User talk:Tobias Conradi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:32, 27 September 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)[reply]

Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at [1]

2006-07-03 emptied page [2] until section Berlin which was started 2006-06-06.

Berlin

You alright, man? You never called.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2006-06-27 20:18 replied at [3]

2006 summer admin incidents

User:Tobias Conradi/2006 summer admin incidents

Hurlingham

Thanks for the tip-off - the changes have been made to Hurlingham. Mtiedemann 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

One of your articles, List of tango singers is being nominated for deletion. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I get to these AfD's and I can't believe that so many people have written "Delete per nom". Alot of people assume that because it's being nominated it should be deleted. I also think that because they do not like tango music they are much more likely to assume it is insignificant. Oh well AdamBiswanger1 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tango

Regarding your ad hominem attac here, please refrain from doing so. I have clearly mentioned that I have no relation whatsoever with any pro/anti tango group, and the article is afd'able on its own right. It popped up my screen when I was doing a random cleanup, and so I afd'd it. Thank you. --Ragib 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your ad hominem attac - maybe stop randomly cleaning up. BTW, why did you not notify the page creator? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tango singers

Tobias, I just realized that you haven't voted yet! Please do!. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otro pa'vos, pero no te olvides que si no votas, queda raro... la gente piensa "Si este no vota, porque voy a votar yo?". Suerte! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently giving this a going over - having found a very useful list of notable tango singers, I think this will ease previous concerns that they are being put in completely arbitrarily. I intend to put back information from the original list ASAP - the reason I made the drastic change is that the original list's references didn't seem to be working online anymore. Since making everything hyper-verifiable seems to be the way to do an AFD-save these days, I just ran with the first list I could find online. TheGrappler 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Haukes

I don't know. I've fixed it. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country subdivisions

move to Talk:Matrix of subnational entities Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eng.tango.info

It's working now! Yesterday I couldn't get the singers section to work either in Firefox or Internet Explorer. The weird thing is that all the other musician categories worked fine - singers were the ones that were the problem.TheGrappler 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Tobias,

I was especially pleased at your positive comments at my RfA. Auf weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tana River (Finland)

Interesting progression: Tana River → Tana River (Finnland) → Tana River (Finland)

Since it is called the Tana in Norwegian but the Tenojoki in Finnish I suspect that you mistook the county of Finnmark in Norway for the country of Finland. Not surprising; more than one person has made that misread.

Lacking any load outcry, I intend to change this to Tana River (Norway); the other logical revsiion would be Tenojoki River (Finland) and that is tautological, so I'd rather avoid it.

Williamborg 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can't reply at your userpage, because I'm blocked (don't know why, my blocker number 1 seldomly provides diffs)

interesting tauto list. Since the Alaska and Kenya Tana River will not empty in the same body of water, a good dab could use the waterbody the river flows to. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming , e.g. Tana River (Atlantic). best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tango.info

One issue I am having with tango.info as a source, is I can't work out how the "singer-ness" of singers is shown. If I could work out that the database is telling me "this person released 34 CDs in which they sang" then I'd feel more comfortable updating the list of tango singers. At the moment, I am more comfortable with using todotango.com, for whom the biographies usually provide enough information to assert notability as a tango. And of course the other sources I have for tango outside Latin America (I was pleased with my Turkish finds... they seem to know how to sing a very good tango!) Could you explain to me how to work out from tango.info how many CDs (does that include LPs?) have been released by a tango musician purely as a singer? TheGrappler 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether "Many tango musicians have been both instrumentalists and singers" [4] is right. First lot's of musicians have not been singers. Second, those that are kown as singers, maybe were composers and lyricist, but are rarely known for being instrumatalists, except for guitar. Maybe I am just not aware of what they played else. I will look, how I can improve tango.info so that one can sort by number of tracks. Anyway, if you have a singer page and it says 20 tracks, he is likely notable. Currently the data is only CDs. But these are in most cases re-releases of 78rpm or vinyls Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://eng.tango.info/singers?dsc=tracks , singers sorted by track descending Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dance

Since you are making a tango portal, you might be interested in Portal:Dance. In particular, Portal:Dance/New article announcements. `'mikka (t) 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

unblock|no diff for allegation of perso attack provided by possibly stalking admin pschemp

first, its right here, please read your own talk page [5] and second, nowhere in the blocking policy does it say I have to do spell out the diff. You know what you typed.pschemp | talk 19:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to Category_talk:Districts of Pakistan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Tobias,
Just to let you know I'm working on a table of /Subnational divisions by country for the sake of an overview if nothing else. Hope all well, David Kernow 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Hi Dave, thx for informing me. Good list, IMO mv to article space, so others can contribute. cu around Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, once I've been through it again a couple of times to tidy it up, maybe a add a paragraph or two about the most common terms and fill in any more of the missing data I can find. Am also intending to move /NUTS levels into article space, again after tidying up etc. Yours, David 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadsdeel

The redirect of the stadsdeelpage to politics of the Netherlands (terminology)#Stadsdeel was discussed on the articles talk. Please do not revert that change, before discussing it on the talk page. --C mon 09:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic/Faeroe on List of tz zones

As you pointed out, I made a mistake in changing Atlantic/Faeroe to Atlantic/Faroe on List of tz zones - I have changed it back, and have taken the liberty of inserting an html comment at that point in the page so that anyone else who is about to make the same mistake might read it first and stop. Thanks for spotting it and pointing it out. Euchiasmus 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian naming issues

It might be worth reading the leadup and talk on the various pages to see why the issue is one in the first place :) SatuSuro 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not inclined to read various talk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey be gentle, I'm just foll0wing it all - and suggesting that you see their reasoning, I make multiple mistakes on naming conventions across state lines :) - If you havent found it try -. . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places‎; thats where its all been happening :) - and if you want a good explanation - I'm not the one ! SatuSuro 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a big thanks, I do most editing on my imac, and for some stupid reason (shift) q does not work - so thanks for the King River correction! SatuSuro 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Argentina's motto issue

Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:User WikiProject Argentina, and I've started a new poll for all the people who want to change and/or remove the motto. As a member of WPAR, your opinion will be an useful contribution to our project. Cheers, —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Garner

I talked with the creator here: User talk:TheBigOlBug. Basically this person is a NN teacher. This user also created a nonsense article ("Male stripping") which inclines me to believe s/he was just playing games anyway. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, A7 is one of the Criteria for speedy deletion, basically meaning "non-notable". --Fang Aili ^talk 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

place naming conventions

Hi. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)#New_.22General_rules.22 about your recent changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), and reverted the change pending the outcome of the discussion. Please note I am trying to ensure that there is in fact consensus for the changes, so please join the discussion. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please revert

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that. Your article contained no more than one single sentence, which is rather short and making it fit for the criteria for speedy deletion. It states:

Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.

If you can provide something which is longer than a few lines, it could stay...but one sentence is too short to merit an article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know what you meant by me having violated WP:DP. I have thoroughly researched it and I still don't know what you mean, so please enlighten me...and do that without threats please, Wikipedia is not a battleground, you know.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With violations of speedy deletion criteria you make it a battle ground. Because CONTRIBUTORS can do nothing to easily undo you de-contributions.

Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").

Did I write something like that??? Your comparison is kind of insulting. And furthermore, what about:

Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.

You violated WP:DP/speedy deletion. The criteria are not matched. You are not allowed to speedy delete stuff only because it is "one sentence" as you said in the del log. I am really pissed of. You are not the first deleter of this kind. I would like every admin who does this to get de-admined for 1 month. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer this one in five parts.

Don't try to blame it on me now. I wasn't who erupted this battleground, and you know it. I'm just doing my duty; you were the one started making uncivil remarks, not me.
You are aware that that comparison is directly taken from WP:CSD, right? I can't help it that you were "insulted".
Well, no. There's no violation there. I say that there was not enough context either. That can't be expanded on, as it has only one location of which no more details can be given. Furthermore, if this is a valid stub...then tell me how that strokes with the definition of stub at WP:STUB: It must be long enough to at least define the article's title and its meaning in order to appear in Wikipedia.. It doesn't either of those, thus rendering the article 'below-stub'. Which is 'CSD A1'.
What are you trying to do with these threats? Scaring me off? This debate is not gonna be more friendly with paragraphs citing stuff like that.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down chico. YOU VIOLATED, not me.

You are aware that that comparison is directly taken from WP:CSD, right? I can't help it that you were "insulted".
- I asked YOU wether I wrote soething like what you stated. I didn't. YOU are the insulter and disrupter.
Well, no. There's no violation there. I say that there was not enough context either.
- So I will go to ArbCom. Has nothing to do with threats. They shall decide whether there was enough content to expand this stub.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked YOU wether I wrote soething like what you stated. I didn't. YOU are the insulter and disrupter.
- Well some way, yes. Your article could be used as an example for what CSD A1 is meant to cover. Although the 'Factory and the Hacienda'-example appears to be of an overdone way, in order for WP:CSD to get the point across. So, don't jump the gun so quickly, I meant no harm with the quotation.
So I will go to ArbCom. Has nothing to do with threats. They shall decide whether there was enough content to expand this stub.
- You are aware that this RfC is futile, right? It states: 'at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed'. To me it occurs that you are the only one who's having a problem with me.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ArbCom seems not possible right now. I don't know whether I am the only one that has problems with speedy deletions of something one just created, while this did not fit the "not expansible" criteria. Thanks for admitting the citation was overdone. please rv your deletion. There is real bad stuff out, so let valid things go. You may also consider to CONTRIBUTE to the stub :-), you already now there is a river with the same name. Maybe there is a relation??? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

You are resuming your pattern of incivility. This edit (and the edit summary that goes with it) is incivil: [6]. You have been warned before about being civil, I believe. Please explain why you should not get a block right away instead of a warning, or explain why you are not going to continue to be incivil in future? To be clear: removal of this warning from your talk page will get you a block as well. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want, you annoyer??? Please obstain from personal attacks here. Go away. 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You (and others) are on my watch, because you have a pattern of bad behaviour here. So when I see things, I hand out warnings. It's what admins do. Calling me "you annoyer"??? That was incivil too. Blocked for 24h. Spend the time reviewing WP:CIVIL please. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you are annoying. You behave like someone with personal disabilities in real life. like a Napoleon. Maybe your use of the admin buttons is just an compensation for your problems elsewhere. So be it Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to be rude after being blocked for incivility is an unwise move. Please, take a break and relax. There's no reason to get excited about what happens here. Friday (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

really, there is nothing to get exited about the admins here. They can violate policies, they can threaten. ...it's really annyoing. What do you want here? maybe go and CONTRIBUTE to WP or block policy violating admins. Or unblock legitimate users, users that are blocked for indefinite time by false accusatios. etc. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, this is a bit too incivil. As suggested by Friday above, perhaps you can take a break to cool down. Thanks. --Ragib 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read civility? It's stupid that people like Lar are admins. I dont wanna cool down. You dont need to thank for nothing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased your block to 48 hours. Please stop being incivil and I'll stop increasing it. ++Lar: t/c 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you cannot buy me. You or Pschemp did try so before. As opposed to you I am not corrupt. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins here are not trying to buy you. Rather, we are trying to change your behaviour, as you have made valuable contributions here and elsewhere. But if we cannot, if you persist in misbehaving, eventually you will exhaust the communities patience and be indef blocked. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying ot change my behavior you should think about stopping abusive admins. Pilcomayo Department was a valid stub a speedy delete, directly by an admin was not right. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for stopping abusive admins. But that's not what this is about. This is about your incivility. Regardless of the merits of the deletion, this "you arrogant WP:CSD violation supporter" is incivil, and further, a personal attack. You need to internalise that no matter how upset you are, you must remain calm, make reasoned arguments, and avoid attacking others. Until you do that, you are going to continue to be blocked when admins notice that sort of behaviour. Regardless of how much you try to claim there is some vast (or small) conspiracy or that I personally am out to get you, or whatever, the fault lies with you for making comments like that. The sooner you stop making comments like that, the better. Really, this is not hard to understand. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilcomayo Department

A WP-email I wrote to User:Trialsanderrors Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO nice that you wrote something about Pilcomayo.

Nevertheless, I am really annoyed that admins can abuse their rights, and on DRV more admins support this. The only person who confirmed that is was not right to delete was Friday. It's still not fair that the original stub stays deleted.

Abusive admins have to be stopped and IMO abuses have to be orrected.

best regards

A WP-email to User:JzG Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked

with respect to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_8#Pilcomayo_Department

WPArgentina

Hi! I just wanted to inform you, as a member of WikiProject Argentina, that we are about to start using the {{WPArgentina}} for article categorization and qulification. Please, take a minute to read the project's talk page, as well as the taggin scheme and the Importance guidelines, and make the necesary comments. Thank you for your participation, Mariano(t/c) 08:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

They are a bureaucratic mess, but they are the only place where you can officially log a complaint against an admin. You can also make an informal complaint, by posting to either WP:AN/I or to WP:RFC (but not to both at the same time). If neither AN/I nor RFC appeal to you, I can help you with the technical side of the arbitration process. Please note, however, that arbitration cases tend to drag for quite a while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the info. Seems some admins live a different life in their admin pages. yesterday I found one who had around 3000 deletions and 4000 edits in the main space. If I guess the main edits are also tagging stuff for del or whatever than this looks like big imbalance. Taking into account that he maybe aquired adminship only after some main edits it looks more imbalanced. Special care must be taken if admins devote 70% of their time to deletions only. And if then they violate WP:DP or defend their violation - it's really a mess. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a bigger review of the direct-delete-by-admin process. Where should I go? Seems like lots of admins apply the rules very lousy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can imagine how one can have tons of deletions. If you patrol recent new articles, for example, you are bound to encounter loads of crap. Start doing it regularly, and your deletions can easily outnumber your contributions. Same goes for AfD closure—if an article is voted to be deleted, someone has to delete it, and some people regularly close AfDs, which, of course, throughs their contributions/deletions ratio off balance.

As for your other question, we have the following deletion procedures: WP:AfD (+WP:CfD & WP:TfD for cats and templates), WP:SPEEDY, and WP:PROD. I can't imagine how admins would be able to abuse AfD and Prod. Speedies, yes, those are not always as clear-cut. If an admin speedily deletes something, that something should very clearly fall under one or more of the speedy deletion criteria and should be specified in the deletion summary. If you feel that an article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria, you should bring this directly to the admin who deleted the page—the very least they can do is to restore it and put in on AfD instead. If for some reason they refuse to even hear you out, then WP:AN/I is the best place to bring it to everyone's attention. Or, you can always re-write the article, expanding it in such a way that no one would be tempted to nominate it for deletion again.

For now, I suggest you read through WP:SPEEDY—it's long, but it should answer most of your questions. If after reading it you still have any unanswered questions, feel free to ask me. If you disagree with some parts of that policy, you can always make a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; there are brief instructions there on how to best do it.

Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, maybe he only closed tons of stuff. Pilcomayo Department was speedy deleted, it did not fullfill the criterion of no context to allow expansion. Still several admins insistent the speedy was right. This is policy violation and admin right abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A disagreement does not have to involve abuse. I'm as concerned about admin abuse as anybody, but we're all allowed to make simple mistakes. Quite often, asking someone politely to reconsider produces better results than crying "abuse" at any opportunity. Friday (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "please revert your deletion Pilcomayo Department" - but he didn't. I talked with him, he sticked to it. I went to DRV, the first reviewer endorsed the del. They produce the mess and I shall not address an abuse as an abuse? What do truth and free speech mean to you? I did not cry, I only named the thing. Admin right abuse is admin right abuse. And if 1000 admins defend the abuses, so be it. Abuse is abuse. And if 2000 admins come to the one who named the abuse and tell him how to behave and at the same time do not stop the abuser - so be it. Abuse is abuse is abuse. The initial stub is still deleted, the deleter did not say it was wrong, the defenders of the violation do not name the thing an abuse. So be it. But an abuse is an abuse is an abuse. Policy violation by admins is policy violation by admins. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the debates about the Pilcomayo Department; sorry I didn't notice this was going on before. In my opinion, the original stub, while quite marginal, did not meet CSD A1. If it only were one sentence, I'd probably agree with SoothingR's logic, but it was properly tagged and categorized as well, thus sufficiently defining the article's title and its meaning to facilitate further expansion. I also don't understand SoothingR's reluctance to undelete the article and, if he believed he was right, to list in on AfD instead—even if CSD A1 were technically met, it's quite obvious that the topic was valid. I'm all for deleting extremely short articles such as this one myself, but only under the condition that no one else is interested in expanding them or in incorporating them into an existing scheme (this one obviously belongs to Category:Departments of Argentina). I can see how this could piss Tobias off; after all, it's not the first time when his stubs are deleted per a CSD criterion, although, of course, I would recommend Tobias to create slightly longer stubs to avoid this from ever happening again. Friday also made a good point—just because you have a disagreement, it's not necessarily abuse, but I can't justify some of SoothingR's responses either.

Tobias, you mentioned that you brought it to some other admins to review, but I couldn't find where. Could you, please, provide me with the links? And please, please, please, don't get all wound up again—we are perfectly capable of solving this peacefully. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment. the DRV [7] .... I am off for tango now :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

media storage
audio

phonograph cylinder
gramophone record (also phonograph record, or simply record)
- The terms LP record (LP or 33), 16 rpm record (16), 45 rpm record (45), and 78 rpm record (78) each refer to specific types of gramophone records. LPs, 45s, and the exceedingly rare, generally spoken word, 16s are usually made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and hence may be referred to as vinyl records or simply vinyl.
- 78 rpm shellac records, A-sides and B-sides existed, but for the most part, radio stations would play either side of the record, and records often had more than one track per side. The "side" did not convey anything about the content of the record.
- The terms came into popular use with the advent of 45 rpm vinyl records
Compact Cassette
Compact Disc
DVD-Audio
SACD
vinyl

video+mixed

VHS
DVD-R
DVD+R
DVD+R DL
DVD+RW
Holographic Versatile Disc
Blu-ray
HD DVD
DVD-Video

ISO 639:sip Sikkimese 28,600

Tanaro

Hi! I am not really clear why you felt the need to move Tanaro to Tanaro River, but would you mind fixing the double redirects you created? (I have made the appropriate change to the only link which was not pointing to the river article, the Tanaro in Départements of France) Thanks, —Ian Spackman 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help you to become more clear? Feel free to ask me, as precise as possible. As a start you may also read Tanaro, if you have not done so already. I don't want to fix the links, I think this can be done tool-supported by other people better. I am not here to fix all bugs in WP. Why did you say "Thanks"?. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that English is not your first language. Thanks means ‘grazie’, ‘danke schön’…. But do not worry—I’ve fixed the problem. Cheers (‘Prost’,‘Salute’) —Ian Spackman 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess was right as can be seen from User:Tobias_Conradi. Nevertheless I also ususally translate it this way ( more precise I translate as "danke" without schoen.). And this is the reason why I asked, I could not see what you thanked for. best regards and thanks for fixing. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on your contribs to see "what this helpfull editor" does else. By doing so I saw you did a cut and paste move in the Tanaro case and were not that helpful as your above text let think me. Cut and paste moves are not wanted in WP because of copyright issues. Furthermore it is a bad behavior of you to undo the dabbing I did and to delete the valley. You said you were not clear about why I dabbed and I offered you help. But you kind of arrogant told me how to translate "thanks". You should probably better leave WP or change your behavior. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mails received

I received two mails from Tobias which I am answering here.

One I cannot quite determime what is being asked for and I reproduce it here in hopes it is of some help.

because of your block I cannot take measures to undo the following cut and paste move http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanaro_River&action=history additional would be nice if you inform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ian_Spackman of his possible pol violation. I did not find the pol, but think there must be one.

He also made a quite misleading statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=68832292&oldid=68830829 which left the impression he fixed the wrong links. I just wanted to see what this helpful guy did else, clicked contribs and this way found out what he really did. I think this is really bad behavior of him.

best regards Tobias

The other is (in its entireity):

is this is personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_8&diff=68649656&oldid=68627594

In answer, if I understand the question, yes, it is. Trialsanderrors in his statement is highlighting something that he feels is a personal attack you made, and correct (in my view) in his assessment that it indeed is a personal attack. If you do not think it is, perhaps further reading will help. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1: Ian did a cut and past move as I wrote in the mail. I thought you may help to correct this and inform him of his policy violation, if he violated one. But seems you arrogant Esperanza member refuse to contribute in article space and to correct Ian. Maybe you have so much to do with me?

ad 2: I was referring to "No, that was a perfectly good call, you arrogant deletionist non-contributor." a statement made by Trialsanderrors in reply to Geogre. I wanted to know whether you would think this was a personal attack, because Trialsanderrors called Geogre arrogant. Maybe you answer this question just with yes or no and then explain why you regard it as attack or not. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1... tsk tsk, personal attacks. Thought we'd talked about this already. Calling me arrogant is not going to score you any points I'm afraid.

2... No, it is not an attack. What people who already have a good relationship say to each other when bantering back and forth is not the same in meaning and intent with what people say when they are antagonistically interacting with someone that they do not have a good relationship with. You calling someone an arrogant non contributor when you have no positive relationship with them is an attack. Trials calling Geogre that is banter. Perhaps ill advised banter but banter nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1..I fixed the copy paste move

2..Thanks for the clarification of your view of the world. I can see the context depending differences between the Trialsanderrors words and mine. I don't think this kind of his talking is to the benefit of WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to #2, I think you may well be right about that, banter taken too far can be detrimental. Especially when it's very close to actual bad faith statements in time or place, as this was (and as were some of my comments). The problem is that staying completely 100% serious takes some of the fun out, so finding the right line is the challenge. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did not knew you like fun ;-). But maybe some contacts I lately made would not expect this from me neither. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

move to Template_talk:Infobox City ES? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to Template_talk:Infobox_City_Lithuania Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Some pages: SPEEDY deletions for reasons of empty/no content/no context/and the like are generally without prejudice for recreation as a workable article. Any deletion can be contested by anoyone by listing it on WP:DRV, although frivolous listings are often closed. Articles up for deletion are discussed on WP:AFD generally before they are deleted. If you want to make an "informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin" you can start at WP:AN/I, or by opening an WP:RFC, but NOT both (please!). If you need more info, let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshakovo

Thanks! I did what I could. There is no corresponding article in ru-wiki, by the way. Also, what is "Elch lowland"? I couldn't find any reference to it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

move to Talk:Serua (disambiguation) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji

Tobias, when I look at "Related changes" for a category and see nearly every recent entry is by you and has the edit comment '(rv to tobias)' it suggests that maybe you need to be using the talk pages more before trying to enforce what is obviously not the accepted naming scheme for Fiji. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David who reverted me before, has now accepted, see Talk:Ba Province. I am also cleaning other provinces now. Ra, Ba, Bua ... Bua even was primary topic. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of an admin candidate

what's this [8]... all about? That's a rather odd place to put an allegation, you may want to consider putting it somewhere else, perhaps? it might not get very noticed there. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Thanks for telling. Yes, it may not be noticed. But maybe one day a discussion starts there about his adminship and then there is some fact. I now also start collecting stuff at User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse. In his case it's not ready for AN/I or RfC, but I have other cases I really would like to bring up somewhere. User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2 still are blocked and some WP:CSD violations are still active. But AN/I seems not a very good place. Is there a special Request for De-adminship page? Or Admin-conduct? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC has a section to complain about admin conduct. --Golbez 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo, Cebu, Pangasinan

Please do not accuse me of abusing my admin privileges simply because you do not agree with my actions, please assume good faith. I have been trying to get all the provinces in a consistent naming pattern wherever possible. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)#Provinces. The names usually refer to the provinces, nothing else. I patterned this after the US States. Take a look at Hawaii (disambiguation) or other states. If you are not happy with this, then we can put this up for a vote to reach consensus. In the mean time, I will be reverting your reverts. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis. --Chris S. 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I think you are out of line trying to accuse me of abusing my admin powers by blanking my RfA. If you are serious, then let's discuss the matter. I have already reinstated the provincial names back to their original namespaces. If you do revert my moves again, I will not intervene until there is input from other editors. --Chris S. 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you're familiar with the Philippines, but I think you are mistaken. When people refer to Cebu, they refer to the province AND island. They are the same. But since the province has official status, it takes precedence. Look at my Hawaiian example, there was an island named Hawai'i before the state was made but the state name takes precedence but yet, the state of Hawai'i gets its own namespace while the island is is Hawaii (island). So are you telling me that we have to change my grandfather's hometown of Oslob, Cebu to Oslob, Cebu (province)? I hope not. I really wish you would consider the guidelines that we are working on in the MoS. I have researched the variety of ways of bringing the most consistent namespaces for Philippine provinces, and other Filipino editors agree with the changes that have been made. Another administrator (Jondel) and I started it back in June. In any case, this dispute is not over yet. I am going to put up a poll in the talk pages of those articles. I will let you know when. --Chris S. 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't try to intimidade other editors by phrases like Another administrator (Jondel) and I started it back in June.. That you are an admin and Jondel is one, is of no say in content and naming disputes. That you started this in June, is not important at all. What matters is whether it is good or not.

You ask So are you telling me that we have to change my grandfather's hometown of Oslob, Cebu to Oslob, Cebu (province)? - No. This is against naming policies. IIRC have never seen such a naming for a municipality. BTW, you mention your grandpa, do you really think this matters for the naming scheme? Do you think you can make any special naming poliies because your grandpa was born there? I see no policy that allows this. Please respect policies and revert your abusive deletionsa and the corresponding moves. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Chris about keeping these three province articles where they were. Same as the situation we have with New York (referring to the state) and New York (disambiguation). In fact, 39 out of the 50 U.S. states have conflicting names, but all of them (except for Georgia (U.S. state)) are located at the base name, with links to corresponding disambig pages. Coffee 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, please stop moving the province articles like this. Policy and consensus is clearly against this. Coffee 04:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no consensus, since we disagree. There is no policy that decides what is main article and what not. Bad try of you to frame it as if I work against policies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus between other Filipino editors and myself at WP:TAMBAY. As far as I know, you are the only who opposes this. Now please don't go against consensus. --Chris S. 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and there is consensus between me and me and at least one other editor. But there is no general consensus. Was just a bad wrong claim of you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to Tambayan, you can also have a consensus at your private talk page, but this does not stop general WP policies from being applied. WP:NC is a good starting point. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Conradi, I would like to point out that my consensus also comes in the form of the treatment of U.S. States, which are the equivalent of Philippine provinces. To wit, the state I live in, Washington, and the state of New York are given their own namespace in light of the fact that Washington, D.C. and New York City are more notable. When one mentions the word "Washington" one immediately thinks of the US capital. The same goes for New York; one thinks immediately of the Big Apple. Also, the state of Hawaii was created in 1959, which existed long after Hawaii (island). This is also mirrored in Canada. There's Vancouver and Vancouver Island, Quebec and Quebec City. There are oodles of other examples and there is no reason why the Philippine provinces cannot follow these examples. Thank you. --Chris S. 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, I would like to encourage you not to jump at conclusions and accusations. You know some people have been here quite a long time and naming schemes have been worked out. --Jondel 07:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always _draw_ conclusions and _make_ accusations. Why do you tell me not to jump on some. Tell me where I did.
You know some people have been here quite a long time and naming schemes have been worked out.
- why do you write this? If I know it then why tell me? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please stop moving comments

move to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

First of all, please, again stop the accusations. And second, please reread Wikipedia policy concerning the moving of pages by admins. It is perfectly acceptable to delete pages in preparation of a movie. --Chris S. 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your thing to ask me to stop, if I think they are valid. Provide evidence that I am wrong. WP:CSD does not allow what you did. Stop the violations, say that you will not do it again and revert all your abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more collegial in working with others. Yes, that's an official warning. Reach consensus, then act. Consensus does not require unanimity. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show the policy that allows you to "officially warn me" in a dispute were other admins abused their admin rights. And there is no consensus. Maybe ther is Lar-defined consensus, but no consensus. They just jumped in in June 2006 destroyed the dab work of others, deleted pages to get their way for dabbing and you warn me of collegiality? You are crazy. Yeah block me for this fight against abuses, hey come. Block me for getting angry of such an annoying statement from you. Yes, I said annoying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, the reference is CSD G6. Furthermore, I urge you to read Wikipedia:How to move a page which mentions that deletion is appropriate and that users may ask an administrator to delete a page for a move; such is what I asked of User:Jondel before I became an Admin last month. I gauged consensus from other Filipino editors, who are in a better position to determine how these provinces' name space should read. Please respect the consensus. --Chris S. 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G6 Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article. - you see that this does not apply, since there is controversy about the moves. Please revert your violations. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi Tobias Conradi! I noticed that you had been recently blocked for what has been labelled as incivility. I hope that you don't become too jaded with Wikipedia and that your frustrations have waned. You are obviously passionate about Wikipedia and have shown quite a dedication to the project to rack up over twenty thousand edits! Wikipedia, while an amazing project, is just a website in the end, and I hope that you don't let your annoyances get the best of you. I would hate to see Wikipedia lose a tireless contributor such as yourself over a few isolated incidents and some bad experiences. If I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to contact me! Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'admin rights abuse'

I'm going to be blunt, mainly because it's 7:30am and I haven't been to sleep yet - Please remove your 'admin abuses' page. If you are going to take action against an admin, then do so, either with an RfC or an RfArb. If not, then it simply reeks of a passive-agressive mentality that will only irk, rather than aid - that you'll complain about 'admin abuses', but won't actually do anything about it. If you are using the page to assemble evidence for an RfC or RfArb, then please let me know. --Golbez 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use it among other things the latter way. Why do you want me to remove these abuse facts? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because having them hanging around, and not acting on them, is not collegial, and likely to give people a bad impression of you. Also note that they're not facts, they're your views, at least in a lot of cases. Having these around is not going to build your reputation as a person that's easy to work with. Golbez is spot on. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In admin right abuses I don't want to have a reputation as being easy to work with, if easy to work with means spreadig admin right abuse culture and repeating admin right abuses. Which of the facts are not facts by your view? You may join the talk there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reputation as not being easy to work with is far wider than just in "admin rights abuse cases" as you call it. What you need to internalise is that as long as you have a reputation for being difficult (which you do) you are going to have admins watching you a lot more closely. I'm not really interested in debating with you about "admin rights abuse" because in my view it's just trolling on your part. We have hundreds of thousands of users that happily edit a wide variety of articles without ever getting blocked. You need to think about why that is.... Perhaps the reason you have been blocked so many times has something to do with your approach to editing here and your approach to conflict resolution here, rather than some vast conspiracy to oppress you. Straighten up and fly right and you won't hvae me posting here any more but right now, you're cruising for a block again with your commentary and approach. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason you have been blocked so many times has something to do with your approach to editing here - You mean when I got blocked for moving a page from "Name" to "Bad Name" and the blocking admin had no idea that 'Bad' was a german word here? Please stop making putting my edits in bad light. And stop allways threatening me with blocks. This is bad behavior of you and annoying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem if admins watch my behavior. Don't let it look like that. Stop your defamation attempts. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply just above proves my point. Please at least try to be more civil and take criticism on board instead of assuming that you are getting criticised because we all are bad people. And I'm not threatening you with a block, I am promising you that you will be getting blocked again sooner or later if you can't change your ways. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say you are all bad people? It's only that soe of the adins show bad behavior and threaten others. And don't try to fool me. Promising a block is pretty much the same as threatening. I can promise you that your body will not be able to let the fingers type threats in your keyboard. And I have also no problem if I get criticized. I only dislike unfair treatement and admin right abuses. Your civil stuff is really nonsense here. Remain civil, remain civil. Can you please stop these general statements? And can you stop your "official warnings" that you sent from time to time only because I said something you think was not civil? I don't need this. Give me exact diffs and policies and that's it. And you may also try to stop the abusive behavior among some admins. User:Hauke still is blocked with false allegations. But there you do NOTHING. Clear cut abuses you let go, because they are all worded so nice, in proper english. Oh yeah, this man, how could he have raped a woman, he allways was so nice nad had good manners. Yes, from this uncivil guy I would have expected it, but from him. No, I still do not believe it. Cannot have been him, he is soooo civil all the time. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek alphabet

I get errors when adding iso15924 at Greek alphabet. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tobias. What sort of errors are you seeing? It actually seems to display fine on my screen... with a link to ISO 15924 on the left and 'Grek' to the right. --CBD 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Country subdivisions

Hi. I would much appreciate participating in the WikiProject Country subdivisions (of which you are a participant), but unlike most WikiProjects, this one doesn't say that in order to participate I just need to add my name. I did not want to add my name there before being sure about any eventual participation restrictions. Please inform. Thank you. --Húsönd 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

See WP:MOSDAB, the normal style is to have "Blah may refer to:" at the top to hint the reader at what is going on, where some reasons could be confused, especially when the links aren't superficially obvious as being related. —Centrx→talk • 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes/Writing_systems

Huh, I followed the standard that ipa used, I didn't notice it was in the non-iso conform, thanks for the help. --2dMadness 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "iso conform is Grek". It was apparently your reason for moving the Greek script template. If the move is a good idea, I think the template still has to be edited and the category renamed to match, otherwise it doesn't work properly. Can you do that? Thanks Andrew Dalby 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions by User:Lar

Another civility warning

This edit was not very civil. Nor was this one Please assume good faith, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by someone who very frequently comes to my page and posts civil warnings. Is mobbing different? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? --Golbez 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? To Jesus Christ? To God? To you? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer. I'm just wondering if you're making an actual complaint, or just being passive aggressive again. --Golbez 03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I got what I wanted. A little longer statement from you. You can make an official complaint against Lar if you like. I don't think official complaints with the current admins will yield much good result. Look, there is strong cultural difference between me and some admins. I point out mistakes. I say: "WRONG", if I think something is wrong. And I also change my statements. So I changed the WRONG to "False conclusion". And then my stalker comes and gives me a civilty warning. He gives it to me, for standing up and saying WRONG. For me he is like from another planet. His contributions here have no value in my live. But he cannot accept this. He thinks everybody has to behave acording to what he thinks is right. It is censorship under the banner of civilty. Yes, the British and USians invaded Iraq and the banner was, that they will find WoMD. And admin pschemp blocks users with wrong allegations. And admins violate the policies. For me Lar is like a little Bush, trying to enforce in a very bad way his way of thinking to others. The AGF statement by Lar is absolut out of context. Why does he say "please assume good faith"? He is just posting mobbing-like statements. Yes, maybe he does so in good faith. But I will not make any assumptions here. It's irrelevant, I have no mind-reader at hand to check assumptions about other peoples faithes. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty making sense of that. --Golbez 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. AGF note was without any relation. And now I see pschemp engaging in a mayor deletion afford, near to something I worked on during the last days. Is this stalking? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, then file a complaint. I have no opinion. --Golbez 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. It is hard to prove. I think a complaint would not make much sense. To many bad admins here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you complaining? --Golbez 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? If I did, why not? What do you think is the reason why people complain? Could it be that they want things changed? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't complain in a way that could get things changed, so what kind of complaint is this? --Golbez 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an email to Jimmy Wales Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Raul654/Raul's_laws "Laws by others", #3, #6, and #26... Hope that helps. (you may want to skip #49, it's a bit confusing). ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help in what? It seems that the stuff there is not realy helpful in getting things related to admin right abuses and as in your case mobbing changed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help in understanding that writing to Jimbo may or may not be useful. I see you haven't internalised that you need to be a productive civil contributor yet. ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help in understanding that writing to Jimbo may or may not be useful.

this can be probably easier obtained from User:Jimbo Wales.

I see you haven't internalised that you need to be a productive civil contributor yet.

your arrogant mobbing attitude persists. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another civility warning (the latest in a considerable string)

Tobias, I find these edits [9] and [10] quite incivil. There are others in your recent history. Stop being incivil, stop going on about how admins are all out to harass you, or that admins are stalking you, stop assuming bad faith on the part of every admin that warns you or reverts your damaging moves or attacks, and especially, stop responding hostilely to warnings, or I'll block you again. You're a good contributor when you want to be but you just have to learn how to fit in here. You've been here a long time, I'm surprised you haven't figured it out yet. This is an official warning. If you remove it, it means you've internalised it and if you violate anything it says, you will be blocked without ignorance as an excuse, and I will put it up for review on AN/I as I always do. You've just about exhausted my patience. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions query

Hi Tobias,
As you're probably already aware, I've posted my first query since (nearly) finishing my first foray through "country subdivisions" here. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following you. What purpose would that serve?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iso15924

Hi Tobias. Sorry, I overlooked your messages about this template until now... they were added further up on my talk page at about the same time as some new ones at the bottom so I missed it entirely until I happened to notice your name on the page history and didn't recall having read the note.

I undeleted the template for now. There wasn't any valid grounds for speedy deletion so it can go to TfD if someone really wants to get rid of it. In any case this looks to be the equivalent of a 'babel' template for writing systems... and almost everyone seems to agree that babel userboxes at least are 'safe' in the template namespace. --CBD 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work on Template:User iso15924 which I am now using! Andrew Dalby 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, having looked at the comments made so far, I think the category structure for 'User writing systems' should be defended at all costs but there may be grounds for arguing that the number of skill levels should be reduced. I don't know if you would want to think about this. Level 1, confident with script order, being able to look words up in a dictionary. Level 2, confident with script-phonology relationship, being able to convert words to a different script. Level 3, fluent, being able to read in the script. What more is there, really? I can see no real difference between advanced, full and native-like. I leave that question for your consideration but I will register my vote to keep the system. Andrew Dalby 11:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User jpan-N, Template:User jpan

This template has now been deleted. (aeropagitica) 10:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gustavo86

Thanks for your message, buddy. Anyway, I'm not fully sure about what is it about. Can you explain to me why I may be interested in templates? Regards, --Gustavo86 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin right abuse

move to User_talk:Tobias_Conradi/2006 Kayah Li incident

sigh

Tobias.

I really, really, really hate to say this.

But you are acting like a child. A petulant, miserable child.

You are a very good contributor, most of the time.

I have looked at the deleted version of the article on Kayah Li. It was so uninformative, it was practically a tautology. This falls well within the criteria for deletion. Had I been the one to discover it, I would have left you a message telling you that you had twelve hours to expand it yourself or it would be deleted - but then, I am often told that I'm too nice.

It was not an article. It was a micro-article. There are many things that can be said about the Kayah Li script, and your article said none of them. I know it was very annoying to have the article deleted in the first minute of its creation, but if you can't be bothered to include enough information in the very first edit to make it clear why the article should be kept, that's exactly what you're risking.

We are janitors. We are cleaning up the constant mess that is being created 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by thousands of people all around the world. Every article has to stand on its own two feet from the very beginning.

And then, the article on the Kayah Li script got created anyway.

By someone else, true, but the information is there, and you even got to edit it yourself. It says everything you wanted it to, and more besides. That's what matters, isn't it? DS 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Tobias, I unblocked you, because I feel that you are likely to make productive edits, and all in all, you are an asset to the project.

However.

This does not allow you, or in fact anyone, to throw tantrums. You are thirty-two years old, not thirty-two months. You're capable of better. Show it. DS 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better what? You want me to NOT name admin right abuses? Forget it. Bad try to distract from the abuse by making several personal attacks on me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, see my note on my talk page -- Best wishes -- Andrew Dalby 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read passive aggressive. --Golbez 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:HA. If we're going to be sticklers for civility I ought to be handing down blocks on the lot of you. :] --CBD 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why do you want me to read this? Yes, admins engage in actions defined by WP:HA, but until now their behavior did not stop me from editing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the indentation level - the comment was directed at Golbez and then more generally at the disagreement as a whole. --CBD 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, while you are correct that the page did not fall under the criteria for A1 (contrary to claims, A1 specifically says that there isn't a 'size limit') you should have treated it as an understandable mistake rather than going directly to "admin rights abuse". Everyone messes up and dislikes being told about it... let alone being accused of malfeasance rather than simple error. You might have had better luck with an, 'I just started that article and was going to expand it' message. Yes, it would be better if nothing ever got deleted unless it should be... but people are human. They have different opinions and make mistakes. So that just isn't going to happen and inevitable foulups should be taken in stride. --CBD 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From his comments you see that now it is not a simple mistake - which it might have been in the first place and that was the reason I asked him to undo, and I did not go to RfC admin conduct. Since he sticked to the deletion it is obvoius abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD and I are having a disagreement about CSD A1 that seems to revolve around our interpretations of insufficient context. I'm certain we'll come to an agreement soon through discussion, but in the meantime, I'd like you to review the actual conversation thread, Tobias. In short, I deleted it, you called instant 'admin abuse' (which was a failure to WP:AGF, hopefully not an indicator of things to come), I explained my rationale but restored a copy to your userspace so you didn't lose any data. With this in hand, you could have fixed the problem and reposted it, but you chose instead to plant your heels and repeat "admin abuse, admin abuse" over and over. I understand that you are frustrated, but instead of using this as an opportunity to learn and grow as a wikipedian, you seem to have chosen another path. I hope that you'll reconsider and return to your previous productive role. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad try of you to discredit me and my contributions and to talk nebulous of things to come. You did explain your rationals but they are in violation of WP:CSD A1. I told you that my edits fell victim to WP:CSD A1 violations not for the first time. This stub had an infobox, had references to it. It had full context. In first place you maybe made an error, I don't you and don't know your IQ, I mean whether you were able to see the context. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, attacking my IQ isn't really helpful. An infobox is pretty, but the one you used added no context. The references to which you refer was a single wikilink of the word "Kayah People". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very well thought about the IQ statement. It was not a result of incivilty. But it was maybe insufficient, since IQ alone is not all to see the context. The context BTW was "script", "Kayah people", "ISO 15924" (where I made a typo for the code) and "lang-stub". I also would consider the referring pages to be kind of context, but this can certainly be contested. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, it's also possible to find a page via Special:Random; therefore, every page has to have enough context by itself. DS 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please obstain from discrediting

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chairboy&diff=73601957&oldid=73601074

comments by Pschemp

Read your own talk page Tobias. It clearly says that it was I who put up the unblock. I did it only to be nice. If you choose to interpret this as a mockery, I can't stop you, however, I was assuming good faith that you wanted to be unblocked. If you wanted to not be unblocked I apologize. pschemp | talk 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not erase my comments again. You removed my comment and did not put it anywhere else. That is not accetable behaviour.pschemp | talk 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments without responding to them is sometimes considered incivil, but it is not 'unacceptable behaviour' beyond that of incivility in general... and repeatedly restoring comments a user has removed has previously been ruled harassment by the ArbCom. --CBD 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't repeatedly restore that comment above, so what is the point of that statement? pschemp | talk 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy repeatedly restored moved comments and Pschemp did so too. Followed by blocking me, posting a lie and protecting my talk page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been restoring the comments when responding to maintain context. It's just a way of keeping the conversation straight. Throughout this entire thing, you've failed to assume good faith at any turn. This is a good way to get an ulcer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what was annoying behavior by you. I did not fail to assume good faith because I did not even try to. I did assume nothing about your faith. I have no mind reader to ever see what you believed. I was only referreing to your abuses. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Tobias, I am referring to the comment at the top of this thread. However, since you brought it up, you were moving talk page comments to article space, which is quite a different thing. No one told you you couldn't move comments. You were told they can't be moved to the talk page of an article, again, a different thing. pschemp | talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you refer to, it is my own talk page. There is no policy saying that an article related dispute cannot be talked about at the article talk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar etc.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For being a hard-working veteran, and a huge amount of contribs. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different note, would you be willing to join WikiProject Writing systems? You've been doing a lot of work on the subject lately, and you'd get a fancy little userbox too :-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Feel free to add {{User WikiProject WS}} to your userpage. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

Tobias, I told you that if you continued being incivil, or assuming bad faith, I was going to block you. This edit [11] in one package, is hostile, assumes bad faith, calls another user a liar and in general is not the sort of collegiate editing style that we require of users here. I can look up and down that diff string and find other examples. Therefore you have been blocked for one week because you just do not seem to get it, despite repeated blocks. ++Lar: t/c 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, other than the word "lie", that diff looks to me completely civil and accurate. Obviously calling something a lie is 'incivil'... but then I'd think out of process deletion, move warring, and unwarranted blocks would be considered 'incivil' too. I don't think Chairboy was 'lying' about the nature of CSD A1, but I am quite certain that he was mistaken about it. --CBD 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Lar is posting a false claim. I did not call someone a liar in the above diff. I did only say that someone posted a lie. And this is true. Pschemp posted a lie. I don't know how else I should correctly name a false statement that was made with the knowledge that it was not true. Maybe the article lie should be changed then? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to stay blocked? pschemp | talk 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no. The same in this case. Can you unblock me now? I mean you know that you lied and therefore my statement was true, can certainly not be called uncivil and thus the one week block by Lar is not covered by wp policies. Maybe also block Lar for repeated harressement, mobbing and abuse of admin rights. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't lie then if you wanted be unblocked. All I did was try to be nice and put an {{unblock}} template on for you. I never said you put the template there. If you wanted to stay blocked, then it might have been a mistake, but not a lie. Stop calling me a liar for trying to be nice to you. And just because a statement is true (which yours is not), doesn't mean it isn't uncivil. You have no right to respond to anything with uncivility, no matter how wronged you think you are. If you want to be unblocked, put the {{unblock}} template on your page. pschemp | talk 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pschemp, I think the point is that the 'unblock' template says, 'This user has requested to be unblocked because of XYZ'... Tobias hadn't actually done that so the text automatically generated by the template was incorrect and doubtless you knew he hadn't asked when you added the template. That being said it seems more a case of not thinking about or not worrying about the technical accuracy of what the template text would be. --CBD 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it absolutely clear who put the template up, so calling it a lie is unacceptable, especially since I did it in good faith. Or should I have left him to rot instead or attempting to make sure another admin came in to review the block? Again, calling someone a liar because they attempted to do a nice thing is unaaceptable. Every attempt I've ever made to be nice to Tobias has been met with icivility. Please tell me why I should tolerate that? pschemp | talk 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, you indirectly announced your lie. But that does not make your lie less a lie. By reading lie it is absolutly acceptable to call your statement a lie. First: your block was not covered by policy. Second: Protecting my page was not covered by policy. Third: That you lied is not covered. You are mobbing me. You have blocked two of my friends User:Hauke and User:Chrisjj2, calling them sock puppets. You claimed you have a checkuser at hand, which could not be found true. Your behavior is disruptive, you should de-admin yourself. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not interacted with Tobias for very long. I have objected to some, but not all, of his activities with regard to ISO 15924. I have, however, in following this discussion, come to understand that Tobias' interest in quantity does not (necessarily) add quality to the Wikipedia. All this business about "lies" and "admin abuse" does not convince me that Tobias has been an angelic but persecuted Wikipedian. Evertype 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype, I don't know what of my activities you objected, I only remember one you agreed with and another one where I did object to one of your proposals (you proposed content deletion). I am very surprised to now see that you objected to some ... but not all of my activities.

When I objected as registrar of ISO 15924 to your duplication of its content, you responded rather aggressively and impatiently. I objected very much to your "mini-stub" on the Gaelic script which showed a complete lack of understanding about what the Gaelic script is. You suggested that it should not be confused with Ogham, and no one could possibly confuse them. That was a mini-stub for a mini-stub's sake. You were not adding quality content to the Wikipedia. At present, I am objecting to the shouting match you are engaging in with a number of admins. Evertype

I did not duplicate the RA content. I moved a list from the main article to a seperate list-article. IIRC the Gaelic / Ogham confusion was not my invention. I stumbled about wrong links. And IIRC I went to you because I knew you know more to get some clarification. Then I created a stub. I did not saw any objection, thaks for telling me now. I do object very much to your implied statement that I should not have created the stub only because I have no complete knowledge of this script. I add what I know, I cannot add what I don't know. Fortunatly other editors know other things and is this case including you put more content to the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what do you consider my interest in quantity and why this what you perceive as interest in quantity does not add quality to WP?

Your own user page makes much about how you are in the top 200 of prolific Wikipedia editors. That's quantity. Your mini-stubs are not quality. Your mini-stub on the Gaelic script showed complete ignorance of what the Gaelic script was. Evertype

Disagree, my mini stubs have content and context. Thus they add quality. Of course a mini stub is less then a whole article. I don't think it makes sense to value editors by what they did NOT contribute.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mini-stub on the Gaelic script showed complete ignorance of what the Gaelic script was. I am not going to debate you further. Evertype

What do you exactly mean by all this business - did you review all of Pschemp's Lar's and other admins attacks on me and admin right abuses ? Don't know why you state that naming abusive behavior and lies does not convince that I am angelic. Anyway, I agree with you. There is no connection between their abuses and mobbing and me beeing angelic. It does not matter whether I am angelic at all. Seems you too try to distract readers from the abuses by indirectly talking bad of me. So be it.

I think your behaviour here (regarding your "persecution") has been rather graceless. I'm not trying to distract anyone. But you should be taking something on board: it is more important to have good contributions than tens of thousands of contributions. Evertype

what does this has to do with the "persecution" as you call it? I object to your last sentence. First of all WP is not here for only your way of thinking about contributions. I make lot's of small edits, this mainly if I see wrong links or discover inconsistency. Other people may only fix spelling errors. Everybody may do what he wants to, as long as it is increasing the value of WP. You are in lack of the right to tell other people how they should contribute. Secondly, I also claim that your statement is a false one. "good contributions" do not have necessarily more value then "tens of thousands of contributions" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you are not convinced that I am "persecuted" is one thing. Another question would be, are you convinced that I am not? Don't you think your statement is a personal attack on me? I mean, how would you like if someone writes the followig fictional statements: "From all the business about unicode I am not convinced that Michael did not have sex with minors" OR "I have come to understand that Michael's interest in quantity does not add quality to Wikipedia." OR "I am not convinced Michael is not an ape." - Hey - why did you attack me???

I have not attacked you. I have criticized some of your behaviour. In my opinion, you are not reacting in a measured fashion to criticism. I am not persecuting you. But I don't see you listening to criticism. And I do think you're more interested in whether you have 30,000+ edits than whether your mini-stub on the Gaelic script was accurate or not. (You could make up for this by writing a nice article for the German Wikipedia like Gälische Schrift...) Evertype

IMO you attacked me. And now you do it again. Furthermore, to repeat: you are in lack of right to tell me what artiles I or any other user should edit. You may also read my User page which says "This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia." Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make another point clear, could you directly state whether you agree with all those admins that engage in or defend speedy article deletion in violation of WP:CSD A1? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already expressed my concern to the admins that precipitous deletion of stubs in an actively-growing category like Writing systems frustrates editors a lot. I think that an admin who dislikes a stub in such a category (such as a writing system with an info box pointing to an international standard that has a four-letter code for it) should engage the community or the editor of the stub about improvement rather than deleting it. So I agree with you there. I don't agree that shouting "Abuse! Abuse!" is helpful. Nor do I agree that Wikipedia policies are anything more than guidelines. Mostly the guidelines are good and helpful, but getting angry over their "violation" and staying angry about it isn't very sensible. Take some days off, Tobias. Translate Gaelic script into German. Have some fun. Evertype 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna let abusers go, then this is ok. Even in real life, crime happens and people that see this, do not engage in stopping it. If this is your approach so be it. For me personally it is not ok. You say shouting "abuse abuse" seems not helpful to you. If you have another idea how to stop the abuses I would be interested to know. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime? My stars. I see you have been blocked on the German Wikipedia since February, apparently for vandalism of user pages. Maybe you ought to think about that. For my part, I will have to watch your edits with care. My experience examining some of your work so far is that your quantity exceeds your quality. Saying that a mini=stub like your mini-stub on the Gaelic script "adds quality" to the Wikipedia is just wrong. Unfortunately you have damaged your own reputation somewhat. I won't write you off, but I'm afraid you're going to be in my caveat editor box for some time to come. Having said that, I would still encourage you to make a German version of the Gaelic script article. That would show me that you care enough about writing systems to do more than proliferate mini-stubs. But you may prefer to choose to ignore my suggestion. Enjoy your holiday. Evertype 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, crime, like rape, violence, robery, murder, mobbing. There are people who stay silent about this stuff when they see it. And this is what happens here, you suggest to let abuses go and that I should stay silent, not shout "abuse" if I see one. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are hiding behind the word "abuse". You have been abusive. Even of me, who really just tried to give you some sensible advice. Evertype

it seems you are someone who does not make up his own opinion but judge people by what others have judged about them. This is an easy way, but is not a sign for a strong personality.

This is an ad-hominem attack. Evertype

I stopped contributing to German WP after beeing defamed and out of process blocked there.

Keine Überraschung, vielleicht. Evertype

I will thus not translate.

A pity for the Gaelic script, then. Evertype

For me it was important to contribute to en:WP since more people can benefit from it. Again I strongly object that you go around and tell people what they should edit or not. Your mockery like statement "Enjoy your holiday" is of no value. I have no holiday. That the mini stub did not add value to WP in your opinion may be caused by your limited view of what constitutes "value". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Don't enjoy your holiday. Don't do anything constructive like learning something about the Gaelic script by translating it into German. If you think that your mini-stub, "The Gaelic script should not be confused with Ogham" adds any value, you should really think again. It is so wrong as to be embarrassing. It only suggests that the author knows nothing about either the Gaelic script or about Ogham. So don't consider the ban to be a holiday. Think of it as punishment, and spend a week in bitterness, trying to vindicate your rightness. Evertype 17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype, why was the Gaelic script stub such a bad thing? Look at the article which has come from it (largely by your work) in such a short time. Would that have happened without the stub? Nor does the original statement that it should not be confused with Ogham seem incorrect to me. While closely related they are also clearly not the same thing... they have different Wikipedia articles, different ISO codes, et cetera. At that, the word 'ogham' doesn't even appear in the 'Gaelic script' article... though it probably should. --CBD 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, that was a direct quote from Tobias's initial version of Gaelic script. See this revision. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, that direct quote had no "quality". It was utterly ignorant. Please see Ogham. It isn't the Latin alphabet. It cannot possibly be confused with the Gaelic variant of the Latin script. The Ogham and Gaelic scripts are completely unrelated. The only thing they have in common is that they were used in Ireland. It seems that some of Tobias' mini-stubs have, indeed, such preposterous content. But my opinion may be influenced by my "limited view of what constitutes 'value'". Evertype 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err.... I realize it was a direct quote. That's why I cited it. But... I still don't see what was wrong with it. You keep saying 'it is preposterous', 'utterly ignorant, shows that Tobias 'is so wrong that it is embarassing', et cetera... but... um, it seems a completely true statement. I don't know anything about the subject, but it seems obvious that Tobias was correct. The Gaelic script should NOT be confused with Ogham... the redirect, which Tobias replaced, from 'Gaelic script' to 'Ogham' was incorrect. What exactly is the embarassingly foolish part of his completely true statement? They were being confused. He said they shouldn't be... you're being very rude about it. Why? What's wrong with his statement? --CBD 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "The Cyrillic script should not be confused with Mongolian" is equally "true". There is no "value" in the statement, however. Evertype 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. So he should have left Gaelic script as an incorrect redirect to Ogham. There was "no value" in saying they weren't the same, providing the proper ISO code for Gaelic script, and marking it as a stub to be expanded. Got it. I don't agree, but at least I understand what you are on about now. His obvious improvement of the situation was not good enough, and is indeed worthy of disdain in your opinion... have you heard of collaborative editing? Wikis? Every little bit helps? You think Tobias is incivil and unhelpful? Check a mirror. --CBD 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. As Lar pointed out, a "more or less uninvolved editor Evertype (talk • contribs) gives some good advice and Tobias rips into him for it". I found that unpleasant, and tried to continue dialogue. Now you want to call me incivil, too. If I've learned anything in these exchanges, it's that those mini-stubs are of little value. The one which Chairboy originally deleted (Kayah Li) had the virtue of not being misleading and incorrect, at least. Evertype 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, before you hand that mirror to Evertype, you might want to gaze in it for a while yourself. You asked this editor what the issue was. He gave you details of how this user inserts nonsense into articles. And in return, you're abusing him for it. I'm very disappointed. Nandesuka 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype, can you honestly tell me that you believe calling Tobias's work "utterly ignorant", "preposterous", and "so wrong as to be embarrassing" is not uncivil? If so, then I am sorry but you are very much mistaken. You say that Tobias was uncivil... and that's true. It does not however give you license to be so as well. Such harsh criticism for 'not improving the page enough' is completely unwarranted.

The amount of energy we have spent dealing with this mess is most irritating. I was irritated with Tobias' edit on Gaelic script far before the Kayah Li deletion which has precipitated all of this. I expressed my opinion on that here. My opinion of its quality has not changed, and I don't need to be spanked by you for being frank about it here. I have not gone out of my way to insult Tobias. I do think that the content of the "mini-stubs" is poor. I do think the proliferation of "mini-stubs" is irritating, and we have spent much time discussing it simply because Tobias was pissed off for having one of his mini-stubs deleted. Evertype 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, your claim that Tobias "inserts nonsense into articles" is also uncivil... not to mention obviously untrue. As is your statement that pointing out Evertype's clear incivility is "abusing" him. If I were to do so to excess... seeming to stalk him around and look for any pretext to snipe at him... making condescending statements about being 'disappointed'... that could become 'abuse' in the form of harassment. But a single statement that it is incivil and unhelpful to harshly criticize another editor for making only minor improvements? That's hardly 'abuse'. --CBD 12:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias did the Wikipedia equivalent of creating an article on Fish whose only content was "A fish should not be confused with a bicycle." Yes, I do in fact think that that is nonsense. I can't comprehend why you don't. To shake down Evertype because he points this out in blunt language is, at the least, very odd. Evertype hasn't been incivil at all. He's described Tobias's contributions accurately. Nandesuka 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Can we stop this thread now? Evertype 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not before I reply as below. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka seems to have limited knowledge of what happened. I assume Fish (Gaelic script) never was a redirect to Bicycle (Ogham script) and Bicycle is not the script used to write Fish languages. To state that the script to write Fish language should NOT be confused with the Fish script seems valuable to me. Since there was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaelic_script&oldid=29156621 I fixed this. To avoid that other people make the same error which existed in WP for around 10 months, I made a stub and stated, don't confuse Gaelic script with Ogham script (the script that is used for writing Gaelic language). And yes, I did not know much more about the Gaelic script. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are encouraged to create new stubs and I for one appreciate your work in this regard. You changed an incorrect redirect (Gaelic script > Ogham) into an article which stated they were not the same and provided the correct ISO code for the topic... thus making it easier for others to locate information on the subject and expand it. As indeed... they did. This was a good thing. --CBD 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking

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

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

Request reason:

In disagreement with CBD, Lar sees one of my edits as incivil. Both have problems with me using the word lie, in relation with a lie pschemp posted to my page by inserting Template:Unblock. This template in deed produced at least one lie. The block by Lar is out of policy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to take a deep breath and take a break from Wikipedia for a while while you collect your thoughts. Civility is not optional here, even when you believe that others are being incivil towards you. While reasonable people can disagree about whether you are being treated fairly or unfairly, your characterization of the situation is unacceptable. If you continue to sling arrows over this, rather than discussing things calmly, then I will protect your talk page from editing for the duration of your block in order to protect you from your own mouth. -- Nandesuka 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can an admin point me to the policy covering 1) Lar's block 2) Nandesuka's decline to unblock? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tobias. The most directly relevant policy is Wikipedia:Civility. Note that it requires politeness even when impolite things might be true or in response to incivility from another user. Obviously, this is a difficult standard to maintain and all of us are less than fully polite from time to time. However, there has to be an apparent effort towards remaining polite and assuming good faith. For example, when Pschemp put the 'unblock' template on your page the text it displayed was clearly untrue... you had not 'requested to be unblocked for reason XYZ'. However, is it not at least possible that pschemp just didn't know or think about the exact wording of the unblock template and put it there to get someone else to review the block? If so then he it wasn't a 'lie' because he didn't intend to make a false statement. That's 'assuming good faith'... giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was just a mistake. But even if it wasn't and you knew for certain that something was a deliberate lie it is not 'civil' to say so. Likewise, when Chairboy deleted your stub... I strongly agree that this did not follow process, but 'assumption of good faith' should have led to thinking that he probably just made a mistake or has a misunderstanding of the A1 criteria which can be discussed with him and others to resolve. Calling it "Admin abuse" in the section title is again a 'civility' issue. Asking if it was a mistake or for an explanation would have been better... and when he moved it to your user space - ok, that obviously isn't what you wanted and it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, but as the civility policy says the best course is just to let it go. It wouldn't have been too hard to add in a few more details and then move it back to the article.

It all comes down to giving people the benefit of the doubt and using non-judgemental language. This does not mean that you cannot disagree when something seems wrong or unfair. Lar and I have recently had a very intense disagreement, but managed to remain mostly civil to each other... likewise Nandesuka and I are downright angry with each other right now, but have been no more than 'snippy' in our discussions and edit summaries. Still less civil than we should be. Having good reasons for being angry (such as your article being deleted) doesn't change the requirement to be civil. It's something we all try to do to keep conflicts and arguing to a minimum. The blocking aspect of this is at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, but if a user remains civil and discusses disagreements calmly they don't have much to worry about. --CBD 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages 2

moved to Talk:Yapeyú Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ipa-0

This template you asked to have restored following a mistakenly out of process deletion has been deleted again by Pschemp. I started a review of the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 3. Hopefully we can get your block resolved in time for you to comment on the review. --CBD 12:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

Shouldn't it quite be time for an archive? Your page is 105 kb...

Hello! Please click here to post a new message ...or if it's really pressing click here to email me. Thank you!

--Scotteh 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposition to Tobias and the admins

This is becoming a dogpile. I'm not a huge fan of some of Tobias's work, but I think this is getting to be ridiculous. I propose this: Tobias, stop complaining. Period. Admins, stop poking. Period. That is to say, no more discussion occurs here. None.

Tobias: Be nice. Period. That is a requirement of being here. Even if people are not nice to you, you have to be nice to them. Civility is non-negotiable. Admins: Honestly I don't think y'all are doing too much wrong, it's just the sheer volume and unrelentingness of it that's probably not helping.

Now, if Tobias does something that needs admin action, like deleting one of his stubs, then do it, and let him know how he can improve in the future. Tobias gets no special treatment; his substubs are no more sacrosanct than anyone else's. Likewise, Tobias, you need to learn that an infobox and a single sentence is not sufficient, no matter how much you say that it is. However, that brings me to the next point:

Admins: No more threats about blocks. If you have a problem with Tobias, take it to RfC, RfM, or RfAr. Likewise, Tobias? If you have a problem with an admin, take it to RfC or RfAr. And if you have a problem with a deletion they make, instead of accusing them of "abuse", go straight to DRV, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Saying they are abusing and attacking you fails the civility requirement. USE THE PROCESS.

The point of this is to not have endless, constant words without any gain on a talk page. If ANYONE involved in this has ANY PROBLEM with ANYONE ELSE, take it to an OFFICIAL VENUE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and do not offer threats and random blocks.

That is my proposition. You all may take it or leave it. --Golbez 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-signed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: And Tobias, please do not move conversations around after someone complains. --Golbez 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once tried to use the DRV process, but the WP:CSD A1 violation was endorsed there. Furthermore I think it is better to at first contact the deleting admin. For RfC on admin conduct I need a second person first. I invited another person, Chairboy also offered help, because I told him I found the RfC pages confusing. (thx to Chairboy here) But then I was once again blocked.

One sentence and an infobox can in deed make a valuable stub. E.g. some user made [[Kayah State|Kayah Li]] this is stupid. So I created a little article, to not have a red link which could invite people to make these kind of wrong wikification. Another example: There was confusion and IIRC wrong links related to Gaelic script and Gaelic languages (written in Ogham script), so I started Gaelic script. I was accused not to write a longer text about this script I never heard of. Great. At the end: I reserve all rights to clean my talk page and move article related discussion to the corresponding articles. cheers Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for "The A1 violation was upheld there", so be it - consensus trumps weak rules. (as opposed to strong rules, like civility, verifiability, and NPOV, which are non-negotiable) As for "contacting the admin", yes, please do - but don't immediately come out accusing them of abuse and lies. That really, really poisons the well. I don't really care about the disputed article, I'm just trying to defuse what was appearing to be a rapidly escalating situation. I just wanted everyone to sit down and shut up. Everyone. (My suggestion for the Gaelic script thing - contact the Languages wikiproject.) --Golbez 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to cool the thing down. I agree that using the word abuse in the first contact with Chairboy might no have been optimal. As for your strong/ weak rules, where is this written, that a very clear rule like WP:CSD A1 can be overturned by 5 or so admins? I assume there is a much larger consensus that initially installed the rule. Do you made up this concept to support your oppostion to current speedy rules. On your page you state you would follow the rules, now you advocate that there is no need to follow WP:CSD. This seems corrupt to me and lets me doubt that you really like to be an admin that wants to serve the WP community in the lines of the rules that the community installed. But maybe you can point me to the policy that defines negotiable and non-negotiable rules. I am not 100% sure about the lie thing. Pschemp is an admin which is as far as I am concerned a lot in the blocking business. I would like to see a proof that she did not were aware of the template intro: "This blocked user ... has asked to be unblocked.". She inserted the template twice, she announced the insertion, so the insertion was no accident. It was inserted to mislead the reader, i.e. to think the reader that the statement is true while knowing it is not true. That's what constitutes a lie. The Gaelic script that I started is a nice article now, therefore only kind of historic issue for the writing systems project (not language project). best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break Tobias. If it had been my intention to mislead, I wouldn't have clearly stated on your talk at the time of the insertion that I put the template in to help you. I announced that I put the template in to help you. Yes, it was deliberate, it was a deliberate attempt to be nice to you! There was no intention to mislead, and your paranoia here despite the fact I have said this mutiple times is really tiresome. I did it to help you. I was being nice, I was making sure another uninvolved admin would see the request. If you don't believe me fine, drop it and go do something productive. pschemp | talk 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that, that what you call paranoia, is in deed tiresome to you. And I hope it will be so tiresome that you stop abusing your admin rights, never again engage in stalking, and leave mobbing me. And yes, let editors do something productive, i.e. e.g. add content to wikipedia. And then, let verifiable content stay in WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka replaced "stop abusing your admin rights, never again engage in stalking, and leave mobbing me" with "(personal attack removed by Nandesuka)" - I don't think there is a policy covering this removal. If I am wrong, please cite. Otherwise, Nandesuka may consider following the WP rules in the future. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I will now protect your talk page for the duration of your block for your "When did you stop beating your wife" type personal attack in your last comment. Regards, Nandesuka 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it. User talk page protection is to prevent vandalism. You can't run around calling Tobias a "bad user", placing false notices of vandalism and/or warning removal on his page, encouraging other users to be incivil to him, and protect his page when he acts up. Should he be incivil to Pschemp? No. But then Pschemp shouldn't be calling him a "petulant child" either. You people want to be able to block others and protect their pages for 'incivility'... put your own houses in order. Stop engaging in the same behaviour you would condemn him for. --CBD 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever CBD. I said he was "being a petulant child", not he was one. That's called metaphor. Too bad its true that he is acting like that. The whole issue here is his behaviour, so commenting on it is entirely appropriate and calling every comment on his behaviour a personnal attack is ridiculous. Your definition of personal attacks is warped and oversensitive. pschemp | talk 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone is "being a petulant child" is "entirely appropriate". Got it. If that's not a personal attack then the comments which Nandesuka protected the page over certainly must not have been either. There aren't different standards for admins. You don't get to abuse users just because you have a sysop bit. Tobias is incivil and makes personal attacks (by my 'warped and oversensitive' standards)... but so do you, and Nandesuka, and Chairboy... by the standards written down in WP:NPA. --CBD 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already

Tobias, please just stop responding. At this point there is little more to be said. You are making personal attacks on admins... they are making personal attacks on you. Yes, their behaviour has been reprehensible and completely out of line with Wikipedia civility policy... but so has yours. Since they are apparently unwilling to refrain from incivility and personal attacks I'm going to ask you to do so. --CBD 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to my last what you call personal attack I made on an admin? IMO their behavior is not in line with several policies, not only WP:CIVIL. It would be nice if you would help me in an RfC about what happened here. I would like some official ArbCom statement. If ArbCom or SuperAdmin Jimbo say it is ok, then this might be interesting to some more people than only the 10 or 20 watching the issue right now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Thank you very much for your engagement here. Engagements like that are IMO very valuable for WP, or at least for what I once thought WP is/should/could be. I am not sure anymore where this ship sails. But hey, everyone has the right to fork. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a philosophy that says 'personal attacks' can be removed. However, this is disputed because people often have wildly different definitions of what is and is not a personal attack. I'd rather not go through an RfC as they are often nasty tedious affairs which accomplish little, but if you wish I will help you with the procedures. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#CBDunkerson loses it - where alot of these issues have already been discussed. As to personal attacks, well as I said definitions vary widely (and often on a per case basis in my experience)... but I'd say that questioning Chairboy's IQ would definitely qualify. You didn't say he had a low IQ or such, but it certainly seemed implied and just a bad idea to go there at all. Any accusation (e.g. 'abuse' or 'stalking') might also be called a personal attack though that is something more of a stretch as it is usually defined as a negative description of the person rather than their actions. Though the latter is often 'incivil' whether a 'personal attack' or not.

Wikipedia is alot of things... but mostly it is alot of people. And people means personality conflicts and disagreements. Usually your best bet is going to be to walk away from that. If something you were working on gets deleted - let me know. It can always be restored and expanded unless there is some strong reason that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all (which seems unlikely). I don't agree with alot of what goes on either, but mostly I just go somewhere else until the problem goes away. There is always something else to work on. --CBD 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some policies are very poorly defined. One which seems pretty clear to me is WP:CSD A1. The only dispute could be is there enough context or not? In several cases not only I saw the context but others too and the stubs got expanded. If now Chairboy comes and says there was not enough context I assume he only did say this to defend his deletion, or that he really saw no context. What is needed to see context? I assumed a certain IQ level. I later added that this assumption was probably not sufficient, one can have a high IQ but if there is lack of knowledge then this might not be enough to see context. Maybe he did not know what the word "script" means? I doubt this. If so, I propose to only let admins delete per WP:CSD A1 and keep this deletion up after a complaint, if they succesfull passed a vocabulary test. Another proposal could be to by default let admins delete by WP:CSD A1 until it is found out that they lack to much knowledge (and/or IQ) to handle this correctly. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time you've called me stupid. I understand that you're frustrated, but I've treated you civilly during this entire exchange and I ask you to do the same in return please. The micro sub-stub did not contain anywhere enough near context to remain as a WP article, the consensus on this subject is clear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I call you stupid?
the mini stub, or miro micro sub sub stub DID contain CONTEXT to be EXPANDED. That's what counts for WP:CSD A1.
yes, even I may join the consensus that this stub did not contain enough to stay as an article. But this is not what all the thing is about.
yes, you have been rather civil during the debate. Maybe not so on the WP:AN/I page. Despite the deletion and sticking to it, you behaved very well. I mean you even provided a copy quite fast, something other WP:CSD A1 deleters didn't. And you offered help in the RfC process. Unfortunatly we were stopped, in this process when Pschemp and Lar showed up. Some days back I also sent an email to you, so that maybe we could discuss the thing a little via skype or so. Sometimes the atmosphere may be more relaxed then, as is also suggested by WP:TEA. I am not sure whether this would be true, but I thought it would be worth a try. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, the dispute about CSD A1 isn't a reading comprehension issue here but a disagreement about what 'context' means. I, and apparently you, think it means that the subject of the article is defined. Chairboy (and Pschemp) presumably think it means something else - though neither has said what despite invitations to do so. From past comments that the stubs were 'too short' I gather that they consider 'context' to have something to do with length, but that is not my understanding of the policy. In any case, Chairboy didn't delete your stub because he couldn't understand it, but rather because he views A1 as allowing deletion of things you do understand if they lack... enough length or something. I'm not sure exactly what criteria he is using. --CBD 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw him saying that he saw the topic of the stub defined and thus that there was enough context to get the stub expanded. IIRC I didn't saw the opposite neither. Maybe he can clarify whether he understood what the stub was about. BTW, what about Bad Eisenkappel ? And yes, if this gets undeleted, I will look how to expand it. IIRC I had some additional info but the stub got deleted the second time before I could insert it. No copy to my user space please. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bad Eisenkappel. --CBD 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, can you undelete the original Eisenkappl and Eisenkappel too? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

todo

Wizards of OS 4

I think this information works better in the main Wizards of OS article and so have redirected. The OS 4 article has so little information by itself it's almost a1 speediable. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speedy it -- I redirected. The Wizards of OS article itself is pretty short. Why do you say that OS 4 should have a separate article? NawlinWiki 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disamguation

moved: Talk:Kannada Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested link

(eom) --CBD 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re please stop...

Hi Tobias!

please stop, you are creating inconsistency

Have stopped for time being, but a period of inconsistency inevitable as I work my way through these articles. (Hopefully you've spotted that I've left those articles that address more than administrative divisions alone – at least, that's my intention!) Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

move to Talk:Subdivisions of Azerbaijan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tobias. See my response to your question on this issue here. --CBD 15:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kangarli edits are in the history again. As to grounds for deletion, a case could be made under CSD 'A3' as the text there says articles consisting only of links (including links under 'see also') can be treated as 'empty'. Again, I think clarifying that there are different places with the same name is a valid goal - so just work around whatever quibbles come up to get to a 'methodology' of doing so which can't be obstructed. On the MfD... alot of pages like that have been deleted in the past. I recall a big stink when Kelly Martin was found to have one. I'd suggest just copying the wikitext to a local file. You can always cut and paste it into an edit window and use preview to add things / make updates and then have it available if you need it for a future discussion or DR process. You could probably also include some of the general text describing the problem with links to a few examples as a 'position statement' on your user page. Plenty of people have 'this is what I think needs to be fixed at Wikipedia' type commentaries. --CBD 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request your help

I have seen you interested in Indian geography articles. Can I request your help in merging articles in this page into the article namespace. They were created in the sandbox since a article with the same existed. It would really help speed up the process if more hands work on this. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, Thanks for helping out. You don't have to be an admin to do this. Let us take Bhadravati for example. Since the sandbox article and the main article are referring to the same city. You need to merge the infobox and other text from the sandbox to the article. Please do not move the sandbox article to the article space. Instead uncat it by adding tl before the stub template and : before the category. This procedure is explained in the header of the Not created page. If a town exists, but the sandbox article is a different town with the same name, you should create a disambiguation page as required. Please let me know if my explanation is not clear. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the sandbox article. We should not have redirects working across namespaces. User namespace should be kept seperate from the main article space. That's why. Here is what I did with Bhadravati article. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot could do it. You mean like adding " - X" at the end of the article in that list? I work on the list using the state category. By doing "tl and colon" procedure, I see the sandbox article disappear right-away and I move to the next one in the category listing under U. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a bot is needed for the update, it will need the person to mark the item as complete (Like a " - X" at the end). If it finds the mark, then it could do the tl procedure on the sandbox article. If you feel we need it, I can write one. The intro already mentions two ways to work on the list, one go through each and the other to work on it state-wise. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A municipality is a governing body for a town or a group of towns. It is not geographic group, like the ones in the link you mention, it is more a administrative grouping. I found this URL that might explain it. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Kadayanallur. Looks good. Thanks for helping out. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a different matter

Tobias, I see you create articles as Article name, State name. I create it as Article Name (State Name) and some other people do too. What convention do we follow? Please advise. Looks like this is similar to our district name discussion. :) - Ganeshk (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the overview link. I will follow the guideline from here on. Here is what I understood, when disambiguating across states, use comma. When doing that across countries, use brace. Am I right? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. got it. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your AWB applicatoin

Your previous block logs bring concerns of your using of AWB and therefore I chose not to approve your application. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP policy involved here (since AWB is not from the foundation), it is up to the discretionary decision of any admin to decide whether a user have sufficient experience to use the AWB and whether or not there is any concern of a user will follow the AWB Rules of use. --WinHunter ^(talk) 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Winhunter. John Reid 00:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move from Sultanate of Johor to Johor Sultanate

move Talk:Johor Sultanate Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget...

Hi Tobias,
In addition to here, I'd also appreciate your counsel here, here and here. Thanks! David Kernow (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribs

Tobias, I was checking your recent contributions. You get distracted too often. :) Here is a barnstar for you. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The India Star
		For your outstanding contributions to Indian geography and history related articles. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

Nah..I don't mind. Thanks for putting up the templates on the user page. I will try to use the userbox templates instead of the babel box that I have right now. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That MfD

Hi. The reason I removed that content was because it's already available in at least one prominent place. We don't, generally, need to reproduce all the material of a page that's under discussion for deletion. The Land 19:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a link right below your comment. It's also linked at the top. That is plenty. We do NOT as a rule reproduce material on the page where it is being discussed. which an editor with 30K edits ought to know. Reinsert it one more time and you will be clearly in violation of WP:3RR and you will be blocked. Stop acting in a way that many would perceive as immature and you will find things go a lot more smoothly. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it: I am interested that the abuses and policiy violations do go smoothly. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can't fault anyone else if they decide, based on your own abuses and violations, to make your affairs on wikipedia not go smoothly. And that may well happen. Tobias, this vendetta of yours would be better stopped now by your own ceasing it than later by other means, which might involve things you don't like. Badbilltucker 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my vendetta. It's the vendetta that the admins fight against policies and against truth. It's their fight for a two class society in WP.

BTW: you mentioned I "abused". Pls, where did I abuse admin privileges? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. One, I am not myself an admin. Simply an interested party. And no, you haven't abused admin privileges, simply the policies of wikipedia which apply to all users. And, believe it or not, I haven't made up my mind one way or another about your complaints, partially because I have seen from your own recent behavior how you do abuse the civility and other standards which do apply to you. And, if you continue in like fashion, I think you may well get someone so annoyed at you that you are suspended. I would not want to see that happen, as I don't know if you have a case or not. Honestly, as someone who has not yet taken sides on this matter, I think the best thing you can do right now is request mediation from disinterested third parties, and stop making these "comments" which only injure your own case more. Badbilltucker 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "hi", I can say this is offending and that you violated civilty policy. So what? Some people seem to interprete any word that I take against admin right abuses as a civilty policy violation. No, I don't believe you that you don't want me out of the project. I think you would be happy if I go. But hey, nobody can "suspend me". You have not taken side in that matter? I clearly have done so, and I invite you to join those that believe that admins should not be treated different to regular editors, and that they too have to respect policies. And that trying to hide abuses is not the right thing at all. The choice is up to you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are still dodging the central issue. The central issue in this case is whether you are acting inappropriately. Bluntly, I think just about anyone looking at it from the outside would have to think that you probably are. And what good would it do you to be right on the issue and still be suspended later on the basis of your own actions which fall outside the norms of behavior? Again, if you can be bothered to listen, there are appropriate places to raise your concerns, and, so far as I can determine, you have failed to raise them there. Instead, you are stepping outside accepted behavior to make your case. You could make a request for comment, you could post a message on the community portal or appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or any number of other actions which fall within the norms of behavior. Instead, you are taking actions which any outside observer I believe would see as falling outside the norms of behavior. As such, I repeat, you are damaging your own case before it is even heard. Again, I suggest you seek arbitration or some similar means to raise these concerns of yours. Badbilltucker 00:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fail. I could not have failed yet because I did not try to raise the issue in the places that _you_ call appropriate. And if you would read more carefully: I am not alone who thinks the little admin abuse overview should _not_ be deleted. But even _if_ I would be alone: _I_ don't need others to judge on right or wrong. I don't need to run with the majority. If you like to only support the majority this is fine. It's your personal way. But it's definatly not mine. You are free to go to ArbCom if you think this is the right way. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

Tobias, I got your message. I will take a look at it tomorrow if it is still pending over there. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogyakarta

move to talk:Yogyakarta. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I see what you're doing with Jambi (province). Be careful, what you are doing is in violation of WP:3RR. Let the discussion on the talk page pan out before you start feeling justified in repeatedly reverting the edits made to Jambi.

@@ Line 833: / Line 833: @@
 move to [[talk:Yogyakarta]]. [[User:Tobias Conradi|Tobias Conradi]] [[User_talk:Tobias Conradi|(Talk)]] 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
+==3RR==
+I see what you're doing with [[Jambi (province)]]. Be careful, what you are doing is in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. Let the discussion on the talk page pan out before you start feeling justified in repeatedly reverting the edits made to [[Jambi]].