User talk:Toby Bartels/2008
RfD nomination of Wikipedia-Supported Software
editI have nominated Wikipedia-Supported Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks
editThanks for the notice. Don't know how I missed that. - Revolving Bugbear 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, and thank you for pointing it out. The curious part is that I've warned other users for doing this same thing! Oh lc well, thanks again for keeping me straight p. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:24, 1 I'm4 January 2008 (UTC)immnnqzzi oo
Unprotection of User talk:Dimension31
editI disagree with this decision. Repeatedly adding the unblock template to one's talk page strikes me as disruptive and wasting admins' time. I am fairly certain also that my view is generally supported by the community (note that {{pp-usertalk}} includes as one reason for protection "abusing the unblock template"). I don't intend to undo this decision, but I would ask that you reconsider, especially since Dimension31 shows no sign of ceasing to add the unblock template. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, also, I'm not saying I want you to reprotect it now, but to consider doing so if he keeps adding that unblock template. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I reprotected the page. I believe I am correcting a mistake, as it is commonplace to protect a page due to persistent admin-shopping via repeated use of the unblock template. Indeed, this is normally done after a user has had two unblocks declined within the space of a year for the same block. Please note that I am not trying to wheel-war with you. If you unprotect that page again, I will absolutely not reprotect it. I just think you made a mistake because you are unaware that users are not permitted to an infinite number of unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. I think that it's bad practice to treat requests for relief from punishment as themselves worthy of punishment; it's better to ignore them if they have no basis. But the practice is clear —except on Wikipedia:Protection policy, which is what I read (and interpreted for myself) before deciding that the protection was unwarranted. In the future, you (or whoever protects the page, Mike Rosoft originally) will probably have better luck (with interlopers like me, I mean) if you add {{pp-usertalk}}, which spells out the practice. —Toby Bartels (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
''Kaiserlich und königlich'' at RfD
editJust to let you know, I've put this page that you restored up for RfD again, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_21#.27.27Kaiserlich_und_k.C3.B6niglich.27.27_.E2.86.92_Kaiserlich_und_k.C3.B6niglich. My reasons for doing so are listed at the linked discussion. If you wish to add to this discussion, please feel free to do so, of course. Due to the contentious history of this redirect, I've asked as strongly as possible that discussion not be closed early. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Town of whitby redirect
editPlease do not keep the redirect name "Town of whitby". Every city name that has it's proper name. The city should have been a capital "W". I don't want you to keep the redirect name, any of the city name should have been capitalized. Once again, please don not keep the rename. Steam5 (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that the lowercase "w" is wrong, but redirects often contain misspellings. Don't worry, nobody will come to the wrong name unless they are deliberately looking for it or somebody else already created a link to it some time in the past two years. And in that case, the redirect will show them what the correct name is! —Toby Bartels (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to get this article re-created and need your help. The Panhandlers recently sued the city and are back in the news. This certainly makes them notable.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I took so long to respond; I've been pretty inactive lately.
The proper way to do this is for me to undelete the article and then move it to User:MiltonP Ottawa/Ottawa Panhandlers Union, so that you can work on it there and make changes to avoid its being deleted once again. In fact, another admin has already done this for User:Abtract, so there is a copy at User:Abtract/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union (sic). If you and Abtract get along (and if you don't know this user, then you should probably assume that you do), then you should be able to just work on it there; (Abtract has done very little to it so far). If you want to work on it by yourself, then copy and past it to User:MiltonP Ottawa/Ottawa Panhandlers Union and work on it there. In any case, the content is available for you. (See also User talk:Abtract/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union.)
As for getting a version that others will accept ... I would suggest taking on WP:NPOV and finding references from outside Ottawa. But it looks like it received a lot of support last time; in fact, I'm not sure why it was deleted in the end. Unfortunately, once one admin makes such a decision, it's hard to undo it.
Hi. I just deleted some nonsense there, found there was a talk page and saw [1] the deletion log. Where did you move the original article to? Shouldn't it be replaced with a redirect? --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You didn't just delete nonsense; you deleted a nice article that one person had replaced with nonsense. You should not have deleted it at all; you must always check history before deleting! (I have already undeleted the article and rolled back the nonsense edit.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Most unlike me. Good call on undeleting. Sorry for the trouble, but glad I left you a note! --Dweller (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's unlike you; after this one, I checked! ^_^ And thank you for the note. —Toby Bartels (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit of yours. I don't understand "thinko?" in the edit summary, but it seems like you were questioning whether your edit is correct; it is. So thanks for making it! —Toby Bartels (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I was correcting what was probably a "thinko" in the article, i.e. like a typo, but a slip of the mind rather than the fingers. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wrote that thinko, although I no longer know what I was thinking …. —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Squashed bugs
editI have nominated Squashed bugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Families of sets and others
editHi, Toby!
I mainly wanted to tell you that I've just seconded and extended some questions on Talk:Family of sets, which I think you are most apt to answer.
I also have a (mainly) non-wiki question. I followed links from your user page; and now I wonder if EFF is an entirely or almost entirely US organisation/foundation, or if it has branches or contacts with sister organisations in Europe. (I'm a Swede; and right now there is some worry and upset feelings in Sweden about an upcoming law giving one of the Swedish intelligence agencies, FRA, access to all computer traffick crossing our borders. As far as I understand it, actually all companies and organisations providing the transmission of data between Sweden and any other country will be obliged to fix automatic "taps" for FRA - at their own expenses. There will be some "safeguards", in the form of rules saying that FRA should not look at the material if they (by looking at it??) find that it actually just passed from a Swedish address, via a foreign server, back to a final recipee in Sweden; and limiting the use of the material they do collect. I am not alone in considering these safeguards of doubtful value; there were protests from a large part of the Parliament of Sweden. Actually, the new law also does concern the wikimedia project to a small extent, since I think all wikimedia projects edits done from Sweden of the wm servers texts will fall under the new law.)
Best, JoergenB (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the EFF was founded in the U.S. but is meant to be international. They've had an office in Brussels since 2007 [2] and they seem to have known about this law since June [3]. I don't know if there's a more appropriately European institution, sorry. —Toby Bartels (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I think the full name is better. Some people may not know the original name, but they can easily know it clicking the link. This style is generally followed in Simple Wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that I look back on it, it does read a bit poorly. I think that many people, seeing only the initialism and the full English name, will not recognise it as the famous Nazi Party. So I added "Nazi Party", but in a way that was a relatively small change. Perhaps I should have been bolder; how's this? If they want the full name, then they can always follow the link. :-)
Note that the rest of the article uses "Nazi Party" a few times but never the initialism or full name. I don't think that this warrants a long argument, but here's my main concern: The initialism and the full name (in whatever language) are not nearly as recognisable to the average reader as the terms "Nazi" and "Nazi Party".
—Toby Bartels (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. ^_^ —Toby Bartels (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)