User talk:Trödel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk page

RFA notices
Archive

Carnival Cruise Lines Edit: Can you please put it back in ship categories like every other wiki cruise line page thank you.

Suppressing the Truth[edit]

Why are you hellbent on censoring the truth. The world needs to know FIFA for what it really is. Perhaps you're a demon from hell yourself.--2600:1006:B14D:55DD:402D:624:E0B5:124E (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion regarding Seth Blatter and the FIFA Congress is much closer to yours than you might think. However, Wikipedia is not the place for it. I would suggest making constructive edits regarding the controversies generated from the expansion of revenues overseen by Blatter and Havelange; and how they have used Swiss law and the power of their positions to prevent the full Garcia report from being released. --Trödel 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Edits in question: Havelange, Blatter, and FIFA Congress --Trödel 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Edward Snowden[edit]

Hi, the content you try to add to the ES article is already added. However, always if you add something especially in such a high profile article, it requires sourcing. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As you state, that information is already in the article; the new information is a significant new development, and lede sections summarize the material in the article. Therefore it should be in the lede - I also note that references are generally omitted from the lede (you should review WP:CREATELEAD). I also agree that a lede should not be changes on a whim, the information that came out this weekend regarding the withdrawal of agents by the British government is a significant new development that should be included. Knee jerk reactions to remove because the lede has been stable, or, now, that it isn't properly sourced (which you admit is already in the article - but you omit that it is sourced) are not persuasive arguments to rebut the change - see talk. --Trödel 18:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you insist, someone will certainly add another statement about doubting that claim based on an anonymous source. There are various sources who are skeptical about this claim in reliable sources. Thus, this will eventually lead to an even bigger lede. So let's just keep it as it is now i suggest. Wikipedia is not a place to collect every single opinion, and especially so if it is very vague (anon) sourced. For instance see this article here (German) prokaryotes (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
And the source coverage you want to extend, has itself begun to retract parts of the story ... see prokaryotes (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So your objection (that it isn't sourced) is really that you don't believe the source - you knew when you reverted that it was sourced - doesn't sound neutral to me --Trödel 18:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want it read at that way, i just tried to explain to you that your addition doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and that extending the content will increase the lede. Anyway if you want to continue use article talk page. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly - you made a claim that is not true: "lacking reference reliable source" what other way am I to read that? The Sunday Times is a reliable source so you object to its content?? or what?? However, I agree that increasing the size of the lede with back and forth that has erupted since the Sunday Times article was published shouldn't be done. Therefore, the best solution would be leave out the the description of the material as "about secret mass surveillance programs" - which existed prior to my edit yesterday and just saying that classified material was leaked (as it is now). Personally, I hate this gamesmanship on Wikipedia where experienced editors try to use the rules "not a reliable source" to object to changes of people they perceive to be new or weaker - why not just make that statement to begin with "the lede should summarize and if we add this we'll need to add the counter argument". --Trödel 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to add the counter argument to the lede too? prokaryotes (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
No - see bolded text above --Trödel 18:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, well then we disagree. Let's discuss at talk page. Let's see what other editors think. prokaryotes (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Second anointing[edit]

Could use your input/experience. Tom Haws (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 PDL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmouth High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rio Grande Valley FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Monitor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not unbold teams[edit]

Please do not unbold teams eliminated from league playoffs. It's not done on league pages such as MLS, NASL, USL, EPL. It shouldn't be done for the PDL page. We need to stay consistent. It's alright to unbold on elimination tournaments like the FA Cup and the US Cup.GrouchoPython (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you wouldn't do it for normal league games, but for the elimination part of the playoffs - it makes sense to unbold the eliminated teams - since they are eliminated, just like in elmination tournaments. --Trödel 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Soccer League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jake Edwards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging of page histories[edit]

Hello, Trödel! Since today is August 1, I have implemented onto the Area (LDS Church) page and List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints those changes in area leadership and other changes that are effective today. For some strange reason, my changes to the Area page are visible, but they aren't showing up on my watchlist. Also, if you are able and willing to do so, I need your help to merge the page histories on the List of general authorities page and my subpage for this year. Thanks for taking care of this ASAP. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel! To have this change made is fantastic! I greatly appreciate your willingness to handle the change where I cannot. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome - thanks again for getting all these changes made in a timely manner. --Trödel 14:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure. I am no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia while at work, so my editing during the week will be restricted to late nights or before work as time and circumstances allow. IMHO, you did more work in merging the page histories than I ever did in making relevant changes to the list. Thanks again to you for that. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cincinnati Saints, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Major Indoor Soccer League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

FC Cincinnati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to NPSL
Rob Valentino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Orlando City

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Trödel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — --- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 17:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Trödel. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 00:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)