Hello, Kim Dent-Brown/Oldest archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Redvers, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin11:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you delete my page, just because you hate everything and everyone, doesn't mean eveyrone else does. You hatey person. Do you think it's funny to ruin other people's pages which they spent ages on? I don't think so. I think you should go and think about what you've done, you naughty person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superbungalow21 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello there Superbungalow21. I'm sorry that you're upset, but your page was not deleted by me. I put a tag on it to suggest speedy deletion, because I didn't think it was a serious article about a notable subject. A Wikipedia administrator saw the tag, agreed with me and deleted the article. I can understand that you meant the page to be funny and amusing, but unfortunately that's not what Wikipedia is for! There's a great site at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page which is absolutely full of hilarious stuff and no-one will delete your article there. Why not give it a go? Kim dent brown22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that anyone other than the original author is permitted to remove a speedy or prod tag, whether or not the person is an admin. Schools are sometimes notable. In this case, the article at http://www.isinspect.org.uk/reports/2005/1586_05.htm provides a good deal of information on why the school (which appears to be a nonprofit private school, rather than a company) can be considered notable. As well, if an article like Saint Michael's Church, Paris seems like an advertisement but the subject of the article is notable, it is best to rewrite the article so that it is WP:NPOV rather than deleting it. As an alternative, you can tag it as {{advertisement}} so that someone else will rewrite it. --Eastmain22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks! I'm not certain whether there's an article for Harrogate Grammar School but I sure hope that's a red link when I hit Save Page! I'm all for weeding out non-notable articles, not adding to them! Very few schools (thank goodness) achieve the notability of Columbine or Eton. Kim dent brown23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good way to handle the etymology section there. Sorry for the revert, but it obviously wsa originally way too long. I didn't know you were only doing that to cut it down later. DreamGuy18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probs - hopefully both articles have benefitted from moving the etymological stuff out. Now we need an expert to knock the new page into shape - but it won't be me! Kim dent brown18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page for Silent House as it's notable when a song is commercially produced by more than one artist, and that's the case here. Additionally, there are many individual songs that have articles created for them, in particular, many by Linkin Park and Panic! at the Disco. As it states in the WP:ALBUMS project page, pages about songs themselves are fine, but don't expect anybody else to go and create them (paraphrased, but that's the gist of it). As I've said, this song bears note due to its origins. I'm actually an advocate for many of the songs on Taking the Long Way to be given pages, if they're able to be put together properly. As a Grammy album of the year, the songs from it are certainly notable enough. Especialliy the songs co-written with musicians, such as Keb Mo, Sheryl Crow or with the guitar work of John Mayer and the like. I can see what you're saying, but I'd rather see a volume of information relating to this subject matter being provided here. I hape you can see where I'm coming from.
Well, I still disagree with you - see Wikipedia:Notability (songs) which reiterates that "There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them". But I'm not going to go to war over it - specially as I love the Chicks. Kim dent brown13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you note, that page is inactive at the moment as an historican page, WP:SONGS however is currently the active version and it notes that there is no guideline for song notability. Of course, many many songs are ineligible to even bring to note being B-sides or songs from albums that don't even have pages on Wikipedia. But again, I'll work on the page and over time I'm sure you'll see its evident notability. --lincalinca23:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for adding the speedy deletion explanation.
The Cornish media article will definitely be interesting - due to Cornwall's previous isolation and the nature of its geography, mass media has had a unique effect upon Cornwall. Cornwall is also culturally diverse, and creatively very active. It is at a very exciting period in its history. Also, telegraphy, radio and UK satellite communications (Telstar) as well as advanced radar (like Martello) all started in Cornwall (although Marconi's claims are disputed by some). Current publications vary from Brides in Cornwall to the International Railway Journal and Pitpilot magazine.
Yes, there are also many other interesting articles about Cornwall to be added to Wikipedia - I am also writing an article con-currently about the Palmerston Forts in Cornwall - I can't see that anything has been written about the ones in Cornwall before. In addition, a full article covering Cornwall and West Devon's win of World Heritage Status for mining sites needs to added in depth. This will, hopefully be a future project.
Explanation understood - but I think your article needs to be Cornish media rather than having a separate article for every minor example of a magazine, radio programme or pamphlet produced in that fine Duchy...! Kim dent brown15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will be! Hopefully, the article will be up and running in a couple of days.
Hi, I see you are a good Wikipedian but... before tagging an article with a speedy, plz check to see if the guy is notable according to WP:N. Proof is the burdon of the claimant. frummer16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about the burden of proof. You, as the author of the article, need to demonstrate with citations that your subject is notable. I don't have to prove that he is not. The tag I left (and which you deleted) says:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)
True, I have to do that but you can't just speedy a first draft of a person who clearly meets WP:N according to a Google search. There are other tags for the afformentioned problems the most mean on of which is {{new}}.... ta! frummer16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the talk page at Talk:Eyal Hertzog. I'd suggest that maybe first drafting an article like this in your sandbox might be a good idea? Then it won't show up as a short, unreferenced article when it appears as a new page? Sorry if this sounds condescending, but as it first appeared the present article looks like someone writing a piece of self-publicity, or a friend or employee 'bigging up' someone they know. Kim dent brown16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon user deleted the allegation that he was gay and that Metacafe is a failure. I was playing with Eyal. Work joke. Soz, it happens to the best of us. Keep up the good work man. frummer11:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence, not a few - and can you tell me that someone who simply prints this page wouldn't find this information useful? Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to include all information relevant to a person on their page? More to the point, even if you feel it is unnecessary, can you say it does harm to have it included? I would say at the very least, it doesn't hurt to include the information. I for one would like it if every page included this sort of data, a "what's happening now" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.121.195 (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'd like to thank you for you input on Marty's page it helped us finish a edit war that was a waste of time for all the parties involved. Gang1417:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim, this is what you wrote to me regarding an article I posted:
"Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Gunter nimtz. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Thank you. Kim dent brown 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"
Please explain what the hell was wrong with my page. Everything I wrote on it was verifiable, and was not intended as a joke in any sense. Whether or not you believe in the validity of Dr. Gunter Nimtz's claims has nothing to do with the seriousness of the information I presented. Don't act upon something unless you know what you're talking about!
Kim dent brown - you reply was well-written and -explained. I'm grateful that you took the time to respond to my complaint, and as such you have explained the extraneous circumstances leading up to the tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks for being reasonable about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smudge777 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
OK, I have drafted a stub and placed it here. Hopefully it has enough links in and out to prevent another zealous editor from marking it for deletion! It's not an area I know anything about, but if you do then you might like to keep expanding it! Best wishes, Kim dent brown10:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because what you do is silly. Writing an article that reads 'Bradley Marshall is one cool dood. He can jump over three homeless!' is not going to get you much applause from fellow Wikipedians. Nor is redirecting your user page to God. Kim dent brown11:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you just reverted a page of mine, it wasn't a test, That was a serious page, It was a galery of images that I am emailing links to people, I will delete it myself in a couple of weeks, can you put it back, ask first in the future, thanks, --Benjamint44412:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Benjamint, I did not revert your page but tagged it for deletion. If it has disappeared it is because an administrator has seen my tag and agreed with me that it needs deleting. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a homepage for you to display your work.Kim Dent-Brown12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sure, wikipedia is not a home page, but nearly everyone has a few personal pages other than their home page, a gallery of uploaded photos etc. and it's not like it's taking up space, it's just text, and wikipedia is benifiting because I am emailing links to it to companies all over the world.
It's not the case that 'everybody has a few personal pages.' Your Wikipedia User page is a page for information relevant to your Wikipedia contributions. Your images (much reduced) might be appropriate there but certainly not in a mainspace article. I found it quickly because I patrol recent changes and new pages, as do many other Wikipedians. Please move your pictures to your User page, I suspect they will not last long in main space... Kim Dent-Brown12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not everybody, but I am a photographer and I know that nearly all the photographers on FPC have gallery pages in addition to their home page, as do I. And as far as I know none of them have ever had their page deleted, true, though, their pages are not for promotional purposes, or at least not as openly as mine.--Benjamint44413:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The April 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.
I should have loged in before i edited my own stuff. That was me who made that change. sorry.
Thanks for that info. Because i'm am really deep into all that stuff. shhhhhhhh. dont tell any one. Have you seen my article on evanesence. It's called Are they devil worshipers.I have it archived in my user page. check it out.do you know any paegans.
Later!!!!!!! user:Bloodsource
What's up. You know your like the first friend i met on this website. Most everyone i meet hate me because of that article on evanesence. I dont want to put it down because i put a lot of effort into researching all that stuff. I will write you later. Later.
user:Bloodsource
Thanks for uploading Image:NZ fern.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well with all do respect I don't think my edit was by any means intended to be humorous. I stay impartial; I provided information that was factual happened. Certainly it does not appeal to the widest imaginable audience but those that it does apply to will find it informative etc. If you think my article is a problem then you should really have a problem with the 14 or so pages dedicated to the antics of Stephen Colbert. That's as 'humorous' as anything I've done here today.
Secondly, have you read the page? There's information there, or did you just look at the seemingly random concoction of letters and assume this must be a joke? Well it’s not; The Blair Academy Popular Democratic Front for the Workers Socialist part does in fact exists as a group performing Guerrilla Theater. Considering the trouble I had finding information on the topic wikipedia should be ecstatic to have any other information on the subject not matter how inconsequential.
Moreover, I have not found in my search of wikipedia’s various policies anything which would explicitly rule the page BAPDFSWP as inappropriate.
Furthermore, it is my intention to expand the article so as to improve its content. However, not all of us can devote every waking minute to our wikipedia entries. So given more time you might not have had such a problem with it.
If you’re really dieing to get rid of it hell I’m not going to waste anymore time on the issue but I completely disagree with your assertions.
Even if your article at Bapdfwsp was serious, and not a joke, it needs to be backed up by citations to published material (eg newspapers, books, magazines) to confirm that it is a noteworthy subject. Another editor obviously agrees with me that your article was not encyclopaedic, and has deleted it. (I'm not an admin, and don't have the power to do so.) If you are really serious, rewrite the article in your sandbox and give it some supporting references. Then once it's ready, post it to the main space. Poorly finished articles that are published like yours tend to get deleted because they are so obviously incomplete.
However, I retain my opinion that yours was a silly and not very funny joke. If you can prove me wrong with a well-referenced article you will get my apology and a retraction. BTW, when you write posts, please sign with ~~~~ which will leave your username. Kim Dent-Brown18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, thanks for adding the reference you did to this article. I've removed it for now, because I'm not sure it was in the right place. It was in the section titled 'Academic studies' which it isn't, being a magazine article (albeit from an academic institution!) Also, Ronald Hutton's address which is described went way beyond Wicca - if this link belongs anywhere I'd suggest that maybe an article with a broader scope, such as Neopaganism. But honestly, I'd think twice before using it at all as I'm not sure how much it adds that isn't already sourced... If there's something there that would merit an in-line citation, perhaps. But many of these articles suffer from an overload of 'See also' and 'Further reading' links, so I'm doubtful.
Don't take my reversion as definitive! If you think it belongs, stick it in and we can argue it out on the talk page. but I thought I'd start the discussion here rather than just leave you with my edit note in Wicca. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim. Got your note. Generally, I think it good practice personally to discuss deletions before they are done. I thought it significant that Harvard University had such a conference on the topic and was reported in the mainstream Harvard University Gazette. I think it should be there in the article on Wicca to show the importance of the topic even in academia. But it's been a rough day, and I don't wish to get into any spats about it. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Perhaps someone else will see its worth or not. I was just reading, as usual, the Harvard Gazette and was struck by the visibility of reporting on the conference. Not my normal topic. So be it. Thanks anyway for your diligence and erudition in matters such as these. Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Hello Bob, sorry if my deletion was hasty. It's just that on these particular articles we get tons of external links and references added by (usually) uninformed and over-enthusiastic editors - not that I'm placing you in either category! Those of us who patrol these articles regularly tend to have a 'shoot first and ask questions afterwards' kind of attitude. I think I'll copy this discussion to the talk page so that other people can chip in. If I can manage it, I'll add a link to the diff as well. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kim. I know what you mean. I keep a watch on so many articles, too. Points well-taken. I was just struck by the conference and felt it significant at Harvard. Best Wishes and thanks for you guidance. Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding Bob. I think the link might be well-placed at Neo-paganism, particularly if it could be placed as an in-line citation. You might want to have a look and if you don't find the time, I may do so myself. Best - Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thanks for that barnstar :) I'm actually going to request semi-protection for the article given the recent rash of vandalism we've had to endure. -- HuntsterT • @ • C22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 212:42, 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. -- HuntsterT • @ • C16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-2007-05-07T01:21:00.000Z-Image:50_years_of_Wicca.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
