User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Kathryn NicDhàna is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| the Moon |
 |
| 1st quarter,
38% |
For the sake of conversational continuity:
I like to keep conversations in the same place, when possible.
If you leave a message for me here, I will usually respond here.
If I leave a message on your talk page, I will do my best to watchlist your talk page and read your response there.
However, as my watchlist is rather voluminous now, if you want to make certain I see your response you might need to post it here. If the matter is time-sensitive, I will reply on your talk page so you will be notified promptly, and please feel free to post important replies to me here, for the same reason. The orange bar is your friend.
Tapadh Leibh (Thank You),
--KPN
P.S. Please respect Wikiquette, which means: assume good faith, be polite, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not. You may also enjoy Tips for the Angry New User. If you are an admin considering going Rouge, you may appreciate these makeup tips.
|
|
[edit] Where to go and what to do
[edit] More stuff to do
 |
WP:AIV |
|---|---|
 |
WP:NPP |
 |
WP:RPP |
 |
WP:RFA |
 |
WP:AFD |
 |
WP:XFD |
 |
CAT:CSD |
 |
WP:CSD |
 |
WP:RM |
 |
WP:RAA |
 |
WP:DR |
 |
WP:TM |
 |
WP:TT |
 |
WP:RCU |
 |
WP:LOP |
 |
CAT:AB |
 |
WP:VP |
 |
WP:BS |
 |
WP:RD |
 |
Sources |
 |
WP:NFC |
 |
WP:IUP |
[edit] Wiki Surprize
You have won the Irish Wikipedians surprise draw!! Just leave a message on my talk page to receive the prize of USD 1,000,000 or EUR 638,442.37 or GBP 505,871.414 Markreidyhp 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go raibh maith agat! Damn, I knew this lucrative business of writing articles on obscure Irish subjects would pay off, if I just hung in there. (heeeeeeee) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Russian Irish Towns project
Hey Kathryn: The following message was left for me and I think it's a little more in your bailiwick. I'll see about posting it to appropriate WikiProjects. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pigman! We've created Project Ireland in the russian section of Wikipedia. We plan to create (supported by a bot) articles about all irish towns and villages on the base of the english Wikipedia. Now we are thinking about the names of the articles. It would be political correctly to transliterate the irish (gaelic) names. On the other hand, english language is common used in Ireland and it's much more easier for us to take the english pronouncation. Most of us understand english, but only some linguists can read irish words. What would you propose us to do? --Obersachse (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Archaeoastronomy problems
Kathryn,
I was as pleased by your recent edit and comments on Archaeoastronomy and its Talk Page as I was displeased by Breadh2o's instant revert. AlunSalt and I have been trying to resolve the problems with Breadh2o for some time, having gone through an informal RfC initiated by AlunSalt, a formal "subject matter" RfC initiated by Breadh2o, and an Original Research claim on the No Original Research Noticeboard initiated by AlunSalt
I feel it's time to raise the issue of Breadh2o's Disruptive Editing, Original Research, etc., but really don't know where to go at this phase. We have gone through two RfCs, but neither focused on the issue of disruptive editing. I don't want to get you involved on the merits of the case but given your knowledge of the dispute resolution process, would you consider the formally appropriate next step to be an RfC on Disruptive Editing, etc., or a move directly to the AN/I?
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Responding at your talk page. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the advice. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- After looking at his contribs and user page, I've decided to put something on AN/I. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No prob. I've got it on my watchlist now, but if something else odd happens, or if Breadh2o gets pushy again, feel free to let me know and/or post a followup on AN/I. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We seem to be back to the same sources again, this time with added Orwell. Apparently adding an Orwell quote to the head of his user page where he discusses his fringe theory is 'open to interpretation'. Can I ask you what your interpretation is? I don't want to cause a fuss if it's just me being over-sensitive. On the other hand I've no real desire to go round this topic yet again if it's going to end up in another conspiracy theory. Thanks. Alun Salt (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with Alun. I have refrained from any edits since my undo of your reversion and that was done while I was ignorant of your commentary on my user page. I complied with your suggestions to remove the article segments, though I have retained ref links to help me keep the history logs handy. I have neither added any new material to the article nor interfered in the additions by others since the unfortunate event Saturday. However, I cannot in good conscience simply stand by idly as my motives are maligned. I believe almost all of my cited references comply with WP policies and guidelines for reliable sources, verifiable and that the twin issues in history and balancing the fringe section qualify as notable. The last inline edits I attempted before Saturday's Politics of Archaeoastronomy debacle: my April 10 new lead paragraph to History and my March 30 balance append to Fringe met standards for relevancy and proper sourcing. The fact is, Alun and Steve have prevailed in their intended and absolute reversions. Anticipating this, I contacted editor assistant AGK on April 4 citing perceived WP:OWN issues. Then, I took it to request for mediation rather than edit war some more. As Alun and Steve have had issues with me, I have had issues with them, as well, particularly WP:IDHT but I don't know what's being done about these transgressions. It just seems a pretty selective and arbitrary system to ignore my points. It's not POV pushing by me, it's trying to neutralize an imbalance in the POV, as I have tried to so carefully explain in the the past 24 hours -- Breadh2o (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Breadh2o, It is very common on WP for POV-pushers to claim they are just trying to NPOV an article. So experienced editors look at the history. Admittedly I am only looking this situation over recently, so I haven't seen every edit and exchange that has taken place. However, as I said on your talk page, you seem to me to be the one who is being disruptive and having WP:OWN issues. While there is more latitude in what is discussed on the talk pages of an article than in the article itself, the talk page should not be used as a soapbox; nor a place to post whatever has been rejected from the article; nor should it be an endurance contest. Posting long screeds at other editors is not helpful to the development of articles, and will tend to alienate the very people you need to learn how to work with.
If you keep up the tone you've been using towards some editors, you may be penalized for violating WP:CIVIL. If you cannot let go of your strong feelings about the topic, I would suggest that you back off and work on something else. I have suggested before that your style of writing and desired subject matter is more apropos to a blog or personal website than WP. I reiterate that suggestion. BTW, Barry Fell is not a reliable source for anything on Ogham. Though he may be worth mentioning if fringe theories of "Ogham in America" are mentioned, his work in the field is not credible, as per the opinion of Ogham scholars as well as Fell's lack of academic background in the relevant fields. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kathryn, could I request a clarification about procedures. Breadh2o says that he contacted an admin (whom I presume is User:AGK) and asked for mediation on the dispute. He had also mentioned to me by e-mail on 8 April that he was turning the problem over to an unnamed admin. As one of the involved parties I have not been contacted by any mediator and as far as I can tell, this dispute is not listed at the formal Requests for mediation or at the less formal mediation cabal. Do you have any insights as to where we are regarding potential mediation? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looking into it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- (ACK! Downed server ate my response!) Anyway... Since it's not in his contribs, anyone he contacted he must have done so privately. Neither a formal nor informal mediation can proceed without your consent. So if there is one proposed, you will be notified. I welcome other admin eyes on this. I think any experienced editor can see pretty quickly what's going on here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AN/I Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy
Hello, Kathryn NicDhàna. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Celts as Barbarians?
Your thoughts and/or comments are requested here. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion
Yes, delete it all.--Pecopteris (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Six months
Hi Kathryn NicDhàna, I just wanted to say that you've been an administrator for just over six months now. I hope you've had a good time. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Esther Hicks article
Hi Kathryn,
I came across your name in the discussion regarding the Esther Hicks article. I share your concern that as currently written the EH article is not neutral, as it does not mention the controversial nature of many of the Abraham-Hicks teachings. As you say, it does read like an advertising handout.
I tried to reflect this by adding a section "Controversy", which was moved by Carptrash within a couple of hours. We have discussed the move here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Esther_Hicks#moved_this_section_from_the_article
As I wrote in the discussion, the EH article is in sharp contrast to the Wikipedia "Scientology" article.
If this topic remains on your radar, I'm interested in your views as to how to best take this forward. Panchali101 (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A further thought: the Abraham-Hicks teachings discussed in the article seem to enjoy the protection of the device that the ideas are presented as a biography of a living person, which I understand have higher thresholds of sourcing pedigree than other categories. In fact, the content of the article would be better represented as the "Abraham-Hicks teachings" or similar. I was initially surprised that Wikipedia had no specific entry for "Abraham-Hicks", but only "Esther Hicks".Panchali101 (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Kathryn, you're clearly exceptionally busy - can you point me in the direction of another Administrator in this field, please? Panchali101 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
