Wikipedia

User talk:Altenmann

Latest comment: 9 hours ago by Altenmann in topic Nonsense at Pseudo-mythology
Learn more about this page
This page was last edited or modified by Altenmann (talk).
/////////\///\//\///\//\ \//\/
{{Family name hatnote}} {{Not a typo}} {{typo}} efn notelist {rp|993} {Rp|page=199} {{datasource missing}} {{la|Pug} [Template:uw-ew]]
{{wide image|Uvs Nuur drainage basin.jpg|700px|Ubs}
wazzup

-

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

10 November 2024

neuedit

-

  neublatter

10 November 2024

-


"Praamžius" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Praamžius has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 10 § Praamžius until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Brave People

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What did you mean here? I don't get it. Polygnotus (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Belarusian romanization

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Apparently there has been an update to Belarusian romanization, for example "г" is now romanized as "g" rather than "h" and the 2000 instruction is no longer valid.[1] Since we are using BGN/PCGN romanization we do not need to move the articles but I am not sure if we need to update certain pages as a result. An IP editor has already made some changes (for example Wikipedia:Romanization of Belarusian). Mellk (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This 2023 update also includes romanization of Russian (for example "ё" is romanized as "jo") but I think we are using consistent romanization of Russian already? Mellk (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mellk: I dont think we have to jump through the hoops here. As I see in the table, changes were in 200, 200, 2023. For larger places (and for otherwise known in English, e.g., due to WWII operations) we have traditional English-language names. For smaller ones who cares. To update thousand pages (without pay:-)... I guess we better discuss in Talk:WikiProject Belarus and noitify a handdful of editors active in Belarusian topics. By the way, Wikipedia:Romanization of Belarusian say "In English Wikipedia, names of people and places in Belarusian are romanized using the BGN/PCGN romanization system".- Altenmann >talk 16:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I mentioned we are using BGN/PCGN so there is no reason to move articles (which would be a nightmare). Unless of course WP:BELARUSIANNAMES is updated (I hope not). But for some articles we are using BGN/PCGN romanization for the title and also mentioning the other romanization in the lead if it is different to the title. But we are in an awkward position as some articles (e.g. Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro)) are using the older system. I had proposed to move this to BGN/PCGN but apparently some people though that it did not apply and we should use the other system.[2] Mellk (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some metro station names do look really weird and unhelpful for English speakers: Jubiliejnaja plošča, Uručča - WTH is thia? How one is supposed to say it? But as I said, this must be discussiw in be-project page, not in obscure article pages, to ensure a broad participation: whether to update our Wikipedia:Romanization of Belarusian or to adhere to it. - Altenmann >talk 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good point, but WikiProject Belarus looks practically dead to me (I think it was previously inactive then there was some activity in 2020 as a result of the protests). Mellk (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dead does not matter. We need a central place. As I said, arrange individual invitations (in chain letter way) to active be-article editors. - Altenmann >talk 16:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, good suggestion. Mellk (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rotten Tomatoes

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"Not everyone knows" ... (diff) which is why the word Rotten Tomatoes is wiki linked. I think that normal readers understand the general concept of some person or group giving a score to a film, without needing to know (or care) that the score happens to be from a review aggregation website specifically. I also have concerns about WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE so I prefer to link to one keyword that is most like to be helpful and not link to multiple words in the same sentence if I can avoid it (I'm not entirely convinced that a page explaining the general concept of review aggregator is actually helpful compared to a page explaining Rotten Tomatoes specifically). That is why I edited it the way I did, just wanted you to know it was actually intentional.

Other opinions exist.

Also Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose exists.

You wanted to change it so I'll leave it alone even if it isn't my preferred wording. Cheers. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@109.77.201.136: Thank you for the explanation; I was just copying what accidentally caught my eye. I am far removed from all this entertainment industry, I did not even know what the heck "aggregator means. - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It could just as easily say "review collector" but that would be much clearer and far too simple and it would make it really obvious how badly people get the grammar wrong. :)
That the word doesn't immediately make sense to people (and the fact that huge numbers of Wikipedia readers have English as a second language) make me want to avoid it as just another unnecessary big word. Really I should go edit Simple Wikipedia instead. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
:-) - Altenmann >talk 22:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the talk page, if you care to weigh in. I have posted to the other editor's page, so that we can avoid further warring. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2024

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carousel (Marcia Griffiths album). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contradiction in Source Regarding Song Inspiration Date

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The source you are using is contradictory because it states that the song was inspired by Eddie Grant's "Electric Avenue," but that song is from 1982. Given this contradiction, it is impossible that it was written in 1976. HumbleWise (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HumbleWise: Please discuss the issue in Talk:Electric Boogie#Written in 1976?, not in user talk pages. By the way, you are confused: I am not using any source. In fact, I agree that 1976 is wrong date. --Altenmann >talk 02:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
My apologies, that was a mistake on my part. I understand you agree that 1976 is incorrect. Let’s continue the discussion on *Talk:Electric Boogie*.
Thank you. HumbleWise (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Turing machine has been nominated for renaming

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Turing machine has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chernyak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czerniak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's a user I think you will get along just fine with: User:AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam Dark4tune (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

“Judaism”

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Why… this? 93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is all sources…--93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
i.e. www.chabad.org and www.jewishaction.com… YouTube is always confirmed.--93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Martin Buber and Pentateuch… Abraham Abulafia and Nachman of Breslov… --93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Urbonavičius for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urbonavičius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urbonavičius until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Urbanavičius for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urbanavičius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urbanavičius until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bascom

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(followup from two threads elsewhere)

Valley Med? If so, and Dr Cho is still around, please tell her that a patient who had pretty much given up still remembers her with enormous gratitude. And hey I am here if you ever feel a need to vent. Best wishes. Elinruby (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Life as we do not know it" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect Life as we do not know it has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § Life as we do not know it until a consensus is reached.

Dauriya

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Out of curiosity, why did you remove a lot more from the article than the unclear words? Unreliable source(s) and/or poorly translated? ZFT (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FZT: My two major reasons for trimming: (1) unnecessary minor details that bloat encyclopedic text. Like, "information from the educational publication under the review of the Institute of the Far East of <blabla..>", or "Here the Cossacks counted 6 crops (barley, oats, buckwheat, peas, millet, hemp)" -- who the heck cares? Just as well, one may retell the whole book (or several books, by the way). Not. (b) an unreferenced opinion piece at the end. You can see this in the diff yourself. --Altenmann >talk 04:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethnonymic surname, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rus, Rusu and Russo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Explanation for revert

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you mind clarifying what this revert with a snarky-sounding summary was about? Even more puzzling is your self-revert. An explanation would be appreciated. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blank and redirect of Judicial supervision

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've BLARed the page for the reasons I stated at WT:LAW. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Judicial supervision for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judicial supervision is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial supervision until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:COIN

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Following on from our discussion at COIN, do you really believe it is trout-worthy behaviour for a relatively inexperienced editor such as myself to have simply followed the lead of a large number of more experienced editors and admins, as observed over a 12 month period? It doesn't seem at all reasonable to claim that someone has made a mistake under such circumstances.

I think you should consider more carefully the circumstances that led me to do what I did and retract the allegation. Axad12 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Axad12: What allegation? --Altenmann >talk 16:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The allegation that simply following the lead of a large number of more experienced editors and admins, as observed over a 12 month period, is trout-worthy behaviour. Axad12 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Axad12: Retracted. COI editing is a very painful issue, so no wonder many people jump the gun, step on it, fast-forward upon the slightest suspicion of COI. You said "as observed", but you definitely did not observe the opposite stance. As an example, I used to edit articles related to theoretical computer science (until I realized the depths of my ignorance :-), and many a time some professor or their devout disciples start spamming wikipedia with refs to articles of the said professor. In all cases, without an exception, the first warning that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for scientific promotion was stopping this. --Altenmann >talk 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I had meant that you should retract it in the place where you had made the allegation, i.e. that you should strike it from your original comment at COIN [Later edit: which I see that you have now done, for which my thanks].
Over the last few months my primary activity on Wikipedia has been dealing with COI issues, whether that be on the noticeboard or in answering COI edit requests. As you say, it is not an easy area, however it's one where I've volunteered a lot of my time in good faith and done the best that I could under sometimes difficult circumstances with little outside help.
Over recent weeks I've been seriously considering stepping away from Wikipedia altogether. Consequently I don't appreciate being accused, obviously incorrectly, of trout-worthy behaviour or, by implication above, of being deeply ignorant. All you are achieving by such comments is driving away a good faith editor who has been giving his time trying to help the project in an area where few others seem inclined to operate. Axad12 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Axad12: Colleague, if you feel frustrated by Wikipedia, then Wikipedia:Wikibreak is perhaps advisable, rather than "stepping away altogether". --Altenmann >talk 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've tried that in the past. Unfortunately it still involves having to return to a seemingly never ending number of difficult COI users, plus editors like you who go out of their way to create an even more unpleasant working environment and increase the already high level of burnout for workers in this area. Axad12 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
like you who go out of their way... Oh really? You are blowing a single jocular remark (which I immediately retracted upon your request) out of proportions. --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm referring to the fact that I came here asking you to retract that remark, but that you then immediately followed it up by implying that I am deeply ignorant - a comment that I pointed out a few posts above. Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry I offended you and I will no longer be talking to you, not to hurt your sensitivities further. --Altenmann >talk 18:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Byliny

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I created new topic under this article five hours ago. Shahray (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Where's an egg?" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Where's an egg? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Where's an egg? until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Murray

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed you nominated the article for deletion (and it subsequently got deleted). As the article creator, I would have liked to have been informed of the discussion - please try to remember this next time, per WP:AFD: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion..." Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maghreb place name etymology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adrar and Hammada.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ballroom and social dance albums

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on Category:Ballroom and social dance albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blutmai

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please let me know why you reverted my revert. GHStPaulMN (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GHStPaulMN: Red links are not forbidden. Don't revert other wikipedians on a whim: you have to assume that they know what they are doing. --Altenmann >talk 17:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, but what is the point of a red link? I don't understand that part of it. GHStPaulMN (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
See WP:REDLINK. --Altenmann >talk 18:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Pavel Novitsky (photographer)

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Pavel Novitsky (photographer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

this person this article is created for is not a recognisable figure, so much so that the birth and death dates here are for a Soviet literary and art critic who is unrelated to this person. This photographer does not have any biographical information on him anywhere on the Internet apart from a single mention as a photographer in one of the links posted below. It seems this person was just a normal Russian Soviet citizen and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citation

edit
Latest comment: 30 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Yes, I realize that it may be a tad confusing, but the semicolon between articles in the citation you copied did not indicate apud, but rather a fact being present in both sources, of which only one is quoted more than once. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I double-checked the sources and article histories. I found you added this ref in Sârbu to Cosniceanu. While Cosniceanu, p. 75 does say " că prin numele Bulgaru şi Sârbu erau desenaţi adesea grădinarii, chiar dacă erau români", but p.76 says nothing about rácok. Can you please double-check the ref <Alexandru Cristureanu, "Istoria reflectată în antroponima și toponimia județului Sălaj", in Acta Mvsei Porolissensis, Vol. IX, 1985, p. 758> or find other source for [Rațiu]]? I did find a cursory ref in Hungarian, (and added it into Sârbu, Rațiu and Ethnonymic surname.
You're right about this not appearing in Cosniceanu, it was probably an error in my reading or in copying the ref to page 76 (where she mentions Rusu, which is superficially similar). This info is indeed in Cristureanu. I have removed Janitsek, because it actually says nothing about Rațiu other than that it is an ethnic surname, without mentioning its origin or meaning (also: please use the same format you found in the article for any addition). Dahn (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn: Actually Janitsek says about origin, albeit not very eloquently: Raţ ~ Raţiu (< m. Rác) --Altenmann >talk 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cristureanu, loc. cit.: N-au lipsit odinioară nici unele infiltrări sporadice, poate individuale sau ale unor mici grupuri de familii, din zonele de contact cu sîrbii și croații de unde numele Sîrbu (Ciz și, rar, SS), mult mai rezistent fiind însă corespondentul magh. rácz, inițial acesta fiind o poreclă dată, în maghiară, "sîrbilor" și perpetuată onomastic prin numele Raț (Al, Bob, Cium, Ș, Șim; la Gîlgău-Someș fiind atestat din anul 1405), cu var. Rațiu (Cium, L, S) și chiar, după o rostire populară, Rațu (Cium, SS). Translation (skipping the paranthetical references to localities under various initials or syllables): "There was once some sporadic infiltration, perhaps individual or in small family groups, from areas of contact with the Serbs and Croats, hence the name Sîrbu, though the Mag[yar] rácz was much more persistent, initially as a Magyar nickname for 'Serbs' and given onomastic endurance as the name Raț (first attested at Gîlgău-Someș in 1405), with the var[iant] Rațiu and even, in a folk rendition, Rațu." Dahn (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry I didnt check the sources earlier, because I was quickly (and it turns out sloppily) collecting information foe article Ethnonymic surname. By the way, can you take a look at section "Romania" there. It looks like I got distracted and left it unfinished. --Altenmann >talk 05:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe in the future. There's lots to add and, frankly, to copyedit. Dahn (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Surnames from the name Leib" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Surnames from the name Leib has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 11 § Surnames from the name Leib until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Somebody "Notme" Else

edit
Latest comment: 28 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Altenmann,

I just noticed that this User page was deleted because the deletion left behind broken redirects. You were the page creator but it looks like you were not notified when it was tagged so I'm doing this now. If you want this content retained, it's probably best to move it to project space where it can be marked as an essay but I understand why it was where it was. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

File:Screenshot from film Wild Dog Dingo.png listed for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from film Wild Dog Dingo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208)" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17 § Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208) until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 08:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I feel like this is a problem we should be able to resolve easily. Have you looked at the links? They completely fail the MOS:OL test: "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from."

First, since the two linked articles are different, readers will waste time trying to figure out how this difference reflects a difference between aughts and noughties. (It doesn't.) Second, one article is about the concept of zero in general, and has nothing to do with the 2000s, and the other is about names for the number zero and has nothing to do with the 2000s except for duplicated some text from the 2000s article which they've already read. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Danbloch: Such issues are decided in article talk pages, where other editors may chime in. In addition, you mush be specific, with wikilinks. For example, what the heck is "the two linked articles"? Whatever. Please use article talk page. --Altenmann >talk 03:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If that's the way you feel about it, the responsibility for justifying the change on the talk page is yours. I look forward to reading your explanation. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I withdraw my objections now that you've changed the redirect targets. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Polans

edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, is there a need for russian and polish translation in Polan article? Shahray (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shahray: We add other languages for two main reasons (1) native language of the suibject (2) language in which many sources exist, so that a reader may search for further literature. So you are partially right: we canot expect soures in Polish, but there are plenty of sources in Russian. --Altenmann >talk 19:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah ok, I returned polish translation since there is a polish source. Shahray (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Altenmann, I recently made edits in Kiev Rus article but they were reverted, can you please check my changes [3] and notify if there is anything wrong? I would be thankful. Shahray (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Shahray: Busy now. Will take a look later. --Altenmann >talk 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah ok, this isn't a huge edit, you can quickly view it like others. Shahray (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Altenmann, besides reviewing this small edit [4], I don't understand why there's "Old Russian cities" reference in East Slavs article, which leads to russian Wikipedia for some reason. There's also the quote "significant linguistic and ethnic differentiation among the Rus' people into Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians" which references Scandinavian Rus people for some reason. It's better to be changed to just East Slavs, but you decided to keep this, so I want to know why. Shahray (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Shahray: I dont want to engage with Kievan Rus. I am not an expert in history. --Altenmann >talk 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but what about "Old Russian states" and Rus' people references? Shahray (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kovács, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page András Kovács.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Glossaries of science

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Regarding[5] I do not understand this categorization. Category:Etymology is not a subcategory of Category:Science. Maybe it should be, I don't know, but either way "Glossaries of science" does not sound like a Wikipedia:Defining characteristic of "Glossary of pre-Christian Lithuanian names". --DB1729talk 02:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ethymology and anthroponymy are sciences. --Altenmann >talk 02:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
True. I'm still not convinced it's defining in this case, but I can let it stay. You wouldn't mind then if we remove the parent cat Category:Wikipedia glossaries per WP:CATSPECIFIC? DB1729talk 02:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DB1729: parent cat removed. the concept of "defining" is inapplicable here. --Altenmann >talk 02:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Tianna (disambiguation)

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Tianna (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page disambiguates no articles. Some entries were moved to Tiana (given name). WP:PTMs were moved to See also.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cultural allusions and works based on Solaris

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Let me start by saying I'm well aware that the usage primary sources should be minimized - however, it is my understanding that Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games and the existence of Template:Cite video game allows me to cite it as a primary source.

The game I added is a relatively obscure ongoing live service one (meaning official and/or secondary sources frankly do not exist concerning its later plot) and Chinese (meaning even if they do exist, they are not reliable). Paradoxically, the game itself and its usage of the novel in question is notable enough to be added.

I will add the reference again, and if there are further issues, we can discuss it instead of jumping to reverts. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PhilosophicalSomething:. The article for the game, Arknights is pretty detailed for "a relatively obscure ongoing live service" and I see not a slightest hint at Solaris it not even remotely indicates at something extraterrestrial. I self-reverted, but I expext you to add details to support your claim "its usage of the novel in question is notable enough", otherwise it will fail WP:TRIVIA. --Altenmann >talk 06:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. The article of the game itself lacks virtually all of the later plot - it is another issue I intend on fixing in time. That the article contains not much more than the basic premise is not the issue, however.
If you are unsatisfied, you may look into the scenes I have listed on the reference (through sources Wikipedia doesn't consider credible). PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire has been nominated for renaming

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments1 person in discussion
 

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please stop messing with the 20th-century pages. The template used across all of these categories is not designed to work on a 20th-century people from the russian empire category. Please wait until the cfd is settled. If it is decided to be kept, I'll spent the time to alter the template. SMasonGarrison 03:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please stop insulting the template for not anticipating your category. SMasonGarrison 23:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century people from the Russian Empire by occupation

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century people from the Russian Empire by occupation indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

November 2024

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SMasonGarrison 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense at Pseudo-mythology

edit
Latest comment: 9 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see you're attempting to restore this page, which is extremely poorly sourced and full of nonsense, such as claims that the reconstruction of *Ostara falls into this category (we have an entire, well-sourced article on this topic at Ēostre). I suggest that you become more familiar with the fundamentals of historical linguistics and folklore studies before proceeding. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bloodofox: There is no need do wrangle against each other. I think the article merits existence. So let use invite others to say a word in merge suggestion. --Altenmann >talk 23:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Altenmann&oldid=1256438901"