Jump to content

User talk:Altenmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

5 February 2025

neuedit

-

  neublatter

5 February 2025

-


Nonsense at Pseudo-mythology

[edit]

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]

Victory Banner

[edit]

In this case, is it a good idea to mention what is presumably the ethnicity of the three soldiers? I do not see the ethnicity mentioned in all three articles, nor is it sourced in the article. It is mentioned in Raising a Flag over the Reichstag, but the mention of Berest is not there, and I took a look at all of the cited sources there and none of them referred to the ethnicity of those soldiers, so this has failed verification in that regard. Although they were born within the modern-day borders, I am not sure if there is any dispute about the ethnicity. This is why I think it generally makes more sense to only refer to the nationality, since references to ethnicity often leads to disputes. Mellk (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I know about the problems of ethnicity vs. nationality in Wikipedia. However in this case this was a point of Soviet propaganda: an illustration of the "friendship of the peoples". I will try to find sources to this end, meanwhile I self-revert, because without explanation it looks meaningless indeed. --Altenmann >talk 09:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I think this would be better suited in the Raising a Flag over the Reichstag article, perhaps? I tend to agree that mentioning the ethnicity without explanation is best avoided. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brest Region

[edit]

This RM may interest you. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Islam in India was reverted

[edit]

I noticed you reverted my edit on Islam in India. Plural “Shias” is more natural and makes more sense than “Shia.” Also, the rest of your summary did not make sense and wasn’t necessary.

Also, I don’t think the “neighborhoods in Vilnius” should be linked until the article is created and meets notability status. I do accept your revert in the sandbox heading. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. Please gain some experience in editing Wikipedia before making formal decisions in non-transparent situations. --Altenmann >talk 07:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robots of Stanisław Lem

[edit]

I'm sorry but did you forget the conversation we had on this exact topic previously? Just open a move discussion if you have an actual rationale for this! Orchastrattor (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polyushko-pole

[edit]

Did you read the sentence where it says "under the title "Song of the Plains". Apparently not. AMCKen (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Enterprises in the Soviet Union can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Edit summaries and talk pages are not supposed to host uncivil comments and threats (Go away, ... or I report you for disruption). This is not acceptable. Learn the guidelines, and eventually how to behave in a civil community, as long as you can. Thanks!
Going back to encyclopedic stuff (Enterprises in the Soviet Union): I'm not saying you must improve your English, but the article was clearly written in bad English (feel free to let us know what's the point of alternating spellings like "enterprises" and "enterprizes" in the same text btw) and there are lots of untranslated Russian words which you didn't even tag with {{Lang}} templates. You definitely have to do better, and I'm pretty sure you could. We will not condone such a bad attitude forever.
 – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I just read on your userpage –out of curiosity– that you're not a native English speaker, and I'd like to point out I didn't know; don't assume I was making fun of your English. I was not; I didn't even know, as I only found out now. Take your time to improve the page, but please tag and translate all of the Russian text, and fix references. Have a good day, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am disinclined to acquiesce your threats and advices. Wikipedia is a cooperative project. I wasted plenty of my life to fill a gap in knowledge provided in Wikipedia and don't tell me what to do next. Out of sheer nastiness, I am removing this article from my watchlist. You may slap seven more tags on top of this page, I no longer care. --Altenmann >talk 19:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based Historian 1122 moved to ANI

[edit]

Hi Altenmann, I have moved the AIV report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Based Historian 1122 because it's not the obvious vandalism usually handled quickly there. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mani (prophet)

[edit]

A few thoughts... First, I was surprised to see my !vote reverted, but then saw it must have been some form of an edit conflict, as you appear to intended to revert the edit before mine. I was even surprised to see my edit was posted without a warning that the article changed while I was editing using the reply-editor, I thought those things were not supposed to happen. But I'm glad to see that you restored my edits properly. Thank you. However, I was a bit surprised to see you simply reopen someone elses RM closure. I was pretty sure that is strongly discouraged, and that you should talk to that editor and/or use the move review process. TiggerJay (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay: I am pretty sure that non-admin closures are fair game in the non-evident cases and in such situations longer waiting time is strongly encouraged. BTW, I notified the closer (although post-factum, I admit). And since there was no move, "move review" makes no sense. I could have simply opened another discussion, but I thought it would be silly. --Altenmann >talk 07:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real dog in this fight, because having it open longer is no problem for me. But my understanding of policy is if an administrator notices a clearly improper [RMNAC] move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion. (emphasis added) However, I would agree as long as there isn't contentiousness between you and the original closure, no harm is really done. However also for clarification WP:MR is for any/all contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions and thus any closure (NAC or not, moved or not) is fair game for RM.
Regardless of all of that, the biggest reason I brought it up was the first point where I was surprised the edit conflict occurred for both of us, I wonder if there was some sort of rare database lag or something. TiggerJay (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vrbic (disambiguation)

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vrbic (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because

  • it is a disambiguation page which either
  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • it is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in Category:Wikipedia years as part of WikiProject Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my reassessment of the pages in Category:Wikipedia years as not being within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia. Our WikiProject has a limited scope, which only includes: The Outline of Wikipedia and everything listed in it; articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia; articles on each edition of Wikipedia; articles on Wikipedians who are notable for being involved with Wikipedia; and other Wikipedia-related articles, especially in Category:Wikipedia or its subcategories. Because the pages in question are project pages, not articles, I assessed that they don't fall within the scope of the WikiProject. Does that sound right to you, or do you have a different view? Also, I noticed you're not on our register of WikiProject Wikipedia participants. Would you like to be? Bsherr (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsherr: Goals:Category:Wikipedia, Scope:Articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia

My pages are as directly related to Wikipedia as they can be and I thoroughly surprized that since 2005 only a handful of people contributed to them. It looks like nobody but me, even wikignomes, cares about detailed chronology of Wikipedia. No I am not among participants, because quite a few old-timers treat me with annoyance if not animosity (maybe rightly so, still, I see no reason of fraternizing with them). --Altenmann >talk 04:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Yes, I understand that they are related to Wikipedia. Of course, the entirety of the Wikipedia:Project namespace is related to Wikipedia. But WikiProject Wikipedia is concerned with improving articles, not pages in the project namespace. Do you follow the distinction? --Bsherr (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: Sorry, I didnt pay attention. I agree with your arguments now. --Altenmann >talk 04:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Altenmann&oldid=1273944283"