User talk:Altanner1991/Archive 1

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312. Thank you. F-16 Viper (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at List of fastest production cars by acceleration
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You were not the wrong user blocked, the agreement was that you would not edit the page without first writing in the talk page and coming to a consensus, yet you continued to edit without doing so. That is why you were blocked. F-16 Viper (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC″)
 * It was very clearly Administrators making an error, please do not post further messages on this page regarding that, your issue was concluded. To answer directly on an agreement of further page edits read unblock request reason. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was clearly stated that you were to not edit "List of fastest production cars by acceleration" without first using the talk page and coming to a consensus: "Not to change the article again before getting a talk page consensus. I didn't refer to 'disputed text', I referred to *any* change." F-16 Viper (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I really thought that issue was resolved so I'm very sorry. There isn't anything left to ask on the talk page, because I no longer feel the manufacturer's times or notes should be removed. Other edits would be too minor and uncontroversial to add as their own sections on the talk page. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Production car speed record‎ -name change
Hi - I note you have changed the article name from List of fastest production cars. What is your reasoning? NealeFamily (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article focuses on surpassed records and not all fast cars in between, going along with other similar articles such as for airplanes or boats for example Flight airspeed record, Transcontinental air speed record, Land speed record, Land speed record for rail vehicles, Motorcycle land-speed record, Water speed record, Underwater speed record, List of spacecraft speed records and others including for distance records. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - logical change NealeFamily (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Article move
This (clearly a contentious move, since it was reverted. It should definitely not have been moved again without consensus on the talk page. Meters (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you were previously blocked for similar edits against consensus on this article Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312 I suggest that you move this article back tho the original title and discuss this complete revamping of the article. Meters (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Meters, that previous issue had finished with the sock puppet and his/her several fake accounts all being permanently banned from Wikipedia. That issue was over a mistaken removal of manufacturer's times and the notes column so that issue is no longer relevant (talk page cleared) as both columns were finally kept. The sockpuppet was the only person on the other side of the argument and no other issues were found. Also, user Falcadore noted in the move log that indeed "fast refers to speed, quick refers to accelerations, Today's Quickest Cars would be a correct title ". So the user agreed with the title and only reverted the change because the user did not scroll down and notice that top speeds were now included to the same degree as accelerations. This is clearly not contentious. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for edit warring on this article. At least one admin warned you not to edit this article without first getting consensus. Now you made huge changes to the content and even the topic of this article without bringing it to the talk page, and you change the article name without consensus. Three people argued against the name change and yet you restored your version of the name before making your first post to the talk page. Clearly this is a contentious move and it should not have been restored without consensus. Please move it back and wait for consensus (if any) on the talk page. You don't get to arbitrarily decide that a list article should be rewritten to be something else and then move the article. Meters (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN
If you continue to make broad unencyclopedic changes to the article without any sort of consensus, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which part, exactly, was too broad or unencyclopedic?
 * I added the new data to expand the article to include the car's top speed and the non-production (rarest) cars, in the same format and principle as the portion on the acceleration of production cars, and based on the most easily accessible information, so that those sources could be added even more quickly. As you can see from my comments on the article's talk page I completed and formatted every referenced source citation on each point of data which covers the production car's accelerations.
 * After a week of that expansion, from "Fastest production cars by acceleration" to "Fastest cars", it was appropriately important to move the article to correct its title.
 * The article move, as mentioned above by Meters' comments, was in debate over the use of the word "Today's" in "Today's Fastest Cars". A couple users having concern with that word can enact their influence through a talk page discussion. It would have been a fine discussion to have, I wouldn't have had any problem with it.
 * I had then added during the past week the price of each car. Verified sources show that all the most expensive cars, are actually entirely on the page of fastest cars. If the article can include each car's model year, production number, engine type, and number of seats, why can't it include its price?
 * The other portion I added and polished during the last week was a brief introduction, containing a couple sentences to mention launch control and power to weight ratio. After almost 2 months of constant, careful work, with support from other community members and without any issue, the article was well-written, entirely sourceable, and based on the most well-referenced and encyclopedic information already found on Wikipedia.
 * The article could have simply been called "Fastest cars", and any remaining citations could have quickly been copied. There was no reason to suddenly erase everything and threaten that I should be blocked.
 * Altanner1991 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The objection to the move was not about one particular word of the title. That was simply an aside by one editor pointing out that your chosen title was not optimal. Four editors had objected to the move and you had made no response when you restored it to your desired title again.
 * "without any issue" Really? Being blocked for edit warring on the article, and being told to discus any further edits on the talk page (but not doing so), and then restoring a contested move without discussion doesn't count as issues to you? If you want change a list article to something entirely different then take it to the talk page and try to get consensus first. Meters (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "support from other community members", may I ask who? From you user contribution, I've not seen you speak to WP:CAR. Donnie Park (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohnoitsjamie


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohnoitsjamie, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 removed 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.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why am I being blocked? Altanner1991 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There must be a good reason for this. Submitting a thorough, professional request for investigating the actions of certain users and administrators, do you have a problem with that, Bbb23? Altanner1991 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a bogus report generated by spite.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a serious, well-researched report. Professional format. You sure that counts as vandalism? Altanner1991 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It had just 1 minute prior been archived by the other administrators. Why did you delete it? And why am I blocked? Altanner1991 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Characterizing your ridiculous accusations as "thorough" and "professional" indicates that you are either trolling or massively incompetent. The end result is the same for both. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It was a perfectly well crafted investigative report, just like any other. Why did you delete it and block me? Altanner1991 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A little investigating on your part should make it clear that I neither deleted your research nor blocked you, though I certainly support both actions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I must say, are you suggesting some mass conspiracy? Most of them are longterm editors and some are administrators. The sockpuppet investigation provided no concrete evidence. Plus, really? What you have accused them of makes no sense? I mean, what on Earth would their motivation be? You are mistaken, surely. You have only a thousand edits here. There are similarities in the way we conduct ourselves that may seem to you that we are all the same person, but we are not. After some time, I think you will realize all of this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppet investigation rudimentarily revealed the same types of concrete evidence that result in proving any other sockpuppet investigation against established users, a group numbering in the thousands. Why should you assume the hundreds of administrators to be more immune? Altanner1991 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. What you just wrote above is either having a laugh, POINT, or just plain inexperience. Assuming good faith, I'll say the latter, but I have my suspicions. Please, drop this, wait out your block, then get to productive editing. In five years and 100,000 edits, read what you've written at the SPI and here. Then tell us if you still feel the same way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am being blocked unfairly without any explainable reason, which in all honesty seems could only suggest conflict of interest involving the SPI I'd submitted, which was a very well written report as good if not better than the others except for the fact that it happened to include some administrator account... So far Bbb23 states "It was a bogus report generated by spite." (it was a perfectly well written and serious report there was nothing wrong with it there was no vandalism, it only takes a minute comparing that case with any other SPI to realize this fact.) and then and  tersely write "WP:POINT" and "Obvious WP:POINT" as there only given explanations, then  add some comments to make them seem justified. Per Wikipedia blocking policy, "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them." Unfortunately since there obviously wasn't a reason why I would ever be blocked the administrators resort to unfair tactics, like what they're doing right now. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you feel the blocking reason of "vandalism" is unwarranted.
 * And seem to stick by your statement of "...it was a perfectly well written and serious report there was nothing wrong with it ...it only takes a minute comparing that case with any other SPI to realize this fact..."
 * And you realize that your report accused nine long-term editors including two administrators of sockpuppetry.
 * Okay, if you want, I can ask for you to be unblocked for vandalism and reblocked per WP:CIR. You can use the remaining block time to look into the contributions of those you have accused and to read through several dozen legitimate SPIs.
 * I could never endorse a simple unblock. Your SPI was very disruptive and the block was placed to prevent further disruption. You need time to understand the error of your ways. So far, you have not. I am even worried that when unblocked, you will do something else equally, well, incompetent. No offence. Those are just the facts as I see them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have gone through many, many SPI reports and so I know my report was in the right format. "Your SPI was very disruptive"... Reaally... So no one got involved, it was archived away with the rest of the daily batch, and silenced. No one knew it ever existed. You know what's disruptive? trying to block me for no reason. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you've gone through many, many SPIs and still think yours was okay, then, yes, CIR.


 * And making a couple of dozen editors read through your SPI was very disruptive.


 * Really, your inability to see the problem here worries me greatly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI pinging only works if you post the ping and a new signature in the same edit like this:. HighInBC 02:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the only disruption seems to be coming from the administrators. This is an intriguing unblock gambit. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Because of persistent, repetitive, and disruptive unblock requests, I've revoked access to this page. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brain simulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Brain_simulation check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Brain_simulation?client=notify 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) 09:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

American Gold Eagle
In a recent edit you changed the text of American Gold Eagle to say that it is the official gold bullion coin of the United States. While it is official, it is not the only official gold bullion coin of the US, others include the American Buffalo and American Liberty high relief gold coins. - ZLEA T\C 01:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi ZLEA,


 * I'm seeing every source saying the American Gold Eagle is the official gold bullion coin, with the Buffalo etc being simply other gold bullion coins. Can you point to any sources to support your claim?


 * Here are some reliable sources:
 * "the American Silver Eagle serves as the official silver bullion coin of the United States"
 * "The American Gold Eagle is the official gold bullion coin of the United States of America."
 * "First introduced by the U.S. Mint in 1986, the 22-karat American Gold Eagle is the official bullion coin of the United States."


 * The American Buffalo is deemed "official legal tender" by the U.S. but not the country's official gold bullion coin.
 * Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those sources are commercial vendors. They are known for making false statements about the coins they sell to make them more appealing to customers. - ZLEA T\<b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 03:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be noted that any legal tender coin produced by the US Mint can be considered official coins of the United States. - <b style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</b> <b style="color:#6B8E23">T</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 03:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, indeed the sources aren't reliable, sorry. The articles had official but you're right about that too thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just a note, you had changed the years of minting of the First Spouse gold coins to 2005-present, but in reality they were minted from 2007-2016, with another brief production run scheduled for later this year. - <b style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</b> <b style="color:#6B8E23">T</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 03:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right again, thanks Altanner1991 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Please don't dismiss edits you don't like as vandalism - it fails to WP:AGF. Agricolae (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, yes, I will assume good faith. But -- I have to say the edit you have made isn't reasonable because you are selectively removing information without a cause. The entire page is lacking sources but we wouldn't just remove the entire article! It would be better to put a tag saying citation needed, because I am sure we can find the support. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If the far end of Otto I's wiki article ancestry box had space for one more generation, from Baba/Ingeltrudis it would be Gisela the daughter of Louis the Pious, making Otto I indeed the Great-Great-Great Grandson of Louis the Pious, as the article has kept for quite some time now. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Baba and Ingeltrudis aren't even the same person - this is the degree to which completing theories have been all mashed together into a nonsensical chimera. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's supported by the American Society of Genealogists. It would make sense to return the information to the way that it had been. This source should be reliable. https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/eberh000.htm Altanner1991 (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be more careful. The American Society of Genealogists has agreed to host the work of one of its members when his personal web hosting service was cancelled a few weeks ago. They have not made an independent evaluation of the content or subjected it to any form of peer review.  It is, in effect, a self-published source, although by someone with a degree of expertise.  Equally important, though, if you read the actual page you are citing, it characterizes the critical connection as, and I quote, "unlikely". The other source you have cited, Cawley's collection, is likewise self-published, but by a lawyer who dabbles at genealogy - he has no expertise. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It didn't strike me as an unreliable source, I am so sorry. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cawley
Cawley has been discussed at WP:RSN. It is not a reliable source. Guy (help!) 08:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Template:MLCC reflect this fact? Altanner1991 (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes - and in fact it should be deleted. Guy (help!) 08:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will ask others before making any mistakes. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ancient-Russian-springs-and-screws.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ancient-Russian-springs-and-screws.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WilhelmFriedrichWilhelm
Continuing from Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_11, as that discussion is closed.

You asked:

Yes that is (basically) exactly like my original proposal so I agree, but I am not sure how one could find the proper rationale to include, as you say, "WilhelmFriedrichWilhelm". Altanner1991 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The rationale is pretty easy and clear. The German nation state (currently named "Federal Republic of Germany") was founded in 1871 with the proclamation of the Prussian king as German Emperor. That German Reich became a republic in late 1918, a dictatorship in 1933/1934 and unconditionally surrendered in 1945. Two states claiming to be continuations of the Reich were founded in 1949 and so on.

There was no German nation state before 1871 (unless one counts the North German Confederation of 1866). (Though there was of course a country called Germany, a people called Germans and several political entities.)

Hence, the actual beginning of the German state is in 1871. Str1977 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Kingdom of Germany also a nation state? Holy Roman Empire composed other composite states like Italy as well. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. There were no nation states in the early middle ages, least of all the Eastern-Frankish kingdom, which comprised the eastern part of the Franks, Allemanians, Bavarians, Thuringians and Saxons. It took a very long time that these groups considered themselves one nation.
 * Nor, did the Holy Roman Empire comprise nation states.
 * But even if those all used to be nation states, there would still be a centuries-long gap to when Germany and Italy became nation states in the 19th century. Str1977 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the argument for "nation states" as opposed to just states? There were plenty of "states" in the early Middle Ages, see here: List of states during the Middle Ages. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the term "state" is considered an anachronism by historians of the period. But that's not actually the point. The point is, as you yourself said, "nation states" - there were no nation states in early medieveal Europe. That only sprang up in the early modern period (England especially, but also France) and especially after the French revolution. Nobody cared about that stuff in the Middle Ages.
 * And in any case, consider the huge gap. Germany wasn't a unified state at least since 1250. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a unified state at that time. That means, the gap is over 600 years long. (The same holds true for Italy.) Str1977 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The territorial state is usually said to have existed starting about 1000 CE so I don't see why the focus is on nation-states. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Iran–Israel proxy conflict
 * added a link pointing to PIJ
 * January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident
 * added a link pointing to Hezbollah–Israel conflict
 * South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)
 * added a link pointing to Hezbollah–Israel conflict

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Natural food
Thanks for fixing up the natural food article, it looks a lot better. Would you mind looking at whole food if you have the time? The article also needs work. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will certainly have a look. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited January 2015 Shebaa Farms incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hezbollah–Israel conflict.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Your recent editing history at List of Christian denominations by number of members shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Christian denominations by number of members‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aaronic priesthood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Levitical priesthood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry within administrative accounts
This is posted in relevance.
 * Subject: Sockpuppetry within administrative accounts
 * From: [redacted]
 * To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 * Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:55 GMT
 * Hi,
 * I was recently involved in a situation which shows clear evidence of the use of multiple accounts by one person. WP:SPI is not used with cases involving administrative accounts, and I have been informed this is the committee I should notify.
 * Please, review the matter in verification of the multiple IP addresses used by the accounts.
 * The accounts were used to transform a page in a matter of minutes, and after careful consideration of the evidence there is no doubt the user engaged in the use of the multiple identifications. The introduction of the case I filed describes the background of this issue, followed by a demonstration of the similar behavior patterns across the accounts.
 * Best of luck,
 * Alex
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohnoitsjamie

Altanner1991 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the follow-up.
 * Subject: Sockpuppet investigation
 * From: [redacted]
 * To: [redacted], arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 * Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:25 GMT
 * Dear Altanner:
 * Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohnoitsjamie, committee members have looked at the evidence and agree with the close: there is not sufficient evidence to justify further investigation.
 * For the committee,
 * Drmies/[redacted]
 * Altanner1991 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring
On July 18, I reverted you at White supremacy (diff). After that, you accepted my explanations on the article's talk page, writing, "I agree with everything you have said" (diff). And now you are reverting me again, claiming that I didn't explain why I reverted you ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I really thought it was disruptive/vandal behavior on your part especially because you weren't answering on the talk page for a very long time and even after I pinged you. So I really though I did not edit war because I reverted to stop what I honestly thought was vandalism behavior. I am sorry for any perceived rudeness, it is not what I would want. Best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did  on User talk:Altanner1991. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please remove it. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the statement; my words were not intended to be rude so I am sorry if it came across that way. Sincerely, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Doug Weller  talk 10:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Orders of Succession
In response to your question, every entry on the list has a line of succession for who can succeed to the monarch/president/pretender. The term order of succession implies a list. The Yugoslavian and Hawaiian pages simply refer to the former dynasties and only mentions the head of the house, not who's in the line of succession. This is in direct contrast to every entry currently on the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I forgot to send you a reply⁠—thank you for explaining, I now understand your rationale. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

About the McLaren F1
Why can’t you understand that the McLaren P1 is the real successor to the McLaren F1? Big Drake 305 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * See the page for explanations—thanks. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Catholicism redirect
Please do not make unilateral decisions about such redirects. Discuss and get consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually it's not expected to discuss before making a normal edit like that one, but since there is possible contention, I will add a talk page discussion for it. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please wait for consensus before making such changes. Sundayclose (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll have to make some kind of argument because I was making a very obvious fix. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is "obvious" to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone. You are making major changes that require discussion. And the burden to get consensus is on the editor wishing to make such changes, per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I now understand the redirect issue, thank you for your patience. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't modify your replies in a significant but non transparent fashion after they've been replied to
Hi, with reference to this edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lipid_hypothesis&diff=1081628688&oldid=1081543857] while it's generally fine to delete your own replies if no one has commented on them, especially if it's been a relatively short time, please do not modify replies after they've been replied to. WP:TALK explains the process you should use when modifying replies after they've been replied to. Frankly in a case like this since you're not correcting an error nor removing a personal attack but instead just trying to improve the tone etc of your comment, it would IMO have been better to just not modify it after it's been replied to. Instead just leave a follow up comment apologising for your comment and explain your point in a better way. The problem with what you did is fairly obvious in a case like this, as it's quite likely the tone and specific comments of Psychologist Guy's reply was based on what you said when they replied. For that reason I've re-added your original comment but marked it as deleted while leaving your modified reply intact except for dating it accordingly. I've also left a reply below explaining what I did. If you'd prefer to not have a diff of your older comments in the discussion, I'm fine with you replacing my reply with one of your own explaining the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have come to love proper techniques of redaction—thank you so much for your patience with me. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

GMOs and pesticides
KoA (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. I have grown quite *vehement* against edit warring, so hopefully I don't run into any issues with that topic's ruling. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't retroactively edit your old comments
This is just a warning, but it's very bad taste to retroactively edit old comments in a discussion, I've reverted them for this reason. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It was typos and very basic clarity issues, no content was changed. This should be allowable. Please allow such innocent grammatical corrections to help the future discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC) ; edited 21:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok—I have made one change as more properly; thank you for telling me about the policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC) ; edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

April 2016
For the List of fastest production cars by acceleration You claim that you were fixing inconsistent notes, "layout issues were fixed, fixed redundancies" but in reality you just deleted a lot of important text and altered the format and rules of the article that were already agreed upon. F-16 Viper (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are also using sources that are not reliable such as this one http://accelerationtimes.com/models/mclaren-f1-lm. F-16 Viper (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon if that one was to be considered as an unreliable source — it was a later addition and its unreliable nature had been unrecognized; you are welcome to address such source or just remove its listing entirely. The last several edits clean up the page to resolved numerous issues. It had been left in many areas somewhat of a desperate mess (incomplete row ending, inconsistent N/A or NA, outdated information, repetitive and inconsistent wording of columns...). Much more relevant important information has been added than removed in order to keep user contributions and a considerable amount of time has been spent discussing to keep the page in line which now it must hold. If you find a piece of important information is omitted you might incorporate it so that the page stays well-kept. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Similar thoughts on previous edits, from the article's talk page:
 * "Thanks for the cleanup! For what it's worth, this reader / occasional contributor is happy to see this list cleaned up to reflect actual production cars and verified results only, as above. There were far too many garbage entries about people's "pets" a couple of months ago. Thanks to those who put in the care and effort!"
 * Altanner1991 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC); edited 05:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A major change to the whole layout requires a discussion and a consensus, it was also never acceptable to add entries with unreliable sources and delete important notes. F-16 Viper (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen buddy your edits changed the entire format of the page and involved mass deletions of completely valid and important text. You did not improve upon it in any measure. If you want to improve INDIVIDUAL things like sources or specific times (assuming there is something wrong with it) that is fine, just add a reliable source, but don't delete large amounts of important text and remove whole columns etc. F-16 Viper (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A few notes and a single least significant column removed does not justify undoing significant amounts of so many other very viable edits, as a couple sentences worth of text could have most easily been re-added. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you still continuing to argue after you agreed to the block report? You're edits were in NO WAY VIABLE. Why is it taking you so long to understand this? You can't completely screw up a page and then cry about about how much work you put in. Sorry for seeming aggressive here but I'm getting tired of this. F-16 Viper (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits which you didn't like took by far the least amount of time to enact compared to the rest of my edits, you could have easily re-added them instead of constantly undoing everything with a single button. Your arguing now needs to stop because this issue was unnecessary. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to argue, but I am going to explain myself. It's not so much I didn't like them, it's that they go against Wikipedia policy and rules. Like I've said many times, you can't destroy a wiki page and then expect other people to go through all the work to save what might be acceptable. Instead you have to make an acceptable edit from the beginning. If you're a painter who is supposed to paint only the door, but instead you paint the whole house, then do you think it's homeowner's responsibility to repaint the entire house other than the door? Do you see the flaw in your logic here? It's not other Wikipedians job to go through all your work and fix it. If you do something drastically wrong (which is the case here) they're going to revert the entire edit. In addition to that 90% of the edits in question were not constructive so there wouldn't be much to save anyway. F-16 Viper (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright I'm actually sorry the edits cleaned too much without approval, so I will make sure it doesn't happen again. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. Please see talk page of FCBA so we can edit constructively. I wrote a new section called "Latest edit" F-16 Viper (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration
 * Ok, thank you for being reasonable and for giving the page updates a chance. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added the section title. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi Altanner1991! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Australian bloke (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So sorry about the lack of edit summaries; that will no longer be a problem. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC) ; edited 14:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The genealogy charts were no longer accepted so I wanted *both* consistency and just some awareness. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Louis VI of France does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. This and many other articles you've edited. Eric talk 02:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So sorry about the lack of edit summaries; that will no longer be a problem. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just discovered at WP:ANI that we are actually not required to fill edit summaries or mark minor edits, but I will still try to be cooperative overall. Thank you for your message, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Apologies and best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller Hopefully this still allows me to use WP:3RR appropriately like anyone else. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Always best to stop at two and then use the talk page. Except when it’s clearly vandalism and not a content dispute. Doug Weller  talk 07:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The policy says three. You're talking about WP:3RRNO, which says that vandalism, copyright issues, or other content issues actually have unlimited reverts. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree; sorry about my comment as I honestly did not read your comment properly until now. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia space from Main space
Hi, the reason why I removed that link in the multiple issues header was because it's typical not to link to Wikipedia space from Main space. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there a rule that mentions this, including for discussions on project pages? Maybe it could go on the talk page instead. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe it's discussed in Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, or Linking dos and don'ts:  Don't link to user, project, draft, or talk pages in articles. The talk page would definitely be fine. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have placed the link in the talk page. Thanks, Altanner1991 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks! Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Warning
Altanner1991, you need to calm down before you're blocked. This post is completely unacceptable, both parts of it, as I think you understand. And stop scolding Mathglot on their page. It's a problem that the two of you are the only people who have shown interest in the infobox question on the talkpage, and I suggest you use some form of dispute resolution to get more eyes on the page and form a consensus. WP:3O seems to me the most appropriate method, since only two editors are involved. But you may want to just step away for a while first, until you're in a better place. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC).


 * I swear to your people the this NPOV violating has to stop. Please, do ban me from Wikipedia, it would make my day!!!!!! Altanner1991 (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC) ; edited 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very upset with this disregard for bias. Mathglot, no matter how experienced, has no right to destroy a page. You should have warned Mathglot instead of me. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

White Supremacy
Please self-revert your latest changes, the material is quite obviously sourced and you need to gain consenus on the talk page first before making large edits like this. --Mvbaron (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No way. Just block me. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC) ; edited 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry—I now better understand 3RR and so I will self-revert. Thank you for your patience. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)