User talk:Tobias Conradi

Dear Wikipedians, if your signature has a talk-link, I may be more inclined to answer at your talk page. Otherwise I may be more inclined to answer here. I don't like to allways click 2 times to reply only because you do not provide a talk-back feature.

thanks to an idea by User:Ral315 I use raw signature now, because the other way of signing stopped working today. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Moved talks

move to Talk:Provinces of Afghanistan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

move to Talk:Saint George Parish Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So, Tobias, when do you think we should ask the community to vote on our standards? --Golbez 04:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

move Talk:Provinces of Angola Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to delete the irrelevant argument by me and just leave in the departments discussion, SqueakBox 15:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've introduced the naming convention to the community at large on the pump; seems to be time to vote --Golbez 09:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

move Category_talk:States_of_Mexico Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

move Talk:Caserta Palace Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

move Talk:Municipalities of Mexico Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

move Talk:Parishes of Jamaica Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

move Talk:Provinces of the Philippines Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

move Talk:Timok Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dolgoruki

Since you have participated in "Use English" talks, please visit Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova to contribute to the current poll. 217.140.193.123 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

You should add yourself to Category:Wikipedians of Argentina, I left invitations to the Wikiproject for people but I didn't find you there. :)

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Aber Natürlich! Auch, Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. (That's actually all the extent my german, as you can see from my user page). My paternal Grandfather was German, my maternal one was Austrian... Oddly enough neither of my grandmas were German (Argentine and Hungarian) although the funny part is that my German Grampa didn't speak German at all (he moved to Argentina at age 1) but my Hungarian Grandma did it, and very well. :) I thought for a sec that you were from AR, but you're very welcome in WPAR! :)

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda

Hello, sorry for the long message.

In March 2005, there was a WP:RM request and vote (which you took part in) to move Úbeda to Ubeda, with a 6-3 result, see Talk:Ubeda#Requested_move:_.C3.9Abeda_.E2.86.92_Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

However, beginning in April 2005 and lasting several months, there was a survey conducted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks, with dozens of participants voting and discussing over an extended period of time. The purpose of the survey was to try to gather feedback for what the policy should be globally. Proponents of diacritics were in the majority, and in general, use of diacritics is widespread in actual practice on Wikipedia today (particularly since the Mediawiki upgrade to Unicode).

However, for Úbeda/Ubeda, Philip Baird Shearer is stating that the WP:RM vote takes precedence over the survey results, and a new WP:RM vote would be required to move it to Úbeda. My position is that there should be a global policy rather than case-by-case voting -- that was the whole purpose of the survey. In discussion with him, I wrote:

Just as we wouldn't have case-by-case voting on, say, capitalization issues for articles (eg, prepositions in movie and book titles should be lowercase, globally), we shouldn't have case-by-case voting on diacritic issues.

See the discussion at Talk:Ubeda#Talk_page_discussion_on_page_move (or perhaps here if renamed).

As a possible alternative to calling a new WP:RM vote which might set a precedent for case-by-case voting across thousands of articles, I am polling all the participants of the original WP:RM vote to ask:

• Regardless of how you voted in the WP:RM voting, which do you believe should take precedence: the earlier WP:RM vote on the specific article, or the subsequent survey?

Note, since Philip Baird Shearer was one of the participants in that vote, he will also be receiving this message and thus will have the opportunity to respond. -- Curps 05:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and for the information of all the voters in the March requested move vote, there's now a new requested move vote at Talk:Ubeda. -- Curps 01:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Arab subdivision template

I cast my vote to keep the template.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I wanted to point out that, at a minimum, you ought to copy the example RFC template to the subpage you have redlinked; the listing page is not for debates (else it clutters too quickly). Additionally, you'll need to find a second person involved with User:Timwi and potential deletion abuse to certify.

That said, I really don't think you've got grounds for a complaint of this magnitude. Reviewing the conversations you two have had, it looks to me as though User:Timwi overstepped his bounds with the initial deletion. However, content can be undeleted, and Timwi indicates he would have been willing to undelete if asked at the RfC page.[2]

However, your original approach was quite poor: Admins are given latitude to make unilateral changes (for that matter, so are you, save deletion) and abuse should not be claimed when a mistake is equally likely (again, that's my interpretation of what happened). Timwi's response, though, was certainly not a personal attack. An allegation of admin abuse is not a statement to make lightly without at least referencing the disputed content. Such allegations are made by vandals to admins on a daily basis, so yes, a similar accusation on your part does give cause for User:Timwi to consider you less credible. I accept that the later bit was a typo, but I hope you can see how it (unintentionally) continued to elevate the stress in your conversation.

Additionally, User:Timwi's decision to instead {{tfd}} the relevant page is appropriate and within his rights (I'm not certain that you have a problem with this, I just figured I would mention it). My personal recommendation would be to remove the RfC entirely, drop an apology with Timwi, marshal support for your template, and move on. You're free, of course, to act as you wish regardless of my advice. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it is a simple error if he deleted the page. He abused his rights. And he did not say sorry nor asked where this could have happened. Only because I did not cite the place of abuse, does not make the abuse not existing. He attacked me with credibility and went on so after a typo. He could have easily restated the typo.

Sorry if I did not everything right on RfC page. I did not knew that I am allowed to create subpage.

How do I get a second person within 24 hours. this is really bad stuff. An admin abuses his rights, engages in attack and there is no mechanism to resolve this. I am not on WP 24 h a day. Timwi still did not say nowhere that he apologizes nor that he would refrain from direct-admin-deletionism in the future.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added the RfC framework and copied your comments verbatim to what I feel to be the most appropriate locations. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timwi and endorse where appropriate. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Honestly, I have no idea on closing policy. I would imagine that some neutral admin will archive it once they conclude that some form of consensus has been reached and/or no further comments of importance will be added. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've closed the RFC...it did not meet the two-person certification threshold within 48 hours. Ral315 W_S 00:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Per a discussion with a few other admins, it seems best that you try this at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion and see if anyone else is willing to undelete it for you. Ral315 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that I don't think it should be undeleted for you. If you can find an admin willing to do it on VfU or elsewhere, feel free. But I personally won't do it. Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message

I replied on my talk page. Friday (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I replied again, same place as above. Friday (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added my thoughts to the discussion at Friday's talk page (so as to keep the conversation clear). As for RfA certification, the two person threshold is for directly involved parties who have already attempted resolution. You met that criteria, but Timwi (as the subject) did not and I (as a previously uninvolved third party) did not; thus, the removal. The 48 hour deadline is meant to discourage the quick filing of RfCs, as it more-or-less necessitates that an extra person is pulled in for informal mediation before the dispute escalates. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Tobias, if you'll let me leave them there at "Name (dept)", I'd be more than happy to set to the task right now and fix the redirects. BTW, I think you made the correct call with Municipio (Mexico). Cheers, –Hajor 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll have a crack at Nicaragua now. (I still prefer the parenthetic format because having a sequence "Baja Verapaz, Escuintla (department), Jalapa (department), Sacatepéquez" seems a whole lot more logical than Baja Verapaz, Escuintla Department, Jalapa Department, Sacatepéquez", where half of them are asserting "Department" as part of the name while the other half isn't. But that's an old discussion.

As for Tijuana (municipality) instead of Municipality of Tijuana -- yeah, I'd probably prefer the first, too. But nothing I'd start a holy war over. What I would like to see is all the municipality articles following one or the other of those formats: otherwise we start getting into all sorts of mental gymastics about what the official name of the headtown is vs. the official name of the municipality -- a lot of towns and municipalities are officially "of" some local hero, poet, or politician, but in 95% of the cases, no one outside the vicinity has ever heard the use -- trampling on the "use common names" guideline in the process. I'm also a little concerned about existing two-paragraph articles about the town and its municipality getting split into to two one-paragraph articles -- hardly seems worth the effort. Or existing longer articles, where it's going to be v. difficult to extricate "town" info from "municip." info. But those are problems we should sort out on the Wikiproject Mexico page.

I'm glad things are friendlier, too. Cheers, –Hajor 05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Subdivision term spanish}} -- How could you? You forgot the departamentos! Cantones, too. Has Peru stabilised yet? –Hajor 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Stabilised Peru" -- afraid I'm just behind the times, after looking at the article. Regions, provinces, districts... I was just too used to their being departments. Sic transit gloria mundi, I suppose. –Hajor 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

is is

tnx for your comment, it's always nice if some people see it. :) Garion1000 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Gujarat

Thanks for point that out, I'll look into updating that stuff... however, right now it's 4 a.m. and I have classes. So, I must be off. gren グレン 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There, I think I've demerged all of the ones that were left. gren グレン 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Satara District

This new article appears to be a copyvio: http://www.world66.com/asia/southasia/india/maharashtra/satara. I was about to tag it but I figured I'd let you know first to fix it, or explain, etc. —Cleared as filed. 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Clear as filed, I think Tobias has just been demerging the Districts from the cities. I will put it up as a copyvio since it should be... but, Tobias was just copying information. gren グレン 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't realize that it was already elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks. —Cleared as filed. 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Signature

The problem seems to be that your signature is using Unicode arguments instead of the actual character. Try replacing "[[" with "[[" and "|" with "|" and see if that works. Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Still not working. Post the entirety of what's in the signature box on my talk page, I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Also tell me if "raw signatures" is checked. And for what it's worth, it's because the software running to fix HTML errors was causing server lag, so it had to be temporarily disabled. You think your sig is bad- see my user talk archives, especially Archives 4 and 5- they're a horrific mess of hodgepodge HTML tags :) Ral315 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree on adding talk, but until they do, we deal with it :) Try adding the brackets on the outside, and checking raw. I can't think of why it wouldn't be working, or why doing this would help, but... Ral315 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem :) Ral315 (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

French Mexicans

Would you vote on this, please: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10#Category:French_Mexicans --Vizcarra 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is SIL info on Novial incorrect?

Is this info at SIL on Novial incorrect,then?

http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=nov

Identifier: nov Name: Novial Status: Active Code set: 639-3 Scope: Individual Type: Constructed Denotation: See description at Linguist List.

ISO 3166-1

Feel free to add your support to get the ISO 3166-1 nominated in the featured lists: click here. Bart l 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Request move

Hello I've posted a response to your comment at talk:Government of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 08:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

township

Would you mind saying something on the talk page about your changes to the township page? I fear confusion in this case. Tedernst 21:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Witten

I moved the Witten page to Witten (disambiguation). If you disagree with that move, it needs to be talked about and a request for move entered to move it back. I don't think it's proper to simply copy and paste so that the text on both pages is the same. This breaks the edit history and will eventually cause the pages to become out of sync. I'm changing it back. If you still disagree, please address this on the relevant talk pages so we can decide and do the move properly? Tedernst 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Chicago redirects to Chicago, Illinois and from there there is a link to Chicago (disambiguation). The reason for this is that Chicago, Illinois is much more important than the other uses. The same is true here, I believe. Please state your case if you believe otherwise. Tedernst 16:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Chic has 9.2 inhabitants, so the importance diff is much much bigger. It's much more known worldwide. Nevertheless, a bad system is not good, only because it is used in other places. There where lots of links from Drenthe to Witten, people did not seem much aware of the german city. On the other hand, to force germans to link correctly it is better to not have the town at Witten.

If you remove the part behind the comma, you can go from every witten-page to the disambig page. But if Witten is not the disambig then people have to click more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Chicago has less than 3 million people, but that's not the point. The point is the difference in importance. I don't find any article-space links to Witten, from Germany or Netherlands, so I'm not sure what you're saying about the 2 clicks. Tedernst 16:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

you don't find them, because I disambiguated 20 or so article links. If plain Witten-links go to a dab-page then software can detect this. If plain Witten-links go to the german city this is not true. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

AM

Please see my comment at Talk:AM Tedernst | Talk 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Tobias, you seem to be undoing the hard work of myself, Neonumbers, Mzajac, Tedernst, Susvolans of trying to get this page up to MoS:DP standard... Please discuss you rational for adding back wikilinks and irrational "sorting" of the disambig entries at Talk:AM. I gave a reasonable reason for my revert, labelling me a "destroyer" is not productive, nor in good faith. Thanks/wangi 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mate, you have to discuss any changes to AM before implementing them. I'll keep an eye on Talk:AM fro your comments/concerns. Or talk to me, any questions/comments are welcome (I have a good knowledge of the MoS with respect to dab pages). Again, refrain from editing the article, you are clearly doing so against consensus. --Commander Keane 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

i think you are wrong. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab destruction

I think you were referring to my work at WP:DPL, am I right? Anyway, I've replied at the MoS talk where you asked a question. I won't stop unless there is community consensus for me to stop.--Commander Keane 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Community consense? My dear. Stop the destructions made by you and your crew. BTW I did not refer to your work at WP:DPL as a whole. Because I do not think the purpose of this is only destruction. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you give an example of the destruction you're talking about? Are you talking about on dab pages or in articles? Tedernst | talk 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Subnational entity unwikify federal. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That descision was questionable, and Federal won't be a dab soon. I thought that link wanted a dictionary defn rather than a dab, so I unlinked it. I also knew you were babysitting the template so wasn't too bothered with what I did. In most cases, I find unlinking like that will provoke some thought and a better link/outcome will occur. In this case the better outcome is under discussion at Talk:Federal.--Commander Keane 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

ok. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

About that possilbe vandal, that's weird, becasue I just had a productive conversation with them at Talk:Antioch (disambiguation). While I'm here, do you still think de-linking an unneeded wikilink is dab-destruction, just curious?--Commander Keane 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh ok, that's how you meant destruction. I'm afraid that sense of the word was lost a couple of years ago, and now the destructive testing meaning is all I think of. Basically concreate exploding. It was like "please stop the explosive carnage you are doing to wikilinks".--Commander Keane 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about your thoughts on User:WilliamAllenSimpson, User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and User:Golbez. If your have some supsicion about User:Golbez using sockpuppets, get some evidence together (diffs) and ask User:Golbez. --Commander Keane 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bid District

I think that using the spelling from the official web site sounds good; Bid and any other spellings can be redirects. Tom Radulovich 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefectures of Greece

Hi Tobias! I appreciate your "isolation" of the prefectures of Lesbos and Samos from the island articles. Where the prefecture is not exactly the same in territory as the island, I think it deserves an own article, that was also on my "wish list". This probably also applies for other islands (Corfu, Zakynthos, Kefalonia). However, I think the islands should be at X, not X Island, perhaps X (island). They're simply not called like that, how would you feel about "Rügen Island"? The disambiguation pages you made (Samos, Lesbos) should be at X (disambiguation) IMO. BTW the provinces of Greece are not very significant (the internet page of the Greek ministry of the interior doesn't even mention them), they should be no reason for disambiguation (see Imathia). Markussep 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, it's X (e.g. Anglesey, Jersey). The US has a lot of islands with more descriptive names (Long Island, Cliff Island), but also has names without Island, see the respective categories. For non-English islands, the bracket dab, if necessary, would be best I guess.

About disambiguation or not: I think it's justified to use X if the island is clearly the most popular use of X (principle of least astonishment etc.). IMO that's the case for Samos, Lesbos, Corfu and the other islands. For Witten, it's even clearer: I've been to Assen several times and know several of the villages around it, but I had never heard of the village Witten before someone moved Witten to Witten (Germany) to make way for a dab.

Many of the articles about Greece (especially smaller towns and Elis Prefecture) are ugly, are badly written and contain a lot of non-information. I made a better template for the prefectures, maybe I'll make a similar one for towns, like Template:Infobox Town DE. About bottom templates, feel free to improve them, they couldn't get much worse. Especially those boxes showing which towns are to the north, west, south and east. Markussep 17:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Patan District

As far as I can tell, there is only one Patan District in India, in Gujarat; Patan District, Rajasthan doesn't seem to exist, and the link just redirects back to Patan. If this is the case, we could rename the article Patan District, Gujarat simply Patan District, and delete Patan District, Rajasthan or simply make it a redirect to Patan, Rajasthan. Tom Radulovich 02:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Patan District, and the page with all of the templates is a great reference! You are doing a great job bringing order to these Indian district pages. Cheers, Tom Radulovich 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The blocks, also called development blocks, of Indian districts may be correspond to the districts tehsils/taluks, but they are frequently not the same. Tom Radulovich 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tedernst antioch and santa cruz

I don't mind grouping. Feel free to do it if you like. What I really don't like about the Santa Cruz page, and what I believe goes against our style manual (for good reason), is the wikilinking of the countries. Tedernst | talk 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your tantrum

I have cleaned up the mess you caused by forking and moving the proposal everywhere. This is your notice that I am currently preparing an RfC, and would appreciate some contact from you. Good day. --Golbez 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will be there to defend you Tobias Conradi. Like I said in my talk, I believe Golbez is a bad admin with strong biases and he plays blatant favorites --User:Lord_Chess

Me too. Wallie 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Districts of Cyprus

Hi Tobias. Great thing that you began starting the articles about the Cypriot districts. I kept forgetting to do so a dozen times. I've elaborated them a bit and added the three you missed. I've transferred all six to Euro-geo-stub since Sub Sorting considers the island to be a part of Europe. Regards. --Valentinian 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Danish sovereignty

Hi Tobias. Yes, you've quite correctly identified the worst possible point in the entire history of the Danish people (although 1864, 1814 and 1658 are runners-up.) Officially, Hitler never wanted to annex Denmark or even Southern Jutland (Sønderjylland / Nordschleswig). The Danish border was the only one of the borders imposed on Germany in Versailles that Hitler accepted; at least for the time being. Or perhaps he was just playing polite because of the complete Danish collapse on 9 April 1940? Had he won the war, Denmark would probably had been erased from the map, and my people deported to wastelands in Russia or whatever.

Denmark was stupid enough to sign a treaty of non-aggression with Hitler when he "offered" it to us in 1939. Norway and Sweden turned down similar offers. Didn't help though; Nazi troops occupied Denmark on 9 April 1940 and controlled the country until 4 May 1945 (officially: 5 May 1945). On the bright side; Denmark was never annexed by said country, but Denmark had very little sovereignty during the Five Cursed Years (De fem forbandede år). Virtually no sovereignty was left between 29 August 1943 and 4 May 1945. The Danish government officially resigned on 29 August 1943, although this was never ratified by King Christian X. Each government minister effectively transferred his powers to his permanent secretary, and full authority now rested with Dr. Werner Best and the Wehrmacht. If you want to learn more about that era see e.g. Occupation of Denmark or Christian X of Denmark. Occupation of Denmark is not as good as it could be, but should give you a few good hints.

The collapse of the Danish government's appeasement policy had several reasons. Some of the more important are: 1) A strike in all major cities after Dr. Best wanted to place German guards on war-important industries to stop sabotage attacks on e.g. Danish shipyards. 2) A general feeling of "enough is enough" when one of the German diplomats leaked that his country wanted to deport the Danish Jews; everybody knew that deportation = execution. 3) the fact that Germany wanted to starve Copenhagen into submission didn't help things either. The radio recently played a recording of an old member of the Resistance from Copenhagen. He told of an encounter with a very polite German guard at one of the checkpoints leading into the city. Dane: "Why are you standing here?" Soldier: "To starve you Danes out of course." Dane: "When will you leave?" Soldier: "When you're all dead, naturally" (note: Copenhagen had a population of several hundred thousand.) The following arrest of the Danish army and police and their deportation to German camps ruined whatever remained of the tattered modus vivendi between Danes and the German army.

My user page is somewhat - I don't know if ironic or sarcastic is the best word - but you get the idea. Yes, I'm pretty keen on stressing Danish sovereignty. If you check the history of Germany around 1848-51 and 1863-1864, you'll see why. Or perhaps I'm simply influenced by the fact that my grandfather was a member of the Danish Resistance during WWII. His neighbour was the leader of the local Resistance unit, and was arrested by the Gestapo. If he'd not been a very good liar; he, my grandfather, and many others from that village would have been shot in the final months of 1944 (in that case, I wouldn't have been around to write you this note.) That's why I added my grandfather's quote about democracy. My fondness for that system of government is from him as well. Democracy is not perfect - it is far from perfect - but it's still better than all the alternatives. My regards. --Valentinian

Hello

Thanks for your message about Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts/templates. This is really helpful. And, a happy New Year to you. --Bhadani 16:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Actually, Mr. Rahman was born in the village Tungipara in the Gopalganj District, not in the modern town of Gopangalnj. Thanks. --Ragib 02:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

You weren't notified by the starter of the RfC, so I'll notify you that an RfC has been brought against you by William Allen Simpson. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi. --Golbez 07:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you're not an admin so you can't see deleted versions of pages, but um.. that Konar province page I deleted? All it ever consisted of was redirects. If you have a problem with me, either bring it to me, or make an RfC and get it over with. --Golbez 07:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that i've finalized my analysis at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Naming conventions (subnational entities). karmafist 19:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In response:

1. You're welcome.
2. You're welcome. I really do want to resolve this, fighting gets us nowhere.
3. I signed that I was a party in some of the conflict; however, I'm not a party to all of it, so I know little about the subdivisions argument.
4. I don't quite know what the 271 he mentions is referring to.
5. Yeah, I know you're a guy, but I didn't want to mass-edit his RfC. :P
6. Neither did I, I haven't kept count of your reverts.
7. I don't know where that number came from, I'd like to know myself.
8. I don't. I just want things to calm down a bit. A mediator could be useful. An RfC can't get you suspended anyway, so no fear of that here.
9. Lemme see if I can find it... I know I saw something like that (someone accusing him of being a sock of me) but I can't find it at the moment.

--Golbez 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Mafia response :)

Hi, Tobias! Haven't run into you for a while now. Regarding your concerns:

• Your revert of vandalism not showing up in the history—that means that Deldot was the first to do it. Your revert request was probably received by the server immediately after his took effect. Since your version was exactly the same as Deldot's (you did revert the same instance of vandalism, after all), it was not saved. I believe it is one of the new features of Wikipedia—you cannot save another version of the article if its identical to the most recent revision.
• Edit summaries—admins cannot edit those. Developers can, I think, but I can't imagine a compelling enough reason for them to do it. Developers can also clean histories, but as far as I remember that's only done per Jimbo's request, which is to say does not happen every day :)
• Straw man accusations—that would require me to sift through the contribution histories of the people you've been involved with for the past few days, which I'd rather not do. I can assure you, however, that if such an accusation took place—it can be found. Like I said above, admins cannot correct edit summaries or clean up histories. Hope this helps.

Take care.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Using "may refer to" in dab pages

Tobias, you added "XYZ may refer to:" to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). My view is this is an unclear explanation of XYZ. When would XYZ ever "refer to" something rather than "mean" that thing? I agree with your edit comment that dab pages commonly use this introduction, but I still think it's a bit weasely, and should not be codified in the Manual of Style.—GraemeMcRae^talk 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My email

Not sure what happened, but I've just sent another one your way. Hopefully it's gonna be more accurate than my first. Sorry about that!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

And I hope this helps us both see that, even though we apparently vehemently disagree on how some things should be named, we both respect the process of Wikipedia and such. I mean, combined, we have over 35 thousand edits. We've both been here long enough. I am not your enemy here. I hope I'm no one's enemy. I just want things to go smoothly. --Golbez 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you have 17k or so, I have 18k or so. :) No, no Golbot yet... --Golbez 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The RFC

The best thing you can do is to ignore it. I'll ask him to stop as long as you two can agree that ad homimen attacks aren't productive in solving this. I'm sorry for being so far behind in this, it's a pretty dense dispute at this point. karmafist 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Municipio

Looks like I made a mistake, cheers for fixing it. By the way, why do you link to Federal on that template - is it becasue you think the link looks better in blue? How does the reader benefit from the link?--Commander Keane 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that links like this, Federal, are unhelpful and distracting. I agree with this guideline: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, what do you think about it? Also, do you use "wiki" to describe wikilinks? Wiki indicates a different meaning.--Commander Keane 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

About this Urban link problem - I can't see anything wrong with that edit - could you explain please.--Commander Keane 09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see now. Well, these things can happen. I don't like them to happen, but they do. I'm not going to change the way I do things because of it.--Commander Keane 09:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have the stock-standard signature, I believe there should be no personalisation of the signature (some people have images in the signature, others have code that extends for 4 lines in the edit window - I disagree with that). If the talk link is so important, the mediawiki software should automaticaly place the link in the signature. Alternatively you can use Lupin's popup's which will give you a one click solution to my talkpage.

What is the "fuel to a new discussion". I didn't spot a new discussion there.--Commander Keane 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately my bot is currently not functioning reliably for template moves due to the developers changing the "What links here" function slightly. I recommend you place a Bot request, when I did I got a response in 15 minutes.--Commander Keane 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

bad form

Dude, poisoning the well is a shitty tactic. Please remove this comment, since it's only put there to take a cheap shot at me. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Language

I'd rather not move this. It will prove to be more useful for the coming conversion since we can migrate to Template:Infobox Language over time. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think naming is nearly as important as content. Doing a bot run to replace a single redirect is not critical or even desirable. What is important is the flagrant WP:AUM abuse taking place on Template:Language. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Single redirects are no big deal, and no one and no bot should find it necessary to replace them. It is just busywork with no gain. It just adds to the bandwidth and creates an unnecessary extra version in the page history, adding to database space needed. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop immediately what you are doing. -- Netoholic @ 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your replacement of an actively-included template with a "disambiguation" page was completely inappropriate. Please refrain from spamming your disagreements with Netoholic across a half-dozen pages at a time in the future. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to argue on talk pages with Netoholic all you want. I've argued with him before, and I honestly don't give a damn about what template is used. However, disambiguation pages do not belong in the template namespace, and it is not the place to make your points. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What gives you the right to abuse your user power to attack other users? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is Mu. I am not abusing my admin powers. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not abusing my admin powers. Therefore answering your question is impossible. As for consensus and the community, you are harming it by putting disambiguation pages in the template namespace and edit warring over a silly template. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on Netoholic's side. I don't even like him. You were doing silly things in the template namespace, and I told you not to put a disambiguation page there the first time. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"True template"? That kind of talk says to me that you're only interested in "winning", not in coming to an acceptable solution. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He's right on that. 'Working' template is a better description than 'true' template. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to comment on my page: Actually, Netoholic isn't an admin. Any user can perform page moves for most pages. BTW, is 'Conradi' of Germanic derivation? Wondering if the similarity to my first name (Conrad - from 'kuon ratek') is coincidence or common etymology. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, before you get yourself into trouble, go find some articles that need improvement. I don't tell you what's right or wrong when it comes to language or geography... please let me apply my knowledge and creativity to the templates. Leave constructive feedback on the talk page, and I'll give it a fair shot. I have no idea what you find technically wrong with the template. But the thing is, the way you're going about it is way off-base. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems from technical point of view. But your way of imposing this template is annoying and disrupting. And you block Template:Language from being moved to the standard name. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't move the template because it's just a bad idea. We can have two templates, migrate the articles in the Infobox, and then either merge histories or let the future redirect. Nothing will be lost. My "way" of implementing this is just your perception. I do not want to harm articles and I don't want to step on people's toes. I'm willing to devote all my time to this conversion. What more can I do? -- Netoholic @ 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about language/quilt. Give me a bit of time to adjust it and it'll work again. Changing language/familycolor without adjusting language will mess up all the language articles. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about that mess with the quilt. Those 'spacing' issues are really tedious. Should be all cleared up now and leave the language/familycolor template in a reasonably formatted layout. Also, take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox2. I'm trying to adjust Netoholic's template so that it actually works the way the current one does. That way there won't be any 'meta-template' issues to worry about. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Template:Infobox Language request

Happy New Year to you too, Tobias. Hope all is going well for you.

The template was protected from being moved by Cyrius on January 6; the following reason was given: user keeps moving this elsewhere and replacing with a disambiguation page for no apparent reason. You, by the way, can check things like that yourself at Special:Log—you can look up all or some of the logs by username or article name (note that capitalization there is important). A quick glance at the edit history shows that he protected it most likely because it was moved back and forth, with discussion going on chiefly in the edit summaries. I will have too look further into this to dig the details; I am hesitant unprotect it right away as I do not yet have sufficient information about what's happened, even though the "for no apparent reason" part does not feel exactly right. I would, however, recommend, to list the template at WP:RM first, after which protection can be lifted (provided that neither you nor Netoholic are going to move it again until the process is complete).

I'll keep researching the matter. Apart from your and Netoholic's talk pages, is there a discussion thread I could look at anywhere else? Take care,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review User talk:Ezhiki#Infobox:Language issues and leave comments if you feel I missed anything.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, thank you for your comments. I drafted a proposed solution for you and others to review. If you accept, please indicate below the solution section. If you do not, please explain your grievances.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New comment available.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another comment is there. I am also asking both you and Netoholic to provide your proposed plans of action; the way you want it to be accomplished. I will then try to match all three plans (yours, Netoholic's, and mine) and at least establish common parts. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't all that much help in this. I assume my involvement is no longer necessary.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

RFM

Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Norway

Thought this may be of interest to you.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. You're right that they are named after their cities - according to Statoids they all are. I think we both agree that, with very few exceptions, when the province is the same name as the city, the province is always named after the city. The only exceptions that come to mind are in the USA - Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, and Iowa City (which used to be the capital of Iowa), all three of which are named after their states. --Golbez 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's kind of amusing that, at the end of it all, I agreed with you as to how the provinces should be named, and it all fits my proposal anyway. ;) I hope we can continue to work together, and that the strife of the past is at an end. --Golbez 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted images

How can an image be deleted without warning? who did it in that case? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know it myself. Upon returning to editing after too well-known events, I noticed that three images uploaded by me long ago under fairuse licence - File:Krom.jpg, File:Krutitsy.jpg, - were removed by OrphanBot from the articles on Pskov, Krutitsy, Zvenigorod and deleted without prior notification of myself as the uploader. In the past, when OrphanBot removed fairuse images, I instantly provided the source and restored the images to the article. I don't know what's going on here. It is not good when the images are deleted like this. --Ghirla | talk 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dab pages

I have noticed that you have created a bunch of dab pages, good work, just some suggestions:

• {{dab}} goes to the bottom of the article
• Use an introductory phrase (word x can refer to:)
• explain what are those links (to place in y coutry, to a person, etc etc)

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Renata 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

to be faster I use to place {{{dab}}} at the top instead of point 1 and 2 you mentioned. Maybe the dab-department can think about solution there. I will look to allways provide country description, or mention that it is a person. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care where dab template goes, just that a bunch a your creations ended up showing on Special:shortpages which is supposed to filter out dab pages. My wild guess is that this is caused by dab being on top. Thanks for taking notice on this. Renata 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

well some are super short. maybe the filter does not work because I use {{{dab}}} and not {{{disambig}}} Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Soviet Union

Hi, I noticed you recently did some work categorising SU related articles and was wondering if you knew about the Soviet Union WikiProject. Please feel free to join up, or ask me questions :) - FrancisTyers 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Category:Qatar| and Cataegory:Qatar

The other day, I saw someone change 'Category:Qatar|*' to 'Category:Qatar|', which I thought seemed weird - I assumed it was a minor thing that was wrong, so I changed it to 'Category:Qatar' as I couldn't see a difference between the two - and I see you changed it back (so I know I must not be seeing the whole picture). What's the difference?

Thanks --Matt 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found "Using a space after the pipe is the customary way to categorize an article in a category with the same name."(On Help:Category) Thanks for fixing up my mistake --Matt 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

about Autonomous entities of China

the Autonomous entity of China of English is exactly equal to zh:自治地方 of Chinese, An autonomous entity is regarded as a division in a country especially in China, Autonomous entities shouldn't be as Autonomous entities of minorities(民族自治地方). e.g. Hong Kong and Macau are provincial level autonomous entities, the PRC goverment names them Special Administrative Regions, Almost HK people are Han Chinese and British Chinese. and 民族区域自治 of Chinese is equal to 民族区域自治 of Japanese, 民族区域自治 is more regarded as a political system of minorities in Chinese, of course A Autonomous entity of minorities is one of Autonomous entities in China.Cncs|(Talk) 05:18 Jan. 26, 2006

move to Talk:Northern Region Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions galore

Hey Tobias. Just wanted to commend you on your subdivisions templates project. I'm a big fan of those! Moreover, I think that the templates could be improved further still for consistency. =J //Big Adamsky 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee: thanks for the Ozzie move! I considered doing so without mounting a RfM, but thought that might be contentious. Now that the deed is done, should I withdraw the RfM or allow a 'reaffirmation' (or possible overturning) of the move?  :) In any event, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think the damage is done. :) I'll keep it up for now and have made appropriate notes on the talk and RfM page. If a groundswell opposes the move (which I doubt, but stranger things have happened), we'll know it either way. In any event, thanks for your initiative. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You were saying? :) I can also assist in updating pages shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

States and territories of Australia

As you have moved Australian States and Territories to States and Territories of Australia, could you please also change all of the 30 odd pages which link to Australian States and Territories? Xtra 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

why? BTW, I moved to "...t..." - lowercase as for non proper names. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally people clean up their own mess. Xtra 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

what does this have to do here? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you are the one who did it. It is appropriate that you fix up any problems associated with it. Leaving a message somewhere else would thus be pointless. Xtra 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why I can do this better than you. If you think it is a mess you are free to fix it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You have some nerve to move a page and then say none of the consequences are your concern. Do you have some kind of inability to clean up after yourself. If you create dead links you should fix it up. I cannot see how you believe that you are absolved of any such responsibility. Xtra 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

what are dead links? where did I create such links by moving a page? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

move to Talk:Pavlovsk (disambiguation) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Confederacy

Woops, sorry, you were right. My mistake. --Deville 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think those are all the Indian languages which needed to be dabbed... so I went to Confederacy. I also noticed that several of the links to Confederacy that I had to disambig were pages I created a couple of months ago *hangs head* --Deville (Talk) 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote

I invite you to please vote on the district capitalisation issue here: Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Vote. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the Talkheader from Talk:Gujarat??

User:Tobias Conradi, why the heck did you remove the Talkheader from Talk:Gujarat?? Do you have some objection to "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice"?? It seemed to me that this advice might be helpful to some of the people posting on that page. Please reply (if desired) on Talk:Gujarat -- Writtenonsand 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

redirect

Bypassing that redirect (ex) is completely unnecessary. Fixing the calls can be done at any later date, when the article/template is edited for some other reason. Please don't clutter the page histories with trivial changes which don't actually change anything. -- Netoholic @ 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)