User talk:Altenmann///

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 7 months and 19 days.

.

.

.

.

.

---

I am quite busy in real life, until removal of this notice.

Therefore any messages will remain unanswered for longer time.

---

.

.

.

CFD of Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia

This is to inform you that Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia, which you created, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression. Your input is welcome.--Aervanath (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sister-twisted.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sister-twisted.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD U1

CSD U1 does not apply to user talk pages. Taemyr (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

IP edits

hello, I noticed your message on user:Lokyz talk page [1] concerning non productive nature of those IPs edits. I reopened the case on the ANI . As far as I can tell those IPS are controlled by same person, and pattern is always the same "clean up" names or other related issues to Lithuania/Russia/ etc. and promoting Polish ones. As you dealt with those IPs maybe you will find time to provide your insight on that ANI board. M.K. (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As you showed an interest in this case, could you advice how to proceed with these newest "contributions" [2][3]. Taking into consideration that non of these "sources" argue about those persons in questions, not mentioning that they not even close to WP:RS, plus my request to clarify certain things are unanswered on talk till now. Thanks in advance, M.K. (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary

Hi, can you tell me why you think that this is "unnecessary multiple external links to online versions" [4] ? Compare for example please [5] with [6]. Or last Баллимена with [7] This is not the same versions!. wiki.laser.ru has only hand-made articles, while so called "Full edition" has no any checkup and is made from automatic OCR version. Also wiki.laser.ru has interwiki to enwiki as well as a number of links to other wikipedias --193.200.95.45 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. If people want other versions, they may usew google. One representative is enough. There is no solid arguments why one version better than other. There are arguments in favor/against all versions. - Altenmann >t 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you read the links ? As I see - you don't. If Wikipedia is not a web directory then why small Irish towns have 4-6 external web links ? I don't want to flame, but I want to read an arguments why link to the unique attempt to arrange/adopt/format/wikify/categorized this great Encyclopedia is wrong and link to site that is almost spam site with a megabytes of advertisement is good ? -[]-193.200.95.45 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about "small Irish town". There are >2 mln wikipedia articles. I watch only some of them. Whatever great the effort of laser.ru, it says nothing about Brokhaus-Efron. Wikipedia links are for additional encyclopedic info on the topic. Also, it is wiki, hence no guarantee the text is not corrupted. In general, in wikipedia links to wikis, blogs, etc. are strongly discouraged. Also it seems it is quite imcomplete: e.g, my very first seacrh for Иеромонах, вотчина, Тиверцы, etc. failed. I.e. it turned basically useless for me to find old-time info which if Efron's is good for. Finally, advertisement is not necessarily bad as long as it is not obnoxious and do not impair speed of access (btw, your pushing of semi-fabricated laser.ru into wikipedia may well be seen as promotional campaign). - Altenmann >t 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange thing - I don't write that project is completed, but you abuse me that project is not completed and so it is spam. Well, Wikipedia also is not completed. And you want not to use my plain efforts to make B&E source more clear and related to Wikipedia.

May be you want to create a wiki for Vladimir Dahl as well and vikify a fitting Russian proverb na vore shapka gorit: I didn't call your project "spam", you said it yourself. BTW, tt is not related to wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dahl is really very difficult to read (even in modern adopted version) as well as to understand and wikify. I have category Категория:Даль with only 15 articles in it, may be you find more interesting Категория:Фразы. []193.200.95.45 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Next question: what can I do in such case: article in WP Custom of Ulster and article in B&E Ульстерский обычай. First one is 615 bytes and has no any sources and links, the second one - 9378 bytes and is source. ? If I write a link to B&E it will be spam or not spam ? Should I use link to wiki.laser.ru or to solid html site with adv spam without any possibilities to comment and add links ? []00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.95.45 (talk)

This is a totally different issue. You may expand "Custom of Ulster" and add a reference to the webpage by placing the template {{efron}} and external link to laser's page. If you simple add a link, it will be seen as a simple and cheap promotion of your website and deleted. - Altenmann >t 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not so huge amount of free time to translate from russian to english so greate amount of information for so unthankful community. Thank you for your attention.--193.200.95.45 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This community does not work neither for thanks nor for money. Still, some get some glory, other get some thanks. People do get something from this project, otherwise they would not join it. Those who don't get what they expect usually leave the project. You are welcome to stay and to leave and to come back. - Altenmann >t 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not fluent English, and the best that I can really give to enwiki - links to some sources as articles at wiki.laser.ru and/or noted some absent/wrong info in enwiki and/or B&E. But as I see there may be problems with spam qualification of such activity []193.200.95.45 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Move talk page

Hello, I noticed that you moved back article's name to proper title Occupation of the Baltic states, however its talk remains attached to old title Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Could you please fix it. thanks, User:M.K 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your assistance. Martintg (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NKVD orders et al.

Thanks for your attention and contribution. PetersV       TALK 05:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hacker

I noticed your edits on the Hacker article, multiple edits, including removal of content and references. Your edit summary indicated: "rm dicdefs" which I don't understand. I wanted to contact you before I reverted them.

your recent (re)deletion of Pentax K-7

Hi, you recently speedy'd Pentax K-7, giving the reason: "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentax K-7"

The previous deletion discussion came to the consensus that the article should be deleted since it was based on purely speculative information about a future, unreleased product. Well, that product has now been released, it is in the hands of many reviewers, and there is plenty of information about it in reputable trade publications and review sites. So I think it was inappropriate to re-delete it (and especially to speedy delete it), given these changes. Could you please restore it as soon as possible? Thanks. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Answered in User talk:Moxfyre. - Altenmann >t 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was actually in the middle of rewriting it, earlier today, as you may notice from the history. I added specs gleaned from DPReview and other reputable sites, but hadn't yet added refs for these. It would be helpful to restore the previous version to avoid doing this work over again.

Also, I'll admit I'm a little confused about the timeline. I agree it was quite foolish to recreate it on May 7 (not done by me), but I don't think that affects the validity of having the page today since it's now been officially released and there are reputable sources of information on it. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a deletion review of the Pentax K-7 article: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_21#Pentax_X-7 Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the restore! Am fixing/adding refs! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Platonov

I hope my latest explanation there helps as to why Platonov is not irrelevant, I am not merely being difficult to push including some bit of text. Feel free to contact via talk or mail, my identity is not a guarded secret. PetersV       TALK 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

Could you explain how you closed this debate, with 9 arguments for deletion and 4 for rentention as keep? The article has only one reliable independent source, which notes that a french explorer was the 3rd european to land at the island, more than 200 years before PNG was independent. That says nothing about bilateral relations. One "keep" argument hinged on this event, the second did as well (i.e. "per the excellent sources added." Since the only reliable independent source was this landing of a french explorer 200 years before independence). The 3rd said "you don't need secondary sources for an article," a clear failure to understand our notability guidelines for articles, i.e. "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine). The fourth keep argument appeared to hinge on A. Insisting that independent sources are not needed to establih a topic's notability and, B. That France controls New Caledonia, which is near PNG. I'm taking this to DRV, just letting you know of my concerns.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not vote. Most deletion votes were cast before the attempt to expand the article. Expansion continues even after AfD close. The available quite reliable refs clearly show that there is communication between the two states. Hence verifiability satisfied. As for notability, this is not about relations between me and a a guy who lives across the street. There are two officially recognized states. Once they relate to each other, these relations are notable, by common sense. - Altenmann >t 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying bilateral relations are inherently notable? Yilloslime ^T_C 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Please continue discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 4, where I expanded my answer. - Altenmann >t 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No? How else am I supposed to interpret "Once they relate to each other, these relations are notable, by common sense." then. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating, please continue discussion in the place where other can join it. It is not just between you and me. Wikipedia is cooperation of the whole community, not a collection of pairwise tug-of-wars. - Altenmann >t 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I'm going to revert your archiving from Talk:List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, which was both prematurely done, and apparently carelessly or impulsively done. While i don't doubt your good intent, your impatience was at least unconstructive, if not uncivil. I'll either do a more careful archiving after completing my organizational work, or notify you that i've reached a point where i don't expect to continue soon, and would find your efforts welcome. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. - Altenmann >t 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my posts without any rational reason?

You keep deleting my posts to the "list of regional nicknames" without any real justification. The cites I put in are valid, so please stop deleting immediately. Ridiculous.