Tobias Conradi
Dear Wikipedians, if your signature has a talk-link, I may be more inclined to answer at your talk page. Otherwise I may be more inclined to answer here. I don't like to allways click 2 times to reply only because you do not provide a talk-back feature.
thanks to an idea by User:Ral315 I use raw signature now, because the other way of signing stopped working today. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Old talk until 2005-08-08 23:03 at [1]
move to Talk:Provinces of Afghanistan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
move to Talk:Saint George Parish Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
So, Tobias, when do you think we should ask the community to vote on our standards? --Golbez 04:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
move Talk:Provinces of Angola Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
It's fine to delete the irrelevant argument by me and just leave in the departments discussion, SqueakBox 15:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've introduced the naming convention to the community at large on the pump; seems to be time to vote --Golbez 09:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
move Category_talk:States_of_Mexico Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
move Talk:Caserta Palace Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
move Talk:Municipalities of Mexico Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
move Talk:Parishes of Jamaica Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dolgoruki
Since you have participated in "Use English" talks, please visit Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova to contribute to the current poll. 217.140.193.123 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi!
You should add yourself to Category:Wikipedians of Argentina, I left invitations to the Wikiproject for people but I didn't find you there. :)
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Aber Natürlich! Auch, Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. (That's actually all the extent my german, as you can see from my user page). My paternal Grandfather was German, my maternal one was Austrian... Oddly enough neither of my grandmas were German (Argentine and Hungarian) although the funny part is that my German Grampa didn't speak German at all (he moved to Argentina at age 1) but my Hungarian Grandma did it, and very well. :) I thought for a sec that you were from AR, but you're very welcome in WPAR! :)
Úbeda
Hello, sorry for the long message.
In March 2005, there was a WP:RM request and vote (which you took part in) to move Úbeda to Ubeda, with a 6-3 result, see Talk:Ubeda#Requested_move:_.C3.9Abeda_.E2.86.92_Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).
However, beginning in April 2005 and lasting several months, there was a survey conducted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks, with dozens of participants voting and discussing over an extended period of time. The purpose of the survey was to try to gather feedback for what the policy should be globally. Proponents of diacritics were in the majority, and in general, use of diacritics is widespread in actual practice on Wikipedia today (particularly since the Mediawiki upgrade to Unicode).
However, for Úbeda/Ubeda, Philip Baird Shearer is stating that the WP:RM vote takes precedence over the survey results, and a new WP:RM vote would be required to move it to Úbeda. My position is that there should be a global policy rather than case-by-case voting -- that was the whole purpose of the survey. In discussion with him, I wrote:
- Just as we wouldn't have case-by-case voting on, say, capitalization issues for articles (eg, prepositions in movie and book titles should be lowercase, globally), we shouldn't have case-by-case voting on diacritic issues.
See the discussion at Talk:Ubeda#Talk_page_discussion_on_page_move (or perhaps here if renamed).
As a possible alternative to calling a new WP:RM vote which might set a precedent for case-by-case voting across thousands of articles, I am polling all the participants of the original WP:RM vote to ask:
- Regardless of how you voted in the WP:RM voting, which do you believe should take precedence: the earlier WP:RM vote on the specific article, or the subsequent survey?
Note, since Philip Baird Shearer was one of the participants in that vote, he will also be receiving this message and thus will have the opportunity to respond. -- Curps 05:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and for the information of all the voters in the March requested move vote, there's now a new requested move vote at Talk:Ubeda. -- Curps 01:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!
Arab subdivision template
I cast my vote to keep the template.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Request for Comment
I wanted to point out that, at a minimum, you ought to copy the example RFC template to the subpage you have redlinked; the listing page is not for debates (else it clutters too quickly). Additionally, you'll need to find a second person involved with User:Timwi and potential deletion abuse to certify.
That said, I really don't think you've got grounds for a complaint of this magnitude. Reviewing the conversations you two have had, it looks to me as though User:Timwi overstepped his bounds with the initial deletion. However, content can be undeleted, and Timwi indicates he would have been willing to undelete if asked at the RfC page.[2]
However, your original approach was quite poor: Admins are given latitude to make unilateral changes (for that matter, so are you, save deletion) and abuse should not be claimed when a mistake is equally likely (again, that's my interpretation of what happened). Timwi's response, though, was certainly not a personal attack. An allegation of admin abuse is not a statement to make lightly without at least referencing the disputed content. Such allegations are made by vandals to admins on a daily basis, so yes, a similar accusation on your part does give cause for User:Timwi to consider you less credible. I accept that the later bit was a typo, but I hope you can see how it (unintentionally) continued to elevate the stress in your conversation.
Additionally, User:Timwi's decision to instead {{tfd}} the relevant page is appropriate and within his rights (I'm not certain that you have a problem with this, I just figured I would mention it). My personal recommendation would be to remove the RfC entirely, drop an apology with Timwi, marshal support for your template, and move on. You're free, of course, to act as you wish regardless of my advice. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I do not think it is a simple error if he deleted the page. He abused his rights. And he did not say sorry nor asked where this could have happened. Only because I did not cite the place of abuse, does not make the abuse not existing. He attacked me with credibility and went on so after a typo. He could have easily restated the typo.
- Sorry if I did not everything right on RfC page. I did not knew that I am allowed to create subpage.
- How do I get a second person within 24 hours. this is really bad stuff. An admin abuses his rights, engages in attack and there is no mechanism to resolve this. I am not on WP 24 h a day. Timwi still did not say nowhere that he apologizes nor that he would refrain from direct-admin-deletionism in the future.
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added the RfC framework and copied your comments verbatim to what I feel to be the most appropriate locations. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timwi and endorse where appropriate. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
RfC Closure
Honestly, I have no idea on closing policy. I would imagine that some neutral admin will archive it once they conclude that some form of consensus has been reached and/or no further comments of importance will be added. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've closed the RFC...it did not meet the two-person certification threshold within 48 hours. Ral315 WS 00:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Per a discussion with a few other admins, it seems best that you try this at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion and see if anyone else is willing to undelete it for you. Ral315 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that I don't think it should be undeleted for you. If you can find an admin willing to do it on VfU or elsewhere, feel free. But I personally won't do it. Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Your message
I replied on my talk page. Friday (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I replied again, same place as above. Friday (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have added my thoughts to the discussion at Friday's talk page (so as to keep the conversation clear). As for RfA certification, the two person threshold is for directly involved parties who have already attempted resolution. You met that criteria, but Timwi (as the subject) did not and I (as a previously uninvolved third party) did not; thus, the removal. The 48 hour deadline is meant to discourage the quick filing of RfCs, as it more-or-less necessitates that an extra person is pulled in for informal mediation before the dispute escalates. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Nicaragua
Tobias, if you'll let me leave them there at "Name (dept)", I'd be more than happy to set to the task right now and fix the redirects. BTW, I think you made the correct call with Municipio (Mexico). Cheers, –Hajor 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll have a crack at Nicaragua now. (I still prefer the parenthetic format because having a sequence "Baja Verapaz, Escuintla (department), Jalapa (department), Sacatepéquez" seems a whole lot more logical than Baja Verapaz, Escuintla Department, Jalapa Department, Sacatepéquez", where half of them are asserting "Department" as part of the name while the other half isn't. But that's an old discussion.
- As for Tijuana (municipality) instead of Municipality of Tijuana -- yeah, I'd probably prefer the first, too. But nothing I'd start a holy war over. What I would like to see is all the municipality articles following one or the other of those formats: otherwise we start getting into all sorts of mental gymastics about what the official name of the headtown is vs. the official name of the municipality -- a lot of towns and municipalities are officially "of" some local hero, poet, or politician, but in 95% of the cases, no one outside the vicinity has ever heard the use -- trampling on the "use common names" guideline in the process. I'm also a little concerned about existing two-paragraph articles about the town and its municipality getting split into to two one-paragraph articles -- hardly seems worth the effort. Or existing longer articles, where it's going to be v. difficult to extricate "town" info from "municip." info. But those are problems we should sort out on the Wikiproject Mexico page.
- I'm glad things are friendlier, too. Cheers, –Hajor 05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
{{Subdivision term spanish}} -- How could you? You forgot the departamentos! Cantones, too. Has Peru stabilised yet? –Hajor 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Stabilised Peru" -- afraid I'm just behind the times, after looking at the article. Regions, provinces, districts... I was just too used to their being departments. Sic transit gloria mundi, I suppose. –Hajor 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
is is
tnx for your comment, it's always nice if some people see it. :) Garion1000 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for point that out, I'll look into updating that stuff... however, right now it's 4 a.m. and I have classes. So, I must be off. gren グレン 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- There, I think I've demerged all of the ones that were left. gren グレン 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This new article appears to be a copyvio: http://www.world66.com/asia/southasia/india/maharashtra/satara. I was about to tag it but I figured I'd let you know first to fix it, or explain, etc. —Cleared as filed. 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Clear as filed, I think Tobias has just been demerging the Districts from the cities. I will put it up as a copyvio since it should be... but, Tobias was just copying information. gren グレン 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I didn't realize that it was already elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks. —Cleared as filed. 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Signature
The problem seems to be that your signature is using Unicode arguments instead of the actual character. Try replacing "[[" with "[[" and "|" with "|" and see if that works. Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Still not working. Post the entirety of what's in the signature box on my talk page, I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Also tell me if "raw signatures" is checked. And for what it's worth, it's because the software running to fix HTML errors was causing server lag, so it had to be temporarily disabled. You think your sig is bad- see my user talk archives, especially Archives 4 and 5- they're a horrific mess of hodgepodge HTML tags :) Ral315 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree on adding talk, but until they do, we deal with it :) Try adding the brackets on the outside, and checking raw. I can't think of why it wouldn't be working, or why doing this would help, but... Ral315 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- No problem :) Ral315 (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
French Mexicans
Would you vote on this, please: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10#Category:French_Mexicans --Vizcarra 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Is SIL info on Novial incorrect?
Is this info at SIL on Novial incorrect,then?
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=nov
Identifier: nov Name: Novial Status: Active Code set: 639-3 Scope: Individual Type: Constructed Denotation: See description at Linguist List.
ISO 3166-1
Feel free to add your support to get the ISO 3166-1 nominated in the featured lists: click here. Bart l 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Request move
Hello I've posted a response to your comment at talk:Government of Hong Kong. — Instantnood 08:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
township
Would you mind saying something on the talk page about your changes to the township page? I fear confusion in this case. Tedernst 21:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I moved the Witten page to Witten (disambiguation). If you disagree with that move, it needs to be talked about and a request for move entered to move it back. I don't think it's proper to simply copy and paste so that the text on both pages is the same. This breaks the edit history and will eventually cause the pages to become out of sync. I'm changing it back. If you still disagree, please address this on the relevant talk pages so we can decide and do the move properly? Tedernst 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chicago redirects to Chicago, Illinois and from there there is a link to Chicago (disambiguation). The reason for this is that Chicago, Illinois is much more important than the other uses. The same is true here, I believe. Please state your case if you believe otherwise. Tedernst 16:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chic has 9.2 inhabitants, so the importance diff is much much bigger. It's much more known worldwide. Nevertheless, a bad system is not good, only because it is used in other places. There where lots of links from Drenthe to Witten, people did not seem much aware of the german city. On the other hand, to force germans to link correctly it is better to not have the town at Witten.
- If you remove the part behind the comma, you can go from every witten-page to the disambig page. But if Witten is not the disambig then people have to click more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chicago has less than 3 million people, but that's not the point. The point is the difference in importance. I don't find any article-space links to Witten, from Germany or Netherlands, so I'm not sure what you're saying about the 2 clicks. Tedernst 16:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- you don't find them, because I disambiguated 20 or so article links. If plain Witten-links go to a dab-page then software can detect this. If plain Witten-links go to the german city this is not true. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chicago has less than 3 million people, but that's not the point. The point is the difference in importance. I don't find any article-space links to Witten, from Germany or Netherlands, so I'm not sure what you're saying about the 2 clicks. Tedernst 16:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see my comment at Talk:AM Tedernst | Talk 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tobias, you seem to be undoing the hard work of myself, Neonumbers, Mzajac, Tedernst, Susvolans of trying to get this page up to MoS:DP standard... Please discuss you rational for adding back wikilinks and irrational "sorting" of the disambig entries at Talk:AM. I gave a reasonable reason for my revert, labelling me a "destroyer" is not productive, nor in good faith. Thanks/wangi 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mate, you have to discuss any changes to AM before implementing them. I'll keep an eye on Talk:AM fro your comments/concerns. Or talk to me, any questions/comments are welcome (I have a good knowledge of the MoS with respect to dab pages). Again, refrain from editing the article, you are clearly doing so against consensus. --Commander Keane 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- i think you are wrong. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mate, you have to discuss any changes to AM before implementing them. I'll keep an eye on Talk:AM fro your comments/concerns. Or talk to me, any questions/comments are welcome (I have a good knowledge of the MoS with respect to dab pages). Again, refrain from editing the article, you are clearly doing so against consensus. --Commander Keane 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Dab destruction
I think you were referring to my work at WP:DPL, am I right? Anyway, I've replied at the MoS talk where you asked a question. I won't stop unless there is community consensus for me to stop.--Commander Keane 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Community consense? My dear. Stop the destructions made by you and your crew. BTW I did not refer to your work at WP:DPL as a whole. Because I do not think the purpose of this is only destruction. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you give an example of the destruction you're talking about? Are you talking about on dab pages or in articles? Tedernst | talk 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Template:Subnational entity unwikify federal. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- That descision was questionable, and Federal won't be a dab soon. I thought that link wanted a dictionary defn rather than a dab, so I unlinked it. I also knew you were babysitting the template so wasn't too bothered with what I did. In most cases, I find unlinking like that will provoke some thought and a better link/outcome will occur. In this case the better outcome is under discussion at Talk:Federal.--Commander Keane 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
About that possilbe vandal, that's weird, becasue I just had a productive conversation with them at Talk:Antioch (disambiguation). While I'm here, do you still think de-linking an unneeded wikilink is dab-destruction, just curious?--Commander Keane 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh ok, that's how you meant destruction. I'm afraid that sense of the word was lost a couple of years ago, and now the destructive testing meaning is all I think of. Basically concreate exploding. It was like "please stop the explosive carnage you are doing to wikilinks".--Commander Keane 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Bid District
I think that using the spelling from the official web site sounds good; Bid and any other spellings can be redirects. Tom Radulovich 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Prefectures of Greece
Hi Tobias! I appreciate your "isolation" of the prefectures of Lesbos and Samos from the island articles. Where the prefecture is not exactly the same in territory as the island, I think it deserves an own article, that was also on my "wish list". This probably also applies for other islands (Corfu, Zakynthos, Kefalonia). However, I think the islands should be at X, not X Island, perhaps X (island). They're simply not called like that, how would you feel about "Rügen Island"? The disambiguation pages you made (Samos, Lesbos) should be at X (disambiguation) IMO. BTW the provinces of Greece are not very significant (the internet page of the Greek ministry of the interior doesn't even mention them), they should be no reason for disambiguation (see Imathia). Markussep 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- In the UK, it's X (e.g. Anglesey, Jersey). The US has a lot of islands with more descriptive names (Long Island, Cliff Island), but also has names without Island, see the respective categories. For non-English islands, the bracket dab, if necessary, would be best I guess.
- About disambiguation or not: I think it's justified to use X if the island is clearly the most popular use of X (principle of least astonishment etc.). IMO that's the case for Samos, Lesbos, Corfu and the other islands. For Witten, it's even clearer: I've been to Assen several times and know several of the villages around it, but I had never heard of the village Witten before someone moved Witten to Witten (Germany) to make way for a dab.
- Many of the articles about Greece (especially smaller towns and Elis Prefecture) are ugly, are badly written and contain a lot of non-information. I made a better template for the prefectures, maybe I'll make a similar one for towns, like Template:Infobox Town DE. About bottom templates, feel free to improve them, they couldn't get much worse. Especially those boxes showing which towns are to the north, west, south and east. Markussep 17:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Patan District
As far as I can tell, there is only one Patan District in India, in Gujarat; Patan District, Rajasthan doesn't seem to exist, and the link just redirects back to Patan. If this is the case, we could rename the article Patan District, Gujarat simply Patan District, and delete Patan District, Rajasthan or simply make it a redirect to Patan, Rajasthan. Tom Radulovich 02:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing Patan District, and the page with all of the templates is a great reference! You are doing a great job bringing order to these Indian district pages. Cheers, Tom Radulovich 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The blocks, also called development blocks, of Indian districts may be correspond to the districts tehsils/taluks, but they are frequently not the same. Tom Radulovich 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Tedernst antioch and santa cruz
I don't mind grouping. Feel free to do it if you like. What I really don't like about the Santa Cruz page, and what I believe goes against our style manual (for good reason), is the wikilinking of the countries. Tedernst | talk 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Your tantrum
I have cleaned up the mess you caused by forking and moving the proposal everywhere. This is your notice that I am currently preparing an RfC, and would appreciate some contact from you. Good day. --Golbez 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will be there to defend you Tobias Conradi. Like I said in my talk, I believe Golbez is a bad admin with strong biases and he plays blatant favorites --User:Lord_Chess
Districts of Cyprus
Hi Tobias. Great thing that you began starting the articles about the Cypriot districts. I kept forgetting to do so a dozen times. I've elaborated them a bit and added the three you missed. I've transferred all six to Euro-geo-stub since Sub Sorting considers the island to be a part of Europe. Regards. --Valentinian 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Danish sovereignty
Hi Tobias. Yes, you've quite correctly identified the worst possible point in the entire history of the Danish people (although 1864, 1814 and 1658 are runners-up.) Officially, Hitler never wanted to annex Denmark or even Southern Jutland (Sønderjylland / Nordschleswig). The Danish border was the only one of the borders imposed on Germany in Versailles that Hitler accepted; at least for the time being. Or perhaps he was just playing polite because of the complete Danish collapse on 9 April 1940? Had he won the war, Denmark would probably had been erased from the map, and my people deported to wastelands in Russia or whatever.
Denmark was stupid enough to sign a treaty of non-aggression with Hitler when he "offered" it to us in 1939. Norway and Sweden turned down similar offers. Didn't help though; Nazi troops occupied Denmark on 9 April 1940 and controlled the country until 4 May 1945 (officially: 5 May 1945). On the bright side; Denmark was never annexed by said country, but Denmark had very little sovereignty during the Five Cursed Years (De fem forbandede år). Virtually no sovereignty was left between 29 August 1943 and 4 May 1945. The Danish government officially resigned on 29 August 1943, although this was never ratified by King Christian X. Each government minister effectively transferred his powers to his permanent secretary, and full authority now rested with Dr. Werner Best and the Wehrmacht. If you want to learn more about that era see e.g. Occupation of Denmark or Christian X of Denmark. Occupation of Denmark is not as good as it could be, but should give you a few good hints.
The collapse of the Danish government's appeasement policy had several reasons. Some of the more important are: 1) A strike in all major cities after Dr. Best wanted to place German guards on war-important industries to stop sabotage attacks on e.g. Danish shipyards. 2) A general feeling of "enough is enough" when one of the German diplomats leaked that his country wanted to deport the Danish Jews; everybody knew that deportation = execution. 3) the fact that Germany wanted to starve Copenhagen into submission didn't help things either. The radio recently played a recording of an old member of the Resistance from Copenhagen. He told of an encounter with a very polite German guard at one of the checkpoints leading into the city. Dane: "Why are you standing here?" Soldier: "To starve you Danes out of course." Dane: "When will you leave?" Soldier: "When you're all dead, naturally" (note: Copenhagen had a population of several hundred thousand.) The following arrest of the Danish army and police and their deportation to German camps ruined whatever remained of the tattered modus vivendi between Danes and the German army.
My user page is somewhat - I don't know if ironic or sarcastic is the best word - but you get the idea. Yes, I'm pretty keen on stressing Danish sovereignty. If you check the history of Germany around 1848-51 and 1863-1864, you'll see why. Or perhaps I'm simply influenced by the fact that my grandfather was a member of the Danish Resistance during WWII. His neighbour was the leader of the local Resistance unit, and was arrested by the Gestapo. If he'd not been a very good liar; he, my grandfather, and many others from that village would have been shot in the final months of 1944 (in that case, I wouldn't have been around to write you this note.) That's why I added my grandfather's quote about democracy. My fondness for that system of government is from him as well. Democracy is not perfect - it is far from perfect - but it's still better than all the alternatives. My regards. --Valentinian