en User talk:Tr%C3%B6del Archive 12

Talk page

Scotland and England stuff

Hey, sorry it took me a while to respond; I didn't notice your message right away since someone else had just left me a message on the same issue. Anyway, I personally don't know a lot about the Scotland/England political climate and all that, but this particular user (and his various socks) has for a long time been going around changing flags and making extremely pro-Scotland edits to articles (even to the extent of adding the names of non-Scottish celebrities to lists of Scottish people or people of Scottish ancestry), and the community consensus seems to be to revert these edits of his immediately. I don't know the WP rules on flags and on national sovereignty, but I just revert the Scotland stuff of his when I see it. Most of his edits are to articles about cities that are sister cities of Glasgow and other Scottish places... I happen to be involved in the Montpellier and Wuhan articles, so when I see him editing one of them I just go see his contributions and revert the rest of his edits as well.

Anyway, I'm not an expert in this issue, but This flag once was red seems to have been dealing with this user for a long time, and might have more specific information for you. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:LDSInfobox

Template:LDSInfobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent image edits

Hello. I noticed you recently undid 2 edits I made to images. This reversion I can understand. The license states the uploader is the copyright holder. But this I don't agree with. The image may indeed public domain, but all images should have sources. I have reverted your edit.--Rockfang (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Criteria for Speedy Deletion I4 deletable images are: "Images in category "Images with unknown source" ... that have been in the category for more than seven days, and which still lack the necessary information, regardless of when uploaded."--Rockfang (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template math incorrect

It seems the template that you created is returning an incorrect number in the % column. (usually 1.000 even when there are wins and losses) I looked at your coding, but I couldn't figure it out. Please fix the math used or delete the column from the table, as it is currently providing incorrect information. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example where they are still messed up. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. I tried purging, but no luck. :( Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; It appears that there were no losses listed. I'll go through and fix it. Sorry for troubling you mate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember The Format

I know that you are an contributor to the 2008-09 NCAA football bowl games section, but I had to fix the article to relect the proper way North American sports are handled. As in Current Events/Sports, when North American sports scores are listed (save for soccer, aka association football), the winning team always goes first, not the home team or the visiting team. I corrected the format on the Valero Alamo Bowl game or you in the table therein. NoseNuggets (talk) 8:00 AM US EST Dec 30 2008.

User:Punk Boi 8

Unless it has been done already, please delete that page per those emails we have sent back and forth. -- Punk Boi 8 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete --Trödel 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Morning Star Award
		For your unparalleled efforts to improve some important articles. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for all the hard work you do on Mormonism-related content! --Eustress (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Coyote poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Coyote poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person claiming to have worked on the film uploaded a high resolution version here File:Coyote Dvdcover.jpg - I would suggest holding off on any orphan decision pending that poster sending the proper permission to the OTRS system. It should be used here Coyote (2007 film) if that picture fails to receive proper permission --Trödel 12:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission was sent so I deleted the image --Trödel 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox / ambox

You wrote a message over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Infobox / ambox. We have follow up questions. Could you please come there and answer?

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I forgot to add it to my watch list. --Trödel 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to inform you that we have now applied the fix. So it is time for you to bypass your browser cache if you don't already see the improvement.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing discussion

I see you edit a lot on LDS topics; so do I. You might find the most recent comment section at Talk:Allan F. Packer amusing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I have conducted a review of this article as part of the GA sweeps process. There are some issues which need addressing, which can be found at Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/GA1. The article is on hold for seven days, so that these concerns may be addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temples under construction

LDS-SPA1000

Hello, Trödel. Follow this conversation at LDS-SPA1000 02:23, 25 July 2009

GA reassessment of Frances Oldham Kelsey

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as you are a major contributor to the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Oldham Kelsey GAR notification

I have noticed that you are the main editor for Frances Oldham Kelsey, which was just nomintated for delisting via the individual WP:GAR process.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Missionaries

Hi! Still an administrator? I would like to request a review of an image under dispute. See [File:Two mormon missionaires.jpg] This image has been repeatedly placed by anon editors in Missionary (LDS Church). Please see the talk page. It's obvious to me that these young men are not Mormon missionaries -- normal Sunday dress for LDS males above the age of 12, a plaid shirt, haircuts would not pass inspection, and no mandatory Mission name tags. These young men appear to be about 16 years of age, probably priests, and this pic could have been taken in a variety of contexts. This image could be renamed, perhaps as 'Young Men - LDS Church', if not considered for deletion. Please note that the submitter of the image is one of the "voters" on the talk page. Could it be that these young men just want their pic in Wikipedia? Hope things are well for you. WBardwin (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings - District 9

I'm looking for ratings. Isn't that kind of basic information that could be included? Am I missing it somewhere? Tom Haws (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom - good to see you again - and glad your edit is on one of the few articles I'm watching.:) The R rating is deserved - for language and violence - but the movie is excellent! I'd recommend it. --Trödel 21:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's good to see you. What a coincidence. I guess I just happened by. I still don't see any ratings info in the article Why doesn't the movie box have ratings? Tom Haws (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Wikipedia political correctness - we can't have ratings on the US because it would be too hard to include them for all the English speaking countries - which we'd have to do to be NPOV (whatever). Whereas, German Wikipedia, has ratings for Germany despite that German is a primary language in many other countries. One of those battles you just don't participate in and ignore. --Trödel 20:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mock documentary

Mock documentary is the correct link in the lead of District 9, not documentary. Could you explain why you keep changing it? Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it once - and explained in my edit summary - it is not satire, it is not comical, it does not "mock". Please also verify your information as I did not link it to documentary but to docufiction --Trödel 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mock documentary does not mean that the film is satire or comical, and the term "mock" is commonly used to mean "imitation", and that's precisely how it used here. "Docufiction" is a neologism that was apparently just invented and is in limited use. The most common term in regards to this film is "mock documentary" not "docufiction". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed about 15 reviews by "top critics" as identified by Rotten Tomatoes - none refer to the film as a mock documentary - several refer to it as a faux-documentary[1][2][3][4], two as a psuedo documentary[5][6] and several as a documentary style[7][8][9]. About 1/3 don't have the text "docu" in the review at all. It seems pretty clear to me that if we are going to describe it as docu anything it should be faux-documentary or style of documentary - as no major review that I spot checked referred to it as a mock documentary (granted I randomly spot checked only about 15). --Trödel 03:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, a "faux documentary" is a common synonym for a "mock documentary", and the term "mock documentary" has been in use by film critics for a long time. It is the established term. Now, I can easily prove that the correct term for District 9 is a mock documentary, but I'm curious what your criteria for acceptance is in this case. In other words, what kind of evidence will you accept? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no special criteria - just verifiable reliable sources. I note that the mockumentary is completely unsourced, and the first external link goes to a Webster's dictionary definition that is different that the definition above. Webster's claims a mockumentary is "a facetious or satirical work (as a film) presented in the style of a documentary" - District 9 is neither facetious nor satirical. However faux documentary is clear in its meaning without having the satirical or facetious undertones the term mock has. It also has the benefit of having been used by verifiable reliable sources in describing the film. --Trödel 17:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, there are dozens of verifiable, reliable sources describing District 9 as a mock documentary. And, you keep talking about the poor state of the mockumentary article on Wikipedia which has been changed beyond recognition by many editors and anon IPs. Have you taken a moment to look at older versions of the page? It clearly describes the "mock" and "false" (faux) documentary in the appropriate context. You might also take a moment to look through Google books to see how and why the terms "mock" and "faux" documentary are exactly the same. I'm still not clear on what your criteria is for accepting this, because I can easily provide the sources. I'm just surprised that after doing some research, you continue to ignore them. So, I can sit here and give you link after link to published sources on the subject, but you aren't giving me any guarantees that you will accept them. Film critics and historians have used the term "mock documentary" (same, exact term as "faux") for many years, and the literature on this extensive. If you had looked at Google books, you would have noticed that this topic (deciding on the terms) has been discussed before. Roscoe and Hight talk about it in Faking it: Mock-Documentary and the Subversion of Factuality (2001), and out of all of the terms on the subject, they explain why "mock-documentary" is the most appropriate term to use. The book is widely used as a textbook in documentary film studies.one example And we really see this reflected in the film literature. I see you have now added faux-documentary to the article, still not understanding that this is the accepted synonym for mock documentary. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If other sources can be easily provided, I suggest you change the article with those sources and see if consensus agrees with that approach. And if you view them as synonyms then aren't we done - I mean one can use Big or Large to describe something - both are valid, and if the Reliable Sources use Large instead of Big - then we just use Large.... --Trödel 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mock linguistics

It is the 'mimic' usage that is implied in mock documentary or mockumentary. See Mock turtle soup. Mockumentary is just exactly the sort of linguistic travesty that the US likes to perpetrate, as I, who am stuck there, know all too well, but the rest of the world is stuck with it on WP too, barring a large number of non-US editors at that talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reference referring to District 9 please provide it - I understand the other uses of the term - I was on the Mock Trial team - but you can't escape the connotations of Mock regardless of pointing to other use. If there are no references then there is no more reason to discuss. --Trödel 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Comparison of temples page

I have nominated Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Can you give a source for either the author or the url source for this old image on WikiCommons: [10] It has no source at all. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was emailed to me directly from the artist - I have forwarded the email granting cc-by-sa permission to commons permissions email. I don't know who marked it as being from flickr, as far as I know it was not posted to flickr before I posted to commons. --Trödel 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you note

Thank you for sending the permission for that nice image to be OTRS'ed on Commons. Admin MBisanz has now verified it and added an OTRS ticket to it. I had asked for his help here It is unique, but good, that you maintain E-mail records for almost 3 years. Wish I was as diligent as you. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple (LDS Church) merge proposal

As you where the editor who split off Temple (LDS Church) from Temple (Latter Day Saints), I though you would like to weigh in at Talk:Temple (LDS Church)#Merger proposal. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LegalZoom

The article LegalZoom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet notability requirements.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses @ 03:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the {{prod}} and deleted the advertising additions made since I last visited the article. --Trödel 14:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better now! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename request

Would you be willing to rename the poorly named Sea Trek (Mormon project) article to Sea Trek 2001, which was the actual name of the project? A redirect to that new name from Sea Trek Foundation might also be of use. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Orthodox leadership

Template:Infobox Orthodox leadership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you for your help in fixing the recent problems with my update of the article List of area seventies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The errors you fixed I had entirely overlooked. I will be posting an expression of gratitude on the article itself, but wanted to thank you personally. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you in return. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page for the response to your comment. Please also note that I have asked for your help with a future WP project, and to weigh in on a matter currently under discussion. Thanks in advance for your continued assistance. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you a WP e-mail as per your instructions.

Hey, just dropping a line to let you know that I sent you a WP e-mail as per your instructions regarding the merging of the general authority pages. I was instructed by the WP e-mail system that it would be a good idea to post a note on your talk page about it so you'd be looking for it. Hope all is well with you. Thanks for taking care of this! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You tube is not a reliable source"

You made the preceding statement in an edit summary earlier today; why would you think that ? On its face, it's simply not true; the apparent danger with Youtube is fear of copyright violations. Blanket statements like the one you made just add to the confusion here at WP. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? there are more problems with Youtube than fear of copyright violations. This has been discussed for some time see: Given that You Tube is not a reliable source, most of the stuff on you-tube does not qualify as a reliable source, YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. I can see it being used as a primary source if authenticated, but not as support for the type of statement I removed. --Trödel 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources". Cheers. So it can be used as a source ? That's not what your edit summary said. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide if it is comforting or annoying to know that over the years you still haven't changed your rhetoric style. (and neither link you provided works) --Trödel 17:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDSproject

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. This invitation is being extended because you have previously edited this template, which indicates you may have some level of interest in it. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

File:Emmelinebwells.jpg

I saw that you closed the PUF for this image and thought you should be aware that the fact that an image was taken prior to 1923 does not mean that it was published prior to 1923, which makes a difference. See WP:PD#Publication and WP:PD#Unpublished works. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to withdraw a nomination for deletion?

My nomination for the stained glass window needs to be withdrawn. After researching as much as I could i found the wiki policy and it clearly states that Stained glass does have some 3 dimensional property but as long as the original work is in the public domain the image is considered a faithful reproduction and falls within that definition for their purposes!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I needed to make that withdrawl at commons. They may be a little busy so i simply removed the tag on the image, aded a withdrawl tag on the discussion and the nomination page and now i will also contact the uploader.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Trödel/Archive 12