User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Onion white background.jpg
Talk archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · X

Current talk page


No, no, no, not what you think! This time is for something that all of us need:

Improvement of the <ref> function.

Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Poll!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloodhound Gang

Thanks for your edits to that page. I realized from the start that it was very POV but I couldn't really figure out how to change it. --Liface 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks for writing. The page still needs a lot of work, but it's sometimes an uphill battle writing about pop groups with rather opinionated fans... regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Please do not restore the "trivia" section in the Saddam Hussein article. For a user who has been on this site since 2004, I'm surprised that you're not aware of the opposition to these silly "trivia" sections. Note, for example, Adam Carr's user page: Things I delete on sight: Edits by members of the LaRouche cult; "Trivia" sections on serious articles; the vile cliches "famous" and "controversial." 172 | Talk 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noted the opinion of other users, but have my own. Please read my edit summary. There's nothing wrong with this section, and if you object to the information presented in it, by all means rephrase it or change the heading to something else. The Saddam Hussein Mosque was a real, and controversial, outpost of Islamic radicalism in Birmingham. Saddam's liking for Quality Street is something that many a pundit has remarked upon. Why take this out just because you don't like the heading?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Trivia sections are nothing more than symptoms of poor organization of articles. If the contents of "trivia" sections cannot be integrated into the existing sections of the article, either the "trivia" content is irrelevant, or the article is poorly structured. I am going to go ahead and remove the section again. Regarding the mosque in Birmingham, I don't see how the subject is relevant in the main Saddam Hussein article. Perhaps an article on the mosque should be started, with a link under "see also" in the Saddam entry. But, again, don't restore the unencyclopedic "trivia" section again. 172 | Talk 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. In most circumstances, wholesale removal of a section constitutes vandalism.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there. When wholesale removal of content of content makes an article more encyclopedic, wholesale removal is appropriate. 172 | Talk 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting a response aboutcommons:MTbornhere.jpg...

Hi PO, I contacted you a while ago to provide a detailed rationale as to why the above image is public domain, since this info is needed for its page on the Commons. I noted you said it was "uploaded from the Macedonian Wikipedia". Do you know which user uploaded the image? Please help. Brisvegas 09:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, and I looked. Will look again.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Topography of Terror

I won't revert your edit (other than restoring "strasse"), but I am curious to know how the site could have been cleared in 1987 when the Berlin Wall still ran along the south side of the street. They would have had to excavate right under the eyes of the Grepos. Adam 01:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The site was in West Berlin, and was not under their authority. Furthermore, the TdT was initiated with the cooperation of the East Germans, so they knew what was going on at that particular location. Or look at the official website: [1]
As far as ss goes, when I write simplified articles outside Wikipedia for English-speaking tourists, I too substitute ss for ß, and I would love to see it abolished (this was one of the original ideas behind the German spelling reform of 1996, but instead they produced a muddle). Dropping it here gives the Swiss spelling of Strasse. You can, and should, use redirects with the ss (and without hyphens, and in lowercase) but the article spelling should reflect the way it is written in German: Rosa-Luxemburg-Straße.
Wikipedia uses all sorts of diacritics that do not exist in English. Dropping ß here will lead to inconsistency; why not use the ue, oe, and ae spellings for umlauts as well? How about, say, the Icelandic þ and ð?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion from Angr's talk page and since you brought up the þ and ð, I cannot resist to share with you Adam's views on them:
  • I see by the way you are Icelandic. Are you one of those guilty of scattering "Þ" and "ð" around the English Wikipedia? This is an even worse insult to readers. Adam 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) [2]
The problem is, however, that Adam's views are shared by a considerable number of Wikipedians, see e.g. Talk:Wilhelmstrasse. Usually, these are people who don't tend to edit articles on German localities, say, so the vast majority of these are spelled in the most ideal way but now Adam has made several good short articles on these streets and it may be difficult to get a consensus to move them back. Stefán Ingi 13:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! I just used that as an example, I had no idea he'd had a fit about Icelandic as well! You are right, there is often a consensus that will emerge to defend nonsense because it "sounds right"; see, for example, the discussion on Talk:German Democratic Republic in which several people with no obvious knowledge of the situation argue passionately that the term "East Germany" somehow was "unofficial", "never used by the state", "used to deny sovereignty", etc., none of which is true. Vandals keep changing Ich bin ein Berliner to support the ridiculous urban legend. And now we have Adam changing ß to ss, which involves bizarre new coinages soch as "Voss-strasse" that are original research, as they appear only here, and demonstrate no respect for the German language. Sigh.
BTW, Stefán, since you are from Iceland, could you please verify what I wrote in Prince Polo about it being a popular chocolate bar, or even something of a national icon. I've found only anecdotal evidence for this, having not (yet) had the pleasure of visiting the country, and unfortunately no one responded to a post I left on Talk:Iceland about this. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ich bin ein Berliner argument is hilarious for people with even just a basic knowledge of both German and English, but in this way also very sad. And yes, the Voss-strasse seems extremely weird, I tried to calm things down at Talk:Voßstraße but it didn't seem to have much effect, it has probably moved by the time you read this. Finally, I can confirm that Prins Póló was extremely popular in Iceland and still is, although probably not as much as before. I have indirect evidence that in the early eighties when there was trouble in Poland and Prince Polo could not be sent to Iceland that Icelanders had been eating 20 tonnes of it per month. I also believe that the reason Prince Polo came to Iceland is that it was something that we could buy from the Poles and ship back with the ships that took Icelandic fish to Poland. However, I could not find a source for this. Stefán Ingi 14:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. (20 t a month for what was then 200 000 people? That's something like 16-17 bars per Icelander per year, a pretty large amount by any measure.) It wouldn't surprise me if they paid for the fish with Prince Polo, as communist Poland was very short on hard currency, and PP was one of the things they made that was worth exporting (I recall the Soviets similarly paid for Pepsi-Cola using Soviet-built ships, which a Pepsi-owned holding company would then sell on to others). Fascinating, and makes me hungry, actually.
There's another user at present who's adamant that Template:Berlin not mention the city districts or the division of the city, even though if you ask directions in the city, you will be told these names; User:Angr has responded in a very level-headed manner, and I hope things cool down a little. This kind of thing never stops, unfortunately. Best wishes,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the second part of the story is that selling the fish to Poland in the first place may have been part of a politically motivated programme in Iceland in trying to do as much business as possible with the communist countries. But I should note that this was before my time and I am not so well informed about this, it is more at the level of hearsay. Stefán Ingi 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have enormous respect for the German language, and if I was editing at de.Wikipedia I would be scrupulously careful to use it correctly. This, however, is en.Wikipedia, and it is you, mein herr, who needs to show some respect, for English usages. English has not used a double-s ligature since the early 19th century, and the great majority of English-readers see "Straße" as "strabe." I don't see this as being at all in the same category as the other kinds of silliness you mention above (excellent work on Ich bin ein Berliner, by the way). It is simply rendering foreign place names into a form English-readers can read, just as we render 北京 as "Beijing." As for Voss-strasse, I have no particular attachment to it, I would accept Vossstrasse if you prefer, although "sss" looks very strange to English-readers (hence Inverness-shire not Invernessshire). But Voss-strasse is just a test case for many other articles, involving a matter about which Wikipedia has no consistent policy - which is why we have Rudolph Hess, not Heb. If there is a settled Wikipedia policy in favour of ß, I will comply with it, but while we don't have one, I am entitled to use "ss", and I will not be bullied. (Thanks for the info on Topography of Terror, by the way. I wasn't aware that it was started with the co-operation of the DDR.) Adam 10:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wie war das?

Greetings onion man. I can understand your annoyance at having an article changed (Ich bin ein Berliner). I've felt the same way sometimes myself. Still your reaction & the remark left on my site page run a little bit over the top. Vandalism? A fair minded review of the list of commentators (not limited to Wikipedia) in support of my outlook ought to convince you that the subject is at the very least controvertial. It cannot merit unqualified citation as an urban legend.

By the way, my list of home cities resembles your own. If we can sort this out and I hope we can end up friends.

--Philopedia 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some postscripts to my earlier remarks:

1) The Ich bin ein Berliner article made it to Wiki page of the day. Congratulations for your part in a stupendous accomplishment. Of course, this means more exposure and more editing. Hopefully the product will continue to improve. In any case, you shouldn't take it as a personal affront when people make changes. If you start to feel possessive about the articles you contribute to, your not likely to be a very happy Wikipedian!

2) Thinking about the controversy, I decided to conduct an experiment: Within 500 meters of my house there are four bakeries. I visited each and asked for a Berliner. None of them had Berliners for sale, but each baker knew what I was talking about.

3) I think I understand why you've come to the mistaken notion that the Berliner pastry is generally unknown in Germany. It is because you live in Berlin. Indeed, the name Berliner is understood elsewhere in Germany as a pastry that is popular in Berlin (alternatively, a pastry that was developed in Berlin). Of course, it is would not be called by the same name in Berlin. This is a very characteristic. Just try visiting an apothecary on the Champs d'Elysee and asking for a Pariser, for instance :-). The Berliner pastry is known in Hessen (where I live) and probably elsewhere in Germany as well.

4) Think it over and make the modification. Presumably you already put a lot of energy into the article. It would be better for you to make the changes than for me.

Thank you for your comments. However, I know perfectly well what a Berliner is, and where it is called that, and where it is not; I included this information in the article. Despite what you have written above, I have not come to the "mistaken notion that the Berliner pastry is generally unknown in Germany." What's more, I don't get annoyed "when I have an article changed"; on the contrary, if you read Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner, to cite the most immediate example, I have praise for other contributors, noting that they have improved significantly upon what I have written.
My complaint about your contribution to the article ([3]) was quite clear. You blanked an entire section of the article, and replaced it with something that is not true ("It has frequently been pointed out that Kennedy made a somewhat embarrassing grammatical error... Kennedy had accidentally likened himself to a jelly donut"), and that had been discussed and debunked ("I am a Danish"/"I am Danish") at length on the talk page. Your phrasing was very similar to that of previous vandalism of the page ("The crowd in Berlin was delighted with the sentiment nevertheless, and happily overlooked the small and understandable error"). This is nonsense, and replacing good text with nonsense is vandalism, simple as that.
I think you are capable of much more constructive editing than this. Please don't do it again.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I saw you signed the petition on the Wilhelmstrasse article. Care to chip in here? Greetings, Blur4760 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, Blur. Glad to help out.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:In the news

The fact that this is "the world's biggest sporting event" does not satisfy the ITN criteria. Instead of attempting to transform our main page into a news ticker, perhaps you could contribute a decent account of the game to the encyclopedia (which might actually qualify the entry for inclusion in the section).

Incidentally, I attempted to determine which talk page you were referring to (and I even consulted your contribution history before reverting), but my search came up empty.

Of course, all of this is moot, as it appears that Violetriga shares your belief that the World Cup is too important for our rules to apply (but not important enough to actually write about in encyclopedic fashion). —David Levy 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What rules? We're not running a sports ticker, but as one of the finalists has been chosen, in a match watched by hundreds of millions, it ought to be mentioned in a more specific manner as was the case, which implied that WP wasn't very up-to-date. And, BTW, I have no axe to grind here; in fact, I hate football, and am in no position to write an article about the match; however, the World Cup semifinals and final are matters of international interest beyond sports. The talk page discussion refers only to not putting the score up for every match; this is clearly not the case here. We could rephrase this as "Italy qualifies for the World Cup final" but ultimately, written without reference to the match or score it reads as if something is missing.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Again, the mention of the score is not the problem. The problem is that the entry fails to meet the ITN criteria. I'm not disputing the event's significance, but this does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. ITN is not a rundown of the top headlines. It's a means of highlighting articles that have been written or substantially updated because of a major event. Our standards should not be disregarded for the World Cup, the death of a world leader, or the invasion of Earth by Martians.
I'm merely requesting that someone (obviously not you, given the fact that you aren't a fan) write a reasonably detailed account of the game. Something similar to what was written about Super Bowl XL before and during its ITN inclusion would more than suffice. (Various users have claimed that even the individual first-round matches were more important than the Super Bowl, so this shouldn't be a problem.)
2. Which talk page? You're going to have to be more specific. Are you referring to a current, relevant discussion? The only one of which I'm aware is located at Talk:Main Page.
3. Thank you for removing the "United States" (translation: "ignorant American") reference. My stance has absolutely nothing to do with my nationality. —David Levy 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, count me among the ignorant, then. I changed that because, after reading it, I too thought it sounded like an accusation, which wasn't at all intended. However, it's fair to say that a lot of U.S. readers don't get what a big deal the World Cup is, and didn't even in 1994, when we hosted it; if the Stanley Cup is worth listing, so is this (and all I did was to make the existing reference to the World Cup more specific). In Britain (ahem, England), Italy, and Germany, to mention the countries I have been in in the last three weeks, it has been the news story. And the 2006 FIFA World Cup page was indeed updated with the results, although a more comprehensive match report would indeed be welcome (beyond "the two teams ran around a lot for 118 minutes, and then Italy scored two goals").  ProhibitOnions  (T) 17:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Again, the significance of the match is not in dispute. The 2006 FIFA World Cup article contains absolutely no prose pertaining to the game in question. (The tables were updated to include the result, but this isn't remotely sufficient. It's ludicrous to refer readers to an update encompassing no information beyond what's included in the ITN summary.) Meanwhile, the Italy and Germany articles contain no information about the game beyond "the two teams ran around a lot for 118 minutes, and then Italy scored two goals."
2. The "existing reference" was added to appease the users who insisted upon creating a special exemption from the usual ITN criteria. As such, it included only general information (so as not to imply that specific, in-depth article updates had occurred) and it was placed at the bottom of the section (so as not to be confused with the standard entries).
Incidentally, Violetriga posted the following reply on her talk page:
"I don't think that the game needs something writing about it in order to have the item included in ITN."
David Levy 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Just a warning - the image you removed has been subject to an edit war - has been deleted and reinstated many many times. I myself have not been part of it, but you may find yourself involved. ViridaeTalk 04:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I had a quick look in the history and didn't see any removes, but I felt it was gratuitous to show this picture twice. I know there was a similar issue with a previous picture, which ended up deleted (AFAIK).  ProhibitOnions  (T) 08:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit. The issue of having such images - an image of feces on the feces page, for example (as well as the human feces page) - has come up many times before and the consensus seems to be that it should stay, as long as it's appropriately placed within the article, e.g., not overly large, directly relevant to the article, and "below the fold". I also note that you made no effort to discuss this on the talk page before removing the image. It has remained there for quite some time without objection and done so through many edits by different people. I am aware of the fact that I placed the image in the article originally. I suppose that reverting your edit could be interpreted as acting in self-interest, but I assure you this is not the case. Regards, Cacetudo 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to this on the talk page. I have no moral objection to a picture of shit, if it serves some illutrative purpose, but this is nothing most people haven't seen. I therefore found its use in two articles gratuitous.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Since you live in Germany, I would like to know if I can move (all) you POV, interest, etc boxes into your userspace? Myrtone

If you want to do so, go ahead, though I'm not bothered by this particular controversy. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Well, that'll be the first article we're not bitching too much about! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, great article. Didn't know it was up for FA, but glad to support. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


For sorting out the Vovoidship debacle back in May. I was pretty sure the moves were wrong, but didn't want to get into conflict with that particular user again. Rich Farmbrough 22:07 14 July 2006 (GMT).

Yep, he has now been blocked a couple of times for personal attacks. I'm surprised it took so long. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Berlin meetup

Some of us English-speaking Wikipedians from Berlin are going to meet up in August. If you'd like to join us, sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Berlin. Hope to see you there! User:Angr 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! If I can come, I will. Thanks for the invite. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the help with sorting out the voivodeship changes! I've been making hundreds of edits to try and adapt articles to the long-awaited consensus, and it's good to know I'm not the only person in there rolling up my sleeves.  :)

Would you also be willing to participate in the Category renaming poll? So far I haven't been able to get anyone else in there to confirm consensus. At this point I don't even care if people are supporting it or opposing it, I just want to get additional opinions on the matter. :) --Elonka 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, Elonka. I note that the canard of an "official Polish government tranlation" is once again being used to justify a certain user's original research.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 12:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

How do you make your name a different color after you post something? QuizQuick 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed your question. I've answered it on your talk page. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I actually made one (well sort of); I took parts of different codes and messed around with them. Mine looks a teeny bit like yours- I hope you don't mind. ;)

How do I save my signature to preferences? Do I just copy/paste the code into the signature box? Duke Chapel 4 16 05.jpg  QuizQuick 

Yep, and you'll want to check the "raw signature" box. Looks like you've got it taken care of already, though. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but it is interesting and occasionally prone to partisanship, so I'd be glad to help out. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Now an earth-shakingly important new article, as threatened. Adam 08:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi, ProhibitOnions. I guess that you forgot to remove the move notices and close the polls on the talk pages of Masovian Voivodeship and Lower Silesian Voivodeship, or were not aware that you should do so. I took care of them for you. -- Kjkolb 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird, thought I'd done that already. Well, thanks for doing it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)



You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Tawny owl. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Tawny owl). --Klaimers 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF? I have never edited that page. I hope this isn't a real block.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 12:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what's gone on here - either its gone haywire or the "operator" is lying. Ignore above. Morwen - Talk 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't seem to have been blocked, which is just as well, because arguing with a bot doesn't do very much. Oh well. Cheers, Morwen.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was mostly a matter of being a bit too early in your Wikicareer. Keep it up for a few months and try again. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to rope in support

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States. 5 years of work down the drain. JackLumber. 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to do my small bit in keeping this one alive. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lied der Deutschen = Nazilied?

Lieber ProhibitOnions,

schade daß Du in der englischen Ausgabe der Wikipedia unverantwortliches Unwissen verbreitest. Die Nationalhymne war, wie durch den Schriftverkehr von Bundespräsident und Bundeskanzler von 1952 beschrieben, das Lied der Deutschen in all seinen Strophen. Zu offiziellen Anlässen wurde jedoch nur die dritte Strophe intoniert. Erst nach Eingliederung der ehem. sowjetischen Besatzungszone in die Bundesrepublik änderte ein erneuter Briefwechsel zwischen den derzeitigen Bundespräsidenten und Bundeskanzler die Sachlage. Von da an galt nur noch die dritte Strophe als Nationalhymne. Man mag diese Briefwechsel als Legitimation anzweifeln, aber dann wäre jede Behauptung falsch und die Bundesrepublik ohne Hymne.

Zudem kann ich nicht verstehen, wie Du eine Version wiederherstellen kannst, in der das Lied der Deutschen in einer Reihe mit Naziliedern aufgelistet wird, mit dem mageren Hinweis daß es das Lied bereits vor den Nazis gab. Ich weiß nicht ob das aus einer Geisteshaltung oder aus Naivität resultiert, ich fühle mich jedenfalls sehr dadurch angegriffen und es fällt meiner Meinung nach schon als Beleidigung deutscher Nationalsymbole aus, das Lied der Deutschen in einer derart diffarmierenden Weise zu bezeichnen. In der Bundesrepublik käme wahrscheinlich sogar noch eine rechtliche Komponente hinzu.


Ein Studium Deiner Profilseite hat mir gezeigt, daß Du nicht deutsch bist und aus England kommst. Unter diesen Umständen bitte ich meine Kritik entsprechend verstanden wissen, denn ich hatte zuerst angenommen daß Du deutscher Herkunft bist. Das ändert aber nichts an der Unzumutbarkeit Deiner Änderungen für eine Enzyklopädie. Bitte setze Dich mit dem Thema etwas näher auseinander, bevor Du die Ergänzungen anderer als falsch revidierst. Vielleicht lag es auch an meiner zugegeben schlecht formulierten (mein Englisch ist ziemlich schlecht, ich weiß) Begründung, aber möglicherweise kannst Du ja mithelfen und den englischen Nutzern diesen, entschuldige den Ausdruck, Mist, ersparen, der derzeit als Artikel angeboten wird. -- 04:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The Lied der Deutschen article makes the history of the anthem perfectly clear, and Nazi songs explains it briefly, while pointing to the main article on the subject. It doesn't say it was a Nazi song, just that it was abused by the Nazis, which it incontestably was, and that only the third verse was sung in the BRD, which is also an uncontroversial point (however, the main article lists a number of occasions on which the first verse was sung). If your English is poor, you should perhaps pay closer attention to an article before taking offense. If you would like to prove that all three verses enjoyed official status in the BRD, go ahead, but not on Wikipedia, as this would constitute original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please assume good faith and avoid making personal attacks. Thank you.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Zunächst einmal stimmt es, daß das Lied von den Nazis mißbraucht wurde. Es wurde jedoch nur die erste Strophe gesungen, danach erklang das Horst-Wessel-Lied. Jedoch muß man bedenken, daß es sich bei der Liste um eine ausschließliche Aufzählung von Naziliedern handelt, mit dem bezeichnenden Titel "Nazi songs". Hier wäre z. B. ein Hinweis beim Horst-Wessel-Lied möglich, daß es anstelle der letzten beiden Strophen der Nationalhymne gesungen wurde, ein eigener Abschnitt für das Lied der Deutschen ist hier 1. unangebracht und 2. überflüssig, da die Informationen genauer und besser recherchiert im Artikel Lied der Deutschen vorhanden sind. Mich stört am meisten, daß das ganze Lied aufgeführt ist, denn die Nennung ist unverhältnismäßig und kann bei unbefangenen Lesern schnell den Eindruck erwecken, es handele sich um ein Nazilied.
Zudem ist es doch schon weit hergeholt, daß ich quasi versuchen würde neue Erkenntnisse zu gewinnen oder ähnliches. Man kann meine Behauptung bzgl. der Nationalhymne der Bundesrepublik für die Zeit von 1952 - 1991 gerne nachprüfen, indem man die Briefe der Amtsträger nachliest. Da der Bundespräsident, lapidar gesagt da ich kein Jurist bin, das Recht besitzt Hoheitskennzeichen festzulegen und diese Briefwechsel als Ausübung seines Rechtes gemeinhin anerkannt und akzeptiert sind, verstehe ich nicht, wie ein paar englischsprachige Nutzer auf die Idee kommen können, diese Tatsache (trotz besseren Wissens?) zu ignorieren. Da Du ja selber von dem zweiten Briefwechsel geschrieben hast, müßtest Du wissen, daß dieser überflüssig wäre, wenn die Hymne bisher ohnehin nur aus der letzten Strophe bestanden hätte. Aber ehrlich gesagt ist es mir auch ein wenig zu blöd darüber zu diskutieren, demnächst kann man möglicherweise in der englischen Wikipedia nachlesen, daß es den Holocaust nie gegeben hat o. ä., wundern würde es mich nicht, bei diesem Umgang mit geschichtlichen Begebenheiten. Es ist nur schade, weil Wikipedia mittlerweile eine gewisse Reputation und damit meiner Meinung nach auch Verantwortung besitzt, keine Fehlinformationen zu verbreiten.
Übrigens tut es mir leid, wenn ich Dich beleidigt haben sollte. Aber bedenke bitte, daß Du mich auf der Diskussionseite als Lügner dargestellt hast, indem Du behauptet hast, meine Aussagen entsprächen nicht der Wahrheit. Ich gehe mal einfach von einem Informationsdefizit in diesem Punkt auf Deiner Seite aus. Destruktives Verhalten um das Ansehen der Wikipedia nachhaltig zu stören, indem man fehlerbehafteten Inhalt einstellt, möchte ich Dir zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nicht unterstellen.-- 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
anon, please log in, so one can easier find your contributions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Lieber Tobias, ich habe mich bewußt dazu entschieden keinen Zugang bei Wikipedia anzulegen. Soweit ich das als bescheidener Benutzer verstanden habe, ist dies auch nicht für die Mitarbeit notwendig. Um jedoch Aufklärung über meine Beiträge zu verschaffen: Bisher habe ich lediglich bestehende Artikel in einzelnen Punkten korrigiert, z. B. wenn diese sich selbst widersprechen oder wie in diesem Fall offensichtlich Fehlinformationen verbreitet werden. Leider habe ich mich diesmal an einen fremdsprachigen Artikel gewagt, weil ich doch ein wenig überrascht und schockiert über den Inhalt war, aber letztlich muß man wohl als unregestrierter "Anonymous" hinnehmen, daß es Unterschiede zwischen deutscher und englischer Wikipedia gibt. -- 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:GavilanSC.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:GavilanSC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 12:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson

Thanks for offering help. At last I found someone who seems to have similiar problems. I once made a little timeline, if you like: User:Tobias Conradi/User:William Allen Simpson. So long, best regards - and hey I am from Berlin, next meetup I may come. Didnt know there is a english meetup. Do not like de:WP very much. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, it would be good to see you there (assuming I show up, of course). Thanks for the pointer to that subpage, I had no idea you'd encountered the wrath of WAS, but I don't think you're alone at all. As I say, if anything needs admin-ing, let me know. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New Video Game Article

Hey! I saw that you created a new video game related article- consider joining the Computer and Video Games WikiProject! I have added your article to the list of new articles, and attributed it to you. --PresN 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! Thanks for the tip! I've created several articles about vintage computer games and historically significant computers, but so far haven't done much with the Wikiproject. I'll take a look to see if I can help out. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Berlin boroughs

I am rewriting the dreadful T-4 Euthanasia Program article. I have seen three references which refer to the site of the program HQ at Tiergartenstrasse 4 as being in Berlin-Charlottenburg. I have been to this site and it is only a short distance west of Potsdamer Platz, near the Philharmonia, and is currently in Mitte, not Charlottenburg. Surely therefore this was in the old borough of Tiergarten - or were the borough boundaries different in the NS-zeit? Please advise. Adam 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlottenburg is wrong, this was Tiergarten until 2001, and is now Mitte. Bear in mind, however, that there were two notable adjustments of the East-West Berlin boundary made during the Cold War, when bits of East Berlin (ie, Mitte) that jutted into West Berlin (Tiergarten and Kreuzberg) were swapped for bits of land elsewhere and wads of cash. One of these adjustments was made in around 1973 and involved the site of the Haus Vaterland, which was subsequently demolished; it was a strip of land roughly where the green strip next to the U-Bahn at Potsdamer Platz is. The second was the Lenné Triangle, which was a wedge of land along the Lennéstraße outside the wall, and a favorite spot for anarchists and the like; it was traded to West Berlin (and thus became part of Tiergarten) in 1988. This ran very close to the site you are referring to, and perhaps this was the source of the mistake, though it had nothing to do with Charlottenburg.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am about to upload the new article at Action T4 if this gruesome topic interests you. Adam 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Flag of Poland (state).svg
Hello ProhibitOnions/Archive3! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (This includes sharing Poland-related pictures on new articles pages, too).

(Achtung! Only take up this offer if you want to be driven mad by arguing with Polish nationalists for the rest of your life. Adam 12:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Heh-heh. Yes, Piotrus, I do sometimes pop over to that page, and I'll be glad to add more, including some of my recent pictures. Thanks!  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking AOL IPs

Please use caution with blocking AOL IPs. They're shared by many users and extended block should be avoided, unless a username can be created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 2006-08-27T13:34:02 (UTC)

If you can add a coherent message to a talk page, you are capable of more than the mindless vandalism you have recently added and you have been blocked for (again). Think about it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Baskin-Robbins - source?

You added the statement that Baskin-Robbins's 31 flavors was influenced by Howard Johnson's 28 flavors; where did you learn of this from? Any source you have would be greatly appreciated, even if it's just - I heard it somewhere. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Howard Johnson's; it was the dominant restaurant chain at the time, and its "28 flavors" was a nationally known slogan. "31 flavors" was a case of one-upmanship. (Note that I did not say "it was a case of one-upmanship" in the article, just that it was "more," which is indisputable.) The ice cream article also refers to this.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I, too, am no fan of onions. I remove them from all salads and give them to my wife, who loves them. But they are quite delicious in the form of deep-fried onion rings, especially if the onions are the very mild Vidalia type. Maybe such things are only available in the U.S., but if you can get them where you are, you might want to try them. Lou Sander 14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, onion rings make me want to puke, unfortunately! Can't stand 'em! Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GavilanSC.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:GavilanSC.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 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. Nv8200p talk 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Verifiability

"Please also avoid snide edit summaries, this was not meant as something personal against you."

The edit summary was not snide, any more than "If that's true, you won't have trouble finding a quotation to show this. You evidently know his writing better than I do." is. I simply stated I can also get an email verification and provide a voice file for the entry (since Ralph is a friend of mine and I have his phone number) if the interview was not seen as enough of a reference source.--Marty Goldberg 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, look at WP:V. And, again, look at WP:NOR; we don't conduct original interviews for Wikipedia. Adding a fact tag is not meant as something personal. Removing it by claiming "The fact that he considers it digital is a well known fact" suggested you had not read Wikipedia:Common knowledge. As for "...written in his book, mentioned in his speeches, and he'll tell you himself if you email him at his website" - well, adding a relevant link wasn't too hard.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm very angry you have re-opened hostlities on this, when I thought we had arrived at a consensus to leave all these articles at their current position. But if you want Voss-strasse-krieg II, you'll get it. I can always open a second front at Wilhelmstraße and Straße des 17 Juni if I want to. Adam 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On a happier note, I have found a wonderful website which gives the naming history of every street in Berlin, and another one on various Third Reich sites and ruins. I feel more articles coming on. Adam 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Get it, pickled onions for Prohibit Onions? Don't you just love irony? Anyhow, keep up the good work on Wikipedia, you've contributed a lot of great edits. :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by TBCTaLk?!?)

Heh-heh. Thanks for the love/onions, BDC! It has indeed made my day better (and it's only 8.27!). Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 06:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)