User talk:Altmany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Contents

[edit] Israel Institute for Biological Research

Hi. Both of us must have started writing this article about the same time! I've fed in some bits of my draft into your article. Hope you find my changes OK. -- Rwendland 19:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

sure thing :) altmany 20:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intra-wiki Links

It seems to me I have been linking a lot recently. Maybe you are looking at older things. Anyway I will work on it. I don't think everything needs explaining in Wikapedia, if it is clear enough so they know whether they need to look things up. Like, I would not expect an article on Fock, but if someone is working on long range propagation, it is good to have the name to start with. --David R. Ingham 23:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links to articles in other language Wikipedias

Hi,

I noticed that on the Amos page, you placed an interwiki link to an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia (he:עמוס 2) that was related to a specific entry in the page. As the English page is a disambiguation page and the Hebrew page is an article about a series of communication satelites, the two are not a translation of eachother so the link to the Hebrew article should not belong with the other interlanguage links.

What you should do instead is to use an inline interlanguage link next to the item in the list that you are describing. That way, the article in Hebrew appears next to the list-item instead of with the other interlanguage links. For how to use inline interlanguage links and for more details, see Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links

I have done this for you on the Amos page. If you have done something similar on other pages, could you please make the changes I described.

Of course, an even better solution would be to write an article about the Amos communication satelites on the English Wikipedia, but until that happens, using an inline interlanguage link is the best option.

Thanks, Ae-a 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You're correct - thanks for pointing this out. altmany 21:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin and Seelow Heights

  • Most of the text for the battle of Berlin, Seelow Heights and Halbe, was originally written by be me, the Berlin article after the Talk:Berlin#Copyright violation so these are battle articles over which I have spent some time considering the contents.
  • All the textbooks I have read on the battle of Berlin cover the period from the start of the attack in the early hours on 16 April to the capture of Berlin. This means that all the statistics, number of men, tanks, KIA, etc tend to be for the whole operation, not just for the city phase of the Battle of Berlin.
  • The battle of the Oder-Neisse is a two front battle over a front of many kilometres (>100?) It is not just the attack on the Seelow Heights over which the heaviest fighting took place.
  • If you look at the Talk:Berlin you will see a comment by me:
Finally the sections "The battle of the Oder-Neisse" and "The encirclement of Berlin" are much more developed than section "The battle of Berlin" , so this article makes it look that it was all over bar the shouting once the city was enveloped. It was not. The encirclement of Berlin" took 5 days (April 20-25) so the section "The battle of Berlin" which took longer form (April 25 - May 2) should be at lest as long as that and probably longer.

When I re-wrote the Berlin article I mainly concentrated on the initial stages of the Battle. It was always my intention to either let others write the city part of the battle to the same level of detail as the encirclement, or some day do it my self. Because from my point of view the detail earlier in the article is about right the problem with it is that the information about the city is too little. The information on the Seelow Heights is way to little. That battle should have a paragraph for each morning, afternoon, evening and night of the three/four days.

So that gives you an overview of my position. Now to answer your specific points:

  1. The merge of the two Seelow Heights articls. You are of course free to merge any additional information you think needs to be merged in. I considered moving the speculation about attacking around the Heights. But this is very dicey ground. As Churchill said "The terrible Ifs accumulate." Please have a look at the section "Wartime consequences" in the historys Ultra:15 September 2005 and Ultra 20 September and today Ultra#Wartime consequences page/secton, and the Talk:Ultra. Please have a look at the last paragraph of the Battle of Quatre Bras#Conclusion. It is fun to write "what ifs" (There a half a dozen books of that title now) but it is laden with POV and does not improve the articles, particularly if more that one "if" is piled on top of the statement. The speculation in the paragraph needed a balance put on it. For example the 1BF had been drawn up on a very narrow front, so given that Zhukov could not go round. The other Front commanders could and did do that. But if I added that to the paragraph to give it balance then it starts to become ifs on ifs. Armchair generals can alwasy fight a battle better than it was fought at the time, but I do not think it helps most Wikipedia articls to include that speculation fun as it is! This is not just because it is POV laden (and open to POV revert wars), I do not see it as encyclopaedic.
  2. you wrote "Battle of Berlin, IMHO, was much better with a shorter section about The battle of the Oder-Neisse". I have answered that above. The Battle of Berlin is at the right detail, what is needed is more on the city battle. The text in the Seelow Heights is mealy seed material.
  3. Heinrici's defensive preparations are "preparations" just as "This freed up General Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front (2BF) to move west to the east bank of the Oder river." are preparations. The Battle started on the 16th of April.

I hope now that I have laid out my stall you will consider taking over the city part of the battle and write a day by day account of its capture because that is what is needed to polish the Battle of Berlin article. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In any case, note that the Battle of Halbe sub-section is exactly the opposite in size - a very short note linking to the main article.

I think there are two reasons why the Battle of Halbe is semi-detatched. Until Beevor wrote about it in detail it was ignored to a large extent by other English language books on the Battle of Berlin. Unlike the Seelow Heights once the decision was taken by the IX not to fight their way into Berlin, it is not really part of the Battle for Berlin. To use the analgy of a domestic party gone wrong: Halbe was a fight in the back guarden, while the Seelow Heights was like gate-crashers kicking down the front door. The former is a sideshow and the latter crusual to what happened. You also might like to have a look at Talk:Battle of Halbe where I have just posed a question. Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Altmany's page

Hi Altmany: Nice to read your editing and comments. One request: PLEASE fill in your own user page at User:Altmany and tell us something about your interests/goals...whatever you like. Also, have you seen Portal:Israel you may want to contribute. Thanks. Best wishes. IZAK 08:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ma'alot

Hi Altmany: See the mess about the Ma'alot article [1] Can you correct it? Thanks. IZAK 10:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the mess. Seems to me to just need a bit of NPOVing. I'll try to fix it later today. altmany 10:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Great additions to the Hadassah hospital --Cramer 20:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1978-bus-attack01.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:1978-bus-attack01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
fixed altmany 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You cannot release to the public domain for specific purposes in the USA. If released to the public domain, then there can no restriction on usage. If the image can only be used for educational and non-commercial purposes, then this is a Permission type license which english Wikipedia does not want. I assume the same is for the Hebrew edition, but I do not know. -Nv8200p talk
Please pick this up with the author (MathKnight). I left a note on his talk page (here). altmany 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I wish that these images will kept on Wikipedia. Can you advice on a license that will not force them to be deleted but will maintain maximal protection of the images and my copyrights (required attributation)? MathKnight 19:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The idea of putting images and text on Wikipedia is to allow them to be distributed freely. If he is worried about his images, he should have them removed. He cannot restrict against commercial use, but the low resolution of the images might discourage that anyway. I recommend {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} and replace "restrictions" with "you must attribute the work to . . ." See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for other ideas. -Nv8200p talk 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I added that license. I also asked in the restriction not to use the picture in an abusive manner. MathKnight 23:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I stepped on your toes

Unintentionally. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I guessed as much - no harm done :-) altmany 10:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for answerting my question

Thanks for replying to my question regarding IDF Medics. very much apprecated! Mike McGregor (Can) 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question.

I am doing a research paper on US aid to Israel, from the founding of the country to the present, and I was wondering if you know of any good sources I could use. Thanks.Tempest12 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't. altmany 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline

Hi there,

I'm looking for some people to help get involved in a dispute regarding the neutrality of the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's apparent to me that this timeline as a whole exhibits systematic bias. My main concerns are as follows:

1) Israeli actions are explained, Arab ones are often not. 2) Victims of Arab violence are given detail and descriptions, victims of Israeli violence are ignored or relegated. 3) "Facts" are cherry picked to emphasize one POV over another.

If you have any time, perhaps you could give the page a look, and get involved in the discussion as well.

Thanks

A student of history 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian people

Yikes! I don't think your edit at Palestinian people did exactly what you were hoping it would do. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Altmany. In the rationale, please explain why is this image necessary for the articles it's used in, i.e., how does it "increases the readers understanding of the topic in a way that words can not". I've seen some claims that this is a famous image. If it's so, it could be used to illustrate a discussion about the image itself. Do you have any source for such claims? For instance, has the image won any awards, or had it been commented about somewhere?
But unfortunately, I don't think we can use this image simply to illustrate the article on Six-day war. It would be ok if it was a free image, but with unfree material, we only use pictures that are "more than useful".
Let me know if I can be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Atmany. I'm afraid the rationale fails to explain why is this image necessary (and not only useful) for the article. I'm nominating it for deletion. I hope you don't take offense. --Abu badali (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Soldiers_Western_Wall_1967.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Israeli_Soldier_in_Suez_Canal_Life.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Israeli_Soldier_in_Suez_Canal_Life.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 06:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IMI logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMI logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)