User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive9

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

International Year of the Child

The IYOC is a point in the continuum from the Declaration in 1959 to the Milennium Development Declaration and into the present day. This is noted in the second sentence. Without that context, and the subsequent developments listed, the article is confused and meaningless.SJB (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly "confused and meaningless"; it's just a short stub. The article about the year should be about the year itself. The continuum you describe may have a place on Wikipedia, but the place for it would be a broader article such as Children's rights, otherwise we would have concerns reagarding WP:NOR. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the welcome. The IYOC is a result of the 1959 Declaration (and previous devlopments from the turn of the century), as are subsequent developments from MDG to the Declaration of 10 December 2008 as Human Rights Day, commencing the International Year of Human Rights Learning. All citations are in the public domain, there is no original research and nowhere is a POV stated; indeed the Timeline of development allows contextualisation of many otherwise random stubs, including IYOC.

If you care to look at the Children's rights article [1] it's scope is vast and does not accomodate the international political and economic measures for development of the cause.SJB (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a random stub. It's an article about a specific event, and only that event. If you feel you have more to write about the general topic of children's rights, and there isn't a place for it, create a new article (Timeline of United Nations children's rights initiatives, say). This isn't the place for information about events in later or earlier years; again, like all other Wikipedia articles, it's about a single topic, namely the Year of the Child in 1979, about which there is much more that can be said (what happened in that year, what member states did to celebrate it, whose idea it was, etc.). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please publish the details which would amplify an otherwise poor article about a major Human Rights issue. And no, I don't have an agenda, apart from making the information avaialble.SJB (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you had an agenda. Wikipedia doesn't rely on self-publishing, but only on reliable sources (WP:SOURCE). Again, children's rights may well be a major human rights issue, but an article about a UN initiative is not the place to put general information, nor is it a place to proffer an opinion (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a publisher of original thought). If you have reliable, sourced information (I don't know where you get the idea that sources must be "in the public domain" -- they don't), you can add it to Wikipedia. But it has to be in the appropriate place. If it's about children's rights in general, then it belongs in that article. If it's about the International Year of the Child specifically (such as specific celebrations, initiatives undertaken that year within the aegis of the UN proclamation, postage stamps issued, or similar), it belongs in that article. If it's about something else, and an appropriate article does not exist, create one. Again, you would be well advised to read through the major policies and guidelines, among them Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and Wikipedia:Your first article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please identify which references you consider to be 'a soapbox', indiscriminate information, or orginal thought. Please also publish the missing information. SJB (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• In your opinion. The article remains of poor quality. Pity really.SJB (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for a positive intervention on my Timeline. Pity you couldn't be more positive about IYOC. SJB (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Look, if you don't think there's enough in that article, why don't you add more pertinent information. Google "international year of the child" 1979 -- you'll find plenty about things that went on that year, along with directly relevant background information, such as the decision to declare the IYOC, made by the UN in December 1976, and directly relevant legacy material, such as a follow-up conference specifically dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the declaration. I haven't had time to add this stuff, but it's not hard to find. Again, if you stay on-topic, that's fine; broader subject matter belongs in another article, which is what links are for. There are three million articles on en.wikipedia, so specificity is essential. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I must reiterate the point that the IYOC article is meaningless without the historical context of UN endeavours to improve the lot of children on the global scale. I tried to do so, but you are unwilling to accept what is an eminently reasonable premise. Accordingly, the fact that a rock concert took place is apparently the only 'Big Deal' information from your particular, specific perspective. Trivia, from mine and in terms of what IYOC sought to achieve. As previously indicated, a considerable number of the 3 million articles on en.wikipedia are otherwise randon stubs without the contextualisation of the global children's rights movement, of which IYOC was one element. SJB (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior

ProhibitOnions, please do not be combative and disruptive in your editing. All articles are works-in-progress, and your reversion of the edits I have made, coupled with the deletion of more than half of the article's content, is nothing more than brutally ignorance of the time, energy and labor others have contributed to this article. Please refrain from such behavior in the future, and do a favor to frequent and significant editors to articles by discussing major edits to the article on the relevant talk page. If you intend to continuing acting in an abrupt, disregarding and non-collaborative fashion with respect towards this article I will ask now that we enter into mediation in order to resolve our differences of approach. Your actions in response to my coming edits will demonstrate your response. • Freechild'sup? 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Be WP:CIVIL - your comments above are a clear personal attack. I have explained my edits, politely, on the talk page. A new user has added totally irrelevant material to that article; I removed it, and suggested it be placed in a more appropriate location. There was little or nothing added to the article about its actual topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox, and claiming events that happened in 1989 have a place in an article about 1979 is original research; I am surprised that you, as a more experienced editor, are defending this, although your username suggests you have an agenda in this area. As far as major edits go, it was I who created the article in the first place. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New Coke Can

hello ProhibitOnions. would it be possible to move your taken New Coke Can to the wikicommons? i would like to creat the german article using this picture :-) regards from germany --NiTeChiLLeR (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do, I thought it was already there. Gruß ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately i cannot include it into the german article :( --NiTeChiLLeR (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not moved to Wikicommons [2] --NiTeChiLLeR (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that. I'm working on it now. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --NiTeChiLLeR (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Emptiness

Such a clean talk page! Hiya P.O. Tvoz/talk 08:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

whoops. Tvoz/talk 08:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! You caught me when I was cleaning house! No worries, I put the nasty comments (above) back! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Berlin-Weißensee has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Say what? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

I'm more than willing to throw my support behind it, but I don't have the time to open up/maintain a case right now.--Crossmr (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. But something ought to be done. I'll think about this a bit. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Obama08.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Obama08.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Obama08earlytypeface.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Obama08earlytypeface.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian apartment bombings page restructuring

We are having a nice chat about restructuring the Russian apparment bombings page, if you are interested. Mariya - x -Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That was fast, after my one minor edit! Thanks, I'll take a look! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got my watchlist upMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

World Factbook edits

Hello,

Good work on the recent edits and rewriting to The World Factbook article! FYI: the verbage in the Macedonia section was already included in the article when I started the cleanup six months ago. The Yugoslavia verbage is my own doing. Have a good day. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of the section is a bit complicated, but that's the wonderful world of diplomacy. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann‎

Hi, I understand your views but some background might assist. It was pointed out some time ago that, according to the WP:MOS, where a heading is descriptive then nothing should normally be bolded; as the guidance says "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface.". That was the consensus for a while but we had continual drive-past bolding which resulted in the present formulation as a compromise which has been accepted through edits by many editors. Throughout the article we have yards before metres using the British formulation since this is a British girl just as we use British English. If you are still unhappy then the next step is to take it to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As this is the third time you have reverted my attempts to improve the lead section, may I point you to Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement: "For UK-related articles, the main units are metric (consistently within an article)." As for the awkward intro, there is no "consensus" at all to use this non-policy-compliant boldface term; there was a single suggestion in archive 3. "Madeleine McCann‎ disappeared" in boldface fails WP:NC (past-tense verbs are unacceptable in article titles); WP:LEAD (the boldface should repeat or encapsulate the article title), and WP:N (it introduces "Madeleine McCann", a NN person, without stating who she is). And reading it, it's just clumsy. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of this being the third time I have reverted you but if it is, and I am happy to accept your count of these, the others must be quite some time ago. In recent weeks, I have reverted you just once, the other revert being by User:Rothorpe. The compromise proposal was put forward and it immediately stopped a revert war, with no objection. Early in WP:Consensus it states "In essence, silence implies consent ...". The fact that a compromise proposal, without objection, was immediately accepted in an article that was being actively edited indicates to me, and as it happens to User:Rothorpe judging by his edit summary, that it attained consensus. I can see the argument that you make on the units but there is no point in changing the formulation in the lead without changing it elsewhere in the page. What happened here is that, with the best of intentions, you changed a long established lead paragraph that has been extensively debated. My position is that if you wish to change it, fine, but please take your proposals to the talk page so that we can establish a new consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PaulKantnerPublicityPhoto.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PaulKantnerPublicityPhoto.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Kohuept (sic)

Hello ProhibitOnions. I agree with your words, but at the moment there's nothing that can be done about it. In a couple of months a new proposal may be initiated in order to have this article moved somewhere. Only then may this abomination be fixed. I can hardly believe that many users would agree to inject this kind of incompetence on Wikipedia, but they did. Now we can only wait and try to have this reversed when the right time has come. Keep the article watchlisted. :-) Regards, Húsönd 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prohibit Onions

Please register the account "Prohibit Onions" instead of simply parking a note on the talk page. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OskarLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:OskarLogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CompactCassetteLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:CompactCassetteLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fresnel lens

I conclude that the Fresnel lens shown into McDonald's illuminating a John F. Kennedy impersonator muttering the phrase Ich bin ein berliner and munching on a jelly doughnut. Just kidding. That was an attempt (poor) at humor. As to the quotation, those were not my words or my conclusion, and it was duly sourced. However upon reflection, you have a valid point. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Heh-heh... ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At least some of us are reasonable. Till next time. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Duplicate Image:DBXlogo.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:DBXlogo.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:DBXlogo.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:DBXlogo.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Girocard in the "credit cards" template

@prohibitonions, for your information:

Girocard/electronic cash and Maestro on German debit cards are not identical, they are two different systems on one card. The girocard/electronic cash function is used for paying within Germany. The Maestro function is only ever used when a German card is used abroad.

Besides, certain banks in Germany offer debit cards which have the girocard function, but not Maestro. For example: - http://www.raiba-suedhardt.de/privatkunden0/konto___karten/karten.html OR http://www.vb-bad-saulgau.de/privat/konto___karten/karten/vr-bankcard_c.html (Girocard + Cirrus for ATMs abroad) -https://direktbank.cortalconsors.de/girokonto/faq.html?mkz=684486959#q26 (Girocard + V Pay) 87.175.44.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for [3]. The material is clearly sourced; User:Beatle Fab Four's removal of it is obviously improper. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tees Valley Metro

Just saw that Tees Valley Metro was on your to-do list - I've started an article and would value any input or changes on its talk page. -- NRTurner (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dynamic Noise Reduction

I have nominated Dynamic Noise Reduction, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Noise Reduction. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Dynamic_Noise_Reduction maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic_Noise_Reduction.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there!

hello, just passing on this video to you as a brother of mankind, please watch all of the video. Thank you. Peace! [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.6 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyneside Electrics

Not sure what you are trying to do, but you should have discussed it on the talk page first. If you do anything like that again I shall report you under Wikiquette. Remember the Golden Rule of WP is "it's good to talk". Bhtpbank (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No I shouldn't, and please remain WP:CIVIL. That was what the article was called in the first place; it was moved without discussion. I restored it to what the source calls it. It's plural; it was not called "Tyneside Electric" but "the Tyneside Electrics". ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is you that needs to start behaving. Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with Tyneside Electrics, have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WingsBandLogo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:WingsBandLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Western Electric

hi p.o.: this edit added SS Eastland to a template that is for telephony equipment manufactured by Western Electric. a look at the eastland article doesnt reveal the relevance to the template. am i missing something? also, if you know a lot about telephone equipment, would you please weigh in on the merger discussion here? badmachine (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Badmachine, the Eastland disaster was one of the worst passenger shipping disasters in US history (perhaps the worst). When it capsized, it was being chartered by Western Electric, and almost all of the 841 dead were employees and their family members. You could compare it to Cantor Fitzgerald on 9/11. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ah, ok. thanks for weighing in on the 500/1500/2500 merge too. badmachine (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (Newcastle Central railway station → Newcastle railway station)

Hi, ProhibitOnions. As you have been previously involved in discussions regarding the name of the above mentioned article, I thought you may be interested to know there has been a request made to move and rename the article. If you'd like to get involved, please see here for the discussion which led to the request and here for the requested move poll. Regards, Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

Hi there, in regards to Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), please do not re-insert that information into the article, as it fails verification. The source which was used states:

The rape of Germany left a bitter legacy. It contributed to the unpopularity of the East German communist regime and its consequent reliance on the Stasi secret police. The victims themselves were permanently traumatised: women of the wartime generation still refer to the Red Army war memorial in Berlin as "the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist".

It does not state WHICH memorial, and the inclusion in this article represents original research. As a Berliner, you know there are 3 Soviet war memorials, and throwing random epitaphs into articles based upon ones guess is not encyclopaedic. There is also evidence that people have not cited the other sources, and if they keep pushing the line that they have cited the material, and reinsert it into the article, evidence will be presented which proves that 1) they have not read the material at all or 2) have blatantly falsified the references for inclusion into the article, and sanctions against anyone who reinserts it will be sought. This has been raised on the talk page, and editors have refused to provide cites from those sources. As there is also evidence of some of these editors also engaging in original research by placing into articles things which are not mentioned in those sources, this is egregious original research, and given the nature of the information inserted, it can be seen as a blatant breach of WP:DIGWUREN. I would suggest that you not re-insert, as you will not want to get caught up in this. The next person to re-insert it will be reported to WP:AE, for using Wikipedia as a battleground. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look back in the talk archives (somewhere!) you'll see I'm skeptical about using this phrase myself (although I can verify that it does exist, as Grabmal des unbekannten Vergewaltigers/Plünderers, and seems to be applied to any such memorial; but this is not AFAIK particularly well attested in online sources - note that the sources quoted in the article are British), but as the discussion is ongoing, I don't think the passage should be removed in the manner that it was; it is sourced, after all. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been physically sighted by those inserting the citations, that's the problem. Martintg has said himself, "This link provides sufficient information for verification." And whoever included the Cochrane source, has done based upon this Google scholar search. There is evidence that the person who initially inserted this citation has not sighted the document, because I can tell you it says nothing of the sort about this war memorial. Cochrane was inserted into the article by User:Martintg here. He is going to have some serious questions to answer on this, given that it was him who placed material into Putinjugend which was not backed up by the source he quoted, and which may have been instrumental in that being kept at AfD. So I would urge you not to reinsert. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't, but surely it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some compromise phrasing,perhaps along the line of "the monument has also served as a target of anti-Soviet resentment".

BTW, nice work so far on the Aeroflot fleet list. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It won't be too hard to come up with a compromise, so long as the sources are found to back the statements up. You will notice that one of the book sources, is now available for preview (it wasn't before) and it is in a section on "jokes/humour". You will notice from the preview, that the term itself is highlighted, but unseen, so it is totally unknown what exactly it is talking about. That's an inappropriate citation for the statement that was written in the article, as Beatle Fab Four says, it is mockery in the context in which the statement was written in the article. As to Cochrane, "Making up meanings in a capital city: power, memory and monuments in Berlin" is available for download and page 15 states:

But other military monuments fit less easily into the landscape of a ‘normalised’ Berlin, since the memories of Soviet domination have also found their expression in stone and marble. One condition of the departure of Soviet troops from Berlin was that the Soviet war memorials would be maintained, and the Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park, with its massive Stalinist structures it remains there inviolate, visited by the occasional tourist. A second memorial, on a slightly smaller scale, is more centrally located in the Tiergarten, incorporating tanks and other heavy weapons, has historically received rather more attention from the local population, attracting the epithet ‘tomb of the unknown rapist’ or ‘tomb of the unknown plunderer’

Within that paper, this is sourced to "The Companion Guide to Berlin" by Brian Ladd (2004). And this so happens to be available for preview here (p.84). Which states "Ungrateful Berliners called it the "tomb of the unknown plunderer"." Nothing about "rapist" there, that seems to be OR on the part of the Cochrane himself.

I don't know about others, but as I believe we are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, when core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR are broken, and as shown with what is controversial topics like that, this is egregious and puts into question the entire contribution of editors who do such things, and hence why I don't believe good faith should be assumed with their other references. 3 cites out of 5 can be shown to be false. That's not a good thing in my mind, and calls the project into question when it's allowed to continue, and "rewarded" with a presence in articles.

As to the Aeroflot fleet, is this what you mean? User:Russavia/SU fleet? I haven't done anything with it lately, I must get around to completing it some day. If you know much about SU history, you are welcome to help with it if you wish. I've got User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations and User:Russavia/Slava Zaitsev and User:Russavia/Airlines to complete, so after I finish those, I may do that one. Too many things going on at once, I must finish one thing first before getting involved in another :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed Doppelganger

Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox#Failed Doppels. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you--Jac16888^Talk 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sovran Bank

It's weird that I should be doing the article. I haven't been in Virginia since we visited my aunt in 1975. She was in a nursing home there for 15 years, but I don't think my father ever visited her. I could be wrong. We used to live near Danville and would go there to eat on Sundays and sometimes during the week too.

But I was thinking about companies like AT&T that were taken over by another company which kept the name of the smaller company. Bank of America, for example. I linked to AT&T in some articles I was working on and found out I shouldn't have.

I know someone in Virginia could do a better job. I found a lot of stuff but the various banks deserve much better.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Number 1's

I won't revert you because I didn't like the original phrasing, but how can you state that spelling a plural as a possessive is "grammatically acceptable"?—Kww(talk) 03:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a possessive. It's the use of an apostrophe to separate digits from a plural s. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 03:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And what source do you have to say that that is acceptable? It's a common enough thing with years, but that is from people that simply don't know what they are doing (i.e., "The '70s", is correct, because the "'" marks an elided "19", but people write "The 70's" instead), but for general purpose numbers? Apostrophe abuse is certainly common, but that doesn't make it correct.—Kww(talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not a mistake (and it is not a misplaced elision: see "the 1970's"), although many authorities indeed prefer these forms without the apostrophe (at least with dates; single digits are another matter). Have a look at Apostrophe; at least two of the sources deal with this issue:

In the plurals of numerals:

This house was built in the 1930's.

(But 1930s is preferable).[5]

and

In writing the plurals of numbers, usage varies. Both of the following may be encountered:

If you're sending mail to the Continent, it's advisable to use continental 1s and 7s in the address.

If you're sending mail to the Continent, it's advisable to use continental 1's and 7's in the address.

Here, the first form is admittedly a little hard on the eye, and the apostrophes may make your sentence clearer. In most cases, though, you can avoid the problem entirely simply by writing out the number.[6]

In the case of the pop music album, the apostrophe is evidently there for visual clarity so that the title is less likely to be misread as "number one ess." ProhibitOnions ^(T) 03:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Onions are delicious

Prohibit onions from what? Holding office? Marrying? ... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Prohibit them from coming anywhere near me, I suppose! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:PolishMemorialStamp.jpg

File:PolishMemorialStamp.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:PolishMemorialStamp.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:PolishMemorialStamp.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:TollCollectTerminal.jpg is now available as Commons:File:TollCollectTerminal.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:FirstItalianMcDplaque.jpg is now available as Commons:File:FirstItalianMcDplaque.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

An Evening with Fred Astaire

I've added a comment on the discussion page for An Evening with Fred Astaire that I hope you will read. — Walloon (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles Box Set

Your edit to The Beatles Box Set was reverted because your reason does not hold water because the first complete box set of Beatle albums, The Beatles Collection did not include the Magical Mystery Tour album. If you look at the catalogue numbers of the 1987/88 CD reissues, the original British Beatle LPs have catalogue numbers in numerical order from 46435 for Please Please Me to 46447 for Let It Be. EMI had thought long and hard about how to issue the tracks not included in the original British LPs. They eventually decided to issue the American MMT LP with catalogue number 48062 and the two Past Masters (album series) volumes with catalogue numbers 90043 and 90044, respectively. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

World Record scores for various games

Hi ProhibitOnions. I see that you have removed a number of references to world record high scores for various arcade video games, on the basis that these references are cruft. Rather than get into a revert war, I would like to argue that these references should remain in the articles. My contentions are:

• The the world record score on these games is an important and historical piece of information, and is often just a single sentence in these articles (ie hardly pages of cruft).
• The highest score is a non-trivial aspect of these games and is seen important in culture - consider the movie "King of King" which was about the high score on just one game, or "Chasing Ghosts" which featured many games including a number of scores and people in the references you removed. One episode of Seinfeld was centred around a Frogger high score. Look at YouTube, there is a huge interest in high scores, speed runs and the like.
• As well as movies there are many other publications on world record high scores - for example the Guiness World Records organisation publishes a yearly "Gamer's Edition" which is a couple of hundred pages largely dedicated to world record high scores.
• The references to Twin Galaxies are appropriate - Guinness World Records accepts Twin Galaxies as being the official score-keeper for games. Twin Galaxies has been monitoring and authorising high scores for some three decades.
• As many of these games are decades old, what issues around these games have relevance now? Well, I'd be thinking their effect on culture, technical innovation, and the pursuit of the highest scores which still continues to this day. These games rarely get played nowadays as part of a commercial business, they are more played for nostalgia, fun, and the pursuit of high scores.
• It seems that you have focussed on an easy to target aspect of these articles, sighting the high score references as cruft. I wonder then what is and isn't cruft. For example I note the Wacko article has the line "Eliminating a pair of mutants is worth more points than eliminating a pair of non-mutants." - yet this is less crufty than the world record for the game?
• Lastly, I am wondering how you intended to improve the articles? By removing important information whilst leaving the rest of the articles intact? I attempted to re-add the score references and did make further edits and leave out some of the material which I thought may have been a little inappropriate, and yet you have just reverted everything, lock stock and barrel.

NB I was not the person who originally added these references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.77.4 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with high scores being listed in articles about video games. However, they need to be verifiable and notable (most players, and their images, are not), not contain original research, and not represent a conflict of interest. Lastly, I hope you really aren't the person who wrote these, because sockpuppetry is frowned upon.

The high-score sections you refer to were all added by the same person (same odd capitalized heading), and are unsourced ("According to..." is not a source), and indeed very crufty, especially when they include friendly references to Twin Galaxies and its head, or anecdotes about players. (You may notice I left a couple of high-score sections alone that were sourced properly.) Adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and the use of reliable sources such as Guinness will make this a non-issue. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SyngmanRheeOath.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SyngmanRheeOath.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --LarryGilbert (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of deleted page

Could I get a copy of Air travel, climate change, and green consumerism? Ideally with history (i.e. the XML file) but I don't know if that's doable. I want to adapt it for Appropedia: and would like to give proper credit. Thanks! email is my username at appropedia dot org. --Chriswaterguy talk 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:City1stalbumcover.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:City1stalbumcover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:DivisionBellMC.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DivisionBellMC.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good on ya, mate!

...Or as we Yankees would say, you rock man! ;)

Anyway, what a cool idea you had--creating a template for my kids' favorite band, The Wiggles. (As a matter of fact, I hear them in the background as we speak--"Do the Monkey!") I wanted to thank you for actually contributing something valuable to the guys' articles, unlike the vandalism I've had to revert time and time again. I see from your userpage that your son is in treatment for cancer. My kids don't have cancer, but they have special needs, too. So my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. --Christine (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, Christine, and thanks. I hope the template will inspire people to create more Wiggles-related articles (hey, they are just one of the biggest groups in the world!) and maybe even improve their quality-to-cruft ratio. It's a good thing I like the Wiggles myself, because my kids certainly do, several times a day! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Boy, can I relate! Yes, I too know all their songs by heart, and hum them whenever I'm doing things like eat fruit salad (Yummy yummy) or drink a glass of water (Gulp gulp, it's so good for you). I have to tell you, getting The Wiggles to featured article status was really hard! First off, it was my first FA, so I was new to the often-painful process, and so many reviewers just didn't get why they're so important. Yes, there was a bias! I'd appreciate your assistance with all their articles; I worked on them when I was a newbie editor, and it shows. The Cockroaches needs serious attention, for example. Plus, the individual bio articles (which I've noticed that you've worked on today) could use some good copyediting. Thanks again. --Christine (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Xerox NoteTaker.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Xerox NoteTaker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Bility (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

David Byrne of the Talking Heads

Hey ProhibitOnions,

Just wanted to say I think you had a great solution a few days ago to the whole issue of David Byrne's nationality. Saying he's simply "British-born," compounded with that sentence in the intro explaining that he has chosen, of his own volition, not to become an American citizen sounds accurate without necessarily characterizing him as one or the other (which is not easy to do!). Not that it's even that big of a deal, but I just wanted to say well done!

Happy New Year!

-Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.39.35 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks, Matt. Yes, I thought the fact that he's a non-citizen was a notable detail (I remember him taking about it in the Talking Heads days) but I suppose what he isn't is easier to describe than what he is... Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Bell

I'm looking to expand the Mary Bell article - with you being a Geordie i thought perhaps you could be of some assistance. Should we canniblise the Crime Library article on her? I have both of Gitta Sereny's books on her but am too sick at the moment to go through them and turn them into something useful. Paul Austin (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cronet.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cronet.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)