User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive Oct 2007

hi

Hi Our names are Ingrid and arturo and we are Thelmadatter`s student… I need help, because I want to know if this Letters are ok, for a n INQUIERY LETTER and for a SALES one….—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.254.101.49 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, have replied to you here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Neopaganism

I have repeatedly asked for wider community input, and I positively begged Liftarn to find reasonable editors to argue his case for him. This has been going on for two years now, so I don't quite see how "waiting a little longer" would change anything. My sole motivation is WP:ENC, and I have no wish to "get to" Liftarn in any way. If he has a case to make, let him make it. After waiting for two years, I am not holding my breath. Since you appear to support the move, along with two other editors, I would argue there is a 4:1 consensus against Liftarn at present, and there is no reason not to keep the article in the cleaned up state while we are discussing this. If, miraculously, it should become clear that Liftarn has a case after all, we can always still follow suit by branching out articles again. dab (𒁳) 11:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious discrimination against Neopagans

I'm posting this note both on your page and dab's. Please stop the revert war straight away. I suspect each of you is using this article to get at the other, and the article and the encyclopaedia are suffering because of it. Personally I support the merger, but would prefer it to stand as it is untilm a gebnuine consensus involving other editors can emerge. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Actually I'm the one that is open for suggstions and debate. // Liftarn

Having just reviewd the discussions at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans, which I had not previously seen, I feel that a consensus for merger has been achieved, with only yourself opposing. Please allow the article to be merged there. If you revert it again you will definitely be in breach of 3RR. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs)

No consensus have been acheived (or even attempted), it just mob rule. An earlier merge suggestion was rejected at Talk:Religious discrimination against Asatru#Request for Comments: merge?. If Dab would have at least tried to work things out instead of just going on like a steamroller and ignoring what everybody else thinks (even coming up with some slurs) it could probably have been possible to solve in a friendlier way. // Liftarn

All editors posting at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans, apart from yourself, agree with the merger. That's as good a definition of consensus as I know of. Consensus does NOT mean that all have agree, otherwise every individual would have an absoluite veto. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CONS that is official policy "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon.". But in this case there never even was an attempt at reaching consensus. // Liftarn

I do not take WP:CONS to mean that every individual has a veto if they disagree with the view of all other editors. This would be a good case to invoke WP:IAR, because to obey the rule slavishly would be top the detriment opf the encyclopaedia. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at first I thought he was being bold, now I think he's on a personal vendetta. // Liftarn

Witchcraft.

You're welcome. · AndonicO ^Talk 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wicca page

It appears I posted on the wrong site. Oops

Merry meet, Kim.

Forgive me if my ways were inappropriate with editing the Wicca page, I'm new to this site. I realize I didn't source my changes. They're based on experience, and any documentation I've had is stored in the annuls of my mind.

I am a Wiccan witch.

I don't want to make a stink, but the article claims (or seems to claim) more than once that Wicca IS witchcraft; absolutely NOT true.

Wicca is a religion. Witchcraft is a practice.

Not every Wiccan practices witchcraft, and not every witch is Wiccan. Generalizing in this case isn't merited. I did see that an attempt has been made to separate the two; but it is confusing when you read first that Wicca is witchcraft, and then that it's not. While I don't presume that my ways and my ways alone are right, the changes I made were things that are not opinion.

Blessed be.

Gabhin dru'i Gothbard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripthruwires (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, just a quick response as I'm in the middle of a kids' party and can't take time for a proper reply! Will do so tomorrow. PS: If you sign your posts with ~~~~ you'll find that they appear as your signature, like this: Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Full reply posted at Wicca talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

how nice of you!.....

Dear Kim Dent-Brown; not only did you delete what I was writing as I wrote; I have now lost the entire first section of my article on the people of salvation; a famous hadith by Muhammed. Now it is lost; the second section that is left being incomphrehensible without the first section. Are you an expert on Islam? Do you even know what I am writing about: apparently not; your reason being that it was "too short". That is no reason; especially since I was NOT DONE TYPING IT: so how could you even know what point I was making? Or attempting to make? No; you just started erasin it and then let me know after you destroyed a half an hour of work. You are no editor; you are a vandal: and I am reporting this as a case of vandalism: next time wait TILL I AM DONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm very sorry of some work you were doing has been lost. However I did not delete your article: I am not an admin and do not have the power to do this. I tagged it for deletion because it did not seem to me to follow the usual format we expect in Wikipedia articles: please see these links about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Without Wikilinks, cited references or any other of the usual features of an article, this was just an essay or a piece of original research.

When you press the 'Save Page' button, you are creating a page which goes live onto Wikipedia and you really need to be saving a finished (or nearly finished) page. You can look at successive drafts without publishing them by pressing 'Preview' rather than 'Save page'. Even better, you might consider drafting a page in your own user space such as User:Unicorn144/The People of Salvation. This is NOT part of Wikipedia's public face (although anyone can see it...) so you can slowly draft an article there until it is in the form you think complies with Wikipedia format. Have a look at articles like Qur'an or Hadith to get a sense of how Wikilinks and citations are used.

However when you do eventually post it, do remember that it says at the bottom of the editing page that " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This does ultimately involve deleting articles which do not conform to Wikipedia policy. If you would like any advice on how to draft the article so it can survive Wikipedia's editorial process, please let me know. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact I do want to know this: because as the founder and unfortunately spokesman for the New Unification Church I would like to know how to add my church to the existing traditions like Shia; Sunni and Christian and so forth: quoting the same information and others: so I won't be deleted: is there any proptection that these others seem to have that I do not? If the Shia say that Gabriel gave Fatimah a book concerning the Mahdi then can I use this same frame of reference about the same book? The Sufis; of which I am one; also have their own belief about Gabriel: are we then not allowed to present ours? And if not: why not??

I do need advice in trying to proceed; adding "balance" to articles which ask for balance: but not "my kind"; Sufusm is not allowed to state that Mary appeared at Fatimah because it was a sign from Allah about Fatimah herself? Why is our belief not allowed: the Shia belief is there: chapter and verse: what is wrong with mine? Unicorn144 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, sorry it's taken me a day or two to respond. I do think there is a great difficulty for you as the spokesman for the New Unification Church in originating the article about the Church. It is perhaps similar to the policy discouraging autobiographies, that it will be difficult for you to be seen to be writing without promoting your own point of view (known as 'POV' in Wiki-speak.) If you do go ahead you will need to read these three policies and make sure you stick by them:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which says that 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability:'Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.'
• And perhaps most importantly Wikipedia:No original research: 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought'.

If you can manage to draft an article that stays within these guidelines, it will stand a much better chance of surviving the scrutiny of other editors. But first please read carefully the three policies linked above.

There is one further problem with regards to the New Unification Church, but you may be able to overcome it because you know the subject much better than I do. I Googled for the name of the Church and came up with only one hit - your own website. This does not count as a usable source as anyone can set up a website! You need to establish the notability of your organisation from independent sources. In other words you need to be able to cite books, newspaper or magazine articles, authoritative websites outside your control etc who can attest to the fact that the Church exists, and that its existence is significant in some way (ie it's not just a tiny splinter group with its own agenda). If the Church is not such a group, and independent, citable sources can attest to this, then the article is feasible, but I repeat it will need very careful drafting.

I'd suggest that you set up a sandbox page in your own userspace at somewhere like User:Unicorn144/New Unification Church rather than posting a new article straight away. That way you can get feedback from editors like me and Fayenatic without risking having a half-completed article deleted because it does not meet guidelines. Please let me know if you'd like any help with this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Kim. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)