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

{{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 article Hailar (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to begin with karachi league deletion proposal, this was latest franchise version so only major article rewriting is alternative:

https://m.facebook.com/sindhfootballleague

secondly, see example of infobox in this article (where same symbols of hand/leg colour etc were moved by people completely out of these topics. appreciate lot if could do the fix. similar mess with karachi league article - see logs, default reverts/randomly locating someone is very sad situation of wiki project.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army_F.C.# 93.138.225.202 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't create such redirects, Andres Oja--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with it. - Altenmann >talk 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the people involved in these discussions have almost all been Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian etc. Many of these editors also seem to have baggage about ruwiki allegedly being a realm of pure chaos or whatever.

This is the English-language WP. Granted that most readers likely have never heard of аканье and иканье, much less learned how to stop worrying and love мягкий знак and will happily continue mispronouncing household names…

I personally think it’s useful, at least for names. We’re not talking about writing articles, but inserting text snippets. There’s a reason the textbooks in Russian courses here mark stress — it’s very useful for anyone who isn’t completely proficient in how each word is to be pronounced. Hell, I’ve seen Stalin mispronounce страна (Oct 41 speech on YT) and a Belarusian lecturer of Russian lamguage do the same with опыт. These things are not easy to the uninitiated.

To be fair, both Arabic and Hebrew (and for all I know other abjad-using languages with a significant corpus of snippets in WP) also have a vaguely similar issue going on with inconsistent use of vowel markers in names, phrases, and snippets.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you would be interested in seeing a study of how informational notes and referencing is carried out in a sample of 101 Featured Articles? If you are, you can find it at: User:ThoughtIdRetired/sandbox/study of notes and referencing in FAs. I found some of the findings surprising, particularly the mixed citation styles in so many articles that are meant to be the best in Wikipedia. If you wanted to comment, that would be very welcome – or if not, that's fine too. Ultimately I am looking for advice on where to raise this matter – I get the feeling that many of the "referencing enthusiasts" (for want of a better term) would be equally surprised by the rareness of consistent referencing style. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Altenmann,

Just a reminder that category redirects are created differently than article redirects. Please look at the code/template on this page so you'll know how to create a proper category redirect should you want to in the future. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Regarding the entry in List of words ending in ology, I believe there is a book of that title which you are referring to which fits your description. However, the word itself is defined as the scientific study of noses by many sources such as numerous dictionaries including the Merriam-Webster and Collins. Maybe the word was first coined by Warwick in the novel you are referring to but I think it has unequivocally entered the English lexicon as a study of noses, and so should be included as an entry in the article. Nikolaih^☎️📖 19:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regardless what dictionary say, there is no science of "nasology". Dictionaries are not experts on sciences. The science is rhinology. - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've done work on Blini. Could you go there and check out reference 11?? I get an error msg, connection timed out, whenever I try it, and I'm not sure how to correct it. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing the vulgar language in the "In popular culture" section disappear, TBH. Thanks! 73.1.228.60 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with seeeing the reference. What exactly are you questioning? - Altenmann >talk 17:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "vulgar language", there is no vulgar language in the voice of wikipedia. As for the subject being vulgar, Wikipedia is not censored. - Altenmann >talk 17:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be #10 now: "Blin - Meaning in Russian - Translation and audio". Learn Russian Daily. Retrieved 2019-08-22. When I click on the link I get an error msg, connection timed out, the page does not load. 73.1.228.60 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as a "dead link". A bot will find an archived version. - Altenmann >talk 18:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've redeleted your request at Talk:Hebrew because it's off-topic. An article's talk page is only for discussing the state of and improvements to the article. (I'm not sure why I didn't explain that the first time—and I didn't outright delete it, I archived it.) There's a pointer that should be of use to you at WP:Translation#Images. Largoplazo (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I remember the primary reason (that it was off-topic was secondary) why I removed the section from Talk:Hebrew, because I just discovered the same problem at Talk:Yiddish. The way you'd arranged the images caused them to flow into subsequent sections, creating a mess. Now the same thing has happened at Talk:Yiddish, as you can see in the version after your latest edit, so I just archived the section there as well. Largoplazo (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: That's an extremely uncooperative way of doing things in Wikipedia. Talk:Hebrew is the place where people are supposed to know Hebrew. I imagine I will have to wait ages until a Jew in Commons stumbles upon my request in the 7 feet long list oof requests. Anyway, I will try. - Altenmann >talk 01:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are online forums where one can ask interested participants to translate something. For example, if you happen to have a Facebook account, there's a group called "What is this thing?" where people often post questions of this nature. Largoplazo (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered there's something closer to home: Wikipedia:Translators available, and specifically Wikipedia:Translators available#Hebrew-to-English (which I've just updated to 2024 based on the listed users' contribution histories). Four prolific editors who are actively editing may be able to help you. Largoplazo (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM applies. Talk pages for articles are solely for discussion of how to improve that specific article, not for any other discussion or resource-request relating to the topic. If you need help with Hebrew or Yiddish, I may be able to help somewhat, feel free to ping me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Sorry, I disagree with your interpretation of NOTFORUM. My question was related to improvement of Wikipedia, not an idle chat. - Altenmann >talk 16:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance.. While I recognize that how to improve articles is ambiguous in this context, the talk page guidelines are not: The purpose of a page's associated talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page., emphasis mine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is "The purpose of a page's associated talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page." It says later at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#TOPIC "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." Seems pretty emphatic about that. Largoplazo (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, mine was not "general discussion"; I was asking for help in improvement of Wikipedia for God's sake. I thought I found a good place for this; I am not that good in the whole bureaucracy of wikipedia. How the heck I could have known that there is a whole guild of translators. They don't post ads on Signpost. But deletion of my post without answer or advice was rude and uncooperative. These guidelines were introduced long time ago when many people took Wikipedia talk pages as yet another forum in the internets and this was a way to deter them. Kicking out people asking help in improvement of Wikipedia was not what "fathers-founders" intended. - Altenmann >talk 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. You weren't being scolded, just informed. You weren't "kicked out", you're still here, aren't you? I am not questioning your good faith. I already acknowledged that I should have explained the removal the first time. As for why the guidelines are what they are, nothing has changed about new people coming here and thinking, innocently, that talk pages are chat pages, so the guidelines are still applicable in their current form.

Now, you've received helpful responses from two people, including me (and you did receive another one from me earlier, when I told you that the language in the images was Hebrew, not Yiddish, so please don't accuse me of being unhelpful). Largoplazo (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am thankful for helpful and useful responses, but only after I reverted an unexplained deletion. And you still don't get my point: the whole bureaucracy around choosing proper talk pages is a deterrent on par with "biting newcomers" and you will not convince me otherwise. This is not the first time happening to me. For example, I never remember where to post a deletion request, whether it is AfD or MfD or CfD or something else, and sometimes I get nothing but "wrong venue" edit summary. - Altenmann >talk 17:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I agree with your perspectives regarding the article, but I think you should tone down the barbs you've tossed at Piotrus, specifically P.S. And I am surprised how you can be "leaning" to anything knowing nothing on the subject.. That kind of rhetoric is only going to undermine your own arguments; I would recommend deleting that comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Altenmann >talk 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Open Turn (politics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Two sentence stub already suitably covered in relevant article on organisation the debate took place with. Article effectively redundant.

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The container format is mentioned by thousands of independent sources. You need to do your own research before doing such a frivolous tagging. 240B:C020:4B3:2A8B:CD8F:D0E:8701:C737 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make edits like [1]. I left a clear edit summary in [2] etc and reverting without even a modicum of explanation is considered rather rude. --Joy (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved in the article talk page. - Altenmann >talk 19:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archetypal_fools

Limited Intelligence? - the category is surely ironic, in some cases shakespearean fools are more intelligent than their foils, and I am sure Jung had a thing that would suggest that self identified geniuses are in fact as limited as well... JarrahTree 07:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay closer attention as you added redundant unsourced content. Also, the section you added for the ranks needs an RS reference. Happy editing. Obenritter (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt invent anything. I copied from other wp articles. Go tag them, for consistency. - Altenmann >talk 19:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other article failings are no excuse for not following the rules. Wow. --Obenritter (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow back. Go ahead and revert my edits. I dont freaking care, I just wanted to clear some mess withn the term :Junker". - Altenmann >talk 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit articles when another editor has posted an "in use" tag. It's rude. Skyerise (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect deletion of link to deleted image will create much disruption, sorry. - Altenmann >talk 04:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Jin, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Justin Jin. - Altenmann >talk 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Samba (ballroom dance) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Egsan Bacon: Accusation completely without of merit. In fact this was vice versa. YOu cannot throw these accusations with threats to experienced editors without providing solid evudence other than page comparison. Websites (and even academicians) snatch wikipedia content all the time without credit. - Altenmann >talk 03:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The website says it was established in 2011. I am deeply offended with your careless behavior. - Altenmann >talk 03:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for causing offense, but I followed the instructions at the page for "copyright concerns" for how to handle the situation when you have a concern that there might be a copyright issue, not when there definitely is one. I don't think it was an unreasonable concern, since it wasn't based solely off the two pages having the same text, as less than four hours earlier you asserted that that very webpage you have now clarified consists entirely of text that was copied from a Wikipedia article was a reliable source. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that an experienced editor who had done their due diligence when restoring a source whose reliability was in question checked said source before doing that and wouldn't simply assert that the website of some local dance studio that copies the entire text of one of their pages from a Wikipedia article was a reliable source, after all. A new editor might not know that such a page was a bad source, but an experienced editor surely would. For what it's worth, thank you for removing the source in question from the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Altenmann. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Raczkowski".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]