User talk:Trödel/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:48, 9 February 2006

Talk page

RFA notices

Sandbot

Hi Trödel, you'll be happy to note that Sandbot is back up and running. Sorry for the wait. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

philosophical disc. of quantum mech

Hi, Just saw the notice you posted on the article with the very long title on quantum mechanics interpretation. I've been trying to get the gentleman who wrote the article to (1) write more clearly and (2) identify his sources so that I can see a clearer account of what he is trying to put into encyclopedia form. He has cited a French author with family name of Messiah. Messiah is an astonishingly lucid writer. But I can't convince the guy that he needs to give page numbers, not just indicate that substantiation is somewhere in a two-volume text written for physicists. So, if you could find a moment to ask specifically for the page numbers whenever authors and texts are cited then it would be a big help. Thanks. P0M 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my userpage

thank you for updating my "user wants admin" template for me, it's much appreciated :)
--AppleBoy ^Talk 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So...

you're back, if even in a small way? That's great! May I suggest Esperanza?? :) Anyways, I noticed that you voted both Support and Remit to Arbcom in Stevertigo's new RfA. I'm pretty sure that editors are considering these as two separate vote categories. At least, that's how I voted. Just to let you know... Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Great to see you're back; it seemed for a while there that the casualty rate of among LDS editors was getting rather horrific: (Tom Haws, Cool Hand Luke, yourself). Hope you fare well in resumed tenure. Alai 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - its lonely here. Welcome back. -Visorstuff 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man, welcome. It's good to see you again. Cookiecaper 21:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back again. WBardwin 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jr's infobox

I certainly sympathise with your feelings about editing in the LDS area. I'll certainly do as you suggest if I come across such issues. I must admit I've not been especially active in that area: my watchlist's getting to big to actually ever watch, and more generic fixer-up tasks have distracted me. Plus it tends to be an area that I only really make innocuous edits, and generic NPOVing suggestions in. At any rate, I hope your transition from "emotional charge" to "colour charge" works out well for you.

I've lobbed in my two cents on the infobox, on the article talk page; the only POV problem I can see with it is the LDS Church link. The aesthetics I don't feel especially strongly about, but the old one did seem a little more informative. Alai 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for comment on QM "philosophy" article

Hi,

I have managed to make some progress, I think. Since Ingham didn't like your rewrite of his introduction he made some comments that allowed me to get a little greater sense of what he is trying to say. I went back to the Messiah text and may have found the material he was basing some of his ideas on. Given that I was able to write something that at least has his mild approval. I put a point-by-point on the discussion page to the rfd to show all or most of the many things that I find incomprehensible and/or problematical with the section on measurement. That was the core of his original article, and I've been trying to get responsive answers on it since August with no great results. Maybe other people read it and think it makes perfect sense or at least they are sure of what he is talking about. I suppose I could try to change it, but I'd rather have more input from somebody else first. I'm no mind reader. Thanks for your help so far, and thanks for any further comments you may be able to make. P0M 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am still stuck on the "measurement" section that he wrote. I have received guidance from another contributor who says s/he can actually read it and even thinks it is correct. I still have received almost no responsive communications from Ingham. I would have let it go long ago, but for a while I thought that he might be saying something interesting that wasn't getting mentioned in the usual places.

I am impressed by the differences in clarity of the Wikipedia physics articles as compared to things written by Reichenbach, Bohr, Pauli, et al. Wikipedia physics articles appear to me to be written for physicists by physicists. In general, if I had a question I think I would rather go to Sears or Messiah or somebody else who can write clearly as well as do math.

I remember reading George Gamow's One, Two, Three... Infinity, which he said he wrote for his little son, and feeling totally stupid because some parts of it were incomprehensible. Looking back at the book now, I see that some parts are badly written. I don't mean to take a crack at Gamow, but only to say that a writer for the general audience, for, e.g., the high school student trying to get a clear idea of something, is wasting his/her time if he writes stuff that only his mother could understand. It reminds me of our second-trimester physics teacher, whom we unaffectionately called "Chowderhead." (It made fun of his Russian family name.) He would teach physics twice in a row, the first at 9 and the second at 10. If you were in the second class you could forget about following most of what he said because he would use the equations he had already written the first time around, he would point behind himself, not even glancing back to see what he was really pointing at, and then say something like, "And then this equation clearly shows that..." Well, he was getting paid for doing it, so I guess from his standpoint it was a worthwhile activity. But most of his students didn't find his classes worth much to them.

Back to the article... If I ever get clear on what he is trying to do I guess I could better tell whether citations are available to make it less like personal research. From what Zenz says on my talk page, he isn't really saying anything new, so I am not sure how the personal research part comes in. I tend now to regret the parts I added, parts that seemed to me at the time antithetical to what I imagined he was intending to say. Unfortunately it did nothing to clarify his ideas and only made a bad article longer. Maybe I should delete my own stuff, but that would look petty. P0M 03:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating Experiment

I'm back! What do you think of this direction? Tom Haws 06:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppets

On wiki Books you accused me of being a sock puppet, which was kind of understandable considering my very recent registration on Wiki books and my very small amount of edits. However i am not a sock puppet and the only reason I do not have many edits on Wiki Books is that i Mainly edit Wikipedia and only had cause to register on Wiki Books to vote on the VFU. I have in fact previously discussed this subject as an anon. If you want to check this my first edit to the discussion was before I realised I was not registered on Wiki Books, so it bears my IP address, I then added the tildes as my account, but the entry before it in the edit list is my IP.

Could you Please withdraw your allegation. It is understandable that you might reach the conclusion that you did but it is incorrect.Dolive21 13:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are worried about - I just asked the admins counting the votes to be more careful. If you're not a sock then what does it matter what I said. Trödel|talk 20:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate it if you could just confirm that you do not think i am sock puppet. I wrote a very big comment, which if i were sock puppet i would have put on from my main account. Dolive21 21:09, 30 November 2005

I can't confirm whether you are a sockpuppet or not - I can assume, in good faith, that you are not a sock. Unfortunately, if it was up to me to count the votes I probably wouldn't count yours: you have less than 50 edits on wikipedia and seem to be overly concerned with the sockpuppet label for someone who has only been on the wiki for a month. However, as a fellow editor I welcome you and hope you will continue to contribute to wikipedia. Trödel|talk 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jimmy Wales

Thanks for the information. I'm going to post at WP:AN/I to let some other admins know.--Sean|Black 03:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure I agree with all these - users need to treat each other respectfully - and I support faster banning of those that use personal attacks or other trolling like behavior since they can come back as a new user at any time. Trödel|talk 12:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banning can happen as fast as it does now except those new situations when a new rule/policy has to be created. But enforcement should be handled equally, and violations by favored people not be ignored. (SEWilco 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sig subpage, and JSJ on main page

I protected your former sig as per your request; I note that the list of protected pages states that "The appropriateness of doing this is disputed." but it seems reasonable in the circumstances, and given that it's now listed there as such, it's at least transparent and reversible if it comes to that. On the main page appearance: I'm glad to see it's been selected for that page, and even better that it was picked for the "optimal" date (the wheels of Raul654 turn oft slow, but true). Unfortunately (actually largely fortunately!) I'm shortly heading back to Scotland for Christmas, so I'll be online only very intermittently until the new year (via dialup and local library, if at all). I hope the rest of you are equal to the anti-vandal task! And you're right, my edit count has definitely gone into something of a lull of late. :) Alai 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of JS as Featured article

The 23rd will be as hectic for me as for anyone else. But I will be at home most of the day and will try and check on the article every couple of hours at least. Merry Christmas. WBardwin 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll monitor for a chunk of the morning for sure. Afternoon is not good leading up to the broadcast. Good luck to us all! -Visorstuff 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I would be glad to help, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have that day - my parents will probably want me to help with last-minute Christmas preparations and such. --Trevdna 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to get to the computer, and it slipped my mind anyway - sorry I couldn't help at all. --Trevdna 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made a note of response at WP:LDS to save you the trouble of a special invite. Thanks! I will be looking in. Tom Haws 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Thanks for the heads up. Deadsalmon 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was because I didn't realize I was reverting your edit at the time, only the one before! The rest of my reverts of that text have included an explanation. Some other elements of the article bother me (as I have mentioned on the talk page), but seeing as it's an FA, I wanted to give people plenty of time to respond before making any changes. The Jade Knight 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of Alexander

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popups Assisted Revert

Once you've installed Popups, when you hover over a link for a particular revision of a page, you'll get a little window. There will be an 'actions' menu (usually right next to the article title,) and 'revert' is one of the options that will come up, a few items down from the top. That will revert the article to the revision you had your pointer hovering over. It does it by opening up the version you've selected to edit, plugging in the default edit summary, and clicking the save button for you. It saves you a few clicks, anyway, and I like it. Let me know if that doesn't make sense; I'm not sure I explained it very well. -- Vary 03:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's giving you trouble. I wish I were techinical enough to be able to offer more help. Good luck with it! -- Vary 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas - statement not redundant

I disagree with your reading. "Most, though not all, Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th" is ambiguous as to whether it is saying that all Christians celebrate Christmas, or whether it saying that all Christians celebrate Christmas, but some celebrate it on a day other than December 25th. The clarification is necessary. Nandesuka 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

130.13.121.233

Whee, I sneaked in a revert, just so's not to make the day a complete FA-reverting loss. (Pesky library was closed...) I'll check back in an hour or two, if the anon's continued to blank, or has popped up under a different dynamic IP or whatever, I'll last-warning or block as appropriate. Alai 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LDS alert

Hello! As you have contributed to LDS/Mormon articles in the past, this is a friendly heads-up that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_temples_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints is currently being discussed. Any comments you have regarding the issue would be appreciated. Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 11:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the temple list. I see your changes there, and am really disappointed that the list has to be compromised by removing the LDS links and adding edits to each row just so that it's kept. However, as a note on the changes that you made - I am all right with it, but was wondering if we could take out the Announced column. I think that the data that should be shown in the list is the data that you want to compare between temples. The Dedicated column already gives you the dedication date for comparison, which is not far off from the Announcement date. I think that people can drill down into the temple article for the Announcement date. I have other columns that I want to add that I think will add a lot more value (such as architectural features), and there is not much horizontal space. Bhludzin 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbot is against profanity?

Sandbot keeps reverting my removal of "No profanity, please." from Wikipedia:Introduction. As Wikipedia is not censored for the "protection" of minors, and there is in fact nothing wrong with profanity, I am requesting that you modify Sandbot to stop doing this. In fact this sentence may give some newbies the impression that Wikipedia is in fact censored. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trödel. Welcome back. I thought to let you know about this little thing because you were the one who first had me set up the Wikipedia:Introduction to be raked a certain way. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign

I came across this redesign of the main page - and noticed that some people really like the Hebrew and Dutch main pages. Is there some reason that this type of organization isn't being considered - or has it already been considered and rejected. Thx in adv - Trödeltalk 06:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic of discussion, but there is considerable opposition to such a radical organizational change. In my opinion, it's not a good idea to push the featured content down (in favor of static navigational links). With both the current main page and the proposed draft, I can view all of the featured content without scrolling. In your example, I have to scroll to see "Did you know...", and "Helpful links" is cut off too. —David Levy 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes - what do you think now? When I first came to Wikipedia I was confused that there was no where to start that was obvious. I think having the 10 main portals icons and their categories is very useful for someone used to web browsing as opposed to searching. Trödeltalk 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better in some respects, but it seems rather cluttered and complicated. Also, the category icons/names are unevenly spaced.

I don't believe that it's appropriate to have the icons near the top. We already have the text links, and I think that it's better to put the content first. —David Levy 08:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pun

Thanks for the revert. I've been watching this action for a while - you can see my edits. Good catch. jglc | t | c 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New wheat and chaff

If I get your drift correctly, I think what you want may be Special:Newpages. Of course, I'm sure they're also looking for volunteers to keep an eye on Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people, though that's not a task I envy anyone. (Operation Let Us Not Be Sued for Libel, as I like to think of it.) That help at all? Alai 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. As I understand it (and gather from my watchlist), tagging existing bios with that category is also an on-going process, that I'm sure it's well in hand. (I think someone has a list of possible such, though I believe they're also being tagged on an ad hoc basis too.) And of course, arguing about the very existence, name, etc of that category is also on many people's current to-do list. :) Alai 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Jimbo re removing rude commentary from talk being ok

From Jimbo's talk page

Yes, I have taken to doing it to resolve external complaints. I think anyone and everyone should feel free to remove rude or potentially annoying remarks or discussions from talk pages, especially when the discussion in question is old. The history is there for anyone who needs it, but the history is not indexed by google.--Jimbo Wales 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole

I have to agree here - this seems like an attempt to provoke Neto. Trödeltalk 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Cleared as filed also attempting to provoke Netoholic? That's whose edits you reverted when you restored the fair use images to Netoholic's user page (in violation of policy) without explanation.

If you haven't already, please see my replies to Wgfinley on his his talk page and at WP:AN/I. —David Levy 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say the tag is unsupported?

You recently removed the NPOV tag from Joseph Smith, Jr. However, you may have failed to read the talk page, as the reasons are very clearly outlined there. Plus, you failed to discuss your reasons for removing it first. And I am to believe there isn't some kind of hidden agenda going on here? This is unacceptable. bcatt 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between "sympathetic" and POV. Sympathetic NPOV is saying that "this is a view of a particular person or group of persons", POV is saying "this is fact". Nearly EVERYPARAGRAPH of that article has a POV stated as fact, as I have demonstrated on the talk page...kindly read them all carefully and consider reverting to restore the npov tag. This is truly ridiculous. bcatt 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses charged language in both direction, IMHO, but overall the article presents a complex person well Trödeltalk 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ell, then the opposite charged language needs work too...that does not make it non-POV, it just makes it POV in BOTH directions, meaning it has twice as much need to be tagged with the npov template! bcatt 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where it says that an article must be "a certain amount of POV" in order to need to be tagged? bcatt 16:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall giving you permission to censor MY talk page. I consider this personal vandalism. bcatt 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:13, 8 February 2006 edit Trödel (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 21,469 edits →‎How can you say the tag is unsupported?: remove comment saying it is pointless to talk to me - if so - why post on my talk page ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:48, 9 February 2006 edit undo Bcatt (talk \| contribs) 931 edits →‎How can you say the tag is unsupported?: your vandalism of my talk page. Next edit →
Line 159:		Line 159:

	Can you show me where it says that an article must be "a certain amount of POV" in order to need to be tagged? [[User:Bcatt\|bcatt]] 16:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)		Can you show me where it says that an article must be "a certain amount of POV" in order to need to be tagged? [[User:Bcatt\|bcatt]] 16:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

			:I don't recall giving you permission to censor MY talk page. I consider this personal vandalism. [[User:Bcatt\|bcatt]] 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)