Archives

1·2·3·4· 5·6·7·8·9 ·10·

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
Message added 00:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

==

retreating...·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) sorry to hear that Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If its not too late, I will make an effort to hang in there - though I'll need your involvement to keep me motivated. I apologize for leaving you there to fend for yourself... it felt as though I was beating my head against a wall. Logic prevails (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Logic prevails is User:Maunus under another guise, may I say I thought our discussion about the authorship of the Nican mopohua was a good augury for future cooperation, and for a while I took your silence on Juan Diego as tacit support, but now I see your silence reflects wiki-exhaustion (or worse). I sincerely hope you will rebound - in your own good time. Meanwhile, I have only today discovered that it would have been both more courteous to other talk users and more useful all round if I had put my proposed re-write on my user page (as I have now done with a re-write I am floating for Francis of Assisi). When I can face configuring all the footnotes, I will move my proposed re-write of Juan Diego there too. At first I thought the new article would be far too long, but it is almost done (currently 7,200 words). The real problem is the length of the footnotes - as to which I was expecting a rebuke and am/was hoping for guidance - from you in both cases :) Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logic prevails is logic prevails. We are not related, he was responding to a statement I made on his talkpage. I have enjoyed working with you as well. Thanks for the concern.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back. Logic prevails (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magnus/Maunus,

I've looked at your new looks in the user page and other areas and it looks good. Nice flying bird also. I am glad you are an Admin here at the English WP and I like your areas of interest. To my own completely subjective taste you are one of the nicest Admins I've seen around here. Hope you have time to continue doing the work you've been doing with all the academic responsibilities too. Good luck in general in your career. (I've made also some small additions in my own page lately, that you may or may not be interested to know about.) Regards, warshy^talk 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maunus

Regarding article Biopower,what I am trying to show is that the Foucault use of Biopolitics with which leads to his own theory of biopower has an historical precedent meaning that has beeen used through out recent history and did not arrive with Foucault's use I felt that the audience/reader should at least know.I have presented Agamben Thantopolitics as an example of this in doing so it widens the concept Biopower to future researchers,and is in no way trying to undermine Foucault's term Biopower.Many Thanks Richardlord50 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that that is what you are striving to do, but the article as it is now gives a much larger amiunt of attention to the non-Foucault usage than to the Foucault usage. That isa problem that is best fixed by giving a more comprehensive descvription of the Foucault and post-Foucault usage. In short I believe you are focusing too much attention on a small corner of the topic and ignoring the more important parts.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to use more on the post Foucault usage but it was an attempt to give unkown version of the term.Many ThanksRichardlord50 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize and appreciate that, but the article should describe the topic as a whole.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back, would have been a shame to loose you altogether - having said that, I'm more often than not on the Gaelic wiki these days, less hassle...

Anyway, I would have sent this in a pvt message if I could find the button but I can't. With your interest in Nahuatl, I thought you might be interested in a resource [1] a friend of mine has been developing to help speakers of smaller languages find each other on the sea of English that is Twitter. So far, there are 5 Twitterers that seem to at least occasionally use it. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is an interesting tool. I don't tweet myself - I have enough to do around here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you seemed to be interested in endorsing an RfC/U regarding User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I have started the RfC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and since I have never done one before, I can only hope it was done correctly. Please feel free to respond to this as you see fit. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, friend. There's an editor User:Trikemike who keeps automatically including Japonic in Altaic in this list. Japonic is not generally included in Altaic. He's not talking in either his edit summaries or on the Talk Page. I've posted on his Talk Page as well with no response. If you're not too busy, could you weigh in there? Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but User:Trikemike is at it again--just blindly removing Japonic from the article without bothering to even post an edit summary. --Taivo (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I can see how that must sound to a liberal who doesn't agree with me. From now on, I'll say something like "Liberals like me aren't afraid of race-crime statistics." And whether you're a "liberal like me" or some other kind of liberal will be entirely up to you. Leadwind (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you have a need to label yourself like that anyway, but at least that would be an improvement.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I'm a Scandinavian-descended liberal interested in history, religion, linguistics, and culture. That doesn't qualify me to be a liberal like you, but I wouldn't be surprised if you and I were actually closer than our differences on evolutionary psychology might suggest. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its live at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miradre The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 8:34 pm, Today (UTC−4