User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive7

Please go to

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)

I have reverted your removal of "low-cost carrier" from

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)

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 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)

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

Your edit to

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? 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)

Thanks for uploading

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

Regarding your page move related to this article name, ABBA is an initialism for each member of the band. This is an exception to

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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:NPA. Your behavior is out of line. ProhibitOnions ^(T)

20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

While you are in a moving mood could you transfer this article to East Germany - matching

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

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)

Hello ProhibitOnions. You blocked me here for an alleged violation of

I am also curios since then

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: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)

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

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

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Hi. Look, we already agreed

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)