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) Archive 10 (Jan 07–Sep 07) Archive 11 (Sep 07–Nov 08) Archive 12 (Nov 08–Mar 11) Archive 13 (Apr 11–May 12) Archive 14 (May 12-Feb 15) Archive 15 (Feb 15-Mar 21)

I am not sure how the following got on my talk page (maybe through a template) but I like the links so I am leaving them here --Trodel 18:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting how ignorant I was just over 3 weeks ago. Moving and consolidating these links with the quick list on my user page. Trödel 15:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links I thought useful: [... list moved...]

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [] 04:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim, Thanks for the insights. I was really lost there for a while. It is good to know there are people in the wiki willing to reach out. --orthoseeker 04:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and work in the Latter Day Saint movement project. Welcome aboard. -Visorstuff 00:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

cross posting: Trodel, I see you've added "Propose alt language to FOX News#Allegations of bias section" to your to-do list. Since this is likely to take some time, I'd like to remove the neutrality warning while we wait. I'm not sure if this proper protocol - this is my first neutrality dispute. Does anybody have any objections to removing the neutrality warning at least temporarily? We can resume this conversation when somebody has a concrete proposal to make. crazyeddie 19:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. crazyeddie 19:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. No, I have absolutely no objection to the consensual rewrite of Fox News section on allegations of bias. I think the current version is fine but I don't think the rewrite is unreasonable. If I do find a problem in future I'll probably deal with it by editing and if there are problems with that we discuss and see if it's as big a deal as I think. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

crossposting: It has been good working with you on the FOX News section - that was my first real effort to make somewhat significant changes to an article. I will keep it on my watchlist and see what else goes on there. The interesting thing is the US vs UK view on politics - especially right vs left. There is a great book The Right Nation by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge who both work for the Economist discussing how both liberals and conservatives in the US are right of the viewpoints of the political spectrum in the UK and Europe. Trödel (talk · contribs) 20:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same to you. If you need a moderate, slightly liberal POV, don't be afraid to call me in. Yeah, both USA parties qualify as Conservative by European standards. Part of that is that they both chase after the moderate vote, so their views are pretty much the same. crazyeddie 20:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I opened up a can of worms on the voting of the name change, I thought it would be contextually helpful - but I forget that people still hate the church and religion so much. Anyway...I guess we'll see how it turns out. -Visorstuff 22:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

D'Oh! Thanks for reminding me to sign my silly name. Brainless ol' me. Thanks also for alerting me to this. I don't actively contribute anymore with school going on, but I still have opinions. :P Bruce 03:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, and please don't get jaded! Always believe! Tom H. 03:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Tom H. 04:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have some problems with their approach and assumptions. They seem willing to add a little too much hassle to the process, and I am certain the process relies on hassle-minimization to work. Also, I want to see Jimbo's name somewhere, because he really understands how and why everything works, and I have a feeling he isn't buying a lot of what these people are saying. Tom H. 18:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I always type a personal greeting off the cuff. See Wikipedia:Standard user greeting, though I don't use any of those. {{welcome}} and {{welcome2|Trödel}} It appears to me you can embed any page with double braces. See {{User:Neutrality/Welcome}} Tom Haws 19:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I grasp its nuances of distinction from the current article, but I like what you have done. Tom Haws 16:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Me too", pretty much. I'd certainly go ahead and upload it at the article space. I might expand on the comparison with other denoms., and clarify the relationship with high priests, but those are minor points, and probably best dealt with at the article talk page. Alai 17:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to spy in on your work at User:Trödel/Sandbox2 as well - It is a good start, but don't delete all of the information from the original article - the wording was very much thought through at the time of creation. Also, you may want to give additional thought to how Bishops are perceived by other Latter Day Saint Denominations - for example, theology (the revelations) states you can be a bishop, but not be a presiding high priest over a congregation. In Nauvoo, there were bishops who presided over deacons making up the whistling and whittling brigades. No other "congregation" or oversights. They just had specific temporal duties (in that case it was public/church safety/security after the charter was revoked). Other LDS sects a bishop may not oversee a congregation, but the presiding high priest will. Also think addressing the typical sustaining of a bishop in a Mormon congregation - He is set apart as a bishop, the presiding high priest, a common judge in israel, the president of the Aaronic priesthood and given keys (the key of discernment is one) to govern how spiritual gifts are to be excersized in his ward boundaries (I mention this last one because the way the gift of tongues is exercised to day is mainly in missionary work as opposed to "a good round of tongues" - or speaking in the adamic tounge as was done a hundred years ago. Is one more correct use that the other? No, it is just how those who have keys of those gifts have determined they will be excercised). You may want to get some help from John Hamer on inter-denomination help. Do be careful doctrinally, though, as the "roles" as defined by revelation and how church policy implements them are two seperate things. Interesting that most know that and Elders president does not "report" to the bishop, but the stake president. While this is true, the EQP still "reports" to a certain degree as the Bishop is the presiding high priest, and therefore the head of the priesthood in his ward. The EQP gets his keys from the SP, not the bishop, so those keys are not the same as the bishops. The reporting structure (not the hierarchy) could be changed - as it is a matter of policy in most cases. Bishop - Aaronic Priesthood prez/presiding HP, SP - Melchiz. pristhood prez. Also, Quorum (Mormonism) will need to go through this process as well, as it is doctrinally incorrect in some instances. In practice, no, but doctrinally, it has many issues. just my two cents. -Visorstuff 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: Hey, how come no one told me about List of articles about Mormonism (or how did I miss this article for so long :) Trödel|talk 21:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of interesting, nearly hidden ways to find LDS related articles on the LDSM project page - these include categories, etc. This is just a small handicapped one I put together. Definitely not comprehensive, but darn close. I wish it were a better page. Glad to have helped. Please feel free to add articles you come across to the page. -Visorstuff 23:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Que fais-tu? Je suis passe pour je te salue. does that make any sense to you? i travel with the babel-fish. Are you Trodel the same person that i talked the other day? i see you are a busy man. if i ask you something will you respond on this template? i guess i have a problem of communication. i'd like to try to write an article, a short one with links to existing themes of Wikipedia (shall i call them wikies?). i will search myself the tutorial, how to do it,but.. you know.. what's the prossedure? who decides to accept it or not. Is it you? Are you many? Am i curious or am i curious? see you.. hope i'll sign ok --213.5.49.177 14:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)sotos

I think I am the one you are looking for. I responded on the talk page to one of the IP's you used in the past see: User talk:213.5.49.214 (click to see the links I gave before) - I suggest that you create a username as this will provide you with a level of privacy (it will hide your IP address - and you can use Psuedonomyous name if you don't want to use your real one (like me, for Professional reasons I am using Jim Trödel (which as you guessed is German - it means "Junk" in English). Welcome again and Be bold just make the changes - leave a comment on the talk page when you do and others will be more likely to fix your english than just take the change out wholesale. Trödel|talk 17:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I actually paused before doing so, since I vaguely recalled that there are different UK and US usages here, but I can't find any style guide on the matter on WP, so I went (back) to the 'logical' method. Our anon contributor seems to have made all sorts of local perturbations, still puzzling through some of them... Alai 18:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At Talk:Yosemite National Park#Compassmonkey links. An anonymous user reverted my deletion of one of the links, and challenged my assertion that there was a consensus that the links were spam. Since you deleted a Compassmonkey.com link at Bryce Canyon National Park, you may wish to comment. Thanks! -- hike395 06:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My Wikipedia seasoning doesn't include a lot of technical prowess. I have focused on conflict resolution, community building, and welcoming anons and newcomers. So the idea of a project box was kind of new to me. I think it is a great idea, and I hope it helps us out. I honestly don't know enough to say whether it will be tough for you or helpful to us. I just appreciate your great ideas. Tom Haws 21:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Now I get it. OK. Sounds good. Just bear with me. I will let you know of highlights I think ought to be or lowlights I think ought to not be there. Tom Haws 23:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote some scripts in perl to generate these lists. Right now, they actually use use wikipedia.org, so they take a while to run (as per wikipedia's recomendation not to hit them more than once every 30 seconds). If I ever get around to installing the php/mySQL wikimedia software on my computer, they would run much faster.

At any rate: the bottom line is that I'm running them now, and should post the updated reports latter today. As an aside, when I first ran these we had about 200 different articles categorized the the Mormonism hierarchy. We now have at least 407. This probably has as much to do with new articles being written as categorization, but we're certainly making progress. Cool Hand Luke 19:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you may be interested in this User:David Gerard/1.0. David has the vision. And this: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Another plan.3F Exxxcellent. Tom Haws 22:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just made major revisions to Priesthood Correlation Program. Needs cleaning up - can you provide a second set of eyes? -Visorstuff 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to clear that template, thanks for putting it to rights. Canderson7 00:25, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the note on Hyrum Smith. If you/the group are doing a peer review, please also look at Wilford Woodruff. I'm in the middle of writing, researching and/or organizing Parley P. Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Heber J. Grant and John Taylor. Also J. Reuben Clark has almost no church information -- I'll have to reread his biography. Comments welcome. WBardwin 09:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK - I'm compulsive! Frantic to get those original apostles written. The articles are still in process, but please look at Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde and David W. Patten. I've been looking over the LDS Group's site. I'm slow at joining things, but you will probably see me there soon. Thanks. WBardwin 03:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thomas B. Marsh, too. Worked on the Apostalic section the most. WBardwin 10:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heber C. Kimball -- added some church service and took off the stub label. Is J. Gardner still around? He started this one off very well. WBardwin 06:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome -- no job too small, no cheque too large, as a colleague of mine is fond of saying. I'm currently having a think about "the Church"; I don't much feel like going on a crusade to change all the "the Church"es until the NC (Mormonism) is changed, which I haven't gotten around to yet. And I mentioned something similar elsewhere, and there was some resistance to it, so I'm wondering if I ought not to bring it up as a more general naming convention issue. Specifically in the contexts of Roman Catholic Church and Church of Scientology, would you believe.

And what's more, I'm having second thoughts about the NPOVishness/general acceptability of "The Church of..." -- and I know for certain that's something I don't have the energy for right now -- if it's even doable at all, one way or the other. Alai 04:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think the "The" is fair enough, and there's no clear guidance on it either way in the general naming conventions, or the manual of style. (Which could stand to be more specific, I feel.) So I think what we end up is lots and lots of special pleading and value judgements, which is unfortunate. (Clearly some people find The Beatles, The George Washington University or The Duke of Wellington's Regiment OK, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unreasonable.) I asked the Guardian's Style Guide people, and they said in their house style those would all be lower-case "the" -- which is at least a nice, simple and consistent convention, if not to the LDS Church's liking. Trouble is, WP doesn't seem to be set up to be consistent either way, and it's clear I'd get copious resistance, either way. (Witness the crashing down in flames of the proposal to move the "History of the...." article.)

On google, I've had very similar experiences, using it to search WP for spelling errors and such. Evidently it doesn't crawl WP all that quickly, but updates it in waves, so some pages in its cache may be out of date, and some pages on WP might never have been crawled by google at all. Thanks for the support on the "the Church" thing, I'll be sure to take you up on that. Alai 04:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I could use some help over at Fox News. We're still arguing over the PIPA bulletpoint. I've taken over the pro-Fox side from Ethereal (who is still hanging around), and I'm slugging it out with Silverback. So far, I'm holding my own, but I'm getting worn out. I'm not asking for support, but having somebody who is actually half-rational on the other side of the table would be a nice break. Please help! crazyeddie 07:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank God you're back! (That sounds kinda strange coming from an atheist...) I've been taking a short wikivaction myself the last few days, because I couldn't stomach the discussion anymore. I'm actually afraid to look. I'll try to get up the courage tonight. crazyeddie 22:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally sucked it up and took a look... and not much has happened, as far as I can tell. It looks like Silverback and Ethereal are just dancing around. I do think the bulletpoint needs to be rewritten. Silverback does have some valid points, after all. (And a broken clock is right twice a day...) But as long as Silverback is involved, I don't know how much work is going to be done. Maybe we should just give it another week or so? Meanwhile we could brush up on the report - both the original version and the peer-reviewed version. (One of the points Silverback brought up is that the original report hadn't been peer reviewed - the bulletpoint now refers a version that was published in some journal.) Silverback claims that there are signifigant differences, but I haven't checked either version out that closely yet.

I was thinking that you and me and some neutralish party, like Tim Ivorson, or maybe this Kevin Baas guy, could get together and hash something out, and then put it up on the talk page for comments. Or maybe our twin wingnuts can work something out. I think we ought to hold off for a little while, monitor the situation, and make sure that neither side does anything crazy. We might want to let Kevin Baas, who is refereeing, know that we have a Plan B available. What do you think?

I swear, Silverback is just too ironic of a name. He certainly knows how to throw his weight around! The reason I took a break is that I was beginning to feel like I was getting Stockholm Syndrome. crazyeddie 07:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An anon 66.87.237.64 made four entries to the Joseph Smith article in the last 24 hours. I've basically reverted them as they were all POV or dealing with things already decided on the talk page (Brody work). You could not call them vandalism. As (s)he is unregistered and there is no way to talk, is this appropriate? I'm sure this happens all the time. I read the info on how to handle system newbys, but what how do you deal with anon's whose small edits are negative and are focused only on this article or LDS articles? I've already irritated her/him, as I got a message accusing me of vandalizing the work. Advice please. WBardwin 04:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator). --Viriditas | Talk 11:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is your template live? Can I use it? How? Tom Haws 19:48, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- how? I'm much more writer than tech. You dropped this:

 {{LDSWelcome|reverted page|WBardwin}}

on my page without an explanation of really how to use it. I've played with it a bit, but can't get anything to happen. I'm just starting to understand the programming language for anything but text, so a little instruction would be helpful. Please place your instructions on User:WBardwin/cheatsheet where I'm trying to learn how all these fancy things work. Thanks. WBardwin 06:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clear as mud. I don't even know what keys to hit to get the various characters yet, let alone what they do. Will experiment with your procedure. WBardwin 06:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles Achilles 04:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a newbie mistake on my part. Although "poopie poop" would count as a vulgarity, I would think. . . . . Soundguy99 22:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I took a few days to get back to you. I appreciate the offer, but I think I'd like to gain a little more Wikiexperience before I join any maintenance teams. Check back with me in a few months, though. Cheers, Soundguy99 16:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should be in place now. Best wishes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I am now the first and most recent person to leave a note on your talk page. I just wanted you to know that I responded to what I feel was an unfortunate suggestion you made on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sam Spade/Detective agency. You seem to think that my politics should decide if my user page ought to be deleted, and further that anonymous posters are a good source of info regarding what my politics are. I reject both suggestions. For example, your user page says your Mormon. Would it be acceptable for your user sub-pages (like say User:Trödel/LDSAnon) to be deleted if Anti-Mormons found them objectionable? Or how about if User:CrazyLiar tells me that your a Satanist? Would that mean that I could morally and legitimately join such postulated anti-Mormons in voting to have your page deleted? The answer to all the above is no. We have satanic wikis, we have communist wikis, and we have anarchist wikis. There is nothing special about Nazi's or white (or black) power wiki's that allows them or their user pages to be persecuted, at least not according to policy. Frankly I find the very suggestion offensive and solidly against my very reason for being here (access to and production of NPOV factually accurate information). In conclusion, if you insist on judging me by my politics, please at least have the decency to find out what they are (User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases). God be with you,

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(cc of response) I said nothing of the sort - in fact I defended you right to have the page regardless of your politics. However, as you know, wikipedia should not be disrupted to prove a point. Thus, if there was proof that the research group was a front for Stormfront then I would vehmenently oppose it. Trödel|talk 14:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would seem to involve making decisions regarding user pages based on politics. On a different note, I take it you prefer the wikilinks on your user page to run together? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied (and copy pasted our previous convo) @ my talk page. Cheers,

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is looking good at the moment, btw. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why it does that... I think I might have corrected the problem, I hope it fixes the problem now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like my edit. It isn't a full revert. On POV grounds, I left out the bit that said that FNC downplayed the story. I assume that is why that sentence was removed in the first place. I also didn't put the source back in, because it seemed to partisan for confirming a single fact, but perhaps it should be included. What do you think?

I'm still unsure about the relation between FNC and its affiliates, so I don't know about the significance of the origin of that story. However, FNC says that "FOX News has no editorial oversight of any FOX affiliate."[1] Tim Ivorson 15:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I get it.

Regarding your workplace experience, FNC works differently from other news channels (or perhaps it is leading a revolution) and I wouldn't be surprised if that is responsible for its ratings success. FNC needs a large audience for revenue, so audience size must be a conscious thought for FNC management. As a propaganda organisation, it could seek to mobilise people that already agree (it probably does), but having leftists shouting at their TVs, while they provide revenue and get swayed by more subtle slants would be a bigger coup for FNC.

FNC tries to be, and succeeds in being, the most interesting news channel to the average person in those 85m US households (assuming one subscription per household. 85m households is a lot. Perhaps those people live alone. Many Brits want to live alone or in smaller groups than previous generations have, but there aren't really enough houses here). I expect that this could be worked into the article and I'd try to lend a hand if you added it, but I don't plan to do it myself. Tim Ivorson 21:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've finally summoned the gumption to tackle the Church Caps issue, thought you might like to know. Alai 05:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am the person who considers it important to illustrate the range of presence exhibited by the First Presidency at General Conferences with contemporary illustrative example.You call this "trivia".Why so?(I am always on the alert for religions being presented from internal-advocate rather than neutral-outsider perspectives).--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a general statement. x may conduct but x presides. Recent examples of this include: GBH when third counselor, in 1983; MGR in 1979 or whatever. The current paragraph about sustaining is confusing - I tried to clean it up some. Just giving an example is confusing and looks like trivia. (cc anon page) Trödel|talk 20:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't illustrate the possible range of presences:anything from President personally presiding and conducting to only a single Counselor even present.(Hinckley became Second Counselor December 2,1982,five days after Tanner's death.The biographical film produced on his becoming Church President in 1995 had January 1983 mentioned as the time after which he was often the only active member of the First Presidency,with the video at that point showing him sitting at Conference in the Second Counselor's chair with the other two empty).--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't know exactly what percentage of likeness that must hold to delete a comment that has been altered. It's actually easier to just ensure that the bot itself tries to avoid inserting the comment twice. I could have the bot make a special pass to do that... but how I dealt with it on the other pages was that I didn't care since the bot would empty the sandbox and rake it clean. In the case of the Introduction page, I can have the sandbox rake it of similar-like comments... I would need some idea what I'm looking for really, it would be slightly difficult to do... just a lot of regular expression matching. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean, technically, you're looking at something that starts the HTML comment, then you have any number of combos of the words "Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please." where you don't exactly know what percentage of that message is left... -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I think I fixed the duplicate comments problem. Check my tests for today. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you read my comments on Infobox pope (which it seems most people haven't) it explains most of it. But basically it's defined in the monobook.css stylesheet, and as I pointed out, uses the same colouring as the rest of the skin. This is way everything on the page "fits" together (e.g. image boxes, table of contents). I have started some discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css on improving the class (for a start, giving it a better name e.g. infobox). ed g2s • talk 08:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you do that? Do you feel that the current intro is NPOV? Have you read my most recent posting on Talk:Human? Where did I err? --goethean 20:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)