User talk:Celarnor

Archives

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

My Mother is a Tractor : Deletion

Hi Celarnor. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes for you.

I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening and good luck. —Preceding comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008 (UT

A guy from NET is harassing me

I have asked a few people to if they could look into this. This guy http://en.technocracynet.euDISABLE/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=358 Network of European Technocrats - Jure Sah . He is this guy here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.212.75.6 DustWolfUser talk:89.212.75.6 .

He showed up out of the blue and put a spam sticker on the Technocracy movement article and also my user page... I feel like he is stalking me or harassing me. Could you look into this? Maybe ask him to leave me alone ? I explained to him that it was not me that put the NET site up for deletion. Thanks.

72.154.83.216

The editor who made these unconstructive edits no longer has this IP. This is IP address currently belongs to me, however I have a full account as you can see. I am a legitimate user. Take a look at my previous contributions if you have anything to doubt. Murjax (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me...? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Collins link

My bad there - I'd just assumed that was her campaign site without checking. Apologies, and good work reverting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good; I probably should have been more clear in the first edit summary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need your Help

Looking at your Wiki user page, you seem helpful and also willing to help clean up articles that should not be considered for deletion when a simple change can save an article. What caught my eye is your statement, "I spend my time as an RC patroller or improving articles that were nominated for deletion (which, also in my experience, are articles that just require improvement; despite the fact that AfD is not for forced cleanup, that it sadly its primary use)" I wish more editors/admins took your philosophy on this. Here is the link where your input is greatly needed: [1] Thanks for your time. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding vote rationale

Hi Celarnor. I noticed your rationale for your oppose. This is the first time I've approached someone about what they've said on my vote page, so forgive me if I breach any etiquette. I was wondering if your rationale was based on my answers to your questions, or things I said elsewhere? If it was the answer to your questions, I would be happy to clear up any misunderstandings, as I think my answers to the questions others asked show that I think policy should be firmly rooted in community consensus. If you are open to discussing this further, please reply where-ever you feel most comfortable, maybe at the vote talk page, at the questions page, here at your talk page, or at my talk page? If you don't want to discuss things any further, that's fine, but I hope you will allow me the chance to explain things a bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the qualifier at the end of your question:

Having said that, sometimes a sea-change imposed from above is the best way to implement reform (the biographies of living people policy was created in such fashion).

While I agree (obviously) that BLP both is now and was needed, I think the Committee should have started discussion on it before imposing anything by fiat. I can't support a candidate unless I'm as sure as can possibly be that they aren't going to undermine community consensus. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Celarnor. I should have been clearer about where that particular imposition "from above" came from. As far as I'm aware, the impetus behind making Wikipedia:Biographies of living people policy came from Jimbo Wales with this mailing list post, back in May 2006 (the actual history is a little bit more involved than that). In my view, the arbitration committee absolutely should not be imposing policy changes from above, and I would oppose that, while I would recognise that legal matters may need to be imposed by, say, bodies like the Wikimedia Foundation (copyright and libel issues, primarily), though even there I feel sensitivity to concerns within the community is needed. There are several other answers on my questions page that I think will make my position clearer:

Q from Sarcasticidealist - see my answer to Q1: general thoughts on policies.
Q from Mailer Diablo - see my answer to Q2: this directly answers your concerns, I think.
Q from Harej - in this answer I say that the committee's role is to interpret policy, not make it.
Q from Pixelface - second set of questions: see my answer to Q5 on sitting arbitrators editing policies and guidelines.

I hope this clarifies things. Please ask if you have any further questions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]