User talk:Trödel

Contents 1 Signpost Related Mentoring Idea 2 RFC 3 Edit summary on Wikipedia:Reward board 4 WIkipedia:Requests for comment/Trödel 5 Request for Arbitration 6 Im Back 7 Archibald Gardner 8 Question... 9 Survey Invitation 10 My concern about issues of conduct 11 ITN 12 Your edit on the Mountain Meadows massacre talk page 13 TOChidden update 14 Intro	Talk page RFA notices
	Archive 1  (Dec 04-Apr 05) Archive 2  (Apr 05-Jun 05) Archive 3  (Oct 05-Mar 06) Archive 4  (Mar 06-Jun 06) Archive 5  (Jun 06-Aug 06) Archive 6  (Aug 06-Sep 06) Archive 7  (Sep 06-Oct 06) Archive 8  (Oct 06-Dec 06) Archive 9  (Dec 06-Jan 07)

[edit] Signpost Related Mentoring Idea

I just had a idea. If I were to help you with ITN for a few weeks, I might get those "writing skills" you were talking about and be able to do the Wpro Report. -- Punk Boi 8 07:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trodel, I'm sorry to butt in to the mediation, however, I feel strongly that Nathan needs to be blocked. Since you last warned him about editing in WP space, he has made at least six WP edits and has also begun pestering Ral again about writing for The Signpost. [1] Additionally, he has assigned himself another mediation case. [2] I don't think he is listening to anything that is being said to him and I think we are going to have to face the possibility that this just isn't going to work until he is older. I'm going to block him for 72 hours since the last two 48 hour blocks and numerous warnings don't seem to have touched the sides. I consider all my admin actions open to review, so if you are not happy with this block please go ahead and unblock. I apologise again for butting in. All the best, Sarah 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted that he blanked the section related to him above from your talk page, Trodel. I'm concerned that this isn't working out. – Chacor 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope this block really focuses him. If he continues when he returns from this block I think we'll have to go back to AN and ask again about a community ban - and I think indications are are that it would succeed if mentoring has failed. – Chacor 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I hope it doesn't come to that. His latest actions are regrettable and could be indicitive of a alternate explanation for his behavior. --Trödel 15:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be overly harsh here, as I'm the one that's had this problem in my face now for almost 6 months, possibly longer - longer than most anyway :( So where are we at? Well, I've still got a glimmer of hope things will work out, but I think our times of being lenient have got to be over. Wikipedia is a game it seems, and we're the players.

He's broken almost every agreement made, and we're being taken for a ride with our generous allowances. I think we need to ram the message home that an agreement means just that, an agreement, nothing more, nothing less.

If we need to make things clearer, indicating what actions will equal what result, then so be it. A "Do this = face this" type of handling I think is clear for someone his age to understand. The real world wouldn't let him get very far with broken promises, and I don't think we're benefiting for making allowances either.

I applaud the efforts of those of you handing out offsite tasks; I think that's a great idea. I hope it works out. You guys sure are patient, but I trust you understand why I also feel the game is up and it's time to knuckle in so to say, on the flipside of the situation. -- Longhair\^talk 10:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

You may find this of interest. The originator does not appear to have notified you. --Spartaz 09:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that anyway, as judging from it he's the only one who can certify that dispute, and two people need to have certified it. Be on the lookout for socks, I say. – Chacor 09:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary on Wikipedia:Reward board

Hi,

I was a bit taken aback when I first saw your edit to Wikipedia:Reward board removing User:Punk Boi 8's proposal, since the proposal seemed in good faith at first glance. It would be helpful if you could include something like "per mentoring" or such in the future. I don't know anything about his case specifically; it seems like he's having trouble finding things in the article namespace that interest him, so that the Reward Board might be helpful for him, but I'm a bit biased towards it. Anyway, thanks for working on the mentorship program. -- Creidieki 09:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WIkipedia:Requests for comment/Trödel

You asked to be notified if others endorsed the statement, which has been done. -Amark moo! 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, kinda sorta. The original complaint, not really, but people do think that you've done something wrong and that you should comment. -Amark moo! 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

do tell

Thought you should know it's been closed. I think we've resolved the dispute, so this will be my last communique, provided we don't escalate in some way again, which I seriously doubt you will, and I will do every thing in my power to avoid a further confrontation. Just thought you should know it closed. I hope you learned better changes for your conduct, as I learned to alter my conduct.TheGreenFaerae 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me. I was simply trying to be curteous. It will not happen again.TheGreenFaerae 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took it that way. I did not mean for it to be insulting. I apologize again.TheGreenFaerae 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

I am sorry you will not attempt to resolve our dispute in any way. I wish you had been a little more willing to compromise. I do have little doubt that you will revert this as quickly as possible, but I still have to post it to fulfill the rules. I have taken out a request for arbitration. I am sorry it has come to this, but you should make a statement. TheGreenFaerae 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration prior to archiving.

[edit] Im Back

Hi

I have came back on-wiki today.

I should let you know that I could be my turn for Admin Coaching within the month. I would like for this not to get into the way of the mentoring as I have been waiting for this since my last RfA and reallt think it would benifite me.

Please respect what I have just said. -- Punk Boi 8 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archibald Gardner

I've worked with you and others from Wikiproject:LDS when I was editing under a user name, and I was hoping to get your thoughts on something, if you have the time.

I spend a significant amount of time working on Archibald Gardner, trying to make it more encyclopedic, better worded, better formated & categorised, etc.., based on material existing (see my last version here as compared to the current version) and User:Milogardner (talk • contribs) just summarily reverted it to what I feel is a significantly worse version, with the only reason given "For those that wish to remove sections of this write-up, please have the style and fairness to list your name and wiki talk page". I read this action as that editor claiming that they own or have the final say on what should be on that article, possibly because they were the original creator of the article (which they were), and based on the edit history of the article they have had very little collaboration with others on it.

If you feel my edits are useful, could you help me figure out how to explain the benefits of my edits to that user? If you don't think my edits were useful, could you help me understand why? I've already had one too many confrontation than I can currently stomach with trying to help on LDS topics (which is why I'm currently editing from an IP), and since you are so good at this kind of thing, I was hoping for some assistance. -- 63.224.137.164 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the RfC, your note that you're studying, or your drastically reduced edit count until after I posted this. Sorry to bother you and I completely understand that you may be too busy to help me right now. I'll ask at WP:LDS. -- 63.224.137.164 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When you get time, perhaps you could help on this article? I've been talking to the primary editor, as mildly as I can, and trying to help him understand Wiki style, methods, etc... But, he is very possessive about the article and has grandeous plans for this notable, but not extraordinary, pioneer and mill builder. Good to see you back. WBardwin 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question...

I just reverted some more vandalism from User:204.99.118.9 , and noticed that you had blocked them once in the past. It looks like they've vandalized 5 or 6 times since coming back... just thought I'd give you a heads up. Thanks! gdavies 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] My concern about issues of conduct

Hello, Trödel, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but after reading some of your text, I am concerned that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines might not have been properly presented to you, and that you may encounter criticism for appearing not to follow them. After you look over the documents linked above, could we discuss that concern here?

Not folowing through with Mentoring

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance whether you were aware of these documents, what is your philosophy about interacting with other editors, and what alternative approaches you might willingly adopt that would avoid raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments(Opened) from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• If you prefer not to deal with me at all, you can ask others for guidance: there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
• Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post {{helpme}} here on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your conduct is so bad as to get reported straight to administrator noticeboards or get you summarily blocked. I hope matters will never become that severe. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- Punk Boi 8 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that you have been dismissed as my mentor for inactivity. -- Punk Boi 8 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by this post. I know of no dispute between us. Unfortunately, the above post is indicitive that my mentoring efforts have not been successful. One of the key things I have discussed with you is the avoidance of unnecessary confrontation; however, in the first communication from you in a few weeks you have chosen to threaten me instead of leaving a note like, "Hey Trodel I need some help can you look at this edit..." or something similar.

The mentoring plan is now waiting on you to implement the suggestions made by me and others. In other words, I am waiting to see that you have followed through on your commitment, i.e. to focus on making edits to the article space (unfortunately when I review your edits, this has not been the case). Additionally, I see no reason to pile on a bunch of new stuff (and thus risk overwelmning you). Please review the status of your mentoring plan (a snapshot of which is below). However, if you feel that my assistance has become counterproductive, I agree that you should find a substitute mentor.

Mentoring Status I formally accept mentoring. Punk Boi 8 Next Steps √ Formally accept mentoring √ Discuss what happened recently √ List of purpose/goals of mentoring √ Create plan to accomplish those goals. ʘ Punk Boi 8 to follow plan. ... more to come see here

--Trödel 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Trodel, unfortunately Nathan has chosen to file a ludicrous RFC against you, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trodel 2. His behaviour and the attitude he has shown towards you in his last edits makes me embarrassed for him. I think we may need to reconsider whether he is exhausting the community's patience and the question of the community ban. It appears that he simply does not have the maturity to participate appropriately and productively. Sarah 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"...does not have the maturity to participate...". Never truer words spoken. -- Longhair\^talk 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I thought (from a fairly neutral bystander's point of view) that I thought you did an excellent job in difficult circumstances and that the above is no credit to or reflection on your efforts. Best of luck and hope to see you round Orderinchaos78 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have aspergers syndrmome. This may be the reason behind this all. Sorry -- Punk Boi 8 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITN

That's no big deal. If you have anyone in mind, point them my way, but it's not my biggest concern at this point. Congrats on passing the bar (again!) Ral315 » 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit on the Mountain Meadows massacre talk page

Why did you 'redact' my comments and leave the rest of the 'comments'? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I left the part that was discussion changes to the article and removed your pontificating about the evilness of the participants. For an explanation of why see my prior comment. It is important in such a highly charged article that we as a group stay focused on improving the article --Trödel 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOChidden update

Hello Trödel, just to let you know that I've figured out how to cancel out the double [show]/[hide] problem. You can see this on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. See you. (→Netscott) 07:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You should know that I agree with you about displaying the TfD message (so long as it doesn't interfere more than is necessary with the good functioning of the template, which it was when you originally placed it). I actually tried to restore the TfD message myself twice yesterday. I honestly think that given the retention rate of ~ 90% across the articles I've placed it on that there's a good base of support for it. You should know that I am happy that you submitted the template for deletion. The deletion discussion has brought up valid points and illustrated some shortcomings the template had that I was able to overcome. See you. (→Netscott) 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the margin edits which acted as a suggestion for me to edit the other areas. Those edits make the template look much much better. :-) (→Netscott) 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Howdy. I was hoping you could glance at a couple of threads related to the introduction, at Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Bad idea and Wikipedia:Bot requests#Introduction reset bot? Much thanks :) --Quiddity 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)