What's the difference? Part of the point of the pre-voting phase is to improve proposals so that we don't have voting on many similar proposals, thus potentially diffusing the vote for a particular proposal. If there is a difference, is it significant to the degree that it should be a separate proposal? --Izno (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, that the other proposal was dealt with as an emergency, especially in the discussion dealt primarily about immediate band aid to fix the most urgent problems, while it was meant as a long term issue, that the tools should be kept, i.e. restored. And it differs from my proposal, as this is about the tools surrounding the lightweight editor (buttons, CharInsert...), while mine was about the lightweight editor itself (the plain white box you write in in text mode). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)09:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you can already get to the plain white box? Maybe the other proposal should be closed if that's what the other proposal is about. You turn off the preference called in English "Enable the editing toolbar (This is sometimes called the '2010 wikitext editor'.)". --Izno (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a proposal that will get a lot of support for no reason other than old toolbar’s removal happening exactly around the time of CWS 2019. Sad state of affairs, really, these events should’ve not coincided so that there would’ve been a fairer vote. stjn[ru]09:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi stjn, you should look at it on a different way. This desire for a stable, simple working basis, which is offered to a user in all language versions for his work, is a deep and serious desire. It is a basis for good work. Many Greetings Itti (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern is that, split as it is into two proposals, and the timing, these two will easily make it into the top ten and take two of the coveted top ten slots, resulting in less work on development of new features. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)11:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 2010 edit bar is not even remotely close to a proper replacement of the old toolbar. Its original buttons are 95% useless, and the system of different panels to access buttons is horrible (same design flaws as Vector, where you need to scroll menus to access functions - especially when you are a sysop). Rhadamante (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As substitute for the unduly ignored wish to keep the existing tools working. (And if I had the buttons I'm used to you would even get a proper signature. Its a shame that I have to write my text in de and than copy and paste here because nothing works. And don't dare you deleting because not proper signed. Check the Version History if you have any doubts who writes here.) --Fano (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Support Should never have been removed in the first place, but many companies want to move on to newer versions, like Google and Microsoft. WMF shouldn't be like those companies; rather they should re-create or reinsert the good ol' '06 toolbar. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Altkatholik62 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Wikimedia is not at all a profit-driven company which needs new features to increase their turnover. Think of an old proverb, and never touch a running system.[reply]
Support I am an admin of Ukrainian Wikipedia. I liked the old toolbar and I spent hours of my volunteer time trying to reproduce mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor, without success. I am also active in many wikis (like Commons or Meta) where I am not an admin and there is no gadget available. I now have a choice between spending more time on trying to fix the problem I did not cause or spend more time on each edit. I hate this choice, so please put the toolbar back NickK (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was sunset. Deliberately. I'm shocked if people haven't figured out and/or are not used to the combinations necessary to hand-type the buttons in. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nur geht es nicht um Sonnenäufgänge oder bunte Bildchen. Benutzer benötigen die Symbole, wenn sie anspruchsvolle Artikel schreiben möchten. Das ist so ziemlich das Gegenteil von dem, was du schreibst. Ich bin schockiert, wie man so abfällig über die Bedürfnisse anderer urteilen kann. --Itti (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PMG: Es ist einfacher, in der Sprache zu schreiben, die man gut spricht und sich die Antwort in der Sprache des anderen übersetzt. Dann ist das Ergebnis besser, als wenn jeder versucht, in einer dritten Sprache mehr schlecht als recht zu schreiben. Das hat nichts mit Unhöflichkeit zu tun, sondern mit Effizienz. It is better to write in the language you are good and the other will translated this. The result is much more better, as if everybody is trying to write a third language in with both are not save. This is not a kind of unpolitness it is more efficient. Regards --Itti (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bring back the charinsert in German Wikipedia! Chaddy (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This was sunset. Deliberately. I'm shocked if people haven't figured out and/or are not used to the combinations necessary to hand-type the buttons in. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
