User talk:CorbieVreccan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 22 November 2006

For the sake of conversational continuity:

If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here.
If I leave a message on your talk page, I will monitor your talk page and read your response there.

Tapadh Leibh,
--KPN

Leave a new message.
Please sign your message by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Archived Discussions

Sheela na gig

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your contributions to the Sheela-na-gig page... just discovered them last year in Ireland myself, and being very excited about them, I feel strongly about the maintenance of a thorough and accurate representation on wikipedia. So thanks! -Fennel 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your good work on the article, as well! --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UU Youth Program

Hi Kathryn, I don't quite agree with the placement of the CUUPs link on the UU Youth & Young Adult programming. This template was designed with specifically youth & young adult organizations in mind, and CUUPs is not specific to either of those two groupings of people. Perhaps a larger template should be created, out of List of Unitarian Universalist Associate Member organizations, and/or List of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. CUUPs, from what I know, falls into the latter category, and is indeed on that list. HellaNorCal 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the rationale, if we're just talking about groups that are focused on UU Youth or UU Young Adults. But, in my experience, UU Youth are also interested in CUUPS and other Pagan groups, and the "UU" Young Adult group members of my acquaintance were not always strictly UU, either. If that makes sense. I also realize that the changes that my generation fought so hard against have resulted in you and I operating in somewhat different paradigms when it comes to things UU, and that a great deal has changed since I was active in the UUA. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les boites sont pour tout-e-s !

Hi Kathryn; take all the boites you want! Actually, the only ones I designed are the CR and Indian food ones. (User box templates have been so controversial that somebody came along and hit {{subst:User box}} for all of them, so that they no longer link to the original template. I guess it was feared at first that the Wikipedia servers would be overwhelmed by the number of user boxes. Personally I quite like them.) Anyway, I'm pleased to hear from you, because I know you somewhat by reputation, and I like what I've seen of your stuff – the CR FAQ and various WP contributions, mainly. I've been on a campaign to purge Wikipedia of unsourced nonsense in the field of Celtic religion (e.g. two articles stated positively that Toutatis is a "mock god" because he got mentioned in Astérix – I nearly cried). Anyhoo, stay strong; keep it real! Quartier Latin1968 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup pour votre gentil mot. Et, encore, pour votre boîtes; elles sont très amusantes. d'Accord, parce-ce que mon français est affreux... en anglais: While I can understand not overdoing it on les boîtes, I think a tasteful few are not out of line :-) I have also noticed your WP contributions, and seen you fighting the good fight, so am glad to hear from you! I share your mission in cleaning up the psuedo-Celtic messes on WP, and staying vigilant against the nonsense that keeps creeping in. A recent concern of mine is the link almost-spam: people trying to use the Celtic WP entries as a place for posting links to their Wiccan articles or similar nonsense. What is such a time drain about these is that sometimes a linked article that is not obviously Wiccan will seem ok at a skim, but once read thoroughly will turn out to contain all sorts of misinformation in among the good bits. It's a drag having to read through those, but I've realized that if something looks like a possibly-ok link, one of us has to read the whole thing or the crap creeps back in. I'm trying to keep a higher standard for what is considered link-worthy. We just had someone put a comic book as a *source* on the Morrígan page [sobs, aussi]. Though I think they eventually figured out that was a mistake and moved it to a pop-culture section.

I'm honored that you like the FAQ. I'm currently a bit crispy from trying to finish up the book version. We decided to do a glossary and a few additional bits, and it's taking far longer than planned. [grinding my rusty brain gears yet again:] Tapadh leibh a-rithist! --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps - Good responses to the celtoskeptic over on Modern Celts. I wanted to seem reasonable, but it's definitely a POV-push. Reverts are in order. YAR!!! ;-)

Hahaha! You omitted to mention you were a pirate. Now, to be fair to Enzedbrit – I've crossed swords (cutlasses?) with him once or twice before, and though his point of view is original, it's not altogether unreasonable. To paraphrase wildly, he sees Cumbria as living proof that England is as Celtic as anyplace else, and as a result, why should this whole 'Celtic' thing be used for England-bashing or advancing nationalist causes or anything else. I'm not really troubled by that POV, just by the way he sometimes (by no means always) expresses it. And let me offer a word of friendly caution: You might want to be careful to avoid comments that could be taken as ad hominems; even if a user's motivations are (shall we say) eccentric, she can still contribute something useful to the finished product. Assume good faith, and usually everybody's Wiki-life is happier.

Myself, I haven't been too concerned with external links. If somebody puts a link to their website giving a lengthy Wiccan interpretation of the Morrígan, I'm not bothered – to me it just means we should add a link to some real scholarship, translations of the original texts, or whatever. True, people do take advantage of Wikipedia to increase their Google hit count – and I strongly resent that when the intention is commercial. Maybe I should look over the WP guidelines on external links, though; I actually have no idea what the criteria of admissibility are supposed to be.

I didn't realize the FAQ was going to become a book! Congratulations; it really is a monumental work.

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about interpretatio romana and its theological implications. I wonder what you'd think of this essay on the subject... The author (who's an academic but not a polytheist) has an interesting take on the idea of 'translating' gods across cultures – interpreting them as now the same god in a different guise, now a different god, now a god who's separate but only in certain respects, according to the case... I wonder what your reaction would be.

Any-old-how, take her easy! Quartier Latin1968

19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. You thought my comments in the Modern Celts discussion were ad hominem? --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good lord. I really owe you an apology; I must have somehow thought that Siarach's comments were yours. Not that what he said was properly ad hominem either, just verging on iffy territory. Still, I feel quite appalled to have even made such a comment without being 100% sure of my facts – I am most awfully sorry. I must stop doing Wikipedia while multi-tasking eight other things – my poor wee brain can't handle the confusion. Quartier Latin1968

03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a relief. Apology accepted. Though, if one is to be confused with anyone else, I am honored to be confused with An Siarach. I am concerned about Enzedbrit's behaviour, though. I checked his contributions and he is going through other articles deleting references to the Celtic diaspora. And breaking the three-revert rule. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I swiped the code for one of your userboxes for my own page. I'm Wiccan, not C-R, but do in fact swear by the Gods by whom my people swear.
And after looking at your page, I have more things in which to rummage around and learn stuff...
Septegram 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fulacht fiadh

I'm keen to add an image to this article, there are quite a few near by to where I grew up, but I won't be back there for a few weeks. I found this on my camera, a random shot taken last August, but can't figure out if its the remains of a ring fort, or a large example of a Fulacht fiadh.

BYW, if you could expand on the 'Etymology' section of the article, that would be great. - Coil00 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on adding some images. One of the reason I included some of the links I did is that, even if they don't add anything content-wise, they do have some good pictures. Hard to tell about the remains on your picture without more details. What's the scale and the location? (We need sheep *in* the site ;-)). Do you know if anyone else has logged it anywhere? I'll give a look at the etymology when I get a chance. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll add a few pic, but in a few weeks. I take your comment re sheep / scale. It's sometimes hard not to run over the buggers, they DO tend to hang around Megalithic monuments, bless 'em - Coil00 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durrus and District History

Hi, i did an article very long and needs editing on durrus and district, you might be interested in the list of Irish words in use in the 1930s 213.79.43.134 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it to the list. --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clootie wells and Holy Wells

Clootie well seems very like Irish Holy wells or old churches where people leave rags money maybe an article re same ? Durrus 17:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're largely the same thing. If you check out the links and sources on Clootie well you'll see a number of them are Irish. I've pondered whether we also need a more general Holy wells article. There is so much overlap that right now the two would read largely the same. Perhaps we should make Holy well a redirect to Clootie well, unless and until someone wants to put together an article that also covers holy wells that are significantly different from Clootie wells. The topic also overlaps with Well dressing. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tardy thank you

I want to thank you for all the work you did in cleaning up and adding references to Celtic Wicca. It's quite late for such appreciation (you did the work at the end of September), but better late than never. Justin Eiler 04:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Justin! And thank you for your polite but firm response to the latest complaints on the talk page. You handed it more diplomatically than I would have been able. I know it's hard for people to understand that what they were taught is wrong, often because those who taught them believe it so sincerely. I just hope with time, and the actual reading of the sources we cite, that they will be able to look at the subject with a more open mind. Tapadh Leibh! --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to Myself

Moved to User:KathrynNicDhàna/Notes to Myself and User:KathrynNicDhàna/Clan MacEwan.

Sigh

You said: "This user basically supports the legalization of same sex marriage. Except for her exes, dammit."

I know I'm fundamentally a stranger to you, but if you need a sympathetic ear, I have two available. Justin Eiler 02:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are very kind. I'm ok, just a bit stressed and overwhelmed today. I was making a joke. Mostly. ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the therapeutic value in humor. :) May it be well with you. Justin Eiler 03:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"More Irish than the ..."

Hi Kathryn. I've left a message in the talk page for "More Irish than the Irish themselves" (Talk:More_Irish_than_the_Irish_themselves) about my removal of the "modern usage" section. Le meas, Sony-youth 11:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template talk:Celtic mythology

Hi there. I did see your talk page comment, but I didn't feel as though I had anything thoughtful to say at the time. However, an idea occurred to me tonight which might make everything perfect ... or else confuse the situation and end up exasperating everybody! In any event, must go to sleep (I've just moved from Chicago to Istanbul, and have somehow ended up on Greenland time!). Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Istanbul, not Con-stan-tinople..." Hope you've landed safely. Samhainn mhath dhut! --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan MacEwan

Hey there, I saw your notes at Clan MacEwan. My somewhat-educated opinion would say that Ewan is the anglicised version of (something like Eoghain, I'm not sure), and Son of Ewan would be MacEoghain; so Clan MacEwan, just like Kathryn NicDhàna. Sometime, you should convince me of the virtues of Celtic reconstructionist Paganism. Yes, yes you should. : )File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fàilte to my talk page, a Chanæn! Yes, the generally agreed upon Gaelic version is/was Eoghainn, at least in the research I've seen. I would of course prefer to put the page under Clann Eoghainn, but being this is English Wikipedia that would probably not go well for me. I'd wind up trying to round up the usual suspects to help me fight the redirect, only to fail in a blaze of Gaelic Wiki-Drama. Oh well, maybe when my Gàidhlig is better I can do a translation over at the Gaelic Wiki. So, yes, it does seem that we will probably have to go with Clan MacEwan or similar.

Let's see, the virtues of CR... Well, you get to belong to an obscure religion no one has heard of, and that is quite glamorous. People will assume you mean Historical reenactment because, likely, they've never heard the phrase Polytheistic reconstructionism before. They will of course ask you if it's like those guys in Braveheart, but they will mean well. You're likely get more approval from your parents than if you become, oh, a Wiccan or Hare Krishna or something like that. Actually, your parents and grandparents may be able to help you by remembering folklore and folk practices no one else observes anymore ("Grandad, are you sure setting your hair on fire is part of the ritual?"). You get to spend a lot of time debating theories with other Celic Studies geeks, and inflicting bizarre ritual experiments on your hapless friends ("Really! I'm sure this is the way it was done! My Granfather showed me!"). Most hippie Pagans will think you are really too into all those moldy books, and get mad at you if you tell them Wicca isn't actually Celtic. Then they will ask why would you want to learn to say or read stuff in a Gaelic language anyway. Your mood will vary widely. It's a lucrative gig, I tell ya... *snerk* --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you so much for the Barnstar. After a day of 5% editing and 95% anti-vandal patrol, it's good to know that the efforts don't go unappreciated. :) Justin Eiler 21:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish town articles

Hi, would you help me get some Irish town articles edited?? I'd appreciate it! SunStar Net 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around and see what I can do. It would sped up the process if you could point me towards the specific articles or categories of articles you'd like help with. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork -> Cork City

Why are you editing my requested move? I know the vote to move Cork (material) to Cork failed to achieve consensus, but many of the oppose votes indicated they would support the move I am now requesting (Cork to Cork City and Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork. I've set up the voting to take place at Talk:Cork. --Serge 06:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this was already covered. Only a few people said anything about changing the disambig page. I thought the debate was over. --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over a third (5 of the 13) opposing the move of Cork (material) to Cork indicated they would or at least might support a move of the dab page to Cork. Add that number to the 9 supporters of the first move and you have a clear majority (14 to 8), but I think we should have a specific survey for this to confirm. --Serge 07:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from LJ

Hi there! Just waving atcha from over here now :) I remember meeting you on Fulacht fiadh a few weeks back - Alison^✍ 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Waves back] :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'allo

Believe we met, (irl 31 Oct 97, I brought pumpkin soup and a pomegranate) and again on Lj when someone was being trollish, and you one-upped them in trolling yourself . . . I think.--Vidkun 02:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm BEYOND screwed up on this one: I'm thinking of Ní Dhighe.--Vidkun 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it gets weirder. I think you may actually be thinking of a third person who shares those initials: my good friend who almost fits the same description of me on paper, has been confused with me before, and which confusion led to us having to create the "NOT the Same Person" icon :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm actually thinking of Danielle Ní Dhighe, of AACT, whom I met at Samhain of 97. But I may have also seen you on nfp on lj.--Vidkun 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, I know who DNíD is - we met on usenet about 10 years ago now. Wow - small world :) - Alison^✍ 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am acquainted with Dani from her work with Imbas. However it was Kym who founded AACT, and who lives in NH. :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH. SHows you the faultiness of memory with age. I KNOW I was in NH, so I know (now) who it must have been. Dang all the similar sounding names!--Vidkun 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, long ago, some rogue spirit, god or non-god decreed, "Make all these women have ni/Nic names, and most of them include a D!" We didn't plan it, I swear. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AND a "k", too!--Vidkun 13:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core Shamanism

Hi Kathryn. I'm interested in your last edits to Core Shamanism, which refer to criticisms of the system. Could you add citations and/or external links to that article which would make it easier to understand the what and why of these criticisms? I'm rather an outsider to understanding any of this, and I need more references. Thanks! — Coelacan | talk 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain my edits you are referring to were just a copyedit for clarity. I did not originate that section. Sourcing isn't really a problem, though, just need to do it. (Hmmm... [wonders if she can fit it in tonight...]) --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rv question

Hi, I was wondering what happened with this edit? I'm unclear on what you intended to do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops!!! I was removing this. Something glitched and I didn't see that there had been edits since then. All apologies! I probably multitasked myself into a mistake: Was in process of warning 89.213.13.44, who appears to be return of blocked user 82.163.39.185. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of "More Irish than the Irish themselves"

I've posted a proposed edit on the talk page at Talk:More_Irish_than_the_Irish_themselves#Proposed_rewrite_of_final_section. (Abú ar an obair mhaith le Shamhain freisin. Go raibh maith agat!) --sony-youth 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations

Hi Kathryn, I'd mcuh appreciate your voice over at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. There's not much to explain; several of the organizations have been put up for AfD recently; CUUPs was kept, but others are still up in the air.

As a side note, have you see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_Ancient_Civilizations/Celts ? You might be interested in it; still has some work to be done, but the basis is there. There's only been one person editing, and it could use a second voice.

Some day I'm going to ask you to orient me in the world of CRP, oh fellow UU Gael. HellaNorCal 00:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kathryn NicDhàna! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tapadh Leibh! (Thank you!) Time to download it and get BACK TO WORK! ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VP

VP 1.3 should be woking Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del Close

Just wanted to belatedly drop by and thank you for beating back the vandalism on the Del Close page. Cheers. Kgwo1972 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your work on the article, as well! The person who kept blanking text seemed to have some sort of agenda against Del. Maybe he was kicked off an Improv Olympic team or something. Maybe Harold didn't agree with him. I didn't really *know* Del, but we did cross paths a few times when I was doing improv in Chicago. I was simultaneously horrified and floored with amusement when I heard Charna showed up at Goodman with the skull. What an amazing joke. Similarly, when I heard the skull wasn't really Del's I was somewhat relieved, but mostly impressed they'd pulled it off as well as they did. I've got to love someone who is still amusing us so well, even from beyond the grave. Did we ever find out whose skull it was? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kathryn NicDhàna! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using it for a couple days now. Sometimes it shuts down for no apparent reason and I have to restart it. And at times I'm a bit dangerous as I learn what it can and can't do. Twice now I've accidentally left an AfD on the pages of anonymous IP vandals! Who knew. Other than that, it is quite useful for the thwacking. Thanks for developing it, and I look forward to v1.3.1.--Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous anger from 86.42.146.214

Why do you insist in filling WP with silly pejoratives that only comedians use. These terms, like "Miserly Scotsman" etc should only be in the WikiDic!! 86.42.146.214 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what are you referring? If this is about removing the ProD template from Plastic Paddy, I discussed that on the talk page. I think that hardly constitutes "filling WP" with anything. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whois angry? Maybe you are. I don't understand the term. Come to think of it, I don't know who you are either! LOL. A cara, hope you don't mind other people having an opinion. Slainte. 86.42.146.214 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted various talk page comments in all caps and with many exclamation points. This is generally perceived as shouting. You have also been using profanity and insults in some of your edit summaries. This violates WP:Civil. As you have often been contentious in some of these comments, it is not unreasonable to perceive these things as anger. While I am not angry, I do find some of your recent actions, such as your screaming "No POPERY around here!!!!!!!!!!!" on the Halloween article, and your abuse of NPOV templates by posting the template on an entire article when you disagree with a minor point in a subsection, to be counterproductive and not helpful to the encyclopedia. Your actions so far are those of someone who has come here more to pick fights than contribute. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your sense of humour, mainly tongue in cheek stuff, under the influence of a little wine perhaps. No, not you. Me! I have a user name, and you are not getting it. I only use it when I'm sober, HeHeHe. Just because I might be off the mark sometimes, well that doesn't make you correct. No POPERY around here!!!!!!!!!!! was a very targeted response to a particular editor. It was very appropiate. Now where was I with this novel that I'm trying to finish?? 86.42.146.214 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using one account to do edits for which you wish to be accountable, and another for the purpose of disruption, violates Wikipedia policy on Socpuppetry. While the right to edit under an IP edits is protected, if you routinely use your IP, or other IPs in your range which are obviously you, as in effect a "second account" to avoid accountability, you are risking being banned. Specifically see: WP:Sock#"Good hand, bad hand" accounts --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ellwood AfD

In addition to vandalizing the page, 71.219.150.102 had placed the notice but did not create an articles for deletion entry. I reported them, and they were dealt with, so I felt safe in removing it. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action. --Tsuzuki26 04:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(side note) I did not see how any discussion could have taken place without an articles for deletion entry. And as I said, the user who placed the notice had just been blocked for vandalizing that very entry. I thought I was doing the right thing. --Tsuzuki26 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page for the entry is created automatically when the template is placed. However, there is almost always a bit of a delay in the discussion page being up and accessible (depends on how busy the server is). So it will be redlinked for a little while. I assume you just deleted the template before the system caught up with the backload. The system did eventually create the page, as when I reverted the article the discussion page appeared, with comments already on it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history of the deletion entry, it wasn't created until two hours after you reverted the main entry. The same user, 71.219.150.102, did the same thing to this article[1], and there is still no deletion entry. What is the right course of action for cases like this? --Tsuzuki26 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that *is* very odd. I'm really not sure. My first guess is to say that the user made some kind of mistake when applying the notice. However, it was done correctly on the Ellwood article, as I didn't change a thing in the notice, just reverted, and the discussion page appeared. I really don't know, except to say sometimes the system is glitchy. I'll look at the Julian Vayne article and see if there are any hints there. Very odd. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a long time for both of them, just to be sure, and only did it after official action was taken against that user. My first guess was that it was due to them not having an actual account. Are IP addresses able to create articles for deletion entries? --Tsuzuki26 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't know. That would make sense, though. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the proper course of action to take in the future? --Tsuzuki26 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what? When an anonymous user puts up an AfD notice? I think you're going to have to research what do in those cases, as I haven't encountered it before this. You may be able to create the discussion page by clicking on the red link and starting the discussion yourself, or by following the page creation instructions in the template. You could also try re-applying the template yourself and see if that takes care of it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're on to something with the IP thing. I just clicked on the red link and it logged me out (glitchy WP), and said I had to log in to start the page, so, yeah. I think that's the reason. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. Is this you?[2] --Tsuzuki26 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Why do you ask? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe you were testing out anonymous AfD or something. --Tsuzuki26 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Julian Vayne AfD link is now working. It was the IP thing. Once an article has been flagged, I think the only thing to do is discuss it per the usual process. If you find any exceptions to this, please let me know. Abuse of templates is serious vandalism if done with malicious intent. However, there is some leeway if it is a good-faith mistake. It seems to me that the anonymous user probably had reasons for the Julian Vayne nomination beyond pure vandalism, though I haven't looked into that case enough to know whether or not I agree with those reasons. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Book sales as criterion for notability of an author: As I mentioned on the subject Afd, I see this author has two books with sales in the top 250,000. That certainly is not a best seller, but how can I judge whether it is a "good seller?" Do you know of any online guide to estimate Amazon sales from Amazon ranking? Or any other way to determine sales of books? Is it a closely guarded secret of the publisher? Thanks! Edison 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link that says he has books in the top 250,000? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't exactly a neutral party in your decision to delete my profile, given our past interaction in regards to the CR FAQ and also in regards to your one colleague who decided to do a treflochan about me because I chose not to attend his workshop (which he made public and you knew about and explained as one of your reasons for not going with my publisher with the CR FAQ). Besides my books and online publications, I've published articles in print magazines such as newWitch magazine and had my books reviewed in such forums. Additionally the online magazines I've written for (and had my books reviewed in) are notable in the occult community, regardless of the fact that they are online. I've also been interviewed in radio podcats and my books are getting distribution in independent stores. At the least you should admit your lack of neutrality in this case, given our previous interactions. We may not know each other well, but those interactions have an impact and that includes in this particular case. If I'm deleted so be it, but it should be for the right reasons and it should be nominated by someone who is completely neutral, as according to wikipedia standards.--TaylorE 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taylor. I did not start the AfD. Another user did, and the template was inappropriately removed by Tsuzuki26 before any discussion could take place - this removal violates Wikipedia policy and is considered a form of vandalism. I reverted the vandalism.

I am concerned that your article was started in a bout of severe spamming by Rosencomet. That you then started an article for your wife and linked it to yours was also inappropriate (the Lupa article has since been deleted per the Speedy Deletion non-notability criteria). I have given my perspective in the AfD, but the decision is not up to me. It is now under discussion and it is up to the consensus process to see what will happen to it.

As you and I have only conversed very briefly via two e-mails, I don't consider us to know each other. True, we do know some of the same people, but I really know very little about you beyond those two e-mails. It was our investigation into the details of your press which led to us rejecting your offer to publish the FAQ. As I did in our brief exchange, I thank you for the offer, but it's really not what we want for the book. As you ask, I will make sure those in the AfD discussion know about our brief exchange. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I agree the rosencomet entry was very spam like. I didn't appreciate it myself. And I agree the article for Lupa was obviously biased. I apologize for that. I appreciate that you notified the people in the discussion. As for the FAQ, honestly I didn't really expect it would be printed by us, but made the offer because one of your co-contributors indicated interest. If my entry's deleted I understand, but will point out that IP, while being a POD is not just a step above a vanity press. We don't require fees (which vanity presses do) and pay our authors (which vanity presses do not do). Additionally IP has a professional staff, similar to a traditional publisher (which a vanity press does not have). My point being that POD shouldn't be used an indicator of notability or lack thereof. But if the entry is deleted then that's how it goes. Thanks again for addressing my comments and displaying the information to the other participants.--TaylorE 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalk Talk

This is the message I posted on 999's talk page. As he immediately archived it, I am logging it here as well. I also include the warning posted on his page by another editor, which 999 also promptly archived. The originals can be found here: User talk:999/Archive 4:

WP:Stalk

999, what's with the borderline Wikstalking? Suddenly today you've turned up and started editing a number of articles I've worked on (Eleven at last count), even obscure ones like the disambig page for the name Catriona. Most of your edits have been countering mine, including placing a ProD notice on an established article, and you are now bordering on a revert war on Faery Wicca over a minor link (which is inappropriate to the article). I notice this started after my participation in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood AfD, in which we voted on opposite sides of the matter. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Hi 999. If you believe another editor is making edits which violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines, then it is appropriate to use that user's contributions list to check for such bad edits. However, it is not appropriate to take a conflict from one article to the next simply because the same editor is involved. Since you appear to be following another user, please explain what policies or guidelines you believe this user to be violating, or what other grounds you may have to follow this user. Alternatively, I strongly suggest that you avoid editting articles which you find in this other user's contributions list. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

I had the same problem with User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati after they disagreed with some of my edits on articles listed on Starwood Festival. It culminated in numerous ugly accusations and a RFC against me. Ekajati and 999 stalked me and interjected comments on user's pages after mine such as [3], and put tags on my articles similar to your description. Hanuman Das did that to 39 articles I had either created or been involved with on one day alone. Ekajati wrote numerous accusations against me on other users pages, enlisting them to blacklist me. e.g. User:Anger22. Yet on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival which was opened to address following proper Wikipedia policies on articles associated with Starwood Festival (which Taylor Ellwood is one) 999, Hanuman Das, and Ekajati have not entered into a dialog to resolve the issues. After Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse was opened just after and did not achieve their aims, their stalking of me has paused for the time being. The users listed above are protecting User:Rosencomet and his suite of articles:

User:Timmy12 removed search engine links within these articles [4] and seems to have been driven away from Wikipedia. He was concerned with what he considered spam links in the articles:Check Rosencomet linkspamming. If you know of a way of dealing with this besides just leaving Starwood Festival and associated articles alone, I would appreciate your advice. Perhaps you would be willing to enter in dialog in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no...

No, I'm not stalking you. If you look at my contribs, you'll see that last week I spent a lot of time working on Category:Magic and Category:Wicca. While I was doing so, I put a number of articles on my watchlist. That explains most of my recent edits. I also became aware of a number of what I consider "neologism" articles during that process, such as Fluffy bunny and Plastic Paddy, the latter of which was a repost of a deleted article. Yes, I looked at your contribs and peaked at a couple of articles you'd edited some time ago that intrigued me and made a contribution or two. That is not stalking. Stalking is when someone follows around behind you as you make edits to intentionally interfere with you. I did not do so and do not intend to do so. My edits are solely intended to improve Wikipedia. -999 (Talk) 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deuling apologies at thirty paces

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Vayne

<Insert small chuckle.> I had come back around to this debate intending to soften my response, as I am oft-times over zealous in defending my cryptonymic brothers. No harm, no foul.
152.91.9.144 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Chuckles right along with you.> I wasn't really contesting his right to edit via IP, but at the time I made that reply I was a bit frustrated that the same system that supports IP edits does not allow the same user to complete the AfD setup - effectively stranding pages halfway through the process unless some registered user finds them and decides to complete it (assuming they know how). I can see the rationale for blocking the procedure, as most vandalism comes from IPs, and AfD's are much harder to revert than simple edits. But I was frustrated by feeling caught in the middle between someone who needed help starting the AfDs and those who were sort of hassling me for supporting some of the AfDs in progress. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors

I never got a chance to personally welcome you to the LoC. I've gotten to reading some of your past edits and I have no doubt at all that you are going to be a great addition to our group. Already you have been an incredible help to us and I really look forward to working with you in the future. Trusilver 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for starting the League! I look forward to future collaborations. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

Hi Kathryn,

This is regarding the "Religious Controversies" bit. While I agree with your general sentiment,

Halloween and all Saints Day were originally the same day, much as Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are the same (and for the same reason).

When the Pope declared "All Saints Day" or "All Hallows Day" (same meaning) in the 8th century, the day was reckoned as starting at Sunset. It was several centuries later that the day was assumed to start at midnight, so it was at that point when the holidays fell on consecutive days.

Halloween, is of itself, a Christian celebration. It is celebrated, of course, by what is left of earlier rituals, which is what makes Christians uncomfortable. Halloween was deliberately created to supplant the non-christian festival, I would say more or less unsuccessfully.

Check out the wikipedia entry on "Florentine Reckoning" and "All Saints Day" for a fuller explanation.

Cheers, Trishm 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trish - I know this and agree with you, actually :-) A lot of what I did with that section was cleanup, under pressure, in the midst of intense vandalism and edit warring. When I found it it was full of extreme POV of the "All Christians think Halloween is Teh Evol!!!" variety, I mostly cut out the completely unacceptable stuff and rewrote it to be at least tolerable. Even this was controversial at the time. I didn't want to go too far as things were so heated and bizarre at the time (see my archived Halloween Debacle page for a stumble down memory lane). But things have calmed down now, especially since our main agitator was blocked. Please, feel free to work on the section. In particular, if we're going to include religious views, it is still heavily biased towards Christianity, with a few points about earlier and contemporary Pagan views. Though I felt it important to add the Celtic Christian quote that I did, we could use to trim the Christian stuff a bit more and at least touch on other religious perspectives (to the extent other religions even care about the holiday). Thanks for your work on the article! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

sorry, i dont know how to revert articles or formatt them, wont happen again though.--Globe01 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 216: / Line 216: @@
 :::You have posted various talk page comments in all caps and with many exclamation points.  This is generally perceived as shouting.  You have also been [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=86.42.146.214 using profanity and insults in some of your edit summaries].  This violates [[WP:Civil]].  As you have often been contentious in some of these comments, it is not unreasonable to perceive these things as anger.  While I am not angry, I do find some of your recent actions, such as your screaming [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halloween&diff=prev&oldid=87882352 "No POPERY around here!!!!!!!!!!!"] on the [[Halloween]] article, and your abuse of NPOV templates by [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Halloween&diff=prev&oldid=87883492  posting the template] on an entire article when you disagree with a minor point in a subsection, to be counterproductive and not helpful to the encyclopedia. Your actions so far are those of someone who has come here more to pick fights than contribute. --[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|Kathryn NicDhàna]]  [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]♦[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]] 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 ::::Where is your sense of humour, mainly tongue in cheek stuff, under the influence of a little wine perhaps. No, not you. Me!  I have a ''user name'', and you are not getting it.  I only use it when I'm sober, HeHeHe.  Just because I might be off the mark sometimes, well that doesn't make you correct. No POPERY around here!!!!!!!!!!! was a very targeted response to a particular editor.  It was very appropiate. Now where was I with this novel that I'm trying to finish?? [[User:86.42.146.214|86.42.146.214]] 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
+:::::Using one account to do edits for which you wish to be accountable, and another for the purpose of disruption, violates [[WP:Sock|Wikipedia policy on Socpuppetry]].  While the right to edit under an IP edits is protected, if you routinely use your IP, or other IPs in your range which are obviously you, as in effect a "second account" to avoid accountability, you are risking being banned. Specifically see: [[WP:Sock#"Good hand, bad hand" accounts]] --[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|Kathryn NicDhàna]]  [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]♦[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]] 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 == Taylor Ellwood AfD ==