User talk:Altenmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Altenmann//
User talk:Altenmann///

GamerGate Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar 06:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yaya Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ice island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Carrier[edit]

You asked for more information on Carrier. I left a reply because I have been doing some research on him recently for my own book on the unscholarly methods used by CMT proponents. Unfortunately it got reverted as Jeppiz apparently thought I was René Salm. I'm not, and I wasn't flattered by the comparison, but it did have the mildly amusing side-effect of getting Salm blocked for a further two weeks by an administrator when for once he had done nothing wrong (ironic, when you look at his history and see how much he's got away with in the past). However, in case it is of any use, I reproduce my comment below:

With regard to Carrier: what I am about to say is original research for a forthcoming book of my own so it obviously cannot be used in the article (before anyone asks, the book is probably several years from publication so can't be used here either). However, I thought it might come in handy for the discussion. There are reviews of Carrier's first book Proving History, but not in academic journals because it is so awesomely bad (Carrier claimed it survived peer review, which would be surprising for several reasons, but for the moment we'll take his word for it and assume the reviewers were having a bad day). The only quasi-academic critiques I know of are in Maurice Casey's book, and a series of reviews on R. Joseph Hoffman's blog, which although by scholars normally fails WP:RS. His treatment of Bayes Theorem was also effectually demolished in another field, cosmology, by physicist Luke Barnes, but that is again on a blog and not an RS as WP defines the term. I do know however of one academic review of his second book, but as it's by fellow self-published dogmatic mythicist Raphael Lataster, it doesn't exactly enhance Carrier's credibility to any great degree.
The problem in this particular case appears to be that Carrier is not trained in the proper application of Bayes Theorem (challenged on this point for details on where and when he received his training, he simply asserts he has it and anyone who expresses doubts about this will be sued for libel). In fact, the likeliest explanation is that he received a basic, low-level training in it while in the US Coastguard, where it is used by sonar operators to calculate what it is they have found. He was, however, in need of some way to justify his historical theories (which have always, on any subject, tended to be either fringe theories or so tendentiously put that they might as well be fiction novels) and this is what he came up with. He also tends to claim vast expertise in areas where he has no training and limited technical expertise (e.g. mathematics, German, archaeology, medieval palaeography). As a result, he's not taken terribly seriously in pretty much any field he's looked at and it's rather telling that the only piece of work he has ever written that has undoubtedly survived sustained critical examination, his doctoral thesis, has never been published. Bart Ehrman's smackdown of him veered from the slightly patronising to the extremely funny, and that is how most professional scholars see him.
That leaves a dilemma with regard to putting him in. If the article is to be about those proponents of the CMT with scholarly credentials, he belongs there. If it is about those works which are mainstream and taken seriously by actual scholars and have clear impact, he may not. However, that is a judgement call and that in itself raises questions.

Hope that is useful.109.156.158.20 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Amber Room[edit]

Hey there mate. I have re-added the image you removed from the article because: that part of the article describes a great deal about the Battle of Konigsberg and events related to Königsberg, so having a picture like that is not irrelevant. If you still disagree, I suggest we take to the talk page and get in the input of a neutral, third party. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The GA-review has begun so I'm just gonna drop the issue totally for the sake of the article. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riddle joke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hovhannes and Karapetyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Galloping off[edit]

Altenmann, saw your RM for gallop. Curious if you have a sandbox going or not. I have long thought about doing some work on the multiple articles surrounding the canter and gallop in the horse. Saw your tags at canter, tossed most of them because one biggie at the top should cover it. There is some argument made that the canter (also called a lope) and gallop are slightly different gaits due to the 3- and 4-beats that distinguish them, but at any rate, if you have the motivation to work on this, I'd be interested in a collaboration. I threw up my hands years ago after dealing with a tendentious (and now blocked) editor, but there are spinoffs that should be consolidated and so on. Anyhow, you have my interest and it would be GREAT to do an article improvement drive on these. Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If interested, here is everything related that I know of:

  1. Horse_gait#Canter_and_gallop
  2. Canter (FWIW, we also have trot and jumping (horse) as well as ambling )
  3. Lead (leg) (may be sufficiently complex to keep separate, not sure)

"Original research"[edit]

Seeing as you revert that edit, I would like to see a thorough explanation of how there was one bit of original research in my heavily-sourced edits. Zozs (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time right now. The key is your statement "The term Marxist-Leninist state is appropriate to describe a USSR-style state.". The rest is your WP:SYNTH to substantiate this theory. "Communist state", while a misnomer (communism is defined as stateless society), is a long established term based on the definition "state ruled by communist party". -M.Altenmann >t 16:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Source about Marxism-Leninist state referring to USSR-style state: The Poverty of Communism. Nicholas Eberstadt. Page 2. Sources about the USSR being a Marxist-Leninist state: Historical Dictionary of Socialism. James C. Docherty, Peter Lamb. Page 85., Ideology, Interests, and Identity. Stephen H. Hanson. Page 14. The Fine Line between the Enforcement of Human Rights Agreements and the Violation of National Sovereignity: The Case of Soviet Dissidents]. Jennifer Noe Pahre. Page 336. Pages 336, 348., Leninist National Policy: Solution to the "National Question"?. Walker Connor. Page 31..
Nothing dealing with the term "Communist state" is removed. Where is SYNTH? Zozs (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jew's harp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Altai
Katyusha rocket launcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rudnya
Kravchenko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Andrei Kravchenko
Last Address (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Repressions in the Soviet Union
Refusenik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Social parasitism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)