User talk:Altenmann/ar1: Difference between revisions

• Talks about Kven Issue

Bonny trolls again on WP:ANI. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the many Stewart entries on LoPbN, which i'll fold in appropriately. But i am shocked to discover that an editor whose name i've been seeing for so long would be so clueless as to do a cut&paste merge. Even if others had not, prior to your steps, irresponsibly removed multiple legitimate sections (whose absence should BTW have alerted you to look at the history, confirm it, and refrain from a destructive merge, if not restore them yourself), you should have either

• moved the content, requested a history merge be done, and made sure that it gets done, or
• request both the history and content move, and leave them both to someone else.

But again, thanks for all those names; i can find time to reformat them, but going around search for the Dabs deserving inclusion is beyond my capacity, so that part of what you did is just great.
--Jerzy•t 20:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly is a problem, which has had some discussion. Reasons for separate lists:
  1. LoPbN IMO must continue to be strictly alpha-order (for people w/ both given and sur- names); for many big people-Dab pages, a good organization is to have sections for people having similar causes of notability, and some Dabs (Arbuthnot/Arbuthnott comes to mind) should probably de-emphasize exact spelling; conversely, it may be worth treating Schon and Schön in separate sections of the same Dab page, while on LoPbN it is impracticable IMO to do anything but interleave them as if o and ö were indistinguishable.
  2. Surname-first is necessary on LoPbN, but violates WP:MOSDAB and also IMO is almost always a pointless impediment on a Dab page.
  3. While WP:MOSDAB tends to encourage separating bands, titled works, and fictional characters from each other and real people, it is seldom seriously harmful and sometimes more convenient to do otherwise, while only real people can be on LoPbN. (This objection primarily addresses proposals for using transclusion in some way, to put entries for the same people on both a Dab and a LoPbN page.)
  4. A surname or full name cannot be a rdr bcz of the non-bio articles the Dab has to handle, but Dab pages that include people probably see most use by those seeking people, so forcing them to click into LoPbN (besides LoPbN having to have a less suitable format in several ways) slows down Dab'n-page usage. This burden is not limited to a single click: even a perfectly maintained LoPbN page with a perfectly maintained page-title-only lk requires a second click (on the ToC) to the needed section, and perfect maintenance of either page-title-only or page-and-section lks is a continuing process as new names are added. We presently have about 700 pages, and one experiment suggests probably only a third of existing bio articles have gotten their LoPbN entries. As expansion progresses, unmaintained section lks sometimes become effectively page-title-only ones as many section titles become obsolete. Much more often, a lk of either kind may turn into a link to an "index-only" LoPbN page, such as List of people by name: Con, requiring at least one click and occasionally two, to a page containing names, and a further click to the needed section. (I guess it would help some if a bot patrolled LoPbN What-links-here pages for lks from non-LoPbN pages, checked those for Dab tags, and offered to make (probably almost always accurate) changes to the Dab-page lks.)

The answer to the duplication problem may be bots to watch for differences among those two and the various descendants of Category:People, and build lists for attention of humans, or even maintain a database of bio articles and of Dabs that point at them, which could guide efficient maintenance efforts.

Thanks, that was a good question, and i'll probably put this part of our discussion onto a LoPbN talk page.
--Jerzy•t 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why did you revert my changes on wage slavery? The objection to that section had been on the talk page for a year yet nobody in that time has come up with anything to support it. I think it's safe to say it's not a serious issue. -- infinity0 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a vote on the Higgs boson talk page over whether or not to merge the pop culture references article with the main article. I noticed you've previously contributed to the debate, so your vote would be helpful in establishing a consensus (or, perhaps, a vote of "no consensus", in which case the problem will be referred to AfD). Thanks! -DMurphy 21:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could perhaps watchlist this article and follow some of the discussions having to do with Khomeini's ideas on non-Muslims? I've added a statement from Bernard Lewis, but the name of the section has been changed and there's a {{verify}} tag placed in there. Thanks. Aucaman^Talk 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment. John Reid 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kак будет "пожарная бригада" по-белорусски? Hе могу найти. Спаcибо. 195.150.224.238 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "пажарная каманда", but I am not sure. I will lok up the dictionary `'mikka (t) 18:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, at least read the discussion page before repeating the same change on the Transnistria page. Having "Romanian and Moldovan" in the 1989 census implies that they were counted as two categories which were combined in that table. I doubt that, however; it is more likely that the Romanian category did not exist or that the Romanian results were entered in the others category, in which case one could entirely ommit the name Romanian in that category. As for the 2004 census, it it probable that Moldovan was the only category available for ethnic Romanians, or there might have also been a distinct Romanian category and Mauco wants to confirm that. Meanwhile please, don't make any changes before explaining them first on the discussion page. TSO1D 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Mikka on this one. He's laid out his arguments very scientifically and certainly convinced me. If I can locate the census form and see if there is a separate category for "Romanian", then that sort of settles it. But I have not had any luck so far. - William Mauco 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Any particular reason you reverted my addition of "cock teaser" to the CT article? As I pointed out to user InShaneee, this was not vandalism but a clarification of a common term which I ran into while viewing The Day of the Locust. I didn't know what it meant, so I had to look it up, and I thought I might save others the trouble. Just FYI, I don't believe it violates any Wikipedia policy, as you are probably aware Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks for your time! MFNickster 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the section entitled "From the Ottoman point of view". It looks like a POV fork to me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls take a look at recent discussion at its talk as well as recent edits. There may be some BS there together with the useful stuff. My familiarity of the topic is not extensive enough and mostly is limited to having been read several academic reviews to the books cited. Your input would be appreciated. -Irpen 17:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm before reverting my edits read the explanation on the discussion page. (I even cited it in my edit summary) Then, try to prove me wrong, and ONLY THEN change it. --Lenev 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something to delete, write an explanation first and ONLY THEN delete. the talk page was empty when I looked into it. Even better, wait for reaction for your suggestion of some disputable changes FIRST. `'mikka (t) 00:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you originated this article – thanks – and also the following here:

V. Volodarsky. I used to live at Volodarsky street, and never in my life knew that he was simply "V." mikka (t) 03:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is even Володарский, В. in Russian wiki, I fixed ru and en links. Vald 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "V." stand for anything, or is it like the "S." in "Harry S. Truman"?  Thanks, David Kernow 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an alias and means nothing (at least I have never found anything). `'mikka (t) 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I suspected as much. Best wishes, David 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a biting deconstruction of the logical shell game used to support parapsychology, I hereby award you 1/2 of a Brick of common sense (the other half going to 67.20.18.127), the rarest and most sought-after wiki award. Raul654 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The independent article is back. Please respect the consensus, painfully worked out in this article, to break out lists like that one in their own pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_likened_to_Bob_Dylan

It's been discussed on the talk page several times, and right now you're the only person who's showing any disagreement. Monicasdude 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in part about the controversy of the rape. Many of those women prostituted themselfs to Soviet soldiers. I shall find a document which is a complaint by Soviet commander about the situation, where he complains that his soldiers can't perform basic duties, as they are followed and harrased by German women offering all kinds of services. --Molobo 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bot driver. Please be careful when reverting vandals and ALWAYS check the previous history. In some articles there are swarms of vandals, whole stacks of them in the history. Your last revert of Sam was a bit careless. `'mikka (t) 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem that I haven't come up with a simple solution to. As it stands, if there are multiple vandals coming from different usernames/IPs, it will require human intervention to clean up. As it would have required human intervention to clean up in any event, I don't personally see this as a great loss. It would be nice though, to have Tawkerbot2 understand this sort of attack and thwart it. I hope to do this later. joshbuddy^talk 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The god of Tawkerbot2 Joshbuddy summed it up quite nicely :) -- Tawker 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could update your photo so we can see what you look like today. I understand your current photo is from 2004. Thanks. --Hamgyonense 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the format of tb2's log messages to have both the user page and user talk page. I hope you find this acceptable. Please let me know if you have any other ideas or suggestions. joshbuddy^talk 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current log message acceptable? Look at [1]. Does this seem good to you? joshbuddy^talk 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changed to the format. Made it considerably shorter. An exmaple: [2] Thanks. joshbuddy^talk 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you include Belarusian language (7.04.2004) in the List of endangered languages, when there are 8 million native speakers of this language, it's the official language for Belarus (with 75% native Belarusian speakers) and there is Belarusian version of Wikipedia with 2600 articles. Хм... и зачем я пишу по-английски? :) --Alexey Petrov 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that stats right, that 73,7% of Belarusian people know Belarusian language as native? (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Белорусский_язык). If almost all parents know Belarusian, IMHO it's obvious that children will speak it freely, even without schools with main Belarusian language. Other sources for language education may be: Belarusian TV, Radio, Books, etc... - It's unlikely that all of them are already in Russian. Belarusian Wikipedia is a good example. --Alexey Petrov 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For edits to disambiguation pages (e.g. Light Light) please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer yourself there and don't revert other people's cleanup. `'mikka (t) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Wow! Where's this hostility coming from?) Your edit is in opposition to at least 2 guidelines "2. Linking to a primary topic", and "4. Individual entries" (2nd item: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link..."). So I thought perhaps you were unaware that a style guide for disambiguation pages even existed. But now I think maybe you just don't care, or are even opposed to it. Which is it? Ewlyahoocom 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hostility is from brainless and disrespectful revert. I strongly suggest you to think more about content than of form. If people start reverting each other only because someone didn't like word order, wikipedia is in big trouble. `'mikka (t) 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainless, eh? Thanks for spreading the WikiLove! Also, please don't make a controversial change to a style guide without at least a little bit of discussion of the Talk page. Ewlyahoocom 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Russia with Love. You loved me so, so don't complain. As for changes in style guide, until someone reverted it, I was in my full rights to be bold. I see you are in a serious need of attitude adjustment in many places. `'mikka (t) 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you delete the external link to iDance.net? I feel this is a very dance related link, one that is potentially of interest to many lovers of tap dance. Is it a link to a for profit business? Yes. Does that make it less related or of interest? No. I have seen many other external links to businesses, so I don't understand why you removed this one. Please explain. Thanks!

We are in business of writing encyclopedia, not web directory. I am sure there are hundreds of websites with interesting information. The point is that wikipedia must provide its own information. You are welcome to add useful text into the article. People can use google themselves. `'mikka (t) 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wiki is not a web directory, but for example on the Lindy Hop page there is an external link to Yehoodi. This is a for profit business. I think it should be listed on this page because its very dance related, but why not iDance. Whats the difference?

Yehoodi deleted. Thanks for noticing. That's the whole point. Why not this, why not that... Why not write 2-3 phrases into the article? `'mikka (t) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So its ok to write a few sentances in the Tap (or lindy hop) article with an external link to iDance, but not to place it in the external links section? That seems a bit weird. I mean, I don't mind doing that, and I guess that would allow me to explain what iDance is and what kind of resource to the dance community it is, but seems un-necessary.

Why would you want to have a link to iDance? Is it a well-known, established, reputable source of information with reputable authors, known in trade? `'mikka (t) 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats why I think it should be there. As a member of the Lindy Hop Community for 4 years I feel its a valuable resource to that community. You should take some time to check out the site, before you delete the link.

As it happens I am a dancer myself (not Lindy, but WCS, Salsa & ballroom) and I would like very much to have as much dance info available online. If you say that all I asked is true, then please write a good wikipedia article about this site and tell me when it is ready. lease also remember that for notability and verifiability purposes reputabe third party references are required about how good this site is. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlainJane 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I feel that the idance link compromises the NPOV tone of the lindy hop article, as idance is a for-profit site. Yehoodi, however, is one of the longest-standing and most important community lindy hop sites in america if not the world, producing 3 radio shows, numerous social dancing events as well as the discussion boad itself. I'm not sure if it is actually a for-profit venture. Having said that, yehoodi would perhaps be best served by an article on wikipedia than a link. In contrast, the savoystyle site (linked to on the lindy hop site), while it does have an attached 'shop' is one of the longest-running lindy hop history site, is well referenced (using academic and biographical resources) and the site's author is in regular contact with frankie Manning to verify content.[reply]

If an external link is deleted a day after I place it, I have very little incentive to spend the time and effort on an entire article, as all things point to the fact that it will be deleted as well. I mean I thought Wiki was supposed to be a community effort and a resource for human knowledge. I just don't understand the reasoning behing limiting things. I think an article with 50 or 100 relavent external links would be a good thing, more info, more sources for people to follow. Why this desire to limit? <unsigned>

What was said in the iDance link was very NPOV as it can all be verified. Honestly do you people even go to the sites you delete, or do you just delete them? <unsigned>

I the website is reputable, well established and referred by other reputable publications, then the article will not be deleted. If it is not well established and not known to anybody, then there is no reason to have an external link to it, even opposite: why would yoyu want a link to a non-reputable website?

50-100 is out of question. repeating: we are not link farm here.

By the way, please sign your posts. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlainJane 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Please do start an article on idance. It's an interesting and useful resource - simply not appropriate as an external link. (btw Mikkalai, I appreciate the work I see you do on the dance articles ;) )[reply]

I agree, Wiki is not a link farm. Links to reputable, and REVELANT (being the key word) do not comprise a link farm. I can understand limiting links to random sites trying to improve their search engine ranking, but links to sites that provide a valuable resource to the community, thats a good thing.

In responce to my question have you even looked at iDance.net? Do you check out the "reputability" of a site before you delete the link? Also, I'm not a member so I can't really sign my posts.

PlanJane: Thanks, I think the site is as well. Again, I just don't understand why as an article and not a link? If I wrote an article I would be sure to include a link in the article. Whats the difference. Maybe I'm just new at this wiki think and I don't understand.

This is not the issue of wiki. This is the issue of wikipedia. We need good articles, not lists of links. People know how to use google. The main issue with external links is that wikipedia does not have any control over their existence or their content. There is nothing more annoying to click thru a long list of weblinks only to get "Error 404. Page not found" in the most interesting places. `'mikka (t) 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Wikipedia can't control the content of linked pages, that is why I agree with you that random links from fly by night companies and non-estiblished sites should be deleted. This is not the case with iDance.net. It is a well estiblished, respected and reputable site. There are dance instructors, featured on iDance.net from all over the world, some (ex. The Harlem Hot Shots), have leaned directly from Frankie Manning. This site is well known in the Lindy Hop Community and should be allowed as an external link, as a resource for those who want to learn more about Lindy Hop (and other swing dances). There are other examples of links to for profit businesses on Wikipedia that also happen to contrubite much to the dance community. Ex. on the Rhythem Hot Shots page there is a link to the Herrang Dance Camp, a for proffit camp. I think its great that this link is there, and that people didn't get boged down in the fact that it is a business.

Also, who are you to solely decide what Wikipedia needs. This site is community based, as in a world wide community, it should not be your sole decision, it should be opened up to discussion. <unsigned>

If you care for the good of dancers "who want to learn more about Lindy Hop", write some more article text, which is what wikipedia for and what people are doing here. Adding links from one website to several articles is called spamming, rather than "resource". People can find many "resources" themselves using google.

..."Also who are you" and what is your interest in peddling this website? You wasted so much of your time already; you could have written two good articles instead and earn some respect here. Now, please go away and troll somewhere else. I do not "solely decide" anythin. `'mikka (t) 03:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new image of Russian dolls is a photo I took of a set hand-painted by my wife, jimfbleak 06:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Sorry to keep bugging you but I wanted to discuss your reversion of the English Translations section on the Master and Margarita page (I tried using the article talk page and emailing, but I can't seem to get ahold of you). Any reason why the self-published translation shouldn't be included? --KBehemoth 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in M&M talk page. As for getting ahold, 1-2 days is not so long time. Not all people sit all day round by keyboard. Also, e-mail is not the best way to "get ahold" of me. `'mikka (t) 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 days. Took you under an hour to revert my edit. Replied to in M&M talk. KBehemoth 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that your edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) were with the intention to clarify, but your rewording changed the meaning of the statement. If you'd like to discuss changing it, please bring it up at the talk page. Thanks, -- Natalya 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reblocking that IP. I had checked the log, but forgot about daylight savings time, and thought that the one-hour ban had already expired. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. JDoorjam Talk 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I remember seeing you contribute to various Holocaust-related articles. I have recently expanded the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and asked for a peer review. I thought you might want to take a look at the article and perhaps improve it or tell me what's missing. //Halibutt 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the one link on this to the main article - it seems very poor form to have a disambiguation page with only two links on it, one of them leading back to the only article that actually links to the disambiguation page. Do you agree that it should now be speedied, or do you have others to add to the dab page? --Golbez 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"({otheruses} is back. If you are lazy to do some search, don't think you know everything)" Thanks for dropping me a note! Really, this snark had no point, you could have explained this to me just as easily as I explained it to you. Good thing you finally found something other than a redlink to go there, though. --Golbez 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thanks for all that help on the Acarina article (mites and ticks). Jonathan W 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFM-Filed