This is an archive of past discussions about User:Altenmann. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
hello, I noticed your message on user:Lokyz talk page [2] 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" [3][4]. 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)
Hi, can you tell me why you think that this is "unnecessary multiple external links to online versions" [5] ? Compare for example please [6] with [7]. Or last Баллимена with [8] 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 >t16:00, 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 >t00:37, 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 >t19:12, 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 >t00:37, 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 >t19:12, 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)
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.
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)
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 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. PetersVTALK21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
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 >t00:18, 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. YilloslimeTC00:31, 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 >t00:38, 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•t19:34, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courthouseman (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No, they are not. The authors on these websites are unknown and unknown source of information they use. - Altenmann >t23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed some of the posts on your talk page and your modus operandi seems to be consistent. You reverted my deletion of the "salsa gorda" category listed under sub-genres on the salsa music page. "Salsa gorda" is not a sub-genre of salsa music, but rather an adjective/modifier and definitely SLANGY way of describing SOME salsa songs, regardless of age. As in, "I'd like to hear some of that good salsa tonight," or "can you play some heavier salsa?" What's more, the term is generally only used by Puerto Ricans, and not Cubans, which are the other major players on the salsa scene. Notice how no one has created a meaningful link or stub (certainly the stub would be so insubstantial that it would not merit more than a few sentences). I am not one to engage in edit wars over petty inaccurate additions to articles unless they so substantially modify the meaning of something as to make it truly misleading to unwary third-party reader. So, keep your "salsa gorda," even though it was most likely an anonymous, unsupported addition to the article. Alternatively, CITE.--Noopinonada (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I am repeating, this is your opinion only. Just the same one may argue that "hard rock" is just an adjective/modifier for SOME rock music. I am repeating, I've seen myself in several books about salsa that "Salsa gorda" was listed as a sub-genre, opposed to "salsa romantica". I am not real expert in music, so I didn't want to write. But if you insist, I will write a short stub from books I have at hand. Even the authors of these books are wrong, it is still worth mentioning their opinion. If you can find references which say that "salsa gorda" is not a subgenre, please add. May I remind you that Tito Puente insisted that there is no such thing as "salsa music"? Now you are saying that there is no such style as "salsa gorda"... - Altenmann >t00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Romansh Wikipedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romansh Wikipedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Hello, I am an editor who missed the Category debate, but I am against the reduction of all the surname cats to one cat, Category:Surnames. I would like to assemble editors who are against that decision, and also formulate arguments against the decision. There is a discussion on my talk page between me & another editor, and my argument was, for example: Parker is a surname of English language origin (in turn from French). It may be borne by individuals of various ethnicities/nationalities, but that doesn't mean we must add the cat [Category:Latvian surnames of English origin] or [Category:Italian surnames of English origin] to Parker etc., just because some individuals of that ethnicity/nationality may have the name (of expatriate origin, etc.). Parker (surname) should be in Category:English surnames or Category:English language surnames. Alex (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Context
A weighted Voronoi diagram in n dimensions is a Voronoi diagram for which the Voronoi cells are defined in terms of a distance defined by some common metrics modified by weights assigned to generator points .
You wrote the sentence above as the beginning of an article. The lay reader could fail to find out within the first paragraph that mathematics is what it's about unless the reader clicks on the first link. Please see my recent edit to the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you report the bug to ru wikipedia? Does you bot have some kind of list for such things? Or I am doomed to reverting your bot at this page forever? - Altenmann >t02:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Removing category "Electronic Design Automation"?
Hi!
Cleaning up categories is a noble cause, but you have removed several topics such as Logic simulation from the Category "Electronic design automation". There is a long history of logic simulation being considered part of this area (see the archives of the Design Automation Conference, for example). It's also a natural place for a person to look to see what is a part of the field. LouScheffer (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's better to put each of these topics in both categories - the more general "design automation", and perhaps more specific ones such as timing, verification, or synthesis. I feel this potentially gives both the broader and the more specific views. Certainly, in terms of journals and conferences, all the topics mentioned are considered part of "design automation". Also, even the complete list is not so big as to be intractible, so I think having both is best. It is quite usual for an article to be in both a bigger and a subset category - see Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#Can pages be in more than one category?. LouScheffer (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you closed AfD with the description: "Repeated nomination by a banned user". I'm anything but a banned user and have contributed steadily for years... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②talk16:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
After one other admin looked at this situation, I'm pretty OK with the issue and am feeling resolved in my mind about it. I admit to you that I didn't act in an ideal way w.r.t. the category in question. I don't bear any grudge against you; hopefully you do not against me either. Thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Things have gone kind of off the map there at the discussion I started. Just to let you know I'm fine if you want to avoid it altogether—it would be a chore just to read through it now. Suffice it to say, things have veered off topic about as far away as possible from the issue I posted about initially. Good Ol’factory(talk)12:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No personal problems, but let's continue slow talk in your talk page. - Altenmann >t15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all I'd like to thank all the moderators and admins here, for much respect towards the new page, created by me: Litvins, for keeping it safe and sound. Thank you very much.
Mr. Altenmann, thank you so much for your corrections into my article "Litvins". I see much respect and positive attitude on the English Wikipedia, which is not the case on the Russian wiki where they threw me out for writing about Belarusian history. Thank you so much.
Im sorry, but did I offend you? I don't quite recall "Only categorize languages you fully know" as a wiki-rule anywhere. Or is it because I am doing something that you are not doing? (LonerXL (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
Well... it seems that have been keeping an eye out on my wiki-ventures, and looking over my shoulder lately. This brings something else to mind. For the past several months I have noticed that the more "in-the-know, intelligent wikipedians", appear to be the least active ones, as far as creating and editing articles go. However the ones who "have quite limited knowledge" like myself, seem to be the more active in creating and editing articles. I find this to be higly ironic and amusing.(LonerXL (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))
Why you not reply to what I wrote after your comment? --Scorpio95 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are you vandalising pages
Why have you reverted the changes that I have made, it is clearly not vandalism. So you need to have citations for titles now??? So titles have to have reliable sources??? From what I can see your the one who keeps vandalising pages.--Scorpio95 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
Stop vandalising
Stop vandalising pages --Scorpio95 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Paul Raymond TV airs elite tv all day etc 24/7 so that is the website for that channel--Scorpio95 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
Please prove this by citing references and add the corresponding text in the article. - Altenmann >t21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Reference
Hi I don't understand this "There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a references tag." on the paul raymond tv article I have followed the link that was given and looked over that page and I can't work out what needs to be done.
About the revert, those edits were made by User:Coolrey57, a sockpuppet of User:Rcool35 if you didn't know and mostly he has been doing some psuedo-vandalism that I have been reverting. Don't get me wrong, I appriciate some of his edits but some of the edits just made no sense, like changing the founder's name from their stage name to their slightly unrecognizable real name. See here for more details. Just wanted to let you know, thank you. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
New Schoolbooks of Russia
Hi! Sander Säde gave me a tip to may (or may not) have some interest in modern Russian. The article Historical revisionism (negationism) mentioned that Russians replaced history book in 2004 where Stalin is again glorified. According to Sander Säde, a new version in 2008 showed Stalin in even more favorable light. Have you any interest to start an article of these new schoolbooks? Or at least give some guidance? Peltimikko (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edits from the snowclone page?
You provided no reason. My example had references (from Yale, no less), and I'm fairly confident that it is the only time that a snowclone will ever be the subject of a network television episode. I know I don't have a wikipedia user page or any articles of my own, but I'm not here to vandalize. My example just belongs on this snowclone page.
Chadvonnau (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside a question of redirects, I don't following the reasoning why linking the two articles is inappropriate. For example, if the John Adams article links to his son, John Quincy Adams, and JQA links to his father, JA, there is a 'circular link'.
By the same reasoning, I don't following why fascination with chewing in considered a wrongful circular link to a fascination with eating? Or, are you saying redirect (which I wasn't aware of) is somehow related? What am I missing?
I don't understand your question and how your examples are related. How son and father related to the subject? Which article describes fascination with chewing and which is for fascination with eating (did you have gourmet, glutton or foodie in mind)? Please express your concerns directly and clearly and in the context of the article in question. - Altenmann >t16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Androphobia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (2 nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In reply to this edit, of course you're allowed to link to another wiki in the Wikipedia. What we can't do is use a wiki as a reliable source as per WP:RS, but there's a difference between a reference and an external link. External links are covered by a different policy in WP:EL. Samboy (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"What is not" in WP:EL also excludes this link, but I don't care much, as long as these extlinks will not accumulate there. - Altenmann >t17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I do not inetensely feel for it or agains it. Still, IMO the link is thoroughly nonencyclopedic: it adds no new encyclopedic content to the wikipedia article, just a bunch of examples. Wikipedia artice does need examples, however they must be notable, i.e., discussed elsewhere. - Altenmann >t21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Very nice of you to try to improve this topic. After you are done adding info to your newly-created article Memorial of the Victims of Communism and of the Resistance, could you please think whether we really need two separate articles, or maybe it makes more sense to merge them. Also, pls let me and User:Biruitorul know when you are done (I know he is also very interested in this, and has recent pictures). We would like to help. Dc76\talk22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"I am glad that immediately interested people exist, and I can move on to other missing topics." What a coincidence, I was about to say the same thing, and lay the burden of you. :):) Ok, now seriously, let's agree we all need to work on this. It's not urgent, but we should not postpone it for years. (I have done such things with other articles, i.e. pushed them into the to-do list for more than a year ... :) )
"There are four in question: Sighet prison, Sighet Museum, Memorial of the Victims of Communism and International Centre for Studies into Communism". The second redirects to the first, and the forth is red, so there are only two. Granted that ideally we can have 3 (or even 4) separate articles, but if the choice is between 4 stubs and 1 GA, I prefer 1 GA. Of course, I would like 4 GA articles. But is that realistic even in distant future? We need to have at least 1/2 of articles at least potentially GA-able. Otherwise, we transform WP is a sport "how many millions of articles can we create". If you find an editor prepared to work on improving all 3 or 4 articles to at least 2-3 pages of good text, then sure, that is the way to go. Alternatively, however, we can have 1 article, intelligently organized in such a manner that it can be split into 3 or 4 within seconds if and when it would be the case. Memorial of the Victims of Communism sounds as a good title. Dc76\talk23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Sounds logical.
P.S. My goal in WP is not so much writing articles, but organizing info. Therefore I am more present in categories, templates, etc. My thinking is often from the POV of "in which category this goes?" :) Out of this, I don't like if a peace of information is repeated in many articles. I am an anti-deletionist, but is somewhat peculiar sense: I prefer merging, since that adds info to existing articles. Voting for them and supporting merges helps save information targeted for deletion. In this case however you made a logical point: the prison article can talk about communist times, and the other 3 can be merged. I believe (if I remember correctly) this point was also raised once in discussions by Turgidson a few years ago at the talk page of Sighet prison. ok, seems settled. Dc76\talk23:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please self-revert your last revert on the above page. That is your fourth revert in 24 hours. If you do not revert it you will be reported for the 3RR violation.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. csloat (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, you are not wamiliar with three-revert rule. My edits included attemts to change the phrasing, to remove possible treaces of WP:SYNTH. - Altenmann >t20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I am reverting your recent edit re-instating "Law on Communist Genocide" for reasons stated on the discussion page. Please discuss there. If you revert the edit I will report it to the 3rr noticeboard. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not up for dealing with someone accusing me of Religious Discrimination or some such stuff these days, what with my current circumstances. Thank you for stepping in to help. DS (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you please check (watchlist?) that page? It seems I'm currently party to some Eastern European sanctions, so I am not allowed to revert it, but a certain user is vehemently introducing pointless cherrypicked material against the living person, that I was trying to keep within certain encyclopedic limits. Regards, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!)08:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Altenmann, I just tagged your The New Cold War as a G6, interpreting it as a disambiguation page that doesn't list any WP articles. I must have tagged right after your first edit, then checked the titles listed, and then hit save--so when I hit save I didn't see that the authors had acquired wikilinks (they didn't have that in the first version). Well, you're an admin, you know what to do to remove the template. Sorry for crossing edits, Drmies (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for nominating this template for deletion, I had no idea you were using it. The problem is that by using |category=no you are supressing all of the categories which the templates generate. Therefore the articles do not appear in the appropriate categories. I think I have fixed the template now, but all the existing uses will have to be fixed. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of this? On one hand, it's a valid concept. On the other, the term is not an English word (i.e., it's not in any of the dictionaries I looked at). On the third, the term seems to enjoy some usage in English books. On the forth, it's not solely a Russian concept, other countries have it too, and I doubt they call it "fortochkae" (sic). And on the fifth, I have no clue what this could be merged or redirected to (surely not a window?). All in all, it seems to be a multi-handed dilemma you would enjoy dealing with (but I might be wrong). Do you have any ideas as to what to do with this particular grain of knowledge?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:02, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Simple answer, there's too much to do, and I don't have the time. I just recently did a rough start on Forced labor of Germans after World War II, and was thinking of perhaps expanding the part on forced labor in the East German uranium mines. I have the book by Norman Naimark, the "Russians in Germany", where there is extensive information on the topic, e.g. first prisoners of war, then enforced labor conscription early after the war, and then later how they recruited young socialist volunteers who then realized they were not allowed to leave, etc.--Stor stark7Speak08:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Landholder
I see you reverted my "merge" of the article Landholder into the more developed article Real property. My objection to the article Landholder is that it is basically a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Specifically, Wikipedia policy states: stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored. Landholder has been in existence for almost four years, yet is still a stub. More to the point, I can't see any way to expand it without creating a list of trivia (such as "The largest landowner in the United States is Ted Turner") or recreating material that surely already exists in other articles. If you can justify its continued existence, please do so on the talk page. Or if you can expand it into a coherent article, please do that. Otherwise I will open a discussion for its merger or deletion. Sisterdetestai (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of the issues with Landholder. My main objective was to remove the perpetual stub article and have articles that linked there go directly to something more informative. The Landholder article seemed rather unloved, considering that I tagged it in March and nothing had happened since. Therefore I felt justified bypassing the review stage and doing a partial merge, which seemed the best solution after studying the confusing guidelines provided by Wikipedia. Perhaps I went about it in the wrong way, but in the end the problem has been fixed. I thank you again for your corrective work. And as an aside, in the kindest tone I can muster and with the best intentions at heart, I'd like to point out that simply using the word "please" in your comments does not necessarily make them polite. But since we're all assuming good faith here anyway, I've chosen to believe that I just misinterpreted your comments to be harsher than you intended, as you apparently did with my comments. Now let's get back to the real work of improving Wikipedia one page at a time. Cheers! Sisterdetestai (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Altenmann, in response to your recent comments: 1) I read your original post on my talk page again, and I really did misinterpret some of it. The fault was more in my reading than in your writing. And no, I did not figure out that you are not a native English speaker. Good work fooling me! But had I known this, I might have read your comments more forgivingly. In any case, I apologize. 2) Part of the reason I took some offense at your comments was the implication that I had not followed WP policy. In fact, I had spent a couple of hours reading through the WP pages trying to decide what to do and how to do it. There was no single correct answer. The way I understand it, mergers do not always have to be discussed beforehand, and partial mergers are perfectly acceptable. I had listed my original objections on the Landholder talk page 8 months ago, and there were no responses. The only edits that had been made since then were done by bots. The article itself was a stub that consisted of only a few sentences. Nobody else seemed interested in this article, so I decided to be bold and do a merger/redirect, bypassing nomination and discussion. The only reason I chose to merge to Real property is because that's where Land ownership pointed, until you recently changed that. As for choosing which material to keep and which to discard, of course I used my own judgment because no one else's was available. I considered the article text to be either obvious or trivial, so I didn't move it. Instead, I made sure that the "See also" section of Real property contained all of the same links that Landholder did, and that's why I called it a "merge". I did the best I could with the resources available, so I didn't appreciate being told (as I read it) "you didn't follow the guidelines, you made a false entry in the revision history, and you shouldn't attempt to make big changes to articles unless you are an expert in that field". But never mind. However we got here, there is now a solution in place that is satisfactory to both of us. And I've gained a better appreciation for WP:AGF. Sisterdetestai (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Belarusian towns
Hi, Thanks for starting these missing articles. One thing though. Can you copy the infobox example here and import the coordinates/population/coat of arms etc from the other wikis. I have just been working on adding infoboxes to Belarusian settlements so it helps rather than be having to come back to them later. CheersHimalayan21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I restored the rows and the group names for jellyfish you deleted in the List of animal names. Perhaps you meant to delete the jellyfish group names but I suspect the other rows were deleted unintentionally. If I am wrong, let's discuss it on the talk page. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I was about to clean up this stub a bit, but then I started having trouble finding information about this place. It is not listed as an inhabited locality in either OKATO or the municipal formations list of the oblast, and the only official mentions I could find at all were a 1998 list of monuments of culture and history of Arkhangelsk Oblast (which contains two items attributed to Nizhnyaya Toyma—a mid-19th century church and a house of S. A. Pyatin), and a mention of a contract for fixing a road leading to Nizhnyaya Toyma (which is dated 2007). Digging further back in the past, the 1969 registry of inhabited localities of the oblast does not list this village at all. On the other hand, it should be noted that Arkhangelsk Oblast's legislation dealing with the administrative and territorial issues is a complete mess (and has been for some time), so perhaps it's just an oversight on their part.
Anyway, my question is basically whether you have anything (and I mean anything at all) in addition to the weather link currently in the article that could help resolve this minor mystery? Any bit of information, no matter how seemingly insignificant, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, crap, I now remember. Thanks anyway. Arkhangelsk Oblast is due to publish an updated list of inhabited localities some time before 2013; hopefully it'll shed some light then. For now, I'm going to leave this stub alone, unless something new comes up. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of AXAH. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AniMate00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Kvass
Kvass is for most non-Russian's experienced only through Russian literature. I don't believe it is trivia at all for most English speakers in the English Wikipedia. I've restored it. If you wish to delete it, I will not interfere, but I may begin a wider polling process to bring in additional people to voice their opinions on the topic and try to arrive at a larger consensus. I'd appreciate letting me know where you stand so I don't have to keep watching the article. Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi
What are you like with the tagging of cats - would you support project identification utilising:
a soviet project tag for soviet cats, and no socialism or russia tags
some other guiding principal
I would be interested - it looks like you might have a good idea on it
specially with such a neat talk and user page! (I am envious)
Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union - i put all three
Category:Apparat of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - just the one
As you appear a familiar of (the late) douglas adams or the derivative number - I am considering the possible variations within the realms of improbability or probability of permutations of soviet/russia/socialism tags across the as yet untagged soviet and russian cats SatuSuro02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Altenmann, you moved Alexander Lake (Alaska) to Lake Alexander (central Alaska). Now why you moved a lake with a name like "Alexander Lake" to "Lake Alexander" is not clear to me. Bevore I start correct the resp. intewikis... Could you please explain why the Alexander Lake ist to be found at Lake Alexander now? Thanks, --Gereon K. (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for re-moving the article. The only Lake Alexander of any noteworthyness that I know of is in Northern Australia. Since "Lake Alexander" is never used for the mentioned Lake in Alaska we shouldn't rename it. :) However, another detail strikes me odd: on any map that I look at this lake lies in the south of Alaska. Where does "central Alaska" start? Cheers, --Gereon K. (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Apology
I am sorry for my comments in the past and would like to be as collaborative as possible. Please do not hesitate to tell me whatever you think should be debated. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time at the moment... I greatly respect your contributions in this project. Happy editing, Biophys (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People from Azerbaijan
This is a request for you to stand for recall. Judging by your behavior here and here I do not believe you are an asset to this project, and you certainly not represent this project as an administrator. Rklawton (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Judging by your behaviour here and here and here I conclude that you are a bully who likes to teach people how to do things rather than directly discuss the raised points concerning the article, I am taking the liberty to disregard your request, At the same time I do believe that you are an asset to the project, I just don't want to communicate with you unless my opinion about you changes. - Altenmann >t01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This recall request confuses editing and administrative roles. I think recall as an administrator should be based on administrative activities not on a user's editing activities. There is a process for addressing an editor's actions when they are considered inappropriate and as far as I know recall as an administrator is not one of them. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do like to teach people how to become better editors here at Wikipedia. And that is a very useful task. You'll note that the two edits of yours that I called into question have been reverted by other editors for the same reasons I gave. The only other point to make is that the response you gave to my reversions wasn't civil - and incivility is counterproductive to this project. Please learn from this. Rklawton (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an old say "who can, does; who cannot, teaches how to do." You'll note that I was not warring over the revert. I started a discussion in the talk page after reading it and reading its FAQ and noticing that my points were never discussed. Instead of addressing them, you basically called my concern pointless bullshit (only in a polite way) and started teaching me how to edit wikipedia. I strongly suggest you to exercise in showing respect to fellow wikipedians, if you want your teachings seen like teachings, not like bullying, no matter what civil language you are using. Civil language is but a frosting, and if the underlying attitude is demeaning, shit covered with sugar not only tastes shit, but smells rat. Second, learn how to count: I've made a single (and probably the last) edit in the Muhammad page, so be happy. Third, my response to your revert was 100% civil: I went to talk page to explain my objectins in plain and neutral language. If you perceive anything what contradicts you as incivil, then you are a clear danger for wikipedia, despite your contributions to article content. - Altenmann >t16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Your comments on the image talk page were addressed - as was pointed out by another editor after you incorrectly stated they weren't. Saying they weren't again here, doesn't make it so. Your comments regarding teaching and doing are trite, cliché, and a non-sequitur given your subsequent acknowledgement of my contributions to this project. I do. I teach. You, on the other hand, disregard consensus and lack civility. You may read into my words incivility if you wish, but then you stand in violation of WP:AGF. Your repeated use of foul language above stands violation of WP:CIVIL. Your edit here violates both WP:POINT and WP:DICK. If you continue leaving such an obvious trail of ill-considered edits, I will have little recourse but to report it, and I would have no objection to doing so. I would prefer, though, that you mend your ways. Rklawton (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I stated in the article talk page and repeat here again that I no longer wish take part in the discussion after a self-proclaimed policeman (you) interfered amid the beginning of a factual dialog with uncalled-for preachings. My comments about teaching is a cliche well applied to you. In order to teach successfully, you have to respect the student. If you are offended by the word "shit", this is your personal problem. You may politely ask me not to use it, and I will use the word "excrement" in dialogs with you. My edit "here", with edit summary "(please don't edit other people contributions in talk pages, unless they are offensive, copyvio or otherwise highly harmful)" is within my reasonable rigths of general civility opinion. Your unjustified usage of foul language ("dick") as applied to me I consider as a personal attack and suggest you to withdraw. Please mend your ways yourselves. - Altenmann >t04:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I was rather expecting you to read the various essays and learn from them. Incivility extends beyond the mere use of foul language. You aren't helping the project when you fail to assume good faith and attack other editors - especially editors making a good effort improve overall performance. Now, if you'll read up on article talk pages, you'll learn that I removed a section that stood in violation. Another editor agrees with me enough to remove the section again - and none have come to your defense. If you had any respect for practice and process, you'd learn from this. Rklawton (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a troubling development that disrespect to "non-qualified" people is so deeply rooted in wikipedia, that even editors I profoundly respect do not think twice, and thus contribute to the growing public perception about growing unfriendliness of wikipedia. The proper, respectful handling of the issue is like this. Some science geek posted his rant in an article talk page, obviously not very familiar with how wikipedia works. There are two options: slap him into his face "yours is not wanted here", or explain him how he could become a respected contributor. Pleas tell me which way, in your opinion, is preferable and why. - Altenmann >t16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As for my alleged attacking, nice turning of the table. In the Muhammed talk page I stated that I am withdrawing from the discussion and explained why. (I don't want to deal with uncalled-for accusations and threats regarding my good-faith edit.) It is you who mounted a massive, multi-pronged attack against me, which has nothing to do with my single, occasional, edit of the Muhammed page. You convinced me that creating and discussing wikipedia content is not among your first priorities, I will no longer address your groundless attacks. - Altenmann >t16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
European Plain
Please take care when reverting; I accept your rationale on keeping the map, but you also removed a reference and the 'see also' section. I have since restored them. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I somehow didn't notice other changes. I guess too much hitting "revert" button today". - Altenmann >t04:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Altenman, as the article Friday the 13th is a semi-protected one, I kindly ask you to copy the following to the last part of the History section: "In Spanish-speaking countries, instead of Friday, Tuesday the 13th is considered a day of bad luck.[1] For example, the Fall of Constantinople, when the city fell to the Ottomans, fact which marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, happened Tuesday, May 29th, 1453, and that is why the Greeks consider Tuesday to be an unlucky day.[1]" Thanks. Krenakarore (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of who copied who, the only source in the Ancomah article was either the copyvio itself, or a mirror site. Show me some legitimate sources for this article and I will gladly restore it. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. The existence of the article for so many years initially gave me pause as well, as I thought it was just in need of a rewrite. Then I looked at the source, which prompted a Google search which turned up very scant reference. I happen to love articles such as this (little known, local legends), so if there are any good sources out there, it would be great to bring the article back. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the decree is the right one. The NCFD was created by an amendment to that decree. The amendment is supposed to show up in the ref as well, which it will as soon as I find out what its number and title are (kremlin.ru only re-printed the body, but I need to know at least the number in order for the reference to render properly). I'm checking with consultant.ru (and kremlin.ru's documents section) daily, but they don't have that information just yet. As soon as it's available, I'll update the refs.
As for North Caucasus, I'll update it to mention both federal districts. There are probably several other articles that need updating; if you happen to think of one and can't edit it yourself, please let me know. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:22, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
And really, no need to be sarcastic. If you take one minute to stop and think, you'll understand perfectly well why I referenced neither statement. It does not at all mean I never intended to reference them eventually, though. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Without any correct refs and with a seemingly irrelevant ref dated 10 years ago you created confusion, so don't be defensive, just fix your mess. I was not sarcastic; I was genuinely surprized. The Russian page does have refs. I don't tell me I could have done it myself: I don't have cyrillic keyboard to search Russian texts. - Altenmann >t17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind it when people don't understand why I do or do not do certain things (and I am perfectly fine with you marking those two pieces as uncited), but I must say it really irks me when people assume that I did (or did not do) certain things because I was lazy or inattentive or something to that effect without even asking first. It is especially disappointing to know that you, of all people, assumed the worst. Anyway, here's the gist: I am not satisfied with the refs in the Russian Wikipedia, and the ones I am satisfied with I can't add just yet for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who's at least vaguely familiar with my editing style. Once I am satisfied, I'll add the sources accordingly, and if other people choose to add a ref from ru_wiki in the interim, it's fine by me. If there's one thing I don't like, it's doing the same job more than once, and that's precisely what's happening with this article. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
I continue to be genuinely surprized how you cannot be satisfied, regardless any editing style, with refs from kremlin.ru found via russian wikipedia. I am also baffled with the editing style whereby a person creates dozens of redirects from different spellings for insignificant places while has no time to make a decent, verifiable page about a high-importance subject. I don't know about your experience, but I was taught in hard way that no matter how important subject you write about, there always is some newpage patroller trigger-happy to slap "notability" "prod" and whatsnot tags on your work. While I would not brag about my generally sloppy editing style, but in last 2 years I didn't create a single unreferenced stub, and I would advice you to do the same, to spare grievances. - Altenmann >t19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we all contribute in ways we can, do we not? For example, if you had dozens of very short periods of free time throughout your day every day, but hardly ever a single day with a few hours of uninterrupted free time, you'd probably be doing more maintenance and perhaps even creating insignificant redirects yourself, no? That is, of course, unless you are really good with doing thorough research about decent, high-importance subjects while being constantly bombarded with real-life happenings (I'm sure such people exist, but I am, unfortunately, not one of them). As much as it pains me to admit, my attention priorities lie in real life, not on-wiki.
As for your other concern, I don't recall creating much (if anything) in the last two or so years that was blatantly unreferenced (or stayed blatantly unreferenced for long), except for those pesky disambigs, to which you can't add a reference even if you really-really want to. I'm sorry, but you are way off with this piece of advice. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? And if you mean NCFD, I already explained that I will add the references as soon as their quality satisfies me (which should be some time next week). While kremlin.ru is, of course, a top-notch source, note that in this case the amendment you used as a source is incorporated into the body of a news bit. Were it available in the Documents section (where all other presidential decrees are), it would have been a different story entirely. Hope that answers your question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
And to return the community serivce favor, I believe you intended the five redirects to point to Akbulat, not Akbolat (which itself is now a self-redirect) :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:23, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I'm all over the place sometimes, too. :) By the way, should probably let you know that Akbulat, Republic of Bashkortostan no longer exists (not officially, at least). Need to dig to find out when it was abolished, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:44, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
While looking for it, I saw a indications of renaming or attempted renaming, including Novoakbulatovo->Novy Akbulat and Staroakbulatovo->Stary Akbulat. Also some texts related to Staroakbulatovo call it Akbulat, and its zip code is the same. I created this page for the sole purpose of keeping Akbulat page from deletion by disambig-runners. And unfortunately I failed to find better akbulats. - Altenmann >t02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a common problem with names. Often the locals call their place differently than what it is officially recorded as. I still need to run a few checks (I'm currently away from most of my sources/books/databases), but it looks that Akbulat you found is actually called Akbulatovo (here's the official postal service record).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
As for the postal codes being identical for Akbulat and Staroakbulatovo, it's not uncommon for closely situated villages to share the same postal code. In Bashkortostan and Tatarstan in particular, villages called Starosomething, Novosomething, Something, Verkhnesomething etc. are usually located fairly close, so the shared postal code is a typical situation for them. But like I said, I'll do more checks before I start moving/correcting stuff.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:48, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you are still interested in this (after having deleted the page), but here's what I've been able to dig up. First off, there are numerous villages in Bashkortostan called (officially) "Akbulatovo", but not a single one called "Akbulat". As for the one in Tatyshlinsky District, what got me really confused at first is the lists of the three rural localities in Akbulatovsky Selsoviet. To cut long story short, those lists don't match from one source to another. In some (and usually older) sources these three places are called Akbulat, Savalyay, and Churguldy, in others—Staroakbulatovo, Savaleyevo, and Churguldy. I am inclined to go with the latter set, because that's the one used in the documents relevant to the subject of the administrative-territorial divisions (the first set figures in derivative documents listing areas affected by issues that have nothing to do with the administrative divisions). The sources I went with include Part II of OKATO, Bashkortostan's registry of the administrative and territorial units, their registry of municipal units, and the reference work on the history of the inhabited localities of Bashkortostan by A. Z. Asfandiyarov. Additionally, both the 1952 and the 1926 books on the administrative divisions of the Bashkir ASSR refers to the place as "Staro-Akbulatovo", which pretty much rules out the theory that the village was renamed from "Akbulat(ovo)" at some point. My guess is that "Akbulat" and "Savalyay" are closer to what the locals call these villages, or perhaps these spellings are the result of the influence of the Bashkir language.
Also, just to make things clear, this Staroakbulatovo is a different place in a different district.
Finally, I tried to located anything else called "Akbulat" (just to have something to stick onto the disambig page), but it doesn't seem there are any places called that. If Akbulatovo page would be of any use to you whatsoever, please let me know, I'll put one together. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:07, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
Your recent church lady antics are PRECISELY why people HATE Wikipedia.
I added a one line insert to a photograph caption and you act like I changed Barack Obama's birth certificate!
The additional information I added to that caption is ENTIRELY appropriate. And, exactly what source do you want me to include to back up that UMich has a ballroom dance team? Do you want one of the girls to dance with you? And where/how do you want me to include it?
Simply Sad....
PS I'm SURE you will justify your every action and prob want to debate me on it's merits.
But, in order to save time, I'm just going to re-enter the information as it was.
DO NOT REVERT IT.
And please don't threaten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.182.135 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a growing concern about red-link spam in WP articles and editors are now encouraged to "write the article first" WP:WTAF. I presume since you reverted my preliminary clean-up of red-links on this page that you intend on starting at least a few of these articles yourself in the near future. Otherwise, your actions seem counter-productive. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC).
3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a law teacher.
9) there is a requirement to have a discussion on deletion for a sufficiently long period. The discussion started on 14 January 2010 and the article was deleted on 21 January - THAT IS SEVEN DAYS ONLY - this is an insufficiently short period and violation of wiki-rules.
1-#7 aren't proper sources (they're mentions, not about the subject itself). #8 is not exactly true: there was a vandal that said don't delete because we shouldn't delete articles about bunnies ruling the world. I can't find anything justifying #9, is there some policy that says a week is too short a time? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ian.thomson, I do not like people like you who start to imagine that they are experts on everything without having ever read at least anything. First of all I belive that this discussion shall be here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism and not on this page, so please put it there.
You say that points 1-7 only mention judicial shamanism but do not deal with the subject itself - this is NONSENSE.
1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania deals with the problem of double judicial standards and CONCLUDES that the practice of double standards is JUDICIAL SHAMANISM. This is an article of former President and twice Prime Minister of Lithuania.
2) The concept of "judicial shamanism" is explicitely mentioned at the official website of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court - this is a response of the Constitutional Court to what is called "judicial shamanism". A journalist asked the Court on what they think about "judicial shamsnism", and the Court gave an answer.
3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005). The very title of the article shows that the subject of the article is precisely "judicial shamanism". This book was published by the World Congress of Philosophy of law and this shows that the theory is notable.
4) The concept of "judicial shamanism" is also in use in the works of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo - in the mentioned book - Prince dedicates a chapter precisely on the subject of judicial shamanism.
5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis - as it follows from the title of the article - it is precisely on the subject of judicial shamanism.
6) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Psychomental Complex of the Tungus". All book is dedicated to this problem. Professor Shirokogoroff from Cambridge writes that Western philosophies, Western conceptions, and Western law is a form of shamanism.
7) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard introduces the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this is one of the core ideas of his theory of simulacra. Ian.thomson, you never heard about the theory of simulacra in your life, so why don't you go to another discussion?
Finally, there is a Wiki-rule that 7 days period is valid for deletion only in the case of consensus - and there was no consensus. One user was against deletion. It is highly inappropriate to call him a vandal - this is a personal opinion.
If you need an opinion of an expert, you can ask, for example, professor Duncan Kennedy from Harvard - kennedy@law.harvard.edu
Please rease WP:RS. Mentions of a subject ("The concept of "judicial shamanism" is explicitely mentioned", "is mentioned at page 42", etc) are not considered appropriate sources. Also, please point out what rule you are citing instead of just saying it exists. Plus, the only other edits by that vandal were vandalism that were reverted as vandalism, and that guy's objection was nonsensical at best (but you have a habit of not reading the last half of something). And finally, you have no authority to say what I have or haven't heard of. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
to Ian.thomson - the problem of Wikipedia is that people like you who never heard about "postmodernism" or "critical legal studies" are allowed to have a dictatorial opinion. I would consider only the opinion of the person who has experience with Critical Legal Studies as important, and your as undercompetent. To your last point:
1) How to put into your head that the concept of "judicial shamanism" is not simply mentioned in the 7 sources? "judicial shamanism" is a TITLE of those articles, it is a CONCLUSION in the article of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania, it is a TITLE of CHAPTER in the Brazilian book. I do not know how it is possible to maintain a meaningful conversation with such undercompetent people who do not even know what the words "title", "conclusion" and "title of a chapter" mean.
2) Even if some editions of that guy really were vandalism - it does not mean that he always posts only vandalisms. You cannot apply the presumption of vandalism for a person forever. In this case I believe that you, Ian.thomson, are a vandal - you never heard nor about "postmodernism", neither about the role of "shamanic ritual" in the theory of simulacra of Jean Baudrillard. You do not speak French. You do not speak Portugease. You do not speak any other foreign language, and you are proud of this.
3) Ian.thomson does not understand what is "reliable source". The article of President Paksas that accuses the courts in judicial shamanism is published at the official website of the President. The statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court is published on the official website of the Court. The article of Stanislovas Tomas is published by the World Congress of Philosophy of Law. The book of professor Shirokogoroff is published by Cambridge University Press. The books of Jean Baudrillard is always published by the best French publishing houses, but you do not know their names because you simply know absolutely no French publishing houses. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
4) Ian.thomson writes about himself "I am a college student working on getting my English major (I plan to be a high school English teacher)." And he deletes articles about law and postmodernism written by law professors from Germany? This is ridiculous. I vote for disclosing the degree level of the admins! STOP THIS UNDEREDUCATED ANARCHY. Dear Ian.thomson, go back to your English literature. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't heard of postmodernism? You seriously need to quit assuming so much. I just finished a course on postmodernism where I corrected the professor multiple times and I did quite well with my papers on Borges and Angela Carter. You need to read WP:VAN, you have no idea what a vandal is according to Wikipedia standards. The vandal I pointed out had only 3 edits - two reverted as vandalism, and the objection which went on about bunnies ruling the world. What mental imbalance do you have that competely prevents you from seeing that part of that guy's objection? As for me deleting articles - I haven't deleted any of yours yet, but welcome to Wikipedia - the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit provided they know how to follow the guidelines. By the way, I'm not an admin. That you did not know that, and your general incompetance and ignorance of Wikipedia, show you have no idea what you are doing on here. If you think that people shouldn't mess with what they know nothing about, you should leave Wikipedia to the people that know what they are doing. If you aren't capable of paying attention to simple stuff like "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," "What's wrong with Judicial Shamanism or Giant Bunnies ruling the earth?" "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page," then I really don't care how educated you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
re: Ian.thomson, yes anyone can edit, but it is rediculous when a person who studies English in a second class college, does not have a law diploma and does not speak foreign languages comes and tries to show that he understands everything about everything. There is a thing called SELF-RESTRAINT. I would never edit anything about literature or sport or medicine, so why do you think you are necessary in law? Concerning the guy whom you call "vandal" - if once he did something wrong - it does not mean he will always do nonsense - and this would do a positive thing - destroy the consensus of two undereducated persons. In this case, you could keep the article for one week more until a lawyer familiar with postmodernism takes a look at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)158.64.52.114 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
By your argument, since you do not know how to use Wikipedia, you should not edit at all. Had you followed the guidelines, your article might have been up. But no, you edited pages for closed discussions, leave messages on userpages, accuse people of being vandals that do not qualify according to site standards, and defend an obvious vandal only because he agrees with you. Wikipedia is not about elitist and snobbish entitlement, it is about bringing forth sources that deal specifically enough with the subject, sources that enough editors have access to to verify, so that even someone not specialized in the subject can see the article is a reliable summery of those sources. But no, you say that you are important and expect us to take you at your word with no evidence while you completely go against protocol.
If someone submits a paper to a journal and had it rejected, that person would not help their chances by writing their objection on the filing cabinet in which the rejection notification was stored. That author would not do well to spray painting their objections on the editor's house. That person would not help their chances by calling upon a former employee to argue his case who was fired the second day of work for showing up high and urinating on a secretary. Throwing a tantrum like a small child would not help that author's chances either, especially if they did happen to be someone high up in a university because that is not how a professor is supposed to behave. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ian.thomson, please note that in a normal world all your arguments would be simply ignored. The very fact that people like you have admin rights is vandalism. Only in Wikipedia a boy who studies English literature in one of the worst universities and does not speak foreign langueages can be put higher than a professor of law from one of the best German universities. Dear Ian.thomson, your presence is an insult for the academic community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ian.thomson, I do not see any point in continuing to discuss with you here. We are at completely diffrent age and degree levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea what Wikipedia is and you refuse to hear anyone out. I am not an admin, and I did not delete your article, you are only showing your ignorance by continuing to refer to me as the admin that deleted your article. That you repeatedly refer to my actions as vandalism also shows you do not know (or care) what the definition of a vandal is according to this site's standards. That you think this is some sort of academic site also shows you have no idea what this site is at all. This site is just a summary of sources that anyone can investigate for themselves with little previous understanding, this site is nothing seriously scholarly. Your degree in itself means absolutely nothing here, you have to show sources that speak for themselves like anyone else. If you can not produce such sources, that does not reflect well on your degree and university. Your repeated elitism and lack of civility only further show that you do not belong here. I can actually follow the guidelines, such as bringing forth sources that stand on their own and don't require the help of someone claiming to be well educated. I am capable of following simple instructions such as "do not add anything to this page." I do not made repeated ill-informed assumptions such as the idea that no hablo no lenguas pero ingles, or that I (someone who studies literature and whose userpage makes repeated references to postmodern author Philip K Dick) know nothing about postmodernism (which has more to do with literature than law). I do not behave like a drunken sports fan that verbally assaults fine institutions he knows nothing of during a childish temper tantrum. You have not shown that you are capable of any of these things, probably because you have your head shoved so far up your degree that you don't actually know how to operate in the real world outside of a university. I feel sorry for you. You need to leave Wikipedia alone until you grow up, start playing nice, and learn to follow simple rules and listen to suggestions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - You were my first 3O response, and of course I wrote that first sentence and saved it before I noticed you were a 130+k admin... oh well. I think I may have overstated the obvious with that one... but I did want to followup because I want to see if I have missed the bigger picture of what you are trying to say. When I look at other "List of" (like this) I don't see any citations there (just on each article that the page refers to). Also - WP:STAND and WP:L make it clear that WP:V still applies, but they don't mention requiring it in the list article itself. Again, just seems to me like lists can be unreferenced as long as they are bluelinks, and that each article the list refers to should contain all the references. If I missed you point, or if there is a bluelink that this user adds that doesn't point to an article which identifies itself as an empire the please let me know. Like I always say, I've been wrong before, I'll certainly be wrong again, and I may even be wrong right now... so let me know. Thanks.707:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Would you be interested in looking at this? My edits might be POVish, but they are sourced, on the subject and factually correct. If you do not want to be involved, this is understandable too. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. No problem here, since I would rather focus on something from the newer Russian history.Biophys (talk)
Well as I told you was going to happen, Biophys reverted other sections of that article [9] to essentially what he had before in his version from September. -YMB29 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your edit warring and disregard of edits by other users (you reverting to your old version) is not helping. -YMB29 (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I also had a question about paintings by Getman (you know what I am talking about). Briefly, no one disputed during the discussion at Commons that Jamestown Foundation gave permission to use the images . But you expressed a concern that Foundation itself had the copyright. I do not think this should be a problem because the Foundation published the paintings in a printed form (see here, at the bottom and here) and therefore suppose to have the copyright. I'd like to download some of the images and use them, but only in a few relevant articles, rather than in places it does not belong (promise). If you have any objections, please tell. If not, I would rather proceed with downloads.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyright isues are tricky. Please keep in mind that copyright for an album of paintings and for paintings themselves are different and independent things. - Altenmann >t17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So, do you think I should not waste my time downloading the images? It would be really frustrating to have them deleted again...Biophys (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "again" is the key word here. You have to get the statement that the Jamestown foundation has exclusive copyright for the paintings themselves (that there are no Getman's heirs or something else). Or you have to ask someone from Wikimedia Commons to look at the issue. I am not a final say on the copyrights. - Altenmann >t04:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
We are not using the paintings, but only small images of the paintings. The images are exactly the same as the images Foundation had already published in a printed version and on their web site. I do not understand it. Can you give any links about this? Biophys (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The copyright is about rights for copying. Image is copy. I fail to see what's unclear in this respect. If you want some education, please start with copyright, then wikipedia:Copyright. Once again, Jamestown foundation must issue a statement that it has copyrights for images, not simply permission to use. On the other hand, if you have the album in your hands and see that it does not have phrases like "the reproductions of the paintings are with the permission from [someone else]". In this case it is safe to assume that Jamestown does have copyrights. And once again, you better ask at "copyrights" forum in Wikimedia Commons about it: I am not an expert to give an exact and final evaluation; only general notions. - Altenmann >t04:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that you nominated this. I saw that User:Sandstein closed it as a no consensus-- I guess he doesn't understand why people get offended by this, or he thinks that five to two is a tie. I'm fairly certain that Virgil Lasis is a sockpuppet, since he appeared on January 28, 2010, but has the sound of a longtime user, and the tone of someone would eventually get banned on civility grounds. The phrases he uses-- "End of story" and "This is an encyclopedia"-- sound awfully familiar, but I can't remember who used to toss those around. Anyway, probably no point into doing a redirect for deletion, but it's offensive. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any objection to these changes but is there any way you could use an edit summary when doing this? It makes what you are doing allot more transparent and easy to follow. -- RP459Talk/Contributions18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I don't usually welcome vandals with cookies...but for some reason I didn't notice that the "Egg" edit was vandalism, because I was interested to learn about the Python programming module :-) Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Give me a week or so and I'll rewrite it and find references and everything; for now, just chill a little bit. There's no point in deleting everything. ~ LlunaBlue —Preceding unsigned comment added by LlunaBlue (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Not point, but the basic wikipedia policy. Feel free to add referenced information at any time; you don't have to wait a whole week and write the whole article. - Altenmann >t01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am waiting someone suggests to delete it. I know a handful of handy policies for that. - Altenmann >t08:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting and useful to link to variations and connected names; so it's a benefit to readers. About the cook template, at the moment I can't think of any Gaelic names derived from the occupation, but if I come across any I'll add to it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Human rights in the SU article
So it has been days and Biophys has not bothered to discuss anything. Your question is still left unanswered [10].
What more evidence do you need to see that he does not care about discussing; he only wants his version to stand.
I don't understand why you let him do another sneaky revert? Obviously he changed more than that disputed statement [11]... -YMB29 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it did not take long for Biophys to revert me when I made changes.[13]
Should there even be a doubt now that the only thing he cares about is edit warring to push his own version and that all discussion with him is useless... -YMB29 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your focus on World domination, driving the page where it needs to be after so many months. I guess with 136,787 edits, this must seem like a small issue to you, but FWIW I do do greatly appreciate it.--Work permit (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi
FYI, User:Torebay's block expired only a few hours ago, and he is already picking up where he left off, making blind reverts without using the discussion page [15], and acting coy in the edit summery. In this particular case, the various theories about Sabuktigin's Lineage, are discussed in details under a separate section, using secondary academic sources. But Torebay is trying to force one version of the possible theories, which fits his own nationalistic POV, onto the lead, using a tertiary source. [16] And even then, he is misquoting his own source, replacing the "slave" with "soldier" to make it more "flashy" I guess. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Altenmann, just realize you are an insanely experienced Wikipedian, so I dont have to be so sugar-sweet on the Shturmovshchina talk page. ¡Homre!, why do you flare up like that, replacing uber-RS with personal opinion. Cough. Did you have a bad day ;-) or was it a Shturmovshchina burst of the inevitable frustration that this place sometimes fosters. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
too speedy
08:37, 13 February 2010 Altenmann (talk | contribs | block) deleted "A note on inverse problem for effective resistances" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject) (view/restore)
This article probably should have been deleted as original research (differing from most original research on Wikipedia in that it was good), but "not enough context to identify article's subject" is obviously false. The writing was crystal-clear and the topic was clearly notable, and unlike many math articles, you didn't have to do much work to understand exactly what the subject is: just get a couple of sentences into the article and you see it. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately as with many Mexican articles I follow, editors like to include "fan-type" material. This is sometimes call a "chisme" or juice that incites others to comment or speculate about the subject matter. I have tried to clean-up this article but anonymous IPs keep coming back and introducing quotes that do not appear in reliable sources or the "supposed" citation they use. Sometimes they figure that because an article in Spanish, no one will understand it or check what they are introducing into an article.--Morenooso (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if the anon IP that just deleted a section on your talkpage is related to the sockpuppet case? Inquiring minds would like to know. . .
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Phasmophobia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You have added "notability?" to DipTrace page, so I have added 2 third-party sources, please check if they are ok and remove "notability?" if it is ok. Thank You!
To be honest I don't understand what to add (how to describe notability and in the same time avoid advertising phrases). Currenly product is quite popular and there are many discussions on forums and mentions in blogs, etc. but as I understand these are not notable sources as are made by individuals. Also other similar programs seems don't have such links - see Eagle (program), kicad. There is also independent review at cnet, but it was also made after submitting program by us - is it ok?
Yes. I'm affiliated with the company, however tried to make article without blatant advertising and added product to pages like comparison of EDA software, formats or where similar links are located. In the past info about DipTrace was added by independent guy, but then was removed by editors, so now we tried to add article ourselves and make it similar to articles about other such products. I suppose if I add info that it is widely used and where - that will be advertising.
That other similar programs have the same problem means only no one critically reviewed there articles. A single review (and quite brief) means that the tool lacks notability. There are millions pieces of cool software stuff. WIkipedia is encyclopedia, not software catalog. If there is nothing to say beyond user manual, then probably the article may not survive. - Altenmann >t21:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Was there a discussion somewhere regarding an overhaul to DAB pages for names? I noticed that you have cut out all given names at Michelle and am curious as to whether this was discussed somewhere first. At first I thought you were splitting the article off to a separate Michelle (given name) page or somesuch, but it appears the information has been deleted wholesale - it's hard to tell as you didn't use an edit summary. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an established practice, observed for well-watched first names, such as Michael, John, Igor, ... The rationale is simple: WP:DAB/WP:MOSDAB: disambiguation pages are to navigate between articles which coud have the same name. In the case of disambiguation by first name, King John may be reasonable referred as John in many texts, while John Lennon is not identified as "John". I am not sure whether there was any discussion, please see my request Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Given_names. - Altenmann >t20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand the rationale, however it was jarring to see it so much content deleted wholesale, especially potentially useful navigation links. And why would the surname section be kept? It's not effectively disambiguating pages with similar names either. As I used to do quite a bit of DAB work I was condering whether there had been a discussion somewhere and a clean-up drive initiated. I'll keep an eye on the discussion you started to ensure I'm up to date on concensus. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
re: Especially potentially useful navigation links. And why would the surname section be kept? Please tell me which cases exaclty you have in mind in both phrases. May be I did something wrong there. - Altenmann >t22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "potentially useful navigation links": if someone was searching for an individually named Michelle, but was hazy on the last name, the list would be helpful in directing them to the correct article. There are only 30+ Michelle's listed on the article page, but running a Wikipedia search for "Michelle" returns 16,064 hits! This makes the article page more inviting to those who just want to quickly find the article target they need.
All pages with titles beginning with Michelle. However please notice that wikipedia is unfortunately does not have DBMS. I can readily think of thousands of questions of this type: what was this moth called something burmanica? What was this song about crybaby? ... WP:NOT. Disambig pages are not for databasse-like search: thety are to resolve natural problem of encyclopedia: - Altenmann >t17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "why would the surname section be kept?": Your argument above for deleting the given name entries was that "disambiguation pages are to navigate between articles which could have the same name". Fair enough, however under that rationale the surname section should have been deleted, but you kept it. Finally, this article is part of WikiProject Anthroponymy; they seem to have a less stringent view on article content (e.g. how many blue links should appear per entry). The two projects have similar page set-ups (mainly lists), however their guidelines don't dovetail with the DAB project, which makes it tricky. Before I head into TLDR territory (too late?) - I believe the original list at Michelle was helpful and not overly long. Deleting so much content without discussion or an edit summary raised a red flag, but I don't think you've done anything wrong...you just fixed what wasn't really broken. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh14:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlike first names, surnames are commonly used to identify people. You routinely read Roosevelt did this, Cooket al. discovered that... Utility of first names for this purpose is much less: I cannot imagine seeing a text which says John proved the theorem about.... - Altenmann >t17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, judging from the fact that the discussion I started is thoroughly ignored and that the issue has no potential for severe harm for wikipedia beyond violation of wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of stuff, I will no longer interfere with these lists in non-disambig pages. - Altenmann >t17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
lost reference
I know. I do not even know what 'ibid' is. I was trying to trace some of the info, but could not figure out where it was taken from. I know the Mitrokhin's book had a substantial information in that regard, but some of it pretty fishy. Another good ref is the Oleg Mozokhin website (History of Russian secret services), but its in Russian. It has quite a few nice pictures and personal profiles on the most notorious personalities including V.Putin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think some sockpuppets are at work with this article Angel Monroe
Hello, I am having problems keeping up with some new users who just popped up tonight. Angel Monroe was Speedy Deleted last night (I nominated it). It was recreated early this evening by the same user. Now two new users, with only edits to that article, have popped up. All have film industry user names which make me think they are the actress or friends of her. If you're not busy, could you help with this? --Morenooso (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
has been archived:Indeed. But the article are being systematic vandalized by user Paul Siebert. So, we are waiting till commodities prices will be going down...Celasson (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
While I understand to a certain degree why wikipedia has the no title policy they have I found it rather difficult to abide by for this article in particular. Is it possible this article is an exception to the rule? I'm not sure I see the strengths to implementing the policy on the difficult topic a foot. I'm sure if you were to read prior to my editing and post that you'll see the added benefit of trying to keep the information easily understandable( isn't that what wiki wants?) on such a difficult issue.( is that "staying objective"?) The article was an atrocious mess before I started cleaning it up and its still an atrocious mess and I'm still cleaning it up. I'm going to finish cleaning it up and then add the references. So what is an alternative solution to what I would like to do? Javacaliente (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. I was talking about section titles in the article lead and follow, which you already changed. My last remark at you user page about adding references, per wikipedia policy WP:CITE. - Altenmann >t06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know you were talking about section titles. I thought you were talking about the use of "Lead and Follow" versus "lead and follow". I prefer using for formal title because I think it helps with role versus action. I have no concerns about the section titles. There's nothing to debate regarding that. I didn't address your last entry. Nothing to be confused about. Regards. Javacaliente (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
purge sites
I am adding death project tag to massacre sites where i can - have just been reading some stuff of the purge era - phew... SatuSuro07:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Crowded floor" dance section of the WP article 'Lead and follow' you deleted is in the CONTEXT of leading and following. It doesn't need to say "lead and follow", the words "technique" and "connection" more than suffice for the article. But the nitty gritty details "and to avoid long patterns with several changes of direction/slots" clearly shows a lack of understanding the 'Lead and follow' aricle. You clearly don't understand what you are editing. The section makes perfect sense and is technically correct( even without the citations). Please edit with more care. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should utilize the discussion page if you feel so inclined to start editing content you don't grasp the concept aforementioned. I would be more than happy to help you learn how to lead and follow since you really really want to edit the Lead and follow dance article.Javacaliente (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how it is related to "lead and follow". Please keep in mind that almost all dance is about lead and follow, but we will not put all wikipedia articles about dance into Lead and follow page. You have to write exactly how "lead and follow" must act in the crowded floor, again, using references to reliable sources. - Altenmann >t04:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts...
Thank you for the note. There are some things which come up on WP so regularly, it must drive admins mad! Obsession, self-centered behaviour, deaf to advice, over-confidence and unwillingness to abide by rules. In one's private life, one can just walk away, but on WP one can't, really, because it is a communal property. There are only two options: to fight every inch of the way, or to wait and re-edit later.
One of the ideas I am keen to promote is that an encyclopaedia is not the solution to every problem in learning. Some things people have to see with their own eyes, and try with their own hands. For that one needs a teacher or coach, and some king of setting, such as a laboratory or sports field. Articles need to recognise this, and not try to do the impossible. WP is at its weakest in dealing with psychomotor activities such as (plucked out of air) teaching people to drive. If we had unlimted access to photographs and moving images, we might make progress here, but we don't. Consequently we have limits in all areas relating to human performance (performing arts, sport...).
Perhaps this touches obliquely on the main point, which is the introduction of unreferenced or weakly referenced material by inexperienced users. There are some things which have always been taught in a hands-on manner, and there are good reasons for this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross I totally agree with you!!! This is the problem I'm running into with respect to dance. Some things are just impossible to measure because its impossible to isolate everything and so the other way is to take the sum. Unfortunately the "scientific method" doesn't like that because there's "to many unaccounted variations" and so "invalidates" many facts because it doesn't "meet the standard". If dance is to objective of an example, than ascorbic acid versus the vitamin C complex is a very concrete example of this principle. So I would call Wikipedia legalistic because they strain out a gnat but swallow a camel and their children twice the children of hell than they are( really, their no fun at all). Javacaliente (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Emelie Loit
Why you had ever deleted the paragraph "However, she had been a shame when she lost to Anastasia Myskina and Vera Zvonareva in penultimate deciding doubles match at FED Cup 2004 with Marion Bartoli; as a result France could not defend their championships & their team leader Guy Forget had to resign; also she was not chosen by the new leader Georges Goven to play in next year (2005) of this tournament; but she cameback to the the team on 2006." for the reason is "unreferenced"? I want to tell you: I'm a witness of this indepent when I saw some message for talk about Guy Forget want to resign his position when Loit and Bartoli lost the last deciding doubles match.--Pierce (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
lenin's hanging order
one of the 'delete votes' claimed the article was created by 'anti-communist POV'. this should invalidate that delete vote. otherwise you might as well get rid of every document of the holocaust (ie Wannsee protocol) becuase 'anti nazis' put it up there for POV reasons. Decora (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Julius Margolin
You have made extensive edits on the Julius Margolin page (thanks) and I'm wondering if you know where to purchase the book "A travel to the land of the Zek" I have been trying to track it down, with no luck. Do you perhaps have any ideas?
I have no idea, sorry. Out of curiosity: how come you've learned about the subject and what is your interest? It is not often you meet people who want to buy (not just to read) this kind of book. - Altenmann >t02:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
???
Care to elaborate? I'd say 99% of dabs on adjectives compound all three forms into one (masculine), and have the other two set up as redirects. There are multiple (and very good) reasons for doing it that way, but I'd appreciate hearing out your side of the story first. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2010; 18:21 (UTC)
I was talking about {{surname}} disambig pages, where masculine and feminine forms are merged; and rightly so: they are the same surname, in different forms, and even when translated into English, you may see, e.g., "Mrs. Gorbachyov". This is clearly not the case in the case of geographical names: Beryozovskaya GRES is never written as Beryozovsky GRES. - Altenmann >t18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that part is not being contested at all. This is not what the problem at hand is. The easiest way to work around this issue is to create a dedicated surname page and link to it from the disambig. There is no need to break the disambig itself into three overlapping and confusingly interlinked pieces. If I set it all up that way, would that address your concerns?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2010; 19:11 (UTC)
I was mentioning surnames for comparison. In our case we have different names. Nobody merges, e.g. Smith and Smythe into one page. I can find even more close example, but I don't want to waste time. The point is, even differing by a single letter, these are different names, especially for non-Russophones. - Altenmann >t21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"Smith" and "Smythe" are two different words, while "Beryozovsky" and "Beryozovskaya" (and "Beryozovskoye") are the exact same word, only in different gender forms. These forms are often mutually interchangeable as well (which "Smith" and "Smythe" are not), depending on which noun one attaches them to. It may not be obvious in this particular case, but more often than not putting masculine, feminine, and neuter into three different pages and then trying to cover all contingencies by interlinking them properly is one hell of a job. The result is often more confusing to readers than simply listing all three forms on one page and creating a developed network of redirects. Consider for example places whose names changed grammatical gender over time. Consider entities which have synonyms of different gender and which are equally likely to be searched for. Consider the places names which are used as adjectives to refer to a multitude of notable objects located in that place. All in all, your approach seems logical on surface, but dig deeper, and you'll see how much confusion, duplication, and unnecessary maintenance it creates, not to mention our poor readers who now have to check three pages instead of seeing everything in one place. A few years ago I myself thought to separate the three forms of each adjective into separate pages; tackling a couple dozen cases taught me it's really not the most efficient way to go about it.
Splitting the article about the last name while keeping the gender variations together would work just fine (by the way, do we have articles about people with the last name of "Beryozovsky"/"Beryozovskaya"??? I only see "Berezovsky...). It makes more sense to readers to see entities sorted by logical groups (places, names, etc.) rather than by grammatical intricacies of a foreign language they have no knowledge of. You are, of course, entitled to disagree, but it is not really helpful to insist on your point of view if you can't even be bothered to find examples... Please, re-consider. There are mighty plenty alternative ways to address the few concerns you've voiced so far.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2010; 00:53 (UTC)
Well, "Beryozovsky" and "Beryozovskaya" are two different words. There is no such gramatical term as "form of a word". (Just as "have" and "has" are two different words, both differing from "had".) And they cannot be in the same disambig page because they cannot be the name of the same article, like I said Beryozovskaya GRES is never called "Beryozovsky GRES". And I see no duplication or confusion here, rather opposite: different words are in different pages, just fine. There are no grammatical intricacies: for a foreign language speakers they are just different words, like "pan" and "pen" or... Smith and Smythe (which are the same word, in a sense, by the way, both being "kuznets", only centuries apart. :-) Anyway, if you want to collect disambig pages basing on lexemes (which is the term about *ski/*skaya/*skoye being the same) rather than words, please raise the issue with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. - Altenmann >t04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, different words are listed separately in dictionaries. Do you happen to have a dictionary that lists masculine, feminine, and neuter forms of each adjective separately? Didn't think so.
On the other hand, disambiguation pages are, of course, not dictionary entries. Disambiguation pages disambiguate between entries which "may be referred to" by one term or another. With Russian adjectives, the dab entries can very often "be referred to" by an adjective in a different gender form. Take Beryozovskoye deposit, for example—an article which you yourself created—it shows that the deposit can be called both "Beryozovsky" and "Beryozovskoye". Should we list it on two pages? Will doing so help our readers any? What purpose will it serve?
Here's another example. The stanitsa of Beryozovskaya in Volgograd Oblast is a part (and the administrative center) of Beryozovsky Selsoviet (which is municipally incorporated as Beryozovskoye Rural Settlement). Now, we don't create articles about either selsoviets or the municipal rural settlements because there is so little that can be said about them which cannot be said in an article about their administrative center or the district to which they belong, but both are quite conceivable as search terms, can easily be confused with one another, and are used interchangeably even in the official documents. With one page, the reader at least will have a chance to see an entry about something in Volgograd Oblast (which may or may not ring a bell, but is still a helpful clue), rather than land on a dedicated Beryozovskoye dab and mistake "Beryozovskoye Rural Settlement" for a "historical settlement" in Primorsk, Leningrad Oblast.
This list of issues can go on and on (and on). "Beryozovsky" isn't even all that ambiguous—there's only a handful of entries to deal with. Try something like Oktyabrsky, however, and if you don't get lost in the cross-links and inter-dependencies between the three separate pages of Russian gender forms (that's on top of the Ukrainian, Belarusian, and probably other variations, which, of course, should be separate), our readers surely will. Which brings me to my main point—disambiguation pages are not a thing created for the sake of documenting every spelling variation separately just for the hell of it; they are here to serve a useful purpose, which is to assist readers in finding an article they need with the least amount of effort. Having readers jump between three different pages to make sure they haven't missed anything important hardly helps reach that goal. You mentioned that "Beryozovskaya GRES" is never called "Beryozovsky", which is most certainly true, and "Beryozovskaya mine" is equally unlikely to be called "Beryozovsky", but is it inconceivable to think that someone might be searching for a "mine in Beryozovsky"? Here's our hapless reader on the Beryozovsky page (in its present state as edited by you), cursing the damn Wikipedia which again does not have an article about something it should have an article about! There are no clues on that page as to where to proceed next. The only option is to randomly click on the links to the articles about the towns, or check out the bunch of "see also" links in hopes the mine is listed somewhere else. User-friendly indeed... not!
You keep bringing up the "Smith" vs. "Smythe" situation. I cannot admit it as a valid argument here. A person named "Smythe" may be referred to as "Smith" only in error; while a place named "Beryozovsky" can be referred to as "Beryozovskaya" or "Beryozovskoye" for a number of valid reasons. Even though not all those reasons affect the actual titles of articles ("a mine in Beryozovsky", for example, is a valid reference, but we wouldn't of course have an article titled so), they are still helpful for navigation, and navigation is what the dabs are all about.
To conclude, I would like to address your suggestion to contact WP:DAB regarding this. First off, I had random encounters with the participants of that project in the past, including the handling of the adjectives' genders. Every time I was able to convince them that combining the gender variations into one page is the best thing to do. As a result, the vast majority of the dabs on Russian adjectives now combine masculine/feminine/neuter forms on one page. I am perfectly content with that; in fact, the only person who is not content with it at this time is you. So, I suggest that it is you who contacts the dab project about the situation, submits a proposal regarding how the situation needs to be changed, and perhaps helps them out to implement the solution should your proposal be accepted. I am perfectly happy with how things work out now. You are the one unhappy about this, so you should be the one trying to do something about it. Please don't try to dump this on me; not only doing so is not a nice thing to do, but I also have plenty of things to occupy myself with besides wasting time on trying to fix something that was not broken in the first place. I will, of course, join in on the fun at WP:DAB should you choose to pursue that option. If you have any good examples to counter my points above, I'll also be happy to discuss them with you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2010; 14:33 (UTC)
Pity. I was actually looking forward to you pointing out specific problems with the existing (one-page-per-adjective) setup. We are all in this together, you know. Thanks anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2010; 17:31 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Altenmann. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Template:LithuanianSurname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
