User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive Jun 2007

Missing image Image:Athame.JPG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Athame.JPG, by Strangerer (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Athame.JPG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Athame.JPG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion not because it was a missing or corrupt image but because it was an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. As you can see from the edit history, the page was empty when I tagged it. It should be deleted. The image won't go away when the description page is deleted because the image is on the Commons, not Wikipedia, and the software lets the image show through. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend to understand this explanation (ignorance on my part, not cussedness!) If the page has to be deleted for some reason, so be it and if the articles it illustrates suffer, I'll complain then! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, let me explain. Images hosted on Commons (as that image is, indicated by the tag at top that says it is hosted at Wikimeda Commons) are available to all wikipedias worldwide, rather than having the image hosted on each site. So, the image does not actually exist here on en.wiki, it just shows up because it is copied from Commons. Because it doesn't exist here, there is no point in categorising such images (they are already categorised on Commons). And because you removed the category that was added, there was nothing but a blank page left, again, because the image doesn't actually exist on this site. So, the page, not the image, was tagged for deletion. The image will not go away. Hope that helps, and doesn't confuse the issue further. If you have any questions, let me know. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mickyj.com

I hope that this is in the right place ...

Regarding Mickyj.com,

Is there something we can do tomake this fit the rules. It is not intended to be spam or advertising. It was meant to describe what it is. It is a service. Other services like experts exchange and others are in the encyclopedia. Is there a way to reword it ? It is non profit, community based website that is there to help people. This was just a description of it.

Thanks (Posted by User:Michael.jenkin)

Unfortunately Michael, if you want to let people know about your service by writing an article about it in Wikipedia, then this is advertising. If your site/service becomes notable, in which case some other person - not you - may choose to write about it because it has come to public notice through news items, magazines etc. I'm really sorry, but Wikipedia is not a valid way for your to publicise your service. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churches

Check again, Kim, there are hundreds of pages on churches in Wikipedia. Know what you're talking about before opening your mouth about policies. (Unsigned comment by Wvoutlier.)

There may be hundreds of such articles, but that does not mean they do not all contravene WP policy on notability. If I come across them I will tag them also. See the policy below, taken from the notability policy. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC):[reply]

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is 'notable' if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.

You're the vandal. The page was created less than an hour ago and is in progress. Sounds like you need to get a life outside of wikipedia. (Unsigned comment by Wvoutlier.)

Please sign your posts by typing in ~~~~ at the end. If you are drafting an article, it would be better to use a sandbox in order to prevent new page patrollers from tagging your article before it is completed. Or as a minimum, use the 'preview' button rather than the 'save' while you get your page up to speed with reliable secondary sources. I assume good faith on your part: please do the same for me. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume good-faith from you. The fact that you tagged an article within minutes of its creation WHILE ITS STILL BEING EDITED says to me that you're a troll with nothing better to do than fill some void in your life by policing Wikipedia. If you're so good at what you do, maybe you should wait until editing on the article has stopped then judge an article. (Unsigned comment by Wvoutlier.)

Thank you for your comment. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ when you make them. You can draft articles free from botheration by new page patrollers if you do so at a page like User:Wvoutlier/drafts. This will mean you can get it up to standard befor releasing it into the mainspace. Good luck! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Devil's gardens

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Devil's gardens, by 71.61.208.156, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Devil's gardens seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Devil's gardens, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Devil's gardens itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: CSD tag removed by third editor User:Christopher Parham.) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability re: Warriors for Innocence

23,000 + people think it is important enough to join an lj community complaining about the deletions, so I would say that this site is noteable. WookMuff 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to include this fact (with a verifiable secondary source) in the article. However it seems an admin. has already decided that the article as it stands should be deleted. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XO-3b

I remvoed your speedy delete request for XO-3b. Although I agree the article was badly written, I felt it was far fron nonsense. I performed a major rewrite on behalf of the original submitter and added a source. More to come in the following days, I am sure. Turlo Lomon 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - as written it certainly sounded nonsensical to me! If you can be bothered to rewrite and reference it, kudos to you! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my preliminary rewrite. Please let me know what you think. Turlo Lomon 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - if the original editor had posted that, there's no way I'd have tagged it for deletion! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-model (software development)

Hi Kim, i just saw that you've moved that article from my sand box to the main page. It was'nt a mistake that i left it in my sandbox. Actually, I have'nt finished writing it. Anyway, no issues as i'll add watever left in the mainpage itself. Thanks for your help. Stay in touch. M ajith

Hello there - no, it wasn't in your sandbox it was in mainspace in an article called (rather confusingly) Ajith's Sandbox which is in mainspace, despite its name! The best place to draft it would be somewhere like User:M ajith/sandbox, which really is in your user space! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted my article on a holiday

how dare you (Unsigned comment by Donsorce2000)

No, I didn't delete it. I tagged it for deletion because I thought it was not encyclopaedic, and another editor (an administrator, which I am not) agreed with me and deleted it. If you want help writing serious articles I'd be very glad to assist. A good place to start is here. Good luck - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Hi Kim dent brown I requested to change the wicca page in case you forgot and you said I could but it is locked for me. I don't know how to unlock it and I've already made some smaller pages like you suggested if you look up Sparda the Legendary Dark Knight and Hellfire and Ash. But if you please could please unlock it for me and message me if you do or you have any comments. bye (Posted by User:-kazaku-

Hello Kazaku, please add any comments at the bottom of the page, not the top, and sign them with four tildes like this ~~~~ which will add your signature. The Wicca page is blocked to very new users because it gets a lot of vandalism or uninformed editing. You'll need to wait a while before you edit it. I've looked at some of your other pages and, while they are a start, you need to bear this advice in mind before you go much further. Have a good look at all the links off that page before you spend too much effort on editing articles which other people are likely to revert. Good luck - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Circle (Shaumbra)

Hi Kim! Why did you delete the stub I had made on the page "Crimson Circle (Shaumbra)"? It was meant to be fleshed out.. Angry! Geir 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Geir. First off, I didn't delete it. I tagged it because I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD). The tag drew the attention of another editor with admin privileges, who obviously agreed with me because he/she (not I) deleted it. I tag many articles every day - mostly because of nonsense, vandalism or advertising, which did not apply to yours. As far as I can recall the reason I tagged it was because, to quote the CSD policy:

An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

You did not use any secondary material (eg citations from independent newspaper articles or the like) to show that this subject was genuinely notable. You may believe or know it to be notable, but you need to provide evidence that independent sources also consider it so. If you can rewrite it (I suggest starting to draft it in your user space, say at User:Geir Solerød/Crimson Circle, then it won't attract the attention of new page patrollers like me and you can draft and improve it in peace, adding citations as you find them, until it is ready for the mainspace. Do get back to me if you need more help with this, or if you have further questions. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I looked more into the subject of wiki-deletion, and yes, started up a draft like you said. I will provide the necessary evidence. Geir 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad you weren't put off by the deletion first-time round! let me know if I can help again (eg by looking at the draft) which I'd be happy to do. Good luck - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 19:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Archiving

That was going so well ! Thanks for pointing it out - time to switch the laptop of for the day I think !!Pedro | Chat 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I was new page patrolling and it was nice to find an article that didn't read 'Chuck Smith is a fagot and smells reely bad' for a change! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made me laugh out loud!!!! You're so right. Would you like me to change your user page to "Kim Is Gay?" or similar, in response to your message on my talk page? That's the normal kind of response I get from vandals! I've now remembered the "/" and actually archived stuff - woo hoo ! Thanks again for the heads up. Pedro | Chat 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gila Sher article

I'm not sure what more it is that you want. I cited 17 different unique academic journals through Jstor on the page.

You need independent sources - not just articles by her. I could (in theory) publish a dozen articles, and if nobody took any notice of them I'd still be non-notable. You need articles (news or academic journal) by other authors referring to her and confirming that, in their eyes, she is notable. Please get back to me if this doesn't make sense. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example - I just Googled and found a review by Machover in the Br J Philos Sci.1994; 45: 1078-1083. I don't have full text access, but it will certainly say something about her and her writing. You could cite this (if you can access the text) as independent (third-party) evidence that other people take her seriously. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cited an article she wrote in a Blackwell Companion. Please look up the Blackwell Companion series. Blackwell writes major companions for entire fields of philosophy. They dedicate a staff to searching an entire field for the most reliable and recognized experts in a field and then they each write chapters in a text. It is extremely, extremely difficult to write an article in a Blackwell Companion. If nobody 'took her seriously' she wouldn't have been selected to write it.

In addition, all of the articles I linked were in peer reviewed journals. It would be different if they were random things she just put out on the internet or something, but these are serious texts.

In addition, I am NOT a student of Professor Sher. I was asked to write the article by two of her students. I would not write an article on someone I knew personally. I AM a researcher in philosophical logic. I myself am an expert in the field, and well equipped to access significance.

Etchemendy's arguments were major. Her arguments were the significant reply. Why don't you question the length and breadth of the John Etchemendy article, which cites no links to any work, no academic sources, and only a biography webpage from his office? Of course, I think both philosophers are major enough to have an article in an encyclopedia with several million articles on anime characters.

I have given a link to a major Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article which cites her as a source, and a book review she wrote that is independently hosted at the University of Notre Dame. I have also removed the references tag. If you have further questions, send me a message.

Mandrake Press , the last word

I just had to smile when I saw your post and the fact he had to make just one more post. Thanks for pouring oil on the water and best wishes.--Emnx 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca and Lankfordjl

Greetings! I just wanted to let you know that I agree with your decision to revert Lankfordjl's comments, but I do so based on a different rationale than yours. As you know, the term "The Old Religion" is based on assertions that Wicca's roots go back to the Paleolithic, making it significantly older than any of the Abrahamic religions. Even though there is absolutely no way to document this assertion, it is part of the Wiccan Mythos, so to speak, among some Wiccans. The fact that the Bible makes reference to Christianity/Judaism as "the old religion" does not bear on the appropriateness of using the epithet for Wicca.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Septegram - I agree with your every word. While I'm an enthusiastic Wiccan, I have no time for the theories of Murrayites. Personally I'm quite happy with Ronald Hutton's explanations and they don't weaken Wicca one jot for me! I kept my rationale in my post to Lankfordjl simple, because I judged that he/she was probably not interested in the intricacies of Wiccan belief....! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post It Easy (website)

Hi, why you putting speedy deletion notice on this Post It Easy (website) article? It`s same as Google, Yahoo! and Monster (website) articles. Don`t understand the reason.Amnlat 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. By the way, if you put ~~~~ at the end of your posts, your name and date will appear for all to see, which is highly recommended! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But content is changed, now it`s not like you posted in reply. You still think that is looks or sound like spam? Amnlat 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Reply to me there if you wish, then all the discussion of this stays in one place. I'm keeping a watch on the page, so I'll see when you reply. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I created a draft of PostItEasy.com you can see it here Waiting your feedback :) Amnlat 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will go look and give feedback - later tonight. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amnlat - I've posted some feedback on the draft's talk page. The most important bit is probably this:

So this tells you what needs to be in there to make the site notable. Any of these three would do (and more than one is better:)
A reliable, external source (eg CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, or even a smaller media outlet) describing, reviewing or commenting on the site.

A well known internet award having been won by the site

The site's content being picked up and redistributed by independent outlets.
I think the first two are more likely in this case. Has the site been the subject of radio or TV programmes? Has it been mentioned extensively in a book, or a magazine or newspaper article? Has it won a well-known internet award? If it has, and you can cite the source, do so and you have established notability. If it has not been mentioned by the media, or received such an award then it simply isn't notable, and has no place in the encyclopaedia.

Hope this helps, please get back to me if you need more feedback. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Dear Kim Dent-Brown, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]