User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 7: Stalk Talk - Starwood and Trolls - The Attack of the Sock-Headed Hydra


Contents

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)

(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hmm, don't know. That would make sense, though. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What would be the proper course of action to take in the future? --Tsuzuki26 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just curious. Is this you?[2] --Tsuzuki26 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Why do you ask? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought maybe you were testing out anonymous AfD or something. --Tsuzuki26 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


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 and I have added diffs to the sub-headers:

WP:Stalk here and here

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please check this out

[5] 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)

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.[6] --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[7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

Your support

I wanted to thank you for your support on my talk page. --BostonMA talk 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I think your behaviour in the matter has been exemplary. It was disturbing to once again see someone resorting to retaliatory harassment. You certainly didn't deserve it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassing other users with whom you are involved in a dispute

Please, little Miss Inconsistent, do not harass] other user's with whom you are involved in a dispute. It is a conflict of interest. If you believe action needs to be taken, request that a neutral admin do so. IN any case, the comment removed was made by a sockpuppet of Mattisse. Who cares what a sock said? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack. Whoever made the post is not relevant, as it was one of many cases where the creator of the article was reminded of the need for verifiable sources. There was no need to remove it, except for 999's vendetta against Matisse (if in fact the post was made my Matisse). The issue is not the personalities of who made the post and who deleted it, the issue is the behaviour. I am not your "Little Miss" anything, by the way. I also don't see how placing a legitimate warning on another user's talk page qualifies as "harrassment" and your insulting post to me above does not. I don't see myself as "in a dispute" with 999, though he did do a bit of wiki-stalking and was warned by other users for that. What *is* uncalled for is you coming here to insult another user. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the Arbitration to which all three of us are party. Seems User:Paul Pigman neglected to inform you of it. I must say I nearly snorted my after-work Talisker (and I don't recommend snorting single-malt scotch, that's alcohol abuse :-) when I caught up with the latest developments on Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Me mum always used ta tell me "Watch out for the Irish, they're more than a wee bit inclined to make things out'a whole cloth, they are." Ekajati (yakity-yak) 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
May I ask you to please refrain from commenting on my talk page? Thanks. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Harvest Magazine

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Harvest Magazine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Harvest Magazine. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Frater Xyzzy 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xyzzy, it can at least be sourced from Drawing Down the Moon. I'll add that and see if it's satisfactory :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It may prove its existence (which I don't doubt), but not its notability, I suspect. Really, I'm familiar with the mag, it's not a notable enough subject for a Wikipedia article. Frater Xyzzy 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but what year(s) did you see it? It began as a homemade zine, but then the quality and circulation improved a great deal. Morven was adamant about keeping it volunteer, though, as a service to the community. Did you write for Harvest? Your name is familiar. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
'81 or '82, I think. But the name is much more recent, so any familiarity is probably not related. I don't think I ever wrote anything for it, but then my memory is not as good as it used to be, so may have forgotten. I only passed through a time or two as a friend of a friend of Brenwyn's. Maybe only once. As I say, memories of that period are a little fuzzy. :-) Frater Xyzzy 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest question

I'm sorry to have to ask this, because I hate all the WP drama, but what is your relationship with paganachd.com? Are you the owner or one of the owners of the site? Frater Xyzzy 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the owners of the paganachd.com domain. I am the primary webcrafter for the site, and had the largest edit-count on the collectively-authored, consensus document, "The CR FAQ". However, if you check the credits page of the FAQ and the Introduction (linked twice on every page of the document) you will see that I am not the sole author, nor did I have, nor do I have, editorial control over the contents of the document - it was done by consensus, using a private Wiki, and all eight main co-authors signed off on it, as did over 360 members of the CR community who provided feedback. Contributors to the document are listed roughly in order of edit-count, and you may contact other co-authors if you desire to confirm this.
While as a member of the CR community and one of the founders of the tradition, I have contributed to the CR article as an "expert", I am not the creator nor sole author of the Wiki article. Nor is the article about me, though I am mentioned. I can't really get around the fact that I co-coined the term CR, however there are published sources that confirm this, and the article has a variety of third-party sources. Perhaps Pigman was over-zealous in his quoting of the FAQ, but it is a mischaracterization to the call the FAQ "mine" or "my research". Perhaps I have contributed to the article over-much, but after others named me in the article I have scaled back my participation in it, mostly adding a few clarifiers and footnotes. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally: The book that will be offered for sale via the site will be a print-on-demand book version of the FAQ. It will consist of the same text that is available for free on the website, plus the addition of an index and glossary. All proceeds from sales will be donated to Gaelic language preservation.
The organization chosen by the FAQ collective to receive the proceeds is An Comunn Gaidhealach, Ameireaga http://www.acgamerica.org/ We have not yet put their name on the website, however, as it didn't seem appropriate to list them by name until the book is actually out and they have received money from the sales. The printer we are planning on using, lulu.com, has an arrangement whereby all money from the sales are sent directly to our chosen charity. None of the authors, editors or production workers will make a dime. We are paying initial setup costs out of our own pockets, and these will not be reimbursed. I am a dues-paying member of ACGA, which enables me to get the newsletter and participate on their message board, but I otherwise have no connection to the organization and I hold no position in ACGA. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Oh, and also, could you please answer this question. Were you ever involved in any way, as a volunteer or otherwise, with the publication of Harvest magazine? Frater Xyzzy 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Like most local Pagans of that era, I volunteered at Harvest from time to time. I helped Morven with proofreading and copyediting on a few issues, and helped out at mailing parties now and then. I had a handful of articles printed in the magazine, and a handful more letters, though I did not have editorial control over any of my own work's appearance in the publication.
Oh, and the death crones first appeared in Harvest. (After their Harvest premiere in 1986 - 1988, episodes from the series were later reprinted in Green Egg and The Beltane Papers). --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes

And just noting, for the record, how much Frater Xyzzy "hates the drama": [10] -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from BostonMA's talk page

And more assuming bad faith here: [11] Other editors added multiple citations to that article which either mention me, or include work I've done in the field. I did not add those cites. But now Jefferson Anderson and Frater Xyzzy[12] are ignoring the comments of other users (including two admins, who said that even if *I* placed the cites that mention me it would be fine) and are continuing to accuse me of writing about myself. Or something. I'm not sure exactly what they're doing but it feels like attempts at intimidation, a la two of the departed users from one of the other contentious situations on WP. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what exactly are you accusing me of here? I had the article on my watchlist as I had tagged it as uncited some time ago. When Frater Xyzzy exposed your use of your own self-published original research, I agreed with him. I believe everybody has been carrying on a quite civil conversation about it on the talk page of the article. Where are you coming from that you are going around accusing me (of what exactly?) to other editors? Something is very wrong here. Jefferson Anderson 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, what the heck does voting in this AfD have to do with my opinion about your use of your own unpublished research in CRP? What do they have to do with each other? I am completely lost here. I only stumbled on the AfD as I was going through the Category:Neo-Pagans and it's subcategories looking for names which were out of order (i.e. weren't sorted by last name). If that article had been properly sorted, I wouldn't have even opened it or known there was an AfD. Please explain what's going on? Jefferson Anderson 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Been adding to this my thoughts. [13] Sincerely, Mattisse 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags on Starwood Festival

Just off the top of my head...

Re: Drumming & Dance classes: workshops by Babatunde Olatunji (African Drumming), Daveed Korup (Middle eastern), Raquy Danzinger (Middle Eastern), Louis Martinie' (both Voodoo drumming & Celtic Bodhran), Amampondo (African Drum & Dance), Yaya Diallo (African Drumming), Baka Beyond (Afro-Celtic), Sikiru Adepoju (African Talking Drum), Muruga Booker (African Drumming, Trance Drumming), Badal Roy (Tabla), Larry Myers (Israeli Dancing), Don Waterhawk (Native American Dance), Laurence Galian (Sufi Dancing), Louis Nunez (Santeria Drumming), Max Pollack of Cyro Baptista & Beat the Donkey (Rhumba Tap), Lia Fail (Celtic Music), Brahm Stuart of Shaman (Celtic Bodhran), Halim El-Dabh (African Drumming, Dance & Chant), Neil Chastain (Clave), Jim Barleycorn (Feadog), Billy Bardo (Bodhran), Kelly McGowan (Bodhran), Airto Moreira (Afro-Brazilian Rhythms), Zimra (Belly Dancing), a whole lot more belly dancing & African & Middle-Eastern drumming and other kinds ... Is that enough? There's more.

Re: The Roundhouse. Frank Barney, the owner of Brushwood Folklore Center (where Starwood has been held for over 15 years) and the designer of the Roundhouse told me, and has said on numerous occasions speaking to the public, that the Roundhouse is based on a structure of Celtic design he researched in a book while studying standing stone & labyrinth designs for future Brushwood projects (a labyrinth stands there now; he has discussed the standing stone project with Rob Roy, an expert on such matters, and the people at 4 Quarters Farm who have ther own). Frank is a member of ADF, by the way. I don't know how to document this, but I'm pretty sure I saw a discussion of this by him on a Yahoo group or some other chat group. I did verify this with him before changing the info on the Brushwood Folklore Center article (which has since been taken down), which incorrectly called it a Native American design. (I think Sirius Rising, their main event, deserves an article by the way.) Rosencomet 17:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond on the Talk:Starwood Festival page. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalk Talk Part II - Same Behaviour, New Username

Conflict of interest

You have a conflict of interest on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. You should not be editing it, at least with respect to citation to your self-published original research. Please note that I've filed a request for mediation and respectfully request that you restore the tags until the issue is resolved in mediation. Consensus can not override policy. I'll happily take this to official mediation and arbitration if necessary. Thank you. Jefferson Anderson 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Interested editors and admins can see other commentary on Jefferson Anderson's behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence
And his contributions here ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Boann

Kathryn NicDhána I believe your recent edit claiming that my information was inacurate was in itself false and unfounded. If you would care to read the primary sources that I have provided you may see this. I would apreciate that if you are going to edit two months of work on my part that you question individual points with me on my user page. If there are aspects of what I wrote you have queries for please point them out so that I can cite them correctley for you. I am new to Wikipedia and as such am still learning how to correctley code my citations. This is evident from my user page. Requesting arbitration for my contributions is not supportive of new contributors and from an established user I would have expected more. I can assure you that after over a decade of study of this topic I can and most heartily do wish to provide nothing but acurate information which is my motivation for writing the article in the first place. Emmagallagher 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emma, I think you are a bit unclear on some Wikipedia policies here. I realize these things may not be immediately apparent on Wikipedia, and that you are new. As has been suggested by others on your talk page, I would also appreciate if if you would read up on the WP:OWN policy. You are contributing to an article that numerous people have already worked on, and will continue to work on. No one owns or is the sole author of any Wikipedia article. At the bottom of every page it says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It is not helpful to Wikipedia process to assume or imply that other editors know less than you. Check out the extensive work of some of the other editors who've worked on the article. You can click on the "history" tab of any article to see the list of people who have worked on that article. It is also not required for anyone to ask any other editor on their talk page for permission before making changes to an article. It is, however, politic (and policy) to discuss major changes on the article talk page to reach consensus.
Some of the sources you provided were not primary sources. And in some cases you cited a primary source for the title of a section, but then added information and interpretations that are not included in that source. It also is not helpful to introduce a large amount of mistakes and then assume others will correct them for you, or assume they can wait indefinitely while you learn to correct them yourself. While mistakes are a normal part of learning, may I also gently remind you that that is what the sandbox is for, to learn formatting before experimenting on the articles themselves. If you think you cannot fix the formatting within a few hours of making the change, it is probably better to make the change *after* you've learned how to do it.
I have not "requested arbitration" on this, by any means, and am not sure what gave you that impression. I mentioned to some of the other editors who regularly work on the article that they may want to take a look at the changes, as I figured they might have more time to work on it right now than I do.
Again, I appreciate your contributions, but please try to Assume Good Faith and respect that Wikipedia is a collaborative project that works by consensus. Slàn, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unethical

Whether it was inappropriate or not, it was not in any way unethical. All I did was to change Ekajati and Rosencomet to User:Ekajati and User:Rosencomet so I could go to the talk pages easily and see what the conversation about What Witches Do really consisted of, rather than the characterization Matisse had made of it, before responding. Pigman accused me of HIGHLY UNETHICAL behavior, and that was not so, and he has retracted that characterization. I don't see why you feel the need to butt in and try to perpetuate the issue when you darn well know that I did nothing unethical by making those links.
And is it not inappropriate for you to direct your comments about my behavior via Pigman's talk page instead of to mine? None of us are perfect. How about a little slack? Take your finger off the hair-trigger, please. Rosencomet 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Rosencomet - The discussion was taking place on Paul's talk page, so I left my comments about Wikipedia guidelines there. Though perhaps he phrased his objection a bit strongly, I don't feel he needed to apologize for reminding you of WP policy. As I quoted in that discussion, please read the guideline, it is very explicit about not altering another user's talk page comments:
From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable:

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Though Rosencomet's edit to Matisse's words did not change her meaning, it was inappropriate, especially given the tensions and harassment Matisse has endured. Rosencomet, please respect Wikipedia guidelines and do not alter talk page comments by other users. Thank you. -- ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ 04:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't post on your talk page because I really have no wish to dialogue with you about this, as you tend to cut and paste the same long posts on multiple editors' pages, you frequently yell at people (all caps is generally perceived as yelling), and you continually make unfounded assumptions and accusations about other editors' motives. I feel this is a waste of editors' time, it does not help improve the encyclopedia, and I don't wish to engage in that sort of behaviour with you. If you and I are working on an article together, feel free to post on that article's talk page about improving that article. However, these core dumps onto my, or others, talk pages are not helping improve the encyclopedia and I respectfully request that in the future you refrain from posting on my talk page. Thank you. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pov article

I am wondering why you wanted the article plastic paddy kept in the pov mode. The article is much much better now and I hope that you are happier with it. Cheers! 86.42.159.149 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

Hiyya! Why on earth is this article attracting such attention?? I inadvertently got sucked into editing it somehow but right now, it looks like it's undergoing a war of attrition with certain editors taking as many nibbles of out it as they can. What gives? I wouldn't have thought it that controversial - Alison✍ 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP editor, 86-etc, has issues with the article, and has vigorously attacked every version of it. You may know him from other Irish articles, where he likes to show up and yell at people, and then blame it on being drunk. I think he just dislikes any discussion of cultural appropriation, period, considering it all POV. I assume since the AfD result was to keep the article, he is trying to whittle away at it, which is of course counter to the decision. As for the new attention to it, you might notice some familiar names from other revert wars. Hopefully the parties concerned will be able to refrain from turning up here and yelling some more, as many of them tend to do whenever they are mentioned. Slán ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, *that* article. I spent some time yesterday editing the Robert Anton Wilson article yesterday and notice that the same crowd had hit that article up, too [14], similar to the Stewart Farrar one. Documenting cultural appropriation is hardly ever POV, it's merely documenting. Same with the controversial nigger word; the WP article is hardly being racist in documenting its use. But you already know all that :) He can feel free to whittle away if he likes. If he over-steps, I'll fix it. In the meantime, I intend to work on building the article into something better. - Alison✍ 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me please, you have accused me of being someone else before and I said nothing at the time. There are 200,000 ip's with the same starting numbers. You have really stooped very low in continuing to make that claim again. It was you who pursued me on the pp page, which incidentally was full of pov and still is. I didn't ask you to get involved. Pity you don't involve yourself in getting some of the pov out of the article. 86.42.159.149 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have never "pursued" you anywhere. You followed me here after your outburst on the Halloween article, and after I wrote the earlier version of the Plastic Paddy article: diff: [15] and added quote: [16]. And if you have never interacted with me before, why do just happen to have my talk page watchlisted? And why do you just happen to use the exact same phrasing under your various IP edits? Never mind, I don't need to hear your answers. Your comments and rants on my talk page have never furthered the development of articles or the encyclopedia in general, and I request that in the future you refrain from commenting here, whether sober or drunk. I also suggest you stick to editing under your username, and trying being accountable for your edits for a change. Sincerely, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear! - I see what you mean! - Alison✍ 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe time for WP:RCU? Personally, I can see her point here. Furthermore, I note that you did nothing to address the points she just did make, which makes me wonder ... - Alison✍ 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


MedCab case: Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

I am presently contacting all parties to confirm voluntary participating in the MedCab Case. If you wish to participate in this voluntary, informal mediation please return to the mediation page, edit the discussion section, state that you wish to proceed with my mediation and sign your name. Alan.ca 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that the Mediator deleted (not archived it seems) everyone's comments so that there is no record of all the reasons given for declining. Should not those have been put on th talk page at least? Sincerely, Mattisse 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was just looking at that. I find that very odd and somewhat disturbing. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It leaves the version of the person who requested the mediation visible. However, subsequent statements challenging its veracity are removed. The impression is left that the original version is fact but the other named parties refused to deal with it. Furthermore, the Mediator left his own editorial statements in place which are biasing. Sincerely, --Mattisse 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

It's started again. Please also note the following edit [17]. Draw your own conclusions! :) - Alison✍ 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration update

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [18] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the case, Thatcher. There has been a lot of material to wade through and I appreciate the time and energy you've devoted to sorting things out and clarifying matters. Thanks again, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be easier to get to the heart of the Starwood matter this way. Thatcher131 13:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/User_talk%7EKathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na_Archive_7_517f.html"