Misplaced Pages

User talk:Altenmann/ar1

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Altenmann

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graham87 (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 1 October 2008 (Undeletion of your user talk page: tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:17, 1 October 2008 by Graham87 (talk | contribs) (Undeletion of your user talk page: tweak)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk archives/most recent

Russian jokes

Why do you keep revereting the Stirlitz joke about oranges? It's one of the funniest and most absurd of them. It also perfectly describes the godly abilities of Stirlitz. Reply here or at the discussion page of the article. 89.77.118.185 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for Novy Mir split

I appreciate your taking prompt action; even though I've been here a while now, I'm still nervous about doing drastic things like that! Languagehat (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, have a look

Please, have a look here, where I am bringing to the attention of Misplaced Pages numerous Misplaced Pages rules' violations in my regard by other users.--Moldopodo 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

KPSS statutes?

Hi. Do you know if its possible to encounter the CPSU statutes online (in Russian or other language)? I tried to google in Russian, but mainly came up with websites of the current 'successor' parties, not the actual CPSU. --Soman (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

SCIA article

I still don't think the list of names of founders is notable but am happy to leave them there given the disagreement.

There's an opportunity for expansion and reformatting to group the history and the services info a bit better. I've made a start on this but if you'd prefer the article remained unchanged let me know and I'll leave it alone. Euryalus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't believe I was being disrespectful of the founders, and in fact noted otherwise in my edit summary. I see a fair few articles with long lists of people's naames, and don't always think they need to be there (the Mytharria article for example lists dozens of playernames as a kind of memorial).
But this is a side issue. I'll keep working on the article and leave the founder's names where they are. Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

French identity...

Hi, Mikkalai. Your request for SUL is done. I have freed the Mikkalai account and renamed your Mikkalai-fr in Mikkalai. I am not a number (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx. `'Míkka>t 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of redirect back in March

Spring egg (media) was deleted, even though it was a redirect. I'm checking to make sure that this was intentional, since the reason seems generic. --Raijinili (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just wasn't sure if it was automated. --Raijinili (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Toilet

I saw the deletion of the above article. Frankly we could probably do without it. My concern though is that from the opinions expressed, the consensus was for keep or move, and not for delete. Is it appropriate for an admin to disregard the consensus and delete anyway? In this case, claiming that notability was not met. Apparently the people voting did not feel that was the case. I'm more interested in understanding the policy well, rather than fighting to keep that article. Thanks, Atom (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since AFD (like all things on Misplaced Pages, for the most part) operates by consensus, it was a bad close. The closing admin shouldn't impose their point of view in a debate as was done here. Mikkalai, would you please reconsider your close and undelete the article? —Locke Coletc 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mikkalai. Looks like it was a good close. (I happen to have your talk page watchlisted for some reason, so I'm kibitzing.) It's good to see admins who haven't got the utterly mistaken impression that AfD is a vote, or that comments there are meant to be taken as 'votes'.

The lone source for the article appears to have been a now-dead dead weblink. Perhaps someone in the future will write an article that is properly sourced; in the meantime we have ample coverage of the concept in articles like coprophilia. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So you tag the article requesting additional sources, you don't knee-jerk delete. At worst there was no consensus for closing, at best it was a keep given the comments made. Injecting your own opinion (and discounting opinions along the way) isn't how things work here. —Locke Coletc 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Knee-jerk? You must be kidding. The article sat there tagged as unreferenced for over a year, with no progress. As for my opinion, you probably have insufficient understanding how deletion works. It is not just counting votes: it is making judgement of arguments vs. policies, i.e., an administraive opinion; otherwise the job of deletion closure could have been done by a 'bot. `'Míkka>t 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced or not, the consensus was that the subject was notable (which was the cause for the AFD). Strangely, some of the articles you removed this page from would have helped serve as sources for notability (one was a book author, IIRC, who apparently used the act in his writings). —Locke Coletc 13:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Notability must be provable. While it looks like you are a relatively mature wikipedian, I encourage you to let yourself re-read and really understand the core wikipedia policy, wikipedia:Verifiability. Let me also remind you that nothing cast in stone in wikipedia, and the article may be rewritten, and it will stay, if it will follow core wikipedia rules: you have to have reliable sources from experts in BDSM or paraphilias which attest the significant usage of the term, not just in a couple of books which try to scandalize and make money in this way. I may list several dozens of names of weird sex games, most of which are most probably invented for the sole purpose of making fun of those who enrich their knowledge from Urban Dictionary. `'Míkka>t 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, but it's not your place to decide what is and isn't notable, it's your place (in the context of AFD) to determine consensus only. The consensus at that debate leaned towards the subject being notable for inclusion. While you may not have approved of (or agreed with) the opinions presented, it's irrelevant if the community (as represented by those participating at that debate) believes otherwise. —Locke Coletc 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Once again, AfD is not voting. And it is exactly my place to evaluate arguments pro/contra. And I didn't decide whether it is notable and I didn't write that I decided it. I wrote: "Notability must be provable" - I cannot take word of 2-3 or even 15 wikipedians. For the umpth's time, colleague, please show me WP:RS where experts in sexology discuss the subject. I completely agree with those who think that such stuff must be included in wikipedia: after all, this is one thing which distinguishes wikipedia from Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica. But at the same time we do have a certain threshold for inclusion, to separate kinky jokers from something more material. And this threshold is?.... Shall I repeat again? I know, it sucks sometimes, but nothing better suggested and agreed upon yet. `'Míkka>t 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You've been here much longer than I have, so I feel like I'm being a dick by pointing you to this, but I really don't see an alternative: Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Please, I implore you to read that page. Above all else, Misplaced Pages operates through consensus decision making. When you decided to impose your own personal interpretation of the AFD discussion you basically threw aside the other editors involved in the discussion and told them they were wrong. That's not your place. —Locke Coletc 02:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There are certain fundamental policies which cannot be superseded by any local random consensus of 4 wikipedians, because they have been created and accepted with mucho blood, sweat and flame. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is one of them. And as a closing admin I am entitled to my personal interpretation of how the AfD discussion agrees with the fundamental wikipedia policies. Otherwise one can easily shop internet forums and create fake "consensuses" or "consensa" ;-) in AfD discussions. Yes, I've been here much longer, and we saw that happen in these olden days when wikipedia policies were lame and lax, and trolls were happily prancing around sticking their long noses in all possible loopholes. and when it was next to impossible to fully formally delete on spot articles with content, like, "Tom Mahoney is a guy with the longest ...er... thumb in the whole Montana." Quite a notable person this Tom, what you think? `'Míkka>t 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Having recently visited Montana, I too was shocked by this Tom fellow. :P (That's code for: I give up). —Locke Coletc 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion

I thank you for your suggestion, and regret the inconvenience caused to you. Somehow, I had landed on your talk page, out of seer curiosity, as I found that your User Page was empty.When I saw the gap in your talk page, I removed the same intuitively. I shall be extremely careful while touching your user page in future unless it becomes imperative. I also thank you for displaying the highest degree of AGF on your part while sending the message to me. I congratulate you for a very high order of AGF. As regards the edit counts, every one knows that they are not significant and hardly matters, and I am sure that you also know this fact. Best regards. --Bhadani (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More thanks, and best regards. --Bhadani (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Machine tools

The related Category:Machine tools has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.


Just thought you might like to know because you created the category. --Wizard191 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary usage

Hi Mikka. A comment, regarding this. Could you please put edit summaries when deleting text or doing something non-obvious. Edit summaries make it is easier to keep track of things for the rest of us. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Right of return

One of the great problems on wikipedia is that people feel free to edit and revert on subjects that they know nothing about. You might have looked at Greek nationality law before reverting my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Misplaced Pages's article Greek nationality law does not confirm your statement. Please provide a reference to the particular section of the Greek nationality law which says what you wrote. Please also read and understand rules of wikipedia about adding new information: see WP:CITE. `'Míkka>t 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly. You are excising material on subjects about which your ignorange is profound. Greek citizenship is given by ethnicity, Greek ethnicity is proven by family membership in a Greek Orthodox Church - no matter tha tthe family may have been resident in Baku, Trebizond, Marseilles, or New York vor decades or centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC) .(http://athens.usembassy.gov/uploads/7z/Z4/7zZ4A6EyE4dMjph5dNxFew/citizenship_code.pdf)
the refernce you provided does not have the word "church" at all. Please stop criticizing other people and follow wikipedia rules. I am glad that you had enough common sense to adjust your entry in the "right of return" article in acoordance with official documents. `'Míkka>t 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Talk:Russian political jokes

I have nominated Talk:Russian political jokes, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Talk:Russian political jokes. 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. Fixman(Criticise me)No animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Russian political jokes

I have nominated Russian political jokes, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russian political jokes (2nd nomination). 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. Fixman(Criticise me)No animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion of your user talk page

Would you mind undeleting your user talk page? If you keep the user talk archives, the user talk page history is needed for GFDL compliance. There are only two legitimate reasons to delete a user talk page: if you're starting over on a new account and want to hide the old username because it contains personal information, or if you're invoking the right to vanish. You haven't changed your username, and the right to vanish does not apply to users who later come back, so I can't think of a legitimate reason why most of the history of this talk page is deleted. User talk pages are contributed to by a variety of people, and the history of them is often used to generate diffs or a permalink to an old discussion. Indeed I found that your talk page had been deleted by checking my deleted contributions; your user talk page was the only deletion which I couldn't think of a good reason for. Deletion of user pages is not a big deal, because they are mainly contributed to by one user. Thanks, Graham87 09:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that your reasoning is correct. Let me think about this. `'Míkka>t 18:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I see your point about GFDL: continuity of contribution history. However I disagree with your interpretation as loss of copyrights in the case of talk pages: unlike articles, contributions in talk pages are signed, therefore "intellectual ownership" is preserved in archives. And I disagree to cater an extremely unlikely case when an unsigned anon will sue wikipedia for his text in my archive: usage of GFDL in wikipedia context has way bigger problems than that. If you will succeed in insisting on your strict interpretation, my solution would be deletion of the talk archives. `'Míkka>t 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There certainly are bigger problems with GFDL, and I doubt an anon would sue Misplaced Pages if their text was not attributed in a user talk page. Why do you want the revisions to stay deleted? To me there's also a problem of principle: it seems like you are hiding something by hiding your tracks. Also see Misplaced Pages:User page#How do I delete my user talk pages? which says that deletion of user talk pages should be rare. There is precedent for user talk pages of long-time users to be restored, like User talk:Lucky 6.9, and the only thing stopping me from undeleting the page is a little respect for the userspaces of other contributors. Graham87 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you have respect to other contributors. Please continue to have it. It is amazing how a person who has disrespect to others may poison the life of dozens of others. `'Míkka>t 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I said *a little respect for the userspace of other contributors*, the key words being "a little", as your userspace is owned by the community, not you. Any Wikipedian can enforce core Misplaced Pages policies in the userspace, including the GFDL, so I have just done that for this user talk page. I do have respect for highly active users like yourself, but I have no respect for unorthodox rules that go against community precedent and policy. And, you didn't answer my question above. Good night. Graham87 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)