User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna/Archive 10

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 10: February 15 - March 15, 2007


Contents

Kevin Danaher

Hi Kathryn,

I wrote the stub for Kevin Danaher the folklorist and had finished a complete article when I saw you had expanded it. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and have just noticed that close relatives are not allowed to work on articles (I'm his son). However I have derived my article entirely from published sources, without any personal reminiscences. Can I collate your work and mine, or should I send you my stuff for you to decide what to include?

Hypnopomp 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fáilte to Wikipedia, Hypno! As someone who has benefited greatly from your father's work, it is an honor to meet you. My condolences on his passing; he will continue to be missed by so many. There are customs that are observed in my family that I did not know were widespread and traditional until I read your father's books. So his work has meant a lot to me personally as well as vocationally.
I suggest you post your version of the article on the article's talk page. Then we (and any others interested in working on the article) can look it over together and decide how best to merge them. I look forward to working with you, and just let me know if you have any questions or concerns, whether about the article or about Wikipedia in general. Slán! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and sympathy, Kathryn. I've posted the draft article in the talk page, as you suggest. Also I can provide photographs of and by KD. As his executor I control the copyrights so that will not be a problem. Hypnopomp 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have some photos with the article! The tool bar at the left has the "upload file" option. Just upload the image and make sure you indicate which licensing you want for it. It's explained pretty well on the page, but if you need any help, just ask. Slán! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This is related more to your non-Wikipedia expertise, but do you know correct pronunciations for "Taranis" and "Eochaid Ollathair?" I know "Taranis" should be "Tha-ra-nish," but is the "i" pronounced "eye" or "ee," and on which syllable does the emphasis come?

As for "Eochaid Ollathair," (spelling varies, of course), I believe the second part would be something like "oh-la-heer," but the first? I'm at a loss.

If you could help, I'd appreciate it. I don't have anyone convenient that I can ask who'd be likely to know with any kind of reliability; you're the closest thing to an expert that I "know."

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sept, sorry for the delayed response. I got busy, and then I wanted to double-check with someone who has better Irish, and who can render the pronunciations in IPA. I can generally hazard Ulster Gaeilge pronunciations, as they're not too far off from the Gàidhlig, but I'm still getting up to speed with the IPA.
What we know of Gaulish is largely reconstructed, and pronunciation is open to debate, so your guess with Taranis is probably close enough. I've also heard it pronounced with the hard "T". I'd say the "i" would be either an "ih" or an "ee" sound. There's a YahooGroup for reconstructed Gaulish, I think it's called CelticConLang.
In the Goidelic languages, accent is almost always on the first syllable of words. From Angr, with whom I double-checked this: "Eochaid was something like [ˈeoxɨðʲ] in Old Irish and would be spelled Eochaidh and pronounced [ˈoxiː] in Modern Irish. ... Ollathair in IPA: Old Irish [ˈɔɫ̪ˌaθɨɾʲ], Modern [ˈɔɫ̪ˌahəɾʲ]." These things vary a bit with dialect, but that should cover it :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I'm going to have to go research what the pronunciation symbols mean, now... {grin} *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, IPA is weird weird weird, but I figured you wanted it for an article, and that's the standard we're moving to on WP. I initially wrote something up in rough phonetics, but realized that with English dialects, those things can wind up being sort of useless. I still need to get more up to speed with IPA myself, but I think it's worth it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Butting in: Wasn't Taranis always rendered in Latin or Greek anyway (presumably translated from some Galli-Belgæc dialect)? So if the Romans were transcribing it by sound (presuming that is what they were doing) it would be pronounced with a T not an 'Th'. If the name derives from Proto Indo-European as Grimm suggests, it would definitely be a T and the terminal -is would be pronounced like a -uz. - WeniWidiWiki 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone from another source told me "T" as well, although I have heard that the "T" was hard but slightly aspirated; not sure how to transcribe that.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the missing warnings for removing vandalism warnings

I think there are a lot of puzzled CVU members who don't understand why the warning templates were deleted. Further, I can't seem to find the evidence that there was a consensus to delete them. On the contrary, I see almost unanimous support to keep them. Check out this. I would fully support a reopening of the debate on the topic. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, and would be glad to help re-open the discussion and get the templates put back in. The diff you provided also seems to me to show clear consensus for keeping them. This user has some templates we could consider: User:Sbrools/Sandbox ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to try to find at least a few supporters who should be notified when the topic comes up for debate again. I was thinking that I'd create a side discussion page for organization so that the organization effort doesn't clutter up people's talk pages. More to follow. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's barnstar

Thanks for raising this with me, I have a few thoughts:

  1. I dunno how publicised this proposal has been. I know WP:CANVASS makes it a little difficult to know how best to do this, but I think a neutrally worded note about the barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) explaining why the barnstar is proposed and why it is different from the "Editor's Barnstar" would be acceptable.
  2. Consensus needed. This has always been a vague area. I think two weeks of discussion usually has to occur and there has to be a strong concensus in favour. 17+ support with negligable oppposition definitely meets that hurdle. I guess its just a question of when the clock starts ticking given the premature close last time. To be safe, give it another 6 days. Particularly concensus is needed as to which version of the award is prefered.
  3. Evrik has no special authority over the awards proposals page much as he seems to imply it. His actions there should be considered the same as any other editor. Anyone can at the end of the debate close the discussion and pronounce on concensus.
  4. I do have a small suggestion- as well as spelling, punctuation and grammar, could fixing Wikilinks also be included. I know its an activity peculiar to this encyclopedia but its usually something I do at the same time as fix the other things (and further distinguishes this award from the "Editor's Barnstar". As I see it this proposed barnstar is about positive improvements that do not change the text, the "Editor's Barnstar" is about removing content in a positive manner.
  5. Image. You're probably tired of producing new versions of this, but there a slightly different format I'd like to see tried out. What I have in mind looks like (2). But the quill and broom are flattened (i.e. the shape they take in (1) ). Then instead of crossing over in the middle of the Barnstar, they do so over it, so that they are in line with the near horizontal line created by the most left and right points. If you can bear to give that a try (and understand what I mean) I'd be grateful.

Hope that helps. I am unhappy with Evrik's behaviour in the matter and intend to look into it further. WjBscribe 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, thank you! I'm not sure I'm seeing what you mean... ok, keeping the same angle between the quill and broom, but moving them up... how high? and reducing them in size? I'm willing to give it another go but am not sure I'm seeing it. At what spot on the star would the quill and broom cross each other? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - How about if you propose the additional text about Wikilinks? I agree it's worth including, but would prefer it if you propose it so I don't lose anything in translation. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll propose the extra text. Forget my suggested change to the design. I just tried playing with it myself and it doesn't look right. Now to decide which of the 8 options I prefer.... WjBscribe 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Evrik has a pathological hatred of new barnstars - he'll oppose them even when to make them a WPA is blatently stupid. The reason he gets away with it is because everyone assumes that someone else will promote or archive the discussion, and that someone is generally him. So, if he doesn't want to create a barnstar, the discussion will just sit there for months while everyone is waiting for someone else to promote, and then be archived for "lack of consensus". You clearly have buckets of support and your listing time has run out twice. Evrik, ultimately, has no binding power over the barnstar process, so if you just promote it yourself he can't actually stop you (as he found out with the LGBT Barnstar, which he and southphilly tried to delist on the basis that 72% support and two weeks was "forced through without a lot of support", which ended humiliatingly in an 85% reaffirmation in four weeks). It's been done before. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment the percentage cited my be right, but the total number of supporters was less than a dozen. As to the rest what was said ... --evrik (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Making Amends

Copyeditor's Award
This Copyeditor's Award is awarded for excellence in copyediting. --South Philly 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post last night was angry. --South Philly 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Modest Barnstar Awarded

the modest barnstar
the modest barnstar

I hereby award you the modest barnstar, anonymously, as tradition would have it, for your unassuming and modest way of contributing to the project, in many small ways, and some larger ones. The modest barnstar may be displayed anywhere (it goes with anything) or may be removed from your page entirely, out of modesty. Cheers! 67.49.8.228 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! I am honored, and will blush and mumble "oh geez, thanks, but really, it was the team, i just supported the team." :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NAMBLA edit

I have reverted your edit to the Nambla page. This article most definitely falls under the scope of our project, as it is both a part of gay and lesbian history as well as being an organization which causes controversy among gays and lesbians. Thanks, Jeffpw 06:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Jeff, NAMBLA?! It looked clear to me that folks don't want NAMBLA as part of the LGBT WikiProject. And putting the template on that page results in the unfortunate text: "This article is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia." I think that's appalling. Having a NAMBLA article on WP is acceptable, but I don't think implying it's an accepted part of LGBT culture is acceptable. Or accurate. Seriously, if folks think it's ok to include NAMBLA I'm leaving the WikiProject. I'm majorly squicked right now. Ugh. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I know. I'm squicked, too :( NAMBLA has been defunct for years anyway. The argument is, though, that the "man-boy" part of the name throws the org into the remit of LGBT and that in any way, LGBT detractors are going to lump it in there anyway. *sgh* - Alison<talk> 06:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's one thing for detractors to wrongly associate LGBT culture with pedophilia. It's another to put up banners that might imply that we're cool with it. I know experienced Wikipedians won't necessarily see it that way, but this really strikes a nerve for me. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, Kathryn. But if you read the article, you must see that it is most definitely a part of LGBT history, and therefore falls under the scope of our project. Tagging an article does not mean we support the actions of the organization. Wikiproject Fascism supports the Stormfront (website) article, and I am certain they don't support Stormfront itself. Jewish studies, German studies and Polish studies all support the holocaust. They don't support another Holocaust. See where I am going here? There are controversial articles on Wiki, which various projects maintain without endorsing the content. That way we make sure that standards are adhered to, and that no POV creeps in. I'm sorry of this bothers you, but it is simply Wikipedia policy. Jeffpw 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm old enough to know NAMBLA's history. I used to live in Boston (home of the founders, with whom I was certainly not "friends" but we've met often enough as they were very involved in the community). I know men who, as boys, were molested "mentored" by the NAMBLA guys. I've seen their newsletters and talked to people in the organization. I've been at the meetings where we got to fight about whether they get to march in the parade. This is really emotional for me. I fully support the right to have controversial articles on the 'pedia. I just can't be associated with NAMBLA in any way. If you feel strongly that the template, with that wording, belongs on their page I have to leave the project unless and until that changes. I can understand your viewpoint, and you may even be technically right as far as what the scope of various WikiProjects are. I just can't be part of something that implies the project "supports" pedophilia. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWARDS

Take a look.thuglasT|C 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal?

I didn't remove Scotland from anything. Book of Lismore, the page I created, I put it in, and removed it. If you are from Scotland, or know some Scottish history, and you think the Scotland history category should be there, then put it in. Scottish mythology is not synonymous with Irish mythology. Scottish mythology should have a section of it's own on the template. It will only confuse the reader, and Wikipedia is all about the reader, and not the editors. And it looks better. Manopingo 00:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed Scotland from the Celtic Mythology template, twice: [1] [2]. And with your edit summary of, "Irish Mythology not to be diluted on WP" you seem to have some sort of agenda here. As I responded in the edit summary, I really don't think covering all varieties of Celtic Mythology "dilutes" Irish Mythology :-) On the Nav. template, the Q-Celtic languages/cultures are in one section, and the P-Celtic in another. The Nav. template is already large, and there simply isn't room in it to cover every related article, nor to give a separate header and section to every Celtic culture. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean diluted in the sense of subject, but in the sense of spreading the articles into one arena, thus confusing the reader. It puzzles me why an editor would do this, it's all getting very woolly. I think Scotland should have it's own section, and Cat Sidhe is Irish too, just in case you didn't know. :-))Manopingo 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it is considered vandalism to to deliberately put silly original research into articles. Please stop doing this, or you may be considered a structural vandal. Manopingo 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. While I'm flattered that you think I'm the first person to figure out that Scottish Mythology is part of Celtic Mythology, I must humbly refuse the honor. And I must once again remind you that if you keep removing content from nav templates you are going to get blocked. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid my dear that you are in danger of being labeled a vandal. Please refrain from your structured vandalism. If wikipedia is to have any credibility, then you must desist at once. Thank you :-)) Manopingo 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok - so I reviewed the changes to the template and cannot see what Kathryn is doing wrong here. She's explained her rationale quite clearly whereas you ... have not. - Alison☺ 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite clearly, the section of the template was specifically compiled for Irish Mythology, and then a user Calgali, inserted Scottish Mythology into that section. Well, if you know anything about Irish Mythology, and most importantly the history of IM, then the whole insertion is absolutely and blatantly in error. I full know I am correct on this, Scotland deserves a section of it's very own, plus subsections. Nothing less is appropriate for Scottish Mythology. If you are after reading material on the subject, I'll merrily oblige, ;-}} Manopingo 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need to adopt that tone, thank you. Try to discuss the matter civilly, without patronising phrases like "silly" and "my dear", ok? I also have plenty of reading material, thanks all the same. The template in question, {{Celtic mythology}} is, after all about 'Celtic' mythoology and Scotland would largely fall under that remit. Right now, they're being grouped in ethnic sub-divisions (Goidelic/Brythonic) and that seems entirely appropriate. Furthermore, there's intense cross-pollination between Scottish mythology and Irish, notably around the Ulster Cycle. So what exactly is the problem here? - Alison☺ 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Really I should not have answered you on the Kathryn NicDhàna page. My apologies to Kathryn NicDhàna . Have a nice weekend. Manopingo 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn, the Book of Lismore is up and running now. I wasn't sure if the ref should have been for the Book of Dean of Lismore, in Scotland. That's why I removed my own edit. Put back the link, if you think is relevant. And I still believe the template can be improved. Cheers (Mano)86.42.148.197 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah - hi there!! Thought it might have been you all right ;) - Alison☺ 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dev

Im probably getting out of hand myself but Dev is growing increasingly hard to work with and i cant deal with it. You seem to be on good grounds. Do you think you could help mediate this? Im trying to make this work for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuglas (talk • contribs)

I also want it to work for everyone, and I think it can, given some time, and assuming people can calm down a bit and keep things in perspective. I think one of the problems is we have a very small group in the WikiProject. So when people start butting heads, there's not enough perspective; there's too much interpersonal history and not enough objectivity. I think it's crucial to get more people involved in the WikiProject, for a start, so we have more eyes on these issues. I am willing to talk to Dev, but honestly, I don't know him (him?) any better than I know you or Evrik or anyone else in the project. I'll see what I can do, but if there's an impasse this may require someone who is completely unconnected to any past disagreements among project members. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Dev's a she. Just FYI :) - Alison☺ 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou thuglasT|C 01:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WPA Coordinator

Personally, I don't care that you don't want me as the coordinator, really. It's a thankless role. What I care more about is the wikiproject being hijacked. Your removal of the coordinator section is disruptive.

Put it up for a vote to those people who were members of the wikiproject (and the braintrust) as of 12:01 am today - and give them a week to vote. I'll abide by the consensus of the group. --evrik (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A look at the talk page shows there was never even consensus on whether a coordinator was appropriate or desired. It looks to me like folks want it to function collectively, like the rest of Wikipedia. Seriously, I think it's bad form for you to keep putting your name on the page as coordinator when there is no consensus for you to do so, and while serious objections are being made to you taking on that role. You have also done some good work, I'm not denying that, but I really think things will go better for you if you could step back and listen to what people are saying instead of insisting you're the coordinator or that wider participation means the project is being "hijacked". The project desperately needs a broader base of input. I personally think you've taken on a lot and are stressed out. You've been tending to bite people, make abrupt decisions without consensus, and have been displaying WP:OWN issues. I don't think that is good for you or the project. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place my name as the coordinator, that was done by another user. The serious objections were made after the fact by people who had nothing to do with the project prior to a couple of days ago. I agree that the "project desperately needs a broader base of input," and have said so all along. I had to laugh when you said i've been 'biting people' or making decsions without consensus - as that what both you and Dev920 have been doing. In any case, if you don't like what i've been doing - take it to a vote. You keep make a lot of inaccurate statements and i hope that you start srking some of the falsehods.--evrik (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed your name as coordinator and replaced the whole "coordinator" section with text to the effect that the project welcomes new members, who should feel free to sign up. As long as you keep reverting those edits, and removing the text that says new members are welcome, ill will is going to continue to spiral around the project. You are seriously driving people away, trying to WP:OWN the project, then complaining when you wind up with a huge workload, then complaining that your work isn't appreciated. Not good. Also, please discuss changes to the page *on the talk page* not on the page of one or two project members. I seriously think you need to make a better effort at understanding this whole collective/consensus thing. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't Vandalise

If I find you are shadowing me, and randomly reverting my edits on WP again, and for no apparent reason, you will leave me with no option but to report you to ADMIN for vandalism. Any edits I make are good faith edits and I'll stand by all of them. This will be your final warning. Thank you.Manopingo 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating as ever. Please, feel free to report me "to ADMIN" for reverting some of your more bizarre edits. However, you might want to be aware that some of the people reverting you *are* admins :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
They took you up on this. Jkelly 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sean Ciall notability

Latha math dhuibh!

You flagged the "notability" of an article I originally wrote on Sean Ciall. I am very new to the Wikipedia thing, I have no idea whether it's "notable" or not. I found an empty link to it from a page called "Pagan Traditions" or some such, and the page asked for someone to expand the article, so I did, to the best of my ability. Some others added to it.

You asked how many people were involved, I honestly don't know. In the Pacific Northwest (specifically Washington state and British Columbia) there are about 100, and there are (based on emails and other things I've received over the years) other communities around North America, Australia and Europe. I don't know how many communities there are, or how many individuals are in those communities.

Anyway, hope this helps clarify! I'm hardly an expert on this, I just happened to be the first person to write it down for Wikipedia. Hopefully others more knowledgeable than myself will pick up the ball from here.

Tapadh leibh,

206.124.152.91 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)"Maraiche" (Robert Reeder)

The way the notability thing works is through verifiability. In order for the article to be on Wikipedia, there need to be third-party, verifiable sources that establish notability. So, are there any mentions of the group in books or periodicals? Websites are sometimes usable, if they are third-party (written by someone outside of the group or tradition). The website of the group itself can be included for further information, and to establish non-controversial information about the group (like, the fact they exist and define themselves in a certain way), but the group's own website, in and of itself, does not establish notability, as anyone can create a website. Hope this helps! Slàinte Mhath! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)