User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive4

ProhibitOnions Talk archives
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · X Current talk page

Problem with Rolling Stones albums Box

I like that you took initiative to make an album box for the Stones, but there is a major problem! The second item in the left column reads US Albums 1964-1967, but then in the corresponding right-hand column, it lists all the post-1967 albums. In otherwords, the right hand column should be moved down to the next line and given the title Albums 1967-Present. Then you should go back and put in the correct US Albums 1964-1967. You see, the UK and US albums differed up through most of 1967. The change occurred at the end of the year with "Their Satanic Majesties Request," when both the UK and US albums became the same.

Hi there, 67.72.98.81, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Yes, someone has messed up the content while attempting to improve the formatting. I'll try to fix this, or I'll revert it. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I hope I didn't seem to much like a jerk, but since you created the box I figured you'd know best how to fix it. I should probably get a Wikipedia account. The album box looks good.24.149.238.242 08:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that goes to show IP addresses can change frequently. I was once bombarded with complaints because someone who had once had my IP address was vandalizing pages.24.149.238.242 08:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you'd be well advised to get an account. Let me know what your username is if you do. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk October 2006

Are you familiar with the "anonymous" war diary published as A Woman in Berlin? An excellent read. My Virago Press English edition identifies the author as Marta Hiller, but our article calls her Marta Hillers, and there are many google hits for both. The German Wikipedia has no article on her at all. Do you know which name is correct?

PS I am hoping to be back in Berlin next March or thereabouts. Perhaps we can meet and discuss the finer points of German orthography. Adam 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh-heh. Well, we'll see if I'm still here bythen, what with my current lack of employment and all. But give me a holler when you get close. As for the book, I've been meaning to read it but haven't, so I just ordered it right now. I'm not sure which name is correct.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ostkreuz, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Peta 22:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The article is only two days old, it didn't take long... Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi,

I noticed you've edited to a lot of Germany-related articles and you do apparently live in Germany, so I was wondering would you be interested in contributing to the WikiProject Germany, which is being started up by a few Wikipedians right not. Well, if you are, you can check the list of proposed projects and the temporary page of the project. Grüße --Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'll make a note to look over there more often. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. You've certainly challenged me to raise my standards and I'll do my best to deserve your trust. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and glad to have you on board!  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Berlin government

I don't know if you have read Wolfgang Samuel's war memoir German Boy - another very good read. In it he reproduces his mother's Abreisebescheinigung - the document that certified that in January 1945 she was a refugee from the east and entitled to draw rations in Berlin. The document is issued in the name of Der Oberburgermeister der Reichshauptstadt Berlin. This is the first reference I have ever seen to Berlin having an Oberburgermeister in the Nazi period. All the accounts I have read, including Read and Fisher's Fall of Berlin and History of Berlin and Ryan's Last Battle, give the impression that Goebbels as Gauleiter ran the city himself. Who was this Oberburgermeister? What did he do? How was he appointed? What became of him? Adam 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was Ludwig Steeg, who was both OB and Stadtpräsident. Of course, the Gauleiter had the real power, but the previous government organs continued to exist, a bit like in the USSR where there was a formal division between party structures and the government apparatus, but where real power resided in the former. There's an interesting story that in 1944 Hitler made Goebbels the new Stadtpräsident, but he kept Steeg on as OB even though they hated each other (see [1]). There's a list of mayors here: [2] and in several other places on the net.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the difference between an Oberburgermeister and a Stadtpräsident? Adam 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial: J'accuse

ProhibitOnions, I'm known as a staunch opponent of Nixer who I consider to be a troll. Yet I feel obliged to point out that Holocaust Denial is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm appaled at the suppression of data about the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis and their collaborators. It is even less acceptable to abuse 3RR in order to block one's opponents. Please be reasonable, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, so by being the 50th person to block Nixer I'm a holocaust denier? Hilarious.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't discuss the validity of previous blocks. Please never block your opponents in content disputes, OK? This is alarming. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. As I said, I have no content dispute, as I was not working on that article, and have not done so in a long time. If you read my remarks I thought both Nixer and those he was reverting were trolling. Nixer, however, reverted four times. Sure, the fourth time was after 34 hours, pretty much the first thing he did the following morning, but he's tried to wiggle out of WP:3RR by claiming more than 24 hours before. That's why there's no fixed time period.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no Holocaust denial, dispute is about things that are not importnant enough to be included in article that is meant to be short overview not detailed explanation, and about some factual mistakes.(Staberinde 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Naah, Staberinde, it's just a straw man argument. Nothing new here. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A Romanian-Moldavian Anschluss?

Why support Romanian irredentism? Given the bitter reactionary history of Romanian nationalism in the region (collaboration with the Nazis, supression of Slavs and Jews) it would seem unwise to fan the flames of nationalism by promoting the unification Romania and Moldava. Nothing would seem more likely to stoke up base emotions again. In my opinion the Transnistrian Republic of Moldava is a bulwark against such nationalism. Booshank 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no ethnic, linguistic or religious difference between a Romanian and a Moldovan, and it is only an accident of history that they are today two separate countries. If the Romanian and Moldovan people want to reunite there is no reason why they shouldn't (maybe minus Transnistria). This has nothing to do with Romanian nationalism. On they other hand if the Moldovans want to remain separate, that is their right, just as Austria remains separate from Germany despite a similar degree of affinity. Adam 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I support a peaceful reunion of the two countries, if that's what they want, although it's not an issue that I have a strong opinion on. The reason for the userbox is more that I don't want the European Union to demand ruling out such a unification as an unofficial condition of membership for Romania. Having Transdniestria in the EU would make things pretty interesting.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IBM 5140 PC -> IBM Personal Computer

Without the type, "Personal Computer" is generic, references a product line or group, not a specific machine. For example, please see IBM's web page:

Software and device drivers - IBM PC
[3]

Yes, these are PC 300, etc., but the heading at the top is just "IBM PC" and on that same web page there is "IBM PC Institute", "Search PC support".

Do you think an article title of "IBM 5140 Personal Computer" would confuse people? (and so on for the XT, AT)

In trying to clean up the names of IBM things, I've added "IBM" to a number of them (I think half the "System/xx" names had "IBM", half didn't) and added model numbers where they were unique. The RT had multiple numbers, if you were curious why it was left as "IBM RT". Some old machines, NORC for example, didn't have a number, as well as some new ones. My hope is that, given consistent naming, people adding new machines will copy the existing style.

thanks, tooold 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the term "personal computer" is generic and predates the IBM product, as the article states. On the other hand, "IBM Personal Computer" is, and always has been, a registered trademark. The IBM Personal Computer was always known as such, and never as the "IBM 5150 Personal Computer". Unlike some of its corporate products, where purchasing managers would know the model numbers, the consumer products (PC, XT, AT, jr, PS/2) did not use these numbers in their names. The articles currently give the common name of the computers, while mentioning the IBM model numbers and common abbreviations ("IBM PC"; "PC") in the introduction, which I think is the best solution. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nasty but useful

• Have you seen this nasty website? It's got a great photo archive. I found it while looking for a photo of Steeg.
• What's the difference between an Oberburgermeister and a Stadtpräsident? Adam 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it depends on the city, but one was sort of like the head of state and the other was the head of government. Berlin just has the Regierender Bürgermeister nowadays.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 06:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob Johnson

Hello. As a Wikipedian from Tyne and Wear, you might be interested in voting keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Johnson (weatherman). The article is in better shape now. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for the pointer. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasty blocking

Please do not use the block button so liberally. While Nixer's block was totally deserved, this time, blocking EED was very much uncalled for, especially for 1 hour (!). What's the point of a one hour block? If you think he revert-warred himself into a real block, there exist standard 24 or 12 or 6 hours for that. If you wanted to give him a warning, you could have done just that. There is a talk page to leave your comments, not the block log. If you meant that 1 hour block is a warning, you are very much mistaken. The only thing that 1 hour blocks do is annoyance and radicalization of the users (or bullying them out of Wikipedia). The block log is something many users take close to their heart. An entry there, if obtained from a well applied block, is a necessary evil (or a necessary advise for the next block to be longer). An entry there from a symbolic block (and 1 hour is nothing but symbolic) is an unnecessary evil. Next time please think twice before pushing the block button that the community entrusted you to use for the benefit of encyclopedia and its contributors. --Irpen 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also, FYI there was a discussion of this issue (hasty blocks of established users) that you may want to check, if interested. It is now in the archives of WP:AN but I found the link for you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive52#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators. --Irpen 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear ProhibitOnions. Just one thing. Take a good read here [4], then here [5]. Then do a little google search on "deportations", "Stalin", and Ukrainians or Poles or Koreans or Volga Germans or Crimean Tatars or Kalmyks or Chechens or Ingush or Balkars or Karachays or Meskhetian Turks or Finns or Bulgarians or Greeks or Armenians or Latvians or Lithuanians or Estonians. Then take good read here again [6]. And my point is that, if by "learned your lesson" you mean, that I should ignore this bullshit and stay away from it, well, I can inform you that I didn't learn my lesson. 3RR 4RR or 35355RR, frankly I don't give a shit, because it's a disgrace to humanity to present deportations as a interest free loan giveaway. Rules are rules, decency is decency. And if I have to chose between the decency and the rules, well, in that case the choice is obvious to me. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 07:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I was being sarcastic there. And yes, I know all about the nasty things that Stalin and the USSR did. The block reflects procedure, not the quality of your edits or their truthfulness. Yes, Nixer is a problematic user, and his edits are often crude, dogmatic, hateful nonsense, and yes, they are usually concerned with whitewashing Soviet history (he has, however, made more useful edits on topics such as subways). And there's no easy way of dealing with him, but once he's violated 3RR, don't let yourself get dragged in any further, as you did. Enjoy the next two days without him. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 08:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for raising the voice (let's call it that way :) ). Bit too sensitive issue here. I know it's your duties, rules are rules. Peace. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider it a badge of honor in the battle for truth, or at least verifiability... Now keep up the good edits, and just remember not to feed the trolls.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You broke the rules

You broke the rules with blocking me for 48 hopurs while the other party involved only for 1 hour. The WP:3RR rule clearly states that the sysop should theat all parties equally. Not to say that supporting users who delete valid sourced archive material you do not do good thing.--Nixer 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, both of you got blocked. However, since you violated 3RR several times and he did it once, you got blocked for more time. FWIW, Irpen seems to think the other user shouldn't have been blocked at all. I stand by my decision.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:why national chains dont carry hot dogs

Thanks for the note about Ray Kroc and hot dogs. I learn something new every day around here. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, though I should also pont out that the McDonald brothers didn't think too highly of hot dogs, either, and never introduced them, while Ray Kroc never had an original idea of his own apart from the Hulaburger. Hey, didn't notice you were up for RfA. Glad to tilt the balance in your favor... Cheers,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

MMMM, the hulaburger. How did that one ever fail? :) Seriously, though, I tried making one on my own on a whim and it wasn't that bad. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your support during my recent RfA. If I can help out on any admin prjects or just take a look at a n article with a pair of fresh, disinterested eyes, let me know. Also, I would like to request a good veggie recipe with no onions. Quite frankly, I am confused about how this could happen :) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahoy hoy! Congratulations! As to your question, just about any veggie recipe without onions is good. Except for onion soup, of course, it's just veggie broth without them. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I misread it >.<

It does say excellent room. it's a direct, phonetic translation, as near as I can tell, A rendition of an English word in katakana.... So I'm thinking that the English and Japanese text say the same thing, although it's probably a euphemism for something else..--Vercalos 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. But "Excellent Room" means nothing in English; it's a pseudo-English term in Japanese, albeit evidently not a very common one. What do the Japanese think the term means? I'm leaning toward "VIP lounge."  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think so too, but the only way we could really find out is if we had someone in Japan go and look. Either that, or asking someone who works there and knows English fluently..--Vercalos 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

...And what?

I requester RFC on Josef Stalin and in two weeks received only one comment (in favor of my version). Those users who reverted my edits refuse to discuss anything. Please do not support spreading lies in Wikipedia and removing valid sources.--Nixer 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want comments, why don't you ask people for them?  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Thanks for the invite, I'll take a look. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 06:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

JWOL

I totally agree with your edit about "John Winston Ono Lennon" - I've tried before to get that changed with no success from what must be some British attorneys... let's see what happens this time. By the way, glad to have been directed to the Ich bin ein berliner page to have that one debunked. I never bought it anyway. Tvoz 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you found it useful. Hope my edits and recent talk entry on the subject of Lennon will help put the name thing to rest, though you never know. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 06:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this response - well, so far so good on the edit! Do you have any expertise on the Bee Gees and whether they should be called English, Australian, or both? There's been some spirited debate over there on this non-issue... Tvoz 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this seemed to be getting a bit frenzied, which is a shame because the article needs work in other areas. AFAIK, they always described themselves as British, although the Bee Gees "band" itself (which had two other members at the beginning) was formed in Australia. I think British-Australian is a fair description, with more detail in the history section.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with that - but we have to watch out for the Manx-chauvinists who got all up in arms when they were referred to as English born.... I agree with you that the article needs work in substantive areas - some people just get fixated on nonsense. (See the Eagles great debate over whether it's "The Eagles" or "Eagles", leading some to write the most awkward sentences I've encountered, just to be sure to banish the definite article. Ah, Wikipedia.) Tvoz 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How'd we miss that JWOL?Tvoz 04:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. I hope that was the last one...  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Could you lease unprotect my page? Thanks,  Jorcogα  06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Looks like your page was blocked due to other people vandalising it way back in August. Surprised it's been blocked for so long. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 06:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I've been meaning to unprotect it for a while, but I kept forgetting. Also, the vandla got oversighted, which is why you can't see any vanalism. Thanks,  Jorcogα  08:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)