User talk:Kim Dent-Brown

Kim Dent-Brown - Talk page Home Talk Editing activity Barnstarium Editing tools Userboxen Userspace sitemap Talk archives can be seen here You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.

Christian Wicca => Christianity and Neopaganism Hi, Kim. I think this move/creation was a good idea. I was about to nominate the article for deletion yet again, but I think that situating the topic with a larger context answers most of my objections, though perhaps not all. A couple of points, though. First, as I pointed out here, Nancy Chandler Pittman's Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published and as such is not suitable as a source. Neither is her website, http://www.christianwicca.org/. In my opinion, in accordance with WP:SPS, any claim anchored by that book or website doesn't belong in Wikipedia. As well, I note that Joanne Pearson's Wicca and the Christian Heritage is cited in the references section. I haven't looked at the book since the AfD, but what struck me most about it was that, near as I could make out, it contains absolutely no mention of "Christian Wicca." What makes that striking -- to me, at any rate -- is that the book is about Wicca and Christianity. This absence of a single mention of "Christian Wicca" in a book devoted to the subject of Wicca and Christianity highlights the basic problem: outside of the work of wishful bloggers, online essayists and self-published authors, I can't find any evidence that any halfway-coherent set of practices that might reasonably be labelled "Christian Wicca": a) actually exists, and b) has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to merit a standalone article. Because the topic is such an OR-magnet, I think it's doubly important both that the sourcing for the article be of the highest quality and that the text of the article stick extremely closely to what those sources explicitly say. For example, part of the lede reads as follows: "some followers of modern pagan paths have developed practices such as Christian Wicca" My questions about this passage would be as follows: Does the author actually use the term "Christian Wicca"? Is this work a reliable source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and is it about an actually-existing set of practices that some significant group of people actually participate in? If the answer to either question is no, then the passage ought to go. As for the first, I haven't read the book, so you'd know better than I. But for the second, the signs are not auspicious: first, Llewellyn's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is not exactly stellar. Second, while I haven't read the book, Llewellyn itself describes the book as a "unique mix of memoir and how-to" that "shows how one woman [emphasis mine] blended Christian traditions with the magic and beauty of a Wiccan practice." It does not appear to demonstrate that any significant group of people practice something identifiable as "Christian Wicca". Furthermore, the book evidently exudes "warmth and heartfelt reverence," which is rather troubling. I don't know if you've already done so, but could I ask you to take a moment to look at the AfD and my comments here and here to have a better sense of what my concerns are. Thanks! -- Rrburke (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Hi there and thanks for responding so fully. If you don't mind I'll respond on the new article's talk page and I'll copy your comments there so others can participate in the discussion - hope this is OK! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Good idea! -- Rrburke (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Done - see here. And I've revised the article somewhat too, to take your comments into account see this diff. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Hey just trying to figure something out first off it takes me a few minutes and i realize i still have to add the sources to this which i also plan on doing so can you give me a little bit to mass edit and reference the different things on here for the wicca christianity thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgirlphoenix (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Welcome back I'm glad to see you've decided to return to Wikipedia and are diving right in to editing interesting subjects. I don't think we've ever met, but it's always good to see someone who's put a lot of work into Wikipedia and then left decide to come back. —Soap— 17:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Why thank you, it's very nice to get a welcome! It was a quite unplanned wikibreak - I don't know why I stopped and I don't know why I started again! It's mostly the same old Wikipedia (vanity articles and revert wars over minutiae...) but always redeemed by stuff like this! Happy editing! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) [1] Good to see you back! Pedro :  Chat  12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks Pedro, it's been a while but I see the encyclopaedia has managed without me all this time... So I'm just revising how/when to use the buttons! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Chris Phillips (professor) When declining a G12 because the copyvio has been removed please ensure that all of the copied and closely paraphrased material has been removed so there aren't lingering problems to be cleaned up later. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Understood - thought I'd got it all first time but hadn't noticed the paraphrasing. It's a shame because he's obviously notable - this leaves the article so stubby it's vulnerable, but I guess if someone loves it they'll come to the rescue! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010 Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion" To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC) InCOMMON Community Development I'm a little confused because Theda deleted this page yesterday (I closed the discussion because she forgot to). What's going on now?Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC) OK, now I understand why it said "non-admin closure" on it - couldn't understand how a non-admin could delete! I think Theda's delete was premature; I had already declined a speedy, the article was no longer tagged for CSD and I don't think articles should be speedied anyway while they are in AfD! Anyway, it's restored now and the AfD can run its course - I think that's the right outcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Deleted File:Kyokookazakiforwikipedia.jpg Hi Kim, You deleted the photo I uploaded: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kyokookazakiforwikipedia.jpg&action=edit You sited a previous discussion thread as a reason for deletion, but if you're talking about the thread I think you are, that was for a different photo. This was a photo I took. Can you undo your deletion, or do I have to upload again? Thanks, Asakawano (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC) The file was tagged for speedy deletion as it was a version of a photo that had previously been the subject of a deletion discussion here. I looked at both your image and the one in the original discussion and could see no difference - though it's possible there was some cropping of one image or the other. If I have made a mistake here I apologise; are you saying that the photo Kyokookazakiforwikipedia.jpg was taken by you, of the subject herself with her permission(and not you photographing another photo)? If so then I think the best course would be for you to upload the photo again and carefully fill out the information about its source, provenance and copyright status. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Marine Habitat Magazine Hi Kim. Could you please delete again and salt this. It keeps coming back under slightly different guises, and the creator just keeps creating new socks each time. I must have CSD'd this at least three times previously, but I don't have the tools (yet0 to check. Thanks, --Kudpung (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for keeping an eye on this - looks like someone beat me to it! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 07:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Hi Kim, Thanks for your support and comments - as a newbie they are very useful. I have absolutely no problem with the deletion and I am really excited because it has inspired me to create a new article - I am interested in postmodern thinking in connection with Wicca and have started a new topic. So for example Postmodern Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_Christianity is placed under POSTMODERNISM just as I have created the article Postmodern Wicca I feel that this topic needs to be separate from Wicca because it connects more to the philosophy of postmodernism. --Kary247 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC) talkback Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. You have new messages at Machine Elf 1735's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Clearing Up the Confusion Sorry Kim! I think the order of events was 1. I agreed to delete the Postmodern Wicca 2. I then noticed that the bots had identified it as a good article. 3. This made me think that Postmodern Wicca is probably a more user-friendly search term than postmodern neopaganism - yet postmodern neopaganism is a good encyclo. topic. 4. To resolve this, I thought I could capture users with a postmodern Wicca page and then lead them on to the more academic and broader postmodern neopaganism page. 5. To be fair, you are probably correct in stating that 'postmodern neopaganism' is the better choice - I do feel, however, that most neopagans are Wiccans/Witches and certainly these terms have 500,000 hits per month. 6. I just feel that postmodern wicca may enable to user to more readily access the concept. 7. In terms of a clouding approach to keywording it offers some rich and interconnected development. 8. I am a little concerned that some editors seem to push topics towards terminology that is inaccessible to the average user because they are possessive over their content - I think fresh, expanding, broad, relevant and well sourced content is vital for Wikipedia - there is a line between academically valid and not excluding or marginalising the average user, who may not have access to higher eduction for example. 9. If we could keep postmodern Wicca going until I have time to develop the content that would be great. --Kary247 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Hi there, it's usually better to keep these discussions all in one place so I'll reply more fully on your talk page in a few moments! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Edits Kim Dent proposed deletion Hi Kim You have proposed Postmodern Wicca for deletion and I am attempting to work hard on it to save it. It might be more objective, as you were the admin who proposed deletion, if you refrain from reverting my edits constantly while I try hard to save the article from deletion? If you could just give me some space to try to develop my ideas and references further to address the objections that you have raised, that would be really helpful. Thanks, --Kary247 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Hello there, I wasn't reverting your edit - I was reverting this edit by Pendragon111. If you are telling me that you and Pendragon111 are one and the same, then yes I did revert your edit - but I think reasonably so. A reference to a source cannot put its own gloss on what the source meant; the source must speak for itself. The source specifies Neopagan and not Wiccan - therefore it supports a page on Postmodern Neopaganism but not one on Postmodern Wicca. Your own re-introduction of the gloss here is unwarranted. Just because I have an interest in this article doesn't mean I may not edit it - any more than you are forbidden here either. I would however point out that if you did make both edits from different accounts, then this does count as the sockpuppetry of which you accused another editor here. Please do note that it is very straightforward for this kind of activity to be detected, and leads to a rapid drop in the temperature of relations between editors! I apologise if my suspicion is unwarranted but your usernames, timings of activity and editing interests seem to be running in close parallel with this other new editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Whadda mess! Why-oh-why did I have to stalk Machine Elf's talk page? :-) Yworo (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC) OMG, Kary247 seems to be conflicted in some way. Now removing many of the references she(?) herself added, saying they don't support her text! Yworo (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I know, this is turning into a terrific muddle, huh? I'm torn between letting Kary247 get on with it and get herself deeper into the mess, wanting to help out an obviously keen new editor and wanting to protect a good article I care about! I dare say we will get there in the end but not without casualties, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I am feeling the same way. I suspect some of the material on eclectic Wicca (not sure it should be capitalized) is probably legit and has sources better than Wicca for Dummies or whatever. But I highly suspect the whole "Postmodern" thing to be original research, personal opinion or whatnot. Clearly from some of the sources cited, some comparative religion folks interpret neopaganism and perhaps Wicca from a Postmodern perspective, but these views, if notable, need to be added (briefly) to the Neopaganism and Wicca articles; I don't think there are sources to support standalone articles of any length! Certainly not multiple articles. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I think I see what she's doing. I have proposed moving her hard work to Postmodern Neopaganism but for some reason unclear to me, she wants it all at Postmodern Wicca. Thus with edits like this she is reducing the quality and viability of the former article, so that the latter one might be seen as the better and more authoritative. My good faith is running low, as you can see. I'm not going to revert any more of her edits until its levels have been restored by a glass of wine and a night's sleep! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah, waiting seems to be the best course here at the moment... Yworo (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Speaking of good faith, I'm starting to wonder whether this might be a form of trolling, possibly by a sock of a banned user? I happened to notice this post to an (as far as I know) uninvolved user's talk page. Perhaps there is some history here? Yworo (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Actually I think we can AGF there. Rosencomet reverted an edit of Kary247 that used the term Jewitch, believing it to be a derogatory term. I do think this post is a genuine attempt to negotiate that. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Ah, okay, I didn't notice that, but there's been so much activity occurring so quickly, it doesn't surprise me that I missed it. Yworo (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Ta-dah! The final cut is made..... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Tempest in a teapot for that result. I suppose the only thing holding up redirecting Postmodern Wicca there is the AfD. Yworo (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Moved Content to Postmodern religion Hi Kim, Thanks for your message. 1. I have blanked Wicca and transferred the content to Postmodern religion. I have also transferred the neopagan version - so it is all kind of lumped together there, which is a bit yuk. 2. The content for Neopagan Postmodernism has been deleted and the page redirected to Postmodern religion 3. I did see things getting a bit messy on Google which I couldn't really get involved with because that would not be very nice! 4. It is pretty tough getting content into Wiki I must say! Best Wishes, --Kary247 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Kary, well done I really think that is a fantastic result and the new article at Postmodern religion will be a genuine contribution here. Yes it may be a bit yuk right now but nothing that can't be fixed and I'd be delighted to help! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I have closed the WP:AfD discussion on Postmodern Wicca and converted the to a redirect to Postmodern religion which I think is a splendid article in the making. Postmodernism is not a topic I know a lot about but if I can improve the article there I will certainly do so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks Kim Thanks for including my eclectic Wicca section, I appreciate it! --Kary247 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Hi Kary, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I've included anything of yours anywhere have I? If this is significant, please link to the diff you are referring to (go to the history of the article, compare versions and paste the URL of the resulting page.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Your warning on my talk page You recently warned me for unconstructive editing on Philip Heselton ([2]). However, the only edit I have made on that page is this one, which is pretty clearly just a spelling correction. Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that the warning was completely unwarranted -- I'm just trying to help out. 98.169.109.132 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Please read the paragraph,the spelling of which you corrected. I can see from your edit history that you were wikignoming, but perhaps you should more carefully read the text which you are improving? Your edit tidied up an obvious and crude personal attack on a living individual. I'll remove the warning note from your page, as you clearly didn't intend to damage the article in question. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks Okay, I found that - thanks - I read up on the template system, stages, stop signs etc. as a way of quickly letting people know about things - so that makes sense now. Thanks again for explaining and being patient with me while I stumble around, I can see why you are an administrator, patience of a saint and all of that...--Kary247 (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Dean, Smith & Grace You can't just delete narrative simply because it doesn't suit your agenda. Thats vandalism.Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC) It wasn't narrative; it was discussion about the suitability of a source. Discussion belongs on the talk page of an article. Why are you so set against the article's continued existence? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Ralph Cupper Not sure if you wanted me to write here or in my talk page, so I am just writing here that I replied to you on my talk page, with a link about 5 norwegian newspaper articles about the CDs Ralph Cupper and Inge Haugen made, this should prove that he has one of the criteria of that link you gave me. Anyway check out my talk page. -mpc