User talk:Polynesia2024

Welcome!

Hi Polynesia2024! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing sources

If you want your contributions to look their best, would you check out WP:citing sources. Most of it is rather heavy going, so you may prefer to concentrate on template:cite news to start. But if you don't have time, see WP:REFILL (which is what I used) to fix wp:bare URLs.

But most important of all: it is better to have an 'ugly' reference than no reference: anybody can make a reference look pretty but it takes work to find the reference in the first place. Contentious material added without a citation just gets deleted.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will keep that in mind going forward. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Regimentsgruss moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Regimentsgruss, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

COIN

Hi, just a couple reminders: You must notify users when you open a discussion on WP:COIN. Also, be very careful and observe WP:OUTING. Many people have gotten indefinite bans for violations. I don't know if you reached that level, but be very, very careful. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I had notified the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikeh101#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion, apologies in case it got lost. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced sources in BLP

Regarding Klaus Schwab. Remember to add references when you put a sentence into a BLP. Each sentence needs a reference. It is really important. Please don't do it again. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. The entire section is referenced by a book about Klaus Schwab: Jürgen Dunsch: Host of the Mighty: Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum in Davos. FinanzBuch Verlag 2016. I should have highlighted this more clearly though. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but its not a hint, its a requirement per policy. When your adding content, you need to ensure your not damaging other references, like you have done. I've reverted it. Take a look at WP:REFB that will show you how to create a proper refernces. As its a BLP, putting in bare urls, raw urls is not acceptable now. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's simple to create a ref name and then repeat the ref name instead of the whole citation, for each sentence. Instructions are at WP:REFNAME. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

odd choice of template

At World Economic Forum, did you really mean to use {{literature}} in this citation?

• {{Literature |Title=Fact Check-World Economic Forum letters show 51st Annual Meeting invites |Collection=Reuters |Date=2021-12-21 |Online=https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-netherlands-idUSL1N2T6137 |Recall=2021-12-31}}

I might have used {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. There is no {{cite literature}} so best I let you choose how to correct. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the hint - {{cite web}} would be the right choice here. I will amend accordingly. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Regimentsgruss

Hello, Polynesia2024. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Regimentsgruss, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Dewritech. I noticed that you recently removed content from Klaus Schwab without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dewritech (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Dewritech, I thought I had written as a summary: "Point of view. There are different sources that say his father got a managerial role in Ravensburg/Germany afterwards particularly due to the circumstances of the Third Reich."

The source the other author provided with his text says something completely different regarding Hitler. Quote: "When Hitler came to power in Germany, Schwab's father was asked to represent Swiss industrial interests in Germany, and so Schwab's parents moved to Ravensburg (Germany) despite the looming war." It does not say anything about escaping his tyranny, as highlighted by the user. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Polynesia2024. I added info that Gestapo monitored the family and interrogated his mother.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Regimentsgruss

Hello, Polynesia2024. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Regimentsgruss".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

INSEEC

Hi Polynesia2024, I have been editing several universities and cities articles so far. I noticed that INSEEC's article was clumsily written, in an advertisement-like fashion. I decided to clean it, tone it down to a neutral, encyclopedic style, with the following conditions: statements must remain factual, legitimate and well-sourced. I noticed, that many sources & Wikipedia articles confirm that the Conférence des Grandes Ecoles is a French league of elite Universities. INSEEC is part of this league, although it's ranked around the 20th best. Fair enough and very true. Comparatively, in the Ivy league, Dartmouth or Brown are, for a long time, not in the world's or US top 10 anymore (according to Forbes: respectively 11th and 26th; and in the 100th and 50th worldwide according to ARWU), and yet, this fact does not challenge their acknowledgment as Ivy League Universities. Why should INSEEC be considered otherwise? Other Grande Ecoles on Wikipedia compare themselves with the Ivy League, and yes there are more Grande Ecoles than Ivy League Schools (250 Grande Ecole Engineering Schools, around 40 in Business and a handful of other Institutions in Science and Political Science). However, Grande Ecole rankings, unlike the above-mentioned Forbes rankings, take ONLY into account Grand Ecoles. So INSEEC may be oscillating around the 20th, we're still talking about a handful of elite Schools. In other words, it's not the best elite school, but if we do a comparison "à la Forbes/ARWU", i.e. a general ranking, it still remains in the top (there are several hundreds business schools in France and Universities which are NOT Grande Ecoles). Finally, that doesn't mean that we have to challenge the status of Grande Ecole either, because one of the member of a league of 40 elite business schools is ranked 20th; otherwise, this would mean that Dartmouth and Brown no longer have the right to be Ivy League members either; or that quite a few articles of other Grande Ecole Business and Engineering Schools on Wikipedia would need to be accordingly edited, in the same way that you suggested for INSEEC. Again, I will be glad to edit and delete any unsubstantial boast regarding INSEEC or another university / city, but the other way around (e.g. your suggestions) should be equally substantiated too. Thanks for the input. I'll be more vigilant about that in the future. Mediterraneo 138430 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Manière De Voir

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Manière De Voir, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gstaad Guy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gstaad Guy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Environmental, social, and governance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Elkington. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Concerns around your edit pattern

There's some concerns that your edit pattern appears show sign of LLM driven automation. A discussion has been started. here and I encourage you to provide explanation. Graywalls (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Graywalls. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. I have reverted your edit. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Environmental governance. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. It's been reported that you're inserting information with non-existent sources in multiple articles. Graywalls (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2025

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Polynesia2024 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I see my account has been indefinitely blocked as a “vandalism-only account.” I believe this does not reflect my actual editing history. I have had this account for several years and made constructive contributions.

The issue arose when I experimented with AI-generated text (ChatGPT) to improve a few articles. I now understand this was disruptive, since AI text cannot be verified and violates content policies.

Given this background, I take full responsibility and will not use AI tools again. Going forward, I will contribute only with reliable sources, proper citations, and constructive work such as copy-editing and referencing.

I hope this shows that the “vandalism-only account” block does not reflect my history, and that I am committed to editing responsibly under Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you for considering. Polynesia2024 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance if you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate and confirm that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

• Read our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles.

After you have read the rules, pick any article on Wikipedia that you want to improve. If you have trouble choosing an article, there are lists under Category:Articles needing cleanup.

Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy three or four paragraphs of the article that you want to improve.
   • Do not copy the infobox ({{infobox name|...}}).
   • Do not copy any images or files ([[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]).
   • Do not copy the article's categories from the bottom of the page ([[Category:Name]]).
   • Do not copy the stub tag ({{Topic name stub}}).
3. Click edit on your talk page and create a new section using this format: == [[Article title]] ==. Paste the text that you copied underneath. Do not save yet.
4. Place {{reflist-talk}} at the end of the copied text.
5. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and create an edit summary in the following format: Copied content from [[Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution.
   • This is required for copyright attribution.
6. Save the page by clicking Publish changes.
7. Edit the section you have copied. Propose adding new information to the article. Add inline citations to reliable sources that verifies the information. We are not looking for basic typo corrections or small additions without citations.
8. When you are done with your work, save your edits. Then create a new unblock request using {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} and an administrator will review your proposed edits.

If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may ask a question on this talk page. Just place {{Help me}} with your question below it, then add your signature using ~~~~. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Polynesia2024 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Jauerback: - what are your thoughts here? Should we use the {{2nd chance}} approach, or are you happy with a last chance? PhilKnight (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm ok with a 2nd chance. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the feedback. I have followed the 2nd chance instructions and prepared an improved draft at #Kinderhymne on this talk page. Polynesia2024 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Kinderhymne

Copied content from article (for attribution)

Copied content from Kinderhymne; see that article's history for attribution.

Before: The hymn was Brecht's response to the "Deutschlandlied", which he believed to be corrupted by the Third Reich and whose third stanza became the national anthem of West Germany in 1950. There are several allusions to the "Deutschlandlied": "From the Meuse to the Memel, / From the Adige to the Belt" vs. Brecht's "From the ocean to the Alps, / From the Oder to the Rhine", or "Germany, Germany above all" vs. "we desire to be not above, and not below other peoples". East Germany already had an anthem by the time Brecht wrote the poem and West Germany was in the process of re-adapting the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied as the national anthem by then – Brecht's writing of the text was a reaction in part to West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer having the song played at official functions in 1950.

The verse form and the rhyme scheme are similar to both the "Deutschlandlied" and "Auferstanden aus Ruinen", the national anthem of East Germany. Accordingly, the three lyrics can be combined with the melodies.

In order to create a new all-German national anthem during the German reunification, several public campaigns supported the use of the "Kinderhymne". However, those suggestions were overruled; the hymn remained the same. While the Basic Law of Germany establishes a coat of arms and flag, the constitution is silent on the national anthem. The anthem was decided upon and reconfirmed not by the usual legislative process but by an exchange of open letters between chancellor and president (Konrad Adenauer and Theodor Heuss in the early years of West Germany, and Helmut Kohl writing to Richard von Weizsäcker following reunification). It is therefore unclear which act – if any – could make the children's hymn Germany's national anthem.

Improved draft: History section

Brecht wrote the Kinderhymne in April 1950 as a direct counter to proposals in West Germany to restore the Deutschlandlied as the national anthem. He objected to the associations of the anthem with German nationalism under the Empire and the Third Reich. The poem was first published in the literary journal Sinn und Form in 1950 and set to music by Eisler later that year.

Its opening line, “Anmut sparet nicht noch Mühe” (“Do not spare grace or effort”), was aimed at the postwar generation and intentionally contrasted with the emphatic pathos of the East German anthem Auferstanden aus Ruinen. The third stanza deliberately echoes the opening of the Deutschlandlied, but with a reversal of its meaning: “Und nicht über und nicht unter / andern Völkern woll’n wir sein” (“And neither above nor beneath other nations”) is set against “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles.” Scholars have noted that Brecht thereby reinterpreted the controversial phrase “über alles” as a statement of superiority and rejected it.

Improved draft: Reunification and later reception

During the period of German reunification in 1990, several civic groups and commentators advocated adopting the Kinderhymne as the national anthem of a unified Germany. The proposal gained attention because Brecht’s verses emphasized equality among nations rather than national superiority. However, political leaders ultimately decided to retain the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied, reconfirmed through an exchange of letters between Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Richard von Weizsäcker.

References

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Polynesia2024 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Following the second chance instructions, I copied part of the Kinderhymne article (see “Before” above) and prepared improved drafts with reliable sources (see “Improved draft” sections). I hope this demonstrates I can contribute constructively with citations and neutral tone. Thank you for reconsidering. Polynesia2024 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Converting to indef p-block from mainspace, per below. asilvering (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Polynesia2024 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Asilvering, @PhilKnight, and @Jauerback, I trust you are well. I wanted to briefly share that I have made a new edit suggestion at Talk:I Swear (film), following the same referencing and neutrality standards used in the previous 2nd-chance work. It is based entirely on reliable, English-language sources (Variety, The Guardian, Financial Times, Rotten Tomatoes), formatted according to standard citation practice. Thank you again for the time and constructive feedback you have taken throughout the process. Polynesia2024 (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polynesia2024, you have to use an edit request template for it to be added to the queue. See WP:EDITREQ. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Asilvering. I have tried it but it is now listing a massive banner "The user below has a request that an edit be made to I Swear (film). That user has been partially blocked from editing it.". I think I will just leave it with the editing request, but I am wishing you well and best of luck with Wikipedia. Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I had interpreted the original Second Chance request as an opportunity to demonstrate that I could improve a flawed Wikipedia text, since the Kinderhymne article lacked references in the relevant section. However, that topic is quite dated, with most reliable sources being several decades old, written in other languages, politically charged, and primarily available through library archives. I would, in any case, appreciate if someone would be willing to add the I Swear (film) addition to the article, if deemed helpful.

== Edit request: Add Reception section ==

Hello, I would like to propose adding a new section summarizing critical reception from reliable secondary sources. The addition is verifiable, neutrally written, and formatted according to citation standards.

=== Proposed addition ===

=== Reception ===

At its premiere in September 2025, I Swear earned positive reviews for its humane tone and standout performance. Variety praised Aramayo’s turn as “flawless” and described the film’s balance of earnestness and subtle humor. The Guardian called it “funny, fierce and full of heart,” noting how the film avoids sentimentality in portraying Tourette’s. In the Financial Times, the review observed that the film “is both serious and larky,” commending its tonal restraint. On the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a high approval rating based on multiple critics. Polynesia2024 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have moved this edit request to the article's talk page for you. You should be able to still add content to talk pages of articles which is where you would want to submit these requests. Nubzor [T][C] 15:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! It seems you've erred in following the Second Chance instructions. Instead of including a "before" section and "after" section, you should copy part of the article over with attribution in the edit summary, publish, then make changes and publish again. This makes it much easier for reviewers to see the changes you've suggested. Can you please try again? This time, read the instructions very carefully and follow them exactly step-by-step. Feel free to remove what you've already included and make the same changes. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I’ve now followed the Second Chance process with two saves: first I copied text from Kinderhymne with attribution, then I replaced it with a sourced improvement. Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Significa liberdade, I trust you are well. I am very kindly requesting if you already had the chance to take a look at the update. I would appreciate your feedback at the earliest convenience. Polynesia2024 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm having trouble finding copies of the sources you provided. Did you find them online or in-person? If you found them online, could you provide a link? Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Significa liberdade, you can find most of the sources online or in printed versions in university libraries:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Ausgew%C3%A4hlte_Werke_in_sechs_B%C3%A4nden.html?id=6cjczAEACAAJ&redir_esc=y (Google Books)

https://www.breitkopf.com/assets/pdf/SON_513_Introduction.pdf (original PDF)

https://www.planetlyrik.de/iring-fetscher-zu-bertolt-brechts-gedicht-kinderhymne/2021/09/ (summary)

https://www.dreigroschenheft.de/downloads/3gh2010-1.pdf (original PDF)

I hope this helps Polynesia2024 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure Polynesia2024 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You failed to include attribution in your edit summary. Please follow the instructions at WP:RIA to fix that issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Voorts for the clarification. I’ve now repaired the attribution with a dummy edit per WP:RIA. Polynesia2024 (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Voorts and @Significa liberdade, I am very respectfully checking if there is any update regarding the request. Many thanks, and best regards. Polynesia2024 (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the error in attribution. I think SL was reviewing your request. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Because I cannot review the cited texts myself (both lack of access and lack of German language knowledge), I am uncomfortable reviewing this unblock request. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

An unblock request after my own heart! @Polynesia2024, if I don't get to this in the next 24 hours, feel free to ping me directly. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: - friendly reminder about this unblock request if you have time. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @PhilKnight. And @Polynesia2024, this is a vast improvement. Cross-checking sources now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I have to say, I don't understand the citation for fn3 at all. For one, this is a highly polemic source, so it's the sort of thing we'd have to use with caution - but who are these "scholars"? The article says Brecht "bewusst missverstand", not that he "intentionally contrasted". I mean - I think your description is both more encyclopedic and more correct, but that's absolutely not what this source says. What am I missing here? -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Asilvering, for the acknowledgement of the improvements and for catching that. You are absolutely right and I had some time ago already replaced this source with the Iring Fetscher (1977) reference in the updated draft below (see the post underneath on my talk page). Many thanks again for your time and for reviewing the request. Polynesia2024 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Asilvering, I trust you are well. I am once again very politely checking regarding an update. Best regards Polynesia2024 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike, did you end up checking those other sources? Of course, you may have been distracted at the time... -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the sources. @Polynesia2024, I believe this [1] is the text of reference 4, and this [2] ref 5. I don't see where in ref 4 it says that the Kinderhymne was proposed as the national anthem around the time of German reunification. I also don't see where ref 5 mentions Kohl or Weizsäcker. Could you please clarify these discrepancies? Toadspike [Talk] 09:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Toadspike, many thanks for the constructive response. Source 5 discusses the reunification debate on pages 28–29. Source 4 likewise reflects the debate surrounding and following German reunification. I acknowledge that the reference should have been placed in the sentence preceding the one about Kohl and Weizsäcker, rather than at the end of the paragraph. I hope this clarification helps. Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, those pages of Source 5 do more or less cover the sentence cited to Source 4. In cases like this, it is best to cite both 4 and 5 at the end of the sentence. I am still unsure where you got Kohl and Weizsäcker from, though; is that in a different source? Toadspike [Talk] 11:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comment. The exchange between Kohl and von Weizsäcker is, among others, documented by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. See this link:

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/newsletter-und-abos/bulletin/das-deutschlandlied-ist-nationalhymne-der-bundesrepublik-deutschland-briefwechsel-zwischen-bundespraesident-von-weizsaecker-und-bundeskanzler-dr-kohl-791466 Polynesia2024 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jauerback, what do you think about converting this to a p-block from main? @Polynesia2024, that would allow you to create drafts and propose edits using edit requests on talk pages. Your 2ndchance edits are obviously not vandalism, so I don't think we need to keep you blocked for that anymore. But I'm not so confident that I want to lift the block entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Totally fine withe me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you Polynesia2024 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Kinderhymne

"Kinderhymne" (Children's Hymn) is a poem by Bertolt Brecht, written in 1950 and set to music by Hanns Eisler in the same year.

Brecht wrote the Kinderhymne in April 1950 as a counter-text to proposals in West Germany to restore the Deutschlandlied as the national anthem. He objected to the anthem’s associations with German nationalism under the Empire and the Third Reich. The poem was first published in the literary journal Sinn und Form in 1950 and set to music by Hanns Eisler later that year.

Its opening line, “Anmut sparet nicht noch Mühe” (“Do not spare grace or effort”), was aimed at the postwar generation and intentionally contrasted with the pathos of the East German anthem Auferstanden aus Ruinen. The third stanza deliberately echoes the opening of the Deutschlandlied, but with a reversal of its meaning: “Und nicht über und nicht unter / andern Völkern woll’n wir sein” (“And neither above nor beneath other nations”) stands against “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles.” Scholars such as Iring Fetscher have highlighted how Brecht reshaped the notion of patriotism by rejecting claims of superiority and grounding national identity in equality.

During German reunification in 1990, civic groups and commentators again proposed the Kinderhymne as a potential national anthem for a unified Germany. The suggestion gained attention because Brecht’s verses emphasized equality among nations rather than national superiority. However, political leaders ultimately decided to retain the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied, a decision reconfirmed through an exchange of letters between Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Richard von Weizsäcker.

References

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Polynesia2024 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the guidance. I’ve now followed the Second Chance process with two saves: first I copied text from Kinderhymne with attribution, then I replaced it with a sourced improvement. I hope this demonstrates I can contribute constructively with citations and neutral tone. Thank you for reconsidering. Polynesia2024 (talk)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please open only one unblock request at a time. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Polynesia2024

Anne Spiegel

Hello, I am kindly proposing adding this section to the article for Anne Spiegel in light of recent developments around her official roles.

Recent developments (2025)

In October 2025, Anne Spiegel was nominated by Region Hannover president Steffen Krach (SPD) to head the Department for Social Affairs, Inclusion, Family and Youth (Dezernat II). If approved by the regional assembly, she is expected to assume office in May 2026. The nomination marks Spiegel’s first return to public office since her 2022 resignation. Local media described the move as a cautious political comeback, while some commentators questioned the choice. Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Asilvering, PhilKnight, and Jauerback, could you kindly take a look? Many thanks, and have a great Sunday. Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: Procedurally closing the request template, as it is active on the article talk page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@IAmChaos thanks for the update, but what about the suggested article amendment? @Asilvering, it would be highly appreciated if you could also keep an eye on this. Polynesia2024 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Er, keep an eye on it in what sense? -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It has been closed here but is still open in the talk section. So I did not understand why the admin had left it open there. @Asilvering Polynesia2024 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Having multiple requests open clogs the queue for those who work on COI requests, and so I was helping to clear out the backlog by removing a request that shouldn't have been opened, which leave the possibility of splitting discussions. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

References

I Swear (film)

Hello, I would like to propose adding a new section to the article I Swear (film) summarizing critical reception from reliable secondary sources. The addition is verifiable, neutrally written, and formatted according to citation standards.

Reception

At its premiere in September 2025, I Swear earned positive reviews for its humane tone and standout performance. Variety praised Aramayo’s turn as “flawless” and described the film’s balance of earnestness and subtle humor. The Guardian called it “funny, fierce and full of heart,” noting how the film avoids sentimentality in portraying Tourette’s. In the Financial Times, the review observed that the film “is both serious and larky,” commending its tonal restraint. On the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a high approval rating based on multiple critics. Polynesia2024 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC) Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Asilvering, PhilKnight, and Jauerback, I have now submitted the request in this separate section. I would also here very much appreciate if you could kindly take a look at the request to have this text added to the article. Many thanks. Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have moved this edit request to the article's talk page for you. You should be able to still add content to talk pages of articles which is where you would want to submit these requests. Nubzor [T][C] 15:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I highly appreciate this. Could this please also be done for the new article requests I have submitted? @Nubzor @Asilvering @PhilKnight @Jauerback Polynesia2024 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You can move those to the article talk pages yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Asilvering. This is a request for a new article though (see topic beneath this one), not for an existing one with a talk page. Polynesia2024 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

For that, you can use draftspace. WP:WIZARD is the easy way to do this. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I had used draftspace in the past, among others for Mariam Dagga, in case you can find it in the log. There is no feedback by admins due to a massive backlog and it is kept in the waiting queue for so long that, at some point, other editors set up the article from their end. Polynesia2024 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Rap do Silva

Edit request: Create new article

Rap do Silva (Portuguese for "The Silva Rap") is a 1995 funk carioca song by Brazilian rapper MC Bob Rum. The track became a scene classic in Rio de Janeiro and is often described retrospectively as a socially conscious narrative about stigma, police violence, and everyday life in the favela communities.

Background

The song was created in the mid-1990s during the first major wave of funk carioca’s popularity in Rio de Janeiro. It initially spread through bailes funk (funk parties), mixtapes, and compilation albums. In later retrospectives, "Rap do Silva" has been cited as one of the defining funk songs of the decade and a “classic” of the genre. In the lyrics, the common Portuguese surname “Silva” functions as a symbol for marginalized favela residents, while the text employs a narrative style reminiscent of reportage to address prejudice and state repression.

Release and reception

The song became widely known through the popular compilation Rap Brasil Vol. 2, released by Som Livre in 1995, which played a key role in bringing the track to national attention. In Brazilian media and retrospective anthologies, “Rap do Silva” is frequently listed as a benchmark of 1990s funk. Journalist Júlio Ludemir included it in his book 101 Funks You Must Hear Before You Die (101 funks que você tem que ouvir antes de morrer), which canonized major works of the genre.

Commercial success

Rap Brasil Vol. 2 achieved platinum status in Brazil, with industry reports attributing much of its success to the popularity of “Rap do Silva.” Contemporary press coverage highlighted the song’s heavy radio rotation and recurring inclusion on numerous funk compilations throughout the late 1990s.

In the history of funk carioca, “Rap do Silva” is often seen as a key transitional piece, marking the genre’s shift from predominantly hedonistic party tracks to more socially aware storytelling. Cultural features and essays continue to reference it as a touchstone for understanding the evolution of funk carioca during the 1980s and 1990s.

Music video, reinterpretations, and legacy

To mark its 20th anniversary, an official music video was released, updating the story of the song and reflecting on its legacy within the funk scene. The 2013 documentary A História de um Silva ("The Story of a Silva") also explored the song’s context, reception, and social dimension, framing it as a cross-generational reference point in Rio’s funk culture. Retrospective overviews of four decades of funk have consistently listed “Rap do Silva” among the genre’s 40 defining hits.

References

Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Asilvering, PhilKnight, and Jauerback, could you kindly take a look at this request for a new article? The references in Brazilian Portuguese are included. Many thanks. Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not how copy edits work, create a Draft for that, and then a reviewer will review it.
Copy Edits are done on the article's talk page.
You also don't have to ping admins. The Other Karma (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: If I'm seeing things right, this has been sent to/accepted at AfC, rendering this request moot. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Closer tag per GoldRomean. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Gerhard Delling

Dear @Asilvering, @PhilKnight, and @Jauerback, I would like to propose to update the following section of the article on Gerhard Delling to reflect verified, ongoing developments reported by reliable sources. Many thanks.

Charge of aiding and abetting child abduction

Since the mid-2010s, Delling’s domestic partner, businesswoman Christina Block, has been involved in a prolonged custody dispute with her former husband, Stephan Hensel, the father of two of her four children. The children have been living with their father in Denmark.

According to the public prosecutor’s office, the dispute escalated on New Year’s Eve 2023/24, when the two children were taken from Denmark to Germany. At least five men are alleged to have ambushed Hensel and the children in Gråsten, southern Denmark, near the German border, before assaulting Hensel and forcing the children into a car. Two days later, the children appeared at the Hamburg home of Block and Delling. Investigations suggest that Block and Delling had discussed the possibility of bringing the children back against the father’s will with a private security company as early as 2021. Prosecutors also accused the couple of planning a smear campaign against the father and his lawyer, portraying them as paedophiles.

In April 2025, the Hamburg public prosecutor’s office filed charges against both Block and Delling in connection with the alleged abduction. The Hamburg Regional Court (Juvenile Protection Chamber) admitted the indictment on 17 June 2025 (case no. 632 KLs 10/25); the main trial has been underway since July 2025. The indictment accuses the defendants of the joint abduction of minors (§ 235 of the German Criminal Code), alleging that the children were forcibly separated from their father in Denmark and taken to Germany. On 2 September 2025, Delling testified before the Hamburg Regional Court and rejected the allegations of aiding and abetting. If convicted, Delling could face up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, and in severe cases up to ten years under § 235 (4) No. 1 StGB. Delling himself is not accused of direct participation in the abduction but of aiding and abetting or obstructing justice. Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rap do Silva has been accepted

Rap do Silva, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Asilvering, could you kindly let me know how to interpret this message? I assume this is a standard notification. Many thanks. Polynesia2024 (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is a standard acceptance notice for AfC. Your draft is now in mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Asilvering. What I don’t quite understand is why complete articles are considered compliant and meet the standards, whereas improving a flawed and unreferenced article into something better is seen differently, especially when most reliable sources are several decades old, written in other languages, politically sensitive, and primarily accessible through library archives. Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Polynesia2024, I don't understand the question? In both cases, your work is going through a reviewer first - either an AFC reviewer or an editor going through the edit requests queue. If you find your work is being scrutinized more in edit reviews than at AFC overall, that's something we should probably sort out at AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much, @Asilvering. I very much appreciate your clarification and I agree on the need for review consistency. In the article Kinderhymne, the section text initially had no references at all and just unsubstantiated claims. Given that the topic is somewhat political and interpretive, I was surprised that such improvements seemed to face more scrutiny than, for instance, adding sourced factual material to a popular Brazilian song or a film review. Polynesia2024 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)