Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:50, 18 August 2017

Please do not open closed archives

If you've followed the discussion at psychoanalysis you will see that it these type of insults have come over a number of days, and are clearly not aimed at improving the article. Please refrain from removing hats in the way you did. If we really want to improve the article we can most assuredly do so by engaging in civil discourse. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO and commonsense, you shoudln't archive other peoples comments in a discussion in which you are yourself involved, it is rarely helpful and tends to inflame rather than assuage conflict. One of the users whose comments you hatted directly expressed disagreement with your assessment of my changes to the lead, and with you hatting your statement came to stand as the last word. That is not a reasonable way to edit a discussion in which one is involved. Your archiving also deleted a section by another user, please be more careful. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Allele or Variant of unknown significance

Hi! I'm a newbie, so I may easily be doing something wrong. I see on my watchlist that you asked a question on the talk page of VUS, yet I don't see it on the talk page itself, so I'm answering it here. sigh. Anyway, your question apparently was "Do we mean allele of unknown significance?" The answer is yes, to people with even a little training in genetics, allele is the best term, but since the VUS reports are being read by poets, etc, with no training, the term variant is used. DennisPietras (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the questoin because it seemed to me upon reading the other article that this is specifically about variant genes, not variant alleles - i.e. only variant alleles that also are known to have a different product (a different protein than another allele) but where the change in protein causes no discernible difference in phenotype. Is this not the case?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Maunus/PeerReviewReform

Hey Maunus-- in light of this month's Inspire Campaign that I'm running, any interest in trying to reboot your idea for a new peer review process? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) are you thinking of the academic peer review proposal I made last time (which can be started at any time by any group of volunteers willing to do the work) - or the much more ambitious proposal for review reform that you linked to (which will require a full community discussion and consensus to be implemented)?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably more the former to start, but I do see that as a stepping stone for the latter. I read over the discussion of the more ambitious proposal briefly, and I agree with some opinions there that implementing that is going to take a multi-stage RfC. I'm willing to help with that effort, if you need some support thinking through the logistics of putting it all together (I recently did the same with an idea from the previous campaign that resulted in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Protect_user_pages_by_default). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Marks

Thanks for noticing my edits on Marks. I think he's hopelessly misguided by his politics, but as a WP editor I say what the source say. His idea that humans have an incessant drive to categorize is a great example of 20th-century, non-biological thinking about human cognition. Let me offer my edits as evidence of my even-handedness. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a little funny to consider the work of a biological anthropologist and geneticist to be an example of "non-biological thinking". But the edits were good, thanks for doing good work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Y'know if you want me to semi-protect your talk page I'll do that. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, he usually takes a break after a few back rounds of back-and-forth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

I'm pretty sure the editor who added material there is copying it from somewhere else, possibly translating it - and that's not the only article where it may be happening. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it and some material from another article and asked him to explain his sources and if copied where it's from. I see he's never engaged on a talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, thanks for doing that - the information was partially correct, but required some sources for complete verification. Probably better to revert it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeg havde ganske vist lantin i 2.. real

@Maunus:Men det er vel omkring 50 år siden. Så jeg er ikke sikker på jeg fik fat i meningen. Men der stod vel lidt Cato-agtigt noget i retning af "i øvrigt mener jeg Rmirum bør udstødes" Det er vi vist ved at være flere og flere der mener! --PerV (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@PerV: Netop.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Latino

Hi - I'm told you know something about cultural issues, any chance you could take a quick look at this and my comments on the talk page (and maybe the recent deleted one). Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish someone would call me a "fresh thing", but I dont get that a lot htese days.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, fresh thing. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Languages you speak?

Hi, I just wanted to know more about you. To me (from my experience), you are a Danish person who extensively admires his own language, the Danish language, to the point that you analysed it in a linguistic field. It also seems that you have a good grasp of English too. But my question is, what other languages are you able to speak. I am from Sydney, Australia, and has English and Scottish roots in me — an avid linguist and language learner (check my user page). – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 11:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly admire the Danish language, but I am Danish and a linguist by training so it is natural for me to write about that. I also wrote most of the article on English for that matter. You can find my professional website from my user page and it will give you some more information about what languages I work with. You can also see my collection of userboxes here if you prefer that format.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

¡Nunca supe que podéis hablar español! – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 11:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Classification of English

Hi, could you not have maintained all the amendments i made to the text, for example through correcting the wording or making the text better readable? For example why delete the Low German example sentence, the three Frisian languages, the North Germanic languages? In my opinion it would be better to maintain all that doesn't contradict any source because the classification section is somehow quite bad. We are not even told which language is most closely related to English after Low German. Also wouldn't it be better to mention Scots and the Irish dialects first (as most closely related languages), and not Frisian? ArchitectMan (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

From my point of view the main problems was not with the style and wordings but with the fact that the edits were unsourced and contradicted the the sources already used. For revisions of that kind I think you should present sources on the talkpage and make sure that there is consensus among the editors that your proposed changes are good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And what about the example sentence in Low German? ArchitectMan (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

what is the source for it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do translations also have to be sourced? ArchitectMan (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, particularly when they are in languages that are not commonly taught. I have also removed the two other unsourced example sentences - since they were both unsourced and essentially superfluous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You even want an English to German translation to be sourced. The example sentences were illustrations. The classification section is now much worse than before your edits. ArchitectMan (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is much better than before your edits. So if you have suggestions to improve it take it to the discussion page and we will find a solution that we can all consider an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, since i don't know if you are still reading the English language talk page, i'd like to ask you two questions: 1. Would you agree that this sentence: "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..." should be changed to: "Low German (Low Saxon), which evolved from Old Saxon, is also closely related..." because a) Low German is an official language in Germany, and is regarded as one language there, and b) "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages" is equal to "Gallo Romance and its descendent French languages", what sounds confusing, and c) there is also an inconsistence since Old Frisian is not mentioned before the Frisian languages. While you already said that you think it would be tangential and basically irrelevant to the article if Low German is being referred to as one or many languages, i still don't know if you would agree with mentioning Low German before Old Saxon. Another user suggested not to mention Old Saxon at all, but I don't know if this would be an improvement, and i'd also be interested in your opinion concerning that. 2. There is still this "but" in this sentence in the introduction: "It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages...". I suggest changing the "but" to "and". What you already said about this was that you wouldn't think that the sentence as it is now suggests that English has been influenced by Frisian, and that it would be very clear from the "but" that the influence is specifically from Germanic languages other than those to which it is most closely related. While I agree with you on that, I still think that this "but" gives the sentence the connotation that the reader would have thought, if there wouldn't be this "but", that English should have been influenced by Frisian, just because it is most closely related to it. To avoid this impression, i think it would be better to write "and" instead of "but". ArchitectMan (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@ArchitectMan:, the trick in general is to find the sources and follow what they do. So if you want to convince me that some wording is better it will be esier to do so if you can show that other reliable sources do as you suggest (for example mentioning Low Saxon before Low German etc.). I think the idea of changing "but" to "and" is good, and will go ahead and implement it right away.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So would you agree that the "but" in the sentence: "It is closely related to the Frisian languages, but its vocabulary has been significantly influenced by other Germanic languages particularly Norse, as well as by Latin and Romance languages, particularly French." should be changed to "and", because the "but" gives the sentence the connotation that the reader would have thought, if there wouldn't be this "but", that English should have been influenced by Frisian, just because it is most closely related to it? ArchitectMan (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in your opinion concerning this "but" or "and". Do you also think that this "but" should be changed to "and" or do you think the sentence is better with "but"? The sentence with "but" sounds as if the reader would assume that English has been influenced by the Frisian languages. ArchitectMan (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the classification section, there is this sentence: "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..." 1. This contradicts the "Low German" article, in which Low German is being referred to as one language. 2. Wouldn't it be better to just write Low German, because there is an inconsistency within the classification section, since Old Frisian other than Old Saxon isn't being mentioned. I would also be interested in your opinion about that. ArchitectMan (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you please 1. raise the discussion at teh article talkpage so everyone can give their input, 2. present the sources that you consider most authoritative or accurate on classification of west germanic. There is little point in us sharing our personal opinions about clkassification here, where noone else will read it and without being supported by reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I wrote all of this on the talk page already, but 1. only one other user but you responded there, and 2. you did not respond there anymore. The headline on the talk page is: Classification. 1. Concerning the first point, if the "but" should be changed to "and", on the talk page you answered that you wouldn't think that the "but" should be changed to "and". When I asked you a second time, on your talk page, however, you answered that it would be good to change the "but" to "and". 2. Concerning the sentence "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages...", you answered that you wouldn't care changing "Low German languages" to "Low German language", since it would be "tangential" and "basically irrelevant" to the article. Then, another user suggested not to mention Old Saxon anymore, because it would be too precise for the lay persons consulting the article. However you did not reply to that. So can the sentence be changed to: "Low German/Low Saxon is also closely related..." instead of "Old Saxon and its descendent Low German languages are also closely related..."? ArchitectMan (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just make the change, I for one will not revert it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this sentence: "Particular dialects of Old and Middle English also developed into a number of other English (Anglic) languages, including Scots and the extinct Fingallian and Forth and Bargy (Yola) dialects of Ireland." Would it be ok for you if "English (Anglic) languages" would be changed to just "Anglic languages", because "Anglic languages" is more common than "English languages". If "English languages" would be more common, then English would have to be classified like: Germanic-->West Germanic-->Anglo-Frisian-->English-->English what actually would sound quite strange. ArchitectMan (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lower Chinook Language

Hi Maunus, I've been trying to look for a good source for the Lower Chinook Language (also known as Chinook Proper, not the Chinook Jargon language). I've found some sources such as Omniglot and a book by Franz Boas called "Notes on the Chinook Language". Boas' explanation of the language seems rather complex in his composition, and I am not sure if Omniglot is an accurate source. If Omniglot is not an accurate source, where can I find one, and do you have any knowledge on how to consider what the dialect of the language would sound like based on other various sources? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, Omniglot is never a good source. Its underlying sources are of varying quality and it's simply not considered scholarly by scholars. Boas' phonological descriptions, in general, are not phonemic and are overly phonetic in nature. While his morphological descriptions are excellent, you have to wade through his complex phonetics to get at them. There simply isn't a good modern grammar of Chinook. However, according to Michael Silverstein (the expert on Chinookan), the phonemic inventories of all three varieties--Chinook, Kikst, and Kathlamet--are identical and he lists that inventory in the reference here: Michael Silverstein. 1990. Chinookans of the Lower Columbia. In Wayne Suttles (ed.), Northwest Coast, 533-546. Smithsonian Institution, Washington: Washington: Smithsonian Institution. --Taivo (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Fdomanico51997:, thanks for reaching out. I agree with Taivo that references like Omniglot and similar online sources that are not created or maintained by scholars should be avoided - in many cases I think no phoneme inventory is better than an erroneous or dubious one. I also agree that Silverstein's work on Chinookan is probably the best source on the phoneme inventory, and that if you use Boas you have to make sure to show that his representation and inventory of sounds is not a phoneme inventory but an inventory of phones.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision of Avi Avital

Hi,

I was just getting started with revising the article Avi Avital, when I noticed my most recent change was already deleted. At issue was that the article is not about traveling virtuosi. My problem with the deletion is that that section is but a small part of a larger expansion. Avital is indeed part of an energetic movement that is indeed doing now what the tracking virtuosi did then, bringing energy into the mandolin music scene. You deleted what will probably be an introduction to a larger section of his place in modern classical and folk music expansion of the mandolin. If you're dead set against expansion, please let me know, and I'll figure something out.Jacqke (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jacqke, if I had noticed that it was you who had written the section I probably would have let it stay - but as it was unsourced and didnt seem related I just removed it. Feel free to insert it again if you are going to add sources that show how the section is relevant to Avital's life and career.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again

Just wanted to let you know I didn't keep the material with the new material I added. It was a bit too far off subject. I appreciate your having considered it.Jacqke (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could write a stand alone article about the mandolin virtuosi of the early 20th century?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Peace

Hey Maunus, thanks for your latest edit to Nahua peoples... my feeling had been that in saying that colonists used violence against indigenous religious practice, without mentioning that the religious practices themselves may have been violent, was an unbalanced view of the colonists. Your edits show an appreciation for this point, which I appreciate. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts at English language

1. Your edit summary was misleading, I assume you accept that. 2. I added cites. 3. "Overdetailed" is not a reason to revert. You are displaying a bias for the WP:STATUSQUO. At least the part about the leveling of strong verbs should be included, it is silly to mention "dreamt" without talking about bide. I don't want to edit war over this, but I advise you to read about how wikipedia is supposed to handle these situations. (WP:RV) --Monochrome_Monitor 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, overdetailed is a very good reason to revert in an article that is about a gigantic topic with many subarticles. You also did not add cites for most of what you added. And yes, I am showing a bias for the status quo because a team of quite competent editors collaborting over a period got it to the stage where it is now at with a lot of workd and research involved. Further developments should be improvements - and all involved in the article should agree that they are improvements. If you would propose your major changes on the discussion page and present arguments and sources for them, getting towards improving the article would be better. Note that I have gotten "thank yous" for all of the recent reverts I have done on the article from several different editors. Also you should read WP:BRD which shows how wikipedia should handle reverts. You made bld edits to an article, they were reverted, so now we discuss and seek consensus for how to improve the article. First you need to argue for why your changes are improvements- and then show the sources that support them. Furthermore, if you look through the archives you will find that there were specific reasons the statements aboyut pork/swin, beef/cow, and sheep/mutton were not included in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you see what I wrote on the talk page? I do think noting the morphological leveling of strong verbs is an improvement. And I did add citations. This is WP:CIRCULAR, but if you want to learn about it, we have an article at morphological leveling. And I'm aware of BRD, I just didn't think my edit was bold.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources you added were naked urls of the online etymological dictionary and an essay at aeon. Those are not sources that are of comparable quality to the rest of the level of sourcing in the article. If editors keep dropping by adding low quality references (without formatting them) and whichever details they find to be particularly interesting, then in a short while the article will not even qualify as GA anymore, much less be eligible to become an FA. Besides both of the topics you mentioned were already described in the article, you just added detail and examples. But this is how to resolve this: propose the changes at the discussion page of the article, and if there is a consensus among editors that they are an improvement, then we add them back. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The leveling of strong verbs was not mentioned at all, actually. It is a much more notable phenomenon than dreamt being written as dreamed.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Language

Hi Maunus- I am trying to edit the Turkish Language wikipedia entry for a course in Linguistics that I am enrolled in- I read your GA review of the page and decided to focus on improving the description of the section on vowel harmony, as well as the description of verbal morphology. I know it has been some time since you looked at this, but do you have any suggestions for me? Thanks! Umbereenbmirza (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Swazi language

Hi Maunus, I have been trying to look for a good language source for the siSwati language of Swaziland. The Phonology section is empty and needs more information. I have looked to see if there are any valid web sources or ebooks available, but I have not had any luck. Do you know of any good sources for the language that I can come across. I may need help. Thank you. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fdomanico, I would try and get a hold of some these books throug interlibrary loan if I were you: Handbook of Siswati, Introduction to Siswati phonetics, Grammar of Swazi. They may not be very easy to come by, but these look like good sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to purchase them online, or find e-Book copies of them? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You can buy the siswati handbook on Amazon.com and alibris.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Would love you to take a look at this article

Hi, would appreciate your feedback on this article, which was slated for deletion by a culturally inexperienced editor. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to assess that kind of article's notability - it really comes down to the independent sources available. I would tend to vote "keep" based on the sources present at this point - certainly we have less notable or significant articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. If you'd put those two cents here. Thank you.--A21sauce (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tongva language

I've been trying to look for good sources on the Tongva (Gabrielino) language. I'd like to be able to find a source on the pronunciation or the phonology. I can't seen to find reliable sources on the language, and the phonological information provided on here on Misplaced Pages, seems too complex and needs a citation. I don't know if nativelanguages.org's information on pronunciation is correct or if possible, do you have knowledge on the language where you could modify the information, or recommend me a good source? Thank you, please let me know. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The best sources on Tongva are by Pamela Munro and the group of tongva language revivalists. I believe they have a website. I will find it for you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This source has a phoneme inventory based on J.P Harrington's notes - in the first footnote.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the information. I've been trying to read what the phonemes are in the handbook. What do the fricatives/stops /ṣ/ and /c̣/ mean? Are they other symbols for /tʃ/ and /ʃ/? I'm also confused by one of the approximants. One of them sort of looks like a dental fricative /ð/. What do those IPA symbols represent though? Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not completely clear - I think they are retroflexes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)