User talk:CorbieVreccan

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: ~~~~

• Archive 1: July 2005 - July 2006

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)

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

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)

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)

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! QuartierLatin1968 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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! QuartierLatin1968 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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. QuartierLatin1968 03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some Wikipedia guidelines, for 81.155.58.135

Hello. Firstly, I'm new to talking through Wikipedia, so I apologise if I have placed this message in the wrong place. I am one of two people who has attempted to edit the section in relation to Patricia Kennealy Morrison. To clarify, my point of view in relation Ms. K is really not relevant to the edits I attempted to made. That these claims are alleged is a point of fact, regardless of other sourcing which also make claims in respect of the alleged nature of her relationship with Jim Morrison. In regard to a 3-change revert rule, I was obviously unaware of such a rule. Being aware of it, I will cease any further attempt to make a change to the article, until such time as I obtain the surname of my source, a mutual friend of the late Jim Morrison. Strictly out of curiosity, does the 3 change revert rule apply to members of Wikipedia who change an article back to it's previous state on 3 seperate occasions? I am merely curious from an academic standpoint and am not in any way questioning your reversions at this time to the article by making this enquiry. Finally, just to reassure you, I have never met Ms. Kenneally Morrison, and beyond my concern for historical accuracy have no bone to pick with the woman - in fact I have enjoyed her works as a fiction writer over the years - she is indeed a very good fiction writer. It is a shame also that her website is no longer as active as it was once, but I digress. My thanks to you for your polite messages - it is better to have someone point out the rules of Wiki posting before I go rearranging great swathes of it! I look forward to your reply Ms. NicDhana.

The Three Revert Rule is largely there to prevent edit wars. Rather than have people revert back and forth between their preferred versions of the article, the point is to encourage people to dialogue about their differences on the article's talk page. This is so a productive solution can be reached, as opposed to pointless back and forth reverts that eventually cede the "victory" to the one with the most stamina and determination. The one time the 3RR isn't in effect is when potentially libelous material is being posted about a living person. Then those who are removing the potentially libelous statements can revert as much as is needed to avoid Wikipedia being sued for libel.

Another Wikipedia principle that we must observe as we contribute to this encyclopedia is Verifiability:
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
The points you were indicating as "alleged" in the article are from sources that meet the Wikipedia standard of reliability and verifiability, so it is inaccurate and potentially libelous to make some of the changes you made. The witnessed document which Jim and Patricia signed at their handfasting/wedding has been reproduced in Strange Days, and Jerry Hopkins has examined it (and other letters and poems Jim gave Patricia); Hopkins also discusses their relationship and wedding in No One Here Gets Out Alive. Other friends of Jim's have examined the materials Jim left with Patricia, and have agreed that these materials were written and signed by Jim. Also, Jim spoke to Max Fink about Patricia, and about changing his will, so Jim's lawyer is also a witness to their relationship.

I also know someone who knew Jim, Patricia, Pam, the rest of the Doors and various others in the saga. This person was also at the wedding. However, though I also know previously-unpublished facts, opinions and juicy gossip about these people, neither you nor I can add any of these things to a Wikipedia article as this would be inadmissable, due to the No Original Research policy.

Please check out the links I've included. Also, if you register an account, your changes can be credited to you by name. It is also appreciated if you sign your comments on the talk pages, this is easily done by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your post, or by hitting the third button in from the end in the list of buttons above the editing window. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes to Myself

To do: Brigid's cross, Curandero, Durrus and District History, Luisah Teish, and oh dear does the Sídhe article need help. Have been asked to help with List of towns in the Republic of Ireland. Should get started on Clann Eoghainn or Clan MacEwan, and Castle MacEwan, once we decide which version of the name to use. For brainstorming: User:KathrynNicDhàna/Clan MacEwan.

In process: Did some pretty major work on Imbolc, could still use more actual practices and sources cited. Also doing considerable restructuring on Samhain. Haven't looked yet, but suspect similar work will need to be done on related festival articles. Considering making some sort of Gaelic festivals template.

Mostly done: Irish sources on Clootie well, cleanup on Fulacht fiadh and related pages. Major overhaul on Cailleach and Triple spiral, sufficient to get flags removed. Sourcing and cleanup suffient to get "unbalanced" flags removed from Celtic Wicca, Witta and Eclectic Wicca.

Done: Members Template and pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Members and template, cats and pages for Template:User ga-0.3 (heee!).

And now that I'm over 1,000 edits, I want to know where my pony is. What? Are you sure? I heard you get a pony...

And what if I wanted to add a graphic to my signature, hmmm... comme ca: --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New Notes to Myself sub-page User:KathrynNicDhàna/Notes to Myself

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Halloween

Kathryn NicDhàna, all changes have been discussed at lenght beforehand at the talk page. Please see [[1]] for an extensive discussion about that issue. Halloween is a highly controversial topic among Christians of all denominations. The Church has been struggling with pre-Christian holidays for 2000 years. The views which have been documented and referenced with great care in the article are shared by the Church at large and by Christians of all denominations. Many Christians of course see Halloween just as a fun festival but nobody would even argue about the spiritual roots. The Question is, are the spiritual roots of Halloween and the endorsement of Halloween in the FORM it is celebrated today an obstacle for the faith through the customs of Halloween that contradict our relationship with God, including occult practices? That’s the point where opinions diverge: some say, it is just fun. Others point out to the entire ideology behind it and say it’s more than just funny dark costumes. That’s the controversy. This controversy needs to be described neutrally and the way it has been done before was extremely partisan.

According to the official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents;"[[2]] To write that "Christians get emotional about that topic" and that this view shared by a minority of "evangelical fundamentalists" is partisan and violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. And it is not true anyway. Again, as it is shown in the references, Christians across all denominations have problems with the way Halloween is celebrated and therefore bishops, for instance of the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic priests and young Christian musicians took the initiative to redeem Halloween for the Church. (See the references in the article)

Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Personal attacks and labeling everyone who shares a different view as "fundamentalist" as you did in your message above is violating the Wikipedia Policy and it is not the case anyway. No personal attacks please. Also, it is important to remain objective in the discussion. Please cite the article text correctly. As I already explained at the talk page: In order to deal with this issue objectively I structured the article according to the Wikipedia guidelines as folows: 1. Basic outline of the problem 2. Position which holds that Halloween does not raise spiritual concerns and arguments for this opinion 3. Position which holds that Halloween raises specific spiritual and arguments for this opinion 4. Ways Churches deal with this problem practically. Right now, both views and their arguments are equally represented.According to the Wikipedia policy "an article about a controversial person or goup should accurately describe their views." I believe, that every reader is mature enough to make up his mind on his or her own and that he or she has a right to hear the arguments of both sides. This is the Philosophy of Wikipedia. That is what I support and the basic value shared by the Wikipedia Community. Again, any constructive (!) comments are welcome. Caloon2000 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the edits I made, and my record as an editor. Your POV is not Neutral on this, as evidenced by the type of extremist positions and inappropriate links you keep trying to include. NPOV does not mean that fringe views are given a page-long tangent in an article. Most Christians don't really care about Halloween. Fundamentalists do get emotional about it, as seen in your edit war in this article, and your insistence on seeing fundamentalist Christianity as the only religious view that matters. You also mis-perceive criticism of the dubious sources you used as personal attacks. As seen by your User Contributions you only became a registered user one week ago. It seems you have spent that time pretty much dedicated to inserting fringe views and POV into the Halloween article, and deleting any links to religious views that contradict your position. I think you are a new user who means well, but you do not understand basic Wikipedia policy. What you are doing has now crossed the line into vandalism and abuse of the system. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Caloon's edits can be quite provocative; but responding to his/her POV edits with more POV edits just makes the situation worse.

Example: "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween, rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil".

I've put the wheels in motion for an investigation into Caloon's POV edits and possible sock/meat puppetry; please don't make the case for him/her better by reverting with vandalism. Thanks! -- Weirdoactor 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't perceive the "emotional" thing as POV. Thanks for your input. How about if we change it to "concerned". The "rejecting the holiday because they believe it trivializes the occult and what they perceive as evil" was already there, I didn't write that bit. Feel free to change it, or I will if you prefer. Thanks again for your work on the article. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me so long to respond to your message. Thanks for your work on the Halloween article as well! I don't know if non-admins are allowed to hand out barnstars, but if I could, I would give you at least one. -- Weirdoactor 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your undocumented change: 22:21, 1 November 2006 Kathryn NicDhàna (Talk | contribs) (Taking duplicates out of reading list. Alphabetizing. Again removing inappropriate extremist sources. Will replace Mike's changes momentarily.) was determined to be vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Caloon2000

Determined to be vandalism? By you? Please. What do you mean "undocumented"? There's the edit summary right there, and I posted about it on the talk page multiple times. Are you putting vandalism templates on the pages of everyone who reverts your POV? What about on the pages of the admins who had to lock down the editing because of your revert war? You violated the 3 Revert Rule five times to revert to the same version with the same, inappropriate sources. Calling me the vandal is laughable. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit [3] has been qulaified as vandalism. Please refrain from reverting. --Caloon2000 07:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you do not understand what vandalism is. You have now been warned on your own talk page by an admin, Durova, that "your edits to the article have violated the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV." My blocking your POV reversions does not qualify as vandalism. It no longer matters that you believe your minority POV is "neutral" in this matter. You have been investigated and told by an admin it is not, and that your repeated insertion of it into the article is unacceptable and a violation of Wikipedia policies. And now you are here, inventing a new charge against me, because you don't like that I warned you not to delete warnings from your page. --Kathryn NicDhàna 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup on false, retaliatory charges of "vandalism": Admin warning to Caloon2000 --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self - Caloon2000 also edits under IP 89.241.187.123 (contribs) --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice find! If we need to move to an RfC or mediation, that sort of blows his "I'm not a sock/meat puppet" argument out of the water, yes? -- Weirdoactor 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially as that's the IP he did partial reverts under - he proved it was still him by editing his own comments, then he removed the Celtic Christian and Gaelic cultural links I had added that show not all Christians are freaked out by Halloween. BTW, do you know who removed his personal attacks on me from the Halloween talk page? I'd like to cite them, but can't find them now. (They were the ones other editors told him were personal attacks - most notably his assertion that I shouldn't be allowed to edit because I "admit" I'm a feminist and involved to some extent in the Pagan community. What I find hilarious is his accusations of my "Wiccan bias" and "Wiccan agenda", as I am actually better known on Wikipedia for removing Wiccan bias from articles, especially those dealing with Gaelic culture and mythology. I haven't decided if "Wiccan bias" qualifies as a personal attack, or just more evidence of his confusion.) --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No clue who deleted those attacks, but I certainly have an educated guess, which I won't make here. You could sift through the contributions of those who have commented on the page in question (for example, here or here), and see if you can find the deletion. Somewhat related; I think "Wiccan Bias" would be a wonderful name for a band... -- Weirdoactor 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Wiccan Bias - the Christian Rock Spın̈al Tap!

Hi. I suspect, from a brief look, that this will blow over on its own. If it doesn't, please do feel free to keep me up to date on what's going on, especially if Durova gets busy with other things. Jkelly 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Beannachdan agus Tapadh Leibh! --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		is hereby awarded to Kathryn NicDhàna for her tireless work in protecting the Halloween article from becoming the Anti-Halloween article! Mo sheacht mbeannacht ort! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tapadh Leat! I am honored! --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the body of work you've done, it's astounding this is your first. Many more to come, I'm sure!

Septegram 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are very kind, thank you. I also appreciate your clarifications and dialogues on the talk page of the article. Hopefully they cleared some things up for those new to the party. ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope so too. Nice to see that a CR and a Wiccan can work together {grin}

Septegram 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Don't you believe it for a moment, Septegram. Kathryn is *low, ominous whisper* nice! Far too nice to be a mere CR ... I swear she has to be a closet historical scholar!

But don't tell her I told you that. :) Justin Eiler 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

'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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Halloween edits- a thank you

I just wanted to thank you for keeping an eye on the Halloween page. I noticed the High Priest link and removed it before all this started, thinking it was vandalism. The link and the quote struck me as very slanted and I found the entire page it referenced to be suspicious. Rather than rewrite anything, I just deleted the High Priest quote and left the link in the references section. The spirit of the section remained the same without it, but that one user kept putting it back and calling it more neutral. Anyway, thank you. I feel better knowing there are other users that try to keep propaganda and other suspicious references from slipping into articles. From the looks of the revision history, it's a full-time job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.158.145 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for your work on the article, as well. It was a crazy and overwhelming few days there, and I'm glad it's over... <creepy, ominous voice> FOR NOW </creepy, ominous voice>. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Jim Morrison article

Hello Kathryn,

I was wondering if you could give some explanation to the somewhat obscure comment by John Densmore ("Nietzsche killed Jim Morrison...") you quoted on the article's talk page. Please answer there so that everybody can benefit from your answer. Thanks ! - Fils du Soleil 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

VP

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)