User talk:Trödel/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents
Talk page
RFA notices
Archive

Help with LDS Infobox

I enjoy helping out with the LDS Infobox but I could use help finding some photos of the prophets. I think that they look better with a photo rather than a painting. Muj0 22:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Priesthood (Mormonism) chart

I generally like your chart at Image:Priesthood (Mormonism).png, but I wanted to experiment with a few changes. Could you please upload the image as an .svg file (in addition to the .png file that already exists) so that it can be edited? COGDEN 18:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments

I wasn't aiming it at you so much as I was at GOYANKSGONJ, who actually edited it before it even aired on most of the EAST coast. But, thanks for the comments. ral315 03:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Intro templates

Looks pretty good. There are a couple of copyediting changes I would make (for instance "a lot" is two words, not "alot"). But nothing big. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

styles

Have you seen Whig's latest?

There is no current consensus on a new convention, which is the purpose of the ratification vote. The prior policy of prefixing style is overturned, and it is presently up to the editors of each page how style should be addressed.

In other words, if one calls a vote one automatically deletes a past convention instantly. And you have to win the vote to reinstate it. That is not how votes are done. One replaces a convention with another, not wiping one convention out and leaving nothing to replace it. That is a recipe for even more chaos than was caused by that crazy voting system!!! FearÉIREANN\(talk) 05:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu and/or Whig

I know it's a hassle, but would you be willing to support an RfC on Lulu and/or Whig? Please bear in mind that any such move is likely to lead to Lulu and Whig bringing an immediate RfC against anyone certifying such an RfC. However, these two users, since they have re-appeared, appear to have made few actual improvements to WP, but to have taken up lots and lots of people's time. We all have disagreements from time to time, but my patience with those who do not contribute usefully to WP (as is unfortunate the case with Whig and Lulu) is wearing thin. Kind regards, jguk 20:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Trodel, just grow up. I put up a notice concerning my proposal in all articles talk pages where I thought people might be interested. None of this is hiddedn — anyone can look at my user contributions, just like you did. And there is no bias because you know what? You too can announce this proposal on the talk page of any article or person you want to. And I won't follow you around keeping tabs on who you teli. Tell whomever you like. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

AD/CE

As much as I cringe with you at the thought of having all the dates on the pages I edit formatted as BCE/CE rather than BC/AD, I cannot in good faith claim that it is respectful to ask a worldwide encyclopedia to allow for such sensibilities. I have to allow that it is the privilege of the encyclopedia to set house style guides that require me to write BCE/CE (as much as I cringe). However, I am willing to accept your plea that perhaps Slrubenstein's proposal is not the ideal one. What NPOV solution would you propose? Should we have our robots convert all dates to 2005/-600 format, and then offer display formats in the Christian style (AD 2005/600 BC) and the global style (2005 CE/600BCE)? NPOV is non-negotiable. Tom Haws 16:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is attacking you. I regret that and I hope he will stop. What you said on my user talk page makes a lot of sense. I guess I can't vote at this time. Tom Haws 18:08, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the clarification. Whenever I remove personal attacks, I go to a good deal of effort to keep the person's argument in place; this usually makes their argument stronger. Samboy 02:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

re: Honorific Styles

Some support on the page would be nice, if you feel like stepping into it. Zocky 02:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeopardy UTOC

Who are you to be making these kinds of orders not to edit before a certain time?!

As I know it, the Wikipedia consensus (and this was an ongoing debate since the Ken Jennings game updates) was to update as soon as the results become known in the earliest time zone. When there is a breaking news story, do we wait until the corresponding time in Pago Pago to make the updates here? No, because that's simply inane.

67.161.57.4 04:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There has been a request not to update the page until 11 PM ET. No one objected to this request (until now) and I don't think that is unreasonable as I often check here quickly to see who is playing today. Plus the comment has been in since I have been following the tournament "<!-- Apparently, people forgot. So, a reminder: DO NOT EDIT THE PAGE BEFORE 11 P.M. EST (8 P.M. PST, 4 A.M. GMT). PEOPLE LIVE IN OTHER TIME ZONES, TOO. Edits before 11 p.m. EST will be considered vandalism, and will be treated as such. -->" Being full of Wikilove I thought it was a reasonable request so I have followed it :) Trödel|talk 05:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
That request was made by me, and was regarding Upcoming Matches, not the Results. Please allow users to post results as soon as they air. I apologize for the confusion. ral315 03:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Christianity

Wow! You're fast! I was preparing to revert the article after recent vandalism but you beat me to it...great job! Quick fingers! KHM03 17:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the personal attack against me on the proposal page. I know we disagree, strongly, about almost everything. But I truly appreciate what you did. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I consider your comment about the Cultural and Historical background of Jesus article high praise indeed (I did write the first draft and much of the current contents, but to be honest, as I am sure you know, many other people did contribute, including sometimes heated discussion over issues like accuracy and NPOV that I think resulted in a better article). I would be very happy if we can find more issues we can agree on. You know I am sincere when I say I think BCE and CE are generally NPOV and should be a default. Please do know that I really believe AD and BC should be used in anything that is explicitly expressing a Christian point of view, and that I am also content with the "use both BCE/BC CE/AD" compromise on the Jesus page. I don't think I have said this, but one of the things that motivates me is that Jesus was Jewish and believe it or not is very important to me (not just the fact he was Jewish, I mean Jesus is important to me) mdash; not in the same way he (He?) is important to Christians, and not nearly as important to me as he is to Christians, and I am not diminishing the importance he has to Christians. I am trying to find a sensitive way to say that I just don't think that Christianity "owns" him, which is why although I understand why Christian views must be expressed in that article, other views have to be expressed as well, in an NPOV way, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and your experience as a member of your Church. Although I do not agree with the Nicene Creed and do not think Jesus was the messiah, I do believe that he was a very wise man and that his message of love remains one of the most important teachings. I know this risks offending your faith, but I hope that instead you can see it (and my reasons for wanting to use BCE and CE) not motivated by a desire to diminish, but only to be more inclusive. As for policy, we disagree, but I think you are right that we are closer than at least I had thought, and I certainly believe your position on dates is very reasonable, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for your kind comments. Obviously I reacted badly to your initial comments on the Jesus talk page because I thought you were being exclusionary. I am sorry for the way I reacted, and thank you for encouraging a reconciliation. I hope you succesfully meet your dead-lines at work and have a pleasant wiki-holiday. I look forward to your return, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

A Thank You!!!

Having never really had occasion to, I had never reviewed the deletion log before; however, upon reviewing it to see if the templates I had marked for speedy deletion had been deleted I came to appreciate the hard work you and others do. So Thank you for your efforts and the time you put into keeping Wikipedia functioning~ Trodel 21:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome :). Thue | talk 15:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Style prefixes

Thanks for your message. I looked at your presentation, and couldn't see anything non-neutral about the way that you'd expressed it (the only substantive change I made was to change the claim that most editors didn't understand the system to the observation that this claim has been made; I hope that that's OK). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

favor?

Done. Now, I hope i can ask a favor of you. Given that you wrote "You're welcome. I think there has been much needless frustration over this issue. Personally I like the status quo, let each article determine what the convention is based on the subject matter," and other somments, on my talk page, would you consider commenting here: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate#Changing between the two and here: Talk:List of kings of Persia#Original usage of BC.2FAD? Violetrigo is insisting that BC and AD be used in articles on specifically non-Christian (e.g. Jewish and Persian) topics. Since you have fought so hard to keep BC and AD on the Jesus page, and have been firmly critical of my attempt to make BCE and CE a uniform standard, I think you have much more credibility than I do, when it comes to accepting that some pages really should use BCE and CE. Of course if you do not feel comfortable you do not need to explain, I'll understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters FearÉIREANN\(talk) 20:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Alexander MacGregor

Actually, my VfD nomination provides links to the old revisions that contain the biographical information, so people can review that. I think the article should be left without it, however, for purposes of deliberation, because should it survive, that information would have to be removed again as unverifiable. People should be looking at what it is possible to keep, to see whether they think it should actually be kept. --Michael Snow 03:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad we can agree. Naturally, I don't mind you restoring things you can successfully verify, so that people can consider them properly. I don't think we should buckle to idle threats, but at the same time there's no point in exposing Wikipedia to legal risks when they don't fall within our mission as an encyclopedia anyway. --Michael Snow 03:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions subpages

The subpages you have marked for speedy delete have substantial edits, and may be part of the history of the main page. Under GFDL they cannot be deleted. --Henrygb 22:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't think about the GFDL issues. However, I don't think we have copyright issues and the need to cover ourselves regarding the historical edits. The pages in question are reporting facts that are not be subject to copyright law. This is similar to the reasons that scores of professional sports can't be copyrighted or that the phone book phone numbers can't be copyrighted. Let me know if you agree and I will remark them for speedy. Trödel|talk 00:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. Having the subpages as redirects causes no harm and preserves the history; I think it is necessary for GFDL purposes. Read Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion especially points 1 and 7 of the reasons for not deleting redirects. In any case, you you use that page rather than speedy deletes of redirects. --Henrygb 13:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep them then. Just to clarify, when I said they are "reporting facts that are not subject to copyright law" I didn't meant to imply that all facts are not copyrightable. Certain statistical information and other lists are not subject to copyright - like a list of IP addresses, or phone numbers, or sports statistics - there is a copyright in the presentation, and in certain computed information like the college rankings that take stats and weight them in a unique way, but not in the underlying data. Trödel|talk 15:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Re:Templates

Unfortunately I'm not an admin either!!

Sorry, lots of issues | leave me a message 16:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr./Infobox

I somehow came upon this template. It's a one-use template, and not only that, it's a subarticle (article/subarticle structure, I dunno what the real name is, but you know what I mean) of Joseph Smith, Jr., and such articles are frowned upon, typically used only for /Temp pages. Now, I'm not about to delete it outright - however, since it's a one-use template, I wanted to suggest that we subst it into the main article, and then delete it. Templates exist to be used multiple times; having a one-use template almost defeats the purpose. (The only other times they are used are on special pages like Current Events, or some country pages for the infoboxes, and I think that use is deprecated).

So, long story short: I want to do {{subst:Joseph Smith, Jr./Infobox}}, etc. with all the variables, and then delete the main torrent. Any future changes can be done to the table that will appear in the main article. Is there any problem with this? Please respond on my talk page. --Golbez 00:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior project name votes

Heads up: Your votes at m:Wikijunior project name won't be counted unless you vote on all candidate names. - dcljr (talk) 01:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

deletion

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page.[1] Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System[2] and Template:Commonwealth Realms [3] he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category.

To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

Given your own commitment to proper professional design, not amateurish layouts, on Wikipedia, I would welcome your contribution. The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

J. Reuben Clark

Trödel: It is not appropriate or courteous to edit other's posts on talk pages!! I said I understood why you edited HighSky's discussion on J. Reuben Clark, not that I approved of your actions. But -- hands off my posts and comments. They stand under my byline! WBardwin 22:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that I offended you - there was no intent to do so. There is no reason for this to be included - as you point out. I realize that you don't support my actions; however, I don't regret it and would do it again. I refrain from further removal only because I KNOW you would be offended and I find that worse than the comment. I.e. I would not purposeful offend someone even if that means a offensive comment must remain.
There are several reasons why this should be removed 1) ad hominem, 2) weakens the comments, 3) encourages reinforcement of the comment through denial, and 4) distracts us from doing something useful. Trödel|talk 00:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why editing other's posts on talk pages is ok:

So -- one word in my comment is worth causing a fuss -- Naziism is a perfectly acceptable example of the anon's point, which is that personally oriented statements about an individual can be used to project a POV and ultimately develop propaganda. In this case, the example was extreme but also apt. When you changed the anon statement, you did not leave an edit statement to that effect. You did not state on the talk page that you had removed material for cause nor did you state your cause. You left no audit trail of your actions. When you changed the material in my comment, you also did not address it in the edit statement nor did you mention it in your comment.
Now about editing another's comments. Here on Wikipedia we have many rules, as you have so carefully cite above. But --in Wikipedia - the content of an individual's comments and edits are used as evidence in formal disputes and are also used to judge another's perspective and competance. If everyone can edit everyone's comments without permission and/or explanation, than the use of visable material as evidence has no validity. Since examining the edit history to find the true or original contents is sometimes a long process, anything on talk/discussion pages which stands attached to a person's ID would be generally assumed to be their position. In summary, altering another's statement, even slightly, alters their publicly stated opinion and reputation. From a historian's perspective, that amounts to altering a historic record and creates an unreal or biased perspective. In short -- it promotes a lie, no matter how carefully we step around it. I stand by my statements. That is why I place my ID on them. I don't want others here to misunderstand my words because they do not serve another's purpose. I would never do you the discourtesy of altering, in any way, your public opinion. So --please grant me the same courtesy -- respond to my comments but do not edit them. WBardwin 01:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editnote TfD

FYI {{Editnote}} is listed for deletion. But the notice was removed from the template article page. Trödel|talk 14:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Despite lack of notification I had noticed. Actually someone converted the TfD notice to a comment within {{editnote}} so it is sort of labeled. (SEWilco 18:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Impersonator

is User:Trodel (without umlaut) an impersonator, or is it you? Fawcett5 19:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry you feel so strongly that you are going away. I have always stood against censorship, of any kind, in any place that I have worked. I drew a line in the sand, but meant no ill will toward you at any time. I simply will not allow my comments to be misrepresented. As for asking Mel for info -- you personally were not mentioned, but were referred to as a responsible user (see his talk page) -- I just asked for information where I would find policy for my future reference. So -- it wasn't personal, just a button of mine that won't be pushed. In fact, if you had made any kind of edit statement in the first place, I would have just shaken my head, and gone on with the work. But, without one, the action felt sneaky and I went to hyperalert. Censorship is a big issue to me. So, I apologize, if you feel I overreacted -- and you are welcome to call me a dick if you would like. Think about coming back -- I for one would welcome you. WBardwin 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology - I very much appreciate it. I noticed and knew how you referred to me in your note to Mel - the problem was, knowing your characterization of me, his answer is that it (the deletion) is totally inappropriate. I know I over-reacted as well - writing what happend has helped me get beyond it - I should be on for a couple more hours cleaning up some things I have left undone, etc.
As to censorship - that is one of the poppycocks (IMHO) of your whole position 1) it isn't censored since it is in the history, 2) you have not restored it. It is more just pride and self-righteousness (not in a religious sense, but in the modern secular sense that all voices, all debates must be heard regardless of their value or validity).
As to not being personal - the claim that it is not personal doesn't change the nature of the charge against me that I was censoring comments and although your strong reaction may be rooted in something else that is totally unrelated to me, it still felt personal. Trödel|talk 20:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you saw my note, and the note I left Mel. As to restoring the material -- you are welcome to do it if you would like. If you do, I'll remove some/all of my comments. As I clearly indicated, I do not intend to change others actions or comments on talk pages. I may clarify my own writing (with caution), shuffle things around for clarity, or summarize a discussion for achiving. Those are permissable as I understand Wiki policies and they suit my view of the respect due to other editors. I do respect you, and always have, and would probably have responded as firmly with anyone else. Make your absence a vacation -- we do need you here. WBardwin 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or if, we mutually agree -- we can remove the whole discussion from the Clark talk page. I'm willing. Let me know. WBardwin 21:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikify-cats

Hi troedel, you haven't voted yet on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Foo_articles_that_need_to_be_wikified and I think you might want to. You haven't left have you? --MarSch 13:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exiting the Wiki

I saw your comment on Fawcett5 about leaving. I too am ready to get out of this 'sandbox'. They play way too rough with the newbies. Checkout my discussion page. I don't know how to link it. Regards. Brux 16:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hope you find your way back. KHM03 2 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

This is a big loss to the wiki. My condolences - hope you come back -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Thanks - we'll see Trödel|talk 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you just decide to leave in June? I am a quasi-newbie and still finding my way here. Do you really think it is such a waste of time? I can see some of your points....And what does your name mean? Is it Swedish by any chance? NPPyzixBlan 21:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also very sad to see you go; you're certainly a loss to the wiki, whether the reverse is true is of course another matter! Alai 02:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sandbot

Due to changes in the Wikipedia, my bots are not functioning.

All my bots are under going upgrades. I ask that you please wait until I have finished rewriting the code for my bots. --AllyUnion (talk) 29 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)
Furthermore, the pywikipedia bot framework is having a few quirks. --AllyUnion (talk) 8 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

Sirius

Where did Rowling leave doubt about Sirius' death? - potatoeman57

Sirius fell through the "veil" between living and the dead - alive - before he was hit with the curse. Trödel|talk 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The return of the toccolours

See Template:Infobox Pope. 64.12.112.186 10:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems that this return was short lived Trödel|talk 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/%C3%B6/User_talk%7ETr%C3%B6del_Archive_2_f152.html"