User talk:Trödel/Archive 6

Please put RfA comments here

Sandbox1 • Sandbox2 • Sandbox3 • TplSandbox • Discussions • Quotes • box • next

Talk page

RFA notices

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Gift of the Holy Ghost; Mormon fundamentalism; Carthage Jail; Dallin H. Oaks; Common Latter-day Saint perceptions; Ensign (magazine); Idaho Falls Idaho Temple; Zenos H. Gurley, Sr.; Perpetual Education Fund; Mormon (prophet); Liberty Jail; Bathsheba W. Smith; Times and Seasons; Celestial marriage; Mosiah; Freiberg Germany Temple; The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd; Marion G. Romney; David A. Bednar

Cleanup: Deseret; Mormon Battalion; Repentance
Merge: Porter Rockwell; Christian theological controversy; Names given to the divine
Add Sources: Zaynab bint Khuzayma; Non-denominational Christianity; Objectivist movement
Wikify: Automobiles Gonfaronnaises Sportives; Overseas Press Club; Hans Henning Atrott
Expand: Pre-existence; New Creation Church (Singapore); Antiquities of the Jews

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America: From Freedom to Fascism

Good call! Also, see my commentary on the talk page for the article. Yours, Famspear 17:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Thank you for your comments regarding User:SPUI. I admit I was a bit hot under the collar when I wrote that. However with regard to your points 2-4. I've been an eventuallist for 6 months over this guy and nothing has changed. Infact it's just gotten worse. Also at this point I have no faith in our admins as most of them consider user SPUI a "friend" and are willing to give him indefinite chances as evidence by his block log. As for stepping away, I'll do that over my dead body. That's exactly what he wants. Please see Jimbo Wales' talk page for the list of users that SPUI has driven from the project. I don't intend to become one of them willingly. JohnnyBGood 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedDate Template

Hya, saw that you were trying to enhance the LinkedDate template I put together. I'd been thinking a arbitrary date parameter would be useful; if you've given up for now, I might give it a shot, yeah? --jwanders^Talk 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I'd appreciate your thoughts here. --uriah923^(talk) 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

I completely agree that everything needs to be sourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple (Mormonism)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Reswobslc 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should review the above policies yourself. I edited you POV additions, reworded it neutrally, and properly attributed the characterization to an essay by the person whose site you cited. That is not a revert but proper editing. However, when you changed the edit back to your initial POV wording - that is a revert. --Trödel 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiholiday

Hopefully I'm back to editing normally - my wikiholiday was due to family vacations/reunions and a sudden increase in death threats that made my wife a bit uneasy. Anyway, I'm easing my way back into editing. Any articles or discussions needing my imput? -Visorstuff 22:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther GA Nom Comments

The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the rest was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. (or offering your own, for that matter) --CTSWyneken 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll stay away from the antisemitism section itself. I'm tired of the rest of the article being sidetracked by this one issue. I think that, once we're done with the rest of it, we can tackle it -- perhaps with some fresh people. What do you think of the bulk of the article? --CTSWyneken 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of geniuses

On AfD. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous members of Mensa

I think that this one should be deleted as well. :-) --Dennette 02:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's baaaaack! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreceated. --Dennette 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untraveled Road

Hi, I deleted the untravled road link because of both a discussion about it on Wikipedia talk:Spam and WP:EL which says links should not be placed in articles if they are to "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." The owner of the untravled road site had posted more than a hundred links to his site. However, the virtual tours are quite nice and if some other editor (such as you) decides to put the link back in the article, I see no problem with that. I just wanted to explain my logic for deleting the link in the first place. Brian 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

You've been censored

You might find it interesting to know that User:ThePromenader moved your last comment at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, calling it "disruptive to discussion": [1]. Apparently, the point of moving your comment was to make it less visible by appearing to be a comment to an earlier discussion. Indeed it took me some time before I realised you had left a comment. Anyway, I reverted him and replaced your comment in it's original location. This guy is ready to do everything it takes to change the title of the article it seems. I'd say check the article frequently, as things like that could happen again. Hardouin 20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Promander almost immediately reverted me to move your comment again: [2]. So for the second time I had to replace your comment in its original location. Can you believe this is happening? Hardouin 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he so insistent? Because he believes he's right of course. This guy believes he's the authority on Paris, and so whoever disagree with him is necessarily wrong, because he (Promenader) can't be wrong. You see the twisted logic? Psychologists must have a name for that behavior. I don't know if I've already mentioned that before, but you could have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (région). Promenader has been repeatedly deleting the following sentence from the introduction of the article: "Its territory corresponds for the most part to the metropolitan area of Paris." Despite being told by two users already (User:Metropolitan and I) that the sentence is perfectly fine and should stay in the introduction, he has repeatedly deleted the sentence for the same mindless literalism that you have already witnessed. You can find everybody's arguments on the talk page. In my experience over the last 10 months, it's almost impossible to have ThePromenader change his mind (he is right, you know... so why change his mind if he's right), so a third party comment would be helpful. Thanks. Hardouin 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you should have a look at this: [3]. This is too funny for words. He really believes the talk page is his, doesn't he? Hardouin 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to not hide what I did. No problem, as I've provided a link to it in another message.

Would you look at a reference you'd know exactly why I insist. It is odd that you ask this when yourself you are aiding a quite vehement push in the opposite direction - without a leg to stand on factually. The most frustrating part about the resistance is that the wrong is so screamingly obvious. Wiki is not ideals and opinions, it is fact. Come to your senses please. ThePromenader 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You two seem to be having a good time - un peu de sérieux, quand même. Trödel, again your message had nothing to do with the topic being discussed - this was a constructive conversation. If you're allergic to references, then other Wiki articles (like that you brought up this morning) would be enough to show you the wrong in this. Also, I can't say it pleases me to see the ignorance of one serve the agenda of another. Make things simple - get to fact. Please. ThePromenader 21:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your permission, I would like to put the page the way I did this morning, with the addition of our last two interjections, and this perhaps under a more appropriate title. There was a constructive dialog going on, and this upon the instigation of the very person who first resisted any reason for move. Contrary to insinuations this is not a tactic, as even if there is an agreement there will have to be a vote, as we all know that Hardouin will resist to the end as he always has. Your interjection was very hors propos, and it is only for this that I moved it. Regards, ThePromenader 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your understanding - cheers : ) ThePromenader 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île-de-France and other Paris pages

Well, I think you SHOULD frequent these pages. It’s only because the guy has been unopposed for so long that he’s so opinionated and uncompromising. Remember that Wikipedia works with majority rule. So if several people oppose him, there’s nothing he can do about it, as uncompromising as he may be. In any case, please at least check Talk:Île-de-France (région) as I’ve been begging several people to leave a comment there but so far people have been scared to get involved in another controversy it seems. It’s quite simple actually. If you agree with the sentence, then we are three people in favor of the sentence vs. only Promenader against it, so we can safely put the sentence back in the article. Hardouin 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel, you're being played for a lackey. There is no opinion, only fact. If you would like to see a quite clear display of factual falsehood and Original research, down to false references, I would only be too pleased to show you some of User:Hardouin's work. Hell, I've even been awarded for standing up to Hardouin's shenanigans. To play fair, I defy anyone to provide any example of my publishing anything still existing that isn't referenced fact. Would you believe that it was I who actually brought references to the above articles? Please, this is getting outrageously silly. ThePromenader 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you view me as someone who doesn't think for themselves doesn't change the fact that I do - and while I was going to just let that be - you vitriolic arguments make me think I should at least take a look and see what is going on --Trödel 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses for my tone - but I'm sure that when you do look, you'll see reason for my exasperation. The concept of a Paris metropolitan area in 59 BC is one of the most shining examples - good luck trying to find a reference for that one. The Paris pages have been the playground for almost two years now, and I'm sure that he's none too pleased at the idea of having to conform to the 'unoriginality' of fact.

You may think for yourself, but you certainly weren't doing the research. Even though you were participating in the discussion, without this you could not see the right or wrong of the matter even if it was fact. This was also exasperating because it removed all possibility of reason. To see you "agree" with someone who knows perfectly well the fact of the matter but authors shenanigans like the above just tops the cake. And my exasperation is not necessarily against you, but it is against the whole molehill being made into an Everest by an argument based on... nothing. It is truly difficult to see something, know something and have it proven by every reference in existence, even the Larousse in my lap, but be incapable of sharing it with Wiki because of the shenanigans of... now one. A propos, did you read my messages on Metropolitan's talk page? The exasperation is nothing about anything personal, it ends with fact. I hope you'll forgive me on this, anyway, as tonight it seems that, once again, my goat has been gotten. Regards, ThePromenader 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I of course would forgive you - if there was anything to forgive - my only comment is that the method people use to persuade is an argument for/against their postion as well as the point they are trying to make. As you know I did quite a bit of research when I first was directed to the article as a complaint by someone on WP:PAIN --Trödel 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please note that in every argument I've ever had I've been practically begging for someone to prove me wrong through reference, and have always provided ample examples the same. I have never ever expected anyone to take my word or opinion on anything. I get no kick out of my own ignorance, and it's the fact that I doubt until 100% certain that has often helped to make arguments so long, - or in some cases, to even make arguments possible. I'd like to hear that WP:PAIN story, but I think I've filled up your talk page enough for one night. Good night. ThePromenader 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Template:cite news

Thanks for your comment on the talk page - User:Josiah Rowe had though already communicated directly with me and temporarily lifted the drawbridge, allowing me to add the additional coding which I was able to satisfactory test out (see User:Davidruben/sandbox). All this done before I came back to the talk page to add description of work done, and noticed your sensible comment - I had not been aware of this formal area for template testing, so thank you :-). David Ruben ^Talk 01:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour table

Zow, I like that colour table. Is that used anywhere currently? And is the layout taken from a particular source, or self-invented?

You may be interested in Color tool (both as a reader, and editor); we're trying to think of a better ordering scheme for that list of online tools. Very non-urgent though ;) Just a passing mention.

Tangentially, --Quiddity·(talk) 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A username for me?

Probably not. I've only been reverted once (and it wasn't major - no big deal), and to be honest, being an anon is preferable for me for many reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs)

Apologies

After re-reading last night's messages this morning, I'm frankly quite embarrassed at my tone. I think what you got was the accumulated frustration of one year of wasted time over similar nonsense - for this I'm sorry. I realise that you are well-intentioned; unfortunately not all in this story are, but it will take some research for you to find out who and why. Please do this, even if only to better inform yourself - I do not want to leave you feeling as if you were manipulated my myself or anyone other. Again, apologies. User talk:ThePromenader 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

You claimed that I reposted something. But I generated that list out of my head. Please provide a link to the deletion discussion. --Nexus Seven 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue

Hey, Trödel, thanks for helping link the new Dialogue article. Stirling

Talk:Anti-Mormon

I'm still watching the conversation at Talk:Anti-Mormon. (I generally do for a few weeks after responding to an RfC.) Right now, I don't think I can helpfully contribute, given my general knowledege, and my bias declared on my user page. However, it seems like a need for outside views may be developing on the reliable source issue underway. Please let me know if you would like me to comment on that issue. GRBerry 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the kudos on the Temple List - much appreciated! I keep seeing you all over the place (are you following me? ;-) ) The Temple list, the Joseph Smith articles, Bill Gates' house, List of concert halls, List of buildings and structures in Paris... That last article is very funny to me - I had renamed 30+ articles to standardize the naming of all of the tallest building / structure lists, and renamed that article as one of the many renamings, only to follow a link from your page to discover that I did it in the midst of the huge renaming discussion / argument that's been going on there for months (though I realize that the discussion was over the whole geographic delineation of Paris - a little deja vu from the Temple list!) Bhludzin 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk

Has it been you experience that User:FeloniousMonk refuses to compromise when he disagrees with other editors or engages in cabal-like tactics? I saw you opposed his adminship. Any assistance with FM would be appreciated.--68.45.161.241 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had very little interaction with FM --Trödel 13:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US government portraits

Greetings. Back in May, you commented at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. The issue has lain dormant for over two months, and is still unresolved. I have attempted to summarize the findings of fact, in the hopes of resolving this debate. Your comments here would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Martyrs

Probably a better category anyway, seeing as how he was the only person in the mormon martyrs cat. I definitely see your point on the whole martyr vs domestic dispute thing, and will agree to disagree there. Regards. Dr U 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which article was the change to prod on?

You posted an unsigned message (without ~~~~ at the end of it) to me about my change of a csd to a prod. Which article is this? (I make mistakes, so please tell what it is and I will look agian) Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I got two posts mixed up. I listed that as prod becuase I don't see the attack on anyone. This is not different that claiming all Jews are rich, was your reason for speedy delete. How that translates to a A6 I am not seeing. (I am a new admin, so I could be missing something). —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did not see that connection myself when I saw the article, definatly baised, but this is a wiki, and the content can be changed at a moments notice to be unbiased. Personally, I would suggest a merge to the article about the church (somehow I suspect there is one). But letting the prod run its course is also a good way to go as well. Cheers!!! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point, but I don't see this as an attack on anyone... more like advertisement, could be a CSD A7 though. Again, I think I am going to err on the side of cuation and not delete as a speedy. By the looks of it the prod will stand, and that will allow the article to be deleted properly. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - wasn't trying to get you to change your approach - just wanting to explain my reasoning. Good day :) --Trödel 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Article

To tell you the truth I don't even know what the hell I did. I'm just trying to make minor edits, fix some tongue twisters, cut down the trivia (and make sure it's retained for whatever poor bastard has to turn it into prose) to even know what I'm fixing, all while beating off the vandals and getting into edit conflicts with my fellow editors. God, what a nightmare trying to protect unprotected articles. Professor Ninja 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures - "Paris area"

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please do go ahead with this if you think the idea fitting. I seem to have annoyed more than some with my insistance, but the annoyance is more with my insistance than anything fact. My own annoyance at almost a year of oppositon from the same protagonist(s) doesn't help things either. There are players and the played in this petite histoire, and perhaps an objective viewer could discern who's who. I've had more than my fill of defending, proving and complaining for sure. THEPROMENADER 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Thanks. THEPROMENADER 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Brodie and Frances Kelsey

I know I complained bitterly on that talk page - I hadn't realized you had done so much of the work single-handedly - or I would have tempered my comments some. Even though I disagree with some of the changes, I wanted to thank you for your hard work. Having worked on Frances Oldham Kelsey for some time - I know the effort that is needed. --Trödel 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. But I'd hate to take credit for that page as is. It seems no contributor has actually read Bringhurst's biography--although obviously someone took a picture of the cover. So I'll do that and afterwards hope to be ready to take on all comers.

Your Kelsey bio looks good, but I think she was basically just a lucky bureaucrat. (Explication is for some other day.) --John Foxe 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unforunately it looks that way; however, after some research (at real libraries - <ahhh, wow>) because of such claims on the internet - that Kelsey was just a meddling bureaucrat that got lucky, I've come to belive differently. I'm currently reading a book on the thalidomide controversy Dark Remedy covering its continuous use since 1964 (even after being banned in Europe and the US) for treating the ENL effects of Leprosy (and later for symptoms of tuberculosis and in the 90s, HIV), its humanitarian FDA approval, status as a black market drug, etc. She does not appear to be foot dragging bureaucrat after all, but rather the right person at the right time.

Her unique background in teratogens and the unusual (for the time) expertise she had in chemicals that pass through the placenta, combined with the fact that the animal testing reported no medical effect (except for the so called "jiggle test"), led her to make a fortunate, and conservative, decision to require the applicant to prove that the animals actually were absorbing the drug before assuming it was safe. Additionally, her relationship with a former FDA official who advocated better scientific rigor before approving drugs helped provide the support she needed to stand her ground and identify tactics allowed under the weaker law

I totally agree with you, however, that it was incredibly lucky to have things turn out the way they did. Being that she was brand new - the drug was assigned to her because everyone thought it would be an "easy one," her background, her insulation from retribution since her husband was an assistant to the Surgeon General, the delayed introduction into the US, the findings of doctors in Germany, the rumors re thalidomide after the doctor wouldn't initially name the drug that he felt caused the birth defects in his presentation, etc.

Hopefully, I'll be able to capture and make concise much of that - and make the article much better reading :)

Thalidimode is also a victim of its own history - as the inspiration for, IMHO, too much regulation of the drug approval process, it later had difficulty becoming approved despite a history of successful black market treatments because patients refused to be in a properly managed clinical study - not because of fear of the drug, but because they refused to possibly be in the group that got a plecebo - they knew from experience it worked and refused to go without it.

Anyway that is probably more than you wanted to know - but I am very much fascinated by the story and love talking about it. --Trödel 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if more animal testing had been done in the U.S., it still wouldn't have produced the results necessary to have branded thalidomide as dangerous. What Kelsey did was hold the drug off the American market for extraneous reasons--such as the fear that it might cause neuropathy--long enough for Europeans to do the tragic beta-testing on human beings. The question you need to answer is whether it can be proved that Kelsey had any concern for the reproductive safety of the drug before the European evidence started coming in. --John Foxe 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I'll just report the info. I am looking for some info contemporaneous with the application - as opposed to after it - for reasons why Kelsey marked the application as incomplete, or other things about what happened before the "truth" came out. Unfortunately, I find the whole thalidomide story so fascinating that I just keep reading about it instead of focusing on what I am trying to find :) - last night I picked up a prescription and chatted with the pharmacist for about 15 min about thalidomide - whether she could dispense it, etc. The precautions seem a little over-the-top, but understandable. How do you know so much about Kelsey? --Trödel 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once or twice a year I have occasion to mention the thalidomide case in the course of my work. All the best, --John Foxe 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BY's wives

Hey, I beg to differ about your opinion on deleting the wives of Brigham Young. I would argue that they all fit under the category, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." He is quite possibly the second best known Mormon to ever live, and the controversial fact that they were all married was probably pretty newsworthy at the time. Shamrox 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing List of Christian denominations

Thanks for that edit to List of Christian denominations restoring Mormonism to the list. I thought I had fixed that, but it looks like I somehow didn't. –Wookipedian 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your reply. Regarding your question "are you on wookipedia?" - No, I'm not - and I'm not really familiar with it. (And I think it may be spelled slightly differently.) I chose my alias name rather accidentally. I have also discovered that there is someone else with a very similar name, spelled slightly differently. I remember checking whether my name was already taken and seeing that it wasn't - so I just took it without thinking of whether there might be slightly different spellings used and whether that might cause confusion. I have been thinking of switching names for this reason, but I haven't done that yet. -Wookipedian 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]