This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This is to inform you that Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia, which you created, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression. Your input is welcome.-- Aervanath ( talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [1]
Thank you for uploading File:Sister-twisted.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle ( talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
CSD U1 does not apply to user talk pages. Taemyr ( talk) 01:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I noticed that you moved back article's name to proper title Occupation of the Baltic states, however its talk remains attached to old title Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Could you please fix it. thanks, User:M.K 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention and contribution. PetersV TALK 05:23, 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 the restore! Am fixing/adding refs! Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:16, 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. PetersV TALK 21:52, 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)
I'm going to revert your archiving from
Talk:List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, which was both prematurely done, and apparently carelessly or impulsively done. While i don't doubt your good intent, your impatience was at least unconstructive, if not uncivil. I'll either do a more careful archiving after completing my organizational work, or notify you that i've reached a point where i don't expect to continue soon, and would find your efforts welcome. Thanks.
--
Jerzy•
t
19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Before deleting external links, please respond to talk discussion for article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.179.8 ( talk) 11:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no ordering for categorisation. Unless, you have a link with a new policy that I am not aware of. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:11, 11 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 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I am conducting a reassessment as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found come concerns which need addressing if this article is to keep its GA status, which may be found at Talk:Erast Fandorin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn ( talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why did you block my bot? There's no error with it. -- Lucas Nunes ( talk) 01:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Discussion moved to Talk:Political parties in Belgium#Naming conventions - Altenmann >t 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to edit out the typos on your comment there. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you're doing a " Simultaneous exhibition" in grand wiki style. I may not agree with your position today, but I have serious respect for your ability to discuss with that many people at once! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:27, 3 July 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... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I listed Sovdepia at Afd WP:Articles for deletion/Sovdepia. I note that you are the creator (back in 2004) and may have something to say. Jd2718 ( talk) 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Altenmann. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've self-reported our dispute. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
why have you deleted the stuff i had wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
did that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 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.
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 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 pages --Scorpio95 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I added the official website to one of the pages why has that been taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 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)
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.
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)
Hi! I moved your comment to the talk page from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, because it was placed in the middle of the nominations list and comments should generally go on the talk page. I hope you understand. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Stanisław Lem/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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?
Thank you for clarification. -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
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 >t 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey - forgot to say thanks for finding that interesting article on Carmine (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine Guida)... Luminifer ( talk) 12:20, 31 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)
Really sorry for that, it was totally a mistake. Thanks for remind me. I'll care in future. Fkehar ( talk) 03:08, 3 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)
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\ talk 22:21, 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)
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)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. 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)
I've added a link to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_8#Category:Articles_lacking_sources, but, so we can improve the CFD process, how did you not manage to find the debate given the big pink notice at the top of Category:Articles lacking sources which the signpost article linked to? I've stopped linking to the actual debates simply because it takes longer to compile the report and given the fact there is a always a large notice on the relevant page while the debate is still active. Hiding T 09:25, 17 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)
Requesting undeletion of Category:User coldfusion-1 to complete the set of Category:User coldfusion. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by some of the decisions you made in reworking the disambiguation page for Vityaz. Can you explain on Talk:Vityaz? Thanks, Avram ( talk) 07:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You reverted an edit made on that page. You might want to comment on the discussion page before it is added back in at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_is_it_so_in_the_first_place... . The relevant discussion is towards the bottom. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:02, 21 October 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)
SRMach5B was not forum shopping when they made the remarks at the BLP notice board as they were given that option to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama (2009). At the same time while not strictly speaking forum shopping the second front that SRMach5B opened at WP:ANI did violate the spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Now would you and Tanthalas39 stop sniping at each other. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Your user page states you are open to recall. What is the procedure you use? Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Altenmann, I spotted that you once created the article Forced labor of Hungarians in the Soviet Union. Since I guess this topic intrests you would you be willing at looking at the starting the article on the topic of the equivalent Hungarian forced labor in the West, specifically in France? I came across this source that might be of intrest HUNGARIAN PRISONERS-0F-WAR IN FRENCH CAPTIVITY 1945 - 1947. I'm sure there must be better sources out there, but it seems as if it gives a good overview of a neglected topic in wiki.-- Stor stark7 Speak 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. Cheers Himalayan 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw from here that it's been exactly six years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:02, 13 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)
I have nominated Category:Probabilistic complexity classes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Complexity classes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Robin ( talk) 19:53, 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)
Good day! May I ask you please why your notice of a block on User:Wikisucks10 was posted on their user page instead of talk page? Thanks, IShadowed ✰ 22:17, 20 November 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. AniMate 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
What are you like with the tagging of cats - would you support project identification utilising:
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)
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 Satu Suro 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks for that - appreciate the response Satu Suro 23:56, 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)
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)
Category:People from Azerbaijan, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. I understand the intent of the category; I want to gauge consensus on whether we want to have parallel categories for nationals and other people "from" the place. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Per your request, I've closed this nomination as Withdrawn. TreasuryTag consented, so his Delete vote doesn't hamper. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I mentioned you
on ANI just now, in relation to reverting
User:Bot-iww's edits.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
02:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
s. Krzysztof Kieślowski (born in Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete) /../writing that a person was born in Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete gives a much better understanding the overall environment where the person lived his life. -- Bot-iww ( talk) 13:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
" Viktorija Žemaitytė (etc.) born. in Soviet Union" is absurdum. -- Bot-iww ( talk) 13:45, 15 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)
I disagree with your recent edit to remove the reference to Paradise by the Dashboard Light from the article Baseball metaphors for sex. My comments are on the talk page. Regards Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite follow. Presidential what? And what is it that needs updating in North Caucasus? Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 12:06, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Completely my screw-up; thanks for noticing. Now fixed.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 02:16, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
P.S. It is quite curious to observe the train of thought of how I started from North Caucasian Federal District, went through "white bulat" and ended in Olonets. ( Six Degrees of Wikipedia in action :-). - Altenmann >t 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, slice and dice. LOL. Bearian ( talk) 03:02, 23 January 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).
Dear Administrator, I would like to request to restore the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism is completely uncompetent. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:
1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania explicitely mentions the concept of "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139
2) The concept of "judicial shamanism" is explicitely mentioned at the official website of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html
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.
4) The concept of "judicial shamanism" is also in use in the works of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234
5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24
6) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Psychomental Complex of the Tungus".
7) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard.
8) The deletion is not unanimous, since as we see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism - a user tried to protest.
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.
This is why the article shall be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 14:24, 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 put this ideas here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism and restore the article.
The deletion is an abvious vandalism. 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 16:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.64.52.114 (
talk)
16:55, 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)
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)
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)
Thanks for getting that. I missed it. Does gallery format allow more than just three pictures in one row? Thanks,
Buggie111 ( talk) 12:53, 1 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. 7 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Are you know something about pirogi? Like vareniki (????!!!!!). Then pizza is something like ravioli. Шнапс ( talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been changing categories on glider articles cant find any discussion on this so I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Glider_category. Your comments would be appreciated, Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I proposed deletion of two categories ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_7). In my opinion, this is overcategorization. If some biographical article is included into both Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members and Category:Executed people, Category:Executed members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adds no additional information about the person and is useless. DonaldDuck ( talk) 03:58, 7 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)
Cool idea for a template.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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").
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/Phasmophobia (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) 01:11, 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!
Stasruev ( talk) 20:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Stasruev ( talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Why you delete some first name for famous people?-- Pierce ( talk) 06:53, 9 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'sPonyo shhh 14:46, 9 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 >t 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello, just to let you know that this dab has been nominated for speedy deletion using Template:db-disambig, as neither entry meets MOS:DABRL. Best wishes, Boleyn3 ( talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering, what archiving rules you are using? Why you archive messages less than one month old?
(cur) (prev) 08:42, 2 March 2010 Altenmann (talk | contribs) (27,603 bytes) (to archive) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:40, 2 March 2010 Altenmann (talk | contribs) (30,133 bytes) (archiving old talks) (undo)
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)
Any idea?
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)
which titles are you speaking of? Javacaliente ( talk) 06:51, 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)
I am adding death project tag to massacre sites where i can - have just been reading some stuff of the purge era - phew... Satu Suro 07:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Suppressed research in the Soviet Union, 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/Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. vvv t 09:06, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Kind regards Magicmike ( talk) 00:27, 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)
The article Union State Bank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsure whether this falls under any of the CSD.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Don Cuan (
talk)
23:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This is to inform you that Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia, which you created, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression. Your input is welcome.-- Aervanath ( talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [1]
Thank you for uploading File:Sister-twisted.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle ( talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
CSD U1 does not apply to user talk pages. Taemyr ( talk) 01:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I noticed that you moved back article's name to proper title Occupation of the Baltic states, however its talk remains attached to old title Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Could you please fix it. thanks, User:M.K 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention and contribution. PetersV TALK 05:23, 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 the restore! Am fixing/adding refs! Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:16, 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. PetersV TALK 21:52, 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)
I'm going to revert your archiving from
Talk:List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, which was both prematurely done, and apparently carelessly or impulsively done. While i don't doubt your good intent, your impatience was at least unconstructive, if not uncivil. I'll either do a more careful archiving after completing my organizational work, or notify you that i've reached a point where i don't expect to continue soon, and would find your efforts welcome. Thanks.
--
Jerzy•
t
19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Before deleting external links, please respond to talk discussion for article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.179.8 ( talk) 11:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no ordering for categorisation. Unless, you have a link with a new policy that I am not aware of. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:11, 11 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 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I am conducting a reassessment as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found come concerns which need addressing if this article is to keep its GA status, which may be found at Talk:Erast Fandorin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn ( talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why did you block my bot? There's no error with it. -- Lucas Nunes ( talk) 01:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Discussion moved to Talk:Political parties in Belgium#Naming conventions - Altenmann >t 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to edit out the typos on your comment there. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you're doing a " Simultaneous exhibition" in grand wiki style. I may not agree with your position today, but I have serious respect for your ability to discuss with that many people at once! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:27, 3 July 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... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I listed Sovdepia at Afd WP:Articles for deletion/Sovdepia. I note that you are the creator (back in 2004) and may have something to say. Jd2718 ( talk) 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Altenmann. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've self-reported our dispute. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
why have you deleted the stuff i had wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
did that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 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.
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 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 pages --Scorpio95 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I added the official website to one of the pages why has that been taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 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)
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.
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)
Hi! I moved your comment to the talk page from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, because it was placed in the middle of the nominations list and comments should generally go on the talk page. I hope you understand. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Stanisław Lem/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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?
Thank you for clarification. -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
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 >t 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey - forgot to say thanks for finding that interesting article on Carmine (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine Guida)... Luminifer ( talk) 12:20, 31 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)
Really sorry for that, it was totally a mistake. Thanks for remind me. I'll care in future. Fkehar ( talk) 03:08, 3 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)
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\ talk 22:21, 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)
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)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. 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)
I've added a link to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_8#Category:Articles_lacking_sources, but, so we can improve the CFD process, how did you not manage to find the debate given the big pink notice at the top of Category:Articles lacking sources which the signpost article linked to? I've stopped linking to the actual debates simply because it takes longer to compile the report and given the fact there is a always a large notice on the relevant page while the debate is still active. Hiding T 09:25, 17 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)
Requesting undeletion of Category:User coldfusion-1 to complete the set of Category:User coldfusion. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by some of the decisions you made in reworking the disambiguation page for Vityaz. Can you explain on Talk:Vityaz? Thanks, Avram ( talk) 07:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You reverted an edit made on that page. You might want to comment on the discussion page before it is added back in at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_is_it_so_in_the_first_place... . The relevant discussion is towards the bottom. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:02, 21 October 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)
SRMach5B was not forum shopping when they made the remarks at the BLP notice board as they were given that option to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama (2009). At the same time while not strictly speaking forum shopping the second front that SRMach5B opened at WP:ANI did violate the spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Now would you and Tanthalas39 stop sniping at each other. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Your user page states you are open to recall. What is the procedure you use? Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Altenmann, I spotted that you once created the article Forced labor of Hungarians in the Soviet Union. Since I guess this topic intrests you would you be willing at looking at the starting the article on the topic of the equivalent Hungarian forced labor in the West, specifically in France? I came across this source that might be of intrest HUNGARIAN PRISONERS-0F-WAR IN FRENCH CAPTIVITY 1945 - 1947. I'm sure there must be better sources out there, but it seems as if it gives a good overview of a neglected topic in wiki.-- Stor stark7 Speak 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. Cheers Himalayan 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw from here that it's been exactly six years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:02, 13 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)
I have nominated Category:Probabilistic complexity classes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Complexity classes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Robin ( talk) 19:53, 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)
Good day! May I ask you please why your notice of a block on User:Wikisucks10 was posted on their user page instead of talk page? Thanks, IShadowed ✰ 22:17, 20 November 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. AniMate 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
What are you like with the tagging of cats - would you support project identification utilising:
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)
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 Satu Suro 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks for that - appreciate the response Satu Suro 23:56, 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)
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)
Category:People from Azerbaijan, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. I understand the intent of the category; I want to gauge consensus on whether we want to have parallel categories for nationals and other people "from" the place. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Per your request, I've closed this nomination as Withdrawn. TreasuryTag consented, so his Delete vote doesn't hamper. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I mentioned you
on ANI just now, in relation to reverting
User:Bot-iww's edits.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
02:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
s. Krzysztof Kieślowski (born in Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete) /../writing that a person was born in Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete gives a much better understanding the overall environment where the person lived his life. -- Bot-iww ( talk) 13:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
" Viktorija Žemaitytė (etc.) born. in Soviet Union" is absurdum. -- Bot-iww ( talk) 13:45, 15 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)
I disagree with your recent edit to remove the reference to Paradise by the Dashboard Light from the article Baseball metaphors for sex. My comments are on the talk page. Regards Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite follow. Presidential what? And what is it that needs updating in North Caucasus? Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 12:06, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Completely my screw-up; thanks for noticing. Now fixed.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 02:16, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
P.S. It is quite curious to observe the train of thought of how I started from North Caucasian Federal District, went through "white bulat" and ended in Olonets. ( Six Degrees of Wikipedia in action :-). - Altenmann >t 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, slice and dice. LOL. Bearian ( talk) 03:02, 23 January 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).
Dear Administrator, I would like to request to restore the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism is completely uncompetent. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:
1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania explicitely mentions the concept of "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139
2) The concept of "judicial shamanism" is explicitely mentioned at the official website of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html
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.
4) The concept of "judicial shamanism" is also in use in the works of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234
5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24
6) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Psychomental Complex of the Tungus".
7) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard.
8) The deletion is not unanimous, since as we see in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism - a user tried to protest.
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.
This is why the article shall be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 14:24, 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 put this ideas here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism and restore the article.
The deletion is an abvious vandalism. 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 16:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.64.52.114 (
talk)
16:55, 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)
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)
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)
Thanks for getting that. I missed it. Does gallery format allow more than just three pictures in one row? Thanks,
Buggie111 ( talk) 12:53, 1 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. 7 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Are you know something about pirogi? Like vareniki (????!!!!!). Then pizza is something like ravioli. Шнапс ( talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been changing categories on glider articles cant find any discussion on this so I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Glider_category. Your comments would be appreciated, Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I proposed deletion of two categories ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_7). In my opinion, this is overcategorization. If some biographical article is included into both Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members and Category:Executed people, Category:Executed members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adds no additional information about the person and is useless. DonaldDuck ( talk) 03:58, 7 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)
Cool idea for a template.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 07:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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").
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/Phasmophobia (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) 01:11, 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!
Stasruev ( talk) 20:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Stasruev ( talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Why you delete some first name for famous people?-- Pierce ( talk) 06:53, 9 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'sPonyo shhh 14:46, 9 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 >t 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello, just to let you know that this dab has been nominated for speedy deletion using Template:db-disambig, as neither entry meets MOS:DABRL. Best wishes, Boleyn3 ( talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering, what archiving rules you are using? Why you archive messages less than one month old?
(cur) (prev) 08:42, 2 March 2010 Altenmann (talk | contribs) (27,603 bytes) (to archive) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:40, 2 March 2010 Altenmann (talk | contribs) (30,133 bytes) (archiving old talks) (undo)
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)
Any idea?
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)
which titles are you speaking of? Javacaliente ( talk) 06:51, 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)
I am adding death project tag to massacre sites where i can - have just been reading some stuff of the purge era - phew... Satu Suro 07:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Suppressed research in the Soviet Union, 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/Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. vvv t 09:06, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Kind regards Magicmike ( talk) 00:27, 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)
The article Union State Bank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsure whether this falls under any of the CSD.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Don Cuan (
talk)
23:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |