| Revision as of 13:47, 3 July 2006 editTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 edits Block← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:54, 3 July 2006 edit undoTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 edits emptied until 2006-06-20Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at | Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at | ||
| ==Moved talks== | |||
| move to ] ] ] 02:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move to ] ] ] 19:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| So, Tobias, when do you think we should ask the community to vote on our standards? --] 04:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 14:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It's fine to delete the irrelevant argument by me and just leave in the departments discussion, ] 15:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I've introduced the naming convention to the community at large on the pump; seems to be time to vote --] 09:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 22:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 21:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 12:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| move ] ] ] 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dolgoruki == | |||
| Since you have participated in "Use English" talks, please visit ] to contribute to the current poll. ] 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi! == | |||
| You should add yourself to ], I left invitations to the Wikiproject for people but I didn't find you there. :) | |||
| --] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Aber Natürlich! Auch, Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. (That's actually all the extent my german, as you can see from my user page). My paternal Grandfather was German, my maternal one was Austrian... Oddly enough neither of my grandmas were German (Argentine and Hungarian) although the funny part is that my German Grampa didn't speak German at all (he moved to Argentina at age 1) but my Hungarian Grandma did it, and very well. :) I thought for a sec that you were from AR, but you're very welcome in WPAR! :) | |||
| --] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Úbeda == | |||
| Hello, sorry for the long message. | |||
| In March 2005, there was a ] request and vote (which you took part in) to move ] to ], with a 6-3 result, see ] (or perhaps ] if renamed). | |||
| However, beginning in April 2005 and lasting several months, there was a survey conducted at ], with dozens of participants voting and discussing over an extended period of time. The purpose of the survey was to try to gather feedback for what the policy should be globally. Proponents of diacritics were in the majority, and in general, use of diacritics is widespread in actual practice on Misplaced Pages today (particularly since the Mediawiki upgrade to Unicode). | |||
| However, for Úbeda/Ubeda, Philip Baird Shearer is stating that the WP:RM vote takes precedence over the survey results, and a new WP:RM vote would be required to move it to Úbeda. My position is that there should be a global policy rather than case-by-case voting -- that was the whole purpose of the survey. In discussion with him, I wrote: | |||
| :''Just as we wouldn't have case-by-case voting on, say, capitalization issues for articles (eg, prepositions in movie and book titles should be lowercase, globally), we shouldn't have case-by-case voting on diacritic issues.'' | |||
| See the discussion at ] (or perhaps ] if renamed). | |||
| As a possible alternative to calling a new WP:RM vote which might set a precedent for case-by-case voting across thousands of articles, I am polling all the participants of the original WP:RM vote to ask: | |||
| * Regardless of how you voted in the WP:RM voting, which do you believe should take precedence: the earlier WP:RM vote on the specific article, or the subsequent survey? | |||
| Note, since Philip Baird Shearer was one of the participants in that vote, he will also be receiving this message and thus will have the opportunity to respond. -- ] 05:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth, and for the information of all the voters in the March requested move vote, there's now a new requested move vote at ]. -- ] 01:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==My RfA== | |||
| Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin! | |||
| --] <sup>'']''</sup> 15:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] template == | |||
| I cast my vote to keep the template.—] 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Comment == | |||
| I wanted to point out that, at a minimum, you ought to copy the example RFC template to the subpage you have redlinked; the listing page is not for debates (else it clutters too quickly). Additionally, you'll need to find a second person involved with ] and potential deletion abuse to certify. | |||
| That said, I really don't think you've got grounds for a complaint of this magnitude. Reviewing the conversations you two have had, it looks to me as though ] overstepped his bounds with the initial deletion. However, content can be undeleted, and Timwi indicates he would have been willing to undelete if asked at the RfC page. | |||
| However, your original approach was quite poor: Admins are given latitude to make unilateral changes (for that matter, so are you, save deletion) and abuse should not be claimed when a mistake is equally likely (again, that's my interpretation of what happened). Timwi's response, though, was certainly not a personal attack. An allegation of admin abuse is not a statement to make lightly without at least referencing the disputed content. Such allegations are made by vandals to admins on a daily basis, so yes, a similar accusation on your part does give cause for ] to consider you less credible. I accept that the later bit was a typo, but I hope you can see how it (unintentionally) continued to elevate the stress in your conversation. | |||
| Additionally, ]'s decision to instead {{tl|tfd}} the relevant page is appropriate and within his rights (I'm not certain that you have a problem with this, I just figured I would mention it). My personal recommendation would be to remove the RfC entirely, drop an apology with Timwi, marshal support for your template, and move on. You're free, of course, to act as you wish regardless of my advice. — ] | <small>] / ]</small> 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not think it is a simple error if he deleted the page. He abused his rights. And he did not say sorry nor asked where this could have happened. Only because I did not cite the place of abuse, does not make the abuse not existing. He attacked me with credibility and went on so after a typo. He could have easily restated the typo. | |||
| :Sorry if I did not everything right on RfC page. I did not knew that I am allowed to create subpage. | |||
| :How do I get a second person within 24 hours. this is really bad stuff. An admin abuses his rights, engages in attack and there is no mechanism to resolve this. I am not on WP 24 h a day. Timwi still did not say nowhere that he apologizes nor that he would refrain from direct-admin-deletionism in the future. | |||
| ] ] 20:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have added the RfC framework and copied your comments verbatim to what I feel to be the most appropriate locations. Please visit ] and endorse where appropriate. — ] | <small>] / ]</small> 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC Closure== | |||
| Honestly, I have no idea on closing policy. I would imagine that some neutral admin will archive it once they conclude that some form of consensus has been reached and/or no further comments of importance will be added. — ] | <small>] / ]</small> 17:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I've closed the RFC...it did not meet the two-person certification threshold within 48 hours. <font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <font color="blue">]</font> 00:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Per a discussion with a few other admins, it seems best that you try this at ] and see if anyone else is willing to undelete it for you. ] ] 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, I'm saying that I don't think it should be undeleted for you. If you can find an admin willing to do it on VfU or elsewhere, feel free. But I personally won't do it. ] ] 16:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your message == | |||
| I replied on ]. ] ] 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I replied again, same place as above. ] ] 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have added my thoughts to the discussion at ] (so as to keep the conversation clear). As for RfA certification, the two person threshold is for directly involved parties who have already attempted resolution. You met that criteria, but Timwi (as the subject) did not and I (as a previously uninvolved third party) did not; thus, the removal. The 48 hour deadline is meant to discourage the quick filing of RfCs, as it more-or-less necessitates that an extra person is pulled in for informal mediation before the dispute escalates. — ] | <small>] / ]</small> 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nicaragua== | |||
| Tobias, if you'll let me leave them there at "Name (dept)", I'd be more than happy to set to the task right now ''and'' fix the redirects. BTW, I think you made the correct call with ]. Cheers, ] 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, thanks. I'll have a crack at Nicaragua now. (I still prefer the parenthetic format because having a sequence "Baja Verapaz, Escuintla (department), Jalapa (department), Sacatepéquez" seems a whole lot more logical than Baja Verapaz, Escuintla Department, Jalapa Department, Sacatepéquez", where half of them are asserting "Department" as part of the name while the other half isn't. But that's an old discussion. | |||
| :As for ] instead of ] -- yeah, I'd probably prefer the first, too. But nothing I'd start a holy war over. What I ''would'' like to see is all the municipality articles following one or the other of those formats: otherwise we start getting into all sorts of mental gymastics about what the official name of the headtown is vs. the official name of the municipality -- a lot of towns and municipalities are officially "of" some local hero, poet, or politician, but in 95% of the cases, no one outside the vicinity has ever heard the use -- trampling on the "use common names" guideline in the process. I'm also a little concerned about existing two-paragraph articles about the town and its municipality getting split into to ''two'' one-paragraph articles -- hardly seems worth the effort. Or existing longer articles, where it's going to be v. difficult to extricate "town" info from "municip." info. But those are problems we should sort out on the Wikiproject Mexico page. | |||
| :I'm glad things are friendlier, too. Cheers, ] 05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{tl|Subdivision term spanish}} -- How could you? You forgot the departamentos! Cantones, too. Has Peru stabilised yet? ] 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :"Stabilised Peru" -- afraid I'm just behind the times, after looking at the article. Regions, provinces, districts... I was just too used to their being departments. Sic transit gloria mundi, I suppose. ] 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == is is == | |||
| tnx for your comment, it's always nice if some people see it. :) ] ] 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for point that out, I'll look into updating that stuff... however, right now it's 4 a.m. and I have classes. So, I must be off. ] ] 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :There, I think I've demerged all of the ones that were left. ] ] 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This new article appears to be a copyvio: . I was about to tag it but I figured I'd let you know first to fix it, or explain, etc. —] 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Clear as filed, I think Tobias has just been demerging the Districts from the cities. I will put it up as a copyvio since it should be... but, Tobias was just copying information. ] ] 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. I didn't realize that it was already elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. —] 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Signature == | |||
| The problem seems to be that your signature is using Unicode arguments instead of the actual character. Try replacing "[[" with "] ] 06:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Still not working. Post the entirety of what's in the signature box on my talk page, I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Also tell me if "raw signatures" is checked. And for what it's worth, it's because the software running to fix HTML errors was causing server lag, so it had to be temporarily disabled. You think your sig is bad- see my user talk archives, especially Archives 4 and 5- they're a horrific mess of hodgepodge HTML tags :) ] ] 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree on adding talk, but until they do, we deal with it :) Try adding the brackets on the outside, and checking raw. I can't think of why it wouldn't be working, or why doing this would help, but... ] ] 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No problem :) ] ] 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == French Mexicans == | |||
| Would you vote on this, please: ] --] 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Is SIL info on Novial incorrect? == | |||
| Is this info at SIL on Novial incorrect,then? | |||
| http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=nov | |||
| Identifier: nov | |||
| Name: Novial | |||
| Status: Active | |||
| Code set: 639-3 | |||
| Scope: Individual | |||
| Type: Constructed | |||
| Denotation: See description at Linguist List. | |||
| == ISO 3166-1 == | |||
| Feel free to add your support to get the ] nominated in the featured lists: click ]. ] 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request move== | |||
| Hello I've posted a response to your comment at ]. — ]] 08:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == township == | |||
| Would you mind saying something on the talk page about your changes to the ] page? I fear confusion in this case. ] 21:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I moved the ] page to ]. If you disagree with that move, it needs to be talked about and a request for move entered to move it back. I don't think it's proper to simply copy and paste so that the text on both pages is the same. This breaks the edit history and will eventually cause the pages to become out of sync. I'm changing it back. If you still disagree, please address this on the relevant talk pages so we can decide and do the move properly? ] 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : ] redirects to ] and from there there is a link to ]. The reason for this is that Chicago, Illinois is much more important than the other uses. The same is true here, I believe. Please state your case if you believe otherwise. ] 16:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Chic has 9.2 inhabitants, so the importance diff is much much bigger. It's much more known worldwide. Nevertheless, a bad system is not good, only because it is used in other places. There where lots of links from Drenthe to Witten, people did not seem much aware of the german city. On the other hand, to force germans to link correctly it is better to not have the town at ]. | |||
| ::If you remove the part behind the comma, you can go from every witten-page to the disambig page. But if Witten is not the disambig then people have to click more. ] ] 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Chicago has less than 3 million people, but that's not the point. The point is the difference in importance. I don't find any article-space , from Germany or Netherlands, so I'm not sure what you're saying about the 2 clicks. ] 16:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::you don't find them, because I disambiguated 20 or so article links. If plain Witten-links go to a dab-page then software can detect this. If plain Witten-links go to the german city this is not true. ] ] 17:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Please see my comment at ] ] | ] 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Tobias, you seem to be undoing the hard work of myself, Neonumbers, Mzajac, Tedernst, Susvolans of trying to get this page up to ] standard... Please discuss you rational for adding back wikilinks and irrational "sorting" of the disambig entries at ]. I gave a reasonable reason for my revert, labelling me a "destroyer" is not productive, nor in good faith. Thanks/] 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mate, you have to discuss any changes to ] before implementing them. I'll keep an eye on ] fro your comments/concerns. Or talk to me, any questions/comments are welcome (I have a good knowledge of the MoS with respect to dab pages). Again, refrain from editing the article, you are clearly doing so against consensus. --] 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::i think you are wrong. ] ] 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Dab destruction == | |||
| I think you were referring to my work at ], am I right? Anyway, I've replied at the ] where you asked a question. I won't stop unless there is community consensus for me to stop.--] 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Community consense? My dear. Stop the destructions made by you and your crew. BTW I did not refer to your work at WP:DPL as a whole. Because I do not think the purpose of this is only destruction. ] ] 18:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you give an example of the destruction you're talking about? Are you talking about on dab pages or in articles? ] | ] 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::] unwikify federal. ] ] 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That descision was questionable, and ] won't be a dab soon. I thought that link wanted a dictionary defn rather than a dab, so I unlinked it. I also knew you were babysitting the template so wasn't too bothered with what I did. In most cases, I find unlinking like that will provoke some thought and a better link/outcome will occur. In this case the better outcome is under discussion at ].--] 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ok. ] ] 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| About that possilbe vandal, that's weird, becasue I just had a productive conversation with them at ]. While I'm here, do you still think de-linking an unneeded wikilink is dab-destruction, just curious?--] 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh ok, that's how you meant destruction. I'm afraid that sense of the word was lost a couple of years ago, and now the ] meaning is all I think of. Basically concreate exploding. It was like "please stop the explosive carnage you are doing to wikilinks".--] 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm a little confused about your thoughts on ], ] and ]. If your have some supsicion about ] using sockpuppets, get some evidence together (diffs) and ask ]. --] 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bid District== | |||
| I think that using the spelling from the official web site sounds good; Bid and any other spellings can be redirects. ] 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Prefectures of Greece== | |||
| Hi Tobias! I appreciate your "isolation" of the prefectures of Lesbos and Samos from the island articles. Where the prefecture is not exactly the same in territory as the island, I think it deserves an own article, that was also on my "wish list". This probably also applies for other islands (Corfu, Zakynthos, Kefalonia). However, I think the islands should be at X, not X Island, perhaps X (island). They're simply not called like that, how would you feel about "Rügen Island"? The disambiguation pages you made (], ]) should be at X (disambiguation) IMO. BTW the provinces of Greece are not very significant (the internet page of the Greek ministry of the interior doesn't even mention them), they should be no reason for disambiguation (see ]). ] 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :In the UK, it's X (e.g. Anglesey, Jersey). The US has a lot of islands with more descriptive names (Long Island, Cliff Island), but also has names without Island, see the respective categories. For non-English islands, the bracket dab, if necessary, would be best I guess. | |||
| :About disambiguation or not: I think it's justified to use X if the island is clearly the most popular use of X (principle of least astonishment etc.). IMO that's the case for Samos, Lesbos, Corfu and the other islands. For Witten, it's even clearer: I've been to Assen several times and know several of the villages around it, but I had never heard of the village Witten before someone moved Witten to Witten (Germany) to make way for a dab. | |||
| :Many of the articles about Greece (especially smaller towns and Elis Prefecture) are ugly, are badly written and contain a lot of non-information. I made a better template for the prefectures, maybe I'll make a similar one for towns, like ]. About bottom templates, feel free to improve them, they couldn't get much worse. Especially those boxes showing which towns are to the north, west, south and east. ] 17:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Patan District== | |||
| As far as I can tell, there is only one ] in India, in ]; ] doesn't seem to exist, and the link just redirects back to ]. If this is the case, we could rename the article ] simply ], and delete ] or simply make it a redirect to ]. ] 02:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for fixing Patan District, and the page with all of the templates is a great reference! You are doing a great job bringing order to these Indian district pages. Cheers, ] 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The blocks, also called development blocks, of Indian districts may be correspond to the districts tehsils/taluks, but they are frequently not the same. ] 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Tedernst antioch and santa cruz == | |||
| I don't mind grouping. Feel free to do it if you like. What I really don't like about the Santa Cruz page, and what I believe goes against our style manual (for good reason), is the wikilinking of the countries. ] | ] 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your tantrum == | |||
| I have cleaned up the mess you caused by forking and moving the proposal everywhere. This is your notice that I am currently preparing an RfC, and would appreciate some contact from you. Good day. --] 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I will be there to defend you Tobias Conradi. Like I said in my talk, I believe Golbez is a bad admin with strong biases and he plays blatant favorites --] | |||
| :Me too. ] 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Districts of Cyprus == | |||
| Hi Tobias. Great thing that you began starting the articles about the Cypriot districts. I kept forgetting to do so a dozen times. I've elaborated them a bit and added the three you missed. I've transferred all six to Euro-geo-stub since Sub Sorting considers the island to be a part of Europe. Regards. --] 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Danish sovereignty == | |||
| Hi Tobias. Yes, you've quite correctly identified the worst possible point in the entire history of the Danish people (although 1864, 1814 and 1658 are runners-up.) Officially, ] never wanted to annex ] or even ] (''Sønderjylland'' / ''Nordschleswig''). The Danish border was the only one of the borders imposed on ] in ] that ] accepted; at least for the time being. Or perhaps he was just playing polite because of the complete Danish collapse on 9 April 1940? Had he won the war, Denmark would probably had been erased from the map, and my people deported to wastelands in Russia or whatever. | |||
| Denmark was stupid enough to sign a treaty of non-aggression with Hitler when he "offered" it to us in 1939. Norway and Sweden turned down similar offers. Didn't help though; Nazi troops occupied Denmark on 9 April 1940 and controlled the country until 4 May 1945 (officially: 5 May 1945). On the bright side; Denmark was never annexed by said country, but Denmark had very little sovereignty during the Five Cursed Years (''De fem forbandede år''). Virtually no sovereignty was left between 29 August 1943 and 4 May 1945. The Danish government officially resigned on 29 August 1943, although this was never ratified by ]. Each government minister effectively transferred his powers to his permanent secretary, and full authority now rested with ] and the ]. If you want to learn more about that era see e.g. ] or ]. ''Occupation of Denmark'' is not as good as it could be, but should give you a few good hints. | |||
| The collapse of the Danish government's appeasement policy had several reasons. Some of the more important are: 1) A strike in all major cities after Dr. Best wanted to place German guards on war-important industries to stop sabotage attacks on e.g. Danish shipyards. 2) A general feeling of "enough is enough" when one of the German diplomats leaked that his country wanted to deport the Danish Jews; everybody knew that deportation = execution. 3) the fact that Germany wanted to starve Copenhagen into submission didn't help things either. The radio recently played a recording of an old member of the Resistance from Copenhagen. He told of an encounter with a very polite German guard at one of the checkpoints leading into the city. Dane: "Why are you standing here?" Soldier: "To starve you Danes out of course." Dane: "When will you leave?" Soldier: "When you're all dead, naturally" (note: Copenhagen had a population of several hundred thousand.) The following arrest of the Danish army and police and their deportation to German camps ruined whatever remained of the tattered modus vivendi between Danes and the German army. | |||
| My user page is somewhat - I don't know if ironic or sarcastic is the best word - but you get the idea. Yes, I'm pretty keen on stressing Danish sovereignty. If you check the history of Germany around 1848-51 and 1863-1864, you'll see why. Or perhaps I'm simply influenced by the fact that my grandfather was a member of the Danish Resistance during WWII. His neighbour was the leader of the local Resistance unit, and was arrested by the ]. If he'd not been a very good liar; he, my grandfather, and many others from that village would have been shot in the final months of 1944 (in that case, I wouldn't have been around to write you this note.) That's why I added my grandfather's quote about democracy. My fondness for that system of government is from him as well. Democracy is not perfect - it is far from perfect - but it's still better than all the alternatives. My regards. --] | |||
| ==Hello== | |||
| Thanks for your message about ]. This is really helpful. And, a happy New Year to you. --] 16:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Actually, Mr. Rahman was born in the village Tungipara in the Gopalganj District, not in the modern town of Gopangalnj. Thanks. --] 02:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC == | |||
| You weren't notified by the starter of the RfC, so I'll notify you that an RfC has been brought against you by William Allen Simpson. See ]. --] 07:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, you're not an admin so you can't see deleted versions of pages, but um.. that Konar province page I deleted? All it ever consisted of was redirects. If you have a problem with me, either bring it to me, or make an RfC and get it over with. --] 07:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey, just letting you know that i've finalized my analysis at ]. ] 19:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| In response: | |||
| #You're welcome. | |||
| #You're welcome. I really do want to resolve this, fighting gets us nowhere. | |||
| #I signed that I was a party in some of the conflict; however, I'm not a party to all of it, so I know little about the subdivisions argument. | |||
| #I don't quite know what the 271 he mentions is referring to. | |||
| #Yeah, I know you're a guy, but I didn't want to mass-edit his RfC. :P | |||
| #Neither did I, I haven't kept count of your reverts. | |||
| #I don't know where that number came from, I'd like to know myself. | |||
| #I don't. I just want things to calm down a bit. A mediator could be useful. An RfC can't get you suspended anyway, so no fear of that here. | |||
| #Lemme see if I can find it... I know I saw something like that (someone accusing him of being a sock of me) but I can't find it at the moment. | |||
| --] 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mafia response :)== | |||
| Hi, Tobias! Haven't run into you for a while now. Regarding your concerns: | |||
| *Your revert of vandalism not showing up in the history—that means that Deldot was the first to do it. Your revert request was probably received by the server immediately after his took effect. Since your version was exactly the same as Deldot's (you did revert the same instance of vandalism, after all), it was not saved. I believe it is one of the new features of Misplaced Pages—you cannot save another version of the article if its identical to the most recent revision. | |||
| *Edit summaries—admins cannot edit those. Developers can, I think, but I can't imagine a compelling enough reason for them to do it. Developers can also clean histories, but as far as I remember that's only done per Jimbo's request, which is to say does not happen every day :) | |||
| *Straw man accusations—that would require me to sift through the contribution histories of the people you've been involved with for the past few days, which I'd rather not do. I can assure you, however, that if such an accusation took place—it can be found. Like I said above, admins cannot correct edit summaries or clean up histories. Hope this helps. | |||
| Take care.—] 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Using "may refer to" in dab pages== | |||
| Tobias, you added "'''XYZ''' may refer to:" to ]. My view is this is an unclear explanation of XYZ. When would XYZ ever "refer to" something rather than "mean" that thing? I agree with your edit comment that dab pages commonly use this introduction, but I still think it's a bit weasely, and should not be codified in the Manual of Style.—]<sup>]</sup> 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==My email== | |||
| Not sure what happened, but I've just sent another one your way. Hopefully it's gonna be more accurate than my first. Sorry about that!—] 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == You're welcome == | |||
| And I hope this helps us both see that, even though we apparently vehemently disagree on how some things should be named, we both respect the process of Misplaced Pages and such. I mean, combined, we have over '''35 thousand edits.''' We've both been here long enough. I am not your enemy here. I hope I'm no one's enemy. I just want things to go smoothly. --] 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, you have 17k or so, I have 18k or so. :) No, no Golbot yet... --] 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wishes== | |||
| I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --] 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==The RFC== | |||
| The best thing you can do is to ignore it. I'll ask him to stop as long as you two can agree that ad homimen attacks aren't productive in solving this. I'm sorry for being so far behind in this, it's a pretty dense dispute at this point. ] 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Municipio == | |||
| Looks like I made a mistake, cheers for fixing it. By the way, why do you link to ] on that template - is it becasue you think the link looks better in blue? How does the reader benefit from the link?--] 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I tend to think that links like this, ], are unhelpful and distracting. I agree with this guideline: ], what do you think about it? Also, do you use "wiki" to describe wikilinks? ] indicates a different meaning.--] 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::About this Urban link problem - I can't see anything wrong with that edit - could you explain please.--] 09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, I see now. Well, these things can happen. I don't like them to happen, but they do. I'm not going to change the way I do things because of it.--] 09:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have the stock-standard signature, I believe there should be no personalisation of the signature (some people have images in the signature, others have code that extends for 4 lines in the edit window - I disagree with that). If the talk link is so important, the mediawiki software should automaticaly place the link in the signature. Alternatively you can use ] which will give you a one click solution to my talkpage. | |||
| ::::What is the "fuel to a new discussion". I didn't spot a new discussion there.--] 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Unfortunately my bot is currently not functioning reliably for template moves due to the developers changing the "What links here" function slightly. I recommend you place a ], when I did I got a response in 15 minutes.--] 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == bad form == | |||
| Dude, ] is a shitty tactic. Please remove , since it's only put there to take a cheap shot at me. -- ] ] 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'd rather not move this. It will prove to be more useful for the coming conversion since we can migrate to Template:Infobox Language over time. -- ] ] 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please don't think naming is nearly as important as content. Doing a bot run to replace a single redirect is not critical or even desirable. What is important is the flagrant ] abuse taking place on Template:Language. -- ] ] 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Single redirects are no big deal, and no one and no bot should find it necessary to replace them. It is just busywork with no gain. It just adds to the bandwidth and creates an unnecessary extra version in the page history, adding to database space needed. -- ] ] 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Stop immediately what you are doing. -- ] ] 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your replacement of an actively-included template with a "disambiguation" page was completely inappropriate. Please refrain from spamming your disagreements with Netoholic across a half-dozen pages at a time in the future. -- ]|] 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Feel free to argue on talk pages with Netoholic all you want. I've argued with him before, and I honestly don't give a damn about what template is used. However, disambiguation pages do not belong in the template namespace, and it is not the place to make your points. -- ]|] 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What gives you the right to abuse your user power to attack other users? -- ]|] 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The answer to your question is ]. I am not abusing my admin powers. -- ]|] 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not abusing my admin powers. Therefore answering your question is impossible. As for consensus and the community, you are harming it by putting disambiguation pages in the template namespace and edit warring over a silly template. -- ]|] 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not on Netoholic's side. I don't even like him. You were doing silly things in the template namespace, and I told you not to put a disambiguation page there the first time. -- ]|] 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "True template"? That kind of talk says to me that you're only interested in "winning", not in coming to an acceptable solution. -- ]|] 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He's right on that. 'Working' template is a better description than 'true' template. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Responding to comment on my page: Actually, Netoholic isn't an admin. Any user can perform page moves for most pages. BTW, is 'Conradi' of Germanic derivation? Wondering if the similarity to my first name (Conrad - from 'kuon ratek') is coincidence or common etymology. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please, before you get yourself into trouble, go find some articles that need improvement. I don't tell you what's right or wrong when it comes to language or geography... please let me apply my knowledge and creativity to the templates. Leave constructive feedback on the talk page, and I'll give it a fair shot. I have no idea ''what'' you find technically wrong with the template. But the thing is, the way you're going about it is way off-base. -- ] ] 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have no problems from technical point of view. But your way of imposing this template is annoying and disrupting. And you block ] from being moved to the standard name. ] ] 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : We shouldn't move the template because it's just a bad idea. We can have two templates, migrate the articles in the Infobox, and then either merge histories or let the future redirect. Nothing will be lost. My "way" of implementing this is just your perception. I do not want to harm articles and I don't want to step on people's toes. I'm willing to devote all my time to this conversion. What more can I do? -- ] ] 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, I didn't know about language/quilt. Give me a bit of time to adjust it and it'll work again. Changing language/familycolor without adjusting language will mess up all the language articles. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, sorry about that mess with the quilt. Those 'spacing' issues are really tedious. Should be all cleared up now and leave the language/familycolor template in a reasonably formatted layout. Also, take a look at ]. I'm trying to adjust Netoholic's template so that it actually works the way the current one does. That way there won't be any 'meta-template' issues to worry about. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your ] request== | |||
| Happy New Year to you too, Tobias. Hope all is going well for you. | |||
| The template was protected from being moved by Cyrius on January 6; the following reason was given: ''user keeps moving this elsewhere and replacing with a disambiguation page for no apparent reason''. You, by the way, can check things like that yourself at ]—you can look up all or some of the logs by username or article name (note that capitalization there is important). A quick glance at the edit history shows that he protected it most likely because it was moved back and forth, with discussion going on chiefly in the edit summaries. I will have too look further into this to dig the details; I am hesitant unprotect it right away as I do not yet have sufficient information about what's happened, even though the "''for no apparent reason''" part does not feel exactly right. I would, however, recommend, to list the template at ] first, after which protection can be lifted (provided that neither you nor Netoholic are going to move it again until the process is complete). | |||
| I'll keep researching the matter. Apart from your and Netoholic's talk pages, is there a discussion thread I could look at anywhere else? Take care,—] 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please review ] and leave comments if you feel I missed anything.—] 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tobias, thank you for your comments. I drafted a ] for you and others to review. If you accept, please indicate below the solution section. If you do not, please explain your grievances.—] 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| available.—] 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| is there. I am also asking both you and Netoholic to provide ''your'' proposed plans of action; the way you want it to be accomplished. I will then try to match all three plans (yours, Netoholic's, and mine) and at least establish common parts. Thank you.—] 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry I wasn't all that much help in this. I assume my involvement is no longer necessary.—] 16:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RFM == | |||
| Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. ] (]) 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Norway== | |||
| Thought may be of interest to you.—] 18:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for letting me know. You're right that they are named after their cities - according to Statoids they all are. I think we both agree that, with very few exceptions, when the province is the same name as the city, the province is always named after the city. The only exceptions that come to mind are in the USA - Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, and Iowa City (which used to be the capital of Iowa), all three of which are named after their states. --] 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I also think it's kind of amusing that, at the end of it all, I agreed with you as to how the provinces should be named, and it all fits my proposal anyway. ;) I hope we can continue to work together, and that the strife of the past is at an end. --] 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted images == | |||
| How can an image be deleted without warning? who did it in that case? ] ] 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to know it myself. Upon returning to editing after too well-known events, I noticed that three images uploaded by me long ago under fairuse licence - ], ], ] - were removed by OrphanBot from the articles on ], ], ] and deleted without prior notification of myself as the uploader. In the past, when OrphanBot removed fairuse images, I instantly provided the source and restored the images to the article. I don't know what's going on here. It is not good when the images are deleted like this. --] | ] 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dab pages== | |||
| I have noticed that you have created a bunch of dab pages, good work, just some suggestions: | |||
| * {{tl|dab}} goes to the bottom of the article | |||
| * Use an introductory phrase (word x can refer to:) | |||
| * explain what are those links (to place in y coutry, to a person, etc etc) | |||
| Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! ] 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :to be faster I use to place {{{dab}}} at the top instead of point 1 and 2 you mentioned. Maybe the dab-department can think about solution there. I will look to allways provide country description, or mention that it is a person. ] ] 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wouldn't really care where dab template goes, just that a bunch a your creations ended up showing on ] which is supposed to filter out dab pages. My wild guess is that this is caused by dab being on top. Thanks for taking notice on this. ] 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :well some are super short. maybe the filter does not work because I use {{{dab}}} and not {{{disambig}}} ] ] 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==WikiProject Soviet Union== | |||
| Hi, I noticed you recently did some work categorising SU related articles and was wondering if you knew about the ]. Please feel free to join up, or ask me questions :) - ] 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Difference between Category:Qatar| and Cataegory:Qatar== | |||
| The other day, I saw someone change 'Category:Qatar|*' to 'Category:Qatar|', which I thought seemed weird - I assumed it was a minor thing that was wrong, so I changed it to 'Category:Qatar' as I couldn't see a difference between the two - and I see you changed it back (so I know I must not be seeing the whole picture). What's the difference? | |||
| Thanks --] 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nevermind, I found "Using a space after the pipe is the customary way to categorize an article in a category with the same name."(On ]) Thanks for fixing up my mistake --] 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==about ]== | |||
| the ] of English is exactly equal to ] of Chinese, An autonomous entity is regarded as a division in a country especially in China, Autonomous entities shouldn't be as Autonomous entities of minorities(]). e.g. Hong Kong and Macau are provincial level autonomous entities, the PRC goverment names them Special Administrative Regions, Almost HK people are Han Chinese and British Chinese. and ] of Chinese is equal to ] of Japanese, 民族区域自治 is more regarded as a political system of minorities in Chinese, of course A Autonomous entity of minorities is one of Autonomous entities in China.]|(]) 05:18 Jan. 26, 2006 | |||
| move to ] ] ] 05:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Subdivisions galore== | |||
| Hey Tobias. Just wanted to commend you on your subdivisions templates project. I'm a big fan of those! Moreover, I think that the templates could be improved further still for consistency. =J ''//] 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| :Gee: thanks for the ]! I considered doing so without mounting a RfM, but thought that might be contentious. Now that the deed is done, should I withdraw the RfM or allow a 'reaffirmation' (or possible overturning) of the move? :) In any event, thanks again! ] | ] | 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your note. I think the damage is done. :) I'll keep it up for now and have made appropriate notes on the talk and RfM page. If a groundswell opposes the move (which I doubt, but stranger things have happened), we'll know it either way. In any event, thanks for your initiative. :) ] | ] | 02:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: :) I can also assist in updating pages shortly. ] | ] | 08:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| As you have moved Australian States and Territories to States and Territories of Australia, could you please also change all of the 30 odd pages which link to Australian States and Territories? ] 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :why? BTW, I moved to "...'''t'''..." - lowercase as for non proper names. ] ] 12:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Generally people clean up their own mess. ] 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::what does this have to do here? ] ] 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because you are the one who did it. It is appropriate that you fix up any problems associated with it. Leaving a message somewhere else would thus be pointless. ] 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't see why I can do this better than you. If you think it is a mess you are free to fix it. ] ] 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You have some nerve to move a page and then say none of the consequences are your concern. Do you have some kind of inability to clean up after yourself. If you create dead links you should fix it up. I cannot see how you believe that you are absolved of any such responsibility. ] 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :what are dead links? where did I create such links by moving a page? ] ] 04:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| move to ] ] ] 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Confederacy == | |||
| Woops, sorry, you were right. My mistake. --] 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I think those are all the Indian languages which needed to be dabbed... so I went to Confederacy. I also noticed that several of the links to Confederacy that I had to disambig were pages I created a couple of months ago *hangs head* --] (]) 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vote == | |||
| I invite you to please vote on the ''district'' capitalisation issue here: ]. Regards, ] ] 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Why remove the Talkheader from ]??== | |||
| ], why the heck did you remove the Talkheader from ]?? Do you have some objection to "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice"?? It seemed to me that this advice might be helpful to some of the people posting on that page. Please reply (if desired) on ] -- ] 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == redirect == | |||
| Bypassing that redirect () is completely unnecessary. Fixing the calls can be done at any later date, when the article/template is edited for some other reason. Please don't clutter the page histories with trivial changes which don't actually change anything. -- ] ] 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] - I think people might get mad when my bot lights up their Watchlists with 600 changes. So I won't be fixing the redirects, sorry mate.--] 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| move to ] ] ] 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Boroughs in Pennsylvania == | |||
| But ] is an article. Redirecting ] to ] and then changing <nowiki>] to ]</nowiki> seems a little strange - since we are not fixing anything (in contrast to ] which does fix something) and we are guessing that there will be an article at ] in the future. So I won't be making the changes with my bot. Indeed, I haven't been running the bot recently (only the faint stirrings of patriotism got me moving earlier), and you may find more enthusiastic responses at ].--] 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages in Tetum == | |||
| * Help building a Misplaced Pages in ], the national language of ]. Give your contribution to the improvement of its -- Regards, ] 11:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please check your ] entry== | |||
| Greetings, editor! Your name appears on ]. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: | |||
| #If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list. | |||
| #If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in '''bold'''; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update). | |||
| #Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits. | |||
| Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! ] ] 02:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Don't move it, it is the predominant meaning of the word. ] | ] 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : In the ] article you changed the link to Brookside (soap opera), however this is simply a redirect to ] and Misplaced Pages policy states we're to avoid redirects whenever possible. If the Brookside article is at a later date moved to the disambiguated namespace, then such a change would be fine, but for now it's not needed. ] 14:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::which policy? ] ] 14:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Read the redirect guide. In any event, be advised that if you revert the article again today you will be in violation of ]. ] 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NOTE: this comment was changed at 14:55 by 23skidoo. | |||
| ::::Wikimedia ] is not a policy at all. ] ] 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tobias, this is a recurring theme with you. You move an article without even asking, then go through and change every single link to that article, making it that much more annoying to clean up if (and usually when) someone reverts you. Didn't it occur to you that after all the times people have complained of this practice, you might someday want to stop and actually ask first? You also seem to have a problem with the disambiguation policy here. No, Tobias, just because something ELSE can be "X" doesn't mean "]" must automatically be a disambiguation page. We have a policy of least surprise here. Please do not continue to make such unilateral moves and disambiguations without discussion. --] 16:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Of course I will continue. I will not allways ask. The reversion was easy and I excepted the reversion. I know that if several things are called X, X is not necesarily a dab and i know that there is a policy of least suprise. No, it didn't occur to me ''that after all the times people have complained of this practice'' (i.e. moving article without prior discussion) - especially because in this Brookside move nobody complained. Your words are implying a none-true fact. Please point out where someone complained about '''this move'''. ] ] 11:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Gee, Tobias, can't you read the TOP OF THIS SECTION? "Don't move it, it is the predominant meaning of the word." Right there, someone complained about THIS MOVE. Now, either remove your attacks on me from your userpage, or file a formal complaint, but don't whining about it on your user page does anything to expose my "abuse of power". --] 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You classify his words as complaint. fine. BTW I currently don't see any problem between Tim and me, but it seems you once more put your nose in stuff related to me and you create lengthy blabla while the original problem is not there anymore. Let's go on analyzing your blabla now after you pointed out what in your eyes is a complaint. | |||
| ''Tobias, this is a recurring theme with you. You move an article without even asking,'' | |||
| Yes, I moved several, so do others. | |||
| ''then go through and change every single link to that article, making it that much more annoying to clean up if (and usually when) someone reverts you.'' | |||
| what is "if and usually when"? BTW I changed the links _after_ Tim moved the page back. What needed to be cleaned up, what of my link changes? It were simple redirects to seperate the soap from possible non-soap links. | |||
| Why do you use your admin power again and again to revert people's edits that don't have this power in cases where you are in conflict with them? Why don't you follow deletion policies, but delete on your own will? | |||
| ] ] 16:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Blocked=== | |||
| You have been temporarily blocked from editing for violation of the ] policy. During your time-out, please review Misplaced Pages etiquette. Calling people names will make you no friends around here. ] 16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What do you mean by calling names? I think I only apply words to people that deserve these. Thanks to your ignorance I called you ignorant, thanks to your reversions I called you reverter - so what? And spreading lies is not nice. ] ] 11:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I lied to no one. The fact you continued to revert despite it being explained to you means "to no avail." And if you continue to call people names and revert edits, your blocks are just going to get longer. If you manage to get ] moved to ], then fine. But for now, you are just being childish about this whole thing. ] 20:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The url brookside.com which comes 1st on the list on google hits is a strange one, I imagine that it used to be the official site for the soap opera. If you try the search "Brookside site:brookside.com" you'll see most of the links concern DVD boxsets etc. The soap makers probably did not renew the lease of that domain. However, most of the links on[REDACTED] are related to the soap, so I reiterate my plea not to move the article. A link on the top of the page goes to ] which I think adequately covers anyone arriving at the article looking for another meaning. ] | ] 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OK i just thought you were preparing to move it because you were altering links to it from other articles. ] | ] 11:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Polite notice== | |||
| Hello. Regarding your recent edit summary , may I politely encourage you to ] and do ].<br>If you find yourself getting annoyed/upset/stressed, I find that the best thing to do is move away from the project for a while (a few hours sometimes does it!) and come back to it with a fresh mind. ] 13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :maybe you don't know what happend before. i won't move away from project only because an ignorant reverter like Golbez goes around. I don't assume any good or bad faith with him, he is just ] of what I wikified. He did a mass revert and if he would have used my edit summaries he would have seen that something different was changed in this edit. I you have stress and leave this maybe fine for you. Don't assume all people are runaways like you. Thanks for your note anyway. You may also like to inform Golbez not to simply mass revert. But maybe you allready did so. ] ] 15:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I do urge you to read and comply with the policies to which I linked in my original post. Sentences like ''"Don't assume all people are runaways like you."'' can be interpreted as a personal attack, for example. ] 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You proposed to run away. It was not me. Have fun urging other people and reading WP policies. Maybe you also read WP articles, I would suggest ] for a start. ] ] 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chota Nagpur== | |||
| I found that your recent edits were only partially correct: I know as I was born and brought up in that region only. Please reply here only, as I do not want to further trouble you by clicking twice!. I shall update the information in due course. --] 17:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] -- ] ] 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Minor "deletion"== | |||
| Hi, thanks for the message and sorry for the late reply (my real life is killing me). I will follow your advise. It's just that I don'r agree about having an article which in essence is a redirect. But, anyways, good luck. ] 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == About the Time Zone article == | |||
| Tobias, I want the restore the contents in the ] article from UTC-12 up to UTC+14 instead of the separate articles of the UTC-12 up to UTC+14. Thanks. ] ] 09:25 (UTC) | |||
| replied at ]. let's discuss this there. regards ] ] 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Former provinces of Thailand== | |||
| move to ] ] ] 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == About "Time in China" == | |||
| Hello, I saw your edits on the article "]", and you have deleted the link to the German version of the article. Actually, I learned a little bit German before, and I was trying to start translating the first paragraph in the English version into German, and let other users translate the rest of the article. (That's why there was a "Deutsch" link in the article.) But almost immediately after I started the new article in German with only one paragraph, the article got deleted! As you are a native German speaker, do you know whether it is an official policy of the German Misplaced Pages to delete all new articles that are too short? Also, the German Misplaced Pages now has the second greatest number of articles. I think it would be worthwhile to have an article about the time zones in China in the German Misplaced Pages. Would you please help translating the article into German if you have time? - ] 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The policies of German WP seems to be different to what we know from en:WP. I also started something there and it was deleted - without discussion and with wrong comments. It seems the main policy in de:WP is not to follow written policies, because the according what WP is not section, where I was pointed to did not apply at all. In the curse of that all I got blocked saying I would be blocked for 2 weeks, which are allready more than over. I was accused of defamation and vandalism but could not find a policy that would support these claims. The people I met there lately seem to have lack of logic or do not like to share their logic. IMO: They can translate themselves, since english is widely understood. ] ] 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == re: entry on the ] disambiguation page == | |||
| :] ] ] 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == You user page == | |||
| OK, now it's time for me to ask if you are ever going to remove your "log" from your userpage, or are you going to get done with it and file an RfC? It's not kosher to complain about actions then do nothing to rectify them. If they need remedy, then seek to remedy them; if not, then the list is no longer needed. --] 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :a log is a log. What do you mean by "do nothing to rectify"? If you whish I should add your rectifications appologies etc. to the log, then tell me and point me to them. ] ] 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is, if you have a problem with my admin actions, then take them up with the community. If not, then there's no point to hanging them on your door. --] 06:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::that may be your personal point of view. It's not mine. ] ] 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Don't foget to add any Argentina related article that you create to the ]. Thank you, and good wiking. ]<small>(]/])</small> 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Time zone article wording== | |||
| Bitte sehr! ] 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Convention for Chinese categories == | |||
| Hi there, regarding one of the changes you made to ], in general I don't think it's a good idea to crosslist ROC and PRC categories. The general convention that has been followed up till now is to list both the top level ROC and PRC categories under ], while leaving subcategories seperate from one another, unless the subcategory applies to both the ROC and the PRC (see ] for a similar example). This raises the least amount of NPOV concerns. -] 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| But this cat was missing in ] which in turn is listed at ]. Congo is not like China, where two countries claim to represent the whole. - ] ] 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, but the general agreement is that "China" refers to a geographic region as well as a civilization. Issues which could be considered affairs of state (such as political divisions, military affairs, politics... etc) are listed under the respective ''state'' (PRC or ROC), which in turn are listed under the ''geographic region'' (China). -] 06:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| changed the cat to belong to ]. not sure how to deal with the regions. ] ] 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think the safest bet would probably be having ] and ]. I'll go ahead and make the changes on the ROC side. Sorry if I sound a bit nitpicky about this but as you can see from ] and the associated edit wars this tends to be a touchy issue. Thanks. -] 06:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the heads up, I've suggested delaying the vote until a consensus on the naming conventions is reached. -] 07:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Voted in the other two. I'm going through the past discussions on the naming conventions right now, thanks again for pointing this out. -] 07:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Category discussion == | |||
| Hey there, | |||
| I understand your opposition to the renaming, but the only thing I am supporting is the creation of a single term for the categories, "ADministrative Divisions". I do not agree with the nominator to use different terms, and I do not suggest a renaming of all articles within the categories; just the categories themselves. Judging from the entry on categories from the the ], it doesnt seem there was an idea on how to tackle this yet. Lets seize the opportunity and do it now! | |||
| For that reason, I think its a bad idea to move the discussion to the different projects. We'd have to cross-post to every different sub-page. This way the discussion is centralised. Instead, lets point all those projects to the discussion on CfD. I have already done the two main projects, perhaps you could post on other project pages as well? | |||
| Thanks and greets, ]]] ] 08:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need to crosspost. There is ''one'' general project. Let's better point all people there. The thing is not only about categories and not only about deletion stuff. ] ] 13:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == SAIC == | |||
| Hola Tobias! | |||
| *SAIC = Sociedad Anónima Industrial y Comercial (industrial and commercial ]) | |||
| *CAPIF = Cámara Argentina de Productores de Fonogramas y videogramas | |||
| *AADI-CAPIF = Asociación Argentina De Intérpretes + CAPIF | |||
| *SADAIC = ] | |||
| *] = Bureau International de l'Edition Mecanique | |||
| Suerte, ]<small>(]/])</small> 09:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Tobias, you seam to have mixed two meanings of the word ''Interpreter'' (same 2 meanings in English). | |||
| :] gathers musicians that play instruments. | |||
| :] is about translators and has no connection with the music, nor the AADI. | |||
| :]<small>(]/])</small> 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No ;-). But by googling for AADI I found AATI, because the long name includes similiar words. ] ] 14:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Country subdivisions== | |||
| Hey Tobias - my apologies for not responding sooner to your message, but I have been away during the weekend. I had a glance at the pages you linked to, but was overwhelmed at their long and esoteric discussions. What exactly is the urgency? As you yourself noted, any move to standardize or systematize the article and category titles to conform to a common generic model would require collossal renaming endevours... Please let me know if and how I can help. ''=J'' <small>''']</small><u><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|'''</font></u> 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| move msg by ] to ] ] ] 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : this might interest you. --] 08:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re Country subdivision == | |||
| : ''...IMO splitting the cats into a group of "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries" is not useful. | |||
| : ''could you maybe change your vote on ] and let's discuss this on the project page ] first? It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. ] ] 07:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, this looks a significant revision, so I've now abstained from voting as I haven't looked at the wider picture, nor followed the discussions since. Responding to your first statement above, without reference to the discussions, I'd say most countries have ''both'' political and administrative divisions, but whether it's possible to untangle these for the purposes of categorisation, I don't know... Regards, ] 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| Since when did you start ? Scary! :)—] • (]); 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re ] == | |||
| : '']: actually this was a copy paste move that broke the history. I reverted and put a note to the user's page. Unfortunatly some new contribs have been made, which are now "lost". Are you an admin? Can you move the talk, to the lowercase version? ] ] 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for redirecting this link back to ]; I'm not an admin, but have left a {{tl|db-histmerge}} request at ]. Regards, ] 11:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Subdivision category debate== | |||
| The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been ]. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - ] 20:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility == | |||
| I direct your attention to ]. This is official policy here -- not a guideline, not a proposal, not a suggestion. I take exception to your comments both on my talk page and at TfD. I do you here the courtesy of ''not'' linking a diff. | |||
| I do not ''agree'' with you, Sir. You do not agree with me. That is perfectly acceptable to me and to most of our membership. I am entirely willing that you uphold your position. I have explained my reasoning as far as I am willing and ''that'' is acceptable to most of us. You have used language that treads perilously close to '''Calling someone a liar...'''; if indeed it does not do so directly. That is ''not'' acceptable. I don't find merit in hounding editors who speak rudely to me; but I do suggest that there are short-tempered editors who nonetheless will seize upon any incivility you direct toward them to drag you through every possible dispute resolution process. Please have a care, friend. ]] 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You made an unproven claim, you did not change it. It seems that to me spreading false claims is not as acceptable as it is to you. It is no courtesy of all not to link to diffs. I would especially appreciate that you link to diffs that bring evidence for your claims. ] ] 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sir: I hope you will try to appreciate that I am trying to avoid an uncivil dispute. If you had confined yourself to the remark above, on your own talk page, I would have been glad to ignore it. '''That is a courtesy.''' You continue to mark my talk page, too, demanding a response. ''This is it,'' the last response you will get from me on this subject. If you are unhappy with it then I must beg your forgiveness. If you feel I have ill-used you then I offer my apology. If you feel I have violated project policy then I encourage you to file an RfC for my education. I shall permit you to comment freely on my talk for a short time, uninterrupted. And now I bid you, Sir, a good day. ]] 03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Is sticking to false claims civil? Then I don't care much about your idea of civilty. I don't care about your offering of appology on that I feel ill-used. I care about truth. It seems you don't, and get education more from RfC than the edit history of {{{Subnational entity}}}. Spreading false claims on purpuse is IMO ]ing. You can't put this away by starting calling me Sir. Better than switching to Sir would be switch to truth. ] ] 03:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == == RE: ] == == | |||
| Yes, you're right, it was my mistake. I realized it later on, but couldn't fix it yesterday. | |||
| I want to move the ] to the original page (esp. about Bei Tip and Laila Peaks), or at least give a reference to it, what is the standard procedure for this on wikipedia? | |||
| == RE: ] == | |||
| Yes, you're right, it was my mistake. I realized it later on, but couldn't fix it yesterday. | |||
| I want to move the ] to the original page (esp. about Bei Tip and Laila Peaks), or at least give a reference to it, what is the standard procedure for this on wikipedia?] 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Geohive administrative maps== | |||
| Hello! I am not too familiar with the advantages and drawbacks of the various image formats, really. I just copied those maps from Geohive after having asked the permission of the proprietor (Johan van der Heyden). =J <small>''']</small><u><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|'''</font></u> 10:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, frankly I'm not too well-versed in the workings of commons - in fact I don't even have a separate account over there. Another reason is that when I upload an image, I'm always eager and inpatient to see the result on my screen immediately. ;''''']''''' <small>''']</small><u><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|'''</font></u> 14:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, my main ambition in here is not wiki-fame... :þ For the time being I'm too lazy to go common - but maybe you could upload the images contributed by me there? <small>''']</small><u><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|'''</font></u> 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Haha! Sooner or later I probably will wander on over to commons to see what all the fuss is about. ;oJ <small>''']</small><u><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|</font><small>]</small><font color="#990011">|'''</font></u> 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Moving Football club infobox to Infobox football club == | |||
| Moving the page has been a bit premature, as every soccer club page is......well....ruined! I tried to move it back to the orginal name to combat problems, to no avail. I'm not criticising you moving it, it's just the backlash it seems to have sent through Misplaced Pages--] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For some reason it all works as normal now--] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == William Allen Simpson vs "Willy" == | |||
| Please refrain from referring to William Allen Simpson by the diminuative "Willy". Continued use of the diminuative, when he has asked you repeatedly not to do so, has become a violation of ], and could result in blocks if it continues. - ] 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And he can call me Conradi? By which rule? Texy, this is ridiculous. ] ] 05:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You've compared William's calling you "Conradi" to your calling him "Willy". The two are miles appart. He is using your family name, something that is generally considered quite courteous in English. OTOH, you are taking his name, twisting it into a child-like diminuative. You are talking to him as if he was a child. Just using a shorter version of his name is not the problem. It is the '''specific''' name you have chosen that is the problem. You could call him "William" or "Simpson", and I suspect the issue would be gone. Several of the others of us have been calling him William, and he has voiced no objections to that. - ] 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think a lot of children would object if they were said they are like Willy Ally Simpsy. Because he is so biased and claims stuff that is not true. A lot of children would take much more care in what they say with respect to truth. But it seems you care more about how one person calls another than about truth. So it currently seems our worlds are miles a part. ] ] 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if your opponent is lying, offending him is not the way to go. Not only is it prohibited by Misplaced Pages policies, it is also extremely ineffective. Offenses, no matter how you look at them, are never a good tool to achieve anything except aggravating the other party, and I doubt that's what you are trying to achieve here. If your goal is to find truth, please utilize some other tools at your disposal.—] • (]); 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: My goal is not to find the truth. But to make people aware of false claims. Sir Zaziki! ] ] 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Still, there are better ways to do that than calling people names they find offensive. Speaking of which, would you cut it out calling me "Sir", please?—] • (]); 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yes Sir, ups I mean, all right Captain Zikizaki. ] ] 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What we've got here is an utter lack of good faith by Tobias. --] 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::How do you know my faith? Do you have a ]? - best regards Golbez. BTW I was thinking about you today. And thought, we had conflicts and were possibly angry about each other, but I cannot remember we had such a false-claim story as there is now with William. best regards to wherever you are. ] ] 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: He's talking about something totally different, Tobias. Check out ] for what he's talking about. I was already starting to discuss WP:AGF in my extended reply below. - ] 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::totally different? He talked about AGF. F is for faith. I did not assume anything with respect to the faith of Willy or Captn Zaziki. ] ] 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Texy, I searched the page you pointed me to, for the term "diminuative" - I could not find it. ] ] 05:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] cannot give specific examples of every possible way someone can be uncivil. The problem is not simply that you use diminuitives for people, but that you continue to do so to William Allen Simpson after he has expressed the fact that this is very insulting to him. For me, on the other hand, I just kinda shrug at it, and ignore it. So I'm not asking you to stop using diminuitive in all cases, but rather to stop using them in this one specific case. You now know that it is an insult for William Allen Simpson, so please, refrain from continuing to do it. - ] 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have provided two examples of William taking offense at your use of the name "Willy" on the same page where you requested that information. To now say that I have not provided such information, as you do on your user page... | |||
| :But beyond that. I have asked you to stop using that name to describe him. You instead choose to write a long opinion piece on your user page using the name over and over again. | |||
| :You were on the line of violations of ] before. You have now crossed that line. I much prefer to give warnings than to to wield the mod-bat, but I'm really left with little choice. You are blocked for 24 hours for the ] violations. If you wish to continue here as a productive member, you have got to learn to get along with others, especially with those with whom you disagree. - ] 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't seen your reply, because I only looked at your user page, there where I asked for evidence. Well I also asked at Will's page, but I haven't read there. Sorry Android, my mistake. I would like to change my userpage, but well you don't let me. Furthermore: I never read . So for me it was not that he repeatedly did so. I mean, he could do it on the moon page - I would have read it neither. ] ] 19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: My first thought when I saw your request on my talk page was that I knew I had seen William ask you at least twice to stop using that name. I didn't have time at that point to go track down the times. Later I saw you again challenge for the examples, thing time on William's talk page, and having a little more time, I then looked them up and referenced them there. Never even thought again about your original request on my own talk page until you mentioned it above. On this one failure to communicate, we are both at least partially at fault. I should have replied on my user page, but you also should have been watching for an answer in the places that you asked the question. | |||
| ::: As for not having read the link, it was in direct reply to a comment of yours, so it's not exactly on the moon. | |||
| ::: But the block is really not about the interactions between you and me. I have extremely thick skin. Pretty much have to to be an admin. As I said before, the whole diminuative nickname thing is pretty unimportant to me. Call me "Texy", "Tex", "Android", or whatever. It doesn't bother me. | |||
| ::::so at least here we have kind of same liberal view. ] ] 17:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The issue is how you and William interact. I understand that you have problems with him. But the two of you still need to be able to interact on a civil level if anything is to get done around here. There are reasons why WP:CIVIL is an official policy. WP funtions because people with diverse, and often conflicting opinions are able to interact here without a lot of the tactics and behaviours that are found on a lot of the rest of the net. WP:CIVIL is one of the key policies that promote this environment. Other similar policies you might want to check out are ] and ]. Together they help promote a productive atmosphere. | |||
| ::: I have a lot more to say, but I'll go ahead and give you this much so far to chew on while I continue typing. - ] 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] is also important in the events of the last few weeks. I suspect a lot of what you are seeing in William as untruth is actually good faith efforts to get things done. You two may very well disagree on what needs to be done, but parsing his wording to death like a bad lawyer and finding little things in the way he says things that are not perfectly said is really going far to assume bad faith into his actions. As a specific example, the flap you two had over the header of the relisted subdivision page. He wrote "Relisting of entire kit and kaboodle". You respnded: "This is NOT true. It is not a complete relisting". I'm sorry, but I don't see anything malicious in his handling. Now, I agreed with you on the old votes, at least, and closed off the old votes to start a new set. But even there, AGF says you should not assume bad motives in the reuse of the old votes. If William viewed the relisting as a continuation of the old debate, then it makes sense that he would continue with the old votes as a starting place. Both you and I saw the need for a fresh debate, so I wiped the old votes out of the picture. But we're back to AGF, and we need to give William the benefit of the doubt that the reuse of the old votes was not done with bad intentions. | |||
| ::: I'm putting a lot of time into these comments because I see you headed down a path that is going to get you increasing trouble here. And I'm hopeing I can steer you a bit back from that path. - ] 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Texy, for _me_ truth is not a matter of faith. Where did a say anything about maliciousnes. I simply said that what Willy wrote was NOT true. full stop. You may have seen that the votes of the users differed regarding which of the 3 proposals they referred too. So just copying the votes beyond a NEW vote is kind of misleading. That's it. I cannot read your brain and guess about your's or Willes faithes. ] ] 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The fact that you cannot read people's minds is one of the core reasons for AGF. AGF says you need to give the benefit of the doubt to the other over their intentions. In the situation like the one you gave, you can assume bad faith and condem him for his actions "That's NOT true", "misleading". Or you can assume goood faith, assume that he had good intentions even if his handling of the situation was not the best. The latter is how AGF says the situation should be viewed unless shown otherwise. Let me stress, though that WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy like WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Violating policies can get you blocked. Violating AGF will not result in a block, at least not directly, though it can lead you down the path to violating WP:CIVIL. | |||
| ::::: As for the word "Faith" itself, we can go around in circles on that one. I guess to me the problem is taking the word "faith" away from "Good" or "bad" gives it a different meaning. "Assume Good faith" and "Assume bad faith" deal with the motives you internally assign to others. Given that you cannot *know* his motive, act assuming that they are good, even when you are on opposite sides of a debate. But the word "faith" left by itself opens up whole other realms of meaning that are really not intended by the AGF phrase. - ] 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Geo naming conventions== | |||
| You may be interested in commenting on ].—] • (]); 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == unblock == | |||
| <nowiki>{{unblock|I was not warned that I get blocked. It was an arbitrary decision of TexasAndroid who thinks using the abreviation Willy to refer to someone who in turn thinks this is abusive name calling, is a reason to block someone. I would prefer an RfC regarding this matter. TexasAndroid pointed me to WP:Civilty but this page does not say that it is forbidden to use abreviations. The user in question did abreviat my user name too, by calling me "Conradi". which in turn nobody else does. }}</nowiki> | |||
| : Having read the above discussion I am unwilling to unblock you. The block expires shortly anyhow. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Again I'm declining the unblock, adding the tag again is disruptive, keep doing so and I'll extend the block. The current block expires in an hour or two, you'll just have to wait --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: you don't need to do it again. you can other admins let do the unblock. Your reasoning "the above discussion" (there are several) is dubious. Why do you threaten with extending the block? ] ] 17:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : In the above section, at the top I specifically said that blocks could result if you continued to use "Willy". So you were indeed warned about the possibility of being blocked. | |||
| :: could is not would. you crossing the street could result in you being killed by a car. could could could is not would would would ] ] 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And you again compare your use of "Willy" to his use of "Conradi". As I said before, there really is no valid comparison here. Use of a person's family name is generally considered polite and courteous in the English language. Use of a child-like diminuative is not. William is '''not''' complaining about you using less than his full name. He is complaining that this '''specific''' diminuative of his name is insulting to him. | |||
| : Finally, as I also said before, there is no way that the ] page can list every single way someone can be uncivil to another. It's simply not possible. But continueing to call someone by a name that they find insulting, when you have been warned that it is insulting both by him in the discussions and by me here on this page, is most definitely uncivil. - ] 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your way of talking remindes me of ], who explains to the world who is evil and who is good. This is done arbitrarily. It is ridiculous what you do. Did YOU read what WP:CIVIL says? Did you check Willy's behaviour against this? Did you block him? I am not running around like Willy and threaten with "seperate proceedings". Did I make remarks about his language skills the way he did with mine? Did I doubt in his knowledge of Scottish history as he did with mine? Shall I say I find it offending if he deletes my corrections of facts? Would YOU then if he goes on to do so, block him? On which two pages shall I post that I find his reverts on corrections of wrong or misleading statements he made offending, so that you go to his user talk and "warn" him of not to do this because "Tobias did repeatedly tell you not to rv corrections". ] ] 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As noted your block expires shortly, you were adequately warned but you persisted. The unblock mechanism is designed to enable you to have your block reviewed. It's been reviewed and the block is perfectly in order. Stop adding the tag it is disruptive and is not going to get you unblocked any quicker. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, I have not blocked him. I have been specifically focused on one aspect of the situation. And I note that you are again calling him "Willy". That needs to stop. Period. Consider yourself warned, again. | |||
| ::: That said, you level some serious charges. "separate proceedings" is almost certainly referring to RfC, which you mention filing against him as well. So that one at least is a wash. As for the rest... | |||
| ::: Show me the proof. Whether you want to persuade me that he has behaved badly, or have evidence for an upcoming RfC (whoever ends up filing one), you need to provide specific diffs to support your accusations. I don't know the full history of the interaction between you two. You do. Find the diffs that show him making the statments you say violate WP:CIVIL. | |||
| ::: Do note that at this point he's liklely to get a warning for past actions, not a block. That's the same thing as happened with you. I did not block you for past actions, rather I blocked you for continuing actions after a specific warning. | |||
| ::: So gather your proof. You want to persuade me, but if this does go to RfC you will want to persuade others. And to persuade people you need to be specific with what you consider inappropriate action. - ] 18:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I say "I find it offending that he signs with William Allen Simpson." will you warn him, if he continous to do so? And I am allready offended by Pgk, whom I told to ignore the unblock-tag. I am offended by his reviews of my unblock tag and the removals, please warn him and block him if he proceedes. Thanks. Oh, I have to say it twice, have I? Wait a second. In the meantime - where did I say I want an RfC on Willys behavior? <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> ] ] 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here we go. I am offended by User:Pgk's unblock-tag removals with only the reason " i read the discussion " and " will be unblocked soon anyway ". I TOLD him to ignore the tag and let other admins decide. ] ] 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: And I TOLD you the purpose of the unblock tag and that keep on replacing it is disruptive. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::By YOUR judgement. But I now tell you that you should stop judging here. I want others admins to judge. ] ] 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: You do not get to choose who reviews the block. You place the tag, it gets reviewed. Don't like the review then that is tough luck. Continually replacing it hoping someone will agree with you is disruptive. Placing it again is that and I am sorely tempted to extend the block, however since the original block expired some 30 minutes ago... --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::the block was disruptive, do you get this? And you continously did remove the unblock tag and by doing so prevented that other can see it and review the case. I know, I am only 2nd class and you are 1st class. You are an admin. Great, have fun exercising your power together with the blocker TexasAndoid. Arbitrary block is arbitrary block is arbitrary block. ] ] 19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You don't get to choose your judge. You can't keep throwing a request up hoping it will stick. --] 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::ok, Golby. To some extend this makes sense. But I do not except him as judge. ] ] 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: That's kinds the whole point of the unblock template. You're asking to have another, uninvolved admin come in and give a second opinion on the block. To judge whether the block should stay or go. The point is that, if he decides against you you are not entitled to keep asking for a 3rd opinion. Then a 4th if that one upholds as well, and so on. Unblock gets you a single, 2nd opinion. - ] 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: i don't know the "whole point of the unblock template" - i wanted the block to be removed. -- ''Unblock gets you a single, 2nd opinion.'' if he would not have deleted, it would may have get me more opinions. And hey, I don't care much about a opinion like " after having read the discussion I am unwilling to unblock " what is that? No real reason at all. Your unfair admin system is the problem. As (re)moving corrections and false-claiming-and-sticking-to-it is one. | |||
| ] ] 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In the very first paragraph of this section you say "I would prefer an RfC regarding this matter". I read this as saying you wanted an RfC against William. Reading back you may very well have been talking about filing an RfC against *me* over the whole "Willy" block. If I misread, I apologize. If you want to file an RfC against me, very well. | |||
| : As for the issue of you finding offense in every action others take, I would suggest you check out ]. This one is another policy, as in you can get blocked for violating it. Your comments here on your user page do not violate WP:POINT, yet, IMHO, though Pgk might think otherwise of your comments about being offended by his tag actions. But if you start using this as a tactic in debates around the rest of the project, then it will very quickly become a WP:POINT violation. - ] 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :TexyMexy. I don't want an RfC on your behaviour. I want one regarding mine! I don't want that you arbitrarily decide to block me. I don't want that any admin runs around blocking contributors because they behave in a way that (someone ) SAYS it is abusive or derogeratory. ] ] 19:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re: Administrative division== | |||
| <cite id=Re:_Administrative_division_reply_1> </cite> The political division of- and administrative division- articles generally discuss the different levels of government within a country. Some of these articles discuss also divisions that have no actual governmental functions, but serve some sort of administrative functions. I'd say the categories can be broader, to cover constituencies, ceremonial counties, census designated areas, etc. — ]] 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<cite id=Re:_Administrative_division_reply_2> </cite>I don't even think reorganisation is necessary for the time being. The division and administrative division categories are of different levels. The latter can be child of the former. — ]] 16:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Ongoing drive == | |||
| You respond to something I posted *before* you were blocked, and then link to that response as evidence of an "ongoing" drive against you. This makes very little sense. | |||
| The only thing I have "ongoing" against you is the continued warning to not call William by the diminuative "Willy". You use a childish nickname for him, in essence talking to him as if he was a child, and yet you fail to see how this could be considered by some as denigrating? The denigration comes from the fact that you are treating him like a child. | |||
| You repeat your argument about having not seen his first comment about how insulting the name was. (The second one I linked to). You say it could have been "posted it to the moon page". But this is a false example, because it *was* posted in direct response to something *you* posted. So instead of being hidden away, it was posted where there were safe assumptions you would read it. That you did not is not his fault. (Not your fault either. It just happened) But to imply with the "moon" comment that it was hidden away... | |||
| As for the "likely more spots" comment, that was speculation, given that you two have a history that streatches back well before I became involved. Speculation. That's why I used the word likely. I thought I had read something in one of those two comments that implied that the latter (chronological) one had had several previous requests. I cannot find now now what I read, so there may very well not be earlier complaints. The two, though, do stil qualify as "repeatedly", which was what the examples were for in the first place. Maybe, given only two, I could have chosen a better word than "repeatedly", but the word is not false as used. | |||
| But after he complained twice in '''direct response''' to you, and I warned you to stop, including pointing you to the policy involved and telling you that blocks could follow if the behavious did not stop... | |||
| And you got your review, and it was declined by a totally uninvolved admin. When I blocked you I also posted to ] for review. I got only one response, supporting the block. Given how quick the admins there are to jump on improper actions by other admins, the deafening silence from any other admins says that no other admin who read it found a problem with my action. No way of knowing how many that is, but it is a page read frequently by a *lot* of admins. | |||
| So you can parse my comments to little pieces, as you tend to do, and find cases where I did not word things the best that they should have been worded, but I contend that my *actions* have been perfectly within the guidelines, and perfectly proper as an admin on this project. | |||
| You have also leveled some serious allegations of WP:CIVIL violations against William. I asked you before to give me evidence, and you have not. '''You''' are the one bringing the allegations, '''you''' are the one who needs to dig through the history to find the evidence of your allegations. Show me where he has violated the rules, and I will see what should be done about them. You will need this evidence anyway. The way you two are going, it seems inevitable that one or the other of you will be filing a RFC or RfAr against the other before too much longer. - ] 16:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, that I did not read his first expression of offense just happened. As it would have happened on the moon page. Of course it is more likely that I would have read the page you mention than the moon page. But I did not compare the likelihoods. If someone really has a personal problem he could go to the user's talk page if he wants to be sure the user reads it. IMO it's his fault to not have gone to my talk page, if he wanted to be sure I read his complaints. | |||
| Yes you warned me with a claim of repetitiveness that for me was unproven. It seemed like you copied Williams words, more or less:" I take offense ... as I have done elsewhere ... ". | |||
| Anyway he could hide facts and someone warns to block, this was really ridiculous. And he said he is tired of being called a liar. I did not call him liar in this disputs. You knew this. And you knew that his claims where wrong. I did not say anything wrong in that respect. | |||
| You write: ''You use a childish nickname for him, in essence talking to him as if he was a child, and yet you fail to see how this could be considered by some as denigrating? The denigration comes from the fact that you are treating him like a child.'' | |||
| But if you read carefully you would see he wrote "''I take great offense at the denigration by Conradi, '''and''' use of diminuative name calling''". So the denigration is an additional thing to the use of the diminuative name. | |||
| I am not sure about the "ongoing" stuff. Maybe I just could not post before about this, because you blocked me? But I think we can leave this aside. | |||
| You really spent a lot of time on this. Respect. | |||
| regards ] ] 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Some encouragement. == | |||
| Just thought you needed a word of encouragement. I noticed you have some trouble as of late and wanted you to know that I think you are doing good work. Peace ] 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for your thanks! I like it when people thank me for organizing Wikistuff. -- ] 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Indian districts naming == | |||
| Your inputs on this vote: ]. Regards, ] ] 07:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Naming of districts of India== | |||
| ] is a fact of life, and one remains infatuated with his impressions of a subject. --] 11:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not expect any answer on my talk page - you are welcome to reply here. --] 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Requests for arbitration == | |||
| See ]. | |||
| :--] 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: districts == | |||
| I am a resident of ] and ] is my native tongue. So I know about the term "jilla" used in Gujarati. I am pretty much sure that the same term is used in ] as well. I will look at the article you mentioned after 6th May, as I have exams till then. - ] (]) 05:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your email == | |||
| Thanks for the apology. However, I still see the occasional snarky remark by you in your move and edit summaries - it would be much, much simpler and happier for everyone involved for you to not make those comments at all, and if you have a problem with someone's move or edit, take it up with them on their talk page instead of immortalizing it in the move log. Thanks. --] 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :disagree. would not like to run to the users talk all the time. Esp. not after unfruitful events. ] ] 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then all making snide comments in summaries does is exacerbate the issue, without solving anything. --] 22:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd have to second that. You may be right a million times over, but if you are hostile/sarcastic/generally unfriendly, you only undermine your position. Even gentle humor may occasionally backfire. Cheers!—] • (]); 22:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 1. please give examples, so we can talk about it more specific. 2. This undermine argument is a no argument for me. If people can not seperate between content and framing it's their fault. @Golbez, hopefully I solve something with my comments: First the user maybe takes more care in the future. Second others are warned. ] ] 22:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Indian district naming convention == | |||
| The issue has been voted on and closed on ]. Please do not revert to the small casing else I'll have you listed on ] pending a block for disrupting wikipedia. ] ] 09:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your first sentence is not true. Thanks. ] ] 10:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's quite clear that you refuse to honour any discussion or consensus. You were invited to share your thoughts and you did not. After a straw poll in which the smaller casing was voted for by a significant margin, it was closed with consensus being reached. I'd also like to add that it was not closed by me. I don't see why you find my statement to be false. Regards, ] ] 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''It's quite clear that you refuse to honour any discussion or consensus.'' - Wherefrom is this clear? Isn't it more you who refuses to honour discussions? Instead of talking you rushed for voting. Furthermore there is currently no consensus, you know that. The first sentence above is false, because the vote took place at the IN noticeboard and was just copied over to the project page. Anyway, I would like to see more arguments in the analysis section at ]. ] ] 19:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| You should have discussed it before moving ] to ]. The page should have stayed at ], a disambiguation page can be created separately at ], because the word ''Gilgit'' usually refers to the Gilgit that IS described on this page. Just like ] has the main page and other meanings are written at ]. ] 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is more annoying than it seemed originally; ] exists separately (you created it today) and redirects to ], what is the purpose of this? The ] page should have the main article as it originally was, with a link on top; ''For other uses, see ]''. I hope you'll agree now. ] 12:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Haveri == | |||
| All Indian districts are part of ] and per convention there, the article name is notated with a lowercase ''d''. I know that you were/are involved in a debate wrt the use of an uppercase vs. lowercase d with Nichalp and some other editors; however as I move towards improving the quality of all districts in Karnataka, I will be following the convention indicated in the Wikiproject mentioned above. Thanks ] 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What do you mean ''why''? ] 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Because it is disputed and until consensus is reached either way, I am going to follow the conventions indicated in the Wikiproject. ] 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Let me make something clear to you. I am currently on a break but will return shortly to continue and improve the quality of the content for all districts in Karnataka. I have already added a lot of information on ], and I will continue to add information to other districts in the state. Let me assure you of my supreme disinterest in being sucked into this naming convention debate that you have going on. All I care about is making sure that there's a wealth of information on Karnataka districts here in Misplaced Pages and I don't want any part of the D vs. d debate. End of story. ] 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I do not like your moving pages any more than I like anyone else moving pages. I just noticed that you moved a bunch of Karnataka districts to uppercase again. I am not in a position to comment on it because I am only casually familiar with your debate. Like I say though, I am not and do not want to be part of it; my interest lies in making content available and not engaging in any debate over naming symantics. ] 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hi Tobias== | |||
| How's it going? ] 13:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == District naming == | |||
| Hi Tobias, I have added some information at ]. Please comment. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| see ] | |||
| == MozWiki == | |||
| I have added a note to your , merely poking you here incase you do not load the Mozilla Wiki often. --] 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : And another note. --] 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == European Article Numbering-Uniform Code Council == | |||
| Question: | |||
| are there any reserved ranges for private use? | |||
| Answer: | |||
| In the UPC/EAN standards, you may use certain ranges for internal applications. This includes e.g. an EAN13 symbol starting with "000". | |||
| ==Namibia== | |||
| move to ] ] ] 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| move to ] ] ] 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD Nomination ]== | |||
| I've nominated the article ] for deletion under the ] process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that ] satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see ] and ]). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Don't forget to add four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. | |||
| Sincerely, ] (] | ]) 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == AFD == | |||
| please leave me alone with such nonsense. go to deletopedia if you whish to delete. Your deletions are bad for on enWP. ] ] 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : WHAT in the name of... ah, that. Hey, assume good faith or something, will you? I was putting up my first AfD ever, and I followed every thinkable instruction, including notifying the creator of the article. Now, granted, the AfD in question was not well-received, but I've learnt from my mistakes and your way of dealing with them - i e, telling me to piss off - is not very productive. | |||
| : In short, PLEASE be civil and assume good faith. I was just ]. Thank you. ] (] | ]) | |||
| : (On a further note, you might want to add an actual link to your talk page in your signature, instead of just a bold text saying "talk"... ] (] | ]) 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| == Smile == | |||
| {{smile}} | |||
| Thank you for changing your manners. It was not my intention to anger you. Cool feature with the talk link thingy. Or, perhaps that goes for all signatures? I haven't used mine on my talk page. With love (really.), ] (] | ]) 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think I generally changed my manners. This harshness may occur again. All selflinks are deactivated. ] ] 16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Long talk page== | |||
| Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit ] - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! ] ] 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Berlin== | ==Berlin== | ||
Revision as of 13:54, 3 July 2006
Dear Wikipedians, if your signature has a talk-link, I may be more inclined to answer at your talk page. Otherwise I may be more inclined to answer here. I don't like to allways click 2 times to reply only because you do not provide a talk-back feature.
thanks to an idea by User:Ral315 I use raw signature now, because the other way of signing stopped working today. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at
Berlin
You alright, man? You never called.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- you did not call me neither? Maybe we missed the once in a lifetime chance to see us. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Once in a lifetime? I much doubt it :) I liked Berlin, and hope to return one day. It's a pity, though, that things turned out the way they did. You are welcome to blank my userpage once as you promised—you now have every right to do so :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandal? First time I've been called that!
Tobias, I am appalled that you apparently did not even read my edit summary, nor did you take the time to realise that most of the changes to the Ubuntu article in the last few months have been done by me. Please see the talk page for further discussion, and please don't make me regret nominating the article for WP:AID, where I suspect you came across it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Name calling
Please do not call people vandals when they are not vandalising, such as in the instance above. That is a personal attack and goes against WP:AGF. Consider this a warning. pschemp | talk 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- name calling? what's up? Do you have limited access to WP? Maybe read:
- I regard your personal attack on me as attempted censorship
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I regard your reaction as paranoia. Please try to be civil. This is your second warning.pschemp | talk 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- what to you mean by "second warning"? What of my reaction do you regard as paranoia? You may consider reverting your edit on russian mafia member page User:Ezhiki. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Additionally, Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have now been blocked for 48 hours for creating nonsense pages, violating WP:POINT, and vandalising other user's pages. --InShaneee 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your block has now been extended for further incivility while blocked. Additionally, your talk page has now been protected to prevent further innapropriate removal of warnings while blocked. Keep in mind that more behavior of this sort following the experation of your block will simply result in reblocking. --InShaneee 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've now extended your block to one month for mass sockpuppetry and disruption. --InShaneee 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since you have continued to user IP socks (see edit history of your userpage) after being warned, I have extended your block further. pschemp | talk 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've now extended your block to one month for mass sockpuppetry and disruption. --InShaneee 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
More socks
And for attempting to evade your block with User:Hauke, your block has been extended again. Have a nice day. pschemp | talk 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from referring to me by a diminuative. I was in two minds whether to comment at all after reading your history of incivility and anti-social behaviour above. However, I'll take your comment at face value rather than more mischief-making.
Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not an article. It does not state whether this is a person, town, building or geographical feature, or where it is in that large country. To discuss whether it should deleted seems pointless, especially as it can hardly have been a major task for you to write one short contentless sentence. jimfbleak 05:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Block
2006-06-30 19:40 InShaneee: "m (Protected User talk:Tobias Conradi: removal of warnings while blocked )"
2006-07-03 13:24 Ezhiki: "unprotected--it's been long enough. User should be able to challenge his block, too. If anon IPs are at it again, I'll re-protect this talk page."
What have anons to do with the protection? BTW, there never where any at this page. . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)