User talk:Altenmann/\//

Why did you undo my contribution?

You wrote: > this ix not about gafieira. also refs to youtube dance videos are not reliable and may be used only as an additional illustration

The original article (now the current) contains so much nonsense The gafieira-page also. There is a conflict with Brazilians on YouTube that Ballroom Samba is not samba. My contribution made everyhing clear: that both are the same dances, but that samba de gafieira is a fraud.

To refute my conrtribution the refuters should answer these questions first: 1 why Brazilians use the American box step as basis? 2 Why do they step on the wrong beat? 3 How can Brazilians create samba the gafieira if they can not dance the basis: the waltz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdance (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I read your respons. But you reverted to the bad original article. These points are absolutely wrong: 1 It differs considerably from the original samba styles of Brazil, in particular it differs from Ballroom Samba in Brazil itself 2 ballroom samba has its origins in Samba of Brazil at the beginning of the 20th century. 3 very disconnected from the origins and evolution of the music that gives it its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdance (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Hello. An editor has requested a WP:Third opinion concerning an article you have edited. You can state your opinion and take part in the discussion at Talk:Samba_de_Gafieira#Third opinion request. Sincerely,

Four tildes

Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Signatures. Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thx, fixed. - Altenmann >talk 03:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Drost for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Drost 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/Robert Drost 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. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

NKVD

Can u tell me from where do u have this.--Sanandros (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sanandros: of course not. 15 years ago, man!. But you may find much burocratic info from this encyclopedia [1]. At that time my goal was to add info to combat a ridiculous cliche widespread in the west that all what NKVD did was killing off those who did not like stalin or those whom stalin did not like. This info was readily googlable by russian terms. Most probably I got it from Memorial publications available online, because thats how i created my numerous articles about soviet political repressions. - Altenmann >talk 09:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

PS I suspect you dont read russian. I will fill in refs from the book I ext-linked above. - Altenmann >talk 09:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No Russian is not my language. But the info you added is still in the article and it would be useful to kick NKVD out of the Intelligence cats (on de wp). But for that I need a reliable source.--Sanandros (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Did u found time to fill in the refs?--Sanandros (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I am ill. The link to book is a ref for GUSHOSDOR. Please ask someone from WikiProject:Russia to search this book. All is there. It is encyclopedia of kgb . - Altenmann >talk 05:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Path loss

An article that you have been involved in editing—Path loss—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Natural Afrodisiac

The article Natural Afrodisiac has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

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. Mccapra (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggravation of class struggle under socialism. Informing you because you created this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravation of class struggle under socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in regards to the Indian film and Hard gay. Some idiot keeps deleting my edits.144.138.236.221 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous revert

It is scarcely believable that you undid my series of clearly described and obviously necessary edits to rootless cosmopolitan with the absurd edit summary "Not an improvement as a whole". Does any of this really need explaining to you?

• as an accusation in their lack of patriotism is not grammatical; in should be of
• The expression was coined in 19th century is not grammatical; there needs to be a definite article before 19th
• the popular actor and world-famous public figure is not neutral in any context, and is transparently absurd in this case
• blogs are not reliable sources
• when and whether Golda Meir changed her surname is utterly irrelevant to this article.
• Huge enthusiastic crowds (estimated 50,000) is not grammatical; Huge is vague, and redundant when the number is given; enthusiastic is unlikely to be neutral or verifiable
• scores of Soviet Jews were fired - do you know what "scores" means?
• Many were shocked to find a Yiddish verse (sung by Mikhoels) cut out from the famous lullaby in the Soviet classic movie Circus ("Tsirk", 1936), known by heart by millions and still very popular in post-war Soviet cinemas. - many? who exactly? Who says they were shocked? Why is their claimed shock relevant? Famous is a peacock word which conveys no information. "Classic" is not neutral. "Known by heart by millions" is not verifiable. "Still very popular" is not verifiable.

And yet, you put all of these obvious failings right back in the article. What explanation do you have for doing that? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-irony listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Self-irony. Since you had some involvement with the Self-irony redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sovietpd-text listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Sovietpd-text. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Sovietpd-text redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. * Pppery * _{has returned} 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Agriculture

Portal:Agriculture, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agriculture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Agriculture during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Legal categories of people has been nominated for discussion

Category:Legal categories of people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Whip (dance)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Whip (dance) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-irony listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Self-irony. Since you had some involvement with the Self-irony redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of lindy hop moves

The article List of lindy hop moves has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An unsourced list of dubious notability and almost zero content or value.

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. Vmavanti (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schildt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolmar Schildt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infoshops

Template:Infoshops has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mujinga (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Result of Battles of Rzhev

Hello Altenmann

Just for your information, I did not introduce the result 'tactial victory' on the article's webpage. Prior to my latest involvation, the article was heavily edited by multiple socks, (probably still going to be an issue in the near future) I simply reverted his/hers edits. It appears, that the result was inserted by an IP diff back in June 2019. I have not noticed the mistake until your edit summary. *made me chuckle* I agree with your sentiment, and I would argue —after checking my source— that the result should be 'inconclusive' per WP:IMC Template. Regards, Wildkatzen (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Russian historian Svetlana Gerasimova states in her 2013 issued book "The Rzhev Slaughterhouse: The Red Army's Forgotten 15-Month Campaign Against Army Group Center, 1942-1943" pp 167-9:

Extended content

Just who won and who lost the Battle of Rzhev? The question is not at all a simple one. Upon examining this question, the Battle of Rzhev is reminiscent of the Battle of Borodino; even today, historians still argue over who won that battle. In both battles, the sides didn’t achieve their ultimate objectives, but at the same time fulfilled specific assignments. Several scholars believe that the Battle of Borodino had no victor, but gave a morale boost to the Russians. The results of the Battle of Rzhev in a certain way are similar to this situation, but with a minus sign on the Russian side with respect to morale. The Soviet forces in 1943 made significant territorial gains. Unquestionably, the elimination of the dangerous German staging area in the center of the Soviet-German front and the simultaneous removal of a constant threat to the Soviet capital must be viewed as an important result and one with strategic significance. The liberation of Rzhev and other cities and towns in the German salient, which the Soviet forces had been unable to take for many months, was an important political result. But this victory was far from triumphal in the way of the Battle of Stalingrad: the primary objective of all the operations in the area of the Rzhev – Viaz’ma salient – the destruction of the main forces of Army Group Center – was not achieved. The German forces voluntarily withdrew from the salient, unbeaten and unbowed on this sector on this sector of the front. They did of their own volition what their opponent had been trying to force them do for more than a year, and in the process conserved their strength for future operations. However, at the same time the Wehrmacht could no longer hold on to the salient, and it lost its strategically advantageous staging area at the center of the Eastern Front. The Germans were compelled to abandon Rzhev, this eponymic city, which personified the defense of a large territory, this “gateway to Berlin”. For both one side and the other, this was a lost victory. But for both sides, this victory was even more a pyrrhic one. The Rzhev salient, the “Rzhev bulge” became for both armies a “black hole” that sucked in and swallowed large numbers of troops. In the memory of the Soviet soldiers that served there, it remained the “Rzhev meat grinder”, the “Abyss”. To the present day, in the villages of many districts around Rzhev, the expression “herded at Rzhev” still circulates. This actually was a Moloch, which devoured their children. The heroism and self-sacrifice of some stood side-by-side with the negligence, oversights, blunders and at times even criminal behavior of others. The problem with material-technical supply, the mistakes in planning the combat operations on the whole and in separate operations, the shortcomings in controlling the forces, the leadership of the country and the Red Army’s Supreme Command tried to resolve at the expense of the “human factor”. The striving to achieve victory “at any cost”, at the expense of enormous human losses does not give evidence of the ability to fight according to Suvorov’s dictum – “Not with numbers, but by skill.” The acquisition of combat experience by the Red Army command and the leadership of the country came at too high a price. [...]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandarmohk

Thanks for creating Sandarmokh. The 2018 information about "new investigations" was also covered by the Finnish national broadcaster Yle: [2] in 2018. And two days ago, Ilta-Sanomat published awo extensive articles about the effort for digging up the site again: [3][4] Interesting information that Johan Bäckman is leading the PR efforts there. In the article, Finnish historians wondered why the Russian researchers have not been interested in Finnish archives and straight suspected that it is a "propaganda stunt". I'm probably going to write something about these developments, but it's hard to write NPOV text without Russian sources. --Pudeo (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"Stalinist era" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stalinist era. Since you had some involvement with the Stalinist era redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please give your thoughts on the LitRPG talk page

Thanks for your contributions to the LitRPG page. It was definitely helpful to have a native Russian speaker assist the page. You added a line about the trademark issue. I'm inclined to remove it, as it seems to make a point rather than it being of encyclopaedic value. But I am open minded and would value your input to the discussion at [[5]] (scroll down to trademark). Thanks. JimHolden (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Outhouse tipping for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outhouse tipping 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/Outhouse tipping 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Solename

Template:Solename has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Airguard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Airguard 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/Airguard 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. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Computational Chemistry Grid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Computational Chemistry Grid 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/Computational Chemistry Grid 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. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Belarusian cosmonauts

A tag has been placed on Category:Belarusian cosmonauts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Luca and Loraine Baricchi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luca and Loraine Baricchi 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/Luca and Loraine Baricchi 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. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Category:Structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been nominated for merging with Category:Organization of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Eastern War" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Eastern War. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Eastern War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 03:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

DS alert

Hi, we can't engage in original research at those articles. Everything must be sourced to high-quality scholarly sources. We just follow what they say. This is to let you know that discretionary sanctions are in force for Eastern European topics, and that Żydokomuna and Jewish Bolshevism belong to that category. The following is informational only. It does not imply any wrong-doing.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of science and engineering blunders

The article List of science and engineering blunders has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article implies that the incidents were caused by idiocy. We should avoid calling anyone an idiot.

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. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Ozon.ru for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ozon.ru 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/Ozon.ru 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. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of fictional schools

The article List of fictional schools has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a list article which could easily run to hundreds of pages, and without being useful. An encyclopaedia isn't a search engine. This has been in CAT:NN for 4 years.

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. Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fictional schools for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional schools 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/List of fictional schools (3rd nomination) 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Spirytus rektyfikowany" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Spirytus rektyfikowany. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Spirytus rektyfikowany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Scientific institutions has been nominated for merging

Category:Scientific institutions has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. fgnievinski (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Aertex

Sir, I have added the missing citations on the subject article. Kindly see and comment. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of E*ECAD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article E*ECAD 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/E*ECAD 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. StarM 15:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ideological repression

The article Ideological repression has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

censorship, authoritanism, etc... already cover

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. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 07:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Electronic engineering publications

A tag has been placed on Category:Electronic engineering publications requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:World War II books has been nominated for renaming

Category:World War II books has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of World's shortest book for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World's shortest book 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/World's shortest book 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.

Sandstein 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Midfield Airport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midfield Airport 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/Midfield Airport 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.

Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SMERSH (James Bond)

The article SMERSH (James Bond) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SMERSH (James Bond) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SMERSH (James Bond) 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/SMERSH (James Bond) 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Observer (disambiguation)

Hi:

I noticed that you redirected the page Observer (disambiguation) to Observer as the disambiguation page. I know this is long ago, but do you still remember what was your reason at the time and if your think that it is still the case.

Pierre cb (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I look into history. At that day I tagged observer for disambig-cleanup, because I was lazy to do it myself, and created o(d) because by rules we need this page. Today I would rather moved o to o(d) and redirected o to observation. - Altenmann >talk 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Moonshine

Sorry, I was reading that article as being about Moonshine laws by country, rather than what it is actually about: moonshine. My mistake.--- Possibly (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Extraterrestrial Encyclopedia

The article Extraterrestrial Encyclopedia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page disambiguates zero pages, and enwiki has no substantive information about any of the listed titles.

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) 06:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivan the Fool

Hi, 15 years ago you made an edit referring to a story/fable by Tergenev titled Ivan the Fool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3AMobileDiff%2F29257077?wprov=sfla1

I recently became interested in the topic, but can't find another mention of this story by Ternegev. I found a few things that are close (about Ivans, and about fools, but not both together). I would love to know about this story if it's out there! Thanks 107.242.121.24 (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@107.242.121.24: Sorry i was mistaken. Ivan turgenev has a short story ("a poem in prose") "The Fool" (Тургенев. "Дурак"). - Altenmann >talk 05:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If yiu are doibg research on ivan the fool, please kep in mind that in ryssian this charcter may be called eithr Иван дурак or Иванушка дурачок. - Altenmann >talk 05:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development

The article Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG

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. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Cuer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cuer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#Cuer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Towns of Belarus

The article Towns of Belarus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is unnecessary, with its sole content being noted in other articles. The title is also misleading, suggesting an article like List of cities and towns in Belarus.

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.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Publishing houses in the Soviet Union for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Publishing houses in the Soviet Union 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/Publishing houses in the Soviet Union 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.

K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spanish City (disambiguation)

The article Spanish City (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation not required (WP:2DABS). Primary topic has 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) 14:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Memorial (society)

On 29 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Memorial (society), which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"East Orthodox" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect East Orthodox and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#East Orthodox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy 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/St. Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy 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.

Veverve (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Attractive" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Attractive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Attractive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Comedy Club Production

Hello Altenmann,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Comedy Club Production for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Novelty and fad dances has been nominated for deletion

Category:Novelty and fad dances has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Euclidean metric" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Euclidean metric and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Euclidean metric until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bill Funt

The article Bill Funt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable individual who does not pass the WP:GNG. The only claim to notability in the article is his relation to his more notable father and brother, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Searching for sources turns up nothing but minor mentions, and no significant coverage.

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. Rorshacma (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Funt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Funt 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/Bill Funt 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.

Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Monomaсh's Cap" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Monomaсh's Cap and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Monomaсh's Cap until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cut and paste job

The article Cut and paste job has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability tag has been on for a year, no reliable secondary sources

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. - car chasm (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Gymnastics manoeuvres has been nominated for renaming

Category:Gymnastics manoeuvres has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Wasserburg (Archaelogical site)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wasserburg (Archaelogical site) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#Wasserburg (Archaelogical site) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Superior Dancing

The article Superior Dancing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable list of ballroom dance albums. I could not find any significant coverage of this series.

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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Altenmann. Thank you for your work on Jean Veloz. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie 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/2023 April 21 § Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Bunn

The article Richard Bunn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of notability, no specific sources, possible self-promotion

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) 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Arnold White

The reference "Among the Russian Jews' What Mr. Arnold White Saw and Learned.", The New York Times, June 13, 1892 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_agricultural_colonies_in_the_Russian_Empire includes "(with a link to a PDF photocopy of the full article)" from May 2008. The article at https://www.nytimes.com/1892/06/13/archives/among-the-russian-jews-what-mr-arnold-write-saw-and-learned-the.html is restricted Altenmann and the link at the end of https://web.archive.org/web/20180522090307/https://www.nytimes.com/1892/06/13/archives/among-the-russian-jews-what-mr-arnold-write-saw-and-learned-the.html doesn't lead to the PDF. Mcljlm (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Nadine George-Graves for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nadine George-Graves 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/Nadine George-Graves 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.

LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby 20:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NoMention

Template:NoMention has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Samizdat

Can I return my explanation about samizdat in "Talk" if I delete quotation of Zhvanetsky at the beginning? I just wanted to leave information for the authors of the article about the formation of the term, the cultural perception of it and its more accurate (IMHO) translation as a native speaker and a resident of the designated territory. With no other intentions. Of course, I am not an "source" in Wikipedia's understanding, but this information may point the way to the authors for further refine of the article. 178.187.94.129 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@178.187.94.129:. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Article talk pages are for duscussions how to improve article content. New information must be based on references to reliable sources, see our policies WP:CITE, WP:RS, not just out of one's head. - Altenmann >talk 18:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I answered in "Talks". I know it. And thanks for understanding. 178.187.94.129 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Vatnik" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vatnik 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/2023 July 15 § Vatnik until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Please

In light of wp:overlink, explain your zero-edit-summary revert here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barmaley_Fountain&diff=next&oldid=1165892460

And please in the future, especially when using tools, leave an edit summary when making a revert, unless vandalism is afoot.

Futhermore, it is clearly against the rules to - as you did - restore uncited material, deleted for being uncited, without while doing so providing a directly supporting RS ref. See WP:BURDEN. Please explain, or self revert. Same edit.

2603:7000:2101:AA00:ACA0:80D5:F00F:2AA1 (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not talking to anon IPs. - Altenmann >talk 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to talk to me. But there is a need to follow WP rules. I'm pinging User:Nikkimaria and User:Vipz as they are non-IPs, and perhaps that will meet your standards for discourse, and sorry to have to trouble them for something so obvious but perhaps one has a moment.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:6566:1438:8BA:D9FE (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, I don't see anything to do with (over)linking in that diff - could you clarify?

Altenmann, do you have sourcing for the claims added? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I added nothing - Altenmann >talk 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit shows you adding content that had been previously removed for lack of sourcing. Do you have sourcing to support this content? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No I am not adding. I am restoring the removed. Yes, I have; ruwiki has plenty of them. To this end I added the hatnote {{expand Russian}}. - Altenmann >talk 01:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN indicates that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (my emphasis). Could you please either do that, or undo your restoration? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As to the overlinking - apologies for my edit summary (mistaken on my part), compounded by my following it up w/a comment (I was at close to the same time dealing elsewhere w an overlinking issue [6] and I apologize for my quite apparent confusion). My comments as to wp:burden still stand. Nikkimaria - many thanks for taking time out in your no doubt busy day. And for deigning to speak to an IP. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C5EE:EC1C:6250:8821 (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ilkhan (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ilkhan (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Without the right of correspondence

Hello! May I propose to rename the article Without the right of correspondence to "10 years without the right of correspondence" (Rus. "10 лет без права переписки")? Looks it is more right according (Robert Conquest. The Great Terror: A Reassessment (Wayback https://books.google.ru/books?hl=ru&id=ubXQSk2qfXMC&q=%22Without+the+right+of+correspondence%22#v=snippet&q=%22Without%20the%20right%20of%20correspondence%22&f=false ). Oxford University Press, 2007 p. 287.) (That is the messy reference stolen by me from Russian Wikipedia) There is no clear citation regarding lede ("Without the right of correspondence" (WRC) (Russian: Без права переписки, abbreviated as БПП in official documents)). But I am not sure if maybe there was a source to name that sort? PoetVeches (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I found also on the web "Ten years without the right of correspondence" (Robert Conquest STALIN’S VICTIMS: A REPLY TO R. W. DAVIES. NEW LEFT REVIEW). It's a problem for me. Should I choose "10" or "Ten"? For literature style "Ten years" looks more academic, but Robert Conquest used just "10 years" before in the referenced Google book above. PoetVeches (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I moved to "10 years without the right of correspondence" so far, but it may be changed to "Ten years without the right of correspondence", I suppose. PoetVeches (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello, Altenmann,

I hate to see two longtime editors edit warring so please, move to talk page discussions at Point location. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Attack (TV Series 2015)

The article The Attack (TV Series 2015) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is created in 2006, but says 2015 show, and original release in infobox it says 2017, not referenced at all, not categorised so proposing the deletion.

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) 10:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Humorous hoaxes in science has been nominated for merging

Category:Humorous hoaxes in science has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Attack (TV Series 2015)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Attack (TV Series 2015) 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/2023 August 22 § The Attack (TV Series 2015) until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)