Jump to content

User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Indef block on User:Condolence

Hi, I saw that User:Condolence has been blocked indefinitely, and I asked the blocking admin about this at User talk:Ryulong#Indef block on User:Condolence. I'm not particularly fond of Condolence myself, but I'm trying to understand how this blocking works, especially indefinite blocking, which is supposedly reserved for the extreme cases of vandalism and disruption. Ryulong gave me a very brief reply which didn't really answer my questions. Do you concur with him? And how does this tie in with WP policy? By the way, congratulations on getting admin status; I've always enjoyed editing alongside you! Fuzzypeg★ 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I need your help

I've created these articles:

And I need your help to improve them. Will you help? If they get deleted then i'll put them on the The requests for articles page. Thanks a million. --Condalence( 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Leo Ruickbie

I have nominated Leo Ruickbie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Ruickbie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
 Hey there Kim Dent-Brown! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:50_years_of_Wicca.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:50_years_of_Wicca.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You might be interested in Wiccapedia.   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Phillips (professor)

When declining a G12 because the copyvio has been removed please ensure that all of the copied and closely paraphrased material has been removed so there aren't lingering problems to be cleaned up later. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood - thought I'd got it all first time but hadn't noticed the paraphrasing. It's a shame because he's obviously notable - this leaves the article so stubby it's vulnerable, but I guess if someone loves it they'll come to the rescue! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

I'm glad to see you've decided to return to Wikipedia and are diving right in to editing interesting subjects. I don't think we've ever met, but it's always good to see someone who's put a lot of work into Wikipedia and then left decide to come back. —Soap— 17:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, it's very nice to get a welcome! It was a quite unplanned wikibreak - I don't know why I stopped and I don't know why I started again! It's mostly the same old Wikipedia (vanity articles and revert wars over minutiae...) but always redeemed by stuff like this! Happy editing! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
[1] Good to see you back! Pedro :  Chat  12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pedro, it's been a while but I see the encyclopaedia has managed without me all this time... So I'm just revising how/when to use the buttons! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

InCOMMON Community Development

OK, now I understand why it said "non-admin closure" on it - couldn't understand how a non-admin could delete! I think Theda's delete was premature; I had already declined a speedy, the article was no longer tagged for CSD and I don't think articles should be speedied anyway while they are in AfD! Anyway, it's restored now and the AfD can run its course - I think that's the right outcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted File:Kyokookazakiforwikipedia.jpg

Hi Kim,

You deleted the photo I uploaded: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kyokookazakiforwikipedia.jpg&action=edit

You sited a previous discussion thread as a reason for deletion, but if you're talking about the thread I think you are, that was for a different photo. This was a photo I took. Can you undo your deletion, or do I have to upload again?

Thanks, Asakawano (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The file was tagged for speedy deletion as it was a version of a photo that had previously been the subject of a deletion discussion here. I looked at both your image and the one in the original discussion and could see no difference - though it's possible there was some cropping of one image or the other. If I have made a mistake here I apologise; are you saying that the photo Kyokookazakiforwikipedia.jpg was taken by you, of the subject herself with her permission(and not you photographing another photo)? If so then I think the best course would be for you to upload the photo again and carefully fill out the information about its source, provenance and copyright status. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Marine Habitat Magazine

Hi Kim. Could you please delete again and salt this. It keeps coming back under slightly different guises, and the creator just keeps creating new socks each time. I must have CSD'd this at least three times previously, but I don't have the tools (yet0 to check. Thanks, --Kudpung (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this - looks like someone beat me to it! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 07:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian Wicca => Christianity and Neopaganism

Hi, Kim. I think this move/creation was a good idea. I was about to nominate the article for deletion yet again, but I think that situating the topic with a larger context answers most of my objections, though perhaps not all.

A couple of points, though. First, as I pointed out here, Nancy Chandler Pittman's Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published and as such is not suitable as a source. Neither is her website, http://www.christianwicca.org/. In my opinion, in accordance with WP:SPS, any claim anchored by that book or website doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

As well, I note that Joanne Pearson's Wicca and the Christian Heritage is cited in the references section. I haven't looked at the book since the AfD, but what struck me most about it was that, near as I could make out, it contains absolutely no mention of "Christian Wicca." What makes that striking -- to me, at any rate -- is that the book is about Wicca and Christianity.

This absence of a single mention of "Christian Wicca" in a book devoted to the subject of Wicca and Christianity highlights the basic problem: outside of the work of wishful bloggers, online essayists and self-published authors, I can't find any evidence that any halfway-coherent set of practices that might reasonably be labelled "Christian Wicca": a) actually exists, and b) has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to merit a standalone article. Because the topic is such an OR-magnet, I think it's doubly important both that the sourcing for the article be of the highest quality and that the text of the article stick extremely closely to what those sources explicitly say.

For example, part of the lede reads as follows:

"some followers of modern pagan paths have developed practices such as Christian Wicca"

My questions about this passage would be as follows:

  • Does the author actually use the term "Christian Wicca"?
  • Is this work a reliable source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and is it about an actually-existing set of practices that some significant group of people actually participate in?

If the answer to either question is no, then the passage ought to go. As for the first, I haven't read the book, so you'd know better than I. But for the second, the signs are not auspicious: first, Llewellyn's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is not exactly stellar. Second, while I haven't read the book, Llewellyn itself describes the book as a "unique mix of memoir and how-to" that "shows how one woman [emphasis mine] blended Christian traditions with the magic and beauty of a Wiccan practice." It does not appear to demonstrate that any significant group of people practice something identifiable as "Christian Wicca". Furthermore, the book evidently exudes "warmth and heartfelt reverence," which is rather troubling.

I don't know if you've already done so, but could I ask you to take a moment to look at the AfD and my comments here and here to have a better sense of what my concerns are.

Thanks! -- Rrburke (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for responding so fully. If you don't mind I'll respond on the new article's talk page and I'll copy your comments there so others can participate in the discussion - hope this is OK! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! -- Rrburke (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Done - see here. And I've revised the article somewhat too, to take your comments into account see this diff. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey just trying to figure something out first off it takes me a few minutes and i realize i still have to add the sources to this which i also plan on doing so can you give me a little bit to mass edit and reference the different things on here for the wicca christianity thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgirlphoenix (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Kim,

Thanks for your support and comments - as a newbie they are very useful. I have absolutely no problem with the deletion and I am really excited because it has inspired me to create a new article - I am interested in postmodern thinking in connection with Wicca and have started a new topic.

So for example

Postmodern Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_Christianity

is placed under POSTMODERNISM

just as I have created the article

Postmodern Wicca

I feel that this topic needs to be separate from Wicca because it connects more to the philosophy of postmodernism.

--Kary247 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearing Up the Confusion

Sorry Kim!

I think the order of events was

1. I agreed to delete the Postmodern Wicca

2. I then noticed that the bots had identified it as a good article.

3. This made me think that Postmodern Wicca is probably a more user-friendly search term than postmodern neopaganism - yet postmodern neopaganism is a good encyclo. topic.

4. To resolve this, I thought I could capture users with a postmodern Wicca page and then lead them on to the more academic and broader postmodern neopaganism page.

5. To be fair, you are probably correct in stating that 'postmodern neopaganism' is the better choice - I do feel, however, that most neopagans are Wiccans/Witches and certainly these terms have 500,000 hits per month.

6. I just feel that postmodern wicca may enable to user to more readily access the concept.

7. In terms of a clouding approach to keywording it offers some rich and interconnected development.

8. I am a little concerned that some editors seem to push topics towards terminology that is inaccessible to the average user because they are possessive over their content - I think fresh, expanding, broad, relevant and well sourced content is vital for Wikipedia - there is a line between academically valid and not excluding or marginalising the average user, who may not have access to higher eduction for example.

9. If we could keep postmodern Wicca going until I have time to develop the content that would be great.

--Kary247 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, it's usually better to keep these discussions all in one place so I'll reply more fully on your talk page in a few moments! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits Kim Dent proposed deletion

Hi Kim

You have proposed Postmodern Wicca for deletion and I am attempting to work hard on it to save it. It might be more objective, as you were the admin who proposed deletion, if you refrain from reverting my edits constantly while I try hard to save the article from deletion? If you could just give me some space to try to develop my ideas and references further to address the objections that you have raised, that would be really helpful.

Thanks, --Kary247 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, I wasn't reverting your edit - I was reverting this edit by Pendragon111. If you are telling me that you and Pendragon111 are one and the same, then yes I did revert your edit - but I think reasonably so. A reference to a source cannot put its own gloss on what the source meant; the source must speak for itself. The source specifies Neopagan and not Wiccan - therefore it supports a page on Postmodern Neopaganism but not one on Postmodern Wicca. Your own re-introduction of the gloss here is unwarranted. Just because I have an interest in this article doesn't mean I may not edit it - any more than you are forbidden here either.
I would however point out that if you did make both edits from different accounts, then this does count as the sockpuppetry of which you accused another editor here. Please do note that it is very straightforward for this kind of activity to be detected, and leads to a rapid drop in the temperature of relations between editors! I apologise if my suspicion is unwarranted but your usernames, timings of activity and editing interests seem to be running in close parallel with this other new editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Whadda mess!

Why-oh-why did I have to stalk Machine Elf's talk page? :-) Yworo (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, Kary247 seems to be conflicted in some way. Now removing many of the references she(?) herself added, saying they don't support her text! Yworo (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, this is turning into a terrific muddle, huh? I'm torn between letting Kary247 get on with it and get herself deeper into the mess, wanting to help out an obviously keen new editor and wanting to protect a good article I care about! I dare say we will get there in the end but not without casualties, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I am feeling the same way. I suspect some of the material on eclectic Wicca (not sure it should be capitalized) is probably legit and has sources better than Wicca for Dummies or whatever. But I highly suspect the whole "Postmodern" thing to be original research, personal opinion or whatnot. Clearly from some of the sources cited, some comparative religion folks interpret neopaganism and perhaps Wicca from a Postmodern perspective, but these views, if notable, need to be added (briefly) to the Neopaganism and Wicca articles; I don't think there are sources to support standalone articles of any length! Certainly not multiple articles. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I see what she's doing. I have proposed moving her hard work to Postmodern Neopaganism but for some reason unclear to me, she wants it all at Postmodern Wicca. Thus with edits like this she is reducing the quality and viability of the former article, so that the latter one might be seen as the better and more authoritative. My good faith is running low, as you can see. I'm not going to revert any more of her edits until its levels have been restored by a glass of wine and a night's sleep! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, waiting seems to be the best course here at the moment... Yworo (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of good faith, I'm starting to wonder whether this might be a form of trolling, possibly by a sock of a banned user? I happened to notice this post to an (as far as I know) uninvolved user's talk page. Perhaps there is some history here? Yworo (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think we can AGF there. Rosencomet reverted an edit of Kary247 that used the term Jewitch, believing it to be a derogatory term. I do think this post is a genuine attempt to negotiate that. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I didn't notice that, but there's been so much activity occurring so quickly, it doesn't surprise me that I missed it. Yworo (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Ta-dah! The final cut is made..... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Tempest in a teapot for that result. I suppose the only thing holding up redirecting Postmodern Wicca there is the AfD. Yworo (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved Content to Postmodern religion

Hi Kim,

Thanks for your message.

1. I have blanked Wicca and transferred the content to Postmodern religion. I have also transferred the neopagan version - so it is all kind of lumped together there, which is a bit yuk.

2. The content for Neopagan Postmodernism has been deleted and the page redirected to Postmodern religion

3. I did see things getting a bit messy on Google which I couldn't really get involved with because that would not be very nice!

4. It is pretty tough getting content into Wiki I must say!

Best Wishes, --Kary247 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kary, well done I really think that is a fantastic result and the new article at Postmodern religion will be a genuine contribution here. Yes it may be a bit yuk right now but nothing that can't be fixed and I'd be delighted to help! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I have closed the WP:AfD discussion on Postmodern Wicca and converted the to a redirect to Postmodern religion which I think is a splendid article in the making. Postmodernism is not a topic I know a lot about but if I can improve the article there I will certainly do so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kim

Thanks for including my eclectic Wicca section, I appreciate it!

--Kary247 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kary, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I've included anything of yours anywhere have I? If this is significant, please link to the diff you are referring to (go to the history of the article, compare versions and paste the URL of the resulting page.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your warning on my talk page

You recently warned me for unconstructive editing on Philip Heselton ([2]). However, the only edit I have made on that page is this one, which is pretty clearly just a spelling correction. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that the warning was completely unwarranted -- I'm just trying to help out. 98.169.109.132 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the paragraph,the spelling of which you corrected. I can see from your edit history that you were wikignoming, but perhaps you should more carefully read the text which you are improving? Your edit tidied up an obvious and crude personal attack on a living individual. I'll remove the warning note from your page, as you clearly didn't intend to damage the article in question. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Okay, I found that - thanks - I read up on the template system, stages, stop signs etc. as a way of quickly letting people know about things - so that makes sense now. Thanks again for explaining and being patient with me while I stumble around, I can see why you are an administrator, patience of a saint and all of that...--Kary247 (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Dean, Smith & Grace

You can't just delete narrative simply because it doesn't suit your agenda. Thats vandalism.Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't narrative; it was discussion about the suitability of a source. Discussion belongs on the talk page of an article. Why are you so set against the article's continued existence? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anger

I'm not angry. And, I had already done that, she reverted, and I have left it. Then I resorted to AN/I. So, get the facts together before arming the trolls, please. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Messaged wrong IP?

Hey dude,

Think you may have intended to leave this message, here? NickCT (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, apparently it needs to be in both places as the worried individual seems to have been editing from at least 2 IPs. But thanks for noticing - I'll add my message to both. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Both places probably appropriate. Thanks for taking care of it. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Van Epperson

Hey, Beeblebrox was ok with the idea of putting pending changes on this page. I feel it would be a good alternative to page protection, unless that is extended for several months. What do you think? Ocaasi (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally i think this would be a good idea: however I believe the Pending Changes trial is now over and when I went to the page to try and add a level of PC protection the message there is: The pending changes trial has ended. The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC-protected articles until a new version is released. Please don't do anything drastic. Please don't fight. No page in the Wikipedia namespace should be protected under pending changes except those for testing. That last sentence is pretty definite so unless you or Beeblebrox know better I'm not sure we can go down this route. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not quite sure. It appears that whatever the warnings, editors are very moderately using the feature, and recently (Special:Log/stable). Though I saw the uproar about PC up close, and wouldn't want to put you in the line of fire, I'm thinking this is a minimal, ideal situation for it. I'm also not aware of any official statistical testing going on that this would interfere with. PC is not even on 1000 articles, and this interim period is pretty much a dead zone until the final version comes out and people decide to hash out that hellish debate again. I can't see this one article making much difference, except for its subject, so maybe it's a good IAR case. Where to post to gauge others opinions... (Pending Changes, Van Epperson, AN/ANI...) I don't think and RfC is necessary, maybe just an AN/I thread...Ocaasi (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, I'm quite happy to WP:IAR for good cause but for safety's sake I'll just add a line to the recent AN/I in case anyone wants to comment. Then I'll instigate the PC protection. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

L. Gardner and Sons

Not the first time this has happened but then I went to look at the thesis online and there is this very interesting statement at the bottom of the first page: This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History: Theses by an authorized administrator of UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact ubir@bolton.ac.uk. preceded by a Digital Commons citation. Now also take a look at http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/bolton_policy_template.pdf and it appears that there must have been some acceptance of publication when the thesis was submitted to the repository. I'm certainly no expert in the field but that looks to me like there is some sort of commons licence applied to anything appearing in the repository as long as it's attributed. Putting aside the issue of is was the alleged breach of copyright committed by the copyright holder (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text this might not be as simple as it first seems. NtheP (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Question from fellow editor

An editor left this request, to which I responded below. They then removed their original question - restoring diff so my reply makes sense. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Kary, I'm afraid you are reaping the rewards of your earlier editing. You undoubtedly in my mind started editing with the fixed idea of including some links to favourite websites of yours, and only desisted after firm intervention by several other editors. I think it's quite appropriate for other editors to watch your contributions in case you make the same mistakes again. The link from the blacklist is only there for those who look very hard, it's not as if someone stumbling across your main user or talk page would ever know it's there. You are drawing further attention to it by continually asking Machine Elf to do something s/he is obviously not going to do. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
For going out of your way to guide User talk:Chriscella, a new editor having a difficult time with at least nine (!) new article deletions and being willing to continue to WP:AGF by providing assistance instead of yet another warning template. Zachlipton (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Would it be canvasing to ask other editors who have had problems with the user in discussion for their impute? - Haymaker (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would. I can't think of a neutral way of encouraging more people to comment which would not sample unfairly from one side or the other. I think it's best to leave it to whoever is watching AN/I (there are a 'lot' of eyes on that page) rather than risk being seen to canvass.

Forgotten plan to merge paragraphs?

Hi, Kim!

In this editing of Feri Tradition, apparently, you confused the section about Lines and public teachers of the Feri Tradition a bit. As you left it, there are three leading personalities mentioned, each with his/her own marked paragraph: first "Victor and Cora Anderson" ("a blind poet and shaman"), then "Cora Anderson" (was she the wife of the poet named "Victor and Cora"?), and last "Gwydion Pendderwen".

I'll remove your addition "and Cora", since the rest of the sentence obviously concerns one person (Victor, I presume...). However, perhaps apparences are false. If your change was just the start of a planned merge of the two paragraphs about the two Andersons, then just conclude the merge, at your convenience! Best, JoergenB (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're quite right that was sloppy editing on my part after removing some other material. Thank you for spotting it and tidying up! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

email

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. 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.

--Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand

At first I meant it as a warning sign for everyone else that this user: Shah 88 is a pure troll, then again I can understand and agree with your reason to not provoke him, thank you...(Gunkarta (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think the problem is that shah 88 was/is misunderstanding my ethnic identity by his comments below my comments - I happen to be an australian of scottish extraction - the irony perhaps eludes him - thank you for your further work - may you continue to improve the place by your actions - cheers SatuSuro 13:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IP talk page

I noticed you semi-protected the talk page of 62.172.89.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd actually posted over at ANI about this just before you did it. If I may, wouldn't re-blocking with talk page access revoked be a better option than indef semi-protect?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was your post at ANI that alerted me. I'll have another look - if it was only the IP him/herself causing the problem I agree with your solution - will amend. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
All a moot point now but I probably should have been clearer. My main thought when I made this post was that at the time the block and protection weren't synced. So sometime tomorow the block would have expired and the talk page would still have been protected. Again, moot point now but figured I'd clear up my thoughts.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Hi, in case you didn't know, anybody, including IPs, can remove anything they like from their own talk page for any reason or no reason whatsoever. It's taken as acknowledgement that the message has been read. The only exception is declined unblock requests, and that only applies when the block to which they relate is still in effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the fact of the blanking that I saw as a problem - you're quite correct and I realise users have this right on their own talk pages. It was more that the user seemed to be treating the whole exercise as a game in provoking a template then taking delight in removing it. This didn't seem to be constructive use of a talk page. However I won't press the point - they'd probably love the attention! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Shah 88 talk page

You do get that he put the flags there to intentionally provoke and disrupt, right? You get that it's aimed at provoking Indonesian sensibilities, which is why he got blocked. It's not because he likes the flags or has any special connection with them. I'm not asking you remove them (who sees it anyway?), but I don't understand how you could think reverting to the troll version improves the encyclopedia - but of course you are doing your bit by enforcing wikipedia policy to the letter. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get that absolutely. Sadly some IP users seem to be reacting to his provocation which is presumably exactly what he wants. It would be much better if they ignored him, but seeing as they can't it would be wrong of me to condone editing other people's user pages. The answer is for other editors to leave him alone - he loves the attention and I wish people would stop giving it to him. If it continues I shall probably semi-protect his page so IP editors cannot alter it. Not because it's worth protecting, but because it would cut down the attention that continued edits and reversions bring. I think it's important we play with a straight bat here - otherwise Shah 88 and others like him can complain that there is one law for the admins and their toadies, and another for everyone else. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

Please tell me what is happening with the aspartame controversy article. Will it continue to ignore the grassroots efforts of thousands of people which gives rise to the controversy. Arydberg (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a newcoming observer there, prompted by the discussion at WP:ANI so I can't tell you for certain what is happening! But it looks to me like there's a lot of discussion on the talk page without much attempt to actually edit the article. If editors have additions they'd like to make, and reliable sources to back them up, then the changes can be made. Unfortunately the "grassroots efforts of thousands of people" can only be cited when a reliable source refers to them - that's how WP:V works. But I'm sure there ARE such sourcesm, it's just a metter of finding them and inserting them with an appropriate weight in the article as a whole. I'd counsel all editors to be less active on the talk page and start making more well-sourced edits! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I did that 3 times with wording you suggested and it was removed all three times. The article simples does not allow ANYTHING that tells the other side of the story - even though it is about a controversy. Let me know if i should re-post it. Arydberg (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please answer.Arydberg (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds True

Thank you for rescuing my text and giving me a chance to rework it. I think it can now withstand a PROD, though i doubt anyone will do so now. I hope anyone that proposes it does the courtesy of notifying me, as i dont review my watchlist very frequently (too long and utterly out of control). I dont like the slight promotional tone it has, but that can be fixed over time: i dont want to direct people to wal mart and target (not that they are evil (much), only that its not our job to do so), but the fact that this company has placed products there is notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

HourCast

Kim, Can you please explain to me (or possibly) help me understand why the article for HourCast keeps getting deleted. 2 national releases, tours, major music videos, collaborations with others on wiki sites... Your reasons for deletion did not seem valid...could you please explain. Thanks! Paddy Meltdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyMeltdown (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Paddy, as far as I can see there has only ever been one attempt to write an article on HourCast here, which was deleted in 2006 and never re-created. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say it keeps getting deleted. Can you be more precise about the article title in question? In general, answers to this question can often be answered by starting at WP:BAND - you might start there if you haven't already seen it. Do get back to me here if you have further questions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Help

Is there anything you can do to get the dogs called off? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Please.2C_I_Need_Help) I just want to go back to editing in peace, like I did for six months, without the politics and drama. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the individual at question (I think) keeps deleting this so I can only link to the diffs. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=417019402#Please.2C_I_Need_Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixhonecker (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block of IPs

Hi there. I want you to know I recently changed two indefinite blocks you placed on IP addresses. Per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. 108.32.1.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 213.249.128.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I think the first block is particularly harsh as that user had no block history and wasn't even left a block message. For IPs on a first block for non-egregious vandalism a 24 hour block is usually the standard with a proportional increase for future incidents (up to a year after about 7 or 8 blocks by my personal standard), but an indefinite block should basically never be used on IPs. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I quite agree on the first one, can't imagine looking at the contribs why I reacted so strongly. I can't recall making the block and tbh if presented with the same situation now I can't imagine doing so! The second IP however has been regular, persistent and offensive. They have repeatedly started up again immediately after the end of lengthening block periods - almost always to articles relating to Hull and surrounding areas. However I take your pointer to policy in IP blocks, and I'll just watch them and continue making time-limited blocks if/when they start up again. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

Thanks for your comments regarding Churchill Machine Tool Company and its Good Article rating listed today. I'm now finding myself having to multitask in quite a big way as the GA reviewer suggested I look towards a WP:FAC via a peer review, so I have just kick-started that review while at the same time trying to develop W & J Galloway & Sons and a couple of other articles. Galloways was another of those that was the subject of Churchill-type issues back in January. I'm hoping that the peer review process is not too demanding because it will have to take precedence over fettling the other items.

Anyway, your appreciation is, well, appreciated! - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Old news

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Grey (2nd nomination). Drmies (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the two prank editors may be related. Thanks for helping to keep discussion civil and sane! Sharktopustalk 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good spot Sharktopus, nicely caught! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Long time no see

Thanks! I've been pretty busy with other things: the arrival of our first child, publishing (finally) my critique of Trials of the Moon, and setting up an eco-village. I can't promise to be a regular here, but I do check in occasionally. Fuzzypeg★ 00:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Heidegger

It was probably a joke. Hard to explain but, you're right, no good reason... just a giggle.—Machine Elf 1735 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about AN/I topic ban proposal

Per SoV's request I added language to specify the scope of the proposed ban. Please have a look to make sure you still support the proposal. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Starhawk

Thanks very much for redirecting Starhawk (author) to Starhawk and recreating the dab page. However in regards to the Move Request: My move request is to move Starhawk (author) → Starhawk, and therefore your vote of Against move is a move to oppose this, along with JonnyMrNinja and an IP voter. Please change the bolder header of your vote discussion to "Support" if you support the move request, which is to move Starhawk (author) → Starhawk. Thanks! Otherwise, the move request will not succeed, since all but one person has voted either "Against" or "Oppose". Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pagan v's pagan

Hi Kim ( the male kind ) I have often had the same discussion with people from different religions but mostly from the Christian orientation. As a Pagan for some 43 years I am proud to be Pagan as is my wife and many friends. Paganism is a religion in an objective observation. Albeit the "Pagan" umbrella does cover many branches of Pagan worship, many faiths, many Goddess' and Gods. The capitalization of the term Pagan and Paganism, where appropriate, is merely good manners so as not to offend the many Pagans on this planet. Thank you for an interesting article. Blessed be, Keefy Gee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefygee (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keefygee, as you'll have seen from my user page I'm also proud to describe myself as pagan, and have done so for many years now.I quite understand your desire to give paganism the same respect as Christianity (for example) and I feel the same way. However as you can see, I use capital letters differently than you do! I capitalise Christianity and Paganism when I'm referring to the religion as a distinct entity, but sometimes the words pagan and Christian might simply be used as adjectives - eg "modern pagan practices..." or "traditional Christian beliefs...". In this case I would not capitalise 'pagan' because it's not a personal name, as Christ (or Buddha) is.
I see you have inserted your changes again to the article on Paganism and it's obviously something you feel strongly about. I'm going to go through and more carefully edit according to the precise meaning of the word in each sentence, then I'm going to explain myself on the talk page at that article. This is part of the so-called Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle on WP. Have a look at that link, which explains how we manage our disagreements about articles productively and I look forward to discussing it with you further! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I must apologise for the subsequent edit, this was done before I had read your reply. Whilst I accept your explanation for the capitalisation of the Pagan subject I still feel that some of the words in the article could be capitalised. However it is a mute point and to be honest I feel I must thank you for bringing the Pagan faith to the masses. Hope to converse again. Thanks again Keefygee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefygee (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I made no personal attack so please don't hand out inappropriate warnings. Okay? rpeh •T•C•E• 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Describing someone's edits as stupid is sufficient in my book. I may have a low threshold for incivility, of course. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If you'll forgive my pedantry, NPA means No personal attacks, which means I can't say "Tom is stupid". When somebody says "thank you" for an edit then reports me for making it, that is stupid, no matter what rules are in place. I didn't attack the user, I attacked an action - something clearly allowed under site rules. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for notification

Please could you do me a small favour? I've started a discussion template page regarding the use of the parameter causing the dispute between myself and User:Tom soldier - here. Since I've been asked not to post on his talk page, please could you let him know about it for me? I know this is a bit tiresome, but I've seen users warned for posting even polite requests after having been asked to stay off a talk page, so I thought I'd be safe rather than sorry. Thanks. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do, no problem, and thanks for the sensitivity on that! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Smilingbird

I highly suspect that this user is either a sock of User:Catherineyronwode herself or of her husband Nagasiva who edits as User:Self-ref. However, since I also suspect it to be a one-edit throwaway account, I don't see that anything can be done about it. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The same ungracious thought had crossed my mind. Nevertheless even if the account is never used again the final warning is there for all to see and I have left a note about it at User:Catherineyronwode's talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. :-) Yworo (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking the time to resolve Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Milowent, I really didn't mean to drive the guy nuts!--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism on the article Tamil Kshatriya

Kindly check the disruptive editing that Sitush is involved with, removing references and placing edit war warnings for my adding valid references to the article. He/she is doing anything but preventing progress to the article. More in my talk page.Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the history here and the two of you are clearly at loggerheads over the best way forward with the article. However although you disagree with Sitush, his/her edits do NOT amount to vandalism and should not be described as such. The way forward with the article is through discussion on the talk page; the expanding fight at AN/I is not going to be productive, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I closure

I was impressed with the way you managed to resolve all the numerous threads at ANI in one fell swoop. Could have freed up a lot of useful time for admins if you had left it like that! <g> - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the godlike powers of the overenthusiastic administrator. If only it were that easy! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Kim, I'd like to thank you for this edit. It was done by a good administrator and a kind person. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BBCForum

You resolved an issue with user recently over his addition of The Forum links on articles. The user has now been indefinitely blocked by Orangemike (talk · contribs), apparently without prior discussion of this. I don't disagree with the block as it's procedurally correct, but I find the block highly bitey and unnecessary. Would you mind taking this up with the blocking admin? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes I noticed that and was pondering what to do. Orangemike blocked for the username problem which I didn't really address (apart from advising User:BBCForum to change it in due course) but it might have been less bitey to let the user change their name before using the banhammer. I'll post Orangemike, thanks for prodding me into action. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New Post

Dear User:Kim Dent-Brown, I finally got around to taking a look at the discussion again. I've posted my latest comments there where you can evaluate them. I hope this helps. Cheers, AnupamTalk 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan

Hi Kim, you were recently involved with the block/unblock of User:Manorathan. He has since changed to a different username (legitimately) & become disruptive again. See User_talk:MorelMWilliam#Nair. I am concerned that this may once again escalate. Your oversight would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Boing has stepped in. Sorry to have bothered you. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BrightPath

Not sure if this is where I should ask for explanation for deletion of my article "BrightPath Education Services". If this is not the place, please redirect me. I am not sure how I have violated the posting rules. When I look at other similar companies (e.g., Premier Education Group, Accelerated Christian Education, Benesse, Educomp, HotChalk, etc.), it doesn't appear that my article was any more an advertisement than any of those. Can you please help me understand how I can post the article and be in compliance with the rules? I am relatively new to posting articles and was disheartened by the swift deletion of this article without a response to my questions on the article. Thanks for any help you can give. Jem97 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jem, yes this is certainly the right place to start with your question, and I'm sorry that one of your first experiences here has been a negative one. I deleted the article in question after it had been tagged by another editor as possibly meeting one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. There are two criteria for an article such as yours which might lead to speedy deletion; if you look down that page you'll see a criterion labelled G11 which refers to articles which appear essentially promotional, and also criterion A7 which is for topics where no assertion of notability is made. I felt as though both criteria were met, although A7 was more salient to me as I didn't think the language was overly promotional and G11 was a secondary issue.
You point out that there are other articles of a similar nature; if this is so then the logic is that they should also be deleted, rather than being an argument that yours should stay. The argument that other stuff exists never carries any weight in deletion discussions; an article must stand or fall on its own merits. That link is an essay, not formal Wikipedia policy, but it is so well accepted that it's not going to get you very far, I'm afraid.
OK, those are most of the caveats but before I tell you what you CAN do I have one more. Articles such as yours, fairly complete and reasonably well structured but looking like (forgive me!) like an entry from a trade directory can sometimes give rise to the feeling that they might have been drafted by someone with a connection to the organisation involved. Where this happens there is a clear conflict of interest - to take a silly example, you wouldn't expect a staff member from Lehman Brothers to be able to write a clear, objective, balanced article... I'm not suggesting an equivalence between the two companies, just asking if you have a particular reason for drafting the article you did which doesn't immediately leap out as the most obvious topic for a new editor! If you ARE connected then can I urge you not to recreate the article but to allow other, uninvolved editors to become aware of the company in their own time? In due course if the company is notable, someone WILL notice it and the article will be written!
So finally, assuming you have no conflict of interest, what can you do? I will recreate the article in your user space and have done so at this link. Here you can work on the article off the main wiki until it is better prepared for release into the main space. HOWEVER I must let you know that the G11 spam criterion also applies to user space and if other editors view see the material and consider it promotional, they might tag it again for deletion - if they do however I will ask them to give you some grace while you work on it.
What you need to do is work on finding more evidence of notability and asserting this in the article. At the moment there is nothing to make this firm stand out as different from any other. For example a national award of some sort, mentioned in more than one reliable media source would be one sort of notability. A major scandal, court case or criminal/civil investigation would be another - provided, again, that reliable sources are used and cited. Have a look at the general notability guideline and the specific criteria for companies to see what is required in more detail.
I still have to say that I am extremely doubtful that this is a notable company. The web address you cite in the infobox leads to a 404 error page, but I see that's because you mistyped it - but even so the Google search on the term leads to no citable publications in the first 5 pages I scanned. Please don't be disheartened if the end result is that the article is deleted again; this will not be because you have done anything wrong but just because not every company in every town in the world notable according to WP criteria. Simply existing and trading does not make a company notable - that's what they all do! Only a minority of organisations will ever be notable enough for an article here (and those that have crept in not meeting the criteria do, slowly, get weeded out.)
Sorry for the wall of text - please reply again here if you need more help on this. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Your critique is very much appreciated. No connection to the organisation so I will continue to be on the lookout for information to make sure it meets the notability requirement. Obviously, I may have to go offline to do that, but I'm not ready to give up yet! Thank you for taking the time to help me out with this. Jem97 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of education 2020

I'm sure this was made in good faith, but I don't understand why my article was immediately nominated and just as quickly deleted, even if I started it initially as a stub. I tried to explain on the talk page that it's not just a website, being a valid and internationally recognized company. There are a few hundred news articles like this one that refer to the company and its use in credit recovery. Just as a note, I have no affiliation with the company and no personal gain for it having an article. I just think that it's notable enough and should have one. Silenceisgod (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, please have a look at the detailed reply I made to the user immediately above, all of which (and more) applies to your article on Education 2020. Whether or not it amounts to more than a website is irrelevant: there was no assertion of notability of any sort. Do have a look at the advice above and if any of it is helpful or needs amplifying, please come back and post here. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
How many articles can you possibly need? One, Two, Three... just from a quick search. How else can you define notability? All criteria seem to be fit. I don't understand why this is meeting so much resistance. I mean, if you keep it deleted, I'm not going to bother to contest it again, but I think that the trigger-happiness is just a loss for wiki as a whole. Silenceisgod (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Your original article, in its entirety, said the following: "Education 2020, or E2020, is an online schooling system. Through video lectures and online assessments, it is an accepted credit recovery or homeschooling system.". The criterion for deletion under WP:CSD is "no assertion of notability" and my view was that the article as it was when I deleted it made no such assertion. If you'd like to work it up in user space - perhaps at a page like User:Silenceisgod/Education 2020 then do go ahead. If you can work in the references you found so much the better, just do make sure that your sources are authoritative. Post again here by all means if you need to discuss any further. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick update - I checked the three references above. The first two are sourced from PR Newswire which features self-published copy and is not a reliable source for WP - see this discussion for example. The third reference I couldn't see because it required a subscription. As it stands these three would not make good references and you'll need something a bit more substantial. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wandsworth Parks Police

Hi Kim thanks, taken on board your comments. I hope you will read ninety-one's comments again and think about them. I have posted on the admin page. I must say ninety-one is again doing a great job encoding readers. I am not a regular contributor to wiki, but does not mean he has the right to be rude and condescending to me and I am not allowed to reply. If I appear blunt it is because I know the truth about ninety-one's motives and he knows I know. So if I get blocked for whatever reason, it will me save me taking interest (on wiki)in a service I spent 25 years in. (not complaining have a reasonable pension ;). TopCat666 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Please consider that this personal interest may, paradoxically, make it harder for you to edit the article impartially. However it is not an absolute no-no to edit where you have a close association with the article, as long as you are scrupulously careful not to let your outside interests spill over into how you edit here. Please also do not write anything that might imply personal knowledge of another user; there's no need for it, you could never prove such assertions to the satisfaction of the WP community and it serves only to inflame the situation. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech: regards of affiliations or not with the article. Editors are not commenting on what I have written and the latest edits provided with citation. Ninety-one if you check has said he will not discuss edits or put up with other nonsense! Yet no one finds anything wrong with those inflamatory comments. I have had my edits removed with out discussion by ninety-one, I am simply putting them back with the citations. Maybe you could look at my edit and give me a balanced opinion. Personally I think Dibble999 edit should be removed if my edits and citations are not allowed to stay. Dibble999 is a self confessed member of the Police Service, which is bidding to take over the Parks Police, If that is not POV what is? Anyway I think it is ironic that I am accussed of horrendous things especially in these circumstances. After all the Wandsworth Parks Police, must be one of the most innocent of articles. TopCat666 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Kinky Kwartet

I understand that you deleted the article about The Kinky Kwartet I wanted to know two things. First, why was it deleted? You mentioned that it showed no significance, but I believe it said how the band was number 2 for four weeks on Djibouti's national top ten list. If I'm not mistaken this meets the criteria for notability for a band/group of performers (WPBAND). In addition, what in particular was advertising in the article because I only saw unbiased facts. Please let me know if I missed something. Secondly, how can I edit this page to fix it so that it may one day be an article? Thank you for your help. Pokemaster9000 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has been published and deleted several times. The latest version had a modest assertion of notability (charting in Djibouti) but the reference provided did not back this up. Seems like a hoax to me, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the band was previously known as Kabelo, which as shown on the link I cited is currently at number 2 on the Djibouti Top Ten. It is still known as Kabelo in some places because the association with Kabelo Mabalane is a very popular association in several African countries. So that would mean they are notable. Pokemaster9000 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

York meetup

Hi Kim Dent-Brown. Just to let you know there is a Wikimedia meetup being planned in York for Tuesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sincerest THANKS

Sincerest thanks for your assistance in pulling me out of that mess. 0% sarcasm there, I mean it from the bottom of my heart thank you, and it's no Dame Edna talking it's a newbie editor talking. Thank you Kim, thank you. Penyulap talk 13:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, please do take that break from the article for a bit and when you come back to it, make it a clean start and bring some collaborative edit summaries. Bye for now! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

Could you please semi-protect User talk:Yworo? I've got an IP editor that I'd rather not have posting on my talk page due to their attitude... Yworo (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd prefer not to semi your page as this prevents other IP editors from posting. Their material was not particularly extreme - ie attacking, vulgar or violating civility - so I think softly softly is the best response. I have posted a request on your talk page for the IP to leave you alone. Hopefully this will help! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
IP is back and seems to be in the same (broad) range. From the attitude I'd say it is the same editor, though impossible to say. I'd prefer to have my talk page semi-protected. I'll put a note requesting IP editors to discuss on article talk pages rather than my talk page. Yworo (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I have never posted on Yworo (talk · contribs)'s talk page before today. I welcome a check user to confirm that. I'd also suggest noting his personal attack on my talk page and his following me around reverting my edits. I'm not asking for action, just making a comment. If another anon has had problems with Yworo, it would seem to be a pattern for Yworo to provoke responses and then complain when IPs make comments about his behavior on his talk page. My two cents. Thanks. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If I ask you to stop posting on my talk page, you are required to comply. I've asked you several times and you keep posting. Do it again and I'll take the issue to WP:AN/I and you will likely be blocked. Just stop. Okay? Yworo (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not required to stop posting about your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Please do take it to ANI. I want an admin to take a look at your personal attacks, now at least two of them. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are required to stop posting false warnings or even legitimate warnings on my talk page if so requested, and to find another way to deal with it. In any case, those are not personal attacks, and if you were to report them to Wikiquette assistance, for example, you'd simply be laughed at. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I posted no false warnings, only warnings about your personal attacks and edit warring; you're the one who posted false warnings when you accused me of not leaving edit summaries. And I INVITE any admin to look at your personal attacks, such as calling me a "whining IP" or "unarmed in a battle of wits." I'll be happy to provide the diffs. I think we have bothered Kim Dent-Brown enough here. If you have an issue with me, take it to ANI. I'll be more than happy to let any admin look at both of our edits. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Druid

Both IPs are Leah27011987 (talk · contribs). Hopeless I think. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was assuming as much by the literary style. At least the semi-protection forces him/her to edit as Leah and we then have someone to talk to on their talk page. But we're in a damage limitation scenario I think, rather than being able to bring this editor round. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we will get very far. She still won't answer my question about the museum web page. By the way, I really do not like these page ratings. I can't see how they are going to help us, but I can see how they can be used in ways I'm not happy with. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page. Like Dougweller said, there's little point in trying to communicate with the perpetrator, both because of the constant IP hopping as well as the fact that they seem to be of diminished mental capacity, judging from the bizarre and incohrent posts they left on the article talk page. I'll try leaving a polite message on the user talk pages of the most recent IPs. They do have a registered username, Leah, it is true, but they seem to have abandoned it; protecting the page will probably not force them to edit under the registered username. It hasn't in the past, and it seems that they have forgotten how to log in anyway. I'll leave a polite message there, too, just in case. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for communicating with them; I agree there seems little hope of constructive dialogue but we must always assume the possibility so a polite message would be great! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Person first approach in therapy.
Message added 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok

Ok I didn't know it was for that long =) Alexander the Great (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

fyi

Hi. FYI -- I just wanted to let you know that characterizations of your comments has come up here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I had already just spotted that but good of you to point it out. I've replied on FleetCommand's talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, just recommending a block of the recently blocked users talk page. He now removes the legal threats and will probably continue with similar comments. Just wanted to notify you.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I already blocked him but thanks for the heads up! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Good. But as I understand it the user wants the Mongelli and the Clementi article deleted. And the user seems especially keen on getting the Clementi article deleted. I hope the block will end this little interuption.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore has been protected so only admins can edit it, is it alright if you can (or anyone else) edit it so it's only a semi-protection article? The vandalism was caused by an IP Address, not an Autoconfirmed account. Alexander the Great (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, the protection was set by Zscout370 who I presume did it for good reason; you need to address his/her talk page or use one of the links from the page protection template on the article itself if you want to make some edits or discuss/challenge the protection level. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Neo-paganism

Having seen your edit at the project talk page, could you help with Portal:Natib Qadish which doesn't look like a portal to me? I've already deleted material on its talk page and added the appropriate templates. I've also gone to NORN about Natib Qadish which is mainly OR (I'm not even sure it's notable). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Natib Qadish is now merged with Semitic Neopaganism so if that merger holds, then the portal should be deleted. As I type this I've realised I've no idea whether that needs an MfD or if I or another Admin can delete it as there is no longer an article for it. I'm not convinced there should have been a portal for such a minor group, but I don't know that much about portals. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doug, yes I've never been certain what any of these portals are for (even those that have a full set of well referenced articles behind them.) I suggest waiting to see if the bold redirect (which I support) sticks, and then going to MfD for the portal - it's not a deletion I'd want to perform on my own without discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice to know I'm not the only one. Will do. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Camocon

I didn't post a note to his/her talk page and perhaps I should have, but I reverted a June edit of theirs recently as copyvio [3]. It could be just chalked down to inexperience, maybe I should have mentioned it on their talk page? Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume it was either a mistake or inexperience, based on the reasonably constructive nature of most of their edits. Might have been worth mentioning at the time but perhaps not now - s/he is under a lot of pressure at the moment and it might seem like piling on. You may see I've left some encouragement on their talk page - I hope they stay and can develop, rather than being run out of town... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought, we'll just try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Natib Qadish

Thanks for your support and consolation. I'm not going to dwell on Natib Qadish deletion here at wikipedia, because I have other mediums to promote the religion. I will refrain from engaging other editors in this matter, and let the process run its course.

Once the Natib Qadish is fully resolved, I plan to create a page named "Canaanite Polytheistic Reconstructionism", similar to the Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism, because the majority of Qadishuma don't identify with the term Semitic (a form of the the biblical Shem). The "Baal" religion was strongly influenced by non-Semitic speaking cultures (i.e., Sumerians, Hurrians, Hittites, Amorites, etc.), and the Semitic language family wasn't named until the 19th century, so I don't see any historical significance in using the term Semitic. --Camocon (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, good to hear from you and thanks for getting back to me. I'll reply here because it usually feels more useful to keep conversations together on one talk page. I think it's wise to let the discussions on Natib Qadish run their course and not to expend too much energy now on a lost cause. I completely understand your frustration but unfortunately your reactions have lost you some friends here on Wikipedia. I think part of the problem is betrayed in your words above: "...I have other mediums to promote the religion". The trouble with coming here to promote something is of course that experienced WP editors are very adept at spotting this and very sensitive to resisting people attempts at promotion!
Right now I must advise against a decision to create a new page which I fear would have the same problems of sourcing as Natib Qadish and might well suffer the same fate. Certainly, don't create it freshly in main article space immediately; can suggest you create it in your user space and invite contributions and comments? The danger I foresee is that you essentially recreate Natib Qadish under a new title - after all, what else could "Canaanite Polytheistic Reconstructionism" refer to?! You will be seen as trying to promote your religion, and you will have no more sources this time round than last time. As an alternative may I suggest keeping the material at Semitic Neopaganism and expanding it as you find sources? In time if more sources emerge than it would indeed be possible to support a separate page. Until then if the title Semitic is an issue, we could discuss a move on the talk page though it may be that others disagree with you and find it the best umbrella term. If this is the case then you'll have to edit within the consensus and I'll happily help you to do so. I'm here to improve the encyclopaedia, and if you want to do that too I'm happy to help. What I won't do is help you promote your point of view and if that's the reason you are here you will find this a terribly frustrating place to work. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it's not about promotion, it's about contribution. That's why it's best for Natib Qadish to be removed from wikipedia, until it becomes noteworthy. I'll put a hold on the article I told you about, and give things a chance to cool down. Thanks again for your support, and advice. --Camocon (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re. Neopaganism

That's a nice answer, Kim. I also get the pt. about finding WP:RS and neologisms. I'm not convinced that alternative terms need to be more frequently used - and I still believe that there is a deeply pejorative aspect to such terms. I personally feel that self-identification with Pagan/Heathen is rather like a black man calling himself a 'n****r'. Thanks 20040302 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually I think it goes even further. We're getting used to young black men using this as a term of solidarity, or gay people describing themselves proudly as queer. The difference is that a white, straight man could easily be regarded as being offensive if he used either term of someone; whereas I as a pagan don't feel offended if a non-pagan calls me such. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
But there were plenty of blacks in the world in the first half of the 20th Century who didn't feel offended if they were called such terms. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have felt offended - the intent was not always meant to be offensive, and it was often used (and received) in ignorance. My contention stands - that the terms Pagan/Heathen were coined by Christians for use against those they opposed; that the terms aren't positive - they describe what people are not, not what they are; and lastly that the terms create a spiritual bond where none is required (for some theologies). I really was only passing by! I didn't mean to disturb your prayers :D (20040302 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

Pdfranz rpo

I have taken the liberty to unblock Pdfranz rpo. The user is now discussing (and requested an unblock on their talkpage) - I have left a long suggestion to the user on how to proceed. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all, if I had seen their unblock request first I'd have done it myself. I've left them a message on their talk page and hopefully we can encourage them in and establish a good working relationship now. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Odinism and Asatru

Hello, sir.

The largest Norse Pagan groups in the English-speaking world use the rubric Odinism (such as the Odinic Rite) or Asatru (such as the Asatru Alliance). For years the wiki articles on these movements have appeared here under "Germanic Neopaganism"

In the last few years, small groups have organized under the name Heathen. These groups have about twenty members or so. To increase Internet traffic to their sites, they have redirected all relevant pages to Heathenism (contemporary religion) The editor is Bhlegkorbh

As an administrator, could you restore the Germanic Neopaganism rubric as the title of the page?

Thank you

--ThorLives (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear ThorLives,
I am Bhlegkorbh, and I'm not a member of any of the groups who promote the term "Heathenism". I've always been a solitary Heathen, and I have just observed and accepted the fact that "Heathen" and "Heathenism" have become the most used labels in the Heathen communities to define the movement as a whole.
The name of the article is not a matter of how the Odinic Rite or the Asatru Alliance call their specific brand of Germanic Heathenry. It's a matter of sources. "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Paganism" can be barely found in publications about the revival of the Germanic ethnic religion. Contrarywise there are tons of publications (even by renowned scholars) which use "(Germanic) Heathenism/-ry/-dom", and the term is commonly used among Germanic Neopagans themselves, with many organisations, both American and English, using it in their name. Lastly, "Odinism" and "Asatru" are not umbrella terms for the whole movement. --79.41.251.211 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion is better at the article talk page. I'm going to copy your two posts above over there, I hope you don't think this an impertinence, and then reply there. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance

Sincere thanks for closing the TFS thread. It helps stop any further confusion. Anyhow, I'd take everyones lack of comment about my request for interaction bans as a no, on account of the two sets of rules, but I can't say I care about it, it's a landmine every new user has to step on. Penyulap talk 16:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Kim Dent-Brown,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English

Thanks for stepping into the debate to cool things down-- I will not be participating there further (I think enough has been said as it is). I think the debate has derailed into a different set of issues, and while I think the diacritics debate is interesting and worth talking about, I'm not sure they are ones worth discussing right now, even on our talks pages, given the tone of the conversation. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Capital letters

Where are the archives of this talkpage? I can't find the old discussions about capitalisation. --Bhlegkorbh Talk 09:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor continues to refuse to get it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No more posts on this topic here, thank you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim, could you please explicitly explain to now 174.99.127.20 (talk · contribs) that being asked not to post on someone's talk page includes the posting of "warnings". He continues to refuse to get it, and I've had to have my talk page protected again. Yworo (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, I'm afraid you are incorrect. Nobody can be banned from the talk page of another except by formal process such as WP:RFC or WP:ANI. Even in such cases as an interaction ban where one (or both)editors are forbidden to post on one another's talk page, warning templates are usually permitted - though personally I would regard it as a bad idea.
On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to ask someone to stop posting on your talk page - especially when (as you do) you make it clear that you prefer to discuss articles on their talk pages. When asked to stop I think it's good manners to do so and the IP should not continue; not because I say so, or because of a policy but because it's impolite and in any case counter productive.
Finally, as you pointed out everyone can immediately remove almost anything posted on their talk page by another. There are a very limited number of exceptions at WP:REMOVE. Confirmed sock puppet findings, non-expired blocks etc are among these. Mere warnings about a sock puppet investigation are not, and may be removed by the talk page owner.
There's little to choose between you and the IP on this one. (And if the IP should read this - please take no comfort from it. You should stay away as you have been asked and edit more collaboratively and less combatively.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll stay away (gladly) except when Yworo makes personal attacks (on me especially), edit wars in articles that I edit, or deliberately crosses my path to try to stir up trouble. I take no comfort in any of my conflicts with Yworo. I prefer that he stay as far away from me as possible. Thanks for you comments. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be far better, IP editor, if you stayed away even from leaving warning templates. Coming from you,there is absolutely zero chance that Yworo is going to take them seriously. If Yworo (for example) breaks WP:3RR it will be obvious to other editors; let them handle it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup, and I was ignoring you, right up until you stalked me to an article, reverted my edit for no valid reason, and then started repeatedly plastering my talk page with false warnings. When my talk page was protected, the admin who did so characterized your activity as "persistent vandalism". Did you notice that? No, I don't think you did. Take a look at the edit comments: [4]: "Protected User talk:Yworo: Persistent vandalism". Not my words, an admin called you a vandal. You might want to think about that. Yworo (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There he goes again with the false accusations and selective linking. Kim, out of respect for you I won't continue to respond to Yworo here unless he decides again to harass me elsewhere. Thanks for your comments and please forgive the intrusion. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't carry this on in my talk page. I usually prefer to leave all edits here as a full record but I will delete any which follow this. This topic is closed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sir, Please Contact Other Administrators

Sir, please consult with DBachmann and Bloodofox before reversing their changes. I know you are trying to help, but consensus is important.

Thank you.

--ThorLives (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As you'll see, I haven't actually reversed any changes. If you look carefully what I've done is to restore a minority of the material that was deleted, where it seems to have a reasonable source. By the way, nobody has used any administrative powers here; we're all just working as editors. Admins like me have no more or less editorial authority than anybody else. Consensus is achieved on the article talk page, not by contacting individual editors; I've been restoring material for a while and nobody has protested until now! The right place to discuss is the talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous reply.

I was planning to remove all of the self-published works, all the uses of "blogs" as sources, all of the use of term papers as sources, but I think the nerves are too raw right now, so I will desist.

--ThorLives (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, reaching partial consensus with individual editors is actually a good idea sometimes: see: WP:BRD. Using the talk page is generally preferred, but not required. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kim_Dent-Brown/Archive_6&oldid=1110500612"