Jump to content

Talk:Reichstag building: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Adam Carr (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Dfrg.msc (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 31: Line 31:


I am told this means "For the German People" not "To the German People" as this article states. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I am told this means "For the German People" not "To the German People" as this article states. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

== '''Here comes the [[Spiderman]]!''' ==


([[Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman]])

I have threatened to climb the [[Reichstag]], dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the [[Wikipedia:Cabal|Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia]] ([[SCREW]])). Is '''Absolutley fantasitic!'''. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the [[Reichstag (building)|Reichstag building]] dressed as [[Spiderman]] in order to promote their cause. '''This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an [[WP:BP|indefinite block]] from editing Wikipedia.'''"

[[Image:ReichstagClimb.jpg|thumb|300px|<center>You '''may not''' do this.<br>Nor on [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3231281.stm Tower bridge] either.</center>]]

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: [[The Kremlin]]!


Thankyou!

[[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.msc]] 08:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:55, 29 June 2006

Template:FAOL

The body says that the construction on the Reichtag didn't start until "well after 1871". However, the caption on the first image claims to be of the Reichtag in about 1870. Clearly one of these is wrong...

--69.245.158.240 23:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)The article says: "Unfortunately, the cupola of the original building was blown up."

It's unclear to me whether this should read "the cupola had been destroyed during the war" or "the original cupola was demolished in the reconstruction process" or something else. Could someone clarify? --Beland 22:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clarified that. djmutex 15:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"A red soldier" -- Don't you mean a "Red Army soldier"? "Red soldier" sounds politically incorrect.

Cristo & Jean Claude

Should mention of their use of the Reichstag for their Art Projects be mentioned? I think it is an interesting fact.

Soviet flag over Reichstag

I've read an article on the Reichstag and noticed that some wikipedian wrote a passage on the red flag saying it was staged and stuff. I checked with modern Russian sources and they say that the daytime attack on the Reichstag began on April 30, 1945. Indeed, a couple of them say that the attack was unsuccessful, however, most of them say that it did happen and soldiers V.Provotorov and G.Bulatov attached the flag to the pediment at 2:25PM on April 30. Bulatov's awarding ceremony has been documented (order No.0121/н from June 8, 1945). The sources then say that soldiers M.A.Yegorov and M.V.Kantariya placed the flag on the cupola of the Reichstag at 9:50PM on April 30 (looks like a few hours later). Some sources say that by early morning of May 1, the flag had already been there. I just wanted to know your opinion on all of this. KNewman 15:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just removed the name of Mikhail Petrowitsch Minin, seems as if this is unclear who raised the flag. [1] says there a 95 different versions and [2] mentions various some soldiers that claim it was them. -guety is talking english bad 22:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was always my impression that the flag planting was a bit like the Iwo Jima photo- a later posed staging of an actual event. It is definitely unclear who exactly lifted the flag however. On another note- During the Battle of Berlin in 1945, it became the central target for the Red Army for reasons not entirely clear, since it served no political, military, or strategic purpose at all. This is a strange sentence. I would have thought the propaganda and symbolic value of capturing the enemy parliament building (whether in use or not) would be obvious. I will alter this passage, unless someone can explain it. Badgerpatrol 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanssouci

Sanssouci is currently up for peer review here. If anyone has any comments to make to improve it, I would be very grateful. Trebor27trebor 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEM DEUTSCHEN VOLKE

I am told this means "For the German People" not "To the German People" as this article states. Adam 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the Spiderman!

(Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."

File:ReichstagClimb.jpg
You may not do this.
Nor on Tower bridge either.

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: The Kremlin!


Thankyou!

Dfrg.msc 08:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]