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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Wiccan Roots.jpeg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Wiccan Roots.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I've removed it again. Relevancy and flavour are all well and good for a free image, but non-free images require a little more than that. Book covers are rarely going to be justified on articles about authors, unless the covers are themselves somehow significant. I'd have no objection to the use of the cover in an article about the book, if it's notable. (As an aside, your PhD thesis sounds fascinating. I have a friend who is looking at the psychological aspects of character creation, focussing on pen-and-paper role-playing games.) J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I understand your argument and won't replace the image. But that wasn't the reasoning you used in your original edit summary when you removed the image for the first time, hence my initial restoration. (PS: I'm a long-time role-playing gamer and I'm also intrigued by the links between our own character/personality and those we construct in fictional activities such as RPGs...) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the trout I deserved it. Rob gets on my tits. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC) No problem. I feel the same way sometimes with him and a few others I could name. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thank you for removing the bogus AfD notice from my user subpage. As you may or may not be aware, I had to have my user page and my talk page semi'd because I am the target of User:Mangoeater1000 and his many sockpuppets. I appreciate your help with my barnstar page. Regards, 72Dino (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Of the three or four times I've started a thread at AN/I, I was in one case blocked, and in another case threatened with a block. Glad to be on the good side of karma this time. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Pas de problème - heureux que je pourrais être utile! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC) ANI query Hello, reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PinkAmpersand#Discussion_at_WP:ANI led me to try to view the actual WP:ANI discussion but couldn't find it. I never tried browsing WP:ANI before. Thought you as an administrator might be able to explain. Thanks, David F (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC) AN/I topic-ban discussion Hi. I'm a bit disappointed that you just said "I'm done here" at this discussion, without waiting for a response. Could you at least read my reply to you, and see whether it changes your mind? Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Would add that I haven't engaged in moves etc. since your intervention, unlike the other party, and now expect you to follow through with some action. Brocach (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry if my "I'm done here" seemed impatient or dismissive. It's a function of my disbelief that such a small matter can waste so many electrons and so much time. In fact your response hasn't changed my mind, in that I see no external consensus (or even participation...) from AN/I readers who were previously uninvolved. That means there can be no consensus for topic bans anywhere ad all that's left is individual admin action. I see no justification for any immediate block so I am left with threatening one for the next person who touches a category before a consensus is reached. You'll have seen that In posted the following on a number of people's talk pages: I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! I'm hoping that will have the desired effect and I'd appreciate any diffs if folks from any side do in fact try and recategorise articles before consensus is reached. Brocach, if there has been any such activity since I made my statement at AN/I I'd appreciate a diff, preferably at AN/I rather than here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I am, frankly, deeply disappointed that after 30+ diffs linked above you cannot see the case for a block on a consistently disruptive editor. I hope that an admin who knows a bit about the subject matter will take an interest. In the meantime, I suppose that I might as well advise you of at least some of the changes made by Laurel Lodged since your statement at 16:36, 30 January 2013: try [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Is that enough? If not, what would be? Brocach (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Blockable? Would a repeat of this edit, in fact changing the title in the first sentence to correspond with the article title, constitute a blockable offence? The Banner talk 15:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC) It's a borderline case but personally I'd consider both the diff above and the preceding one to be sufficient for me to block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Then it was a good idea from me to check first. The Banner talk 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Yes indeedy, and thanks very much for doing so! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Jo the marten Hello, as you can see i finally got an account. On the page Rick Moranis i put in that he did voiceover rolls in Sidekick (according to the credits of the actual tv series) and the user Jo the Marten insists on removing it. i've left messages on his talkpage saying that if it is not in the appropriate section, then by all means put it in the appropriate section, but do not delete it totally, as Rick Moranis does for sure voice characters on sidekick including Golly Gee kid. Previously, the article stated that I did this voice, which is incorrect. the only character i've voiced on that show was Alan Amazing, and i've actually seen Rick Moranis in the studio having passed him on the way out from his recording of his lines on the same day. Anyway enough about that, is there anything i can do to get Jo the Marten to sease and desist his reversions? note that though IMDB may not acknowledge it, YTV's airings of the series do acknowledge it. IMDB is not really the best of sources and should not be regarded too highly, as it more times than not is either incorrect or missing a whole crapload of information. SO again, what can i do about Jo the Marten's insistance on his deleting the mention of Rick's voice work in sidekick on his article? Alien Arceus 21:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)