User talk:Tostarpadius

February 2013
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from John Kemeny without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it and made a redirection. Tostarpadius (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you create a malicious redirect again, as you did at John Kemeny, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? This is absurd! The two disambigutation pages were in reality about the same people, as you can see in the interwiki. Tostarpadius (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Move without discussion
You have recently moved a great number of pages, such as Category:"19th-century opera singers" to "Category:19th-century Danish singers". This have made the category much less specific, as they are more singers than opera singers and opera singers is naturally more specific and a sub-category to singers. This have also broken the link to the equivalent categories in Swedish Wikipedia, were you have are expressively opposed to all time-linked categories. As you can understand, this gives the very bad impression that you have deliberately broken the link to make a category you dislike seem less used by Wikipedia. You have don all this without any discussion what so ever. I must ask you to move them all back. It is perfectly correct to have the opera singer-category as a sub-category to the singers-category: opera singers are also singers, and the were not only opera singers in the century in question. It is efficient, practical and entirely according to Wikipedia rules to have sub-categories to make the search more effective. This radical moves of yours does not give a good impression of you at all. I must say from are dealings in Swedish Wikipedia, that I am disappointed, and I must ask you to move them back.--Aciram (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have, as far as I have see, created them without discussion. I have not broken the link, since I have done the same thing in Swedish. Tostarpadius (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you still want those subcategories in English, you can create them again. Most pages I have not moved. In Swedish I will fight for my thought that they are too specific. Tostarpadius (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Am I to understand that this is some kind of revenge? Is this constructive for a mature and professional behavior toward a fellow editor? You seem to regard this as some kind of personal war between the two of us. I am deeply disappointed in your attitude. I was under the impression that we are members of Wikipedia to help create an efficient encyclopedia together, not to conduct personal wardstoward each other.
 * You compare my conduct to yours? I created the categories without consulting you, yes: no one, except you, in the entire Swedish Wikipedia has opposed them before, nor this time, only you; and in regards to you, we did discuss time categories before, and you accepted them. I undid none of your work, I only acted toward your opinion, an opinion we have discussed before, and which before ended with you accepting the time-categories. You, on the other hand, destroyed several hours of my work creating categories I did discuss with you before, and which no one except you yourself have opposed. Do you think this is comparable behavior?
 * Do you understand how you have made yourself appear? Do you understand that this easily gives the impression that you are conducting a petty revenge in some kind of personal war for the sake of wounded pride? We have already discussed your opinion against specific categories: it is your principal opinion, that categories shall be as big as possible, and that we should avoid time-categories. This damages the accessibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. An important thing for Wikipedia is the efficient accessibility and search for information: the more specific a category is, the more efficient a search for information will be. If you search for a Danish opera singer active in the 18th-century, you will find them in a minute if the category: "Danish 18th-century opera singers", but if we only have the category "Danish opera singers", it will take ours to find even one. This have been explained to you a number of times, and you have not been able to give a sufficient comment. Instead, you have engaged in what can easily be regarded as some kind of personal war caused by wounded personal pride.
 * I am an editor in Wikipedia to write, and to build an encyclopedia, one that can easily and efficiently create accessible information to its users. I am do not consider my personal pride, status and prestige more important that that goal, and I certainly do not participate in petty personal wars, nor do I consider them more important than the purpose of the Wikipedia Project. I do not clung to my opinion for the sake to my personal pride. Until this conflict, I had a good relation to you in Swedish Wikipedia; I regarded you as a serious editor driven by the same purpose stated as mine above.
 * If I have the strength to repeat my work which you have seem fit to destroy despite the fact that I have never done the same to you, then I will, but I doubt I have the will to do so right now. Your behavior have not increased my will to edit in Wikipedia. If you regard this as some kind of personal triumph, then by all means enjoy it as much as you can. I will not participate in a petty personal revenge war and engage in war-editing. I do hope you can feel proud of your behavior, and feel that it is caused by a wish to make Wikipedia better rather than a petty revenge war against another fellow editor. I truly hope you can manage to focus on the best of Wikipedia instead of your personal pride in your future work, as I try to do in mine. --Aciram (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My only wish is to make Wikipedia better. I have never thought of revenge. I am really sorry that you do not understand that this have nothing to do with our personal relationship. Tostarpadius (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Regius Professor of Physiology
Regius Professor of Physiology, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Miscellany for deletion/Regius Professor of Physiology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Regius Professor of Physiology during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dr Strauss  talk  16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Regius Professor of Physiology


A tag has been placed on Regius Professor of Physiology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dr Strauss  talk  18:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juan de Tassis


The article Juan de Tassis has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Disambiguation which links twice to same page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MereTechnicality  ⚙  23:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Robert Torrens (disambiguation)
Hi, I'm I.am.a.qwerty. Tostarpadius, thanks for creating Robert Torrens (disambiguation)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great article, but please add the disambiguation links on each of the linked pages.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * All pages are linked, so I cannot see the problem. Tostarpadius (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Peter the Apostle in art has been nominated for discussion
Category:Peter the Apostle in art, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Mention
I mentioned you here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Svar på frågan
"Och finns det inte en IK-problematik i att en av de ivrigaste hävdarna av bristande relevans i en diskussion har påstått: "Förr brukade det sägas att den förnämsta bland ordnar är ordensvägrarnas"?" Svar: Ja. Hopplöst där. Skönt slippa alla politiska och kamratliga intriger & övertramp. Gratulerar till blockeringen. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Upmerge English operas singers by century vategories

 * Please see my proposal to upmerge to the parent "British" category by century: Hugo999 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:18th-century English opera singers & Category:19th-century English opera singers

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)