User talk:Kim Dent-Brown: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:10, 19 July 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk \| contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 31d) to User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive 7.← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:43, 19 July 2012 edit undoIjonTichyIjonTichy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,580 edits →AN/I: new sectionNext edit →
Line 82:		Line 82:
	::Incidentally, I can see where the other poster was coming from on when the cross-quarters should fall. We've actually considered holding our cross-quarter sabbats on the astronomically-correct dates, but the idea never got a lot of traction. But I agree with you that it could be included as a legitimate option if a reliable source can be found.		::Incidentally, I can see where the other poster was coming from on when the cross-quarters should fall. We've actually considered holding our cross-quarter sabbats on the astronomically-correct dates, but the idea never got a lot of traction. But I agree with you that it could be included as a legitimate option if a reliable source can be found.
	::<font face="strong" color="green">]]]</font> 15:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)		::<font face="strong" color="green">]]]</font> 15:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

			== AN/I ==

			As an admin I have reviewed your request and I decline to take any action against Earl King. His contribs do not amount to harassment and you would be better advised to take some of his advice on board than to reject it as hostility. Questioning you as having a potential ] is an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances. Suggest closing this thread. ] ] 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			:The ANI was closed before I had a chance to respond to your comment. Kim, your suggestion to close the ANI was hasty and erroneous. Earl's comments constitute very poor behavior and create a nasty, ugly atmosphere and environment on the Talk page of ]. On the talk page, Earl discussed the material in my user page, which is totally irrelevant, because WP policies clearly limit the discussion on article Talk pages to focus exclusively on the topic of the article. As if discussing my user page is not bad enough, he took the extremely offensive step of copy-pasting a box from my user page onto the article talk page. He then called me "a member advocate of Zeitgeist" "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," "your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate." Earl has repeatedly accused me on acting in bad fate, which is a direct personal attack. And he repeated his attacks three more times on the current, on-going DRN for the Zeitgeist movement. This is harassment, pure and simple. My edits on the article were based on an editorial (content) disagreement with him and were not sufficient reason for him to attack me personally, and are definitely not "an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances" as you erroneously and incorrectly say. As you can see from the talk page, the specific content dispute between Earl and I was resolved practically instantly when editor Bbb23, who has firmly established his credentials as a fair, impartial, and reasonable arbiter on several preceding content disputes on the article, intervened again. I fully accepted all of Bbb23's recommendations and reverted all my edits. Kim, just because Earl, Raeky, and AndyTheGrump together accused me of NPOV and personal attacks, it does not mean it's true. In some cases, such as this, a lone editor is in the right while three, or more, opposing editors are wrong. Earl has a history of harassing me on the talk page and a history of automatically reverting all my edits in knee-jerk fashion, despite the fact all my edits are always fully supported by reliable secondary and primary sources. And you may want to read AndyTheGrump's ugly, mean-spirited, disgusting, invective-filled, offensive, childish and juvenile comments on the current DRN regarding ]. I'm sorry to say this but you did not do a good job on this AN/I and your suggestion to close the ANI after fully justifying Earl's poor behavior was premature and incorrect. You still have a long way to go before you become a good administrator. My best wishes for you, I hope you continue to grow and learn and develop as an administrator, and especially learn from your mistakes. Take good care and regards, ] (]) 22:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:43, 19 July 2012

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.

My unblock

Hello Kim, thanks for having me unblocked; for more please see your e-mail. Ajnem (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

My apologies

I am sorry that I did not accomplish your request of me. As it relates to RfA the point is now mute. If for some reason you would like me to do this simply for your needs, I will but only if it is requested outside the RfA. The internal matters are closed and this is why I haven't reacted to it. Thank you - My76Strat (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry about the outcome of the RfA and of course there's no need to go through this exercise now! I hope you might be more successful in the future, if you can manage to take on some of the feedback that came your way! Kim Dent-Brown 11:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi,

Thanks for your help before with an abusive user. Can something more been done as he is still posting on my talk page and accusing me of being another user. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.165 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kim, please note that since your warning I have not re-inserted anything on this editors talk page. I have inserted a new comment and this is what I added:

Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Crusader Union of Australia. With your wide knowledge, and strong opinions, on all things to do with Newington College I am sure you will have useful feedback on the notability of this organisation. Great to have you back. Castlemate (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been requested to stay away from my user talk page so the only reason you have to post that was to stir the pot.

If you note this users contributions he has already shown an interest in Newington College and in an way that suggests he has a real history with the article. He also has on that page been guilty of a violation of WP:3RR between 5 and 9 June this year. I stopped after three when he reverted for a fourth time. This user has not come out of nowhere and been blocked already - he has a long history of trouble making. I will leave this in your hands and trust that you will keep an eye on this editor. Castlemate (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As you have been guilty of WP:3RR on my talk page. I was blocked because I responded to your bullying messages. Why does Kim need to keep an eye on me? You have already shown your love for stalking my edits.

This editor has now commented on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Crusader Union of Australia and his behaviour is self-explanatory. Castlemate (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You invited me to comment on that. Why did you ask me to if you did not wish for my input?

Sorry, I have just realised that you haven't posted a further comment on my talk page but that it was reverted by 60.242.91.165 (talk). I'm sorry I suggested that you had re-issued your warning. Castlemate (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When will I get an apology for your behaviour towards me?

Castlemate, the post you left on the IP's talk page (this diff) was unnecessary and its superficial civility does not mask the fact that you were, once again, baiting this IP editor. S/he had made no further edits to the articles in question and your "Great to have you back" comment was a straight repetition of something you've been asked to stop. You may be in the right on the editing of the article in question, but you're not behaving well towards this IP. Leave them be. Any editing disputes can happen at article talk pages - not on theirs or mine, please. IP - please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will sign and date your comments. Even better, why not consider getting an account? Kim Dent-Brown 09:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kim, thank you for being so reasonable about this issue. May I just point out that this editor was not blocked because of anything he had said to me or because of anything I had said to him but because of his attacks on others. If you look at his deleted talk page posts this will be illustrated. I am a completely different issue but he, in his different guises, has been behaving this way for many years. Sorry for the passive agressive tone but DXRAW / ExtraDry brings it out in me. I am in this case responding to your message on my talk page but will not address you on this matter on your talk page again. Thanks and I will leave it in your hands. Castlemate (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wheel of the Year

Greetings!

OK, I'm confused. On the one hand, I've seen you do some really outstanding work on articles related to Wicca and Neopaganism in general, but you have described "Esbat" on the Wheel of the Year page as

the four quarter days, which are based on the astronomical position of the sun, together with the four cross-quarter days which have a more agricultural basis. The cross quarter Esbats, Imbolc, Beltane, Lammas and Samhain, may be less strongly tied to a particular date and may be celebrated at a more convenient weekend, a nearby full or dark moon, or as dictated by a natural event (such as the appearance of May blossom for Beltane.) A Sabbat is the term for a neo-pagan ritual set at a time other than one of the eight major Esbats.

That flies in the face of pretty much everything I've seen on the subject in my twenty-plus years of involvement with Wicca. A Sabbat is one of the eight spokes of the Wheel, while an Esbat is a full or new moon, or other rite. In fact, the article itself says this in the section "Eight Festivals.." So I'm not sure what's going on here. I have substantial respect for your work, so I thought I'd bring this up on your Talk page before I went ahead and Got Bold on you {grin}

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It was late. I was tired. I was trying to clear up what looked like some horrible OR. The Moon was in Cancer. My third eye had a stye in it. The dog ate my homework. I have run out of excuses. I will repair the 180 degree balls-up I made in trying to make things better! And ask my HPS for a thorough $$$ next circle. Kim Dent-Brown 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I suspected it was because you were tired: it just didn't seem like the kind of newbie mistake you'd make. I gave some serious thought to the possibility that your account had been hacked by some smartass vandal.

And tell your HPS that this HPT would ask her, as a professional courtesy, to cut you a little slack. Unless you like the $$$, of course...

Incidentally, I can see where the other poster was coming from on when the cross-quarters should fall. We've actually considered holding our cross-quarter sabbats on the astronomically-correct dates, but the idea never got a lot of traction. But I agree with you that it could be included as a legitimate option if a reliable source can be found.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

As an admin I have reviewed your request and I decline to take any action against Earl King. His contribs do not amount to harassment and you would be better advised to take some of his advice on board than to reject it as hostility. Questioning you as having a potential COI is an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances. Suggest closing this thread. Kim Dent-Brown 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The ANI was closed before I had a chance to respond to your comment. Kim, your suggestion to close the ANI was hasty and erroneous. Earl's comments constitute very poor behavior and create a nasty, ugly atmosphere and environment on the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement. On the talk page, Earl discussed the material in my user page, which is totally irrelevant, because WP policies clearly limit the discussion on article Talk pages to focus exclusively on the topic of the article. As if discussing my user page is not bad enough, he took the extremely offensive step of copy-pasting a box from my user page onto the article talk page. He then called me "a member advocate of Zeitgeist" "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," "your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate." Earl has repeatedly accused me on acting in bad fate, which is a direct personal attack. And he repeated his attacks three more times on the current, on-going DRN for the Zeitgeist movement. This is harassment, pure and simple. My edits on the article were based on an editorial (content) disagreement with him and were not sufficient reason for him to attack me personally, and are definitely not "an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances" as you erroneously and incorrectly say. As you can see from the talk page, the specific content dispute between Earl and I was resolved practically instantly when editor Bbb23, who has firmly established his credentials as a fair, impartial, and reasonable arbiter on several preceding content disputes on the article, intervened again. I fully accepted all of Bbb23's recommendations and reverted all my edits. Kim, just because Earl, Raeky, and AndyTheGrump together accused me of NPOV and personal attacks, it does not mean it's true. In some cases, such as this, a lone editor is in the right while three, or more, opposing editors are wrong. Earl has a history of harassing me on the talk page and a history of automatically reverting all my edits in knee-jerk fashion, despite the fact all my edits are always fully supported by reliable secondary and primary sources. And you may want to read AndyTheGrump's ugly, mean-spirited, disgusting, invective-filled, offensive, childish and juvenile comments on the current DRN regarding The Zeitgeist Movement. I'm sorry to say this but you did not do a good job on this AN/I and your suggestion to close the ANI after fully justifying Earl's poor behavior was premature and incorrect. You still have a long way to go before you become a good administrator. My best wishes for you, I hope you continue to grow and learn and develop as an administrator, and especially learn from your mistakes. Take good care and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)