User talk:Trödel/Archive 10

Talk page

Signpost Related Mentoring Idea

I just had a idea. If I were to help you with ITN for a few weeks, I might get those "writing skills" you were talking about and be able to do the Wpro Report. -- Punk Boi 8 07:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trodel, I'm sorry to butt in to the mediation, however, I feel strongly that Nathan needs to be blocked. Since you last warned him about editing in WP space, he has made at least six WP edits and has also begun pestering Ral again about writing for The Signpost. [1] Additionally, he has assigned himself another mediation case. [2] I don't think he is listening to anything that is being said to him and I think we are going to have to face the possibility that this just isn't going to work until he is older. I'm going to block him for 72 hours since the last two 48 hour blocks and numerous warnings don't seem to have touched the sides. I consider all my admin actions open to review, so if you are not happy with this block please go ahead and unblock. I apologise again for butting in. All the best, Sarah 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be noted that he blanked the section related to him above from your talk page, Trodel. I'm concerned that this isn't working out. – Chacor 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this block really focuses him. If he continues when he returns from this block I think we'll have to go back to AN and ask again about a community ban - and I think indications are are that it would succeed if mentoring has failed. – Chacor 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I hope it doesn't come to that. His latest actions are regrettable and could be indicitive of a alternate explanation for his behavior. --Trödel 15:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be overly harsh here, as I'm the one that's had this problem in my face now for almost 6 months, possibly longer - longer than most anyway :( So where are we at? Well, I've still got a glimmer of hope things will work out, but I think our times of being lenient have got to be over. Wikipedia is a game it seems, and we're the players.

He's broken almost every agreement made, and we're being taken for a ride with our generous allowances. I think we need to ram the message home that an agreement means just that, an agreement, nothing more, nothing less.

If we need to make things clearer, indicating what actions will equal what result, then so be it. A "Do this = face this" type of handling I think is clear for someone his age to understand. The real world wouldn't let him get very far with broken promises, and I don't think we're benefiting for making allowances either.

I applaud the efforts of those of you handing out offsite tasks; I think that's a great idea. I hope it works out. You guys sure are patient, but I trust you understand why I also feel the game is up and it's time to knuckle in so to say, on the flipside of the situation. -- Longhair\^talk 10:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

You may find this of interest. The originator does not appear to have notified you. --Spartaz 09:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that anyway, as judging from it he's the only one who can certify that dispute, and two people need to have certified it. Be on the lookout for socks, I say. – Chacor 09:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary on Wikipedia:Reward board

Hi,

I was a bit taken aback when I first saw your edit to Wikipedia:Reward board removing User:Punk Boi 8's proposal, since the proposal seemed in good faith at first glance. It would be helpful if you could include something like "per mentoring" or such in the future. I don't know anything about his case specifically; it seems like he's having trouble finding things in the article namespace that interest him, so that the Reward Board might be helpful for him, but I'm a bit biased towards it. Anyway, thanks for working on the mentorship program. -- Creidieki 09:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Requests for comment/Trödel

You asked to be notified if others endorsed the statement, which has been done. -Amark moo! 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, kinda sorta. The original complaint, not really, but people do think that you've done something wrong and that you should comment. -Amark moo! 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do tell

Thought you should know it's been closed. I think we've resolved the dispute, so this will be my last communique, provided we don't escalate in some way again, which I seriously doubt you will, and I will do every thing in my power to avoid a further confrontation. Just thought you should know it closed. I hope you learned better changes for your conduct, as I learned to alter my conduct.TheGreenFaerae 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. I was simply trying to be curteous. It will not happen again.TheGreenFaerae 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took it that way. I did not mean for it to be insulting. I apologize again.TheGreenFaerae 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I am sorry you will not attempt to resolve our dispute in any way. I wish you had been a little more willing to compromise. I do have little doubt that you will revert this as quickly as possible, but I still have to post it to fulfill the rules. I have taken out a request for arbitration. I am sorry it has come to this, but you should make a statement. TheGreenFaerae 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration prior to archiving.

Im Back

Hi

I have came back on-wiki today.

I should let you know that I could be my turn for Admin Coaching within the month. I would like for this not to get into the way of the mentoring as I have been waiting for this since my last RfA and reallt think it would benifite me.

Please respect what I have just said. -- Punk Boi 8 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Gardner

I've worked with you and others from Wikiproject:LDS when I was editing under a user name, and I was hoping to get your thoughts on something, if you have the time.

I spend a significant amount of time working on Archibald Gardner, trying to make it more encyclopedic, better worded, better formated & categorised, etc.., based on material existing (see my last version here as compared to the current version) and User:Milogardner (talk · contribs) just summarily reverted it to what I feel is a significantly worse version, with the only reason given "For those that wish to remove sections of this write-up, please have the style and fairness to list your name and wiki talk page". I read this action as that editor claiming that they own or have the final say on what should be on that article, possibly because they were the original creator of the article (which they were), and based on the edit history of the article they have had very little collaboration with others on it.

If you feel my edits are useful, could you help me figure out how to explain the benefits of my edits to that user? If you don't think my edits were useful, could you help me understand why? I've already had one too many confrontation than I can currently stomach with trying to help on LDS topics (which is why I'm currently editing from an IP), and since you are so good at this kind of thing, I was hoping for some assistance. -- 63.224.137.164 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice the RfC, your note that you're studying, or your drastically reduced edit count until after I posted this. Sorry to bother you and I completely understand that you may be too busy to help me right now. I'll ask at WP:LDS. -- 63.224.137.164 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you get time, perhaps you could help on this article? I've been talking to the primary editor, as mildly as I can, and trying to help him understand Wiki style, methods, etc... But, he is very possessive about the article and has grandeous plans for this notable, but not extraordinary, pioneer and mill builder. Good to see you back. WBardwin 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Well, one of Gardner's Utah mills is on the National Historic Register, and he was an early Mormon pioneer and local church leader. So perhaps mildly LDS notable. But the original editor, and his family evidently, are more interested in focusing the article on mill building. If that area exists on Wikipedia, I would question his notability. But, it certainly reads like some of my family history - one of my ancestors built a couple of flour mills in northern Utah at about the same time. Will try and work on the article. WBardwin 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a Utah gov't site on the first mill. [[3]] I'll place this in the article. As for notability, well............... WBardwin 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd be specific concerning the topic(s) that you 'feel' are unreliable. Archibald's life was consistent and clear, from age 17 to 87 building mills and living a giving life. Several published sources outside of his daughter's book is found in the links section. Link on either the Alvinston, Ontario, West Jordan or Star Valley, Wyoming links. The Afton link shows a 1990 memorial summarizing the mill, giving threads. Additional points on his life, like being one of the primary economic builders, from canals, business zones created by mills, silver and the mining industry in Utah are also well cited in the links sections. Archibald's life was very influential, from a Territorial legistator, 32 year Bishop and the parent of 48 children, many influential in their own right. Without Archibald and all his acttivies Uah would have been a much poorer place to live, economically, socially and spiritually. Best Regards, Milogardner!

Thank you for the comments, all self serving and grossly misleading. I have not resisted changes and improvements in ARCHIBALD's story lines, contrary to your rhetoric and strong suggestions. My complaint is that you and others have not heard or read of Archibald since there have not been 100 books written about his life. Your group's edits of his life have been terse, omitting his personality, for example. Not finding 100 books on his life seems to be your only seemingly valid point. That is, LDS members should be cognizant of LDS history, such as reported at Quarterly Conferences. You have missed several of Archibald's major life story lines reported there. I'd be happy to review two inspirinbg stories taken from Canada, only one of which is reported on Archibald's wikipedia page. One of my brothers and a nephew are better prepared to report these events, but I'll begin the task if required. Several other Conference story lines stressed Archibald's Utah life, one being his repair of the Salt Lake Temple folundation. But, those types of Conference story lines would only report the spiritual side of Archibald's life after he accepted The Gospel, and repeatedly acted upon its teachings, most often helping others. Let me stop. I've said enough for one day. Best Regards. Milogardner

Thank you once again for broadening our discussion. Of course any article that is only based in secondary sources is required to be double and triple checked. Even primary source papers offer major risks in publishing central themes without confirming each theme in at least one additional text. My work links Egyptian math texts, and the math concepts contained therein. Most of the major texts are noted in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus(RMP). I apply Occam's Razor, the simplest idea is the historical idea as my filter, a rule that was set down by George Sarton and the history of science community. You may take notice that I have been a writer and an editor of these primary math history documents, and the math (remainder arithmetic and Egyptian fractions) used by the ancient scribes, for 15 years. My latest paper is published in India's best history of math publication. The 2006 issue is dedicated to David Pingree, a Sanskrit scholar. Pingree read primary texts fighting to correct earlier secondary sources that had misread astronomical data. My specialty also decodes/translates the primary texts. I decode each math concept, one by one. For example, the RMP was given to the British Museum in 1863, and it is still not fully translated, beginning with its 2/nth table. Scholars for 125 years have undervalued and skipped over several basic scribal math concepts, often throwing the baby out with the bath water. Another of the omitted math concepts is two-part numbers, reported by Daressy in the Akhmim Wooden Tablet (1906) a concept used in the RMP over 30 times, the topic published in the Indian journal. Clearly Egyptian fraction math was not additive at its core, as falsely reported by 1920's and later scholars. Scribal math was often built upon remainder arithmetic, quotient and remainders, with exact remainders being converted to unit fraction series (called Egyptian fractions). My latest Wikipedia paper, Kahun Papyrus discusses arithmetic proportions. Again, let me stop, since I have already said too much for one day. Best Regards to Archibald and everyone that wishes to report his life, as its took place, theme by theme, Milogardner

Dear Trodel: Thank you for today's edit. It appears that your editing is not complete. Are you leaving the incomplete footnote markers for youself? If not, I'd like to privately read of your concerns. Best Regards, Milogardner

Dear Trodel. Your unproven, and wildly inaccurate, conclusion that Archibald Gardner's entry contains original research needs to be documented . What issue or issues are you discussing? Your editing style of erasing footnotes and links, and then falsely making undocumented claims based on the lack of information needs to stop. Let's stop our Wiki War, and discuss issues one by one. Hopefully you have the patience and scholarship to enter into a detailed discussion. Best Regards, Milogardner

ps - I will wait for one week, and if you have not commenced an Archibald Gardner Wiki War debate, requested above, with you citing the original research that you claim has entered Archibald's entry, I continue to remove your undocumented 'conclusion' markers Again, Best Regards, Milogardner

Dear Trodel: My comments have not been threats, nor will they be in the future. Your defensive posture is odd, and none scholarly. The two sentences that require footnotes (that you cited) are clear examples of your lack of scholarship. First, the issue of gristmills often was the first business in many pioneer communities. Archibald's mills often served that civic function, from Canada, West Jordon, Spanish Fork, Wyoming adn elsewhere. Your scholarship is lacking in that you have not looked beyond your nose concerning gristmills. Gristmills were common every where in pioneering areas of North America. Archibald did not set that trend. He only assisted those communities in need of gristmills, to grind wheat into flour for bread, a necessity everywhere. Your second point on Archibald's method of building his gristmills without nails was fully detailed by an attached link, one that you (or a member of your team) destroyed. I'll put it back, if you (or others) do not destroy it, hopefully putting us get back on track! That is, as a partial apology, you may have properly wondered why the tone of my comments to you have been less that civil at times. The reason should be obvious. You, and your friends, have destroyed informational (equivalent to footnotes) links (links that were posted by others - the links were never mine in the first place). I read the links and reported their meanings, a, b, c style. There was no original research in play here! You have ignored valid links and therefore you have falsely concluded that proper footnotes were not present. Maybe you should take up a new nickname, The footnote kid! Best Regards, Milogardner

Dear Trodel, Your latest comments " Perhaps instead of threatening me you should address the concerns posted on the talk page. I posted the concerns on April 5 and without any response added the original research tags about 3 weeks later. It is the duty of anyone who adds information to provide an inline cite. My approach has been to gently suggest what needs to be done and be patient. However, I could justifiably take the article back to a stub and demanding a citation for every single addition. See [[WP:ATT], WP:NOR, etc. --Trödel 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)" have been odd, and defensive.

That is, your labeling of my reviews of Archibald's life, once adequately referenced by links (and not by footnotes - your singularly approved method), will be partially restored to footnotes - only to show to your and your committee friends that links can be the equal of any footnote! Your position that asking a set of 'dumb' or ill-informed questions, marked as needed footnotes gives you the high ground in a Wiki debate. My view is that you have never gently destroyed any bit of information, and then gently asked that a reliable footnote meeting your low scholarship standards be used as a replacement. Ooops, there goes my temper agaim. I'll take a few days off, and hopefully we both can come to our senses, respecting each other's scholarship, and the writing style that reaches and encyclopedic audience - not 6th graders as you seem to desire, but 12th graders - or higher -- Milogardner

Dear Trodel, the tone of our Wiki War has greatly improved, as noted by: "if you are such a great scholar, then I assume you are familiar with libraries and Library of Congress Classification. Utilizing those skills I expect you will be able to find reliable sources to replace text attributed to the blog posts. When you do, please be sure to include a proper reference. --Trödel 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)" Where is the Library of Congress classification system a requirement for a Wiki post? Given that there is none, I will again cite primary and secondary references. Only one primary reference is needed, citing a particular point, such as a person's attest journal, as BYU published Archibald's journal in 1944, cutting off his 32 LDS leadership years. Archibald's post-1857 journal was truncated for reasons that I'll explain off-line. However, these years exist in his personal story, written up by several of his daughters, with Archibald (in his later years) dictating his life-story mostly to one daughter. When secondary references are used, confirmation of a point must be made by at least two sources. The logic of primary and secondary sources is critical to our Wiki War. You continue to be 'the footnote kids', using off-the-wall footnotes rules. Yet, we agree on the second rule, the need for at least one confirmation of secondary sources. The second rule is the Wiki rule, so we are making progress. Best Regards, Milogardner

Question...

I just reverted some more vandalism from User:204.99.118.9 , and noticed that you had blocked them once in the past. It looks like they've vandalized 5 or 6 times since coming back... just thought I'd give you a heads up. Thanks! gdavies 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

My concern about issues of conduct

Hello, Trödel, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but after reading some of your text, I am concerned that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines might not have been properly presented to you, and that you may encounter criticism for appearing not to follow them. After you look over the documents linked above, could we discuss that concern here?

Not folowing through with Mentoring

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance whether you were aware of these documents, what is your philosophy about interacting with other editors, and what alternative approaches you might willingly adopt that would avoid raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments(Opened) from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
If you prefer not to deal with me at all, you can ask others for guidance: there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post {{helpme}} here on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your conduct is so bad as to get reported straight to administrator noticeboards or get you summarily blocked. I hope matters will never become that severe. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- Punk Boi 8 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that you have been dismissed as my mentor for inactivity. -- Punk Boi 8 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this post. I know of no dispute between us. Unfortunately, the above post is indicitive that my mentoring efforts have not been successful. One of the key things I have discussed with you is the avoidance of unnecessary confrontation; however, in the first communication from you in a few weeks you have chosen to threaten me instead of leaving a note like, "Hey Trodel I need some help can you look at this edit..." or something similar.

The mentoring plan is now waiting on you to implement the suggestions made by me and others. In other words, I am waiting to see that you have followed through on your commitment, i.e. to focus on making edits to the article space (unfortunately when I review your edits, this has not been the case). Additionally, I see no reason to pile on a bunch of new stuff (and thus risk overwelmning you). Please review the status of your mentoring plan (a snapshot of which is below). However, if you feel that my assistance has become counterproductive, I agree that you should find a substitute mentor.

Mentoring Status

I formally accept mentoring. Punk Boi 8

Next Steps

√ Formally accept mentoring

√ Discuss what happened recently

√ List of purpose/goals of mentoring

√ Create plan to accomplish those goals.

ʘ Punk Boi 8 to follow plan.

... more to come see here

--Trödel 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trodel, unfortunately Nathan has chosen to file a ludicrous RFC against you, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trodel 2. His behaviour and the attitude he has shown towards you in his last edits makes me embarrassed for him. I think we may need to reconsider whether he is exhausting the community's patience and the question of the community ban. It appears that he simply does not have the maturity to participate appropriately and productively. Sarah 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...does not have the maturity to participate...". Never truer words spoken. -- Longhair\^talk 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I thought (from a fairly neutral bystander's point of view) that I thought you did an excellent job in difficult circumstances and that the above is no credit to or reflection on your efforts. Best of luck and hope to see you round Orderinchaos78 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have aspergers syndrmome. This may be the reason behind this all. Sorry -- Punk Boi 8 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

That's no big deal. If you have anyone in mind, point them my way, but it's not my biggest concern at this point. Congrats on passing the bar (again!) Ral315 » 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on the Mountain Meadows massacre talk page

Why did you 'redact' my comments and leave the rest of the 'comments'? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left the part that was discussion changes to the article and removed your pontificating about the evilness of the participants. For an explanation of why see my prior comment. It is important in such a highly charged article that we as a group stay focused on improving the article --Trödel 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOChidden update

Hello Trödel, just to let you know that I've figured out how to cancel out the double [show]/[hide] problem. You can see this on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. See you. (→Netscott) 07:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that I agree with you about displaying the TfD message (so long as it doesn't interfere more than is necessary with the good functioning of the template, which it was when you originally placed it). I actually tried to restore the TfD message myself twice yesterday. I honestly think that given the retention rate of ~ 90% across the articles I've placed it on that there's a good base of support for it. You should know that I am happy that you submitted the template for deletion. The deletion discussion has brought up valid points and illustrated some shortcomings the template had that I was able to overcome. See you. (→Netscott) 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the margin edits which acted as a suggestion for me to edit the other areas. Those edits make the template look much much better. :-) (→Netscott) 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Howdy. I was hoping you could glance at a couple of threads related to the introduction, at Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Bad idea and Wikipedia:Bot requests#Introduction reset bot? Much thanks :) --Quiddity 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should explain, because I think I kinda seem like an anti-consensus crazy person. :) I originally went to Wikipedia talk:Introduction after seeing the intro page blank a few times, and thought the intro was kinda abandoned, hence the tone of my "unless anyone objects..." Then I saw that the actual discussion was happening on Template talk:Please leave this line alone... So, haha. Anyway, I'm not about to go nuts and revamp anything. :) - cohesion 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinbot should be taking care of the intro text now -- Tawker 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, the Epitome of a great Wikipedian

Seriously bro, stop reverting the changes to Southern Virginia University. There are references. My username was formerly Rossinicholas, and you commented on my editing. There are enough references. Please tell me where you want me to fix/clean up and I will do the best I can. No qualms, but seriously, please stop playing with the polished article. Niro87 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, I made many changes and incorporated references from the previously edited Southern Virginia University [4] article which you keep reverting back to. No worries, though. Check out the new and completely shiny article about Southern Virginia University. Also, for my own entertainment, I had a question for you. Let me know when you have an opportunity to answer it. Thanks, Niro87 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, thanks for the compliment. By the way, are you LDS? Niro87 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination of Wrp103 (Bill Pringle)

Trödel, I just wanted to invite you to vote on the admin nomination of Bill Pringle here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wrp103. COGDEN 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Introduction bot monitoring

Hi - I've replied on my talk page. Mart inp23 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namespaces

Hi Trödel, since you seem to be the major contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples, what do you think about the idea of moving temple data from Talk to Template namespace? If you could, please respond here. Jaksmata 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake Tempel and Handcart Pioneers

You removed my edits from this both pages because you think this is POV. At the same time, you push that the LDS portal should be excluded from the template. The reasons which you stated for your removal of my edits are dubious because there are links to far more friendly pages in the external links sections of this articles. Furthermore have you ever found a anti-Salt Lake Tempel website or an anti-handcart pioneer website on the net. The videos which I postet are very informative and I think that they belong to this articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel3 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ

you expressed interest about the current location of the article, if you would like to contribute to a discussion, one is going on on the talk page. McKay 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Gardner, continued

Back from a brief trip. I have placed my comments on the talk page -- and included a counter example and alternative idea for an article. MiloGardner is apparently intractable, as three of the LDS editors have now tried to rein him in. The next step might be to categorize the article with notability problems and let editors outside the LDS circle have a go at the problem. Thanks for your efforts. WBardwin 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried once again to reason with MiloGardner on a personal basis - see User talk:Milogardner. But, I have little faith (always one of my failings). Do you know another history or LDS project person that might be able to reach him?. Or would you agree that adding the questionable notability category is our next step? I would hate to put a LDS pioneer article in the headlights -- it might boil over into other pioneer articles/stubs. Sigh....... WBardwin 02:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After his oblivious response to my most recent plea -- I posted the article Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance. I'm taking Archibald off my watchlist -- Good luck to him. WBardwin 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small LDS movement groups

I was just reading some comments you gave toward the relevance of some minor organizations from the Latter Day Saint movement. I just thought that it would be important to stress how allowing these organizations (however small) to be on wikipedia gives a tremendous depth into the history and current movement created by the restoration. Yes some groups today don't even exist or have a handful of members -- but their current claims to historic events help to define how all the groups are looked at as a whole.

- For example, there are some who look at polygyny within the movement as a mark of shame, others with pride and reverence. Either way, it shapes the movement and how the world percieves it. Some might view Cutler as a madman seeking personal glory from a desheveled organization, others have and still view him as a prophet in a movement today containing only a handful of members. Is it about these few, or about the movement. Allowing these sites to exist on wikipedia gives broad perspective outside of just Utah and Nauvoo. I personally have learned that many of these organizations exist through wikipedia and my understanding of the movement has grown because of it. I feel these sites are very important and certainly don't hurt in any form. If you disagree or feel they are showing false info maybe I have been incorrect in my current studies. Either way I thought maybe a fresh voice would give some perspective.Jcg5029 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Virginia University Redirect

Hi Trödel, I noticed that when one types SVU into the WikiSearchbox, it redirects directly to Law and Order:SVU. Is there any way to revert this back to it's original directive, which was to the SVU disambiguation page? Thanks for your continued help on the SVU article.Niro87 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin duty

Hi! Talk:Battle of Croytoye This experiment by an anon looks like a speedy delete to me. Please push that mighty button! Thanks. WBardwin 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. WBardwin 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive edits I have been noticing in numerous articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Vision - time for action

I appreciate the efforts of Visorstuff to resolve the situation at First Vision. I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. No one is editing the article right now, but I believe that John Foxe's comments on the talk page demonstrate that he either cannot understand or refuses to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. I'm trying to gain a consensus on his inappropriate behavior, and I invite you, as a past contributor to this article, to add your comments to this discussion. If you think that my behavior also warrants criticism, I invite that as well. I will be posting this invitation on several other user talk pages, but with your past history on this article you might be aware of other editors who have walked away. Please feel free to let them know what is going on and invite their input at Talk:First_Vision#Time_for_action. 74s181 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Paris

Please have a look at this: [5]. ThePromenader has completely changed the article to conform to his terminology, even though the issue is still pending with admins. What do you think of this new provocation? Hardouin 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is untrue: no admin has ever intervened in or decided on any choice of terminology (and stopping an edit war is not this), nor is there anything pending about the same. The "terminology" in question is not "mine" (as purposefully erronously indicated); it is France's highest official in-govermental statistics agency that created the term - the INSEE. All this is quite clearly indicated on the article talk page, with references (to the referenced article page). You will also notice [6] that I am not the only one who repeatedly pointed this out to the same misguided contributor. Hardouin, please stop trying to manipulate those you think not knowledgable on the subject to act on your behalf; if you had reason on your side, I don't think this sort of behaviour would be neccessary. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel: You may have noticed that I as well had taken a long wikibreak, namely to let others have a go at the articles that I had been working on for some time already. You may also notice that, during this same period, most all Paris-related articles remained virtually unchanged. The low contributor level to these articles is a big part of our edit-war problem, and the general lack of knowledge in English-speaking Wikipidians only adds to the same. I can agree that most of my long-winded replies (to what I call erronous affirmations) are wasted on most, as they will have to really "get into it" to verify whether the fact I present really is the same. For those who can't do this, the only "right" and "wrong" in any debate between Hardouin and I is only our language and actions - but Wiki is not a social circle, it is an encyclopaedia. For this stupid debate to evaporate, we need more knowledgable contributors, and I have tried in the past to garner this [7], and will continue to do so in the future.

Apologies for my condescending tone, but please be reminded that this is reserved for those who I know already know the (disputed) facts and sources but choose to deny or ignore them - and this means Hardouin; some information in some Paris-based articles can only be found on Wiki. My only goal is giving Wiki readers fact in the simplest, verifiable and most straightforward way possible, but this is difficult (and exasperating!) when one would repeatedly ignore fact and reference to use any means possible to publish their own fantasies. Thus all the scuff. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at the end of my rope with Hardouin. Undiscussed and almost immidiate blanket-reverting to any change to any of "his" articles not in "his" taste (to the point of willingly crossing the WP:3RR line), his arrogant refusal to reason (or even discuss) on article talk-pages, refusal to provide valid references (even fake ones) for his claims, making fallacious complaints to admins and other contributors (even through e-mail) and, to top it off, sock-puppetry. Am I to understand that, in face of all this, ~I~ am the "tiring" one because of my... long-winded and condescending talk-page explanations? At least I take the effort to state my case, and back it up to boot! Enough already. Is there any effective way I can present this for arbitration? THEPROMENADER 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:GBH-Santiago Chile dedication.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GBH-Santiago Chile dedication.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by me --Trödel 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sq m (now replaced with {{ft2 to m2}})

Hi, Trödel! This template says to contact you if a substitution is available. I would like to replace this template with {{ft2 to m2}}, which is a bit more flexible. Please let me know if there are any good reasons to keep this template. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this new template and make sure it does everything - the last time the Sq m template was deleted some templates that used it broke with the new one. --Trödel 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDSTemple_headings

Thought you might want to know about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:LDSTemple_headings -- 70.59.240.37 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx --Trödel 03:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:LDSTemple headings

My apologies for causing a red link to appear on an article. However, in the future, a template should never just be cleared. The template has been unnecessary for almost a year (Oct. 2006 was when it was cleared) and it should have been speedy-deleted then (using {{db-blanked}}). With the sheer volume of blank pages (only some of which are templates), I do my best to make sure I'm not screwing up anything. But with over 2,500 deletions in the past week, mistakes are bound to be made. Again, my apologies for causing a red link. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]