User talk:Trollderella/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Trollderella/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Tobycat 7 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hi! I noticed your edit of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition article. It was a good idea to put this redirect in. There's a cool way to improve upon the "See Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. It's called a redirect. It is possible to have a page automatically transfer the reader to another page instead of the reader having to click themselves. You'd use the following code to set-up the redirect: #REDIRECT [[Ernest Shackleton]]

Just make sure it is the only thing in the edit box and then any reader that types in the page title is automatically sent to the destination page.

I've already set up the automatic redirect on the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition article. You can check it out to see how the code works yourself. Just follow the link "redirected from Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition" at the top of the Earnest Shackleton article and then click the edit tab to see how I set it up.

Welcome & Happy editing! Tobycat 7 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

[edit] Endurance

Q: "Thank you for the welcome and tips! I would like to move some of the stuff on the Endurance and the Expedition out of the Shackleton article, since their scope is really quite a bit larger than him - can I do this? Is there any special way? "

A: Absolutely yes! It's pretty easy....just pick a concise and appropriate name for a new article on the expedition and start to build new content there. You get started by putting the new article title in the search box. If it's available you'll get offered a link to start a new article with that name.

I suggest putting some comments on the discussion page of your new article describing what you are trying to accomplish (same thing goes for the Shackleton article). That way, other editors won't misunderstand what's going on. If the new article is going to be under construction for awhile, it's a good idea to put a "stub" notice at the bottom of it so folks know that there is more to come. You add a stub notice by putting this at the bottom of the page: {{stub}}

As the new article takes shape and adds breadth and depth that the parent article lacks, you may find you need to tinker with the parent article to ensure that there is the right amount of detail there...not too much and not too little.

Lastly, you'll want to find out what other articles exist that should link to your new article and add links on them. That requires a bit of searching and digging around but usually isn't a problem and helps integrate your article into the broader encyclopedia.

Good luck with your article! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Tobycat 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

[edit] signature

For some reason, your username does not appear in your signature at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Sikhs NoSeptember 05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] usernames

Good afternoon. Let me also welcome you to Wikipedia. I saw your post on the Deletion Reform discussion. A good question and difficult to answer. You might want to spend some time on the "new pages" patrol to see what kinds of articles frequently come in. A number of experienced wikipedians make it their job to scan the newest articles to see what they can help with and to offer what guidance they can to new users. Many people who believe most strongly in the need for a deletion policy came to that conclusion after spending time on the newpages. It's a chronological list of the most recent newly-created articles - usually in their rawest form. I found it to be very educational. (Note that many of the very worst pages are often speedy-deleted so you have to refresh the page frequently.)

On a completely different topic, may I ask you to reconsider your chosen username? In many online communities, "troll" has the connotation of a user who challenges established thought and brings new ideas to the discussion - a person who participates seriously but who often takes the role of the devil's advocate. Here on Wikipedia, the word "troll" has the connotation of a person who deliberately leaves inflammatory messages and commits minor vandalism just to provoke a reaction from others in the community. When we use the term here, it is almost invariably used with very negative connotations. Choosing to have "Troll..." as part of your username is likely to be interpreted by some as a deliberate provocation. Even your well-meaning and most neutral comments are likely to be given extra scrutiny and/or interpreted in the worst possible light just because of the username associated with the edit. You may consider it unfortunate and narrow-minded but it is reality. In my time here, I've seen several people pick similar usernames. Very few stuck with that name.

It is, of course, your choice. I merely wanted to offer a friendly warning of the probable consequences of your choice. If you do want to change your username, you can do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Happy editing. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor SpongeBob Characters

I would like you to note that the characters you are calling minor are more appropriately defined as miniscule. Sea Bear, Atomic Flounder and Alaskan Bull Worm have no personality, and the only way to make them noteworthy would be to give a crufty description of the entire episode. By definition, the Alaskan Bull Worm and the Sea Bear would not even constitute as a character, since they have no personality, backstory. The Alaskan Bull Worm is a one-time appearance and never ever again, and the Sea Bear is no more than an element of one episode. Why not the Sea Rhino article? Do we give an article to every member of Plankton's family? And on Atomic Flounder, he appears ONCE, for less than 30 seconds, and no more. -- A Link to the Past 20:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just to let you know...

I've answered your question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk#What_is_the_term_for_telling_the_time_by_the_stars.3F. :-) Jwrosenzweig 11:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Troll, oh not you!

Sorry I didn't always win against you!

--Red stucco 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a request for assistance

I created a Christian apologetics area. I thought it would be helpful. It has precedence as there is a Mormon apologetics subject area. It needs to be Wikied up and made to look nicer. Also, please add content.

ken 20:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Username again

Hi

You were in fact blocked for a few hours because of your username. (Check the block log). I have unbanned your account, since I have not seen major evidence of disruption from you. However, I strongly urge that you consider changing your username, because the word "troll" does have very negative connotions on Wikipedia. You can request such a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your trolling of Votes for deletion is also problematic. Zoe 07:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, Trollderella. I have to confess that I am a little baffled here: I've gone through your edits, and see no evidence of trolling, in either VFD or anywhere else. Your user name is problematic, but you should not have been blocked, and certainly not without the admin leaving you a message about your user name, either before or after the block. As you can see, having the word "troll" in your user name makes your edits look suspect, even when they clearly are not. I would encourge you to think about changing your user name over at Wikipedia:Changing username, to avoid this unfortunate problem in the future. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I must dissent. A fundamental principle and important guideline here on Wikipedia is to always assume good WP:FAITH whenever possible. Upon reviewing the edits by Trollderella, I see nothing which would imply malicious intent of any sort. The word "troll" has many different meanings, as per the Troll (disambiguation) page, and to presume negative intent runs directly against one of our key principles. It is not uncommon for editors here to name themselves after dark and nefarious individuals or creatures, and it is their right to do so. If you wish to change your username to avoid being stigmatised you may, but it should not be a requirement. Hall Monitor 18:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Every single one of Trollderella's VfD votes has been keep. He has yet to vote to delete a single item. And even on articles which are clearly delete-worthy (like items which go on Wikitext or Wikisource), he votes keep. Zoe 20:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • This vote is not a keep vote. I also have disagreed with some of Trollderella's votes in the past, but have not seen any evidence of being disruptive or acting in bad faith. Hall Monitor 21:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually it is, 'merge/redir' counts as a keep. But that's arguing semantics. Personally I don't care either way about Trollderella's username (it reminds me of fairy tales, I'm not sure if that was intended). However I would like to suggest to her that it may help if she adds a bit of reasoning whenever she votes on VFD, because despite all appearances VFD is supposed to be a discussion rather than a vote. If you state why you want something kept, you could plausibly convince others. Radiant_>|< 13:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I concur, it is meaningful to provide a reason for your vote for the reason you stated. Perhaps VfD should be renamed DfD, but that is neither here nor there. Hall Monitor 17:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Trollderella's vote on Zambian Boys shows a clear trolling of VfD. Zoe 20:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Zoe, I replied on your talk page. Trollderella 20:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
You voted keep on an article written by a troll with no valid edits, on a subject which has nothing to verify that it exists. That, my friend, is trolling. Zoe 20:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
So why haven't you voted keep on Big Bad Brucie, Medieval black metal, Jorma Himokas and Konstaapeli Himokas? And apparently you would vote to keep every road in the world. Zoe 20:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Zoe, I do not vote on every article, and have not taken a look at the ones you mention. You are somewhat putting words into my mouth, but in principle, if an article is verifiable and factual, then I see no reason to delete it. Of course, there are exceptions to this in the deletion policy, but as a general rule, that seems to work for me. Trollderella 20:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I notice you two are having a vivid discussion about Zambian Boys, which I nominated for deletion. You say you think 'there may be good reason why this band doesn't have many google hits' (actually there are none). You're right - the reason is that it doesn't exist. The user who created the article is Finnish (nearly all of his other edits have been about Finland, and he's commented on talk pages in Finnish) and thus there's a very slight chance that they're an expert in Zambian music. Zambia does have an internet presence - 'music in Zambia' Googles over two million results. With this amount, you'd think at least one of them would mention this 'very famous' band, but not a single one does. And, as I said in the VfD, most of the purported band members' names are Finnish words that have been slightly altered to make them look more 'African':
  • Kuwaawa <= 'kuvaava' (taking pictures)
  • Kawala <= 'kavala' (devious)
  • Oiva Pera <= 'oiva perä' (nice ass)
I'm 99.9% sure this is a hoax. If you don't believe me, you can ask anyone else who speaks Finnish what those words mean. - ulayiti (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for your comment, I am more and more convinced that you are right. Actually, Zoe and I were not debating the article per se, but her accusations that my vote to keep it was 'trolling'. I may be wrong (it looks increasingly as though I am) but the initial vote was in good faith, and based on the information that I had at the time. Thanks for pointing this out, Yours, Trollderella 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that, yeah, but I just wanted to inform you some more (in hopes of perhaps getting you to change your vote and making sure the hoax gets deleted)... :) Actually, I've been following the conversation about your purported 'trolling' for quite a while now, and I'd just like to note that IMHO you haven't done anything wrong. Well, except maybe choosing a username which people of a certain personality type could find somehow offensive, but that's not your fault. And your Wikipedia career seems to have started well, so just keep up the good work! :) - ulayiti (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Username yet again

Hello. Please change your username. If you do not put in a request to change it, I will start a request for comments (WP:RFC) to make you change it. Any name with "troll" in it is inappropriate. If you are not a troll, choose a username to reflect that. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Trollderella do not let them bully you. Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith and if people fail to do so, it is their problem not yours. You are entitled to keep this name if you choose. If they think all users with "Troll" in their names are wikipedia trolls, they should remember that current admin ClockworkSoul was once known as ClockworkTroll. Having said that, clearly changing your name would have some advantages for you, but it should be your choice, not theirs. Kappa 17:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This Wikipedia:Username does not: promote hatred, refer to violent or sexual acts, cause confusion, or mock or defame anyone or thing. What rational argument and would you present to the community to achieve consensus that this person must change his handle? I hope that I am not alone in believing that such drastic measures would be an unnecessary and excessive use of force. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with the word "troll" in one's name. What really is important, to me anyhow, is the way in which all of us interact with each other and contribute to the encyclopedia at hand. Hall Monitor 17:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Trollderella, thanks for your contribution at Swahili (people), an article that I started as a stub hoping someone would fill out. I agree with Kappa and Hall Monitor: I would think that it's your choice to keep your username or not, although, as I'm sure you're now aware, people will make certain assumptions. — Matt Crypto 00:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noteability and VfD

Decided to move here for ease of communication, etc:

  • CSD vs VfD: separate is less accurate than noting that the CSD are an extreme subset of VfD criteria. Anything that's borderline CSD can (and usually is) tossed into VfD proper. For example, CSD A7 (no assertion of noteability) is frequently denied by an admin when an article says "so-and-so wrote 2 books." You have to take that to VfD to say "these books were never actually published, even though they were technically written." Obviously, writing an unpublished book is meaningless -- I did so when I was 5. However, AFAIK, the CSD criteria is the only one directly applicable to the process even though CSD itself usually doesn't handle it.
  • VfD criteria: the criteria themselves are not fixed in rigid legalese. You're more than welcome to take a stance on hardlining towards a narrow view of the criteria (though you might want to cast the occasional delete vote on one you agree with simply so that you don't appear to vote keep without any consideration); however, most of the community sees policies as flexible. Non-noteable is usually a shorthand for WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info.
  • Not noteable == I don't care -- there's a page (I think VfD Precendents, or some such -- I've just now lost it) that defines noteable as likely to survive VfD. Yeah, pretty circular. It's not hard and fast, I think, simply because defining an acceptable hard and fast inclusion policy is more difficult than writing an encyclopedia. However, I find that most editors frequenting VfD are deleting based upon their interpretation of the standards and policies rather than their own likes or dislikes. The other day I saw a comment to the effect of Keep, but I need a long bath after viewing the filth I saw researching this. I voted keep recently on a skinhead band. I found the subject matter abhorrent, but I also found that the band met WP:MUSIC.

Hope that helps clarify a bit. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:58:54, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really have an axe to grind on this, and am not really that interested in debating it, except to the extent that I am being accused of some vague crime in voting according to the criteria. It seems vague, inconsistant and, in places, odd, which is, I guess, why votes are necessary. Thanks for copying that here, Trollderella 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skyscraper

Re the discussion on the Village Pump, and noting that you removed the quote on Skyscraper, I wondered whether you would reconsider. There doesn't seem to be any concensus on whether these are good or bad, and, I for one, and several others, found this one added to the article. I think that, were they to proliferate, or detract from articles, there would be a case for removing them, but an occasional article that breaks the mold, to me, improves the encyclopedia. Please see if you can find it in your heart to reconsider this one, and let an isolated oddity remain. Yours, Trollderella 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if you put the quote back in, although I think it's better without the quote. My usual habit is to initially be bold and edit something straight away if I think I can improve something, and then discuss it later if others don't agree, and I don't mind if my change is undone. — Matt Crypto 02:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elise Harp

Taunting doesn't decrease my opinion of your being a troll. Zoe 06:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quit trolling VfD and I won't have to make comments on your edits. Zoe 07:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Don't taunt other users. Zoe 07:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've reached my limit on troll-feeding. I won't be responding to you on your or my Talk page. You are obviously a troll and are beneath my notice. Zoe 07:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, Zoe, you started this thread, with abusive comments, and are ending it with abusive comments. If you don't wish to have anything to do with me, that's fine - simply don't post abuse on my talk page. Trollderella 07:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)