User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive1

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:Current polls
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 13:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

9/11 rumors

Thanks for your help on the "9/11 Rumors" page. It needed a little work. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 19:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with onions:) ?

What's wrong with onions:) ?

I don't like them, that's all!

What about leeks? Shallots? Ramps? Inquiring minds want to know! -- Coneslayer 15:17, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Join the club. And that some people seem to think they're an essential ingredient of certain foodstuffs when they're not. Sometimes to the extent of excluding them from the description regardless of where it ranks in the ingredients list. -- Smjg 18:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, in some states it can be illegal to defame a vegetable. Better watch out for that Texas Onion Police. Collabi 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please look at article's talk pages

Re your changes to Kiev and Hero-city. This was discussed at respective talk pages. You of course may disagree, but please respond there before re-introducing of what has been reverted once. And please do not take this personally.Irpen 06:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Altering temperature ranges

If you feel the need to add a Celsius equivalent, or even a Kelvin equipment, to a temperature range stated on Wikipedia by all means do so.

Removing the Fahrenheit ranges (especially when stated in the source material) is however vandalism.Enviroknot 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. The source material obviously used an unnecessarily precise conversion from degrees Celsius into Fahrenheit to begin with. The other units in the text were metric. I agree, it would have been nice to leave perhaps one Fahrenheit temperature for sake of comparison, but the article only made the point that cats have a marginally higher blood temperature than humans. No need to clutter that up with obsolete units. --ProhibitOnions 23:27, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

There's nothing obsolete about Fahrenheit.Enviroknot 01:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The whole uses Celsius so what's the point. Stop American cultural imperialism.

Weronika, World War Two, etc.

Hi - the text you added to The Double Life of Véronique is interesting, but I'm not sure it should be in the article unless it's a common interpretation by other critics. Is it? See Wikipedia:No original research. ←Hob 04:11, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Yes, certainly in Poland. This should be mentioned precisely because many non-Polish critics, being unfamiliar with Polish history, don't get it. Contrast Marek Haltof, who mentions this interpretation, with the American Annette Insdorf, who does not. You could also look at the comments on IMDB, the Weronika=Poland interpretation is widespread among Polish users.

FWIW, the VHS box and publicty materials for the British edition of the film said Weronika lived in Prague(!). Which, I suppose, shows how much even the distributors know.

This is not "original research" but evidently many people, and many English-speaking critics, simply think they're watching an incomprehensible, atmospheric "French" film.

--ProhibitOnions 09:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Then I think it would be good to mention some of the above in the article, for context. Even just a brief phrase like "Film critic Marek Haltof, like many Polish viewers..." Without any attribution, it does look like Wikipedia is expressing an opinion. (p.s. that Prague thing is hilarious.) ←Hob 19:15, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding... Of course you're right about citing reviews, unfortunately I don't have my Kieślowski library with me, but I'll try to look up some Polish reviews of the film when I have some time.

Pugacheva

Can you tell me what other sources did you see? I saw only info in forums so far Vorash 19:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good question, I thought we had some other sources listed, I'll see if I can find some. --ProhibitOnions 22:47, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Philippines switch to the left?

I would recommend that this comment on Rules of the road be removed. There is no evidence to support it - the only relevant info you can find online is copied from Wikipedia. It's true that the Philippines does now get a lot of used cars imported from Japan (as does Myanmar/Burma, which also drives on the right) but these may be converted to LHD. Plus the Philippine government is coming under pressure to ban used imports.

The country doesn't share a land border with any of its neighbours, so there'd be no advantage in changing over. Quiensabe 10 June 2005 20:13 UTC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances

Should onions be added to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances? Empirical evidence indicates that they are a potent mood-altering substance. Their effects are so strong, some people appear to be conditioned to cry just by being around them, similar to Pavlov's dog. 24.54.208.177 02:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh-heh! ProhibitOnions

Downey McDonald's

Thanks for correcting the info. I was using the material from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which conflicted with what was in the Wikipedia's McDonald's's article timeline. I was planning to spend some time today to try to find out which version was correct, but you beat me to it. Again thanks. BlankVerse ∅ 07:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing. Next time I'm in LA, I'm going to visit Downey and its historic McDonald's (whenever that is). Ray Kroc spent his life implying, that the McDonald brothers' innovations were really his idea, but what he was was a tireless franchiser who realized just how big McD's could be. But the Downey restaurant shows that all the main ideas were already in place. It seems that after his widow's death, McDonald's Corporation is coming round to a more balanced view of its own history.

Nice rewrites...

...on Mother Theresa. Keep it up. Paul Klenk 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't rename articles that have been listed for deletion.

The AFD notice clearly asks editors not to rename articles that have been listed for deletion, as does the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Yet you renamed Bryan johnson despite that. As a result of your doing that, we have the messy situation where the same article now has two deletion discussions ongoing in parallel. Preventing this sort of mess is exactly why the instruction is there in the first place. Please read the notice and follow its instructions in future. Uncle G 17:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, sorry, but shouldn't you (or someone) have corrected the spelling of the article before nominating it for deletion?

• An editor who nominates an article for deletion wants it deleted. Given that, xe isn't going to be renaming it. Xe wants the article to be deleted. Uncle G 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oi!

Hows about a little communication rather than simply deleting my contributions? (Yes, I know I probably should have listed them on the talk page before adding them, but they come from a decent source, despite you and Necrothesp's excessive objections). This is not an edit war, but the current state of affairs with all these US/UK English pages can't go on can it? Do we (I and others) have to start our own page to have the full alphabetised list, I wonder?! Have a read of the debate going on in the talk pages. It takes one to know one 15:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It was a simple matter: Words that are the same but have different meanings, or are spelled slightly differently, do not belong in this article. ProhibitOnions 13:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Betty Mahmoody

Could you shed some light on why you applied that NPOV tag to the Betty Mahmoody article? The text needs some clean up, but what I'm reading (content) seems rather neutral. Stu 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Stu, I added it because the user Sir Jeremy has an evident axe to grind. He changed "escaped from Iran" to "left Iran illegally" and "The movie is considered, by Iranians, as a propaganda movie against Iranian culture," neither of which is NPOV, and did similar things to the Not Without My Daughter page. I removed some of his edits to the latter and it seems OK to me at present, though I have left the tag in place.

I suspect Sir Jeremy is a sock puppet, as his only contributions have been these and providing the only keep vote in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Smear_Campaign_against_Iran. ProhibitOnions 13:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for clearing that up. I thought the phrase "left Iran illegally" was a bit odd. Hopefully, we've helped the article for the better and it will stay NPOV. Stu 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ich Bin Ein Berliner

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. It's a general alert to the community to try to guide this prolific editor away from the dark side. (you may know of him for his contributions to Ich bin ein Berliner). -Willmcw 04:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we all had our little lists of usernames. It turned out they overlapped and so became one big list. Thanks for your patience with other editors, and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks again for making the one big list from all of our little ones! ProhibitOnions 10:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Hi, just noticed ur edit on Mother Teresa abt Chatterjee's criticism of Hitchens. I think it wd be great if u can add a reference to that (it can prevent unnecessary reverts). -Gurubrahma 09:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add one because Chatterjee mentions his unhappiness with the Hitchens film on his personal site, which is already linked to in the article; scroll down to the bottom. We could of course make the reference clearer if necessary. But anyway, thanks for pointing this out. ProhibitOnions 20:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Impostors

You do realize, don't you, that the similarly named account can & should be immediately blocked as an "Impostor"? Just checking in case you didn't. Someone created PaulKlenk (I am Paul Klenk) and the admins shut down that acount with prejudice. paul klenk ^talk 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul! I expected that one of the admins would have blocked this impostor username during the discussion of Shran's vandalism and sockpuppetry, but as this did not happen, I have added it to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts. I hope someone will take care of this quickly. Regards, ProhibitOnions 10:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the user was already blocked and I hadn't noticed (Bad IE cache!), but no harm done, he's now been blocked twice for two different reasons, so everyone can see how naughty he's been... ProhibitOnions 12:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Compact disc

What's so "erroneous" about CD5? I guess it's obsolete + inexact, like Fahrenheit, huh?

—Wiki Wikardo

Yep, it was another lame example of marketers trying to "protect" American consumers from the metric system. But more to the point, "CD5" was not an official designation for the 12-cm CD. ProhibitOnions 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nalewka

Re: [1], the ones I make at home are 40%-50%, so it depends mostly on the taste. Also, you should not confuse nalewka (tincture based on vodka or spirit, usually strong) with "nalewka", which is used as a synonym to "cheap wine" or "Polish wine", that is all sorts of cheap cocktails available in every shop in Poland. While the latter usage prevails in shops, it is by no means representative to nalewkas. Halibutt 10:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, homemade nalewka = vodka with flavor. I know, I've made it myself. Whatever you think of the quality of products available, the name is used to refer to flavored liqeurs with a wide range of alcohol content. Those around 20 percent are not necessarily "cheap wine"; some are relatively expensive. However, because of this use of the word, nalewka cannot be considered a subset of vodka per se.

Personally, I think the nalewka debate doesn't belong on the vodka page, but should be given its own, as it is a drinks category of specific national interest: Nalewka. How about it? ProhibitOnions 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. :) Halibutt 12:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice one! Na zdrowie!ProhibitOnions 13:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

moving pages

G'day ProhibitOnions,

I've just finished undoing and then redoing your page move of Jamster! and Jamba!. You look like a pretty experienced user (may've been around longer than me!), so I assume you're familiar with the "move" tab at the top-right of most articles. Using the "move" tab is the only way an article should be moved: that way, the page history is preserved. Copy and paste moves, like yours, disrupt Wikipedia's automatic record-keeping and violate the GFDL (all authors must be credited, with a diff explaining their contributions).

If there's a page in the way, preventing you from doing a move properly, then please just ask an admin or use Wikipedia:Requested moves instead of just copying and pasting. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask at my talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but the move was blocked by the other redirect page; moving the text from one page to the other was a quick fix, as the company was listed under its US alias rather than under its real name. Thanks for fixing it properly. ProhibitOnions 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. I needed to find out how to fix this sort of thing anyway, so you provided the necessary spur. Regarding your reasoning: please remember that cut-and-paste moves violate the GFDL because we are no longer crediting an article's authors for their work. If you need any help with page moves in the future, feel free to ask me (I've got experience now ;-)). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa and okey-dokey. Cheers! ProhibitOnions 13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Pankow (band)

The article at Pankow (band) is unreferenced and unverifiable as things stand. Please consider adding references to it, in particular to support the assertions marked ^{Citation needed} on the page. Stifle 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Stifle, I only started writing it twenty minutes ago! Give me a chance!

As for verifiability, the text is a) largely based on the German Wikipedia, and b) doesn't deal with opinions, just band line-ups and dates, which are to be found on their albums and in online music articles. I'll add this information as I get to it. Since I'm singlehandedly writing the articles about most of the main East German rock bands, it's likely that there'll be some rough edges on some of these articles for a while. Of course I'll add some sources, but let me finish writing the article first. ProhibitOnions 13:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. One of my main activities on Wikipedia is reducing band vanity, which creates many Wikipedia articles which then have to go through AFD. I mistakenly considered this was band vanity due to the presence of "well-known band", and the like. However, the page does remain unverifiable due to lack of references - see WP:V.

I was trawling the newpages at the time, it's reasonable to say that I was rather hasty. Stifle 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'm more interested in documenting the cultural phenomenon of Ostrock in the English Wikipedia. The gushy fan prose, if that's what it is, comes from my overly quick translation of the German; as I wrote some of the other articles myself (e.g., Puhdys, Silly (band)), I'll be fixing them repeatedly as I go. None of the present German articles on the subject is particularly strong. ProhibitOnions 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to say thanks for contributing to the article on Silly (band). I started the article a while ago, but info on them is hard to find this side of the Atlantic. I wish I could help more, but my understanding of German is somewhat limited, and most of the sources are in German. I will do what I can to organize sections, etc. --TexasDex 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Famous Nixer

Words of wisdom include: Do not feed the trolls - Dbachmann on Nixer

Nixer's revert wars are well known now. The only thing that could save us is an ArbCom decision which limits his reversions to one a day or something like that. You may want to investigate his Russian ID and see how he has written the articles there (a Babel fish translation should give you a few clues). I acted as an advocate for Nixer a few weeks ago when he got himself in trouble over excessive reverts. When it was all over, I asked him to be careful when reverting. I now see that he is back to his old tricks. Do tell me, has he tried that 4 reverts in 26 hours trick of his on you yet? Izehar (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, he certainly has. Dogmatism and pedantry make an unhelpful combination, don't they. Let me know if I can help in future... ProhibitOnions 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Puhdys

I'm the one who requested an English version of this article, thanks a lot for starting it/writing most of it. I've recently started to listen to some of their music and was curious about the history behind it, so thanks again! Tev 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear it! I'm only about halfway through the article text, and I'll add some pictures, possibly bringing over the German article ones. BTW, I'm also glad to hear the Puhdys have at least one other English-speaking fan! Unfortunately, there's almost nothing about them available in English, and so (as with some of the other articles about East German artists) there's a certain amount of you'll-have-to-trust-me-on-this in the use of exclusively German-language sources. ProhibitOnions 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well as I said, I know very little about them, so anything you can add is greatly appreciated. I look forward to the additions! Tev 19:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually hugely impressed with the article so far, especially considering that you wrote it single-handedly. I can't find a single thing to complain about in it, and it certainly gives me a much better idea of the band's history. I'll make sure to check in to see how it progresses from here! Tev 00:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to congratulate you on the incredible job you've done on this article, it'd be a very good article if it were done by a group of people, but it's essentially been written completely by you. So congratulations, you did a very good job! Tev 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that! Glad you liked it.

I just hope the large edit count by me alone (over the course of six weeks) doesn't "count" against me in the eyes of some Wikipedians. (I won't name names, but in the case of an East Germany-related stub I wrote, someone added {cite} tags to it less than ten minues after I had begun it, and again a month later; it was their sole contribution. The shame was, it was a German-speaking Wikipedian who could have helped write the article.)

Anyway, Puhdys is now in a complete state, as are Silly (band) and Tamara Danz, although since someone added a page for the Silly album Liebeswalzer, I suppose the other five studio albums might follow. Next up for me is improving City (band), as well as beginning Karat (band) and Renft, the latter being important as they were persecuted by the East German state (Gerulf Pannach was secretly exposed to high doses of X-rays while under Stasi interrogation; he died of cancer a few years ago).

One thing I left out of the Puhdys article is that there have been rumors that Peter Meyer was, for a time, a Stasi informant. According to said rumors, he was reluctant and wasn't very helpful; nothing has ever been proved, and the band have denied this. I left this out, although the rumors themselves sometimes appear in print. ProhibitOnions 10:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with leaving that reference out unless there has been some sort of confirmation. Anyone in the spotlight is bound to be hit by rumours, some true and some untrue. Being in a country with stricter controls on freedoms than others just means that the rumours are more serious. If you do ever decide to put it in, maybe it would be sometime to put under a trivia section? Anyways, thanks again, and if you ever need help with some (provided it isn't in German!) just leave a message on my talk page; I owe you! Tev 05:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"disinterest" or "uninterest"?

Thank you for admonishing me in the Sesame Street article; uninterest is, indeed, a word. At the time I made that statement, I had checked an online dictionary and found no definition listed. I probably misspelled it (maybe too much wine that night?); a definition exists there now, and so I apologize. The word "disinterest" is defined by many online dictionaries as "impartial", "lack of interest or concern" and "indifference". I am certain that you are incorrect in stating that I "misused" the term. It's my pleasure to work with you in Wikipedia. --RogerK 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, if Sesame Street generated a spirit of impartiality in its young viewers, this would be no bad thing. Regards, ProhibitOnions 08:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Have no idea what your reply meant. The word was related to the adult viewer's involvement.--RogerK 04:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special

Can you elaborate on what agreement CTV had with NBC to air the full special in the 90's? Thanks. The Wookieepedian 10:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No agreement in the 90s, it was just that in the 1970s, CTV sourced much of its primetime lineup from NBC, while the CBC took over CBS programming; sorry about the unclear edit summary. Along with the CTV logo onscreen, this should be reason enough to obviate the "we think it might have been on CTV" statement that was previously in the text. ProhibitOnions 10:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ick bin ooch een Berliner

Hi, just so you know, I've made Category:Wikipedians in Berlin, in case you'd like to add yourself. --Angr (tɔk) (in Moabit) 13:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, especially if there turn out to be more than two of us! Regards, ProhibitOnions 14:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know there are more than two of us here at en:, but I haven't been very good about advertising the category to the others yet. --Angr (tɔk) 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Barn star

		An Award
		I award this Barnstar to User:ProhibitOnions for his excellent contributions Silly and other articles about East German music. --TexasDex 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Belle Stars

Hi, you're doing a great job with the Belle Stars article. I have discovered that the "original" text was blatantly stolen and copied from [2]. Just thought I'd let you know, because as you rewrite it, you should be really ruthless and convert it all into your own words. Don't know if this site has any copyright on it, but changing it as much as possible so that nothing is left of it, would be great. cheers Rossrs 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! If I'd realized that I would have blanked the whole page and started again! Thanks for letting me know about this.

Anyway, I'll take a look at it later on to see what I can do to change it to remove any remaining passages that are too close to the original. Don't let me stop you from doing the same... Regards, ProhibitOnions 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankfurt ad/O

However close they are, there is no reason to put the Polish name in- it's plain irrelevant. Ksenon 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kindly refer things like this to the article's talk page if you're going to make changes that are likely to be controversial. Regards, ProhibitOnions 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ac/Dc

OK, I redirected Ac/Dc to AC/DC. Apparently, I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete the Ac/Dc article. Alex 101 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully an admin will clear that up at some point. ProhibitOnions 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: your Coca-Cola revert

While "Coke" is an abbreviation for Coca-Cola, that abbreviation has been popularly used as a synecdoche for all cola products (as Kleenex is to tissue, Xerox is to photocopy, etc.). This was why the Coca-Cola Company trademarked the word, and why the explanation was appended to the term's introduction in the article. Coke's use as a synecdoche is actually cited as an example in the Synecdoche article you referred me to. Adhall 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Coke" isn't a synecdoche for "Coca-Cola," though, which is what was implied by the original phrasing (The beverage is widely referred to as Coke, a synecdoche eventually trademarked by the company). The Synecdoche article cites "'coke' for soda" (sic) as an example, which is a different matter; in some regions, such as the southern U.S., the word has become near-genericized, and "a Coke" can indeed be taken to mean "a soda." True enough, this usage is a form of synecdoche, but it is far from universal, and is hardly one of the most important details about the product for the first paragraph.

You re-added the word to the intro thus: The beverage is widely referred to as Coke, a nickname that was trademarked by the company after becoming a popularly used synecdoche for all cola brands — the latter part of which is incorrect. The Coca-Cola Company trademarked "Coke" in 1945 after it had long become a popular nickname for Coca-Cola itself; this was the first dual trademark, hence "Ask for 'Coca-Cola' by its full name" [3]; there was evidently much debate within the company about how to deal with this because of the unsavory association with the other "coke," cocaine; the company eventually gave up on persuading people to use the "correct" name (FWIW, they are now conducting a similar, losing, battle in Germany and elsewhere against the popular term "Cola light" to refer to "Coke light," the local name of Diet Coke).

I think you may have conflated this with Coca-Cola's earlier lost battles about the term "cola," which obviously did become a term "for all cola brands" despite numerous Coca-Cola Company lawsuits.

A problem is, as my hidden comment within the article suggests, is that about 50 years of history are missing from the article, during which some of the most important events in the history of Coke happened, including the removal of cocaine from the coca leaves, the worldwide expansion, WWI, much of WWII, Coke's famous advertising campaigns and slogans, and indeed the trademarking of "Coke."

But anyway, I don't see any reason why we should retain the reference to "synecdoche" in the first paragraph. Regards, ProhibitOnions 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there -- thanks for the thoughtful reply. I originally took from your revert comments that we were just arguing semantics, when in fact the latter of my two revisions wasn't correct, and both of which were certainly out of place. The facts that the term "Coke" has prevalently (not universally) been used as a synecdoche for all soft drinks, and that the company has proactively addressed that prevailing usage in fear of the term's genericide (hence "Ask for 'Coca-Cola' by its full name"), probably both have their places this article (and again, I agree, not in the introduction). As you said, this article passes over many significant parts of Coca-Cola's history. It wasn't my intention to insert misleading or false information, and I appreciate your removing it. Thanks again, Adhall 09:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bacon number

hi could you explain a part of an Bacon number article, table "Actors with record largest finite Bacon number by year", i dont understand what a column "record" means, there are for example parts like "all", "all 8s" - what does that mean? im thanslating into polish version, answer into my anonymous page if you can :)

I'm not sure either. Remind me if I don't get back to you about this. Cheers, ProhibitOnions 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you !!!

Thank you for welcome me, and for your comments. I have a cuesttion. What is the best way for namming files that i wish want to upload, or if there are conventions for naming files ? Juan Scott 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria seem to be: Make it relevant to the subject, and make it a unique filename. I'll have a look round the Wikipedia guidelines to see if I can find some more specific guidelines to tell you.

Anyway, hope you enjoy Wikipedia! ProhibitOnions 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I was procrastinating earlier and noticed your name on the list of non-admins with high edit counts, and noticed that you were listed as being interested in adminship. I seem to remember coming accross you before somewhere - don't recall where - and I guess your name stuck in my head :). Have looked through your contributions and I think you'd be a real benefit to Wikipedia as an admin.

Anyway, if you fancy it:

Just thought I'd note as I forgot to sign - posted this at about 14:10 UTC on 5th March Robdurbar 16:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the vote of confidence, Robdurbar. I accept your gracious nomination. I'll try to answer the questions later tonight.

Best wishes, ProhibitOnions 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, well its for that sort of reason that I think these nominations have no real time limit. Get well soon! Robdurbar 12:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Airplane

I disagree with your accessment of the RCA/BMG CDs. When you mention that Modern Times has not been released on CD, you are talking about a Jefferson Starship album, not a Jefferson Airplane album. My point was about BMG continually reissuing Jefferson Airplane material. (Besides, it is my understanding that Modern Times was issed on CD in Europe.)

If RCA did not constantly re-issue this material, why do I own three different copies of the JA albums from the 1960s on CD? I have the original CDs (issued in the 1980s), the "remastered" CDs of Jefferson Airplane Takes Off and Surrealistic Pillow (issued in the 1990s) which include stereo and mono versions of every track, and the newly remastered copies (released a year or so ago) with extra "bonus tracks." That is at least two copies of each album with a third copy of the group's first two efforts. --MCB 3/6/2006

Hello, MCB, and thanks for writing. Please consider getting yourself a username.

I don't know if you were following this in the 1980s, but RCA did a thoroughly shoddy job of re-releasing the Airplane catalog. By 1986-88, the entire back catalog of most other major artists had been properly remastered and released by other labels, often with bonus tracks. RCA, on the other hand, had only released Surrealistic Pillow (with horrible sound) and a long series of compilations that simply repackaged The Worst Of Jefferson Airplane. 2400 Fulton St in 1987 was the first sign that they might be planning to do something with the back catalog, but it was not followed by re-releases, despite selling reasonably well.

Anyone who wanted Crown Of Creation on CD before 1990 had to buy the Mobile Fidelity version, which sounded much better than RCA's releases but cost a lot of money. And when RCA finally did release some of the JA albums, they were made from LP masters, not the original tapes, and the mastering job was so poor that they recalled Jefferson Airplane Takes Off and After Bathing At Baxter's, something that no other major label has ever had to do. For the record, I bought these CDs and took part in the recall; for example, the tape speed at the beginning of "Two Heads" speeded up and slowed down, and the album cover on Takes Off cropped the words "Takes Off." (Allmusic refers to this obliquely here.)

Despite this, Bark and Long John Silver were not among the albums released, and it took till the mid-1990s (I think 1994) until they were; only then were all the main Airplane albums available. By then, RCA had taken interest in JA, and begun to release the CDs again, this time paying more attention to the mastering. So those of us who already bought them had to spend the money again to get CDs that actually sounded all right. And a decade later, they did the same thing with the bonus tracks, to generate further revenue from the series. Meanwhile, other albums from the Jefferson catalog remain unreleased.

(Besides, it is my understanding that Modern Times was issed on CD in Europe.)

No, it wasn't, and that still wouldn't let RCA off the hook. Modern Times is still part of the Grunt back catalog, and has never been released in the U.S. or Europe. It was only released on CD in Japan, an expensive and hard-to-find import if you are not Japanese. There are several other albums related to the Airplane that have never been released, such as Slick's Software, Wrecking Ball, and Dreams; and Kantner's Planet Earth Rock'n'Roll Orchestra. The Slick solo albums (apart from Software) were released on minor labels in Japan and are near-impossible to find. PERRO has never been released on CD. (I have a pirate CD of it; there must be some demand.) The Jefferson Starship albums that were the first to be released on CD, namely Winds Of Change and Nuclear Furniture, have never been released since, and are now worth lots of money.

At least they finally released Manhole and Baron Von Tollbooth And The Chrome Nun in the past five years in reasonably good editions (no bonus tracks, though, and there are signs the master tapes had degraded). But the Best Of Grace Slick package from 1998 suggests that RCA/BMG had long been sitting on the master tapes, but decided to go with another compilation instead, as they had done in the 1980s with the Airplane catalog. ProhibitOnions 10:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting in my RFA. Although you chose not to support my request, the final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. I appreciate your comments and will try to take them on board. Stifle 17:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it ended before I had a chance to change my "neutral for now" vote to one for support. Congratulations! ProhibitOnions 18:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Please do consider writing more. I'm serious about this. To mention only the example on your page, if (say) all the Tyne and Wear Metro stations can have a page of their own, then so should the railway stations in Ireland. ProhibitOnions 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

FYI- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa -Will Beback 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

At it again, is he? Thanks for the info, let me know if I can help. Regards, ProhibitOnions 12:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If there's anything you can add to the incident report, that'd help. -Will Beback 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"because Sarah says so."

Thanks--I like it when people know their place! lol :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh-heh. You had me at "delete"... ProhibitOnions 14:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

copied from Talk:Rock Pigeon

I propose renaming the article Rock pigeon and lowercasing all references in the text (thus rock pigeon), making it compliant with Wikipedia policy, unless there is a strong ornithological reason not to do so. ProhibitOnions 20:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

not again! - for years now the agreed standard for bird species' articles has been capitalisation, for reasons discussed at length in the past. More than two thousand bird articles have the caps format, with sometimes hundreds of links from each article as well (see list of hummingbirds or dove. If you are not happy with the long-standing consensus, please raise it on the ToL discussion page. jimfbleak 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, I have replied on the talk page. ProhibitOnions 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit brusque, and you didn't even change the case unilaterally which is what usually sets me off. The caps issue (for birds at least) is effectively settled. The name change from Rock Dove to Rock Pigeon I'm not particularly happy with, but I can see the logic, and its been adopted by major ornithological organisations, so I can live with that.

No problem, I should have explained myself better in the first place. But you have convinced me that it should be capitalized for the simple reason that it is now the official designation, and capitaliation makes this clear. ProhibitOnions 10:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know. Cactus.man ✍ 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and hope to see more of you around Wikipedia! ProhibitOnions 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Prohibit Onions? Now you're talking! :-)

I myself can't stand them. Annoying taste and texture. John 13:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As they say, great minds think alike! Cheers, ProhibitOnions 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Congrats and best wishes to you! ProhibitOnions 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester's RFA

Thank you, ProhibitOnions/Archive1
	for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 100/1/0. Thanks for your vote! If you have any comments, please say so here.

Congratulations! Now go forth and administrate! ProhibitOnions 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexual interpretations of Batman ==

Noticed your comments on this were unrelated to the reason for deletion. I do not dispute the quality of the material, only its improper fork from its legitimate place. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this matter. Haiduc 13:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, and I'll have another look at this to see if I've misread something. However, it seemed to me to be a legitimate enough fork, as this has been an item of speculation about the character for a long time. I think a fork is a better place than the main article to discuss this in this level of detail. The main article is already 44 kb long, which is 14 kb over the recommended size. ProhibitOnions 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)