User talk:Trödel/Archive 4

Talk page

Wikiethics

I thought you might want to know about the poll in the Wikipedia:Wikiethics discussion page. Rgulerdem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.123.156 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately - using an IP to evade a block predisposes me against any position you are taking there. However it seems you are not getting the support for your positioin that you desire, so I am not going to try and figure out exactly what your position is - Trödel 12:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life of Joseph Smith

The edit you reverted was a deletion of a redundant supercategory (I checked). "Religious history of the United States" includes "Latter Day Saint history". The Jade Knight 08:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok - thx - Trödel 12:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Joseph Smith, Jr.. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visorstuff (talk • contribs)

Acknowledged Trödel 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fleet Images

Cool Cat - I saw your post on Ed Poor's page - IAAL - so I was thinking I could lend some expertise in this area - as I pointed out on the featured list page the issue is whether the images can be considered a derivative work or not. Can you get me started on where the images are - and what has been discussed so I can be up to speed on the issue. Thx in adv - Trödel 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images that appear on Starfleet ranks and insignia are mostly in commons.wiki (images wikipedians drew), while others (images found on the web drawn by other Star Trek fans) are on en.wiki.

The discussion commenced at: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. Issue has been discussed inconclusively so far (you know what I mean).

The issue so far basicaly is me and others drawing images of decorations (rank insignias) appeared on the show and weather or not is this to be considered derivative work.

My argument is that if I am able to release photo I toke of Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard) in a starfleet uniform under a free license I should be able to release rank insignias the same way. You can buy the rank pins/pips and take the photo right? Also most rank insignias are very basic shapes such as 4 circles next to each other.

Anyway else I can help you get started?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction page

Yes, this is certainly possible. I will take a look at adding this later today. Regards. joshbuddy^talk 15:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixing this page now. Please confirm. joshbuddy^talk 06:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 & Wikipedia:Introduction

Joshbuddy whipped it up but I'm susposed to tell you I wrote it to take any blame if it screws up (which I don't think it will but I like giving credit where credit is due, he refuses to let me name the bot after him :)) - No seriously, it should be working just fine, let me know what you think :) - Thanks for your vote on my RfA (see, I don't have to waste 6kB to thank someone :) -- Tawker 06:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2's Server

Went down (ahhhhhhhhhh) - I'm working on it but its taking a little time -- Tawker 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - and good luck getting it up again. Trödel 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be up Real Soon Now™ joshbuddy^talk 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch - good luck getting it up again Trödel 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and Judaism

I put it up for featured article again, again its on the chopping block. please review and weigh in, I value your opinion in Wikipedia. (VChapman 15APR06)

Just wanted to say thanks

Hey Jim - just wanted to say thanks for all the work you do around here. Your edits are much appreciated. Sometimes I wish we could go back to the old days when the five or so of us older guys worked so well together - we are missing that in this corner of the Wiki right now. Anyway, keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

About the edit you made on Tawker's "tawk" page; if these edits are from about a day ago or so, its probably because of the bot downtime. The bot reverting code disappeared for a while, but its back up and running now. _-M ^o P-_ 12:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... maybe Tawker is still fixing it? I'm not 100% enlightened on the subject, but all I know is that yesterday there were minor troubles. _-M ^o P-_ 12:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bot was down for a while but I've gotten it back up from a backup, for some reason it was editing as Tawkerbot(1) the flagged bot for a while (yikes) - I've fixed it and now it works properly -- Tawker 14:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awesome!

Bang up job on the Latter-day Saints article. I did not realize you could put underlines in place of spaces. MOD 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCLDS - G. Library image

I too jumped in and reverted -- but I think that Modulatum followed up with an actual fix, reloading the image under a correct spelling. He dropped a quick note on my talk page. So should be better now. And thanks for you efforts on my late night effort on the atonement. It lacked clarity and looks better now. WBardwin 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive-ness

I'm around... just busy with other stuff... --AllyUnion (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Oldham Kelsey

Looks fine to me, can't find anything significant to twiddle with. What part were you concerned about the flow of? On a trivial note, is Canadian spelling being used? I notice an -ize and an -our, which may be correct for the Canuckers, but is a little betwixt and between from either a UK or a US reading. Alai 00:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're of the "gradualist" school of thought, perhaps you might consider sticking it in for WP:GAN, and then WP:PR, and see what they make of it first: you might get some useful feedback at each of those stages. I can't immediately think of a directly related wikiproject, but if there is, maybe let them know too... Alai 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples of CJC LDS

Feedback from my request for comments on current status of the list re meeting Featured List criteria

Renata

Hi there, as you requested:

First of all, this list needs sources. There needs to be a separate section titled "references" and the links need to formated in reference style and external link style.
Is this list really comphrehensive? I.e. all temples are included? There seems to be a huge boom in 1999-2000.
Also it needs a lead.
I think you need to link all temples. That will produce a ton of red links and one of FL criteria is no or very little red links, but that's the price for consistency.
I also suggest explaining/linking style because, say, "spire" means nothing to me.
Some better way to format location is needed. Because now it's inconsistent: some locations give city and state/district, others city and country. You might want to add a little country flag.
Some pictures/maps would be nice.

In short, it still needs some work. It is a good list, but not yet featured material. Renata 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan

I would agree with all of the above. The list of temples is clearly the main "Reference" - and the list does seem to be comprehensive. It should be possible to create a suitable lead section from Temple (Mormonism) and other articles - e.g. "This is a list of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in chronological order of date of dedication. A temple is a [...] in which [...] A total of [x] buildings have operated as temples, but [y] are no longer temples. The first was built in [...]. As of May 2006, a further [z] are planned or under construction. etc" Linking all of the temples will help you to create articles for all of them. Good work so far - not too much more to do. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Welsh

Hi there. If I sound a bit rough is only because I'm in a hurry and need to type quick. These are the main issues that would come up if you submitted the list as it is:

You need an appropriate amount of text on the lead. You could probably mention briefly who decides what is an official temple or something like that.
Try to get a picture or two in there.
You need a "references" section. Some of your external links at the end of the article could probably be used for that purpose. The external links found throughout the table should be converted to external links as well.
You'll probably need to cite your source for each construction style and area occupied by each temple.

It's a good list so far. Keep up the good work. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The location column of above temple table

Well Trödel, if we are raising what we don't understand about each other's positions, I don't understand why you feel that you must now force your way after writing "lets leave it this way". If you can have this dramatic change of opinion months later, well then maybe today I can attempt to compromise. Contrary to your claim, you have never offered the compromise that I suggested. I assume you think that all this time I have not been "willing to bend" - and so your answer is to now adopt the same position? As I attempted to point out to you, I don't think it really matters to you what the size of the city of Halifax is. If it only included the the former Halifax and the former Dartmouth - a reasonably-sized city of less than 100 sq. miles - I suspect you would still insist on "Dartmouth". Sorry if I interpreted "abomination" as a personal attack - I thought it was referring to my edit, and not to the concept of a "regional municipality". Denvoran 04:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Trodel, sorry that you got caught in the 3RR block. I just couldn't handle the ping pong game anymore and needed something done. I posted a straw poll on the talk page. While discussion can be misinterpreted, a "vote" on a straw poll can't. The quicker that we can show consensus on any one choice, the quicker we can use that consensus to stop Gellersen/Denvoran's edit wars. Sue Anne 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Stifle (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the wikipedia community for my actions. Unfortunately, I acted inappropriately. I had removed the page from my watchlist, because ot the escalating tensions, prior to the ban, but will leave it removed for a few more days. Trödel 02:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples

Trodel, I'm not sure what to do. I'm probably going to post to the Administrator's noticeboard to get feedback. He's not guilty of a 3RR violation because we are refusing to edit war with him, but it's ridiculous that he keeps changing other people's edits back to "his" version. Sue Anne 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with your edit. I am somewhat puzzled that you would immediately make a change to my edit on this page that we have had some disagreement over. Frankly it feels like wikistalking when you edit within ~~5 minutes~~ actually it was 55 minutes - I assumed the 22:41 and 23:36 changes were in the opposite order - thus my mistaken 5 minutes - sorry bout that a change I make when you ahve only edited 5 times in the last 3 days. Please help me understand what is going on - I am having a hard time assuming good faith when it comes to my interactions with you. Since I pulled back from wikipedia because of the inappropriate (meaning I inappropriaty had them) hard feelings I have had regarding the edits on that page(I have only 18 edits in 2 weeks), I thought the news item on the Draper temple would be a good way to start editing LDS related articles again. I admit I hadn't quite thought through how to handle the Daybreak temple - I am unsatisfied with the "to be located in the" language - seems too wordy. I am not sure where things went wrong - for me, part of it is the use of two words for your username - so I thought there were two users disagreeing with me on Halifax to begin with - so I just abandoned my position. When I figured out later that there was only one user who signed using a different name - I was frustrated. Additionally, my perception (which admitedly may be wrong) is that 1) you don't want to wait and see if other users support your view - but want to enforce your view immediately, 2) you did not make any attempt to discuss the position that identifying the geographical location implies the use of a reasonably small geographical location, and 3) you see the issue in a very black and white manner such that there is no room for compromise.

Anyway - are we going to have a continuous advesarial relationship on the List of temples of CJC LDS, or can we come to some mutual understanding and respect for each others postitions on issues. In general I am willing to work something out, and see myself as reasonable in seeing other's positions, and even pride myself in finding creative compromise positions; however, I am finding that difficult to do when I see your edits - my first reaction is to to dig in my heels and fight to the death - but that is not how I want to feel or how I want to edit. I just reread this - and sorry for the accusations and ramblings - feel free to delete them if they overly offend - but I think the only way for us to come to some kind of resolution is to openly express to each other our views on the conflict and see if we can find some common ground - do you have any suggestions Trödel 04:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (copied from Gellersen's talk page)[reply]

I am responding in "good faith", even though I feel you didn't respond to my postings above or on the above-mentioned article's discussion page. Glad that you agree with my edit. Calculating how much time elapsed between your edit and my edit, and keeping track of my editing frequency - sounds like "wikistalking" to me. I will continue to make edits where I feel they should be made, each time giving a valid reason for them, as I have done consistently in the past. Just as I plan to avoid future edit wars and to be more sensitive to others' frustrations going forward, I hope not to be the the target of sarcastic and reactionary comments, nor to be "ganged up upon". Just because one doesn't have a network of "Wikipedia friends" to call upon for "help" doesn't necessarily make one's contributions of any less value. Those are my views, openly expressed. Denvoran 05:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to know me to realize that calculating the time between edits would just happen without thought. Especially since I went back to revise the description of the Daybreak temple. I'm not sure where to go from here. I hope that my recent comments haven't been "sarcastic and reactionary". As to the accusation that I ganged up on you - I think you will see that I solicited comments both from people who had supported your position as well as my position on the talk page. I was at a loss in finding a solution - and since I think that the google/wiki model of soliciting a larger sample of opinions is the best way to approach disputes I tried to do that - this approach has helped me both in solidifying my position and also in seeing that my position was not supported (my edits to Human from last spring come to mind. I didn't intend to gang up on you - just get help and viewpoints from others. Trödel 02:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template fix

Duh, that wasn't meant to have been added there... thanks for the fix. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Introduction/sandbox

Yes, It is useless, especially since Wikipedia:Introduction is a sandbox. However, the criteria for speedy deletion are not very open for pages in the Wikipeida namespace. I can't speedy delete the page unless: it is patent nonsense, a test page (a page created as a test, not a page for tests), vandalism, recreation of deleted material, the page was created by a bannned user, the page needs to be deleted for maintenance, or the pages author requests deletion. Unfortunately this page meets none of those criteria, so it needs to go through miscellany for deletion. I hope this clears this up for you. See WP:CSD for more info. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 12:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acciental deletion

Thanks for catching the accidental deletion I caused on the LDS article. I am not even sure how it happened. I just edited a previous version and didn't even think I touched the text. --Kmsiever 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replys from Chuck Marean

Well, it does mention sandbox. That's true. However, computers can't read so those bots seem to be a bad idea.--Chuck Marean 01:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) User talk[reply]

RE:The bots are absolutely necessary - the vandalism was so much worse before they were in use - and the edits per day has about doubled. Trödel 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me users tend to select-all-delete when they start using a sandbox, so it seems to me the directions should be on a totally separate page than the sandbox itself. This would be more in the spirit of Wikipedia as I understand it. After all, any valid edit would be felt by any author to be vandalism.--Chuck Marean 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example: This was my edit: [1]. I worked hard on that edit. It seems EurekaLott ( 07:08, June 5, 2006) didn't even read it. The left-hand tab says project. EurekaLott's so-called "clean up" of 07:08, June 5, 2006 was therefore wrong. It seems to have been automated, without any thought.--Chuck Marean 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the edit and it is clearly not a bot edit - but a person removing links and copyediting your changes. For more info see your talk page. Trödel 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD

Thanks for your comments. Americasroof 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute you

Your merge of Bob Parsons and Life Online with Bob Parsons was without consensus. Ardenn 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to take this title - I think you are identifying a little to personally with the edits made on the wiki Trödel 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of The Gnostic Movement

Your reasoning behind the prod was "promotion". After reading the article, I did not come away with the impression that the article was an advertisement. The only case for "promotion" that I could see was some POV problems here and there. To me, this is not a valid reason for deletion as there are ways of making grossly POV articles into very good ones. Further, I am not convinced that the subject matter is not notable. The amount of traffic the article gets, plus the number of references cited indictates to me that this is at least notable enough to some. Given that, I feel this is not a good prod candidate and its fate would be better decided in an AfD. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL ranges

This page is protected because it is transcluded in to a MediaWiki message. This makes it high risk because those pages execute code diferantly than other pages, and because they have extremely high visibilty. Normally transclusions to the MediaWiki space are avoided, but this page is very helpful to prevent admins from placing mistaken blocks that can affect tons of users. If changes to the page are needed, they can be put on the talk page, along with {{edit protected}} and/or posting it on WP:AN or directly to an admin (I'd be happy to test and help). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource, D&C

It was requested that they be moved to "Section x" by someone on the talk page. I forget exactly where; I left the form of "Covenant x" intact as a redirect, and I also create the form of "D&C x" as a redirect. D&C 1:10, for example, works as requested on the talk page. Jude (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish (linguistics)

You reverted the above page to my last edit after such had been reverted away twice by Rex Germanus; of course I agree with your action, though not exactly with your edit comment asking Rex Germanicus for a verifiable source: surely there are good sources and even reasons for the linguists' point of view. The issue however is that 'Flemish', related to language and therefore under the disambuiguity title 'linguistic', has not only the meaning considered by linguists, but as the article states also a rather contradictory widespread one. My point is that the word 'Flemish' is not owned by linguists and though perhaps initially unjustified, the fact of this meanwhile widespread usage makes it a secondary meaning. Linguists are supposed to study aspects of the language, not to rule on what is right or wrong: the natural language belongs to all its users. There are thousands of words in any language, of which the original meaning is not what you will find as the prevalent explanation in a dictionnary today. SomeHuman 2006-06-15 (sorry, forgot to sign a moment ago) 14:04 (UTC)

I don't know enough about linquistics to even coment on whether something can be termed "correct" or not - I just had it on my watchlist because someone added the {{WPCD}} tag and I moved it to the talk page. So, being uninformed, I reverted based on the fact that such an assertion at the very least would have to be verifiable. My thinking is that if a source of such a quote could be found - then the wording could be changed to be consistent with our NPOV policy. i.e. X describes Flemish as "blah blah blah." And if there is no cite then the continued insertion of the text could be more easily reverted by other editors. Trödel 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fish & Wildlife smile" :-)

Hi! I saw you left a message on my talk page about this image and the story behind it. Well, the sad news is that I don't know any story behind it and how it ended up on Fish & Wildlife. I saw it was once incorrectly marked as copyright infringing though, but it really is public domain, and I explicitly used the Fish & Wildlife database being one of many suggested at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources, and stuff they publish in their searchable image database is simply supposed to be public domain; all of it. I remember searching for a "smile" keyword but don't remember how I ended up on that illogical site for the picture. Maybe I used a meta-search engine looking in several public domain databases. My mistake seem to have been that I didn't add a source link and now I can't seem to find the page looking the same as when I went there several months ago, so either it's a site/database redesign or I'm just not finding the right link. Regardless, there seem to be a new, even better site now: Looking for copyleft smiles on yotophoto.com! -- Northgrove 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon and The Bible

I am obviously not Mormon and therefore, I shouldn't be posting stuff about Mormonism because I don't know much about it. But from the little that I have read what I have learned through from my Mormon friends I feel correct enough to say that they are not Christian. Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God the Son. They do study his teachings, but consider him nothing more than a prophet/ messiah who made a deal with God while Satan also made a deal with God. The teachings of Jesus in the Bible say nothing about a Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial Heaven.

And please don't bring up the stories of Nephites and the tribes of America. There has never been archaelogical proof of the existence of such tribes or the huge wars told in The Book of Mormon. So I don't see how these fabricated stories of Native American wars... horses-- weren't in America then... and steel weaponry... etc. can be so fundamental to a religion at the same time as Christ's teachings while he was alive (i.e. in the modern day Mid. East). But, for the sake of what we are discussing, you don't need to reply to me about the above because it is a challenge against your faith. And if it is what you choose to believe then I respect it.

As far as which version of the Bible is correct, that is a pointless debate. The Bible was not written in English. The King James Version was written almost 1600 years after Christ's existence. There are MANY translational errors and biases in it. But this is a question of your faith and I do not wish to attack it. But faith amounts to point of view, and that is why wikipedia entries will never have total clarity or be free of arguments.

I admire Mormons, for they are good people. I respect and sometimes envy their reverence.

BUT...

It is important to not let the definitions of some things change in time.

Let me ask you this: Are Catholics Christian? Is Christianity such a broad term that a religion that puts a lot of focus on Mary and numerous saints can be called Christian?

Is Mormonism a particular way of practicing Christianity or is it THE Christian religion? Respectfully yours,

MLSmateo --MLSmateo 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on MLSmateo's talk page Trödel 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. What I mean when "recognize the Bible has 'MANY translational errors and biases in it,'" is that the King James Version has many errors in it. I am Catholic and I asked that question because I like to see what others think of Catholocism. I disagree with praying to the saints. But I remember being taught from I think John 2, that Mary can intercede and get Jesus to help us much as she got him to help make wine at the wedding. So our practice of praying to Mary is in the belief that since she interceded on Jesus in her life, she would do the same in her Heavenly life. Good luck. Oh, I have a quick question, regarding signing w/ timestamp. Is there a way to do it that will automatically link my name so that I don't have to go back into edit to place my username in brackets? Thanks. MLSmateo 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on MLSmateo's talk page Trödel 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks and Mormonism

I think the Blacks and Mormonism page will be fixed soon enough, the editors there seem to be putting in extra hours to fix it, particularly ErinHowarth, which is great because I'm not sure if I myself have the time or skill to help out an awful lot over there. --Lethargy 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Project and template

Jim, a while back i believe you created a {{LDS}} series template. I've been debating for quite some time about adding an identification category template to all articles that could be categorized in the WP:LDS -- something like {{StarTrekproject}} or Wikipedia:WikiProject_University_of_Texas_at_Austin/Page_notice#Page_notice_proposals these, and wanted to get your thoughts. Or perhaps a portal page like Portal:Utah? I think the wikiproject template would be best. What do you think? -Visorstuff 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the template - let me know what you think: {{LDSproject}}. No doubt it will be controversial. -Visorstuff 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]