User talk:Altenmann

I see you're attempting to restore this page, which is extremely poorly sourced and full of nonsense, such as claims that the reconstruction of *Ostara falls into this category (we have an entire, well-sourced article on this topic at Ēostre). I suggest that you become more familiar with the fundamentals of historical linguistics and folklore studies before proceeding. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bloodofox}} There is no need do wrangle against each other. I think the article merits existence. So let use invite others to say a word in merge suggestion. --Altenmann >talk 23:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case, is it a good idea to mention what is presumably the ethnicity of the three soldiers? I do not see the ethnicity mentioned in all three articles, nor is it sourced in the article. It is mentioned in Raising a Flag over the Reichstag, but the mention of Berest is not there, and I took a look at all of the cited sources there and none of them referred to the ethnicity of those soldiers, so this has failed verification in that regard. Although they were born within the modern-day borders, I am not sure if there is any dispute about the ethnicity. This is why I think it generally makes more sense to only refer to the nationality, since references to ethnicity often leads to disputes. Mellk (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mellk}} I know about the problems of ethnicity vs. nationality in Wikipedia. However in this case this was a point of Soviet propaganda: an illustration of the "friendship of the peoples". I will try to find sources to this end, meanwhile I self-revert, because without explanation it looks meaningless indeed. --Altenmann >talk 09:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::I see what you mean. I think this would be better suited in the Raising a Flag over the Reichstag article, perhaps? I tend to agree that mentioning the ethnicity without explanation is best avoided. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brest_Region#Requested_move_11_December_2024 This] RM may interest you. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edit on Islam in India. Plural “Shias” is more natural and makes more sense than “Shia.” Also, the rest of your summary did not make sense and wasn’t necessary.

Also, I don’t think the “neighborhoods in Vilnius” should be linked until the article is created and meets notability status. I do accept your revert in the sandbox heading. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:Disagreed. Please gain some experience in editing Wikipedia before making formal decisions in non-transparent situations. --Altenmann >talk 07:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but did you forget the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Altenmann&oldid=1215441345 conversation we had on this exact topic previously?] Just open a move discussion if you have an actual rationale for this! Orchastrattor (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the sentence where it says "under the title "Song of the Plains". Apparently not. AMCKen (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to :Enterprises in the Soviet Union can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Edit summaries and talk pages are not supposed to host uncivil comments and threats ({{tq|Go away}}, {{tq|... or I report you for disruption}}). This is not acceptable. Learn the guidelines, and eventually how to behave in a civil community, as long as you can. Thanks!
Going back to encyclopedic stuff (Enterprises in the Soviet Union): I'm not saying you must improve your English, but the article was clearly written in bad English (feel free to let us know what's the point of alternating spellings like "enterprises" and "enterprizes" in the same text btw) and there are lots of untranslated Russian words which you didn't even tag with {{tlx|Lang}} templates. You definitely have to do better, and I'm pretty sure you could. We will not condone such a bad attitude forever.
{{snd}}Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:PS. I just read on your userpage –out of curiosity– that you're not a native English speaker, and I'd like to point out I didn't know; don't assume I was making fun of your English. I was not; I didn't even know, as I only found out now. Take your time to improve the page, but please tag and translate all of the Russian text, and fix references. Have a good day, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::I am disinclined to acquiesce your threats and advices. Wikipedia is a cooperative project. I wasted plenty of my life to fill a gap in knowledge provided in Wikipedia and don't tell me what to do next. Out of sheer nastiness, I am removing this article from my watchlist. You may slap seven more tags on top of this page, I no longer care. --Altenmann >talk 19:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{u|Altenmann}}, I have moved the AIV report to {{slink|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Based_Historian_1122}} because it's not the obvious vandalism usually handled quickly there. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

A few thoughts... First, I was surprised to see my !vote reverted, but then saw it must have been some form of an edit conflict, as you appear to intended to revert the edit before mine. I was even surprised to see my edit was posted without a warning that the article changed while I was editing using the reply-editor, I thought those things were not supposed to happen. But I'm glad to see that you restored my edits properly. Thank you. However, I was a bit surprised to see you simply reopen someone elses RM closure. I was pretty sure that is strongly discouraged, and that you should talk to that editor and/or use the move review process. TiggerJay (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Tiggerjay}} I am pretty sure that non-admin closures are fair game in the non-evident cases and in such situations longer waiting time is strongly encouraged. BTW, I notified the closer (although post-factum, I admit). And since there was no move, "move review" makes no sense. I could have simply opened another discussion, but I thought it would be silly. --Altenmann >talk 07:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::I have no real dog in this fight, because having it open longer is no problem for me. But my understanding of policy is {{tq|if an administrator notices a clearly improper [RMNAC] move closure, they should revert the closure and re-open the discussion.}} (emphasis added) However, I would agree as long as there isn't contentiousness between you and the original closure, no harm is really done. However also for clarification WP:MR is for any/all {{tq|contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions}} and thus any closure (NAC or not, moved or not) is fair game for RM.

::Regardless of all of that, the biggest reason I brought it up was the first point where I was surprised the edit conflict occurred for both of us, I wonder if there was some sort of rare database lag or something. TiggerJay (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

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 :Vrbic (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

:::*it is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you reverted my reassessment of the pages in :Category:Wikipedia years as not being within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia. Our WikiProject has a limited scope, which only includes: The Outline of Wikipedia and everything listed in it; articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia; articles on each edition of Wikipedia; articles on Wikipedians who are notable for being involved with Wikipedia; and other Wikipedia-related articles, especially in Category:Wikipedia or its subcategories. Because the pages in question are project pages, not articles, I assessed that they don't fall within the scope of the WikiProject. Does that sound right to you, or do you have a different view? Also, I noticed you're not on our register of WikiProject Wikipedia participants. Would you like to be? Bsherr (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bsherr}} {{tq|Goals:Category:Wikipedia, Scope:Articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia}}

My pages are as directly related to Wikipedia as they can be and I thoroughly surprized that since 2005 only a handful of people contributed to them. It looks like nobody but me, even wikignomes, cares about detailed chronology of Wikipedia. No I am not among participants, because quite a few old-timers treat me with annoyance if not animosity (maybe rightly so, still, I see no reason of fraternizing with them). --Altenmann >talk 04:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for replying. Yes, I understand that they are related to Wikipedia. Of course, the entirety of the Wikipedia:Project namespace is related to Wikipedia. But WikiProject Wikipedia is concerned with improving articles, not pages in the project namespace. Do you follow the distinction? --Bsherr (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Bsherr}} Sorry, I didnt pay attention. I agree with your arguments now. --Altenmann >talk 04:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Why would you remove the nae nae gif? It’s an educational, visual tool for learning how to perform it properly. I now have no frame of reference when explaining to someone how to perform the nae nae. Please rectify your mistake. 67.129.28.178 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|67.129.28.178}}. Because it was uploaded by an unknown person, of unknown dance expertise, and some editors say this is not how nae nae is danced. All information in Wikipedia must be supplied with references to reliable sources. --Altenmann >talk 14:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for sorting out the confusion on the Tartakovsky page. I recently became a new pages patroller and am still getting to grips with it all, sometimes make mistakes. Congratulations for holding the really random honour of authoring the 500,000th wiki article in 2005! Regards, Rodney Baggins...talk🧑🏻 19:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello ! I have a question about an edit on the article "Russian political jokes".

My question is about your edit dated "FEB/10/2025" at "23:15 UTC+00:00".

I don't understand why did you removed the internal link I added about "Nancy Reagan".

Concerning yours others edits on the article made in the day of "FEB/10/2025".

I have nothing to say as you did improved the article and removed things not referenced.

PS : You're working on this article since 2007. Nearly 20 years. Congratulations ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Anatole-berthe}} Knowing that the wife was Nancy Reagan adds nothing to the joke and the blue link at the word "wife" is only a distraction from reading the article, so I felt to remove it. Otherwise it is harmless. --Altenmann >talk 16:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your answer ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Ben-Atar needs a separate article when it's basically the same surname as Benatar but with a hyphen added. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|AllTheUsernamesAreInUse}} These surname do have the same origin, but they are not the same surname, just as Smith and Smyth have different pages or see:

{{suppress categories|{{cobbler-surname}}}}

{{suppress categories|{{peter-surname}}}}

--Altenmann >talk 05:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted an edit that I made but you didn't say why you reverted it. I had changed a list of awards into a paragraph. What was the issue? Thanks. Qflib (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Qflib}} (1) you deletes two referenced awards, (2) there is no point to prozify awards: it only decreases readability by added verbosity, therefore often awards are bulleted: Allison Anders#Awards. --Altenmann >talk 22:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks. It does help if you explain your edits when you make them. Cheers. Qflib (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Qflib}} I really hate it when a book cover or person's summary squeezes the list of books and list of awards in one long sentence, which is very difficult to parse by my old eyeballs. But I may understand them: they want to conserve space. Wikipedia does not have problems with space. --Altenmann >talk 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann Do not revert my edits to the Áo dài post, this is a non-vandalism edit. 2402:9D80:330:9254:4D2B:2FCE:D5A0:56B (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on :Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating citation from Great Soviet Encyclopedia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 20:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I suspect Bucks County is correct. But how do we know? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christine_Rawak&diff=1279467874&oldid=1279442675 2603:7000:2101:AA00:594B:C3C6:7E11:4759 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|2603:7000:2101:AA00:594B:C3C6:7E11:4759}} she attended high school there, in Council Rock School District, otherwise I don't really care. You may post a note in Talk:Christine Rawak. --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Right. I saw that. I was just hesitant to make the jump myself. Though I think that's a reasonable guess. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:594B:C3C6:7E11:4759 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Why did you assume that it even pretended to represent "the way as our ancestors imagined it"? Do you have confirmation of that for the other, recognisable artist? And how such an argument can be valid in case of fakelore, which wasn't imagined by our ancestors at all? This is not a proper argument against those works. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Makhnovist&redirect=no Makhnovist] 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 {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 13#Makhnovist}} until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So because I'm an IP editor, my proposal is rejected? I fail to see how this reasoning is valid. Replied on my talk page with my own reasoning, which I ask you to consider. 108.160.120.147 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Altenmann!

Would you mind helping me with this article?

Draft:Evgeny Lukin

In Russian: Лукин, Евгений Юрьевич --Любитель свежего воздуха (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no such concept in Wikipedia. See WP:INCOMPDAB. We do not do this, because it creates the misleading impression that the title is an actually disambiguated topic in itself. BD2412 T 19:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You may wish to improve this article: Svyatoslav Loginov --Любитель свежего воздуха (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We support Myanmar refugees to live to in Thailand but you are Evil Nazi Polish. Why support Right wing in Thailand why we can’t helped Myanmar refugees https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/11/04/poland-now-a-land-of-immigration-tightens-up-its-migration-policy_6731460_4.html 2001:FB1:18E:60E8:11B5:469E:6823:6B5C (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and talk pages in articles are for discussion of the articles, not for political struggles. --Altenmann >talk 17:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

As you correctly noted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1948_Palestine_war&diff=1283701430&oldid=1283664181 here], I change Israel's War of Independence to what it is redirected to, namely 1948 Palestine war. Btw; I have been reported to WP:AE, when I didn't use the "official" wp name, even when a source used another name (link). So no: "in articles about Israeli people Wikipedia must use Israeli term," is not correct, IMO. Please take it to WP:ARCA if you disagree, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Huldra}} : I withdrew my notice, right? My concern was that Israel's War of Independence is not exactly the same as 1948 Palestine war, even skipping the political bias, just the same as Nakba is not the same, although it is loosely used to refer to the 1948 Palestine war. I don't want to go into detail and don't bother to work on this; let me just mention, as an analogy, we have Great Patriotic War --> Eastern Front (World War II), but at the same time we have Great Patriotic War (term) to explain the usage of the term in the Soviet Union and in Soviet nostalgia. Happy editing, --Altenmann >talk 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I just wanted to assure that this would not become an edit-war, wasting yours -any my -time. It is not exactly the same thing, but one redirects to the other, more neutral title, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_English_words_of_Yiddish_origin&diff=next&oldid=1228905852 this edit] you botched the formatting so the alphabetical links were removed, and it stayed that way for nine months. This could easily have been avoided if you had taken 10 seconds, used the preview button, and looked at your edit after you made it. Sundayclose (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sundayclose}} I did look, but it didnt catch my eye, sorry. And nobody else saw it for 10 months :-) I guess nobody wanted to jump to letter B from the TOC :-) --Altenmann >talk 21:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering why you reverted this edit of mine? I don't see anything particularly wrong with my edit, so I'd genuinely like to know what was wrong with it. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 07:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Suntooooth}} YOu removed the only blue link in one line. And then did this again in your next edit in this page. --Altenmann >talk 17:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Doesn't the interlanguage link count as a blue link though? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Suntooooth}} Interlanguage link is a merely a helper. This is English Wikipedia and readers are not supposed to know Polish or Chinese. --Altenmann >talk 17:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

The page :Raja Khemkaran Sogaria has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Raja+Khemkaran+Sogaria|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, Altenmann,

:If you draftify an article, do not blank the page and tag it CSD G7. Instead, tag it CSD R2 as a cross namespace redirect. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Some slow discussion at Tsarist autocracy you may or may not be interested in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Lībietis, Zvirbulis, and Ratnieks are all Latvian masculine surname forms. The feminine forms are Lībiete, Zvirbule, and Ratniece. I am confused as to what your rationale for reverting my edit placing them in the "Latvian-language masculine surnames" category. Feminine forms should have standalone disambiguation pages, or a redirect to these pages and should be categorized as "Latvian-language feminine surnames". As the pages are titled in the masculine form, I fail to see why they shouldn't be categorized as such. ExRat (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|ExRat}} You are right: they are masculine: but they are forms. Zvirbulis and Zvirbule are legally the same Latvian surname. BTW, in Lithuanian there is even more confusion: a surname has three forms and sometimes even four, not counting two rare obsolete forms :-). Oh, and one form may have two varieties! --Altenmann >talk 23:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Please see the category Latvian-language surnames. Masculine forms and feminine forms are in two different subcategories: Latvian-language masculine surnames and Latvian-language feminine surnames. Examples: Jansons and Jansone, Krūmiņš and Krūmiņa, etc. Likewise, when the article is titled in the masculine form (but, includes the feminine form stated in the lede), the category is "Latvian-language masculine surnames", because the feminine form doesn't have a redirect page, and the page is the masculine form. Examples: Kalniņš, Rozītis, Ķiģelis, Kļaviņš, Vītoliņš, etc. ExRat (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|ExRat}} Sorry, colleague. Wikipedia is not a valid ref and it has plenty of mess. The articles are about surnames, not about surname forms. If you insist, you may add "masculine", but do not replace. People not familiar with Latvian language may be easily confused. --Altenmann >talk 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"Wikipedia is not a valid ref"...I don't understand what you are saying here. What references? I was simply trying to say that there are already two subcatgories that exist for Latvian surnames: masculine and feminine forms (actually, three, because some are neither masculine or feminine forms). I didn't create the subcategories, I was just stating they have already been divided (by a Latvian editor, BTW) into both categories for the masculine and feminine forms. I am actually not going to add anything, as I find it rather difficult to work with you on Wikipedia and would rather just not interact much. But, thanks for the permission to add the proper/already established category, I guess. ExRat (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am sorry that you have dissiculties in communicating with me. Probaby my English not the best. However Please hear me out.

:::::*"Wikipedia is not a valid ref" - - you are referring to somethinbg that already exists in Wikipeida, i.e., you are using wikipedia as a reference for your argument. I should have probably said "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument" (although this is used mostly in AfDs).

:::::*One has to distinguish between a surname and its grammatical form. Just as "bear" and "bears are the same word, or "love" and "loved" are the same word.

:::::* I am not giving you a "permisiion", you dont have to be prickly. I was merely saying, that if one wants to categorize by surname forms, then I cannot present any objections to that, but I would strongly object to removing any surnames from category "Latvian surnames". --Altenmann >talk 00:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Another problem with this category is that most of its content are not horses but stories. We should not put stories in categories for characters. Only articles on characters belong in categories for characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Please reconsider your analogy between US-supplied Abrams to Ukraine and NK-supplied missiles for RF. Regarding latter: a) UN sanctions breach, b) civilian infrastructure targeting, c) non-proportional damage, etc.

On 24 April 2025, according to Ukraine’s Air force, in the early hours of Thursday morning Russia launched 11 Iskander ballistic missiles, 37 KH-101 cruise missiles, six Iskander-K cruise missiles, 12 Kalibr cruise missiles, 4 KH-59/KH-69 missiles and 145 drones.{{citeweb|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/25/ukraine-kyiv-donald-trump-peace-deal-vladimir-putin|title=In Kyiv, we don’t believe in the fantasy of Trump’s ‘peace deal’. Our reality is more dead civilians|work =The Guardian|date=25 April 2025|access-date=25 April 2025|surname=Gumenyuk|first=Nataliya|quote="For Kyiv and Kharkiv residents that night, this was not just a case of reading numbers on a news feed, but hearing and feeling explosions rock their cities"}}At least one of the Iskander-type missiles is claimed to be North Korean-manufactured KN-23 (Hwasong-11Ga), according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.{{Cite web |date=24 April 2025|last=Balforth |first=Tom|title=Missile that killed 12 in Russian strike on Kyiv was North Korean, Zelenskiy says

|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/missile-that-killed-eight-russian-strike-kyiv-was-nkorean-kyiv-source-says-2025-04-24/ |access-date=25 April 2025 |website=Reuters|quote=By the start of 2025, Pyongyang had supplied Russia with 148 KN-23 [Hwasong-11A] and KN-24 [Hwasong-11B] ballistic missiles, Ukraine's military spy agency says.}} 91.122.22.140 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:RUSUKR you may not make any edits related to Russo-Ukraine war, broadly construed. You were already told this when you edited under the previous IP address. Mellk (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Please, elaborate. No idea, what are you referring to. And for clarification: who are to define "broadly construedness"? Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You are clearly the same editor as 78.37.216.35. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.37.216.35&diff=prev&oldid=1280927191 Here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.37.216.35&diff=prev&oldid=1280925122 here] you acknowledged the restriction. I think you have been given enough chances already. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Since you have decided to continue making edits about the war, I think the next step is a block. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Your are keeping referring to the same IP. No idea, why are you still doing it? I posted my opinion to your discussion on the notice board. If you ought to ignore it, I shall appeal. Please provide instructions how to appeal. Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Even if we pretend that the other IP has nothing to do with you (despite same location, same editing behavior), I informed you here that you are not able to make any edits related to this war due to WP:RUSUKR, but you decided to make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea%E2%80%93Russia_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1287354850 this] edit immediately afterwards. Below, you stated: {{tq| I don't edit topics related to war. Just to relations between countries}}. Do you really want to argue that this edit has nothing to do with the war? Mellk (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Also apologies Altenmann for taking up your talk page, I will leave this to ANI now. Mellk (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Apologies my edits were construed as about war: it was not my intention to do it. And arguing as well. So, just leave for ANI. Sorry, @Altenmann, for using you page. To let you know, I mentioned your suggestion, that my edit above is about NK-Russia relations in ANI discussion. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

I would suggest adding Ukrainian-stem forms to your article. Thank you 91.122.22.140 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:There is no reason: no evidence that the term entered English from Ukrainian. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Please provide a reason the term entered English from Russian. I checked Ethymology at Wiktionary. And I don't edit topics related to war. Just to relations between countries. Thank you 91.122.22.140 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|91.122.22.140}} since you appear to be editing topics related to ru-uk war, please review/expand the aticle Denis Gariyev I have created minutes ago. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think the prominence of that figure is clearer than one of Kastus Moskalik, whom your are probably consider less prominent than Yaroslav Moskalik, just because the latter was mentioned in sources. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have no idea how you concluded my opinion about prominence. Not to say that in WIkipedia there is no pissing contests about prominence. The tag I placed on Kastus Moskalik is according to WP:NBIO. --Altenmann >talk 19:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed about policy. But the namesake coinsedense was telling, wasn't it? 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Do you know what does 'moskalik' mean in Ukrainian? --Altenmann >talk 19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)