User talk:When6is9

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, When6is9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Europe22 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Is there a way to remove the word espionage from the title of rote kapelle? The name was a misleading Gestapo term. The groups in France and Switzerland were espionage groups. The group in Berlin wasn't - except in the files of the Gestapo. In reality, they were a pure resistance group.

harnack, arplan[edit]

Do you have any information on Arplan? We try to collect all available information for an article on german Wikipedia. [1]--Radh (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) For information about Arplan, please see Die Rote Kapelle by Stefan Roloff, Ullstein, 2002.[reply]

Thank You.-Radh (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe Ihre arplan Informationen in die Notizen eingebaut, muß das Buch aber natürlich noch lesen. Aber: "you protest too much". Ich verstehe Ihr Anliegen, aber ihre Nicht-Spionage Behauptung ist ja auch eine objektive These. Ich verteidige die 50er Jahre Diffamierungskampagnen nicht, aber die Harnacks waren doch beide blind-überzeugte Kommunisten (gute Gründe dafür hin oder her) und er hat, wie sie doch ganz klar selbst schreiben, den Russen Akten zukommen lassen (durch Stalins Bolschewisten Massaker nur unterbrochen), also Verrat betrieben. Das ist wie mit Fahnenflucht, natürlich können (müssen?) wir das alles verteidigen, die Verräter und Deserteure ehren. Mein Vater, der nach dem Krieg 100% Pazifist war (und so disziplinlos im Krieg, daß er in all den Jahren nix geworden ist) hatte da, wie wohl viele zeitgenössische Deutsche, die in den 1950ern doch Hitler keineswegs wiederhaben wollten, ganz knallharte nationalistische Ansichten bis zuletzt. Whatever, es besteht ja auch kein Zwang hier einer Meinung zu sein, aber der Buchinhalt widerspricht doch ihrer These ziemlich deutlich.--Radh (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (CET)[reply]

Spionage war vielleicht ein 100tel der Aktivitäten der Gruppe. Selbst die Nazis wussten das (Siehe Akten des Reichskriegsgerichts). Der Begriff wurde nach dem krieg von ehemaligen Gestapo Mitarbeitern für einen Medienskandal benutzt, der dann von anderen unreflektiert weiter getragen wurde. (Man sprach z. B. von Sowjetspionage, obwohl sich der erfolgreichste Kontakt der Berliner Gruppe mit dem Ausland über die amerikanischen Botschaft realisiert hatte) Tatsache ist, dass die Hauptarbeit der Gruppe im Verteilen von Information bestanden hatte. Dessen wurden sie (siehe hierzu auch Akten den Reichskriegsgerichts) angeklagt. Informationen vertrieben sie hauptsächlich durch Flugblätter und Klebezettel. Harnack stand dem kritisch gegenüber, weil er es für zu gefährlich und längerfristig der Arbeit mit ausländischen Mächten im Weg stehend hielt. Die Geschichte zeigte, dass es umgekehrt war: Der - absolut ineffektive - Kontaktversuch mit den Sowjets zerstörte die Gruppe, und erst durch diesen unglücklichen Zufall wurde ihre tatsächliche Arbeit entdeckt. (Siehe hierzu auch Anne Nelson's 2009 bei Random House herausgebenes Buch The Red Orchestra)

Ich klebe nun wirklich nicht am Begriff "Spionage", weiß aber auch nicht, wie man hier in der en wikipedia Artikel umbennen kann, das hängt bei Red Orchestra schlicht auch an der Vieldeutigkeit des Begriffes. Über Konsensus müßte es irgendwie sicher gehen, vielleicht letztlich über die Liste aller Artikel (?).

Mir kommt es andererseits bizar vor, wenn in der deutschen Wikipedia die alten DDRler durchsetzten, daß Leute wie Agnes Smedley, und allen ernstes sogar Richard Sorge nicht mehr als Spione bezeichnet werden sollten. Irgendwann macht sich Wikipedia so doch zur Witzfigur. Aber, Widerstandsbewegung gegen die Nazis war immer legitim (obwohl selbst ich Zahnschmerzen bekomme, wenn Leute wie Arthur Nebe dazu gerechnet werden sollen oder müssen), bis zu Leuten der Brigade Ehrhardt. Und wenn Spionage eine nützliche Waffe war oder wie Sie ja sagen auch nur so erschien, ist das eben nur eine Unterkategorie im Widerstandkampf. Andererseits wird die RAF hier in der en Wikipedia allen ernstes als bewaffnete Widerstandsgruppe gegen den BRD Totalitarismus verkauft. Alles natürlich nicht Ihre Schuld, mit freundlichen Grüßen,--Radh (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: Löschen Sie mein Gelaber ruhig, das darf man wohl auf den eigenen Seiten.--Radh (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! When6is9, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Castle Gnome for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Castle Gnome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Gnome until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Carola Stabe[edit]

Hello When6is9. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Carola Stabe.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carola Stabe, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Carola Stabe concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Carola Stabe, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arvid Harnack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Orchestra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Carola Stabe concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Carola Stabe, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carola Stabe has been accepted[edit]

Carola Stabe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 46415[edit]

UTRS appeal #46415 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I will add that the username is only part of the problem: the when6is9 links, of which you added a ton, are also problematic. There is clearly a conflict of interest here, and you must read and follow the guidelines at WP:COI, particularly the bit about disclosure. Finally, you edited Stefan Roloff, heavily, and he is of course the founder of when6is9. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]