User talk:Trollderella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Doc award this for making me laugh with this comment [1]27/10/05.

Welcome to my talk page - old talk is here - User talk:Trollderella/archive1, 2

[edit] When you're right, you're right.

This gave me a good laugh. Everyone needs to be kept honest sometimes, eh? And while I'm here, I'm pretty happy about how the Template:suicide turned out, what do you think?
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

I admire your well-reasoned arguments, but you're never going to convince people that deletion for lack of notability runs contrary to the deletion policy. However, I agree with some of what you say, and I'm starting to think I don't much like the concept of "notability" either, so I just think in terms of verifiability. I think a lot of people mean "not verifiable" when they say "not notable", whether they realize it or not. Or, even if they don't, it's often useful to pretend they do.

Of course, even if folks agree to think in terms of verifiability, there's still plenty of room for disagreement. Many editors think that personal websites count as reliable sources; I happen to disagree (usually). Even with traditional media, how much coverage is enough? The local star football player in high school will be mentioned in the local papers, but few editors would say he should have an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852, the Second Circuit held that Stern could copyright the images and sounds in the game, not just the source code that produced them.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris

Hello Trollderella. Please be aware that an RFC has been established for the purpose of resolving incivility issues between Harris and other members of Wikipedia, many of which are AFD-related. An argument is being made that responding to someone who requests civility during discussion by telling them to "fuck off" is permittable, so I wanted to bring this matter to your attention in case you would like to comment. Thanks, Silensor 18:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trollaxor

Hi. I just want to clarify my reasoning on this DRV debate.

• These are not votes, they are discussions. Thus, the status of the person making an argument should have no bearing on the way that argument is recieved. I think that we agree on that much.
• The bit that I'm apparently not making myself clear on is that any person who fails to make an arguement should expect to have their opinion discounted. Thus, "Keep - notability is not policy." is an excellent argument and should enter into consideration, while "Keep - notable" without providing evidence should not. A bare "Keep" with no other wording misunderstands the way that AfD is meant to work.
• All of the above applies to a "Delete" recomendation as well, of course.

On another note, have you ever felt the strong desire to publicly sign up with GNAA simply to stir up a hornet's nest? Because I sure have.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nuderace.jpg

This is just to warn you that this image you uploaded will shortly be deleted. The reason for this that it has a non-free license, cc-by-sa-nc-2.0. As this was uploaded after 19 May 2005 it is eligable for speedy-deletion according to Jimbo's proclamation [2]. Thryduulf 00:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topless picture

Hello, unfortunately the nice topless picture you uploaded does not allow commercial use and is therefore not acceptable on Wikipedia. I hope we find a good substitute.

[edit] Image:Topless surf.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation

Cheers, AxelBoldt 09:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fame and importance

Keep up the good work on this, Trollderella. I firmly agree with your position on fame/importance/notability. I've tried once or twice to argue it on the various "rulecruft" policy pages, but I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for crusading on policy issues - I'd rather be writing articles - so I'm very glad to see someone else articulating "our" position so clearly and convincingly.

Snottygobble | Talk 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

That's actually 5 reverts in the space of about as many hours on CSD. I won't have you blocked for it since you've been largely in good-faith, but honestly you should stop panicking about it. And definitely stop reverting. -Splash^talk 23:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing on VP is only a straw poll to get things going. It's even got the usual "no polls in this poll" people voting against voting. It doesn't have a whole lot of meaning. But, if you want to count it, and I wouldn't if I were you, you're the only one actually opposing the proposal, and 9/10 support isn't so bad... -Splash^talk 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd object to the use of the word "largely" in the sentance above. I have no doubts about you operating in good faith. However, it appears that this particular attempt to hold back the tide isn't going well. I understand that it can be irritating when it everyone is in some big damn hurry and that you are the only one talking sense. When I feel like this, I usually just go eat a sandwich, roll around on the grass, and kick a ball. Nothing happens here in any one minute that can't be undone ten days later if it's a mistake.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the poll's been up about an hour... Also, I'm not the only one. The community rejected this already, it isn't as if I am opposing something that has support outside of the usual suspects who, I am sure, would love everyone who opposes them to go an do something else while they write in all the things the community didn't want back into policy. Trollderella 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked 24 hours for violating WP:3RR, as I always do on cases like this I'll keep a watch on your talk page in case you wish to respond or challange this block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)
• As one of the "usual suspects", I predict that this will could be acrimonious all around. I just want to make sure that you try to retain a sense of humour, and remember that there do exist other people who feel like you do, even though I'm not one of them. Fighting a battle on your own is pretty stressfull. I'm trying to teach myself to slow down, to refrain from commenting on everything, to let other people make my arguments for me. My unsolicted advice is that you do the same. Regardless of our sometimes wildly divergent views, I value your input.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

To prevent any chance of confusion here I figured it would be best to clarify my reasoning behind the block. I blocked you because you were the one listed on 3RR so you were the one who's diffs I investigated a long with the rest of the history. The reason I blocked was more a judgement call than anything else, first of all even though one diff was invalid since it wasn't a revert (#3 listed on the AN/3RR) you still had 4 reverts in less than 24 hours and I made the decision to block instead of just warn due to the ongoing edit warring which I felt warranted a block along with your responses and attitude towards the issue which showed a disregard towards policies against edit warring and 3RR. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. It's pretty clear that the issue is folks not liking attention to be drawn to their actions. Trollderella 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What's that in reference to? I don't mind my actions being examined by other editors I actually actively encourge it, if it's in regards to your issues with the other people you were editting with then I don't know the details of the dispute. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Welcome to the club. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Most editors at one time or another get called on 3RR if for no other reason then they get caught up in the moment and forget how many edits they've actually made. Don't let it get to you though, after the block expires (in a few hours) life goes on. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo and Notability

I wanted to note that, regarding the quote from Jimbo you have on your main user page, that he has clarified his point to state that he is definitely in favor of Notability as a criteria for deletion. See his email here. --03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor (2nd nomination)

This is now on here. I'd love to see an impassioned defense that rested on some WP:V issues from you! I notice that you haven't been around the last few days (or at least haven't been editing). I hope that we'll see you again soon.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Wikipedian?

Haven't seen you in ages, since your block; here's some moral support. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Starving_child.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Starving_child.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Starving child.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Starving child.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CLW 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopia photo

Are you the photographer of Image:Road in South Omo Ethiopia.JPG? If so, please say so. You might also want to fix the {{CC}} tag you added. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Refugee_shack_being_moved_in_1907.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Refugee_shack_being_moved_in_1907.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

[edit] Qubit Field Theory

What's so difficult about it? Clinkophonist 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 Year Old Girls

Seeing as you voted on the previous AfD, I thought I would alert you to a new AfD on 14 Year Old Girls. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solidarity

Feel free to move this award anywhere you like in your userspace.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your excellent, reasonable, and insightful interpretation of criteria for AFD, which have shaped my own philosophy on the subject. Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:British passport (old style blue).jpg

[edit] FYI - Nominated your pic for featured-picture.

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nude on beach.

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Topban.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Topban.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

I agree with you when the link is in a paragraph in an article. However, I disagree when the page is a disambiguation page or a list page. I don't think something should be listed on a disambiguation page unless it acutally exists. -999 (Talk) 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is joy in mudville

That was a long Wikibreak! Although I disagree with almost everything that you've ever said, I've always respected the manner in which you've said it. I'm glad to see you around again. - 152.91.9.144 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I think. Trollderella 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masts for deletion

Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May I just say that...

...your comment here was spot on? I am neither deletionist nor inclusionist, but if I was forced at banana-point to pick sides, I'd side with inclusionists, mostly because of what you term as "deletion abuse". Yay you! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Trollderella 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W00t

A DRV has been opened for W00t. Please comment. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 01:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unusual deaths

May be coming up for a VfD again - check the Talk page. You commented last time, so I thought I'd mention it. - DavidWBrooks 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David! Trollderella 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal.

Hi there. This is just to let you know that I found your comment on the Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings to be somewhat incivil. It is true that some of the editors are incivil, and that is why an RfC was started against one of them. Nevertheless, there are at least three or four people who have never made a single insult towards anyone, including Gravitor (even though they have been egged on by him). Your dismissive attitude for the merge proposal is somewhat troubling as well. Certainly, you can disagree with the rationale for the merger, but to say that you see no reason for it, and then fail to explain your position and call everyone childish is not helping resolve this matter. If you did not read my rationale for the merger, I copy it below. Others have given thoughtful explanations as well.

Support (Proposer) For: I am for the proposed merge with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations for several reasons. Most notably, the article in isolation violates several of wikipedia's policies, and the small amount of content in this article could easily be merged with existing articles as detailed below.

1. The topic by itself is not notable; SEE WP:Notability. There are NO reputatable sources that deal DIRECTLY with the topic of "Independent evidence for Apollo Moon Landings". I have asked gravitor numerous times for references, and he has yet to provide a single one.
2. The topic is becoming a piece of original research; SEE WP:OR. While amateur observations have been published, this article is attempting to create a novel narrative. The original research is related to the manner in which this article is colating information out of context. None of the links or references in this article are directly related to a literal reading of this article's title: Independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings. The amateurs who documented the Apollo missions where not interested in PROVING that they occurred. They were simply reporting observations as a reporter would. Implicit in these amateur accounts is the belief that there was no conspiracy by NASA.
3. The only reason for having a topic titled "independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings" is to refute claims made by proponents of the cospiracy theory. (Consider the implications of an article entitled "independent evidence for the existence of the Holocaust"). Contrary to the loud pronouncments by gravitor, he has yet to provide a single reputable reference showing that people who believe the landings occurred are interested in collecting evidence to prove that it has occurred. Why one would do so in the first place it s outside the realm of logic. I have attempted to rename this article to "Independent OBSERVATIONS of Apollo Moon Landings", but gravitor has refused to go along with this. Using the word "evidence" and claiming that this article is not about the hoax violates WP:WEASEL.
4. The largest portion of this article "Existence of Moon rocks" could easily be merged with Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations with no increase in length of that article. I will do this myself as the info on the hoax page needs to be updated.
5. Each link in the list of observations of Apollo missions could be placed on the specific Apollo mission page. These should go on articles such as Apollo 12, 14, 15, etc, and not Project Apollo. In my opinion, these links should just be added as external links.
6. The discussion about what is "independent" evidence should be in the hoax article. This is short and will not increase the length of the hoax article. In essence, the conspiracy theorists do not listen to "official" evidence, so it should be spelled out in that article what it is that they consider to be official, and what would be considered believable to them.
7. The claim that "the evidence exists, therefore it deserves an article" is stupid. As already pointed out, should every phenomenon have an article called "Independent evidence for..." or "Evidence for..."? Consider "Independent evidence for WWII, the atomic bomb, conspiracy theorists, Bart Sibel" and so on. This is just plain silly. Lunokhod 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunokhod 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)