User talk:Trödel/Archive 8

Talk page

WP:UW help

Hi Trödel,

First of all congratulations on the adminship. You recently said you maybe willing to help with the user message and template harmonistion program. We will be starting the actual changes, we hope within the next week. But prior to that, If you have any spare time what we would like from yourself is instead of an evening of vandal fighting or patrolling recent changes, you monitor the RC page for those actually doing the reverts and leaving user page messages. We would like to make as many people aware of the fact that the templates they use are going to change. If you could seek out the RCP's and Cut n Paste the following message to their talk page that would be appreciated, or reworded as you see fit. Cheers. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Upcoming template changes==

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit [[WP:UW|WikiProject user warnings]] and harmonisation discussion [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/templates|pages]] to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards ~~~~

Evening.

Hi there, You've upset someone for deleting their word Fomp, whatever that is. I think because I left the message above here earlier, they followed the link to my talk page and left me a message there. Anyway have a good evening. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be me, IceDevil. The fact is that the word is highly unpopularized but has solid evidence of its usage. For example, this website uses it exactly as described, http://iharthdarth.livejournal.com/781.html and I also displayed the urban dictionary search, which while yielding an obviously wrong second choice, the first one provided a legitimate response. That would mean that it's not a word, but still has meaning and two sources. I can't see what's wrong with adding an article for something like that, but seeing as you are an admin I'll listen to what you say. I only argue on the grounds of its legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil6 (talk • contribs)

Turn Left discussion

Hi. I hope I'm wrong here, but your message on the Turn Left talk page seems rather accusatory. You may claim that there should be more critiques of the club on its page, but to imply that editors are actively working to keep any negative information off the page doesn't encourage cooperation amongst editors, especially when I'd asked TDC more than once to work with me on the "negative info" in question. I also find it curious that you made no mention of his personal attacks. Please assume good faith. Xiner 15:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come off accusatory, I just meant to encourage a discussion about the page. From what I read, although TDC insults the current editors of Turn Left, I didn't think that he was rude to you, in fact, he was willing to live with your decision on whether it should be included or not and he hasn't reverted your deletion. And while I would discourage such comments, there is no reason for you to take offense at them. --Trödel 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Congratulations on your recent RfA! I've been away from the pedia and didn't know of it until now — wish I could've added in my support. Glad that your experience and skills will be put to even better use here. Tijuana Brass 04:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx - unfortunately work has been tough since I got promoted and I haven't been on as much as before. --Trödel 04:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me echo Tijuana Brass above. I have also been away/very busy. Congratulations on the promotion and let me assure you I would have voted for you had I been aware of the RFA. Please, let me know how your transition to admin goes -- I have been approached about becoming an admin, but have some major reservations. So, I have been seriously dragging my feet. All the best. WBardwin 22:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006 Mormon Collaboration

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been selected as the November Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on it. --uriah923^(talk) 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

give me more time!!!!! Essar Shipping

Oh and it is part of International Trade; please see article: Shipping Corporation of India
- Therefore I am putting it into category International Trade and removing your notice if this article is important or not; I hope it's okay with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transit1 (talk • contribs)

LDS Church page

Thanks for helping with the edits on the LDS Church page. I am glad you got rid of the details on Hinkley, I was trying to figure out how to move the temple info to the temple section (probably still should have a blurb there on rapid buiding of temples), but your delete made the choice easier. Thanks too with the Temple infobox. Bytebear 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Congrats on your son :)

One thing I might suggest for future weeks on ITN- if you could make that table that you have on the talk page a bit more user-friendly (basically just making the "notes" section in plain English rather than shorthand), I could publish with that if you're running late, and just have you update when you can. In any event, no big deal; thanks for getting it done. Ral315 (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say blogs, PR releases, and certain online news isn't usually a good source (obviously, there are exceptions, but generally, that would be my comment). Also, as a personal thing, I wouldn't ever consider The Register a reputable source; Andrew Orlowski's articles on Wikipedia are nothing but POV rants. (here, for one) Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Fixed. I need sleep as well. Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More so for you; I don't have any young children here to wake me up at 3:30 a.m. :) Ral315 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FamilySearch

Care to weigh in on the AfD for this article? -- 63.224.136.62 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong page. Sorry. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold's Chicken Shack

Regarding the copyright vio... it seems like the myspace page may have lifted from the wiki page. I put the info down about Bloomington and a tag line about two very underground chicago rappers( that I doubt many would know about) in without even know there was a myspace page... now poof... they are there.RedBirdI55 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To help convince you of Harold's notability: a long article in a local newspaper (you need acrobat reader for it). Also, I agree with the editor above: it's more likely that the person on myspace stole the wikipedia article, rather than the other way around. TheQuandry 06:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the article link - I'll take a look. I strongly disagree that myspace took from wikipedia since the MySpace claims to be a senior employee at HCS, the myspace content reads like promotional material, and the myspace article is a subset of the Wikipedia article. It seems more likely that the article started as advertising for HCS.

Occupation: The Best Fried Chicken Spot In Chicago and America

Income: $250,000 and Higher

As I could be wrong, I'll leave it to others (the copyright gnomes) to decide --Trödel 14:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not convinced just look at the edit history of the page. There is no way that the myspace page knows about Infinito or MC Juice. I added those. There were added long after the article was created and now they are on the myspace page. I am confused as to how you see that the myspace page had the bit about Juice and Infinito written first? RedBirdI55 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring Harolds! :-) TheQuandry 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Wars

Hey, how come no mention of this article in ITN? Says Wikipedia is showing how to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, seems a pretty cool and notable media mention to me. Babajobu 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

I don't know if you're the right guy to tell, but there's an article that cites WP here. - Peregrinefisher 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garment

Could you see the discussion on my talk about this? To keep NPOV we'd have to add *every* religious garment out there. If it is particularly similar, that should be discussed and linked in the text, not plunked in a see also. pschemp | talk 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe you have sold your soul to wikipedia (piece meal of course). As an LDS person is there nothing too sacred for wikipedia? Will your judgement day argument be, "I was a passive participant"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.153.236 (talk • contribs)

Newspapers

Ciao! I've read your nice articles for "Wikipedia in the news". Simply I wanted to point out that newspapers articles should be in italics, and article titles between "...". Good work! --Attilios 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LDS Church Heirarchy.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LDS Church Heirarchy.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

Please can you provide diffs where the links I removed was a valid one? Thanks --Spartaz 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be very happy to review my actions when you can dig out the diffs. --Spartaz 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing my warnings on user talk pages. STOP!

I'm not sure who appointed you to follow me around to delete my comments on talk pages, but STOP ! I have right to make comments exactly like every other editor here. If you continue this vandalism, I will report you in all appropriate categories. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have that right; however, "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" (see text below under Please note:). Anyone can edit those remarks. I have reviewed your contribution history on user talk pages and you have a history of not assuming good faith of IP editors and leaving harsh warning messages on their talk page. We do not expect new users to know all the traditions and mechanisms for editing Wikipedia, that is why we have {{welcome}} messages including {{anon}}, {{LDSWelcome}}, {{Welcome2}}, etc. Additionally, unless someone is swearing or doing something really nasty we generally start with simple messages like {{test1}} {{test1a}} {{test2del}} {{blank1}} etc. We all should encourage editors to create a username and to continue to help us build the encyclopedia. That is what Wikilove is all about.

I urge you again to read the relevent policies WP:BITE WP:NPOV WP:ATT and others and see how they fit with the guidelines, instead of trying to find inconsistencies, as the goal here is to write an encyclopedia that is neutral.

I also want you to know that although you have threatened to initiate mediation or arbitration proceedings against me, you may be surprised by the result. Because of your own behavior, it is likely to be similar to the results of your complaint at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

I have been trying to work with you to build a concensus that is neutral that includes some of the key points from your suggested changes; however, I feel frustrated at my inability to help you understand what neutrality really means on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could edit some less controversial articles, get the hang of the relationships, and then try again at subject areas for which you seem to have so much emotional investment.

Have a good day! --Trödel 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only acceptable removal of other people's comments is an obvious personal attack. It has been said again and again that swearing is allowable. Please refrain from editing other's comments, its considered extremely rude. Even more so than swear words. You are not here to censor anyone else's comments. pschemp | talk 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true on article talk pages. But on user talk pages there is no such rule. It is common for warnings to be periodically removed, for them to be updated by others as more information is available about the behavior, etc. In fact - it is common to summarily delete sections of user talk pages instead of archiving them. --Trödel 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then let the user themselves remove them. It is not your place to do it. If you disagree, state that in a comment, but removing others comments when it isn't your talk page is unacceptable. pschemp | talk 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree on this - as being rude to new users is a perfectly acceptable reason to make a change to a user talk page. As the 3rd parties asked to review my actions also reverted Duke53's edits. If it is not my place to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place, then whose is it?? --Trödel 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its extremely unpolite to edit or remove another user's comments on talkpages (with the exception of blatant vandalism). How would you feel if someone decided to make Wikipedia a better place by removing your comments from other people's talk pages? Just my two cents. Charon X/talk 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove any comments of mine you find on talk pages that are rude or overly aggressive towards new users. --Trödel 02:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the ones I feel are coddling vandals? Same thing. pschemp | talk 03:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care because I think you are, overall, a reasonable thoughtful person. I I think my edits are reasonably made, and I think that assuming someone is a vandal and being harsh only helps us feel better at the risk of alienating a new user. The vandal won't care about the warnings. However, I do care if Duke53 reverts my edits because I no longer believe that he is a resonable thoughtful person, but I am hopeful that he will prove me wrong --Trödel 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Meadows

Please feel free to invite me back once things have settled down. Meanwhile an offer for mediation has been posted, which may help towards that. Cheers :) Gwen Gale 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Don't Screw With My Stuff. Ever

Hey, Trödel. Listen up. You know absolutely nothing about SVU. Do not delete what I worked on. Get the drift? Rossinicholas 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki, any language you insert into a document can be "edited or deleted mercilessly." The article you edited was well sourced, and you emptied it of all footnotes and cross-references and inserted material that is not verifiable. Please provide references then, or at least don't remove the references that are there. I requested above that you not delete the references in August, and gave instructions on how to do it; however, after 3 months you had not fixed the issue. So I restored it to a verifiable state. --Trödel 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I know very little about the inner workings of Templates, but I do know that they only really should be used if you're going to be repeating the same data over and over in multiple articles. One Template for one temple should be an infobox in the article itself. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Today you deleted an addition that I made to the Joseph Smith, Jr. page which was constructive and informative. I did not delete any content, I merely added a statement. It was not vandalism. Instead if you had a question you should have contacted me about it first so we could discuss it. I can support what I wrote with evidence.

--fraasrd Fraasrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

edit reverted If you troll me again I will block you. --Trödel 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "troll" mean? I should block you for deleting my work without giving justification. 137.241.250.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Dear Trödel,

Regarding the definition of the word, "trolling", the definition you cite does not actually define it, however it does make clear that trolling is a subjective claim and therefore cannot be used as grounds for punitive action. I ask that you keep this policy in mind.

Regarding the edit you cited on the Joseph Smith, Jr. page, it consisted of a propositional statement within the theme and flow of the paragraph in question that "Joseph Smith's teachings have led hundreds of thousands of people to hell." This is a factual statement verified by the Holy Bible, for example the Apostle Paul who said over 1700 years prior to Joseph Smith, Jr.'s birth,

Galatians 1:8-9 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The word "accursed" here is a translation of the Greek term, "anathema", which refers to an eternal and irrevocable curse. Hell is defined in God's word as the place where condemned souls suffer God's wrath and curse. (Matthew 25:41)

Now certainly you would not dispute that hundreds of thousands of people have died while believing Joseph Smith's new teachings on Jesus and the gospel, would you? In fact it is probably in the millions by now. Regarding neutrality, there can be no more unbiased, neutral, and objective point of reference than God's own perspective revealed in His word. Only God has a neutral, "God's eye view" as it were. If you think there is a more neutral source I challenge you to point out what it is.

The statement "Joseph Smith's teachings have led hundreds of thousands of people to hell." is a propositional statement which is verified in the most reliable source available. I added it in a genuine effort to improve the educational quality of the entry on Joseph Smith. If you choose not to dispute this with me, that is your choice, but you cannot simply accuse me of vandalism because you disagree. That is an abuse of privilege.

And after having reviewed carefully the Wikipedia policy guidelines, it is clear, and I think you will have to concede that you may not simply block me for making a rational argument to support my edit and posting it on Wikipedia talk pages, which is what they are there for in the first place.

sincerely,

Fraasrd 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above response to my offer to accept the edit in good faith, and my request to not discuss it is trolling. Do not do it again. --Trödel 06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 137.241.252.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks for the warning - but nonsense will be removed from wikipedia --Trödel 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of CJC

As a contributor to the different lists of temples, I was wondering if you could give some feedback concerning the addition several columns to the Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. thx --Trödel 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it looks great. I don't think I mentioned anything since you did it, but I am very happy with the breakout of the Comparison list and the regular list. Now there is no confusion of priorities. The comparison list is serving it's purpose better than ever, and the original list is a great overview of Temples - visually, geographically and discursively and it's not bogged down with the other data. And the person that did the graphics on the Geographic List did an incredible job as well. Now that I'm on the subject though, I do think that the pictures should be put back in the Comparative list (leaving them in the regular list as well), and that the Style data item might be removed from the regular list. I see the regular list almost as "an introduction to temples" list. Simplify it and make it more understandable, approachable and interesting to the person looking at it for the first time. The comparison list is like the "everything" bagel for the person who knows about temples and is looking up something. The pictures are very helpful for that.

Bhludzin 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am working with User talk:Bytebear to develop a standardized list of parameters and a way to put all the data in one place, rather than having to edit it in each location. He also created the maps, as well as started the Temple architecture (Latter-day Saints) article. As to the image and stuff - I am ok with adding it - in fact I don't see any problem with it getting too long since, as you state it is for camparing, and users can scroll back and forth - just may need to repeat the name of the temple periodically. See Comparison of wiki software#Comparison table for what I mean. --Trödel 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/[1]]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Wiki eZach| talk 13:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news tip

In the week following a presentation to the student body on how to use Wikipedia for academic research by a residential education staff person and the college science librarian, the Oberlin College alternative student paper The Grape, in an article about Awake Zion (Vol. 8 Issue 6), quoted Wikipedia's article on Crown Heights, New York noting that Crown Heights is a place where "Rastafarians and Hasidic Jews live as minority religious groups side by side." I couldn't resist a little bit of self-promotion. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For great work week after week, writing the "Wikipedia in the news" section for the Signpost, you deserve this! Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Actually I think personal attacks can still be personal attacks even if they happen to be true. Basically any time replacing a word in your comments with "person" would make it nicer, you are probably attacking someone personally. So in the future, please just replace "troll" with "person".--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment that "we should not tolerate the activities of trolls". Please attack activities you find distasteful. Just not the people. I try to point out comments I find inapropriate or to be "crossing the line". I believe that we would be better off if more people did so. But labeling people in a negative fashion generally makes the situation worse and it also has a side-effect of causing third-parties to take the rest of your comments less seriously. The other bad thing about labeling the person rather than the activity is that it is not very actionable. I expect people to stop doing behaivors that speak out against and it generally works especially in the short term. I have never seen some change their behaivor because someone called them a name. And in the long-term it is not like you can request someone to be blocked because they "continue to be a troll" which you can if they "continue to assume bad faith" or whatever. I believe the things we are discussing at Temple garment would be contentious even if the issue had been brought out in the most mild way. But I guess we really will never know because that is not what happened--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response --Trödel 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such topics can be discussed professionally. I was more thinking that the topic would have attracted those people who wish to be contentious even the first person who began it did not. But if your experience says otherwise, I am more than willing to concede the point. I really don't have much experience with problamatic topics as I spend more time in the quieter waters at Wikisource than I do here. Perhaps it would be better for moderate people to push these issues forward rather than waiting for someone more radical to take the first step. I was certainly aware that there was an issue at that page months ago, but there was no freely licensed picture at the time so I simply watchlisted it. Perhaps I should have made more of an effort then to bring the disscussion to a head. It is certainly something to keep in mind for the next time I stumble across something similar.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above was only in responce to the second paragragh "As an aside". As I was viewing the "Last change" in my new messages and because of the way you formatted your response I did not notice the first paragraph. I believe you mistake my position. I do believe you should call atttention any inappropriate actions no matter how subtle. I simply believe that is this needs to be without personal attacks. I do not condone Duke53's behaivour but I do not condone many, many comments on that page. I have tried to speak, up when some thread is active, asking people to stop (when completely out of line) or change their comments (if there is anything worthwhile in them). But there is so much that I could disaprove of there I have only done this in ongoing disscussions. Honestly I have no desire to read through people contribs and give them a judgement of how far off-course their comments have been, but if I see something "fresh" I do try to call attention to it. The only reason I left you a note here is that it was based off your edit summarry and is not really easy to decipher what I am talking about if it were on the talk page. I really am not trying to make a big deal out of this or say you have behaived worse than anyone else (because honestly I havn't really made any comparisons), but it is important that you understand what is a personal attack and what is not for the future. Please speak out as you wish to, but just phrase such comments so they are not personal attacks. If you really want someone to examine Duke53's behaivour you should setup an WP:RFC (the user conduct kind).--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Review request

Could you review Fraasrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits - he continues to edit my talk page about my warning and subsequent block. I would just block him again for continue to be disruptive but feel a second (or third) opinion would be more appropriate. --Trödel 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the situation, and a I wrote a message on his talk page. I think the basic problem here is that Fraasrd doesn't quite understand the concept of NPOV. If he can come to grips with NPOV, all the other problems will evaporate. I've seen the "I know my belief is right so it must be neutral" additude many times before... It's never easy to get past it. ---J.S ^(T/C) 11:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Undelete/Tropical_cyclone

Would it not have been much easier to oversight those revisions, or poking an oversight on IRC to do it? Tito xd^(?!?) 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definately - that was one of those learning experience where I learned the hard way. Thx for the note though - sure wish I could have figured that one out before I hit delete :) --Trödel 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

You said "Generally navigation templates like {{LDS}} are only used on the pages that are links in the template itself, and, sometimes, other major articles. We generally don't include them on articles related to the topic which are not central. Thus I removed it from Fanny Alger, but left it on Kirtland --Trödel 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"

I disagree that this is how such Templates are used. I would point to Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria as pages with the Eastern Orthodox template but are not listed on the template while Byzantine Empire is listed in the template, but does not appear. Your reply itself indicates that your selection of on which to place the template is discretionary. I want to presume good faith, but it certainly appears that you are selecting these with an eye to which page portrays the church in a positive light.--Counsel 03:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See response at Floridan/Counsel's talk page --Trödel 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a short article. I have left it off. However, I think that the first polygamous marriage in LDS history is not unimportant and did have an impact on the future of the church. I am not so sure that it rises to the level or requiring the template so I will leave it off.--Counsel 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of Growth

Trödel, from the look of your user page you may be able to answer a question I have. Do you know how fast the LDS church is growing? The page Protestantism states that evangelicalism is the fastest growing branch of christianity at 2.3% per annum. My understanding is that the LDS church is second only to Islam in it's rate of growth as a religion. Does the church post any information along those lines?--Counsel 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read recently that LDS church growth was just over 3 percent last year, however, looking at statistics that way is misleading. most statisticians would consider LDS a denomination of Christianity, rather than its own religion, and thus Christianity would be the second in growth, not LDS. Within American denomoninations, Mormonism is slower than Penecostals and Assemblies of God, but faster than any other aside from those two. May want to check out Adherents.com for more detailed slice of the religious pie. -Visorstuff 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]