User talk:Kim Dent-Brown

Tip of the moment...

How to enable right-click section editing

If you would like to be able to right click on subheadings to open them up in the Wikipedia edit box, do the following:

Click the Preferences link at the top of the page. Then click the Editing tab. Then check the box next to Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (JavaScript). And finally, click the Save button.

This only works with browsers that support Javascript (but all of the latest versions of all of the major web browsers do).

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Caught you

(Refresh)

Instead of doing something useful,
you have been staring at this page since 08:46 Saturday, December 28, 2024 UTC.

Missing image Image:Athame.JPG

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 2 12:42, 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. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mickyj.com

I hope that this is in the right place ...

Regarding Mickyj.com,

Is there something we can do tomake this fit the rules. It is not intended to be spam or advertising. It was meant to describe what it is. It is a service. Other services like experts exchange and others are in the encyclopedia. Is there a way to reword it ? It is non profit, community based website that is there to help people. This was just a description of it.

Thanks (Posted by User:Michael.jenkin)

Unfortunately Michael, if you want to let people know about your service by writing an article about it in Wikipedia, then this is advertising. If your site/service becomes notable, in which case some other person - not you - may choose to write about it because it has come to public notice through news items, magazines etc. I'm really sorry, but Wikipedia is not a valid way for your to publicise your service. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churches

Check again, Kim, there are hundreds of pages on churches in Wikipedia. Know what you're talking about before opening your mouth about policies. (Unsigned comment by Wvoutlier.)

There may be hundreds of such articles, but that does not mean they do not all contravene WP policy on notability. If I come across them I will tag them also. See the policy below, taken from the notability policy. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC):[reply]

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is 'notable' if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.

You're the vandal. The page was created less than an hour ago and is in progress. Sounds like you need to get a life outside of wikipedia. (Unsigned comment by Wvoutlier.)

Please sign your posts by typing in ~~~~ at the end. If you are drafting an article, it would be better to use a sandbox in order to prevent new page patrollers from tagging your article before it is completed. Or as a minimum, use the 'preview' button rather than the 'save' while you get your page up to speed with reliable secondary sources. I assume good faith on your part: please do the same for me. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume good-faith from you. The fact that you tagged an article within minutes of its creation WHILE ITS STILL BEING EDITED says to me that you're a troll with nothing better to do than fill some void in your life by policing Wikipedia. If you're so good at what you do, maybe you should wait until editing on the article has stopped then judge an article. (Unsigned comment by Wvoutlier.)

Thank you for your comment. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ when you make them. You can draft articles free from botheration by new page patrollers if you do so at a page like User:Wvoutlier/drafts. This will mean you can get it up to standard befor releasing it into the mainspace. Good luck! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Devil's gardens

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Devil's gardens, by 71.61.208.156, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Devil's gardens seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Devil's gardens, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Devil's gardens itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: CSD tag removed by third editor User:Christopher Parham.) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability re: Warriors for Innocence

23,000 + people think it is important enough to join an lj community complaining about the deletions, so I would say that this site is noteable. WookMuff 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to include this fact (with a verifiable secondary source) in the article. However it seems an admin. has already decided that the article as it stands should be deleted. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XO-3b

I remvoed your speedy delete request for XO-3b. Although I agree the article was badly written, I felt it was far fron nonsense. I performed a major rewrite on behalf of the original submitter and added a source. More to come in the following days, I am sure. Turlo Lomon 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - as written it certainly sounded nonsensical to me! If you can be bothered to rewrite and reference it, kudos to you! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my preliminary rewrite. Please let me know what you think. Turlo Lomon 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - if the original editor had posted that, there's no way I'd have tagged it for deletion! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-model (software development)

Hi Kim, i just saw that you've moved that article from my sand box to the main page. It was'nt a mistake that i left it in my sandbox. Actually, I have'nt finished writing it. Anyway, no issues as i'll add watever left in the mainpage itself. Thanks for your help. Stay in touch. M ajith

Hello there - no, it wasn't in your sandbox it was in mainspace in an article called (rather confusingly) Ajith's Sandbox which is in mainspace, despite its name! The best place to draft it would be somewhere like User:M ajith/sandbox, which really is in your user space! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted my article on a holiday

how dare you (Unsigned comment by Donsorce2000)

No, I didn't delete it. I tagged it for deletion because I thought it was not encyclopaedic, and another editor (an administrator, which I am not) agreed with me and deleted it. If you want help writing serious articles I'd be very glad to assist. A good place to start is here. Good luck - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Hi Kim dent brown I requested to change the wicca page in case you forgot and you said I could but it is locked for me. I don't know how to unlock it and I've already made some smaller pages like you suggested if you look up Sparda the Legendary Dark Knight and Hellfire and Ash. But if you please could please unlock it for me and message me if you do or you have any comments. bye (Posted by User:-kazaku-

Hello Kazaku, please add any comments at the bottom of the page, not the top, and sign them with four tildes like this ~~~~ which will add your signature. The Wicca page is blocked to very new users because it gets a lot of vandalism or uninformed editing. You'll need to wait a while before you edit it. I've looked at some of your other pages and, while they are a start, you need to bear this advice in mind before you go much further. Have a good look at all the links off that page before you spend too much effort on editing articles which other people are likely to revert. Good luck - Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Circle (Shaumbra)

Hi Kim! Why did you delete the stub I had made on the page "Crimson Circle (Shaumbra)"? It was meant to be fleshed out.. Angry! Geir 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Geir. First off, I didn't delete it. I tagged it because I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD). The tag drew the attention of another editor with admin privileges, who obviously agreed with me because he/she (not I) deleted it. I tag many articles every day - mostly because of nonsense, vandalism or advertising, which did not apply to yours. As far as I can recall the reason I tagged it was because, to quote the CSD policy:

An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

You did not use any secondary material (eg citations from independent newspaper articles or the like) to show that this subject was genuinely notable. You may believe or know it to be notable, but you need to provide evidence that independent sources also consider it so. If you can rewrite it (I suggest starting to draft it in your user space, say at User:Geir Solerød/Crimson Circle, then it won't attract the attention of new page patrollers like me and you can draft and improve it in peace, adding citations as you find them, until it is ready for the mainspace. Do get back to me if you need more help with this, or if you have further questions. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I looked more into the subject of wiki-deletion, and yes, started up a draft like you said. I will provide the necessary evidence. Geir 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]