User talk:Trödel/Archive 7

I've been promoted to admin
Best advice: "Don't be stupid Roy!"

Sandbox1 • Sandbox2 • Sandbox3 • TplSandbox • Contribs • Discussions • Quotes • box • next • Signpost • next wk ITN

Talk page
RFA notices
Archive
Archive

Tallest structures mediation

Good morning. I'm 100% behind the mediation move as of this morning - actually I'd like to get the process started as soon as possible. Let's get this over with! All will become very clear very soon.

Thing is, how to proceed? As an admin, can you "sponsor" any proceedings, and are you quite familiar with the process? I'd be grateful for any help at all, but if you haven't the time I can very well read around and begin proceedings myself. I'm a bit tired of wasting all my "Wiki time" on such standoffish silliness. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 07:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry - I opened a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal case this morning - you can find it here. Notice there is no "slant" at all, as I made no mention of "who did what" at all, save in that all the proceedings (page move, vote, etc) were begun by me. Already painting myself as a 'troublemaker' : ) The rest will be for the mediator to decide. THEPROMENADER 08:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic list of temples

Hey Trödel! I added a new article that I think you might be interested in: List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region. If you feel so inclined to take over and spruce it up (e.g. I should have left the "number" of the temple in the list), I would be very appreciative! It took me a week to author the article and I am so tired of it that I don't want to see it for a long while... I guess that it also ought to be put on the LDS Project page or something - I haven't done anything like that. See you around!

Bhludzin 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re List of temples

Yes, I remember that list and it has turned out to be a very good one. I would encourage you to take it to FLC already and let other editors give their suggestions to iron it out. (My guess is that they may ask you to remove the pictures in the rows altogether, since the pics in the lead are very good). Good luck! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I said as much on my talk page. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to do the reversions on the First Vision page. --John Foxe 12:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It's O.K as it's your first time.....Normally we just add In progress or done, and then maybe a brief idea of what to include. Sugarpinet/c 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just addded to it. If you have any notes or news about the sidebar redesign we haven't added, please add it to the article. Also, can you upload the sidebar images so it looks nicer? Sugarpinet/c 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just fixed them. Sugarpinet/c 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on the Signpost, and see you next week writing In the news. Correct? Sometimes I may call it ITN. Sugarpinet/c 22:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

I have hit a road block with editor DJ Clayworth, whom I believe you have interacted with before. Could you please look at the Mormonism and Christianity article and discussion page. I have hit my limit with him. Thanks. --User:Storm Rider

I'll have to do it tomorrow - I should have been home 45 min ago. --Trödel 03:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples of CJC

That is incredibly great news about the images! I think that it's most important just to get images up there for everything, and then bit by bit I am sure that people will upload better images or you can take the time to edit them. I looked at the site and I'm totally excited. If you want to give me some to do, I'll help you out. I'm not sure about what kind of editing you're talking about though - do they have poor contrast/color or something, or is it just cropping?
Anyway, as far as the list headers - here are my thoughts: When I first looked at the headers and thought it was cool how everything in the list from a certain point onward was 'Under Construction' or 'Announced' - I still think that's great. But four issues irk me - 1) The list starts out with 'Operating', and that is inaccurate and confusing because the Kirtland temple and the old Nauvoo temple are right there. 2) The whole Notes/Style thing. I spent a while looking at it before I figured out what I think you meant by that - the columns are supposed to be combined. This whole thing is distracting and confusing to me, whenever I see the headers, it looks like an error or like a column is missing. 3) The headers are not being used consistently, sometimes you have a header for a range of years, and sometimes it is acting as a status header (i.e. Announced). 4) Removal of the status column. The status column also handles the case when a temple is closed for refurbishing for 6 months, and is not currently operating. That particular status does not lend itself to the chronological order aspect of the status headers. In summary, it's my opinion that you need to solve these four problems. If you can do it without reverting back to the status column, then that's fine, but right now I think that it's better when you had the status column and kept the status out of the headers. As far as the headers themselves, I'm fine with them, it's just the status issues that I think causes all of the problems.

Bhludzin 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy with your latest layout idea for the list of temples. One thing I tried to do with the new format was to make it easier to edit and preview. I found that when editing a section, the preview was garbled because the section was part of a much larger table, rendering the preview useless. Otherwise, unless we get a flood of opposition, I think the new format should be put into place. I also think the geographical list should also be in the same format for consistancy. What do you think about splitting up the sections into eras of temple building? Say Early Utah Temples (St George through SLC), Expansion to Remote Areas (Hawaii, Cardson, etc). Bytebear 17:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris skyscrapers (sequel)

Hi Trödel, I remember you took part in the discussion at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and I don't know if you are aware that there is now a mediation going on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris. This mediation was called for by User:ThePromenader whom you may remember. We're having a problem now because two users (ThePromenader and User:Grcampbell, aka Bob) have bypassed the mediation and unilaterally edited the La Défense article as well as about 20 La Défense skyscraper articles (such as Tour AXA, Tour Total, and so on) despite lack of consensus on the points edited. The mediator (User:GofG) doesn't answer messages anymore (gone on vacation??). The only admin who was part of the mediation, User:ALoan, whom you may also remember, tried to stop Grcampbell from making these unilateral edits ([1]), but he's now made it clear that he is fed up with the controversy and that he's giving up. Crazy situation, isn't it? A mediation with the mediator gone, and the only admin involved giving up. So I think it's time for other admins to step in.

I have already explained things clearly at User talk:ALoan#Thanks for stepping in and User talk:ALoan#Can you say something?, so I won't repeat myself here. ALoan left a note on the incident noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and other pages), but I'm not sure he will be heard. Is there anything that you can do? These articles need to return to how they stood at the start of mediation, otherwise there's no point in having a mediation. Hopefully you can help. Hardouin 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to further bother you with this, but I must comment the above. I seem to be obliged to do this for the same formatted message left on multiple admin pages...
All of the above claims are baseless - Hardouin is alone in reverting these pages that are in no mediation at all, and he is acually opposed by three contributors. For further explanation please see my reply to the same complaint on the administrator's panel here, and if you like a message I left on Guy's talk page. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation bypassed by ThePromenader again today: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Still no news from the mediator. Hardouin 12:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these articles are not in any mediation. Their present state is the result of an agreement between three contributors. Kindly stop the baseless and disruptive reverting and complaints, Hardouin. Again apologies for having to respond here. THEPROMENADER 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at anti-Mormon

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923(talk) 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

No, it looks good. Ral315 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris disputes

"Given the current discussion on the mediation that you opened, I think that making those changes in various articles could violate WP:POINT."

I'd agree with you if what I was pushing was a WP:POV, but all that is being forwarded here (by more than just a few knowledgeable now) is simple, straightforward and omni-referenced fact. The WP:POINT is in the refusal of this. Apologies if f things have become loud, but the fact being opposed is so obvious that it is puzzling to some (and frustrating to others such as myself) why corrections should not be made. This frustration I'm sure explains the page-moves before the weekend that got one contributor banned. Actually, with all due respect, things had calmed right down since - I hope your messages don't serve to stir things up again! But never mind. Also, our present mediator has let me know that he in the process of finding another one, so the debate is pretty well stalled for now. Yes all the points are in there somewhere, but for sure they must be regrouped for the new mediator.

I really wish you'd research this a bit further to see how obvious it is. Actually, if I can comment on your La Défense edit, well-intentioned as it was, this district shares no border with Paris; it in fact is separated from the same by the commune of Neuilly-sur-Seine. As "adjacent" can mean both "lying near" and "next to", this for one is certainly but a detail.

"boy it would be easier if Parisienne's (and the citizens of the appropriate sections of the Île-de-France) would just establish a Regional Municipality, for all that area ;)."

Boy, you've got that right. Then no doubt one day it will will be called "Paris" like "Greater London" is called "London" today. Until then... well, it's in the works, but people seem to take a lot of time to talk things over here ; )

Thanks for your continued participation.

THEPROMENADER 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Temple FL candidacy

Are you sure that you want to withdraw the list from WP:FLC? I was about to promote it this morning. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think the current chronological list is fine, but I won't stop you doing a geographical one. I think the best thing would be for you to bring them back to WP:FLC when you are ready. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Trödel/Archive 7, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! —Xyrael / 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) —Xyrael / 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon collaboration

I'm not sure if you participate in this or not, but I've seen you on talk pages and in edit summaries for many Mormon related pages, so I thought I'd ask, are you are interested in participating in the Mormon collaboration?

If you already do work on this, could you add yourself to the list of participants? I mainly want to keep track of who helps out with these articles so I can contact them when one of them goes up for peer review or FAC. --Lethargy 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

You reverted my edits on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as POV. I am writing to see why you felt they are POV. Please be assured they were good-faith attempts to improve the article.

First, I made an edit adjusting wording for clarity (not POV, as this section already seems NPOV to me) in the section "Restoration by Joseph Smith Jr." (diff), which was reverted as "POV". I found the original sentence very hard to understand, and was trying to clarify it. Since you did not like my edit, how should this sentence be clarified for those not familiar with the LDS priesthoods?

Second, I adjusted wording very slightly (diff) to reflect the fact that the Plan of Salvation is the Mormon belief. Not everyone accepts that the LDS belief of how Plan of Salvation does indeed "bring about the immortality and eternal life of mankind," therefore I believe this rewording improves POV. In what way do you disagree? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page here. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the way you reworded the section on the Priesthoods. It's much clearer now. Thank you! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the result was speedy keep --Trödel 02:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Check this: [7]. Not content with having the title of the Paris skyscrapers article changed through sheer harassment, User:ThePromenader has now insulted User:Metropolitan, accusing him of "sticking out a opinion-pushing bad-faith-based wear-'em-down campaign". Not only that, but he's also awarded a medal (how ridiculous) to User:Netscott, the guy who had his account blocked for a week after his bad behavior at La Défense. I find all this profoundly disgusting. Hardouin 14:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Coal

Thank you for your message on my talk page.

Yes, I was surprised to review WP:CORP and see that a company has to be used to calculate an index in order to be automatically included. I will see if I can get support to change that.

As to whether a brand-name product needs an article, I think it depends. As I noted on the AfD page - we not only have an article for an Apple-brand MP3 player, we have several! Same with models of Dell laptops and Canon cameras. Same with the Baby Gender Mentor which is a name brand for a pregnancy/gender testing kit. This last example is a great example, actually, because it is far less famous than Dell or Sony or the like. Johntex\talk 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will always be borderline cases. I agree that not every brand of pencil needs an article. Maybe there is some famous brand out there that needs one - I don't know. Fleshlight is famous enough (I think) to include. I don't think it is a slam dunk either for keeping or deletion. What is a slam dunk for me is that it survived AfD before and therefore should never be considered a candidate for speedy deletion.
I proposed the change at WP:CORP, so you may want to comment there as well. I listed NYSE specifically because I am confident about their criteria. However, I did point out that if other non-US listing companies have strict requirements then they should also warrant inclusion.
There is also a proposal there to allow articles for the Forbes 1000 or 2000, which I think is a pretty safe thing to do. Best, Johntex\talk 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Hi Trodel - I'd like to officially nominate you for adminship - and am frankly suprised you are not. So many people come to you for advice, support and conflict resolution due to your neutrality and level-headedness. Your work to get so many articles to reach featured status, your work on various templates, citation systems, fighting vandalism, involvment in various wikiprojects, involvment in wikipedian initiatives and overall committment to the process (and attendance at wikipedia conferences) demonstrate your value as a leader at wikipedia. It also appears you have more 3000 edits. What say you? Should you accept, I'll do the nomination later today or tomorrow. -Visorstuff 17:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination

Hi - You have been nominated for Adminship - please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trödel to accept.

You may also want to review Wikipedia:Guide to_requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

Thanks again for your hard work and good luck -Visorstuff 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx - will need to draft responses to the questions tonight - and notify you on your talk. --Trödel 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - don't forget you still have to post the nomination page on the RFA page - see what to do if you are nominated so that folks can vote. -Visorstuff 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Today's featured article

I wish they would just lock pages that are featured on the front page, but I suppose they want to maintain the image of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. All well, I suppose it will be a fun day when it is on the front page, since some users seem to think anything to do with Mormonism must be vandalized so everyone knowns that "Mormons are gay". --Lethargy 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see User:Raul654/protection --Trödel 01:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of pseudo-votes

This is a really bad idea. in fact, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says really clearly "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process." Thanks mate.
brenneman {L} 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman
I know that is normally the rule, and I oppose refactoring as it can obvuscate the votes. Since it had been refactored already, and I thought it was useful to group together those that wanted to overturn but were not commenting on whether the article itself should be deleted (Overturn but relist). I apologize for any extra trouble --Trödel 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
End copied section.
Bah... sometimes I'm too cranky. Scratch that, go back... often I'm too cranky. If you have not yet noticed, I'm spreading a funk at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trödel as well. It would be good if you couls explain your understanding of voting vs. consensus there, just to clear up any miscommunication. - brenneman {L} 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I wrote a quick response, and will add how I see the interplay between concensus and "voting" later --Trödel 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I responded to your note on my talk page -Visorstuff 05:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cent

Hello, I see you recently added to Cent. You did well and you logged your change; thank you. I did shorten the link to the actual page name; I favor the shortest unambiguous title for Cent display. Just dropping by to avoid any possibility of slight. Glad you're participating. Good luck with the proposal; I'll have a look at it when I can. John Reid 06:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi, I saw in your RfA, that one of things you would be interested in doing would be modification of citation templates. I'm am currently looking at standardising all user pages warnings, and messages. Please see here. I realise it's not the same templates but maybe we can look to starting a new project, wikitemplates or something like that, or a combined effort? Let me know what you think or if you are interested. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the News

The Signpost "In the News" section seems to have an error. The link titled "upset the editors" within "Stanford newspaper doesn't want to be deleted" leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tr%C3%B6del/In_the_news&action=edit . I would correct it but I'm not sure where it should go. JoshuaZ 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

There has been an explosion of talk at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if you could drop by and give some input on these issues (although there are more than one person can really handle), even if you just tell me (and others) to shut up and quit complaining, I'll give you a cookie. --Lethargy 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

orthodox views on marriage

Hi.. what kind of recferences do you request? Pictureuploader 07:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views on marriage. You added a 'fact' tag in the Orthodox section Pictureuploader 07:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

You're now an admin. I recommend being conservative with the tools, as figuring out how to de-escalate a situation is much more valuable than swinging a sledgehammer. But of course there are a lot of backlogs so as you get comfortable, dig in and help out with those. Have fun and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Trödel! Have fun with your new tools. If you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations --Blue Tie 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations -- enjoy your mop! Check out {{administrator}}, you might want to add it. =) --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

I noticed you archived the talk page of First Vision - it is not generally accepted practice to archive in the midst of an active discussion. It is best to wait until the discussion resolves so that the comments (and history) are not fragmented onto two pages. --Trödel 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My intentions were good. I just thought it was getting unwieldy to keep scrolling down the page so far. Now we have a nice clean page to work with.--John Foxe 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NP - I assumed they were, I just thought you should know, as, depending on the discussion, doing so could create additional conflict (as I've learned from sad experience :) --Trödel 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it won't be a problem with folks of our experience and maturity :)--John Foxe 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSS

Wondering if you can comment at Talk:Kirtland_Safety_Society#Unreferenced_tag -Visorstuff 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]