User talk:Katie alsop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not make test changes in Wikipedia articles even if you want to fix them. Such edits seem to be vandalism and have been changed back or deleted. If you would like to try out changing Wikipedia again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Goblin 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[change source]

I noticed you put a {{wait}} notice on Themis music but you have not said why you think that article should not be deleted on the talk page. Please do that or otherwise your article might be quickly deleted again. EhJJTALK 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments on Talk:Themis music. Could you please elaborate there or move the discussion on to your talk page here? EhJJTALK 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could use all the help I can get! I understand the "setting up your own website" idea and I have published a number of articles and debates on ecofeminism. I do find it difficult at times to prevent my own opinions from slipping through and hence neutrality is a valid concern. I have thought of different titles for this article and can't come up with a better one. As I see this article change I will better understand the standards you refer to. Many Thanks to you, EhJJ. - Katie Katie alsop (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not recreate the article. Please talk to the Admin, who deleted the page. Or go to RfU Thanks, Barras (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism/Wicca-related articles[change source]

Hello there, and welcome to simple. You seem to be interested in neo-paganism and wicca-related subjects. As I understand it, Wicca is an attempt to re-create a religious movement that wants to imitate Celtic/Gallic paganism (as it could be found in Gaul, at the time Caesar invaded it). You are very welcome to contribute such articles here, but please keep in mind:

  • We provide an encyclopedia in simple English; therefore please try to keep the language simple.
  • Please write about subjects that are notable

Thanks for your understanding, and welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. --Eptalon (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[change source]

Hello, Katie alsop, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may begin by reading these:

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can edit any pages you want! Anything you write can be changed immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy editing! --Eptalon (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion[change source]

Having given this more thought, I have to agree with Barras (talk · contribs). This article went through a request for deletion a month ago Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Themis music. If you feel this article should be recreated, please request undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Simply put, the article must demonstrate that it is objectively notable. Our requirements for notability are here at WP:N. Also, we may consider the requirements used at the English Wikipedia, here: en:Wikipedia:Notability (music). EhJJTALK 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that a similar article was deleted in English Wikipedia. It is quite unusual for us to have an article which has been deemed non-notable by en.wiki. Nothing personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion Response[change source]

I made my arguments for undeletion on the Talk:Themis_Music page but that was censored and deleted. This kind of censorship is a fanatical religious issue in an abusive patriarchal environment. Preventing the advancement and increase of knowledge where it differs from the "Christian" viewpoint is NOT NEUTRALITY but is censorship and abuse of the priviledge of being a Wiki editor. I made valid arguments which were in turn simply deleted. Supporting that behaviour enjoins it. Katie alsop (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy on notability is designed to be as neutral and unbiased as possible. There are many Christian bands that are not notable and do not have a Wikipedia article. I have tried my best to find reliable sources that talk about Themis Music, but I have not been able to find any. The onus is on you to show that Themis music meets our notability criteria. The same criteria are used to evaluate all of our articles, including those on Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Wiccan topics. Quite frankly, there aren't that many Christians who edit this Wikipedia. And even those who do are willing to have articles here on topics other than Christianity. Your constant accusations of censorship is getting tiring. Please indicate the notability of Themis music, and we'll gladly help you create a balanced and fair article. Otherwise, it has no place here. EhJJTALK 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted talk page[change source]

The content of the deleted talk page is below (note I indented the headings one level, to better fit here). --Eptalon (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is an article about practitioners of a Pagan Religion[change source]

I keep getting emails and slurs about "The Lord" and following my "saviour" and such things. I have tried many times to write articles about modern day wicca and ecofeminism and get nothing but "Jesus Christ" messages and vandalism in return. Deleting my article with slurs is not going to make me go away. Katie alsop (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you're getting these e-mails from (but feel free to forward them to me at Special:EmailUser/EhJJ and I can let you know more about them. Regardless, this article isn't about Paganism but about a non-notable band. Please contribute constructively to our project, and see WP:Consensus. EhJJTALK 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotheology and Dianic Wicca Deleted as Well[change source]

It seems that anything having to do with Wicca and ecofeminism is deleted now from this Wiki. It wouldn't be a patriarchal empire would it? Katie alsop (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sending Me Messages and Threats Doesn't Cut It[change source]

"Please do not create this page" is not right. You attempt to censor the storage of information about a religion and its practitioners and a concept of nurturing and nourishing that oposes traditional patriarchs. That censorship makes it no less true that there is a growing ground swell of support for non-patriarchal set of beliefs. It is not rubbish as people claim in their warnings to me. Katie alsop (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Take a look at our deletion log. Only this article has been deleted because it is about a non-notable band. Ecotheology and Dianic Wicca have never been created. Feel free to contribute to our articles on Wicca and Feminism. But, please don't recreate deleted material without discussing it first, perhaps on WP:ST. Thanks! EhJJTALK 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non Notable Band but Notable That Wicca Has Public Entity[change source]

Of course it is a non-notable band to Christians. It is a band devoted to Wicca. The fact that there is a band devoted to Wicca puts Wicca in a different place. No longer a hidden thing it comes more out in the open and has more notability. You people just don't get it. I am not selling a band. I am talking about a significant change. This is a religion that has no curches nor popes, nor evangelists but it now has a visible representative that talks about the religion openly and promotes its values. That simply hasn't happened before. That is what is notable. Katie alsop (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read The Page[change source]

What are people afraid of? A non notable band or spreading of "the word" about a religion many fear out of disinformation or misunderstanding. Wicca has no devils. It's purely nature based. It's not about burning salem witches. Those witches were merely vegan herbalists in the first place and not devil worshippers. The eclectic brand of Wicca I have written about is the core set of values going back in time many years. It is not a ritualistc thing but a spiritual thing. Stop being afraid of it. The fact that there is a Kids Safe House and a Wicca band in Canada producing Wicca music run by some Wicca 'Priests' is notable. Hasn't happened before 2006. IT is changing Wicca and giving it more acceptability and notability and it is growing. I submit that is what you fear but I also suggest that you take a closer look and you will see that there is nothing to fear. This wiki will not be compromised by talking about these ideas. Nobody is getting rich or doing enything of a commercial nature. It's about spirituality. Katie alsop (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. As long as you're willing to allow us to modify the article per our standards (the list is in the welcome message I've added to your talk page), it may be allowed to remain. Please realize that our articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and are not used to promote a particular entity. If you simply want this information on the internet, consider setting up your own website. EhJJTALK 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could use all the help I can get! I understand the "setting up your own website" idea and I have published a number of articles and debates on ecofeminism. I do find it difficult at times to prevent my own opinions from slipping through and hence neutrality is a valid concern. I have thought of different titles for this article and can't come up with a better one. As I see this article change I will better understand the standards you refer to. Many Thanks to you, EhJJ. - Katie Katie alsop (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Contents of Themis Music Talk Page[change source]

Thanks for putting that on my talk page. That seems fairer! Hell. I don't want to do this wrongly. I think I have a valid article. :o) I may well be approaching it in the wrong category. The notability of this article has to do with the rapidly growing Wicca religion having a public entity advancing its beliefs. This is new for Wicca. Maybe I have titled the article wrongly. People keep bashing this issue around but the debate has centred on a musical band and not the fact that there is a music project done by some Wicca priests which significantly advances the concept of Wicca and gives Wicca greater notability and acceptance. We are talking about a religion wherein women who practiced homeopathy and herbal remedies were burned at the stake. Today a musical ensemble promotes Wicca openly for what it is: a nature based pagan religion. That's notable. There are no Wiccan Churches, Popes, Annual General Meetings; Ecclesiastical Conferences but there is a Music Band that promotes Wicca openly, widely, and in many different ways. Thanks again. Katie alsop (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried the other way round, e.g. writing an article about Wicca music, and then mentioning that there are a few bands that spread the "message"; I konw a few bands from germany who claim to be pagan. You should probably also extend our Wicca article; what might be wrong as an article of its own might be perfectly fine in a section on Wiccan music (in Wicca). We are not against paganism/wicca, we are against content that is on the brink of notability. --Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just as a side note, I contributed a lot to witch and witchcraft articles, I know what you are talking about. --Eptalon (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Wicca Music article is already written. The Themis Band article should be notable by the standards because it is a band that plays at major national concerts (in Canada) and it is on the playlist of notable radio stations. I see that the Category really is the issue. Using the "music template" for example creates tensions and jealousies among other musicians and I guess might open a pandora's box. For example, MySpace was once a social networking forum and has now become a "pimp-my-band" whore house. Nobody wants that for Wikipedia. Katie alsop (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a few bands from germany who claim to be pagan is about the sum of it all. Thanks for that thought. I have seen as much. There aren't many purely "Wicca" bands. There is only one actually. Chalice and Blade comes close by their own admission but has mostly a broad pagan focus. Another thought about the modern movement's intellectuals is that they exist in a time post stem cell discovery whereas most people talking about Wicca on Wikipedia are speaking of it as if it is still in the era shortly after discovery of the wheel, and fire. If you are looking for an end to a patriarchal society (include Wikipedia) and saving the rain forest, join the modern (Themis-brand) Wicca movement. Remember that 'Themis' (the Goddess) was about balance and justice, putting the mother at the head of the famly and seeking a gender equality in life with justice, nurturing and mourishing for the "onesness" of all sentient beings. Clearly people working on these articles are on a different wavelength from the people who shred it who still think its about ego and a musical band, witches and witchcraft. To do otherwise is to admit a competitor for Christianity. I have seen a certain component of that. Be that as it may be I need help. I am sure I have approached it all wrong. I just need to keep trying. :o) Katie alsop (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What people call religion is to some extent about belief - No matter what religion you take, at some point the scientifically provable part will end, and you will be asked to subscribe to some form of believing something that cannot be proved by science. Wicca probably is a movement rooted in neo-paganism - it wants to go back to have stronger ties with nature. It probably bears little resemblance to what the witches did, and what they were burnt at the stake for. Personally, I am not looking at the end of a patriarchal society. There are times where decisions need to be taken, and the person taking the decision needs to have an authority to impose certain rules to be followed, without question. Whether the decision-taker is male or female is irrelevant. Men are physically stronger, so they often have had an easier time "convincing" others. What we were talking about here was a "music band" who through their music spread a certain message. The message may be more important than its carrier. Something else that may be important is the sex-appeal. If some rituals involve nude intoxicated young people dancing around a fire this may be an enticing thought. I guess this all boils down how you sell your idea to those people, who are used to (more-or-less) large crowds of more-or-less elderly people you find in the classical Christian Churches (which are probably the norm in most of the US and Europe). --Eptalon (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please...[change source]

...stop recreating pages which have been previously discussed and deleted. These pages have been deleted from English Wikipedia. Since we base our guidelines and policies on those at English Wikipedia, and since we've already had a deletion discussion here, the material must not be recreated. It will be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4, "recreation of deleted material". By all means work on a suitably formatted and notable article in a sandbox (and I would advise getting one of our regular editors to review it) but do not continue to recreate these articles. Persisting in this course of action may result in your account being blocked. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Result was Keep For A Week[change source]

You say my article was deleted after discussion. No. That is crap. The discussion (PRESERVED ABOVE) resulted in a keep for a week for revision and further review. Katie alsop (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication of keep for a week. Take my advice, work on your article in a sandbox. If you need help setting this up, give me a shout. Otherwise, inserting material previously deleted will simply be re-deleted. And please try to remain civil. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your own working area is set up at User:Katie alsop/sandbox. Feel free to experiment with formatting, referencing etc. When you feel your article meets our standards and complies with our policies then I would suggest you leave a message at a few user's talk pages (e.g. me, Eptalon, EHJJ, etc) to review your work. If there's an agreement that it doesn't contravene the policies etc, we can move it from your sandbox into the Wikipedia. Are we doing a deal or are we doing a deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me :o) Katie alsop (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I see you've made a start. You should be aware of our notability guidelines and most importantly en:WP:MUSIC, a notability guideline specific to musicians, bands etc. Feel free to give me a shout if you need any help en route. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you can talk to any administrator here to get the version that was deleted to your userspace (so you can improve it) - The article was simply deleted because it was deleted before (based on a discussion). If you look at my talk page, I have also indicated different ways forward.--Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.

I saw your recent contributes (here). This kind of edits aren't helpful for wikipedia. Please don't do it again! If you want a new discussion about the article then please go to WP:RFU. Thanks. Barras (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you lost me completely Katie alsop (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying not to remove the content from those pages. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the page was deleted. I remember vaguely trying to remove a bunch of very aggressive bangs I took in the discussion. People were telling me those words are splashed all over google with my name :-s anyways. I still don't get it. The page was deleted. Let sleeping dogs lie. Katie alsop (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is talking about the request for deletion. You removed the content. It is not removed. It is kept for the archives. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did? Ooops. Can't remember that. I was pretty new then. (breaking things everywhere) Katie alsop (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]