User talk:Altenmann

/////////\///\//\///\//\ \//\/

{{Family name hatnote}} {{Not a typo}} {{typo}} efn notelist {rp|993} {Rp|page=199} {{datasource missing}} {{la|Pug} [Template:uw-ew]]

{{wide image|Uvs Nuur drainage basin.jpg|700px|Ubs}

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

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

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update to Belarusian romanization, for example "г" is now romanized as "g" rather than "h" and the 2000 instruction is no longer valid.[1] Since we are using BGN/PCGN romanization we do not need to move the articles but I am not sure if we need to update certain pages as a result.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

This 2023 update also includes romanization of Russian (for example "ё" is romanized as "jo") but I think we are using consistent romanization of Russian already? Mellk (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I dont think we have to jump through the hoops here. As I see in the table, changes were in 200, 200, 2023. For larger places (and for otherwise known in English, e.g., due to WWII operations) we have traditional English-language names. For smaller ones who cares. To update thousand pages (without pay:-)... I guess we better discuss in Talk:WikiProject Belarus and noitify a handdful of editors active in Belarusian topics. By the way, Wikipedia:Romanization of Belarusian say "In English Wikipedia, names of people and places in Belarusian are romanized using the BGN/PCGN romanization system".- Altenmann >talk 16:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned we are using BGN/PCGN so there is no reason to move articles (which would be a nightmare). Unless of course WP:BELARUSIANNAMES is updated (I hope not). But for some articles we are using BGN/PCGN romanization for the title and also mentioning the other romanization in the lead if it is different to the title. But we are in an awkward position as some articles (e.g. Maskoŭskaja (Minsk Metro)) are using the older system. I had proposed to move this to BGN/PCGN but apparently some people though that it did not apply and we should use the other system.[2] Mellk (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some metro station names do look really weird and unhelpful for English speakers: Jubiliejnaja plošča, Uručča - WTH is thia? How one is supposed to say it? But as I said, this must be discussiw in be-project page, not in obscure article pages, to ensure a broad participation: whether to update our Wikipedia:Romanization of Belarusian or to adhere to it. - Altenmann >talk 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but WikiProject Belarus looks practically dead to me (I think it was previously inactive then there was some activity in 2020 as a result of the protests). Mellk (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead does not matter. We need a central place. As I said, arrange individual invitations (in chain letter way) to active be-article editors. - Altenmann >talk 16:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good suggestion. Mellk (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other opinions exist.

Also Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose exists.

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

@109.77.201.136: Thank you for the explanation; I was just copying what accidentally caught my eye. I am far removed from all this entertainment industry, I did not even know what the heck "aggregator means. - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could just as easily say "review collector" but that would be much clearer and far too simple and it would make it really obvious how badly people get the grammar wrong. :)

That the word doesn't immediately make sense to people (and the fact that huge numbers of Wikipedia readers have English as a second language) make me want to avoid it as just another unnecessary big word. Really I should go edit Simple Wikipedia instead. -- 109.77.201.136 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:-) - Altenmann >talk 22:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

@HumbleWise: Please discuss the issue in Talk:Electric Boogie#Written in 1976?, not in user talk pages. By the way, you are confused: I am not using any source. In fact, I agree that 1976 is wrong date. --Altenmann >talk 02:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that was a mistake on my part. I understand you agree that 1976 is incorrect. Let’s continue the discussion on *Talk:Electric Boogie*.

Thank you. HumbleWise (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

There is all sources…--93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. www.chabad.org and www.jewishaction.com… YouTube is always confirmed.--93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Buber and Pentateuch… Abraham Abulafia and Nachman of Breslov… --93.38.66.89 (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urbonavičius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urbanavičius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(followup from two threads elsewhere)

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

• @Elinruby: PAMF, but I am sure my doctor Wu knows yours and next visit I will pass your gratitude. --Altenmann >talk 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks. Her full name is Nam Cho. Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judicial supervision is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Axad12: What allegation? --Altenmann >talk 16:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation that simply following the lead of a large number of more experienced editors and admins, as observed over a 12 month period, is trout-worthy behaviour. Axad12 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: Retracted. COI editing is a very painful issue, so no wonder many people jump the gun, step on it, fast-forward upon the slightest suspicion of COI. You said "as observed", but you definitely did not observe the opposite stance. As an example, I used to edit articles related to theoretical computer science (until I realized the depths of my ignorance :-), and many a time some professor or their devout disciples start spamming wikipedia with refs to articles of the said professor. In all cases, without an exception, the first warning that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for scientific promotion was stopping this. --Altenmann >talk 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant that you should retract it in the place where you had made the allegation, i.e. that you should strike it from your original comment at COIN [Later edit: which I see that you have now done, for which my thanks].

Over the last few months my primary activity on Wikipedia has been dealing with COI issues, whether that be on the noticeboard or in answering COI edit requests. As you say, it is not an easy area, however it's one where I've volunteered a lot of my time in good faith and done the best that I could under sometimes difficult circumstances with little outside help.

Over recent weeks I've been seriously considering stepping away from Wikipedia altogether. Consequently I don't appreciate being accused, obviously incorrectly, of trout-worthy behaviour or, by implication above, of being deeply ignorant. All you are achieving by such comments is driving away a good faith editor who has been giving his time trying to help the project in an area where few others seem inclined to operate. Axad12 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: Colleague, if you feel frustrated by Wikipedia, then Wikipedia:Wikibreak is perhaps advisable, rather than "stepping away altogether". --Altenmann >talk 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've tried that in the past. Unfortunately it still involves having to return to a seemingly never ending number of difficult COI users, plus editors like you who go out of their way to create an even more unpleasant working environment and increase the already high level of burnout for workers in this area. Axad12 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

like you who go out of their way... Oh really? You are blowing a single jocular remark (which I immediately retracted upon your request) out of proportions. --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to the fact that I came here asking you to retract that remark, but that you then immediately followed it up by implying that I am deeply ignorant - a comment that I pointed out a few posts above. Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I offended you and I will no longer be talking to you, not to hurt your sensitivities further. --Altenmann >talk 18:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]