una bonita tarde; regards.--] (]) 22:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages no es un espacio libre. Esa una enciclopedia con reglas que han puesto la comunidad. Si no quieres seguir las reglas que existen no puedes ser parte del proyecto de la enciclopedia.] · ] 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Me queda muy claro que esto no es un espacio de contenido libre, no sé ¿Por qué sigue llamandose 💕?, pero bueno eso es otro tema. No he venido hacer revolución ni a reformar la Misplaced Pages, ni a inponer normas, sé que aquí hay ciertas reglas (aunque algunas muy ambiguas) que deben respetarse, eso es obvio, no estoy cuestionando a la wikipedia. Yo te hice una pregunta ¿Cúal es el problema de bandera de Tlaxcala? no la has respondido aún, es necesario para que se pueda emitir un argumento en base a referencias. No creo que esto se parezca a lo de un asesinato comentido en Teloloyucan de un cantante grupero que no tiene nada que ver con artículo llamado Tequixquiac, el cual su lógica de contenido debe seguir otras categorías como lo dice las propias reglas de wikipedia ¿Así de claras son las referencias que respaldas? Tampoco me interesa dedicarme al chisme (fulano dijo, me dijeron, etc.) o irme al son de la tambora, solo concretemos a resolver ¿Cuál es el problema de Tlaxcala el cual no entendí?, olvidate si no edito o editaré en Misplaced Pages española, ¿Quiero saber cómo tú crees que debe editarse el artículo, qué debe contener y que información podemos dejar en Misplaced Pages y cual se debe discriminar?, los artículos son muy distintos en cada temática, es mejor ocupar el tiempo en cosas más concretas y de beneficio a la Misplaced Pages y no política barata.--] (]) 00:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::El problema es que escribiste (otra vez) una section entera llena de informacion acerca de una tema y despues agregaste una fuente que no contiene nada de la informacion que adicionaste. Eso no es solamente adicionar informacion sin fuente, pero es enganosamente hacer parecer que la informacion si tiene fuente cuando la verdad es que no. En las semanas pasadas te he cachado hacer esta forma de trampa mas que cinco veces. Fue exactamente por esta falta de integridad de tus contribuciones que te bloquearon en es.wiki, y por la cual seras tambien bloqueada aqui si lo sigues haciendo. ] · ] 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Para terminar pronto ¿Quieres que quede el artículo de Bandera de Tlaxcala?, porque si el objetivo es anular el artículo, entonces estamos perdiendo el tiempo, lo hubieras anulado y se acabó la discussion, ya no hay nada que discutir. Hay que ser como la gente inteligente, aprovechar el tiempo; lo que debe eliminarse pues que se elimine, no malgastarlo en intrigas y acusaciones de lavaderos, ya estoy leyendo lo que se considera fuente primaria en inglés, luego te paso mis dudas para que me ayudes intepretar el contenido.--] (]) 01:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Ningun articulo puede quedar en la enciclopedia que tiene solamente fuentes primaria. Eso es basico. Ninguna informacion puede incluirse en una articulo que no tiene fuente. Eso es otra cosa basica. Si hay que ser inteligente y no malgastar el tiempo, por eso no estoy feliz por tener que seguir tus contribuciones para arreglarlas para que esten conformando a reglas basicas que tu ya deberias conocer y entender. ] · ] 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Yo te caí en lo del asesinato de Teoloyucan, acusar es fácil pero darse cuenta que uno también comete errores, no es tan fácil y menos que nos lo digan los demás; pues no fue el bloqueo por lo que tu dices, fue para conservar la sana convivencia con los acusantes porque llegaron a estresarse de tantas preguntas que les hice y que no pudieron responder (por su falta de conocimiento a muchos temas) y que buscaban eleminar encontrando todo aquello que respaldara sus argumentos en base a las reglas, obvio que eso los estresó porque no es fácil seguir las reglas sin cometer errores, pero el bloqueo dura medio años para que avanzaran sin cuestionamientos que ponga en duda su proceder, el bloqueo se me dio como una especie de vacaciones para que mejore una buena convivencia con los editores y no los evidencie en su ignorancia, sin embargo se llegó a un acuerdo en el que se volverán abrir los artículos eliminados para no dejar mal parada a la Misplaced Pages de tanto despretigio que ha recibido del ramo académico, monitoreando el contenido, eso es muy bueno porque los involucrados se voverán expertos en los temas. Obvio que ''a río revuelto hay ganancia de pescadores'', no faltó el que se aprovechó de la situción para hacer leña del árbol caído involucrando a las personas en base a los argumentos, pero bueno no soy un inbécil para no entender como a veces opera la mente humana. | |||
| :Pues ya nos vamos entendiendo, así es como debes explicar los problemas, no hay ambigüedades y tienes toda la razón, me agrada esa forma de como lo has explicado. No voy discutir si los demás editan sin referenciar fuentes, o si sus fuentes son un tanto cuestionadas, he visto una gran cantidad de artículo que yo no he editado y que tienen ese problema, pero de ahora en adelante me concretaré a lo mio, recuerda lo que enseñaron tus vecinos, ''Si me respetas yo te respeto, si no me respetas no esperes que yo te respete'', dejemonos atrás las evideciaciones, los trinquetes (complots) y los despretigios. Como decimos en México; solo hablando al chile (de manera directa y sin adornos) se evitan los problemas y surgen las amistades. Eso también lo aprendí en Europa, ''nadie es digno de confienza y de tu amistad hasta que no le conozcas lo suficiente, son los años (paciencia), la lealtad, las cosas que compartas y una noche de cervezas frías (creo que tienen que ser varias noches y tardes cheleras) lo que hace a los buenos amigos para toda la vida''.--] (]) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::He revisado las discusiones en es.wiki y tus contribuciones. Es obvio que no fue simplemente por politicas, pero tambien porque la mayoria de tus contribuciones son altamente problematicas y no siguieron las reglas. Estaban repletas de investigacion original y falsificacion de referencias. Si no puedes entender o aceptar eso será dificil que mejores tu situacion.] · ] 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::He estado pensando que el artículo de las banderas mexicanas pueden copiar el mismo patrón de artículos similares, en las que se incluye, una descripción general, historia, protocolo, diseño y variantes, esa era la línea que intentaba desarrollar, pero no entendí ¿cómo pretendes abordar el desarrollo del artículo?, tal vez tengas una mejor propuesta para ampliar el artículo, me gustaría saberla.--] (]) 03:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cualquier articulo puede incluir solamente informacion que aperece en fuentes confiables publicadas. Si hay una fuente que describe el diseño y da la historia, protocolo entonces se puede incluir, si no entonces no. Para cada pieza de informacion por mas pequeño que te parezca tiene que haber una fuente y la fuente tiene que citarse y la informacion que incluyes tiene que apegarse fielmente a la informacion que incluye la fuente. Es basico y no-negociable.] · ] 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Podrías ayudarme a explicarme como se desarrolla esta parte del pilar, ''personal essays''. Es complicado, porque muchos temas no son de dominio popular, de hecho ciertos temas pueden ser nuevos para algunos pero viejos para otros, no es fácil determinar objetivamente como evaluar el tema. Hay artículos más que investigados como los DE videojuegos, ciudades, biografías, cosas de química, matemáticas, física, geografía, biología, temas que hasta pueden ser aburrido editarlos por la cantidad de información existente en línea, pero hay otros que están aquí y que nadie los comenta, no porque sean buenos sino por ignorancia del tema y muchas veces te encuentras a usuarios expertos en pokemón y pornografía comentando seriamente sobre temas de medicina, política o semiótica que editan doctorantes o estudiantes de maestría, que algunas veces parecen ensayos o artículos de revista científica y no temas enciclopédicos.--] (]) 04:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"personal essays" no es un pilar. Personal essays son articulos que no son enciclopedicos porque están escritos en una forma que representa las perspectivas, opiniones, evaluaciones, y conocimientos del autor mismo y no representa informacion objectiva o publicada en fuentes confiables.] · ] 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Eso lo sé, que no es un pilar, pero me puse a leer esa parte y quería saber ¿cómo es que aquí lo desarrollan?, la verdad no siempre se puede concretar con un pinchazo de computadora, es bastante relativo pero me ha quedado claro, muchas gracias. Sigo leyendo, luego te escribo otros detalles, see you later, Maunus.--] (]) 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Una pregunta ¿Tú estudiaste en México o en Dinamarca?, te pregunto esto porque estoy iniciando mi protocolo para tesis doctoral y terminando mi grado de master; debo buscar universidades que esten vinculadas con el urbanismo o la geografía humana, conozco algunas pero siempre es bueno ver otras opciones.--] (]) 02:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::An advice? do not waste time trying to show Marrovi how to do things, because it just goes in one ear and out the other. 100% refractory. ] (]) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Why you reverted my edition in ]? == | |||
| Why you reverted my edition in ]? | |||
| I was Interpreted the Franz Boas metaphors and the metaphors of his disciples and passed to an content which Misplaced Pages should spread, an objective content, not subjective Franz Boas metaphorical content. - ] (]) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC). | |||
| ::It was not clearly intelligible, it had no sources and it came across as fairly dubious. Suggest your change at the discussion page, and argue for why you think it should be included. I cant say I even understand what you are trying to say here.] · ] 22:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was trying to say here that I what interpreted the Franz Boas metaphors an passed to an objective content with more normal vision of world. - - ] (]) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC). | |||
| :::::I still dont understand it. What metaphors? And what is the source where you have read this?] · ] 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Hola == | |||
| Acabo de dejar un mensaje , el problema es más serio de lo que crees, te deje un mensaje en la Misplaced Pages en español también. Hemos revisado alrededor de 400 artículos de Marrovi, 170 borrados y los otros se han reescrito por completo, hoaxes, tergiversación de fuentes, fuente primaria, datos erróneos, etc. Fue expulsado de Misplaced Pages en alemán y bloqueado un año en Misplaced Pages en italiano, me avergüenza reconocer que se dieron cuenta antes que nosotros. | |||
| puedes ver como el artículo ], creado por Marrovi en diferentes Wikipedias y borrado en español, presenta datos diferentes y erróneos en cada una de sus versiones. | |||
| *Castellano , aquí esta a 160 kms de Toluca, en 2010 contaba con 22 676 habitantes, altitud 2215 | |||
| *Aleman , altitud 2150 m, | |||
| *Catalan en 2005 contaba con 21 859 habitantes, superficie 80,34 km², altitud 2450 | |||
| *Portugues , en xxxxx contaba con 18 389 (el artículo fue creado en 2010), area 492,13 km², altitud 2410 m | |||
| *Ingles | |||
| Me parece que debes llevar el caso a una instancia superior.--] (]) 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Gordon Wasson article == | |||
| {{DRN-notice}} | |||
| == Your recent edit to Efrain Rios Montt == | |||
| I'm not sure, but I think that you may have misread a New York Times article from 2013 as being about 2016. I don't know enough about the subject to be comfortable making a change, so I thought I would give you a heads up. | |||
| ] (]) 00:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! You are absolutely right, that explains whay I hadnt heard about this from other media. Embarassing, but I guess it comes down to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Thanks for the heads up! I have self reverted of course.] · ] 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Hi, I accidentally thanked you for an edit. How can I remove it? ] (]) 11:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 November 2024
I am not active on wikipedia any more, and am not inclined to jump up and fix stuff when someone cruises by a page I once wrote and find some detail they would like fixed at the threat of delisting it if I don't. I did my share of free work on this website. Now WP:SOFIXIT applies.
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)