Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tobias Conradi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:18, 19 October 2006 editDavid Kernow (talk | contribs)40,997 edits "National"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:25, 14 October 2024 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,627 editsm Undid revision 1251038348 by Wbm1058 (talk) this redirect is from talk space to user space - therefore R to user is an appropriate categorization because user talkspace is NOT userspaceTag: Undo 
(376 intermediate revisions by 83 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
'''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.'''


{{Rcat shell|
thanks to an idea by ] I use raw signature now, because the other way of signing stopped working today. ] ] 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
{{R to user}}

}}
Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at

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

==Berlin==
You alright, man? You never called.—] • (]); 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*you did not call me neither? Maybe we missed the once in a lifetime chance to see us. ] ] 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
**Once in a lifetime? I much doubt it :) I liked Berlin, and hope to return one day. It's a pity, though, that things turned out the way they did. You are welcome to blank my userpage once as you promised—you now have every right to do so :)—] • (]); 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Vandal? First time I've been called that! ==

Tobias, I am appalled that you apparently did not even read my edit summary, nor did you take the time to realise that most of the changes to the Ubuntu article in the last few months have been done by me. Please see the talk page for further discussion, and please don't make me regret nominating the article for ], where I suspect you came across it! - ] (] • ]) 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

*2006-06-27 20:18 replied at

==2006 summer admin incidents==
: ]

== Hurlingham ==

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



==Hi==
One of your articles, ] is being nominated for deletion. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, ] 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
: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 ] 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Tango ==

Regarding your ad hominem attac , 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. --] 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:Regarding your ad hominem attac - maybe stop randomly cleaning up. BTW, why did you not notify the page creator? ] ] 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Tobias, I just realized that you haven't voted yet! Please do!. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
: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! ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

: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. ] 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Haukes ==

I don't know. I've fixed it. --]<sup> '''(''']''')'''</sup> 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)



== ] ==
move to ] ] ] 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

== 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.] 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)



== RfA thanks ==

Hi Tobias,

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

]

] (] • ]) 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

== Tana River (Finland) ==

Interesting progression: ] &rarr; Tana River (Finnland) &rarr; 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 ], so I'd rather avoid it.

] 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

: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 ] , e.g. Tana River (Atlantic). best regards ] ] 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== 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? ] 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

: I am not sure whether "Many tango musicians have been both instrumentalists and singers" 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 ] or ]s ] ] 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::http://eng.tango.info/singers?dsc=tracks , singers sorted by track descending ] ] 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

== Portal:Dance ==

Since you are making a tango portal, you might be interested in ]. In particular, ]. `'] ] 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

==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 and second, nowhere in the blocking policy does it say I have to do spell out the diff. You know what you typed.] | ] 19:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

move to ] ] ] 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

== Hi ==

Hi Tobias,<br>
Just to let you know I'm working on a table of ] for the sake of an overview if nothing else. Hope all well, ] 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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 ] into article space, again after tidying up etc. Yours, ] 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
The redirect of the stadsdeelpage to ] was discussed on the articles talk. Please do not revert that change, before discussing it on the talk page. --] 09:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== Atlantic/Faeroe on ] ==

As you pointed out, I made a mistake in changing ''Atlantic/Faeroe'' to ''Atlantic/Faroe'' on ] - 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. ] 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

== 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 :) ] 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not inclined to read '''various''' talk. ] ] 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

: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 -. . Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian places‎; thats where its all been happening :) - and if you want a good explanation - I'm not the one ! ] 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::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! ] 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProject Argentina's motto issue ==

Hi, I noticed your comments on ], 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, &mdash;] 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I talked with the creator here: ]. 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:Ah, A7 is one of the ], basically meaning "non-notable". --] <sup>]</sup> 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== place naming conventions ==

Hi. I have opened a discussion at ] about your recent changes to ], 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== 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.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>]]''' 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I didn't know what you meant by me having violated ]. I have thoroughly researched it and I still don't know what you mean, so please enlighten me...and do that without threats please, ], you know.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>]]''' 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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. ] ] 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


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 ], right? I can't help it that you were "insulted".
*Well, no. There's no violation there. I say that there was not enough con'''text''' 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 ]: ''It must be long enough to at least define the article's title and its meaning in order to appear in Misplaced Pages.''. 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.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>]]''' 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool down chico. YOU VIOLATED, not me.
*You are aware that that comparison is directly taken from ], 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 con'''text''' 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.
] ] 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

*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 ] 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.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>]]''' 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
*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??? ] ] 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)



==Pilcomayo Department==
-------
A WP-email I wrote to ] ] ] 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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 ] ] ] 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am blocked

with respect to

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

you may like to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=68664490&oldid=68661659

that you take it for a department of a company does not justify speedy on sight delete. Errors as yours can happen.

You could have checked what links here to perfectly find more relations, or google, or use the category link.

best regards

: Tobias, I am not the first to tell you this and I am sure I won't be the last: the article '''was not a valid stub'''. It was a single disconnected fact, barely a valid sentence, which contained insufficient information to establish the context. The solution was simply to creat a ''valid'' stub, '''which has already been done'''. If you can't be bothered to include enough information in an article that a busy admin can see what it's supposed ot be about, ] You have put ''massively'' more effort into argufying about this ] than you did into the article. What the hell is the point? A proper stub has now been created, there is an article three times the size of the one you created which (unlike yours) actually establishes what the fuck it's about, and you are ''still'' arguing about it! You seriously need ]. This has to be the most absurd dispute I can remember! As soon as you show evidence of climbing off the ceiling I'm sure someone will be along to unblock you, given your history of good contributions, but honestly the abuse and hysteria you have put out about this entirely routine deletion of a near-empty article, hundreds of not thousands of whihc get nuked every day, is baffling. I cannot remember another instance of a good faith contributor losing it to quite this degree over something so utterly trivial - which would have been fixed by simply re-creating the article with a bit more context. It's ludicrous. Go and have a beer or something. ] 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:::it provided enough conteXt to be expanded. So it was not a candidate for speedy direct admin deletion. That you are not the only admin insisting in the opposite and thus defending a policy violation does make the thing even worse. At first I asked the deleting admin, then I asked at DRV. I don't know where to turn next, RfC? ArbCom? ] ] 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: In ''your opinion'' as someone who already knew what it was about it provided enough context. In the opinion of the person who speedy tagged it, the admin who deleted it, and several (in fact almost all) the people who have reviewed it since, it did not. Where to turn next? That depends on what you want. If you want the existing stub reverted to your original sentence then edit away, but be prepared for it to be rapidly expanded or deleted again (either is valid from that strat point). If you want something else to happen you're going to have to tell us what it is, because as far as I can see we're all sitting here looking at the ''much better'' article which now exists and wondering why on earth you are still arguing. ] 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: It's is not a matter of opinion. Everybody could have find out what it was about. I don't want the stub to be reverted, I want mine undeleted and WP:CSD violations by admins stopped. BTW, bad try to intimidade with plural wording. ] ] 14:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Tobias, come on, the current page is better than your stub, why would you want it undeleted and replace a good stub? Just let it go, it's a pointless argument. Move on... ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Don't put stuff in wrong context. I think nobody argued the initial stub was better than the current. I want it undeleted so that everybody and not only admins can see what it was. If policy violations are pointless to you, fine, but maybe add this to your user page since you are an admin from whom at least some people would expect to work on stopping policy violations. ] ] 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Why? What's the point? It contains no information which is not in the new article. ] 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::quote ''I want it undeleted so that everybody and not only admins can see what it was.'' AND the violation has to be undone. At best the initial violater would do this. ] ] 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Tobias, please read ]. Don't be stubborn just for the sake of it. I have defended you in the past, but this time you're being paranoid. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::a violation does not vanish by calling the person who made this public stubborn. I don't know what is the connetion between "i have defended you in the past" and the repeated WP:CSD violations. I don't need you here to defend me, I would rather like you help making public policy violations and help stopping this violations. Undeleting would help in documenting. Not only admins should be able to see the original stub and to see what happened. ] ] 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sorry for ever standing up for you and trying to tone down this argument. It won't happen again. You can pretty much count on me ignoring you from now on. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Why are you sorry? Why do you wanna ignore me? Is this a threat? Are you offended by the point that I didn't agree with you? I did not call for ignoring me, I'd rather like that you help to counter repeated policy violations by admins. ] ] 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: Yes, Tobias, I understood the part where you said you wanted it undeleted so that non-admins could see the history and yada yada, but given that there is ''nothing'' in the single dleeted edit which is not in the current article, and given that the article exists so there is no "volation" to undo, what is actually the purpose of adding the single deleted edit to the edit history? What does that achieve? Why have you spent so much time and effort to in the pursuit of ''nothing'' except having your name first on the article history? There are many admins who will happily undelete content just because people ask nicely, if it will achieve something, but this will achieve nothing at all in terms of the project, so if you want it done you need to give a credible reason. ] 18:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

::Oh please, we're not still talking about this, are we? I had taken a few days off from Misplaced Pages to cool off and to think of what would be the best next move. Well, here's my proposal; Tobias, let's try to be mature about the whole thing and settle this. I have been at fault for not letting you know in the first place why I deleted this, and you were at fault for being uncivil. The both of us have made mistakes regarding this situation, and it seems pointless to argue any further. After looking at this talkpage, the deletion review page and the shortlived RfC, we both have to conclude that it's just a very longwinded repetition of the same arguments. Seriously, can't we just bury the hatchet? This whole debate (with many participants now) does seem way overdone for an article that didn't count more than 8 words at the time of deletion. I hereby apoligize to you and I hope you will do the same.

::Yours sincerely, '''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>]]''' 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::(PS, good luck with the improvements on ]!)
:::Thanks a lot for comming here again :-). I still think the original deletion was against policy. After having seen how many admins at DRV defend this violation I am not sure whether the admin selection process is good. IIRC only User:Friday was for undelete. You are right, a lot of repitition here. Whatever will happen next, could you, to relax the situation a little bit more, undelete the original stub and merge with what Trialsanderrors wrote? Maybe it needs moving to another page, then delete the redirect, then undelete and then merge. Maybe CSD has to be made more clear, stating how "enough context to be expanded" is to be interpreted. At least Trialsanderrors was able to somehow expand it. All the best regards and thanks again for having come back here. ] ] 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, I have looked at your deleted stub again, and the only thing there which wasn't already in the current article was ], which I have edited in. The process you have suggested "moving to another page, then delete the redirect, then undelete and then merge" is really unnecessary, as it does nothing but triggering a pile of bureaucracy to erect. As for the comments regarding the CSD and the admin selection process, I suggest you take it up on these pages their respective talkpages and propose changes. Happy editing.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>]]''' 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::My point was, that the original stub is visible to everybody not only admins. That it is a lot of work to make this possible is so thanks to you and Trialsanderrors. ] ] 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

<s>For crying out loud, it only takes a minute to restore Tobias's original stub. He may be on the verge of ], but so are other admins refusing to do this simple favor. Anyway, I've just deleted ] with the intention to restore all revisions, but, unfortunately, I am now getting a database error preventing me from completing the undelete procedure. Most unfortunate. I will restore the article as soon as the database allows me to.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)</s>

...which, of course, it did immediately after I posted the comment above. Hopefully, we are not going to have another 100K-discussion about why or why not the original stub should or should not have been undeleted.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::You are my WP hero of the day. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. But of course the thing is not settled yet. Now it's time for a straw poll and/or then RfC and ArbCom. So many abuse supporting admins this was really astonishing. Maybe also a project AdminAbuseWatch would be good. ] ] 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

== WPArgentina ==

Hi! I just wanted to inform you, as a member of ], that we are about to start using the {{tl|WPArgentina}} for article categorization and qulification. Please, take a minute to read ], as well as the ] and the ], and make the necesary comments. Thank you for your participation, ]<small>(]/])</small> 08:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

==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 ] or to ] (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,&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

: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. ] ] 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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. ] ] 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
: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&mdash;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: ] (+]&nbsp;& ] for cats and templates), ], and ]. 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&mdash;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 ] 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 ]&mdash;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 ]; there are brief instructions there on how to best do it.
:Hope this helps!&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:You are right, maybe he only closed tons of stuff. ] 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. ] ] 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] ] 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
: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 ] and ] 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. ] ] 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::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&mdash;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 ]). 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&mdash;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&mdash;we are perfectly capable of solving this peacefully. Thanks.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

==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

] Sikkimese 28,600

== ] ==

Hi! I am not really clear why you felt the need to move ] to ], 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 ]) Thanks, —] 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:Can I help you to become more clear? Feel free to ask me, as precise as possible. As a start you may also read ], 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 ] ] 14:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::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’) —] 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Your guess was right as can be seen from ]. 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. :-) ] ] 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

== 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/search/?title=Tanaro_River&action=history additional would be nice if you inform http://en.wikipedia.org/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/search/?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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages: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. ++]: ]/] 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


: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. ] ] 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::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. ++]: ]/] 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ] ] 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

::::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. ++]: ]/] 13:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Did not knew you like fun ;-). But maybe some contacts I lately made would not expect this from me neither. ] ] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== Move ==
move to ]? ] ] 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

move to ] ] ] 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== 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 ], although frivolous listings are often closed. Articles up for deletion are discussed on ] generally before they are deleted. If you want to make an "informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin" you can start at ], or by opening an ], but NOT both (please!). If you need more info, let me know. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

==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.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

== Broken links ==
move to ] ] ] 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Fiji ==

Tobias, when I look at "" 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
*David who reverted me before, has now accepted, see ]. I am also cleaning other provinces now. Ra, Ba, Bua ... ] even was primary topic. ] ] 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Talk page of an admin candidate ==

what's this ... 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. ++]: ]/] 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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 ]. 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. ] and ] 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? ] ] 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

== Iloilo, Cebu, Pangasinan ==

Please do not accuse me of abusing my admin privileges simply because you do not agree with my actions, please ]. I have been trying to get all the provinces in a consistent naming pattern wherever possible. Please read ]. The names usually refer to the provinces, nothing else. I patterned this after the US States. Take a look at ] 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. --] 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

: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. --] 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

: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 ]. So are you telling me that we have to change my grandfather's hometown of ] to ]? 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. --] 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::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 ] to ]? '' - 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. ] ] 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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 ] (referring to the state) and ]. In fact, 39 out of the 50 U.S. states have conflicting names, but all of them (except for ]) are located at the base name, with links to corresponding disambig pages. ] 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Really now, please stop moving the province articles like this. Policy and consensus is clearly against this. ] 04:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::there is no ], 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. ] ] 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::'''There is consensus''' between other Filipino editors and myself at ]. As far as I know, you are the only who opposes this. Now please don't go against consensus. --] 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] is a good starting point. ] ] 11:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Mr. Conradi, I would like to point out that my consensus also comes in the form of the treatment of ]s, which are the equivalent of Philippine provinces. To wit, the state I live in, ], and the state of ] are given their own namespace in light of the fact that ] and ] 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 ]. This is also mirrored in Canada. There's ] and ], ] and ]. There are oodles of other examples and there is no reason why the Philippine provinces cannot follow these examples. Thank you. --] 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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. --] 07:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)



*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? ] ] 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== please stop moving comments ==

move to ]. ] ] 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages policy ==

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

It is not your thing to ask me to stop, if I think they are valid. Provide evidence that I am wrong. ] does not allow what you did. Stop the violations, say that you will not do it again and revert all your abuses. ] ] 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
: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. ++]: ]/] 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::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 ], but no ]. 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'''. ] ] 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:Tobias, the reference is CSD G6. Furthermore, I urge you to read ] 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 ] 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. --] 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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. ] ] 13:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== 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 Misplaced Pages and that your frustrations have waned. You are obviously passionate about Misplaced Pages and have shown quite a dedication to the project to rack up over twenty thousand edits! Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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! ]] 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== 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. --] 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::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. ++]: ]/] 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:::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. ] ] 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::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. ++]: ]/] 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::*'''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. ] ] 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::*I have absolutely no problem if admins watch my behavior. Don't let it look like that. Stop your defamation attempts. ] ] 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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. ++]: ]/] 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

: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. ] 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. ] ] 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== Greek alphabet ==

I get errors when adding iso15924 at ]. ] ] 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Tobias. What sort of errors are you seeing? It actually seems to display fine on my screen... with a link to ] on the left and 'Grek' to the right. --] 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)



== WikiProject Country subdivisions ==

Hi. I would much appreciate participating in the ] (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. --] 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Disambiguation pages ==

See ], 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. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== 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. --] 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

: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 ] 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

==Contributions by User:Lar==
=== Civility warning ===

You are resuming your pattern of incivility. This edit (and the edit summary that goes with it) is incivil: . 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. ++]: ]/] 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

: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 ] please. ++]: ]/] 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:::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 ] ] 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I've increased your block to 48 hours. Please stop being incivil and I'll stop increasing it. ++]: ]/] 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::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. ++]: ]/] 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:Instead of trying ot change my behavior you should think about stopping abusive admins. ] was a valid stub a speedy delete, directly by an admin was not right. ] ] 10:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::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. ++]: ]/] 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Another civility warning ===

This was not very civil. Nor was Please assume good faith, thanks. ++]: ]/] 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::Who are you talking to? --] 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::What do you think? To ]? To ]? To ]? ] ] 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::That's not an answer. I'm just wondering if you're making an actual complaint, or just being passive aggressive again. --] 03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::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. ] ] 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty making sense of that. --] 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::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 ]? ] ] 04:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::If it is, then file a complaint. I have no opinion. --] 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Me neither. It is hard to prove. I think a complaint would not make much sense. To many bad admins here. ] ] 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Then why are you complaining? --] 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Did I? If I did, why not? What do you think is the reason why people ]? Could it be that they want things changed? ] ] 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::You won't complain in a way that could get things changed, so what kind of complaint is this? --] 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote an email to ] ] ] 05:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:See ] "Laws by others", #3, #6, and #26... Hope that helps. (you may want to skip #49, it's a bit confusing). ++]: ]/] 05:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] ] 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ++]: ]/] 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Help in understanding that writing to Jimbo may or may not be useful.'''
::::*this can be probably easier obtained from ].
::::'''I see you haven't internalised that you need to be a productive civil contributor yet.'''
::::*your arrogant mobbing attitude persists. ] ] 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
=== Civility warning ===

You are resuming your pattern of incivility. This edit (and the edit summary that goes with it) is incivil: . 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. ++]: ]/] 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

: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 ] please. ++]: ]/] 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:::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 ] ] 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I've increased your block to 48 hours. Please stop being incivil and I'll stop increasing it. ++]: ]/] 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::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. ++]: ]/] 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:Instead of trying ot change my behavior you should think about stopping abusive admins. ] was a valid stub a speedy delete, directly by an admin was not right. ] ] 10:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::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. ++]: ]/] 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


=== Some recent edits concern me ===

Hello Tobias: I find some of these edits, or their summaries, of concern:
(and many others in on the AWB talk page, in which you seem to be arguing with the developers and administrators of AWB about how they choose to administer their project and tool) Even when you're baited, as you were by Indon in the second one, it's important to remain civil. Please keep that in mind. ++]: ]/] 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


=== AWB apparent harassment, unconsensual movement/renaming of provinces ===

I see that you have continued to harass Martin, and snipe away at the AWB policy on many pages, some only faintly related. If you have a specific grievance with how AWB is administered by its author and the folks he has chosen to help him, use formal dispute resolution channels, but stop this sniping it is unacceptable harassment of another user. This is an official warning to you, Tobias, if you continue to harass or be unpleasant to the AWB folk, I will block you for it, and this is your last warning on this matter.

I also got a note from one of the users you have been interacting unpleasantly with regarding indonesian provinces, aftre seeing my warning this user let me know how frustrating and unpleasant he finds working with you. Please be more collegial. This is an official warning to you, Tobias, if I see you acting the way you have been again, I will block you for that as well, and this is your last warning on this matter.

Removal of this notice would constitute acknowledgement that it was read, but really, I'd far prefer you left it here, at least a while, for the benefit of other admins. If another admin pops by to take action and missed that you had already been warned, and only warns you, when I come back and see it, I'll be extending the length of your block for that.

Please be more collegial. In looking through your contributions, in addition to these difficulties, I see lot and lots of contributions that seem to move the encyclopedia forward. So you clearly are doing good work. But no one gets a free pass, and your good work is outweighed by the grief you are causing others. Make no mistake, when people send emails, they are not happy at all with your ways. ++]: ]/] 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=== AWB ===

You chose not to try to explain what you are trying to achieve, I was actually prepared to help you, I've been talking to Martin about what might be clarified to address what I think your concerns are. You could have dialoged with me, but instead without answering my good faith questions. Therefore you have read it and I will assume, internalised it. The next edit by you to any AWB related page that is in any way contentious, that anyone complains to me about, or that is a reversion of an edit, will result in a block, unless I see some evidence that you are working constructively to clarify matters with regard to AWB. Removal of this notice without a constructive answer will result in a longer block, if you do subsequently get blocked, than if you leave the notice in place because it is important that other admins be aware of the history here. ++]: ]/] 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Another civility warning (the latest in a considerable string) ==

Tobias, I find these edits and 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. ++]: ]/] 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Subdivisions query ==

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

==Notability==
I'm sorry, I'm not quite following you. What purpose would that serve?&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

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. --] 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for all your work on ] which I am now using! ] 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] 11:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== ], ] ==

This template has now been deleted. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">]</span> 10:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==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, --] 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== admin right abuse ==
move to ]

== *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 ]. It was so uninformative, it was practically a ]. 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? ] 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== 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 ]s. You are thirty-two ''years'' old, not thirty-two ''months''. You're capable of better. Show it. ] 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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. ] ] 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:Tobias, see my note on my ] -- Best wishes -- ] 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:Read ]. --] 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::Ahem. Read ] and ]. If we're going to be sticklers for civility I ought to be handing down blocks on the lot of you. :] --] 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ] ] 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::::See the indentation level - the comment was directed at Golbez and then more generally at the disagreement as a whole. --] 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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. --] 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. ] ] 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
: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 ], 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. - ]</small> (]) 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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. ] ] 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
: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". - ]</small> (]) 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] ] 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Remember, it's also possible to find a page via ]; therefore, every page has to have enough context ''by itself''. ] 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Fully agree. ] ] 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== please obstain from discrediting ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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. ] | ] 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not erase my comments again. You removed my comment and did not put it anywhere else. That is not accetable behaviour.] | ] 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. --] 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::I didn't repeatedly restore that comment above, so what is the point of that statement? ] | ] 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Chairboy repeatedly restored moved comments and Pschemp did so too. Followed by blocking me, posting a lie and protecting my talk page. ] ] 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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 ]. - ]</small> (]) 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::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. ] ] 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] | ] 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::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. ] ] 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

== Barnstar etc. ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working Man's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being a hard-working veteran, and a '''huge''' amount of contribs. ] (]·]·]) 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
|}
On a completely different note, would you be willing to join ]? You've been doing a lot of work on the subject lately, and you'd get a fancy little userbox too :-) ] (]·]·]) 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:Cool! Feel free to add {{tl|User WikiProject WS}} to your userpage. ] (]·]·]) 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

== 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 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. ++]: ]/] 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. --] 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::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 ] should be changed then? ] ] 20:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Did you want to stay blocked? ] | ] 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I didn't lie then if you wanted be unblocked. All I did was try to be nice and put an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> 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 <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template on your page. ] | ] 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::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. --] 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::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? ] | ] 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::You are right, you indirectly announced your lie. But that does not make your lie less a lie. By reading ] 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 ] and ], 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. ] ] 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I have not interacted with Tobias for very long. I have objected to some, but not all, of his activities with regard to ]. I have, however, in following this discussion, come to understand that Tobias' interest in quantity does not (necessarily) add quality to the Misplaced Pages. All this business about "lies" and "admin abuse" does not convince me that Tobias has been an angelic but persecuted Wikipedian. ] 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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 ] which showed a complete lack of understanding about what the Gaelic script is. You suggested that it should not be confused with ], 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 Misplaced Pages. At present, I am objecting to the shouting match you are engaging in with a number of admins. ]
::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. ] ] 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages editors. That's quantity. Your mini-stubs are not quality. showed complete ignorance of what the Gaelic script was. ]
::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.] ] 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::: showed complete ignorance of what the Gaelic script was. I am not going to debate you further. ]
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. ]
::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" ] ] 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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: <nowiki>"From all the business about unicode I am not convinced that Michael did not have sex with minors"</nowiki> OR "I have come to understand that Michael's interest in quantity does not add quality to Misplaced Pages." 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 Misplaced Pages like ]...) ]
::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 Misplaced Pages." ] ] 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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? ] ] 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:I have already expressed my concern to the admins that precipitous deletion of stubs in an actively-growing category like ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] into German. Have some fun. ] 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] ] 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Crime? My stars. I see you have been blocked on the German Misplaced Pages 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 "adds quality" to the Misplaced Pages 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. ] 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::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. ]
::::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. ]
::::I stopped contributing to German WP after beeing defamed and out of process blocked there.
:::::Keine Überraschung, vielleicht. ]
::::I will thus not translate.
:::::A pity for the Gaelic script, then. ]
::::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". ] ] 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Fine. Don't enjoy your holiday. Don't do anything constructive like learning something about the ] 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 ] ''or'' about ]. 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. ] 17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Evertype, why was the ] 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 ] seem incorrect to me. While closely related they are also clearly not the same thing... they have different Misplaced Pages articles, different ISO codes, et cetera. At that, the word 'ogham' doesn't even appear in the 'Gaelic script' article... though it probably should. --] 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::CBD, that was a direct quote from Tobias's initial version of ]. See . - ]</small> (]) 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::CBD, that direct quote had no "quality". It was utterly ignorant. Please see ]. 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'". ] 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::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? --] 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::The statement "The ] should not be confused with ]" is equally "true". There is no "value" in the statement, however. ] 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ah, I see now. So he should have left ] as an incorrect to ]. 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. --] 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::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 (]) had the virtue of not being misleading and incorrect, at least. ] 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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. ] 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::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 ] far before the ] deletion which has precipitated all of this. I expressed my opinion on that . 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. ] 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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'. --] 12:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Tobias did the Misplaced Pages equivalent of creating an article on ] whose only content was "A fish should not be confused with a ]." 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. ] 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I quite agree. Can we stop this thread now? ] 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Not before I reply as below. ] ] 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Nandesuka seems to have limited knowledge of what happened. I assume ] (Gaelic script) never was a redirect to ] (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/search/?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. ] ] 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. --] 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A related link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=73971286#Tobias_Conradi_redux ] ] 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

==unblocking==
{{unblock reviewed|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=You need to take a deep breath and take a break from Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)}}

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

:Hi Tobias. The most directly relevant policy is ]. 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 ]. 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 ] 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 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 ], but if a user remains civil and discusses disagreements calmly they don't have much to worry about. --] 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== Disambiguation pages 2 ==
moved to ] ] ] 09:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

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 ]. Hopefully we can get your block resolved in time for you to comment on the review. --] 12:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

==.==
Shouldn't it quite be time for an archive? Your page is 105 kb...
{{messageme|Adriaan_1}} --] 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== 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. --] 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Co-signed.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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 <nowiki>]</nowiki> 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 ]. 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 ] ] 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

: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.) --] 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::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 ]. 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 ] ] 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::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. ] | ] 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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. ] ] 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Nandesuka replaced "stop abusing your admin rights, never again engage in stalking, and leave mobbing me" with "<small>(personal attack removed by Nandesuka)</small>" - 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. ] ] 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: 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, ] 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::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. --] 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::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. ] | ] 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::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 ]. --] 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

: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. ] ] 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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. ] ] 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::There is a philosophy that says 'personal attacks' can be ]. 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 ] - 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.
::Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
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. ] ] 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. - ]</small> (]) 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::#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. ] ] 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::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. --] 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
: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 ] ? 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. ] ] 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::Done. ]. --] 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Thx, can you undelete the original ] and ] too? ] ] 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

==todo==
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bad_Eisenkappel&diff=prev&oldid=74669732
*wrong merge?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Districts_of_Latvia&action=history
**http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Counties_of_Latvia&action=history

== Wizards of OS 4 ==

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

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

== Disamguation ==

moved: ] ] ] 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
(eom) --] 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

== Re ] ==

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 &ndash; at least, that's my intention!) &nbsp;Best wishes, ] (]) 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

== Azerbaijan ==

move to ] ] ] 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

:The ] 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 Misplaced Pages' type commentaries. --] 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== Request your help ==

I have seen you interested in Indian geography articles. Can I request your help in merging articles in this ] 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, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:Tobias, Thanks for helping out. You don't have to be an admin to do this. Let us take ] 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 ] 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. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 22:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
::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. is what I did with ] article. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:::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 . 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. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
::::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. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
: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 that might explain it. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:I checked ]. Looks good. Thanks for helping out. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== a different matter ==

Tobias, I see you create articles as ]. I create it as ] and some other people do too. What convention do we follow? Please advise. Looks like this is similar to our district name discussion. :) - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

: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? - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

::Okay. got it. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Your AWB applicatoin ==

Your previous bring concerns of your using of AWB and therefore I chose not to approve your application. --] <sup>(])</sup> 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

: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 ]. --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:: '''Endorse''' Winhunter. ]] 00:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Move from Sultanate of Johor to ] ==
move ] ] ] 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== Don't forget... ==

Hi Tobias,<br>
In addition to ], I'd also appreciate your counsel ], ] and ]. Thanks! &nbsp;] <span style="font-size:90%;">(])</span> 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:: ''...I am quite busy, can maybe only return to country subdiv during the weekend. suggestion: Can you try to integrate the hierarchy into the country subdivison article, or if you prefer put it in the talk there? ...
: Understood; yes, there is more to life than Misplaced Pages! &nbsp;I'll try what you suggest presently; in the meantime, perhaps with unfortunate timing, I've just entered ] to see what folk think about renames. Yours, ] <span style="font-size:90%">(])</span> 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

::: ''strong disagree with this action. It is disrupting. We should get consensus _before_ the stuff is moved. Again: the word "nation" is not a good one to use. Again: the word subnational is for the same reason neither. Could you withdraw the CfD stuff for now? Let's _first_ work on our thoughts about the hierarchy...
:: But where might we find people other than ourselves and the occasional visitor to ] willing to contribute to finding a consensus...? &nbsp;My feeling is that we need to take this issue ''to'' people, e.g. via CfD... However, if you're not able to contribute until the weekend, I'll freeze the CfD test for the time being, yes...? &nbsp;Apologies for my unfortunate timing, ] <span style="font-size:90%">(])</span> 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

== Your contribs ==

Tobias, I was checking your recent contributions. You get distracted too often. :) Here is a barnstar for you. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The India Star'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your outstanding contributions to Indian geography and history related articles. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
|}.

: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. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== 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. ] 19:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

: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 ] 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. ++]: ]/] 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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. ] 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:It's not my ]. 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? ] ] 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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. ] 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. ] ] 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::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. ] 00:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
: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. ] ] 00:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Bot request ==

Tobias, I got your message. I will take a look at it tomorrow if it is still pending over there. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 07:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

==Yogyakarta==

move to ]. ] ] 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

==Article moves and disambiguations==
Please do not move articles to new names without discussion. This is wikipedia policy and IMO it is also just good manners. I refer to Yogya, Jambi, and Riau. You never know, if you discuss, I might just agree with you. But please discuss and get some consensus first!! Thanks --] 04:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you write here without discussing it first? BTW it's very clear with all the wrong links around that the topics are clearly NOT primary at all. ] ] 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
: I am not sure what your question means. Why did i write here and not the article discussion page? Because it is a message for you relating to a number of articles and i wanted to make sure you go it. Also, my apologies, i do not know what you mean by "tpics are cleary not primary". Article moves are important issues and need to be discussed first. The Yogyakarta page is up for discussion, this does not give you the right to move it until that discussion has finished. If you want to move the others, please put in a request as per Yogya--] 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::UPDATE: I notice you are also moving other pages without consultation. Please stop. Violation of wikipedia policy. --] 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::*which policy is violated? ] ] 05:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::why do you write on my talk page before discussing first? Who gave you permission? ] ] 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: No-one needs permission to write on anyone's talk page - in fact, that is the very reason why it was there. If i did require permission, how should i request it? Has everyone here asked you permission before using your talk page? How - by phone? Or did they send you a letter? --] 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::::: The same way no ones needs permission to move an article - in fact that is the very reason why the move button is there. ] ] 06:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::<small>(Was watching this conversation and wanted to comment)</small> Tobias, Not quite true. ] states, "...In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus.". Contraversial moves do get posted on that page for a discussion. Please cool down my friend. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for correcting me. This still does not make: "Please do not move articles to new names without discussion." valid to me. ] ] 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::Tobias, it is very clear from some of your comments that you know nothing about Indonesia, and yet you think you can just go around renaming every article to suite wahtever misinformed urge you have. Please stay away from moving and editing any of the Indonesian articles until you gain some knowledge about the country. (] 05:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC))
:::It may be due to your IQ or the processing power of your brain that I know nothing about Indonesia. But this is not so clear to other people. I suggest you increase your capability of logical thinking. ] ] 05:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Tobias - watch how you talk to people. Editors who continue in such an uncivil manner don't last as editors - if you know what i mean. I also suggest you compare Michaels contribs on Indonesia over a long time, and then compare them to your own. --] 05:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::If Misplaced Pages decides to have people like MichaelJLowe that make absolutly illogical statements stay and me who points out the nonsense than I say: so be it. I am not here to be your or Michaels servant. Re-read what nonsense he wrote. That he made more contributions to Indonesia related articles may be true, but that does not make his wrong judgements right judgements. ] ] 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, i notice you are continuing to make unilateral major changes despite this being reported to admins and you appear somewhat angry. I suggest your edits would be better if you continued tomorrow when you have a cooler head. --] 06:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:''Tobias, i notice you are continuing to make unilateral major changes despite this being reported to admins''. Which I think is absolutly ok. No need for admins to go into the edit process.
:''I suggest your edits would be better if you continued tomorrow when you have a cooler head.'' - I don't think I would edit differently tomorrow. But who knows certain about the future? Best regards - ] ] 06:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

::Oi! The lot of you - knock it off. All this about who doesn't know what about Indonesia and who isn't thinking clearly and blah blah attacks on each other... without anyone on either side bothering to spell out clearly '''why''' they think one name is better than another. I '''don't''' know anything about Indonesia, and at 6:30am local time I am certainly not thinking clearly... but even so I know that you are never going to solve anything if you don't concentrate on what the real content issues are rather than ways to annoy each other. Merbabu, Tobias mentioned something about 'primary topics' without really explaining it (which you should have Tobias). Without looking at the disputed moves I can guess that he was very likely referring to ] of the disambiguation guidelines. Basically, standard Wiki-practice is that if there are multiple things with the same name and none of them are overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for by users of the English language Misplaced Pages than the others you should have a <Name of thing> disambiguation article which lists all the things with that name and links to each of those articles as <Name of thing (type of thing)>... we generally only have <Name of thing> go to one of several items with the same name if it is well known/overwhelmingly more common than the others... at which point there would be a link at the top of that article to a <Name of thing (disambiguation)> page for the list of the other items. Based on a previous instance I'm going to further guess that we are talking about 'regions' where there are also towns of the same name... most English speakers have likely never heard or had reason to search for ''any'' of them and thus there likely isn't a clear 'primary topic', but in many cases the town articles haven't been created yet. Correct? If so, I think it would be less confusing/disruptive for others if Tobias created the town articles first and ''then'' moved things to standard disambiguation, but it ''does'' make sense to clarify immediately that the 'region' article is not the only thing with that name in case someone was really looking for info on one of the other places. There are other ways to accomplish that clarification than a disambig page (such as listing the other locations towards the top of the existing article), but if it is going to end up that way eventually once the town articles are filled out is it really such a bad idea to disambiguate now? Or is there some other issue or reason not to disambiguate at all? --] 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::Addendum - Looking further I see that there actually ''has'' been some discussion of these issues now on ]. It's an improvement over the above, but it would still help if everyone could lay off wholely unhelpful comments about IQ and who said what and who isn't qualified... et cetera. --] 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

::Hear hear. I can't see anything particularly harmful in the recent pagemoves. However, it is often a good idea to have at least some discussion of a proposed move. And it is never sensible to have a massive row about article naming on Misplaced Pages. ] 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your input CBD & others. There was a discussion on the Yogya page until one editor didn't agree with the consensus forming, stated his opposition, and then made his change immediately. In fact, Tobias appeared to share the same view of the issue but his solution was different. Just for some context: Yogyakarta is regarded as the "cultural and emotional heart" of Java (pop 120m plus!), is one of the most historically important cities/regions to Indonesia (both modern and ancient) and probably the most significant tourist centre in Indonesia apart from Bali - thus, its significance to readers can be expected to be considerable. (it is also where I got married - he he).

:::Given it's significance i think we can all agree that Yogya needs more work. I agree we all stop any name calling but i also request that given that it is clearly a sensitive area that the changes are slowed down and are discussed FIRST with time for responses (Tobias, what do you think?). In return, the rest of us should be careful to only strongly object or even revert changes if they are not just wrong but significantly so that they just can't be lived with. Ie, work out what is most important and what isn't. is this fair to all? let's work together --] 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Discussion of controversial issues in advance is always a good idea, but it is not always possible to tell that something is going to be controversial until you do it. In any case... we are where we are and should be discussing the current situation. But what is that? On Yogyakarta one of the objections seems to have been that the 'city' article was very short... but after info on the city was transferred out of the 'region' article and both filled out a bit more they now look like two viable articles with different info. So is the idea of 'merging' these (and the 'sultanate' article) or ignoring the city in disambiguation evaluations still viable? Should the city article be cut down? Should links/searches on 'Yogyakarta' go to one of those three pages or a disambig page, and why? Try thinking about where you want the Misplaced Pages info on these places to 'wind up' rather than where it is or was. Long term if 'Joe Wiki-user' types 'Yogyakarta' into the search box what should happen? Is he probably looking for info on the sultanate and should be directed there or is it unclear which he is looking for? Do each of the three areas have enough notable information, distinct from the others, about them to justify an independant article or are one or more really minor topics which would never have more than a paragraph which can be merged into another article? What is really 'in dispute' at this point? --] 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

==Removing messages from your talk page==
Man, what are you doing? Somebody points out that you are involved in a revert/edit war, and you just remove their message because they forgot to sign it? Please read ], because you and your edit war foe are both violating it. And next time, you can use unsigned template instead of just removing my message. --] 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove it here because it was only unsigned, but because there was no 3RR violation. Sorry, but I am little lazy to respond to every stuff that others come posting here. It's a little bit too much. Hope you understand, that I deleted it in that case. ] ] 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

== Opština ==

You created this article, now it has gone to ]. ] 08:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

:The page as it exists is not quite ]-compliant&mdash;I can see how it can be mistaken for a dictdef. Anyway, I voted to keep it, but it should really be re-formatted, even though it means having a bunch of red links.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Seconded; I guess this page will have its day as ] passes by... &nbsp;Regards, ] <span style="font-size:90%;">(])</span> 09:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

===Response to a comment on my talk page===
Well, it starts with "Opština... can refer to", so if you don't want it to be mistaken for a dab, I suggest rewording the intro and replacing the list of meanings with narrative.&mdash;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

== "Subnational entity" ==
move to ] ] ] 19:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
I've begun trying to "tighten up" this article per ]; work in progress to be found ]. Yours, ] <span style="font-size:90%">(])</span> 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

== Template 'Audiovisual works' contains red links ==
move to ] ] ] 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

==Iso==
move: ] ] ] 00:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

== Forging on ==

moved to: ] ] ] 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

== ISO complete ==

Tobias, I was not sure you noticed. Your request at ] has been completed. - <font color="navy">] (])</font> 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

== Belgium: Please, stop reverting article moves ==

]

== CfD: "Subdivisions of historic countries" to "Subdivisions of former countries and empires" ==

Hi Tobias,<br>
Just seen you've already noticed the country subdivision CfDs!
: '''''rename''' per nom, '''except''' Subdivisions of historic countries to Subdivisions of former countries and empires
Any specific reason...? &nbsp;Something I overlooked...? &nbsp;Thanks, ] <span style="font-size:90%;">(])</span> 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== Your edits to ] ==

Please stop readding . You have done this numerous times already and it was rejected. If you continue readding it, I will block you without further notice. --] 15:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've blocked you for 24h for disruption on ]. --] 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::Which edit do you regard as disruptiv? ] ] 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|no diff provided, how can my edits in discussion section be reasons for block?|Quite clear disruptive behaviour, disruption to wikipedia can occur on any page. --] 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) }}

Admin User:Pgk claims "Quite clear disruptive behaviour" , no diff provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=81444174&oldid=81439406 This is pure mobbing. ] ] 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

== Blocked ==

You have been blocked for 2 weeks for repeatedly causing disruption at various AWB pages, and harassing the AWB developers, despite multiple warnings from me and others. When your block expires please consider editing more collegially. ++]: ]/] 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:: "causing disruption at various AWB pages" one more false claim (intended?) by User:Lar. ] ] 18:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:I apologise, that block was in error, the edit Ligulem refers to was made before my warning. I have unblocked you with a note that it was a block made in error. The warning still stands though. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you. ++]: ]/] 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:: no inconvience caused. And I have no problems with errors. ] ] 18:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

== Controversial edits marked as minor ==

*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=81436967&oldid=81436697
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=81436327&oldid=81436222

== Removal on talk page with an empty edit summary ==

*] http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=81227243&oldid=81224739

:As you know, I I deleted by accident almost imediately, though I'm sure the point of this is just to try and make me look bad. ] 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::You missed some text when readding. It's your edits that makes you look bad. ] ] 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:::No, I deliberatly removed the other text, as I (and others) have done repeatedly. ] 10:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

== Enabled for AWB on a trial basis ==

Hallo Tobias. I partially understand your frustration, but I cannot accept your behavior. As such my block stands.<p>
However, I'm willing to add you to the list of AWB users on a trial basis . Once the block expires, you may use AWB. However, I urge you to use it wisely and would like to propose that you consider using a less combatant behavior in the future. --] 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've shortened your block by and the collateral ] of your IP address. --] 10:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with this, hopefully we can now put bad feelings behind us and move on productively. thanks ] 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
&nbsp;

== Response on Nepal changes ==

See ] --] 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== District naming ==

move ] - ] ] 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== "National" ==

Hi Tobias,
: ''pls dont put the word national in...
Fist, my apologies that I forgot to remove "national" from those proposals when I pasted them back into CfD. However, I'm now glad I did forget, as I think the category names need to indicate what kind of administrative divisions they contain. Yes, we and other folk involved in country subdivisions might think 'Well, what else could they be?!' but I can recall when my attention was first drawn to this topic and it wasn't at all obvious. But what I don't properly understand is the strength of your dislike for the word "national"; I realise it's used as the adjective for "nation" as well as "country", but I don't see how that's a big problem. If you can indicate why it is &ndash; is it something I've missed, some potential clash within category names further along the path...? &ndash; then I'll happily withdraw/revise the proposals. In fact, I ''want'' to know about anything I've missed, for, as we know, it takes time to amend features such as category names etc! &nbsp;So please let me know why "national" is a big problem &ndash; thanks.

:''CN and RU of nation based subdivisions...
I don't understand this &ndash; sorry if I'm being slow...

Best wishes and thanks for your patience,
] <span style="font-size:90%;">(])</span> 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:25, 14 October 2024

Redirect to:

This talk page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect: When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.