User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive7

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

RCA tapecartridge

I just snagged one of these on ebay. I'll take pictures, including a disassembled view. It won't be soon though as I have a trip coming up that I have to prepare for (and after that I'll be away on the trip!). But, probably done within a month. Jeh 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Looking forward to seeing the pictures! I've never actually seen one of these in real life, so I'm pretty curious...

I started a couple other articles in the series (SoundScriber, Gray Audograph, DictaBelt), and if you feel like building up a big collection of obsolete audio equipment and taking pictures, please do! FWIW, when I was a kid, my dad brought home a SoundScriber that had been kept for many years just in case any old discs turned up to be played, and I had a lot of fun playing with it. Don't know what happened to it , though, and didn't take any pictures. Oh well... ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just the cartridge, not the whole machine! But one of the machines was listed at under $30 recently and had no takers... you never know! Jeh 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Weezer album disambiguation

I see you moved the Weezer albums. These albums were in fact used as examples at WP:ALBUM#Naming of how the old disambiguation was a valid alternative. I have now proposed that this policy be changed to make (YEAR album) the only valid disambiguation. Just thought I'd let you know. --PEJL 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and I'd agree with your proposal. Before I renamed these album articles I had a look round to see if there had been any discussion on this and didn't find any, so I went ahead and moved these two to be in line with the majority of the other multiple self-titled albums; I also added links to List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums to the articles to make this clearer. I wasn't sure that this was a common enough phenomenon to have a naming guideline, but using the year has been better in most cases than the improvised titles some people had come with in other cases.

However, I've left Red House Painters alone - they released two albums named after themselves in the same year. I've put this in place of Weezer at the naming guideline. Cheers, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle & North Shields Railway

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I did see some old pictures of the line when looking round the net - but as I'd seen some similar links removed from other pages I didn't add them. I'll see if I can find them again and add them if you think they are useful. DrFrench 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beatleslogo2.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatleslogo2.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already deleted it myself -- it was a failed attempt at a better Beatles logo for the article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my appology

There was no need for me to be uncivil like I did. I have refactored my comments. Please accept my apology. adieu. --CyclePat2 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

meetup

Being a wikipedian in Tyne and Wear, being near Sunderland. You may be intrested in Wikipedia:meetup/Sunderland. Help arrange some plans!. 217.43.213.72 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably won't be able to come, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the info! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

An Evening With Fred Astaire

The Paley Center for Media (formerly The Museum of Television and Radio) has a videotape of "An Evening With Fred Astaire" in their collection. I have been to the New York location several times and viewed the show once.Thomprod 20:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thomprod, thanks for the info regarding AEWFA. (I was on a Wikibreak in a place where I had access only to a painfully slow dial-up, so no Wikipedia for me.) I'll definitely check that out when I'm in NYC next time -- do you know if they had any other ancient videotapes? How was the picture quality? Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, PO. The Museum has many old programs, including some kinescopes that have been copied to video. I was told their viewing copies are Hi-8mm video tape dubs and the originals are kept in a vault outside of New York City. The quality of the copies is quite good, although it's easy to see the limitations of the early cameras and recording equipment. I have viewed the musical productions of Cinderella (TV) and Peter Pan (musical) and lots of US programs from the 1950s and 60s. Regards.Thomprod 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And thanks again for the tip. Now I'm trying to find an excuse to go to NYC with no other agenda. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RogerWaters-album-radiokaos.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RogerWaters-album-radiokaos.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. BigrTex 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

US Airways

I have reverted your removal of "low-cost carrier" from US Airways. You will need to do a better job of explaining (on the talk page, preferably) why we should not consider US Airways an LCC than simply stating "their business model is not one." FCYTravis 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrate that they are. They have used the phrase "low-fares airline" in their advertising. That by itself doesn't make US Airways a low-cost carrier. We don't say "Gillette razors provide the best shave a man can get" or "Coca-Cola is a delicious and refreshing soft drink." Find a third party source, preferably an industry analyst, who states that US Airways is now an LCC. Otherwise, leave it at "airline" and, if you want to see this phrase in the article, later state that US Airways asserts it is an LCC (does it?), without saying it is or isn't. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Espresso

Thanks for moving the page. You might also want to move Talk:Espresso Coffee to Talk:Espresso, as the latter still redirects to the former. Cheers! qwe 02:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, thought I'd done that already. Sometimes it takes a while for the talk page move to go through, for some reason. Anyway, it's now fixed. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for scanning photo of Edward Lee Howard

Thanks for scanning the FBI wanted poster of Edward Lee Howard. Just out of curiosity, how did you come by it? Reservoirhill 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I nabbed it from my local post office when I was a teenager, after it was clear he had defected to the USSR and wasn't coming back. Probably a federal offense of some sort, but a wanted poster for him at the time wasn't going to do much good! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I wonder what it would fetch on ebay. Thanks again. Reservoirhill 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template: Zoos

Why did you revert me without explanation? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Template: Zoos (capitalizing common nouns in a heading) went against WP:MOSHEAD. Unfortunately, the rollback function does not allow for custom edit summaries, but this was a clearly nonstandard heading. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I only use rollback for clear vandalism - too hard to communicate intentions otherwise. WP:MOSHEAD is about headings in articles, not template titles. Anyway, I posted about it at Template talk:Zoos. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at an RFC?

Would you mind looking at an RFC? It is about the WWII in the pacific. Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Request_for_comment_Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II.23Treatment_of_POWs Thanks,--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing this earlier. It seems to press some hot buttons as it were. I'll take a look. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:GesineSchwan.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:GesineSchwan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ach, another one. I keep running into Frau Schwann, perhaps next time I'll ask her to pose for a picture. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good faith and civility

I just noticed (very belatedly!) your reply to my "lecture" to Angr at Talk:Nina Hagen#Birthname. (I'm not sure how I missed this. I may have been too preoccupied with Wikiquote, and let it fall out of the Watchlist range.) To refresh your memory, after I requested reliable sources (since my German isn't great) and Angr provided some details from de:WP articles, I pointed out that WP articles are not reliable sources. Your response was:

Jeff, really. Angr is indeed fluent in German, and hardly needs lecturing about Wikipedia procedure. He was only pointing out to you what the German Wikipedia says; after all, not an unusual thing to do if your own German is "an iffy proposition at best". It's not like he inserted this into an article. While we're pointing out Wikipedia policies, have a look at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 15:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say I was rather surprised by your reaction, especially given that you appear to be quite experienced yourself. My reply to Angr's response was a reasonable (if pedantic) reaction to the perception of a common problem, if one assumes that not everyone knows who Angr is (which I certainly didn't). I feel that your response to mine was unnecessarily condescending and appeared to be an attempt to silence me instead of helping to correct my misapprehension. On the other hand, Angr's next post was a model of civility, acknowledging my point while explaining the unofficial authoritah! ☺ of de:WP, which I can respect while still hoping for proper sources.

I will try to be more careful in the future, but I also hope that you will consider that it is impossible for everyone to know any particular editor, and unwise to assume such knowledge (or to use it to draw conclusions of bad faith and incivility of others). Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being a bit condescending, wasn't I. Well, (belatedly) sorry for that, although to rephrase my point, it's always a good idea to look up who you are talking to. A well-established admin who is also a professional translator of German, as Angr is, isn't likely to make naive mistakes regarding either the language or proper Wikipedia procedure, and knowing this might make your exchanges more productive. On other occasions (see Talk:Voßstraße or Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner, among many others) there have been attempts by users who don't really speak German to weaken articles based on arguments from authority (along the lines of "my cousin in Germany said") or sophistical twisting of Wikipedia policies ("yes, but this is the name in English"). I can only recall that having to deal with numerous instances such as these (which had nothing to do with you) may have had something to do with my lack of patience in this case. Anyway, I do indeed strive to be a nice admin to all, so sorry once again. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BarrieChasePublicityPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BarrieChasePublicityPhoto.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I think I did that one myself, but you never know. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ABBA

Regarding your page move related to this article name, ABBA is an initialism for each member of the band. This is an exception to WP:MOS-TM noted in WP:MOS-CL, unlike Kiss (band), to give an example. If you have any comments, please contact me. Just64helpin 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the name was certainly developed as an initialism, but as it's pronounced as written, there's no real need to treat it as an exception. Abba isn't mentioned as one in either of the guidelines you refer to, and the name is written "Abba" in many mainstream publications, suggesting that there's no problem with following Wikipedia's usual practice here. Abba certainly weren't the first band to create their name this way (see Puhdys, for one), but only the read-it-as-letters crowd (HSAS, BTO, etc) get all caps. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones template

I'm thinking the albums template should be folded into the Stones' main template. It would look big but I've noticed that both template are used on album pages (as seen at the bottom of the Exile on Main St. page), so why not just have one large template? I'm asking you because I saw you commented on the templates' talk page. Stan weller 06:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. The two templates were once the same, but other users thought the Rolling Stones one was too big, and chopped out the albums altogether. This was before templates could be made collapsible. If you would like to merge them again, you'd have my full support. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too good when it comes to the templates. It's amazing the Stones' singles template came out that decent. I was hoping you could if you had any free time. It looks like a lot of work though. Stan weller 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The page who must not be named...

Sorry for the late reply...hmm, I am loath to block him for something like a personal attack because:

- I am kind of involved (I participated on the talk-page last year), so this could be construed as akin to wheel warring - He is kind of uninformed, as is visible from his comment about you being a nationalist German - I'm not really into blocking, as it is supposed to be preventive and not punitive (and what would the block prevent here?) - I also would be accused of being...whatever, Hitler, a German nationalist, a Fairy..you name it.

I advise to try and keep a cool head here (don't let this get to you, as it is so obviously baiting...) I think it is time to bring the whole question up at WP:RM, to get some input from uninvolved users who might be able to see something which we can't anymore (and I mean both sides). Cheers. Lectonar 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brian_Johnson_Steven_Tyler.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brian_Johnson_Steven_Tyler.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and kill it. It didn't add much to the article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling Stones

I started a WP for the Stones. Please join and spread the word. Stan weller 06:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and great idea. I'll have a look. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

please do not vandalise the michael jackson page in the future.Realist2 10:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Realist, please have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your behavior is out of line. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stones template

I went ahead and re-combined the main and album templates for the Stones. Stan weller 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. I'll take a look. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the tours to the template. Is it too much? Most other bands have their tours included, but the Stones have a lot of tours. Stan weller 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, before I saw it I was about to say, Naah, it'll be too much, just add a link to The Rolling Stones tours... -- but it actually looks pretty tidy. Great job! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

but I don't need the encouragement. I should be out getting sun or mowing the lawn or interacting with others of my species. Stan weller 13:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh-heh. I know the feeling... ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

West Germany

Hi. I've just put in a move request for the page that used to be at West Germany; I noticed you'd edited the page and recognised your name as an administrator - I would appreciate hearing your views at the talk page. Many thanks for your time, Knepflerle 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. You are right, and I moved it back. See de:Westdeutschland. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic

While you are in a moving mood could you transfer this article to East Germany - matching North Vietnam, South Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea and of course West Germany. PMA 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I might do just that. We'll see how long it lasts, of course. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

admin

Thank you, PO - I've said no before, but let me think about it. I appreciate the compliment. Tvoz |talk 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. You don't have to, but I thought I'd dangle it under your nose. But if you don't want to, I'll delete the nomination page, and no-one will be the wiser. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR

Hello ProhibitOnions. You blocked me here for an alleged violation of WP:NPOV,WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I don't mind being accused of NPOV regarding Nazi crimes and attempts to whitewash them, but accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR strike me as questionnable. It is especially important for me now as those accusations are used as character assassination tool here. Would you be so kind to provide an explanation what is so original in my "research" with regards to content I added to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn‎ article? Regarding WP:SYNTH accusations, doesn't chapter itself (which I did not introduce) ask to list certain statements from different media which are dealing with discussed topic. Note opening paragraph of the chapter "The media has levelled allegations". I read it as an assumption that content should be provided detailing allegations. Would you be so kind to explain how and why I was wrong in reading this statement? A little one-liner detailing why I was so wrong while collecting content for this chapter that you blocked me but happily ignored editors who called BBC and Simon Wiesenthal Center Russian media would be even better. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also curios since then Simon Wiesenthal Center and National Council for Soviet Jewry became Russian organizations? And if they are not, isn't moving their statements to the article Estonia-Russia relations an WP:OR? And if it is, why are you so tame? I'm sorry for being so insistent, but you (probably acting on a snitch from the group who's involved in repeated personal attacks on yours truly) injected yourself in pretty heated mess and I demand either to clear my name or to apply same uncompromising standards of blocking to all sides in this dispute. I would be happy to supply as many examples of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR from other members of this group as your heart desires. RJ CG 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, ProhibitOnions does not act on advice from snitches. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, no more questions about snitchning. Although I'm still waiting for examples of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR which are so wile as to warrant immediate unilateral actions of admin. This issue is important for me, since your actions are used as character assassination tool here. RJ CG 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions, we've seen each other edits for a very long time even though we've interacted directly very rarely. I am extremely worried by this particular block, specifically on how it was made and handled. Unilateral blocks by admins while a very needed tool to enable the WP's smooth operation is a serious matter and should be threaded carefully. There was no emergency and nothing prevented you from conferring at WP:ANI asking for feedback. If there were any off-wiki communication you received from RJ's opponents inciting you to block him, you should know better than taking them at face value. If it was purely your decision, an editor deserves better than an arrogant justification, the copy/paste of the past justification by another admin. He is also entitled to know a more detailed disclosure of what brought the issue to your attention. Non-emergency blocks aimed at serving a good deterrent are a very sharp and double-edged sword. They should be threaded carefully and not without WP:ANI conferring. Please thread your powers more carefully and in case off-line communications affect your opinion, please recuse yourself from acting on them, unless the very nature of the communication justifies their secrecy (privacy issues, overall danger to WP, etc.)

Please consider now going an extra mile towards an affected editors, non-denial type of communication and taking a great care to avoid any possibility of the good-faithed perception of impropriety. --Irpen 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the occasional e-mail received (there have been, I think, three this year), I do not deal in any sort of "off-Wikipedia communication," and certainly would never be "incited" by such a thing.

I think the other editor who earlier blocked this user said it well enough, and it bears repeating: This kind of tag-team editing is indeed tedious, as well as tendentious. And no, two single-purpose accounts (the other being User:Ilya1166) adding large numbers of edits, ranging from sensible improvements to venom not far from the "eSStonia"-type nonsense one sees on other websites, do not merit a block for the other editors involved (they did receive a warning). Until recently, the article in question was a fairly good example of Wikipedia being able to keep cool in a contentious issue; it shouldn't turn into a nasty, one-sided screed, which is what a short-term block may help to prevent. It may be a lost cause; when I blocked Ilya1166, also for 48 hours, I said "Promise you will [desist from edit-warring] and I'll remove the block." He didn't. The block was upheld. This time I didn't feel so charitable. In this case, as in lamentably many others, there appears to be a total unwillingness on the part of some editors to even consider the points put forward by others. And that goes against, well, everything. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for spelling it out clearly. You, being obviously well-aware of this fray surrounding Estonia (eSStonia remark speaks for itself, I never used anything of this nature in my edits), did not like my contributions so you decided to block me. Well, fair enough. Everybody entitled to his/her own opinions and it is naturally for person to use whatever in his/her power to defend one's opinion. Sorry, but I do have difficulties considering you "impartial" after you blocked me but did not find anything wrong with calling statements of the Simon Wiesenthal Center "Russian accusations". If there's ever was WP:OR this is the biggest one, but no, you're fine with that. RJ CG 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions, did RJ really say "eSStonia" anywhere onwiki? If so, I think calling him to order is warranted, possibly by a block, except you should have stated clearly that it was the reason. I am glad to hear that you and I agree on the "off-Wikipedia communication" issue. Regards, --Irpen 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. I said that some of his and Ilya's edits were "ranging from sensible improvements to venom not too far from" that kind of thing (i.e., heading in that direction but not reaching that level). In other words, they were capable of both constructive edits and unpleasant ranting; I wanted to see more of the former and less of the latter. The block was not, however, predicated on any specific edit, but on the large number of edits and reversions, accompanied by a disagreeable attitude towards other editors, which does not have to happen. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making it abundantly clear. I haven't been blocked for any specific violations of therules you mentioned as pretext for your unilateral and speedy decision. Moreover, "eSStonia nonsence", slipped in this conversation from your keyboard, shows both your awareness of the whole story and your firm support for one side in this row. And (surprise, surprise), you blocked the side which questioned "nonsence" POV with well sourced materials from respected international organizations. Accusation of the large number of edits is even more laughable. I made 8 successive edits in the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article August 23 and the same number of edits August 24, after that I had been blocked. User Termer made 9 edits, after that he summarily moved controversial material (together with materials coming from BBC, NCSJ and SWC) to pretty obscure Estonia-Russia relations‎. And all that is fine and dandy with you. It is rather your general dislike of my views that drove your unilateral decision. Your continuing winking and dancing around instead of responce to very specific questions and refusal to give answers, coupled with direct distortions (I mean questioning Irpen's insistence on answers to questions I asked), create pretty clear picture. You don't have answers to my questions and are unwilling to admit POV background of your decision. To put it bluntly, accusation of WP:OR is plain distortion (and I challenge you to prove me wrong) and accusation of WP:SYNTH is politiclly motivated. RJ CG 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you are taking the "eSStonia" back even without explicitly saying so. Now, could you please answer the rest? He asked several questions here. The editor blocked through a unilateral block (a so called "discretion block") is entitled to ask reasonable questions and receive answers. I don't see him trolling you yet. On top of that please explain an emergency that prevented you from raising this at ANI and seek a community feedback. --Irpen 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And your interest in this is? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My best guess: Irpen is trying to groom RJ CG and M.V.E.i. into his goons so they could do the POV-pushing that he agrees with, but wouldn't want to dirty his own hands with. Other administrators recognising this and preventing RJ CG from continuing his hate campaign would obviously run counter to that purpose, requiring Irpen to find a new prospective goon. Digwuren 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Pet troll grooming by Irpen. Digwuren 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but that's not the answer. Blocking is a necessary tool to ensure Wikipedia's smooth operation. I thought we are just talking like reasonable people here. If you insist instead on playing games about "interests" and demanding policy provisions, I don't see this helpful but here is some.

• WP:BLOCK specifically mentions that the blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions are controversial regardless of the reason for the block.
• It also states the need to bring the block that may seem controversial to the community attention at ANI. Since there was no emergency whatsoever, bringing the proposal to block to the attention of the ANI seemed like a good idea simply because admins who go around with block buttons too much tend to forget the effect the blocks have (or may have) on the editors (both good and bad.)

Now about getting back to the affected editor. You want more policy talk? Here is one more piece:

• "Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner." (this is from InShanee ArbCom.) I hope you can address the issues now.

The picture is this so far: You blocked an editor in good standing by a unilateral admin decision: a so called "discretion block". That by itself is not necessarily evil. There is no sign of emergency yet you did not raise the issue at the ANI for the sanity check. That's already alarming. Now, the editor politely asks you reasonable questions. You avoid answering them in various ways. Neither you seem to come forth with an apology. Demanding an apology that a person does not want to give is silly but asking polite and reasonable questions is certainly not.

I hope you agree that what you call "my interest" here is legitimate. If you insist, we can discuss "my interest" under a separate thread if this is high on your priority. --Irpen 23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If the user is so concerned about being labeled your "pet troll" it's a little odd that you're doing the talking here. Anyway, I stand by my temporary block for tag-team editwarring. Have a nice day. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User in question (yours truly) doesn't understand what should he do to get answers to very specific questions he asked a while ago. I was under impression that specific accusations should be proved by specific examples and not by expression of general dislike of my views, coupled with thinly weiled mudslinging. I was under impression that I should not ask multiple times to provide proof of accusations you made. And, if you feel that your initial politically-driven and false rationale for the block can't stand independent scrutiny (I smell it in persistent refusal to answer my question and in switching to "tag-team editwarring" accusations instead), have guts to admit that you blocked me for "tag-team editwarring" and that your accusations are bogus.RJ CG 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the other user ProhibitOnions blocked because he did not like my edits. RJ CG is absolutely right, Prohibit is on the side of the Baltic editors (which by the way are the only group here that "tag team edit"). Accusations that I am a sock puppet or you are my sock puppet account are ridiculous. He blocked me when I inserted sourced information, and didn't do a single thing to the other Baltic editor (User:Sander Säde) who had just as many edits as me. Instead he left a friendly message to him. "I have blocked the user who repeatedly added dubious sources and POV phrasing to the Bronze Soldier article. However, the article history certainly looks like an edit war. Please see what you can do to avoid this, such as by asking the other user to suggest controversial changes on the talk page first." He calls Jewish organisations dubious sources? I added source material and User:Sander Säde was deleting it! ProhibitOnions POV pushing but not theirs. And the Baltic editors are not POV pushing? They delete sourced material, it's censorship. Here is an example where I reinserted material deleted by User:Sander Säde http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn&diff=152876025&oldid=152875947 - Note all jewish sources.

One of the many examples (an extract from the article):

"It can be noted that on 16 May 2007, only a few weeks after the Bronze Soldier relocation, a newly built Tallinn Synagogue was inaugurated in Estonia in the presence of Israeli Vice-Premier Shimon Peres, the chief rabbis of Israel, Estonia and Russia, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Prime Minister Andrus Ansip and others. The original synagogue, built in 1883, was destroyed in March 1944 during a Soviet air bombing raid on Tallinn, which at the time was occupied by Nazi Germany."

And then User:Sander Säde adds, "Mostly civilian targets were destroyed by the air raid." - Is he trying to make it seem like the "evil" Soviets were aiming for civilians? Of course mostly civilians die when you bomb a city, read Bombing of Berlin in World War II where the US and UK bombings mostly killed civilians. What does this have to do with opening a monument again? This is more POV pushing than anything I ever did. Where was ProhibitOnions? If you look at the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article if a non-Baltic editor evens tries to change something they are swarmed upon by a gang of Baltic editors, their edits reverted/changed/euphemised, yet ProhibitOnions only punishes the non-Baltic editors. The only "tagteam edit warring" is by Baltic editors, which you will see if you look at the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn history. It is always one non Baltic editors against a swarm of Baltic editors. I would like to know why I was blocked by ProhibitOnions. And if you say "POV pushing", give examples because everything I added was sourced, and I will also give you examples of the other editor. And I have never said "eSStonia". ProhibitOnions is a corrupt administrator, can't something be done about such people?--Ilya1166 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ilya, please do not argue your edits in themselves. The block itself is less of an issue here, although it is at least questionable, could use a warning and some ANI conferring. The more grievous issue is failure to explain and an arrogant stance towards the editors who politely ask reasonable questions. Also alarming, that this is not the first instance of PO's questionable blocks. Neither he is free from history of pushing the OR into the articles himself. I will draft something on this separately when I have a little more time. --Irpen 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, if that's your idea of "politely asking reasonable questions" I'd be curious what you would consider impolite or irrational. I don't feel a need to respond to loaded questions or substanceless accusations, such as the above, from single-issue editors, or indeed from anyone else, if I suspect they are not working in good faith. If these two can't deal with a cooling-off block for an indisputable case of editwarring, that's their problem; in neither case was it their first block for this behavior, and I even offered to remove the block for a promise to stop. (And yes, they do exhibit sockpuppet-like behavior; if you'd really like to "draft something when you have a little more time" this is something that ought to be examined more closely.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The more I read your answers the more I am alarmed by your being so unfamiliar with the basic rules outlined in WP:BLOCK. And this is not the first interaction we have over similar matters.

Where is a "substanceless accusation" in RJ's entry? In what way is it impolite? He asked you to show where exactly is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in his edits that was cited as the reason of the block. Note that OR and SYNTH are content issues, normally not a reason to block. So the content-related OR/SYNTH behavior must have seemed to you so grievous as to warrant the block for an overall disruption, I presume. Yet, you continue to refuse to answer. Perhaps you will at this point.

Next, you mention that being a "cooling-off block". I hoped that in the course of our communication here you took 3 minutes to look at WP:BLOCK as you obviously have a vary vague idea of what it says. If you did, you would have seen that it explicitly mentions "cool-down blocks" as a horrible no-no.

You "suspect" they are not working in "good faith". No good fauth can only imply that you have an evidence to the contrary. Instead your action is "Suspect" → block?

You invoke "sockpuppet-like behavior". You even left this accusation in the user's permanent block log. Yet, while they were blocked you did not take the effort to spend five minutes to compile a trivial WP:RFCU. If hit positive, it would end the matter with a permaban of at least one (or both) accounts. Instead you voiced this "suspicion" yet again and fail to act on it.

This altogether adds up to too much for a responsible admin. I hope you will now file an RFCU to settle the socking issue. I also hope, you will finally explain to RJ in what way his edits for which you blocked him add up to the grievous block-warranting abuse of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as you repeatedly claim and refuse to elaborate. You took back eSStonia but still said nothing on OR/SYNTH. --Irpen 08:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I never "took back 'eSStonia'" as you put it; as you know perfectly well, Irpen, I never accused anyone of using the term (your English is not that poor, as your evident love of rhetorical traps indicates). If you would like me to permablock both users for sockpuppetry, I shall do so; if you know something more than I do, let me know. I was hoping they themselves would do something to convince me they are not the same person. The "pet troll" accusations on another page seem to indicate that other users suspect your own involvement; if you'd really like to take yourself out of the running you could add your own name to theirs when you file a report on WP:RFCU. Gotta work now. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I was hoping they themselves would do something to convince me they are not the same person." I was under the impression that burden of proof is on the accuser. Now you're squarely shifting it to the accused to clear their names. I'd like to see a paragraph in WP rules saying it's OK for admin to accuse others of sockpuppeting and leave it to them to clear their names. I'd also like to remind you that you failed to provide proof for your accusations. Being newbie in WP, I'd like to ask what is standard way here to appeal admin's decision? I couldn't file motion to unblock since I became aware of the block AFTER it expired (I rarely if ever use wiki on weekends). With faint hope to hear answers, RJ CG 12:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbie? Since when? Digwuren 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since 18 June 2007, as evident from my edit history. Next time, try to check user's edit history before asking trivial questions. RJ CG 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! Either RJ CG or Irpen could have asked for a block review via an unblock request template, rather than harrassing the blocking admin here on his personal talk page. Martintg 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression that "unblock request" avenue is reserved for the active blocks. As I said, the block in question started and expired within the time of my absence. Is my assumption wrong? RJ CG 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

As I have done in front of the Arbitration Committee, I'm hereby expressing my support to ProhibitOnions' assessment of the situation, and the remedy chosen. It may be considered unfortunate, though, that the block ran past weekend, where RJ CG usually doesn't edit, though, and consequently had limited preventive utility.

I'm also condemning Irpen's actions in trying to protect a hateful troll from appropriate consequences by harassing the administrator who administered these consequences. Digwuren 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the WP:AN thread, I am extending my condemnation to Ghirlandajo's actions. The reason is same, but he's far more capable at harassing administrators than Irpen will ever be, and thus, deserves separate credit. Digwuren 10:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I'm strongly opposing sorry but insistent attempts of the Baltic users to drag this situation into ArbCom's process, initiated and supported by numerous editors who had misfortune to clash with any member of this group and experience the wrath of coordinated mudslinging from other members. Unless you consider ProhibitOnions to be a member of your group, his unproven accusations against me and other editor remain personal matter between me and ProhibitOnions (or between 3 of us, including Ilya, as ProhibitOnions explicitly draws connection between us and accuses us of being sockpuppets, while not bothering himself with proving his hollow accusations). Although I do have to agree with you that his stubborn refusal either to withdraw his accusations or to provide proof places him suspiciously close to the POV your group pushes. But again, unless ProhibitOnions is willing to explicitly side with your group, I'd like to keep this dispute unrelated. RJ CG 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it strange how RJ CG's English seems to alternate between quite mediocre and highly eloquent, like, say, Petri Krohn uses...

Also, I fully support RJ CG's block. As for Ilya's block, I found it undeserved at first [1], as he seemed to be more reasonable and willing to discuss instead of pointless warring - until he promised to continue edit warring after being unblocked. I see no "political favoritism" in either block, as I was also warned from edit warring - not blocked because to a lesser degree of involvement and more substantiated edits, I presume. Sander Säde 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it strange but do find it mildly amusing that you guys are patently unable to get an idea of differnt people having different opinions. This inability results in recurring nightmares of a vile unified Dark Force attacking you under the direction of a single "power". Of course, this Dark Force exists only in your mind, so I don't even consider your thinly weiled accusation (that I somehow collaborate with Petri behind the scenes) as something worth responding. It just illustrates sickness of your nightmares and is more of your problem. RJ CG 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

It may perhaps be interesting to note that RJ CG has been blocked twice more within the less than two weeks since ProhibitOnions' block: for 96 hours by Deskana, then for 119 hours by Stephanie. Digwuren 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AN thread: User:ProhibitOnions vs. anti-Fascist editors (redux)

Just notifying you of thread involving you on administrative noticeboard: User:ProhibitOnions vs. anti-Fascist editors (redux), started by User:Ghirlandajo. Sander Säde 06:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious! Thanks, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For rescuing List of films with similar themes and release dates. I always liked this article and I'm upset that it got deleted while I wasn't paying attention. Remember 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was quite unhappy about that - I was busy when they voted to kill it (by the narrowest of margins) and I only found out later. I suppose we could always re-create it. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving bilateral relations articles

Hi. Look, we already agreed on the noticeboard that any move of bilateral relations articles to the superimposed style (the one unused in geopolitical jargon) needs to undergo a centralized discussion; so, please, stop moving them until this is undertaken. Thank you in advance. El_C 03:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see this thread for a discussion on your page moves. — Moe ε 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

These were listed at WP:RM without reference to any naming dispute. Please relist them if you disagree with the move. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)