User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 watch your talk page and read your response there.

Please respect Wikiquette, which means: assume good faith, be polite, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Tapadh Leibh,
--KPN

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


Contents

[edit] Archived Discussions


[edit] 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:

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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 [1], 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 [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

<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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

I saw the award on your page, tres cool. I was thinking about celtic celebrations, and the attempt to "bury" them under new Christian holidays. The one that seems closest to Halloween is Krampus, which is more-or-less an Austrian celebration which was taken over as St. Nicholas's day, on Dec 6. St. Nick, the Christian add on, seems to be a lot like a stern Father Christmas. Krampus, on the other hand, is wild, boozy and very Celtic. It is still very current and very wild in Austria, and I think Switzerland, and worth looking into. I gather this sort of thing is right up your street? Trishm 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is do you think there is any value in making a comparison between Krampus and Halloween? They both share a number of elements, including unsuccessful assimilation by the Christian church. 124.168.135.128 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Krampus seems more connected with Midwinter festivals, really (or interpretations of the Christmas season more in tune with Terry Pratchett's Hogfather ;-). I guess the "dark" aspects could relate to Halloween in a way, but I don't see enough of an historical connection to make it worth pursuing in the Halloween article itself. I suppose if you wanted to put in an aside about festivals that couldn't be completely assimilated, it might find purchase there, but it doesn't seem to be an historical precursor the way Samhain is. Also, the climate in Ireland at Samhain is still fairly mild compared to the harsh weather one would find in Austria and Switzerland in December. So Samhain is a festival of looking ahead to the harsh winter, while Krampus seems to be about struggling to survive after Winter has already struck and hung around a while (and maybe already killed some of your friends and family). Perhaps the closest connection between the two would be about facing the fear of death, and the struggle to survive adversity, whether one is dreading that possible struggle or already in the midst of it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed Hogfather. Krampus is not really mid-winter, more "the snow will close in soon", but you are right, Halloween is a few weeks earlier and that does make a difference. The way the festival is unassimilated caught my attention, especially when you experience it, but it is a relatively minor point. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. 203.214.99.222 12:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

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

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Would you like to help me make a Scottish town/region/county a featured article?? If so, reply on my talk page! --SunStar Net 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article I'd like to get to featured status is Scottish Borders; it's a place I've been to twice, and I think it is deserving of a main page article. Slainte (is that cheers in Celtic??), --SunStar Net 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the article and see if I can be of use. Slàinte is colloquially translated as "Cheers"; the literal meaning in Gaelic/Gàidhlig is "Health/Strength/Wholeness". The Irish/Gaeilge version of word has the same meaning, however it is written with the accent mark (fada) slanted the other way: Sláinte --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replied On My Talk Page

Not sure what happened myself. o.O I checked my edits and reverts and I'm pretty sure I haven't typed or said anything that accused you of doing anything wrong. Didn't think you had, and your history doesn't show you mess anything up. -WarthogDemon 07:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the title of my warning being your username, that simply meant it was your page that I was talking about. Not that you were the vandal. Hope that clears things up. -WarthogDemon 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
All cleared up (responded on your page). The mastodons confused me. All better now. Thank you again for going after them. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer targeting Ghost, as well as other articles

You might want to know that the anonymous AOL user spamming Ghost (as well as other articles) is using not only two, but actually four different IP addresses - I've filed a complaint on the Administrator's noticeboard, listing any IP used that I am aware of. Feel free to add to my post if you like. Something needs to be done, and it seems that this guy just won't take a hint. No luck so far, though. /M.O (u) (t) 14:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Spammer has returned as 81.145.241.154--Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border

Kathryn, seeing as you're a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, would you be able to help me get Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border as a featured article?? I'd really appreciate the help. --SunStar Net 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cogent article

This is the short bit concerning the anonymous editor argument: User:Bluemoose/Thoughts. I thought it provocative and worth reading. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your kind message

I wish I could have your hope and I appreciate your kind words. However, this has been going on since August, administratior have burned out, I have been subjected to vicious attacks, people I respected have backed out. I no longer have any hope. It's not going to stop. There is some underlying adjenda that condones Rosencomet and there is nothing to be done about it. It was a mistake on my part to get involved. But I thank you. Maybe you are stronger than I am and more politically knowledable. I am not and I fail. This is it for me. I will just concentrate on writing which is really what I enjoy and ignore the rest. I'm learning to just leave when other take over and WP:OWN whatever. I'm learning to never look back or care what happens -- just move on to an unpopular article like Haitian Revolution and work in peace. If ihat gets hot, move on and have no investments in accuracy or anything else. It is not worth the battles and there is no support despite the polocies and guidlines. Thank you so much for your message. I have only one friend here, so it's nice to get a kind message. I hope I am not letting you down. Sinceely, Mattisse(talk) 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the status of a MedCabal case

Hi there. It's best not to edit Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases manually. The MedCabal bot should come along in due time to update the status of the current cases. Regards, Gzkn 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure. Was just trying to help as things are so backlogged. I'll keep my handses to myself and wait for the botses next time :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. No problem! Gzkn 10:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, at the time the bot was kaput, but it looks like someone revived it, so all is fine now. Edits like that (while they would be overridden by the bot eventually) don't do any harm. :D Cowman109Talk 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about 999 and stalking

I have done some work over the last two days on Andrew Cohen, including having dialogue on the Discussion page. Now User:999 has reverted my hard work plus accused me of stalking, a copy from my talk page below:

I see you have stalked either Hanuman Das and/or Ekajati to the article Andrew Cohen with which you have previously had nothing to do. You animosity toward these editors is well known and this is clearly a violation of WP:STALK. Please desist. -999 (Talk) 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How does one handle this? Thanks in advance for any advice. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikstalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors."
I think it is very clear that is what 999 is doing. He admitted to doing it to me, though he claimed it was much less severe than what he had actually done:
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. (whole post here)
999 and his crew (or socks?) are the first wikistalkers I've dealt with, so I'm just researching this myself. It's possible this can be dealt with as an extension of the other cases in progress, but as I am not sure, I think it's clear we need an advocate. Looking at the Dispute Resolution page, especially here: WP:DR#Requesting an Advocate (at any time) I found the list, here: Wikipedia:AMA Members. The only name I immediately recognize from the page is User:Addhoc. I will go and see what he has to say about this (I think Addhoc is a he...), and see if there are other admins who are interested in helping out. Hang in there. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of being seen as one of 999's crew, I'm going to jump in here. First, the incidents at Andrew Cohen look more like an edit war than wikistalking. Similarly, when he spoke to you about it, 999 pointed out that he wasn't stalking you, just looking at your edits and making edits of his own; "That is not stalking. Stalking is when someone follows around behind you as you make edits to intentionally interfere with you." Frankly, I've done this when I see someone whose edit is interesting; I look to see what else zie's been up to that might also be interesting.
Now, I didn't research the whole discussion between you and 999, so I don't know what prompted it, nor whether his edits were in good faith; I may be off-base on this one, but I do think the incidents at Andrew Cohen are not wikistalking.
Incidentally, I watch your page because I respect your work and because you are involved in some fascinating subjects so I'm always interested to see what you're up to. I did not see this particular thread because I was wikistalking Mattisse, although I have had some involvements with zir in the past.
I suspect the problem stems from some issues that have grown all out of proportion over time, with Mattisse and maybe BostonMA on one side, and Hanuman Das and 999 on the other. I suspect there's blame and aplenty to go around, and getting to the bottom of it would be like trying to resolve the conflict over Cyprus or the Middle East.
Septegram 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Sept (why am I thinking of the Seinfeld bit about wanting to name the baby "Seven" ;-)). What 999 wrote above is inaccurate. Immediately after I weighed in on the opposite side of an AfD, he appeared on eleven articles I edit and made largely contentious edits, including slapping a ProD notice on an established, sourced article and edit-warring over (non-Starwood) linkspam. As not all of his edits were contentious, I was polite and called it "borderline". What concerns me about his (and his cohorts (or socks)) behaviour is they seem inordinately invested in keeping the Starwood linkspam on the Wiki, and maintaining and defending the many non-notable articles Rosencomet added in a massive Google bombing spree. They harass those who remove the linkspam, as well as those who propose or support deleting the non-notable articles. I am very concerned about this behaviour, and it is hard to maintain good faith about people who are behaving that way. They are abusing and disrupting the Wiki, imho. Thanks for you comments, though. Though I like to think a Wiki-spat is more solveable than the Middle East ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Personally, I'm not convinced Rosencomet's links are spam, since it appears that at least some of them were added in response to {{fact}} tags.
I'm also not sure that these articles are non-notable (depending on which ones you're referring to, of course: some of the dispute about articles can be found at the RFC); while they may primarily be of interest to a subculture (NeoPagans), it's good to have resources for people who are trying to find information for the first time. Given that (say) the history and motivations of anime characters are detailed to death on Wikipedia, the question of notability becomes somewhat slippery IMO. That being the case, I'm inclined to leave these articles in the interests of erring on the side of inclusion. YMMV, but take a look at the list of articles under the some of these are absolutely notable.
If 999 did wikistalk you, then a shame on his beard for it. However, I'd encourage you to try to separate that misbehavior from the current situation. I know that's difficult (Great Gods, I know how hard that can be), but I do think there is, as I said, blame enough for all here (again, see the RFC here).
Septegram 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (who missed the Seinfeld reference--never watched the show that much)
As I stated before, the reason I edited the articles was because I'd added them to my watchlist when I was pruning the Category:Wicca the week before. I invited you to review my contribution history to see that I indeed was working on the article in that category and recategorizing them, but apparently you don't need to assume good faith like everybody else. I voted in the AfD simply b/c I have that article on my watchlist as well. It had nothing to do with you either. -999 (Talk) 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

De-Indenting
999, remarks like "apparently you don't need to assume good faith like everybody else" aren't really helpful. I realize you may be frustrated, but you're not going to aid your cause with that kind of comment.
I'd say "let's take this discussion somewhere else and thrash it out," but I'm not sure where... If y'all would like me to create a sub-page of mine where you could try to resolve this, I'd be glad to.
Septegram 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem as I see it is that some people have a better view of certain problems than others. I first got involved in the Mattisse thing simply because I have a lot of magical and pagan authors on my watchlist. I noticed when she started inappropriately tagging Stewart Farrar and other Wiccan authors. I became aware there was a pattern when I noticed that she would edit an article quite quickly after Rosencomet did, so I checked his contributions and added them to my watchlist. So.... technically I am stalking Rosencomet, I guess, but my intent was to assist him in improving the articles and otherwise help him against what appeared to be an attack.
Now, because I did that, I've seen the whole pattern of harassment on the part of Mattisse. It looks different to me who has seen it all along as it is happening than to someone who comes along from outside, who can see the articles and Mattisse's opinion and perhaps agree or disagree with Mattisse, but does not see the malicious nature of her stalking because they haven't watched it as it occurred and it's just not the same looking at the history even if someone bothered to take the time to do that. IMO, admins need to trust people who've been watching the situation more b/c this sort of stuff slides past them every time; they weren't there and not having been there it is impossible to tell which party started edit warring and which are simply trying to defend articles that they sincerely believe there is no problem with.
People now say I must have stalked Mattisse to Andrew Cohen, but I didn't: nothing was happening on my watchlist so I checked User:Hanuman Das's contributions and got to the article that way. I used to also check SynergeticMaggot's contributions when he was active as we were interested in the same topics (but didn't always agree :-). I count both of these other users as (online) friends, though. So, quite bluntly, it seems that if you are supporting a person who is being stalked by looking at their contributions, you will look like you are stalking their stalker. This is not because you are a stalker, but because the other person is. In the Rosencomet case, because Mattisse is actually stalking him, my adding all his articles to my watchlist makes it look like I am stalking her when I am not --- I'm supporting another editor.
My point is there are many ways to somehow have a set of articles come to one's attention: categories, contribs of users you like, etc. that may make another user think that they are being stalked when they are not... -999 (Talk) 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
999, my only suggestion was to go easy on remarks like the one I cited. I'm not saying you're wrong about Mattisse (in fact, it does seem that Mattisse is targeting Pagan-related articles, but I'd need to check zir history to be confident of that, and I just don't have the time or resources. It's possible zie does this {{fact}} thing all over the place, so I can't say for sure, but there does certainly seem to be a pattern of questionable behavior), I'm just saying that you're not helping your proverbial cause with remarks like that.
I do think Ms. NicDhàna has a really good track record, and respect her work; I'll make that disclaimer. However, I think you have done some good work too; I'm just trying to get cooler-headedness going here.
Septegram 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (who's off home and won't see this again until probably tomorrow)

Hi Sept, I don't feel a need to "thrash" anything "out" :-) Though I thank you for the offer. Matisse asked for help, and I have given her advice. I don't feel a personal conflict with 999, though I am concerned about his behaviour. I don't have anything I need to discuss with him. I'd like to get back to writing, though, so:

999, I'd appreciate it if you discuss your issues with other editors on their pages, not mine. I also don't need you to re-summarize the points that you've already detailed elsewhere, such as in the mediation or in the incident reports in which you've participated. I can read your comments there if I'm interested. Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me!

This is off of 999's talk page:

-- Matisse --
Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What should I do? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Addhoc that Getting an Advocate is the way to go. I contacted Addhoc because he helped out on another recent debacle and did a good job. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I'll try it. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost through all of the steps and the person who is welcoming me is user:Geo.plrd, the ex-mediator who is trying to block me. So I don't think I should go through with it. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
i'm trying various ways of getting off his page, but apparently he runs it -- it seems so, at least. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Geo does not run the program. Go ahead and file the request. If by some bizarre glitch Geo is suggested, or tries to suggest himself, it is abundantly clear he is not appropriate and will not be assigned. Please don't worry. Weird stuff has happened with all this, but no one is weird enough to think Geo would be able to advocate on your behalf. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check this out

[3] on Andrew Cohen who is the only pagan-related article I have touched in a long time. I did so because a user seemed to be asking genuine questions and I thought it would be a chance to have a dialogue. But then 999 returned from wikibreak, reverted the work I had done, and now has started his usual trashing of me on Talk and Discussion pages. People who have a genuine interest in the subject of the article get shoved around on the pages that Starwood has taken over. I feel for them especially the really new people who are sincere. That you so much. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I want to apologize for putting that navigation box on the Gaelic Festival series without discussing it first! I totally agree that it was misleading, particularly placed at the top of the page. I hope I haven't ruined the chances for a (much smaller and less prominant) substitute, to be placed below the Gaelic festival box if you allow it -- I defer to your judgement:

←Yule Wheel of the Year Ostara→

Just so readers can go to the other neopagan festivals without having to search through the Wheel of the Year page. I hope it's minimalist enought to be more helpful than problematic... but I'd understand if you think otherwise. Thoughts? --gwc 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Cat. Thank you for your apology. I certainly accept and I do understand that you had all good intentions in making the changes you did.
As for adding a different Sabbats/Wheel template, I have three concerns:
  • 1. I am primarily concerned that adding a template which directs readers to Wiccan/Neopagan festivals, which are based on other cultures than the Gaelic festivals, not only biases towards a Wiccan-leaning Neopagan interpretation of the Gaelic (and solar) festivals but may confuse readers who are interested in Gaelic culture, not in Wicca or Neopaganism.
  • 2. Since the "Sabbats" merge, the Wheel of the Year article is a mess. I don't think we should be creating additional links to it, especially not template ones, unless and until it is given some major cleanup. I cleaned up an earlier version of it, but since the Sabbats merge, I don't even know where to start on it.
  • 3. I think it would look odd to have two nav templates at the bottom of the page, though this is less of a concern than points 1 and 2.
I appreciate the desire to have readers be able to click through the Wiccan wheel. However, I'm not sure how to do that without re-introducing some of the problems we've worked so hard to fix in the Gaelic articles. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems we are both named Kat. I guess Wikipedia will just have to wait, as always, until the solution that doesn't introduce more problems is found (possibly the "Germanic Festivals" template you mentioned on Bloodofox's talk page that you said you might collaborate with him on?). Ah, the merge was also unfortunately unilateral. Thank you, Bloodofox, Brenton.eccles, and Septegram for the damage control (instead of say the much less time consuming solution of reversion). --gwc 11:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Carroll AfD

I am at loss as to why you flagged it again. I brought up the IP who originally flagged it to the admins' attention, and I assumed it was them who removed the tag the first time, just as they did with many of the other pages this user tagged.[4] --Tsuzuki26 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking here, I see Durova (who is an admin) asked you to assume good faith. The AfD notice was inappropriately removed by User:FK0071a (who is not an admin). Again, I have no stake in the matter, I was just completing the process. If you think IP editors should not be allowed to participate in the AfD process, or that other users should never help them, I think you are swimming against the policy tide of WP. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that User:FK0071a overstepped his bounds, but in all likelihood it would have been removed by an admin, anyway, as is evidenced both here[5] and in the fact that all of the incomplete AfD tags from that IP were subsequently removed. --Tsuzuki26 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see any AfD notices that were removed by admins, only by other editors on the articles in question. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The AfD notices on Jaq D. Hawkins and Paradigm piracy were removed by an admin (User:Redvers), and I think it's safe to assume that the others would have been as well if User:FK0071a and User:999 hadn't gotten to them first. --Tsuzuki26 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wasting time

I apologize if I misunderstood your comment. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob :-) If you misunderstood, likely others may have as well. So it gave me a chance to clarify. Thanks for your comments in the discussion, and your good efforts throughout this whole process. Hopefully a resolution is in sight. Beannachdan, --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks in edit comments

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I refer to this edit comment. You are calling Rosencomet a Google bomber. This is patently false. Google bombing is intended to raise your site's rank in Google - but http://www.rosencomet.com is already the third search result when searching for "Starwood" while the Wikpedia article on Starwood is number thirty-something. In other words, the site doesn't need Wikpedia's help. Also, Google bombing requires an external link, and those have been and are being removed. Thanks for you understanding. —Hanuman Das 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please re-read the comment. The editor was clearly citing the edit itself and not the Rosencomet. Please read WP:NPA. Thank you for your understanding. - Alison✍ 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC in progress

There is now an RfC in progress on the issue of the Starwood linking: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi

If I am not mistaken a message was sent to me about "vandalism" regarding a paragraph under "Druids". One of my kids was found fooling around with this site for reasons unknown and I thought I'd rectified the "edit" within several minutes. If not, my apologies - I have restricted their access. If so,i.e. the version was restored immediately, I hardly need heavy-handed threats of expulsion.

Cheers, Norman Dale —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.95.238 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi, Norman - Ah, yes, the "stuffies" vandalism. While it was amusing, it was vandalism, hence the warnings. The paragraph had been inserted twice, so the warning went up to the second level. Editors have no way of knowing whether an act of vandalism is you or your child, so the warning goes to the page of the account or IP who left it. If vandalism comes from your account, the account may eventually be blocked. Thank you for reverting the most recent incident, and for helping prevent future vandalism. Slàinte, --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Starwood Festival Request

When I put the small, intended as neutral, paragraph at the top of the "comments" section of the RfC on Starwood, I hoped that people would take the hint and mostly allow editors uninvolved in the situation up to now to comment. I am disappointed to see replication of the arguments detailed rather thoroughly by mostly the same parties from both sides on the Starwood Festival Mediation page. The reason I linked to the mediation page in my short summing up of my position was to forestall such duplication and long-winded back-and-forths. I am putting this notice on the talk page of everyone who has posted in the comments of the RfC so far and who has also participated significantly in the mediation. I'm asking you to please refrain from using the RfC comment area. If you feel compelled to post there, please attempt to keep it short. This isn't a demand. There's no penalty for going against my request. I sincerely want to hear different voices on this matter and I am concerned that we are discouraging others from speaking up. --Pigman 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood

Hi, Che - Just to clarify my statement above: I didn't mean to declare that the attempted mediation should be abandoned. Rather that, given some of what has (or has not) transpired, I question whether it was the most effective or appropriate approach to the situation. Perhaps the RfC should have been done first, and maybe the problem could have been taken care of that way. But if you think you can get mediation to work with the parties involved, I certainly welcome you to come on in as mediator :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and I didn't think anything negative of your intentions or assumptions. But it seems to me that a lot of the RfC respondants are saying "you guys should discuss this more", and that there has to be someone to stick around and reason with the involved parties. In this sense it seems that mediation is warranted. Thanks for your support though. :) - Che Nuevara 06:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "On the other hand, ignorance does not equal NPOV"

Just a comment to say how strongly I agree! For your amusement, you might find [[6]] amusing. I have the misfortune to be a still-living inventor, and the Wikipedia geeks appear to want to wait until I am safely dead, and nobody remembers many of the things that I know now :-) Keep up the good work! Jpaulm 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your prompt answer! a) I never heard of that guideline - that's great news! and b) would I put such books and articles in the Talk for FBP or the talk for J. Paul Morrison? There are quite a lot, even if we exclude blogs... Thanks again! Jpaulm 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd add the cites to the talk page of the J. Paul Morrison article, as that's the article that needs help. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Kathryn, I'll get going on it. There are a number of references in Flow-based programming - I will add some more to my talk but I'm not sure how to tie them together... Jpaulm 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Me again - I've added a whole bunch to Talk:John_Paul_Morrison - frankly I don't know how many they want... Also, there are some in Flow-based programming, but I don't know how the two articles should be tied together... Diolch yn fawr (I know it's not Gaelic, but it is a Celtic language!) Jpaulm 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back from your Wikibreak! I've added a bunch of citations to Talk:John_Paul_Morrison - should someone move them to one of the articles? User:Ars Scriptor had offered to, but he now shows as having retired! The citations are not doing much good where they are - I'm not allowed to move them - and I don't know where they should go anyway! Someone suggested putting all the citations in one place, and then having a "See also" in the other, but they already cross-reference each other. I'm very confused! Jpaulm 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood

Thanks for your response. I've set up a mediation page at Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation where I've addressed the issues raised on my talk page.

Peace! - Che Nuevara 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samhain disambiguation

Thanks for making the disamb. There's one teensy problem: samhain is described as being celebrated by Gaelic peoles. this is no longer true, as the neo-pagan and wiccan communities celebrate it, and many of them (eg me) aren't Gaelic! So it's slightly misleading. Totnesmartin 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought about also mentioning Neopaganism, but didn't want to be too wordy. I'll go add it in :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia

All this concern with 'labels', I don't possibly see how you could have read 0ver 15,000 words and watched many hours of video,as I only posted that link recently before passing judgement on the site. I have posted a critique on the plastic shaman page, which may give you a answer, I will post in the main shaman page in the next week.

[edit] Wells

A while back you mentioned wells/well dressing/etc at the Scottish noticeboard. I came across quite a long article from the 1882-1883 volume of the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland called "'Holy Wells' in Scotland". Thought it might be of interest: downloadable from here. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tapadh Leibh, Angus, I'll check it out. :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: chicken soup

[7]

Thanks a lot! I don't have any chicken soup, but I've got Ramen, which is close enough. I appreciate the message. :)

Peace. - Che Nuevara 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your Warning to JAVABEANRUSH Dec 14, 2006

Hi, I assume from the warning you left that I am not allowed to edit my own talk page at all. Is this correct? I've not been able to find information on this in the help section. Javabeanrush 08:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can edit it the talk page, just don't remove the warnings, is that it? Javabeanrush 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You can reply to posts on your talk page, and when the talk page gets very long you can archive the page, as long as you link to it from your talk page. However it is against Wikipedia policy to remove vandalism warnings from your page. See WP:Vandalism for more info. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Javabeanrush 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism talk

[edit] response to warning

I didn't vandalize the discussion page and your waring is in error. Discussion pages do not have the same rules as articles, and my contribution was not vandalism, don't bite the newbies. Please revert your warning immediately. 24.16.15.150 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page:

While it is true that random comments on the talk page are not as serious as random comments in the article itself, your edit did nothing to further the work on the article and therefore was an abuse of the talk page. Looking at your edit history, you are not exactly a newbie. However you do have a history of vandalism and unproductive edits, therefore the warning stands. And as you have received three levels of prior warnings, the warning goes up to level 4. Sincerely, --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A discussion page is open for discussion, and is not under your dissection to evaluate a comments 'worth.' Your attack of this particular edit is unrelated to my other edits, please stay within the scope of this specific warning. I insist that the warning be removed and this be moved to a wikipedia sysops or other official, as you have clearly let the power of your self appointed position lead you astray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.15.150 (talk • contribs).

How about focusing on improving articles instead of using Wikipedia as a message board? Please see WP:NOT --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A True Church

I saw that you recommended A True Church for speedy deletion. It is back, but I also question it's notability and tagged it with {{nn}}. Just an FYI. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Catch

I think this is the crux of the entire issue, and continued discussion only benefits him. I entirely missed that facet of this, but it makes perfect sense. I have a difficult time putting on kid gloves for a spammer, and feel that this is only indicative of the commercial co-opting of neopaganism /reconstructionism seeping into wikipedia. -WeniWidiWiki 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the issues in this case are clear-cut, and I am tired of watching the endless prolonging of the same circular discussions. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Continuation is aiding and abetting the problem. This has gone on since August with nothing resolved. Eventually people become fatigued (except for those with an investment of some sort) so the circle dance starts again from the beginning with new players and the status quo continues. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I am being accussed of being a sockpupped to WeniWidiWiki [8] (I think that is what this posting means.) Is there an appropriate place I can report this? Also, may this person, Paul Pigman need help?[9] Sincerely, Mattisse 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I misunderstood. He was not accusing me of being WeniWidiWiki's sockpuppet. He was discrediting a question one of my suspected/confirmed sockpuppets asked: Is Rosencomet Jeff Rosenbaum? Sorry for misunderstanding. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the hand

Have I been 'given the hand because the face ain't talking' or does it mean something, I do not know that I can't remove stuff on my own page. I find that you are aggresive with an agenda, you are not consistent with your punishments. Can you remove that hand of my page, I do not deserve it and I find it offensive.Dorjezigzag

That is the standard template used on Wikipedia to warn users not to remove user-conduct warnings from their talk pages. You removed warnings, you got the standard template. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/User_talk%7EKathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na_4e24.html"