en User talk:Tr%C3%B6del Archive 5

Talk page

Merge proposal for {{LDS}} and {{Latter-day Saints}}

To meet your requests, I added the merge template for people to decide for themselves. Thank you for reminding me of this. Gh87 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Discussion on citing the bible

I would've preferred, I think, if discussion was kept on the page or on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible, but I'll reply here anyway.

Usually if there is a Wikipedia article on the site being linked to it should definitely be used. I don't know that the templates we use can change that much.

I have no statistics on bibref.php use. I don't administrate the web server- it is provided by my university, and the script is open source so evidently has no counter.

Biblebrowser, as I pointed out has two main problems:

A protestant POV - no authoritative Jewish translation; no deuterocanonical books
Highly cluttered. Sorry, the page is simply overkill by a long shot for the average Wikipedia user wanting to check a bible reference.

An additional problem is that it gives no licensing and so potentially their product IS copyright.

What I was suggesting was to implement essentially the same as what you suggested regarding ISBNs, but not as part of the Wikipedia source code, instead on a tools server. You're right, the advantage is that the bypass system can be made as a User Script if it's on Wikipedia. The problem is that it's harder to include and make modifications if it's internalised as a MediaWiki extension. That shouldn't be a big problem, so yes, it's probably something we should consider.

A further problem is that it's English-specific (not in terms of its sources, but in terms of the current interface) and so will need some redesign if it is to more universally be incorporated.

An issue that makes this different to that with ISBN is that there has to be a little more discretion involved in user preferences, because users may want different sources for different collections of books. For instance, I would rather the Mechon Mamre parallel Hebrew-English version of "Old Testament" books, another source for NT and possibly another for the deuterocanonical. So the user JavaScripting will have to take a different approach: indeed, the current ISBN solution is a hack.

If you wish to transfer this conversation to the page I think it should be on, you're welcome to do so.

jnothman ^talk 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now realising how Special:Booksources works- no, our PHP script would have to work differently. I'm not sure it would pass as an addition to MediaWiki, but it might pass as an external tool on Wikimedia servers. jnothman ^talk 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing {{Latter-day Saints}} for deletion

Sounds like a good plan for me. You're very considerate to ask my opinion on that matter. Hydriotaphia 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Study Wiki

Hi--Just a note to say that I support your proposed deletion of this article, but I don't think you should have marked your edit as minor. Since some people don't see minor edits, this has the effect of hiding the prodding on some watchlists, which could be thought of as trying to sneak it by. I never thought of that problem before, and I'll be adding a note on the WP:PROD page about it, so I thought I'd let you know so you don't think I'm complaining about you behind your back. Best, · rodii · 13:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtland Safety Society

Re: recent edits by Anon166 on the KSS page. He persists in placing a Brodie quotation, without context, in the article. I have reverted twice, referring him to the Brodie discussion on Joseph Smith, Jr. Archive 5, but the quotation reappears along with accusations. I moved the quote to the talk page and offered my view on steps which would allow the quote to be included. Same result. As I see you are active this evening, would you mind looking things over? I make it a policy to avoid 3RR and edit wars whenever possible, but the historian in me insists on using Brodie sparingly and with other sources. Of course, he does not agree.

Thanks for the help, and thank you for your note sometime back. Please know that I never took our brief conflict personally. Although I based my position on a personal ethical viewpoint, it appeared to me that your response was probably due more to accumulated frustration than the relatively minor issue at hand. I'm glad you came back, and I enjoy working with you. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking and for your opinion. I suspect Anon166 will continue to replace the quote, however. Brodie is such an internet favorite and is so hard to deal with. Appreciate your interest. WBardwin 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on citations

Cool, thanks Thruston 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay

Sorry I still feel it should be deleted. --Jonquière 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDSInfobox

When you shortened the infobox, you took away the borders, which looks really bad. I added them back in.Alan 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes little sense to me as to how that consensus was reached. Why are religious leaders treated differently from every other kind of subject on WP? It really looks bad from a design standpoint, and from a consistency standpoint is just unsupportable.Alan 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

Many of the references are refering to each other, see as an example this [1]. The question really becomes, who quoted who, and who in the end did the actuall fact checking. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it should be based on WP:RS, and as far as I can tell, these are just not that.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Jennings

The source for the 07/15 edit to the Ken Jennings article is personal correspondence with Ken Jennings. You can either remove your request for a citation or indicate the source as you see fit. If you wish to see the correspondence, I can forward it to you . . . although it will be without Ken's permission. I won't be updating the article any further.

Myasuda 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry -- I think my response needs some further explanation. I was intentionally oblique in referring to a "definitive source" in my edit. I could have said "first-hand information" or "personal correspondence", but I did not want give people the impression that Ken was accessible to answer questions about his biography, as I suspect he gets enough unsolicited email as it is. And if I were to edit the current article to indicate the true source, then that might be perceived as giving people a green light to contact him . . . and this is not something I want to be responsible for. I want to be quite careful about how I go about this . . . and I think it's best if I let the article stand as it is without further elaboration. You're right about citations / verifications -- they are needed in Wikipedia. The problem is that my source is not a public domain article or website. One option, however, is to request that this information be added to http://www.ken-jennings.com/ and then (if the information is addded) link it in. Thanks for understanding. -- Myasuda 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP

It is AMorrow, see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Amorrow. --

Martin Luther tag/template

I think you're right to put a POV tag on the article. However, the template belongs at the top, not the bottom, of the page. As per talk page, the instructions are suggestions and not a Wiki policy, and the encyclopedia-cite template needs to be at the top of the page for two reasons. First it is a long article, and the template is practically invisible at the bottom, secondly large segments of the article are copied verbatim from the encyclopedia, and thirdly the template was left off for some weeks inadvertently. OK, three reasons. I believe I may be out of reverts at the moment so would appreciate putting the template up top if you agree.--Mantanmoreland 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the POV template, as you revised it, tackles the problem better.--Mantanmoreland 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template should definitely be kept. Worked well in this instance, though I imagine it is a knife that can cut both ways.--Mantanmoreland 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther POV Flag

I noticed you've put up the POV flag because some of the material (the sections on Luther's 1520 Treastises, Liturgy and the sacraments) are from the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia. Please drop by the talk page and share with us why this is POV. Are you saying that it is not a neutral source? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please put the Schaff-Herzog template back into the article. I was accused of plagiarism because someone else removed it before. So, you can kind of understand why I just might be a little touchy on the subject. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have not provided responses to the questions we have asked you, nor have you provided any rationale as to why you believe that using a source that Wiki recognizes as valid and legitimate constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV, the tag does not belong on the page and I have removed it.Ptmccain 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Schaff-Herzog

Hi, I just wanted to make sure you saw these remarks I put on the Martin Luther talk page, in response to your POV tag on the article for using the SH Encyclopedia. Thanks. Ptmccain 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the use of an encyclopedia recognized as a legitimate source by Wikipedia [2]constitute a POV when used in an article? And does its use provide a legitimate reason for the POV tag to be placed on the article? If so, shouldn't Wikipedia remove this as a recognized source on the encyclopedia page? I do not believe that using a standard reference work like SH in an article on a famous religous figure means that the entire article is somehow guilty of a POV. I believe that the user who placed the tag, should remove it. I welcome his response and explanation as to why he believes the use of the POV tag because SH is used is appropriate. Thanks.Ptmccain 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who has repeatedly asserted that the Martin Luther page quotes verbatim, extensively, from the SH article has been asked to provide evidence to support that claim, but has so far not done that. Would it be helpful for the editor who continues to make that assertion to provide concrete evidence for us to examine? And...if there are extensive verbatim quotes, they are easily sourced from SH which is available on-line. I do not view this as any sort of significant problem. Ptmccain 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, an entire section was copied word-for-word from the encyclopedia, as emerged from a cursory examination of the source material.[3]. The editor who put the material there confirmed that two other significant sections were copied. Thus the NPOV template is certainly correct pending rectification of that problem.--Mantanmoreland 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a public domain resource that is recognized as a valid and legitimate source by Wikipedia is no "problem." The tag makes absolutely no sense at all, since the SH Encyclopedia is a source that Wikipedia recognizes as a legitimate one. Ptmccain 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary POV tags in Martin Luther

Yes, I think it will suffice as a compromise, assuming there are no further reverts. I still feel that the tag you placed there originally describes the problem better. The "problem" being recognized by the editors who have decried the lionizing content of the article, to which the verbatim quotes from that encyclopedia contributes.

However, I think use of sectional tags as well is overkill.--Mantanmoreland 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trudy, thing is that the POV of the entire article is disputed, not just separate individual sections. That has been a running course of commentary noted many times by at least four experienced editors. Obviously you couldn't have noticed this as that is peppered in comments spread out over a zillion pages on the talk pages. From time to time the POV tag is added, but then it gets removed.--Mantanmoreland 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the POV tag is of course everyone's right to do, but Wiki guidelines make it clear that the person placing the tag needs to explain why, precisely, he believes the tag is appropriate. I believe the decision to remove the POV-Because tag was a very good decision. Using a Wiki-recognized source does not constitute a POV issue. Further, claims that the quotes from it are POV are simply incorrect, as facts easily demonstrate. Repeating the accusation does not make it any more true. Thanks Troedel for removing that tag. Would you please now explain the page tag and why you feel it is appropriate? An explanation would not be, "Because people have said it is POV" but rather documented, specific examples of what you believe are POV statements in the article, that are in line with the guidelines provided on WP:NPOV I didn't understand this myself for sometime, but then read the WP:NPOV page carefully. Interesting reading and informative. Thanks.Ptmccain 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troedel, I can understand what you are saying. I believe however that the WP:NPOV policy indicates that when you post a POV tag you are to, at the same time, provide the specific reasons for doing so. I've learned a lot in this regard. That is, you are to give very specific reasons, and examples, of where you believe statements in the article are in violation of NPOV, otherwise you really shouldn't use the POV tag. And, if you haven't noticed, given the rather, let us say, "energetic" level of participation on the Luther pages, putting a tag up without properly and specifically giving reasons for doing so is likely to add to the "energy" leavel on the page. So, based on what you have said, I would respectfully suggest you take the POV tag down until you are ready to put it up again with a thorough explanation. The whole SH thing began when SV posted a section on the talk page called "plagiarism" and thereby created a rather hostile environment on the issue, with other editors chiming in accusing fellow editors of "plagiarism" when, in fact, it was a simple matter of the source tag being removed accidentally by one editor some time ago. I completely concur that we should cite references as much as we casn, and you'll note my edits today have done that. The accusation that large chunks of the encyclopedia were simply brought in wholescale, verbatim, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. That issue really was more about edit warring than substance though. So, getting back to the POV tag, if you check WP:NPOV carefully and read up on what is expected when using the tag you will see that you really have not used it appropriately at this point. Respectfully, Ptmccain 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Small Thing

OK, I did mean it as a pun! 8-) We discussed font size in the references at Martin Luther a few months ago. Those of us who were around at the time preferred the larger font size of references. The small size is very hard to read and there was a strong feeling it should remain large. Is there any reason beyond a style suggestion that we should make it small. It is hard on my eyes, at any rate. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I second what CTS has asked for. Kindly revert your formatting change. This has been talked through several times previously and the general consensus is that the smaller size makes it difficult to read. Thanks. Ptmccain 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the help with this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.Ptmccain 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on your use of tags on the Luther page

You posted this comment on the Luther page, in response to a question I asked, and I have replied, so I wanted to make sure you got this.

The sections that are being discussed that some editors claim have neutrality problems seem obvious to me from reading the page but here are the ones I see:

Luther and Anti-semetism
Widening breach - needs proper sourcing of the SH encyclopedia where necessary to identify the possible POV of the editors (which I don't yet know enough to draw any conclusions yet about SH's neutrality)
Liturgy and Church government - needs proper sourcing of the SH encyclopedia
Eucharistic views and controversies - needs proper sourcing of the SH encyclopedia

--Trödel 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm obviously being unclear, but may I please ask you to state specifically what it is in those sections that you regard as POV? What specific words, phrases, statements, etc. that you believe presently are in violation of WP:NPOV? That's what I mean by specific examples. What "some editors" claim is beside the point, for if you check those "claims" they are merely, in most cases, nothing more than emotionally charged outbursts, not reasoned responses. They are generally made with zero evidence to back up the assertions. And repeating an assertion doesn't mean it is true. Please do not insert tags on the article without carefully and specifically citing the precise words and phrases, offering quotes from the article, which you regard as POV and why you regard them so. Hope this helps you understand the point I'm trying to make. Thanks. Further, I'm a bit puzzled why you would label, for instance "Eucharistic views and controversies" as needing "proper sourcing from the SH" when in fact virtually every sentence in that section is footnoted to the SH. Can you help me understand your point here? Why exactly are you asking for citations when there are already citations? Thanks.Ptmccain 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Thank you very much for warning me about the attack on this article by some anonymous person who was obviously motivated by bigotry. Das Baz 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million

For your help on my user page!! --Qho 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the {{cite book}} section I found confusing

A) This is a good job! Now repeat this inside a no-include block on the template page itself, and you'll help a lot of others! See {{commonscat4}} to see some of the documentation style I advocate from long years of experience. That's only a seven line template counting down to the 'noinclude' block.

All fields must be lowercase. Copy a blank version to use:

Full version (copy and paste text below and delete parameters you don't need)
{{cite book \|last= \|first= \|authorlink= \|coauthors= \|editor= \|others= \|title= \|origdate= \|origyear= \|origmonth= \|url= \|format= \|accessdate= \|accessyear= \|accessmonth= \|edition= \|date= \|year= \|month= \|publisher= \|location= \|language= \|id= \|doi = \|pages= \|chapter= \|chapterurl= \|quote = }}

B) ...and alas, your edit didn't touch it at all. Is this last meaning 'last name'?, 'Prerequisites means what? In sum, If this column had the template field names repeated within it, such notes would be much clearer. I got it to work okay, by trial and error. Might I suggest these keywords with a #-link to a below section explaining such would be a nice touch, at least for more complicated concepts like 'prerequisites'. Even I can figureout what 'no wikilinks' means <g>, though I had some iteresting outcomes the first time I applied the bugger some weeks back! Thanks for the attempt. I'd delete the below 'graphic excerpt' after reading! <g> Bad enough I saddled your page with the nice shortform documentation you came up with! Best regards! // FrankB 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<SNIP, SNIP>

Template usage

CBDunkerson has told me it's devolved to no clear consensus and so is up to the individual template creator, as much as anything. Some people must have remarkably good memories to oppose such commonsense! I don't follow template talk, so don't have and idea on the politics of it all, but both fashions seem to be around. I don't have anything more than that and life's experience to go by. Such leaves the talks for talking about the template, changes, and applications, which seems much more logical. Not making someone click to yet another page to get information. Shrug. 'If I were the Emperor of the Universe I'd ...' <g> Thanks // FrankB 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Pleasure, save for the edit conflict! <g> You're responsiveness is appreciated. Looks like yet another template category to explore. // FrankB 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to contribute to any foreign language wikipedias? I need someone to test something dealing with interwiki category linking and interwiki's in the data base. See the uses of 'commonscat4' via it's long winded category. Need one such tried across on another wiki to settle what is needed technically. A new challenge! <g> // FrankB 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works and Ordinances

Trödel, I see a difference between works and ordinances. There are required ordinances within the church, but every person who has ever lived will be given an opportunity to receive those ordinances. With that understanding I see little need to emphsize their importance. I think another area that seldom get attention is the need for mankind to seek God. Once we learn truth we become "liable" or responsible to live that truth. If we reject it, knowing that it is true, we work to our own detriment. This is the principle I think you are emphasizing when speaking about the need for ordinances; however, this would need some further study for references from genearl authorities. Our focus on missionary work is a relection of our obedience to preach the Gospel unto the world, which is really warning our neighbor, teaching truth. Once doing so the responsiblity is transferred to them for their actions. Am I making any sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're ON!

Great news. You'll need an account on fr:wikipedia and the commons. Won't take you more than say 20-60 minutes. The first thing to do is transfer {{commonscat1Ra}} and translate it (port it's analog onto the French wikipedia).

and note the interwiki links. Bouncing back and forth should let pick your target test category. The '1' series like I'm asking you to test is not equalized, only matches by function or exact name. What you do with cats on the French wikipedia is comment them or let them be redlinks, I believe. As local admin categories, they should have no effects.

Then check (update to) your translated name against the interwiki list in {{Commonscat1Ra}} and cross-index the french version similarly. (None of those listed interwiki's are corrected yet. I just stubbed them in, so to speak based on {{commonscat}}. You'll want to see: WikiPcat1 (commons linked) as well, those (WikiPcat... etc.)

In a nutshell

The question is whether they can be made to chris-cross from the commons to the equivilent language wiki commons pages (article pages too; some of the other templates assume both category and article are named the same, so I'm avoiding that subclass for now. '1Ra' needs renamed on en.wp, but it allows fully specified names.) as these do now when specified.

Note: The article 'here', on en.wp, must have interwiki's at the bottom, and also the commons category (and/or en.wikipedia—exactly what the database can patch up if a translation is in one english category page or the other is part II (or later) of what needs established.

Does the french wiki need an en:History of the United States interwiki at the bottom? What needs to be where for interconnection is the experiment goal and need. 'We may need to find out whether suchlike '[[en:History of the United States]]' is needed on the article proper, but I misdoubt that!

My main concern now is whether we can specify the link in English, and have the system software automatically filter to find the correct French pages when you are logged in on same and successfully navigate to and from the commons and the French category pages you tag. Ditto French articles. I presume no trouble coming from the French page to the commons, but what do I know!?? Just an educated guesstimate of how I think the interwiki's work in the system databases.

Why?

The current sisterwiki project is spending man-power like it was free, and I think this will work for the wikipedias. The occasional book, source, quote, etc. link can then be refined. (i.e. tagging commons pages with translation interwiki's in the sisterwiki templates is very man-power intensive! My hypothesis is this will work now or or with a small nudge to system software.)

Miscellany... you may stumble across other templates needs. See: Category:Wikipedia navigation templates for oddball but useful newcomers like 'indent', 'space', 'w2' and 'w2c', and 'cat see also' which display identically on the commons and herein... greatly facilitating transfering annotations from the commons to one of our cats or vice versa.

Thanks! Hope you get the gist! // FrankB 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, your last! <BSEG> // FrankB 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallests structures in... aaaaaaaaaargh.

Trödel,

I neglected to mention that I had another alternative - "Paris region" - that would fulfil absolutely all sides of fact and argument - you came into the song during the "just not just 'Paris'" refrain. I left you one last message to this end. Would you support a move to a very Paris and very English-understandable "Paris region"?

It also muddles things that you left a vote opposing any other solution at all... anyhow, cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. In re-reading a few arguments in the talk page, I see that "Paris urban area" had some support as well - for this article this is actually more accurate than above but equally English-understandable. "Paris agglomeration" today has exactly the same meaning as "Paris urban area" which makes yet another accuracy/argument-covering possibility. Thanks for your consideration. THEPROMENADER 08:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to leave a final word on this? I would like to send much of that talk page to the archives as I'll be opening a "History and Geography" RfC soon - this should get some knowledgable input to confirm what (is/can be) called whatever, but your vote and opinon will of course count too. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Qho

Hi, I don't believe in either bending over backwards for new users nor in being rude to them. I'm certainly not among those who thank people for vandalism like some really silly templates do :) In short, I think the way I deal with users, new or otherwise, is fair and the best way to handle things. Take care. --Improv 05:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly suggestion...

...to be careful to not get too heated in the discussion at Talk:Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I agree that Reyna sounded pretty aggressive, but I don't think he necessarily meant to come off with the accusatory tone towards you that it ended up taking. At the same time, I can understand his frustration; I was surprised to the merge notices removed as well, since they're placed to draw other editors into a discussion that they may otherwise have been unaware of. It can be difficult to get as much participation as we really need in the LDS articles as it is... just look at the AfD, where hardly anyone from the LDS WikiProject participated.

Anyway, just wanted to drop a note. I'd be disappointed to see the discussion become bitter, especially given how acromonious some of the talk pages of the other LDS articles are lately. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't think you were crossing the line, but since I've collaborated with you before, I was just concerned for a fellow LDS Project editor. I sympathize with your position entirely. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the Caste article

The copyedits were fine. But there was a highly biased POV section insulting to high caste Hindus. I see that you are a christian, so are partisan in this matter. I am a (almost) Dalit myself so I fully understand the situation and have balanced the edit to include both the Dalit (Christian) point of view as well as the Upper Caste one. Bear in mind that the edits I corrected were made by a user named Yeditor who has been blocked by admin for 12 hrs for vandalism and personal attacks. NamaskaarNetaji 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you thought I was insulting you then I apologize. I was just making an observation. I have seen a lot of bigotry and hatred on wikipedia message boards and talk pages and tend to be a little reactionary. I assure you that a lot of information on wikipedia regarding caste is unreliable on account of it being edited by partisan editors. Caste system is a social evil that all affects all of India, not just Hindus. Muslims and Christians also have castes in India, as do Sikhs. People with vested interests (*cough Christian Missionaries *cough) are trying to blame it all on the Hindus, and I'm trying to correct that, that's all. Good luck with your search for knowledge.Caste is less of a big deal in urban areas and more serious of a problem in rural areas as a general rule.Netaji 03:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon collaboration selection

Your nomination has been selected for the August 2006 Mormon collaboration: Mormon handcart pioneers. I look forward to working with you to improve the article. --uriah923^(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fame at last...

Hee! No I hadn't, thanks for letting me know. Not exactly my proudest moment at AfD (slam-dunk keep, to deploy a somewhat USian metaphor), though as I recall there was a lot of silliness related to this at the '"I Was There" Wiki Memoir Project' that made me suspicious of the entry, given that that'd been rather firmly deleted, so Marsh's version of this is a little selective. Interesting article, too. Alai 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fannie Alger

Please explain your revert. Your edit summary mentioned only two things which could have easily been fixed without wiping out everything else.--ErinHowarth 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see page history --Trödel 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Thanks for the link to the page explaining how to use footnotes. As a history student in college we were taught to use Harvard citations, but those have been a bit tricky to keep consistent on pages with many contributors.--ErinHowarth 07:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patent

Please could you comment on the external link you removed in patent. The discussion is here: Talk:Patent#Inventor_Basics_Web_Site. Thank you. --Edcolins 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Putnam

I would suggest when Lacatosias is editing that you just let him edit. If you cause an edit conflict the extra work for him to merge edits can be very frustrating. Gimmetrow 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Trödel/Archive 5