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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry if I was rude earlier. This pointless battle has taken me several feet beyond the end of my tether. I hope that WT:GAA will prove the right forum to garner a consensus. Brocach (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for your apology. Very much appreciated and good luck with the consensus-raising! I will try and keep an eye on the process but I'm not going to get involved in the content of the discussions. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: you would consider an edit made by me, reverting to the long-established stable text and including an invitation to take the matter to the talk page, three days before your warning, as sufficient grounds for you to block? We're gonna need a bigger jar of honey. Brocach (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question - no. I was assuming that the diffs (from the past) were being used as hypothetical examples of what I would block for in the future. And yes, I would block any future edit like that even if it's one going back to the "right version". Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)22:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were right: it was a queation: can I do that safely, or do I get hammer. You answer was clear: I would get hammered. But talking about hammering: what about this? It that allowed? And are his biased questions on WT:GAA sensible and acceptable? The Bannertalk02:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, this is not a very helpful question. The diff you give is to a proposal at a talk page! The one thing that has come out of the recent AN/I is that you folks must discuss policy and come to an agreement (which is what happens on a talk page) and not unilaterally edit articles before a consensus (which is not what this diff demonstrates.) I have no particular reason to defend Brocach, who was quite rude to me earlier in this debate but has since apologised. But on this occasion I have to say he has done nothing wrong. I don't find the questions at WT:GAA either biased or unacceptable; if you would prefer different questions to be answered you can go there and ask them. What I do find disturbing is that you can undermine your own position by using language such as hammering... biased... without apparently realising what you are doing. Even if you have lost all faith in Brocach (or anyone else) treat them with the utmost respect and let yourself be seen as someone who always assumes the best. It will make your case a much stronger one if you are not seen as strident, partisan and impulsive - which is how you are coming across right now. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)08:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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?
AlienArceus21:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the best thing as always in these cases is to find a reliable source for the information you want to insert. Knowing something to be the case from your own personal experience is not, I'm afraid, going to be enough! Have you discussed this on the article talk page? Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would but nobody ever looks at the posts i do put on talkpages, and also you won't find it at IMDB, which basicly has more incorrect info than not especially on animated series save a few very very very popular ones.
For the record, my name is Ron Petterson, and I am a voice actor who works at several companies including Nelvana ltd.
Joe the Marten, the same user whom i mentioned previously is accusing me of being Christian Woods, who is a bulbapedia user who lives down the hall from where i live (he's in rm. 203 and i'm in rm. 208.)
Jo has determined that i am Christian Woods based on spelling, IP address and our similar liking of the animated series of Pokemon.
I've spelt it out on his talkpage but i'm getting the suspicious feeling that he is not inclined to believe me one bit.
I need help with this guy, before i go absolutely nuts with him. I can tell this is one of those people. AlienArceus02:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to look into this, i'm going to have another chat wwith those people at IMDB, i've told them before to try to be more acurate but they don't listen, they never listen. also I watched the episode today and used my VCR to record the episode and saw "rick moranis" in the credits of that ep. AlienArceus 04:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
AlienArceus04:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alien arceus, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help much here and you're not doing your cause much good either. It doesn't help to rake up allegations and rebuttals about whose real life identity is whose. Here on WP unless you explicitly use your real world name and identity (as I do) you could be anyone, nobody can prove or disprove who you are so just stop worrying about whether someone knows your real identity or not. Now on the matter of the information you want to insert, your personal knowledge of the voice actor cannot be used as a source. You must find a source (and no, IMDB is not sufficient) to back up your assertion. The actual end credits from a show would not usually be sufficient on their own but would at least be a start. However Jo has caught a screenshot (linked above) to show conclusively that Rick Moranis is not mentioned in the episode you discuss. So at present we have no evidence that Moranis is involved except for your personal testimony which is simply not admissable. Sorry. And don't bother asking IMDB to tighten up their act - they are who they are, a user-generated site with the inevitable lack of certainty that involves, which is why we don't use them as a reliable source here on WP. Sorry I can't help. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's what i can do. the episode is airing again on YTV this coming Wednesday, and i'll double-check the credits there. i'll keep on looking for it untill i've watched all episodes.
meanwhile, i've got other stuff to do. thanks for your time, and have a great and awesome day.
AlienArceus00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Derry GAA
The discussion I initiated in regards to Derry GAA that you said was now moved to a new discussion that takes in the entire issue affecting the entire organisation and its articles, categories etc. on Wikipedia - though related, was a separate issue that was about the Ireland Manual of Style and the current violation of it by a couple of editors who inserted without discussion or consensus a controversial addition that several editors do not agree with, yet is being used by the editors who added it to vindicate their opposition to my proposals.
It was a separate issue that should not have been made part of the overall issue as far as I am concerned. Though now it will have to discussed along with it I guess, as after all it is related to it. Mabuska(talk)12:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem and quite see your point. But I do think they are related to the extent that the result of one discussion is going to affect the other and so it's probably better (although more complex) to look at both together. A moot point as this is happening anyway - but thanks for understanding! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)12:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
